U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cv-00849-CKK

BANKS et al v. BOOTH et al Assigned to: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly Case: 1:20-cv-00890-RC Case in other court: USCA, 20-05216
21-05033 Cause: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa

Date Filed: 03/30/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 555 Prisoner Petition: Prison Condition (Other) Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff EDWARD BANKS

represented by Jacob Kreilkamp MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-683-9260 Email: jacob.kreilkamp@mto.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauckland Alexander Nicholas LAW OFFICE OF L.A. NICHOLAS 7826 Eastern Avenue, NW Suite 410 Washington, DC 20012 (202) 898-1550 Email: lauckland1@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arthur B. Spitzer AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 915 15th Street NW Ste 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20005 202-601-4266

Fax: 202-457-0805 Email: artspitzer@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan B. Gants MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 500e Washington, DC 20001-5369 202-220-1121 Fax: 202-220-2300 Email: brendan.gants@mto.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenna Marie Cobb PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Special Litigation Division 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 842-2502 Email: jmcobb@pdsdc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Kreisberg MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 500e Washington, DC 20001-5369 202-220-1120 Email: jeremy.kreisberg@mto.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan W. Anderson PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR DC 633 Indiana Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 202-824-2740 Email: janderson@pdsdc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan S. Meltzer

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 500e Washington, DC 20001-5369 202-220-1105 Email: Jonathan.Meltzer@mto.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Krevans Perloff AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF 915 15th Street NW 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20005 202-601-4278 Email: mperloff@acludc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel G. Miller-Ziegler MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 500e Washington, DC 20001-5369 202-220-1115 Email: Rachel.MillerZiegler@mto.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michelman AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 915 15th Street, NW 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20005 (202) 457-0800 Fax: (202) 457-0805 Email: smichelman@acludc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven D. Marcus PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF

Plaintiff D'ANGELO PHILLIPS

COLUMBIA 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 824-2524 Fax: (202) 824-2525 Email: smarcus@pdsdc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jacob Kreilkamp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauckland Alexander Nicholas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Arthur B. Spitzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan B. Gants (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenna Marie Cobb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Kreisberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan W. Anderson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan S. Meltzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Krevans Perloff (See above for address)

Plaintiff KEON JACKSON

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel G. Miller-Ziegler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michelman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven D. Marcus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jacob Kreilkamp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauckland Alexander Nicholas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Arthur B. Spitzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan B. Gants (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenna Marie Cobb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Kreisberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan W. Anderson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ERIC SMITH

Jonathan S. Meltzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Krevans Perloff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel G. Miller-Ziegler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michelman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven D. Marcus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jacob Kreilkamp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauckland Alexander Nicholas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Arthur B. Spitzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan B. Gants (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenna Marie Cobb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremy Kreisberg (See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan W. Anderson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan S. Meltzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Krevans Perloff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel G. Miller-Ziegler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michelman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven D. Marcus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
QUINCY L. BOOTH in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Dept of Corrections

represented by Andrew J. Saindon OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Public Interest Division/Civil Enforcement Section 400 Sixth Street, NW Suite 10100 Washington, DC 20001-2703 202-724-6643 Email: andy.saindon@dc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

Defendant LENNARD JOHNSON in his official capacity as Warden, D.C. Dept. Corrections
V. Interested Party UNITED STATES

GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 400 6th Street NW Suite 10100 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724-7272 Fax: (202) 730-1833 Email: micah.bluming@dc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pamela A. Disney OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 400 Sixth Street NW Suite 10100 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 807-0371 Email: pamela.disney@dc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew J. Saindon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Micah Ian Bluming (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pamela A. Disney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Johnny Hillary Walker , III U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division 555 4th Street NW

Amicus FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LABOR COMMITTEE TERMINATED: 02/19/2021
Amicus GRACE M. LOPES

Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252-2575 Email: johnny.walker@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lauckland Alexander Nicholas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. Michael Hannon HANNON LAW GROUP 333 8th Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 (202) 232-1907 Fax: (202) 232-3704 Email: jhannon@hannonlawgroup.com TERMINATED: 12/01/2020
represented by Grace Michele Lopes 9014th Street, NW Suite 6000 Washington, DC 20001 202-638-4798 Fax: 202-638-0304 Email: gmlopes@risingforjustice.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/30/2020

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number ADCDC-6970731) filed by ERIC SMITH, EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Stern Declaration, # 2 Exhibit DOC Questionnaire, # 3 Summons, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 03/30/2020)

03/30/2020 03/30/2020
03/30/2020 03/30/2020 03/30/2020
03/30/2020
03/30/2020 03/30/2020 03/30/2020 03/30/2020

2 NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Michelman on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Michelman, Scott) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
3 MOTION to Certify Class by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Anderson Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Spitzer Declaration, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Marcus, Steven). Added MOTION to Appoint Lead Counsel on 3/31/2020 (znmw). (Entered: 03/30/2020)
Case assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. (zmc) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Arthur B. Spitzer on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
5 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of TRO, # 2 Exhibit Combined Exhibits in Support of TRO, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of PI, # 2 Exhibit Combined Exhibits in Support of PI, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
7 SUMMONS (4) Issued Electronically as to QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON, District of Columbia Attorney General, and the District of Columbia Mayor. (Attachment: # 1 Notice and Consent)(zmc) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Steven D. Marcus on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Jenna Marie Cobb on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Cobb, Jenna) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
10 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 4 - Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 5 - Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 6 - Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 7 Declaration)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 03/30/2020)

03/31/2020 03/31/2020 03/31/2020
03/31/2020
03/31/2020 03/31/2020 03/31/2020 03/31/2020
03/31/2020 03/31/2020

11 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Krevans Perloff on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Perloff, Michael) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan William Anderson on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Anderson, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
13 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the District of Columbia Attorney General. Date of Service Upon District of Columbia Attorney General 3/31/2020. Answer due for ALL D.C. DEFENDANTS by 4/21/2020. (Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court shall conduct a teleconference in this matter on MARCH 31, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. to discuss scheduling for Plaintiffs' pending Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. The Court shall provide counsel with instructions for dialing into the teleconference. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 3-30-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference on the record set for 3/31/2020 at 4:30 PM before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. (dot) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew J. Saindon on behalf of All Defendants (Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
15 ORDER ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 03/31/2020. (DM) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
16 NOTICE of Amended Proposed Orders for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH re 6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 5 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Proposed Order for TRO, # 2 Exhibit Amended Proposed Order for PI)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by Micah Ian Bluming on behalf of All Defendants (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Colleen KollarKotelly: Telephone Conference on the record held on 3/31/2020. Telephone Conference on the record set for 4/6/2020 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 28A before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. (Court Reporter Lisa Edwards.) (dot) (Entered: 04/01/2020)

04/01/2020 04/01/2020

Minute order. The Court conducted a teleconference in this matter on March 31, 2020. A court reporter was present. An official transcript of the teleconference will be made available by April 1, 2020 at noon providing counsel with additional details about the material requests. In summary, the court ORDERS Defendants to provide specified information to the Court by APRIL 1, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. through a Notice filed on the docket. The Defendants shall provide a list of the names of the approximately 94 inmates who have been sentenced to misdemeanors and who Defendants are considering for release; the numbers of people who have been tested for COVID-19 and a breakdown of the identities of those individuals (such as inmates, visitors, etc.) and the results of those tests; the date on which Defendants began testing people coming into the jails; the number and a breakdown of the results of COVID-19 tests which have been done on those who were incarcerated prior to the date on which Defendants began testing all incoming inmates; all relevant written procedures and practices concerning COVID-19; and Defendants process which is in place or will be put in place to allow legal counsel to communicate with their clients electronically or by other means. Additionally, by APRIL 2, 2020, Defendants shall provide Declarations about the processes and procedures actually in place and the current conditions of the jail, concentrating on Plaintiffs' requests for relief 2-9. Finally, the Court ORDERS that by APRIL 3, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. Defendants shall provide a response to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in the form of legal briefing on the merits of Plaintiffs' 5th and 8th Amendment claims as well as on the need for an independent monitor and expert. Plaintiffs shall file a Reply by 5:00 p.m. on APRIL 5, 2020. Additionally, the Court is STAYING Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Complaint, and Motion for Class Certification until the Court has resolved the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
The Court schedules a further teleconference in this matter for APRIL 6, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. to discuss how to proceed in this matter. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-1-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
18 TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly held on March 31, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-58. Date of Issuance: April 1, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Edwards. Telephone number (202) 354-3269. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed

04/01/2020 04/02/2020 04/02/2020 04/02/2020 04/02/2020

via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 4/22/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/2/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/30/2020.(Edwards, Lisa) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
19 RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER April 1, 2020 Order by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Saindon, Andrew) Modified text on 4/1/2020 (ztd). (Entered: 04/01/2020)
20 RESPONSE to Order of the Court in Response to the Court's April 1, 2020 Minute Order by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Saindon, Andrew) Modified on 4/3/2020 (ztd). (Entered: 04/02/2020)
21 RESPONSE to Order of the Court (Second) in Response to the Court's April 1, 2020 Minute Order by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Saindon, Andrew) Modified on 4/3/2020 (ztd). (Entered: 04/02/2020)
22 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit DOCs Pandemic Plan November 2009)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 04/02/2020)
23 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LABOR COMMITTEE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order to Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Amicus Brief, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit A to Proposed Amicus Brief, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit B to Proposed Amicus Brief, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit C to Proposed Amicus Brief, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit D to Proposed Amicus Brief, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit E to Proposed Amicus Brief, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit F to Proposed Amicus Brief, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit G to Proposed Amicus Brief, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit H to Proposed Amicus Brief,

04/03/2020 04/03/2020
04/03/2020
04/03/2020 04/03/2020

# 11 Exhibit Exhibit I to Proposed Amicus Brief)(Hannon, J.) (Entered: 04/02/2020)
24 Emergency MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Application for Temporary Restraining Order by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deterville Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Nesbitt Declaration, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
Minute order. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' 10 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. Plaintiffs request to file documents under seal which contain personally identifying information. Plaintiffs have filed these documents on the docket in redacted form. Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED pending further Order of the Court. The Court is also in receipt of Defendants' 22 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. Defendants request to file the document under seal as it contains confidential information relating to safety and security procedures. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED pending further Order of the Court. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-32020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
Minute order. The Court is in receipt of proposed amici the Fraternal Order of Police Department of Corrections Labor Committee's 23 Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief. The Motion indicates that Defendants oppose the relief requested. In Defendants' 4:30 p.m. filing today, Defendants shall address why they oppose the 23 Motion. The Court is also in receipt of Plaintiffs' 24 Emergency Motion to Expedite Hearing on Application for a Temporary Restraining Order. In Defendants' 4:30 p.m. filing today, Defendants shall address why they oppose the relief requested. Defendants shall further respond to Plaintiffs' attached Declarations indicating that COVID-19 procedures are not being followed and that there is a different pandemic plan than that which was filed by Defendants. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-3-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
25 Memorandum in opposition to re 5 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
Minute order. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' 24 Emergency Motion to Expedite Hearing on Application for a Temporary Restraining Order. The Court recognizes the seriousness of the issues presented. As such, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file their Reply in

04/03/2020 04/04/2020
04/04/2020 04/05/2020 04/06/2020

support of their Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order by APRIL 4, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. The Court further VACATES the teleconference which was set for April 6, 2020. Instead, the Court SCHEDULES a videoconference on the merits of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order for APRIL 7, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. The Court will send the parties instructions on how to access the videoconference. The Court is also in receipt of the 23 Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief by the Fraternal Order of Police Department of Corrections Labor Committee. Defendants oppose the relief requested on the grounds that the amicus brief discusses some unrelated matters and is inadequately supported. Despite these arguments, the Court GRANTS the 23 Motion. The Court finds that the amicus brief will assist the Court in its analysis of certain issues. In considering the amicus brief, the Court will give the brief the weight it considers appropriate on the issues that are relevant. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-3-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 4/7/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. (dot) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
26 REPLY to opposition to motion re 5 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dorchy Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Guillory Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Randolph Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Cohen Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Fowler Declaration, # 6 Exhibit Winters Declaration, # 7 Exhibit Johnson Declaration)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 04/04/2020)
27 NOTICE CERTIFICATION OF DECLARATIONS re: AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF by FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LABOR COMMITTEE (Hannon, J.) (Entered: 04/04/2020)
28 ERRATA Correcting Typographical Error in Guillory Declaration by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH 26 Reply to opposition to Motion, filed by EDWARD BANKS, ERIC SMITH, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, KEON JACKSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Phillips Declaration, # 2 Errata Corrected Guillory Declaration)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 04/05/2020)
29 NOTICE of Supplemental Declarations re: Amicus Brief by FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LABOR COMMITTEE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A 25-2 Exhibit A DOC Supply List, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B 2020.04.03 COVID19-Presentation, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C PPE SNI

04/06/2020 04/06/2020 04/06/2020 04/06/2020 04/07/2020 04/08/2020
04/08/2020

Assorted items as of April 1 2020-, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D 2020.04.03 DOC Notification to FOPApril 1 2020-, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E 2020.04.03 Booth Open Letter-Schedule Modification, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F 2020.04.03 DOC Response to FOP Request for Information, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G 2020.04.05 Shift Two Roster)(Hannon, J.) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
30 MOTION for Leave to Appear by Video and Present Oral Argument by FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LABOR COMMITTEE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hannon, J.) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
Minute order. The Court is in receipt of the Fraternal Order of Police Department Corrections Labor Committees' 30 Motion for Leave to Appear by Video and Present Oral Argument. The Court DENIES the Motion. Only representatives of the parties will be on the videoconference. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-6-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
31 NOTICE Regarding Additional COVID-19 Cases in DOC Custody by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH (Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
32 NOTICE of Appearance by Pamela A. Disney on behalf of All Defendants (Disney, Pamela) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Colleen KollarKotelly: Video/Telephone Conference on the record held on 4/7/2020. (Court Reporter Lisa Edwards.) (dot) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
Minute order. On April 7, 2020, the Court conducted a two-hour video/teleconference on the merits of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. A court reporter was on the line. Additionally, on that same day, the Court conducted a second teleconference with the parties. Again, a court reporter was on the line. The parties indicated that they are in the process of conferring on an amicus of the Court to inspect the conditions of CTF and CDF. Defendants further indicated that inmates are now receiving 30-minute calls with their counsel rather than the previous 10-minute calls. The Court ORDERS that another teleconference with the parties be conducted APRIL 8. 2020 at 11:00 a.m. so that the parities can provide the Court with names of a potential amicus. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-8-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
33 TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly held on April 8, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-28. Date of Issuance: April 8, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa

04/08/2020 04/09/2020 04/09/2020
04/09/2020 04/10/2020 04/12/2020

Edwards. Telephone number (202) 354-3269. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court r eporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 4/29/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/9/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/7/2020.(Edwards, Lisa) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Colleen KollarKotelly: Telephone Conference on the record held on 4/8/2020. (Court Reporter Lisa Edwards.) (dot) (Entered: 04/09/2020)
34 Consent ORDER Appointing Amici of the Court. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4/9/2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/09/2020)
Minute order. The Court hereby ORDERS that the amici of the Court, Grace Lopes and Mark Jordan, provide the Court with a written summary of their findings by no later than APRIL 15, 2020. If the Court requires additional information, the Court shall request additional explanation at a later date. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-9-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/09/2020)
35 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A)(Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 04/09/2020)
36 ORDER granting 35 Joint Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-10-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
37 TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly held on April 7, 2020 (Morning Session); Page Numbers: 1-89. Date of Issuance: April 12, 2020. Court

04/12/2020

Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Edwards. Telephone number (202) 3543269. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchas ed from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 5/3/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/13/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/11/2020.(Edwards, Lisa) (Entered: 04/12/2020)
38 TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly held on April 7, 2020 (Afternoon Session); Page Numbers: 1-18. Date of Issuance: April 12, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Edwards. Telephone number (202) 3543267. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purch ased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 5/3/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/13/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/11/2020.(Edwards, Lisa) (Entered: 04/12/2020)

04/12/2020
04/13/2020 04/13/2020 04/13/2020 04/14/2020

39 TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly held on April 8, 2020 (Afternoon Session); Page Numbers: 1-33. Date of Issuance :April 12, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Edwards. Telephone number (202) 3543267. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purch ased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 5/3/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/13/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/11/2020.(Edwards, Lisa) (Entered: 04/12/2020)
Minute order. In consultation with amicus Grace Lopes as well as both parties, the Court hereby VACATES the deadline for the written summary of the findings which was due April 15, 2020. Instead, the Court will conduct a teleconference on APRIL 15, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. to provide an oral report on the preliminary findings. The written report shall be provided to the Court by no later than APRIL 17, 2020. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-13-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference on the record set for 4/15/2020 at 2:00 PM before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. (dot) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
40 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit DOC Revised Pandemic Plan)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
41 ORDER granting 40 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-14-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/14/2020 04/14/2020 04/15/2020 04/15/2020 04/15/2020
04/16/2020

42 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(ztd) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
43 NOTICE of Filing of Superior Court Order by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Superior Court Order In Re Sentenced Misdemeanants)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
44 MOTION for Joinder of United States as a Necessary Party by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A)(Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 04/15/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Colleen KollarKotelly: Telephone Conference on the record held on 4/15/2020. (Court Reporter Lisa Edwards.) (dot) (Entered: 04/15/2020)
Minute order. The Court conducted a two-hour teleconference on April 15, 2020 in which amici of the Court Grace Lopes and Mark Jordan shared their preliminary findings. During the teleconference, certain issues were presented, such as difficulties inmates have had in contacting their counsel for confidential legal calls. The Court ORDERS the Department of Corrections to file a Notice by close of business on APRIL 20, 2020, updating the Court on the specific steps that defense attorneys and inmates need to take in order to conduct confidential legal calls. Additionally, the Court briefly discussed Defendants' pending 44 Motion for Joinder of the United States as a Necessary Party. The Court ORDERS the United States to file a response by APRIL 17, 2020, Plaintiffs to file their Opposition by 4:00 p.m. APRIL 20, 2020; and Defendants to file their Reply by 4:00 p.m. APRIL 21, 2020. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-152020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/15/2020)
45 TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly held on April 15, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-112. Date of Issuance: April 16, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Edwards. Telephone number (202) 354-3269. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

04/17/2020 04/19/2020 04/19/2020 04/19/2020
04/20/2020

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 5/7/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/17/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/15/2020.(Edwards, Lisa) (Entered: 04/16/2020)
46 RESPONSE re 44 MOTION for Joinder of United States as a Necessary Party filed by UNITED STATES. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 04/17/2020)
47 Final Report by Amici Curiae of the Court (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Exhibits to Final Report) (lcckk3) (Main Document 47 replaced on 4/20/2020) (zdot). (Main Document 47 replaced on 4/20/2020) (zdot). (Entered: 04/19/2020)
48 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 5 Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-19-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/19/2020)
49 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-19-2020. (Attachments: # 1 Atch 1- Amici Final Report, # 2 Atch. 2- Appendix to Final Report) (lcckk3) (Attachment 1 replaced on 4/20/2020) (zdot). (Attachment 1 replaced on 4/20/2020) (zdot). (Entered: 04/19/2020)
Errata to the Memorandum Opinion and Order filed on April 19, 2020. The 47 Final Report by Amici was submitted to the parties and counsel by email prior to docketing. Based on that Report, the Court adopted certain findings. Clerical mistakes in the Report were later discovered. Accordingly, the Court corrects its Memorandum Opinion and Order to reflect the corrected findings in the Final Report by Amici. In the Memorandum Opinion, at page 20, it now reads, "In addition to engaging a sanitarian, the defendants shall consider contracting for professional cleaning services on the secure side of the facility at least until a sanitarian is hired to bolster the existing environmental health and safety program at both facilities." And, in the Order, at page 2, it now reads, "In addition to engaging a sanitarian, the defendants shall consider contracting for professional cleaning services on the secure side of the facility at least until a sanitarian is hired to bolster the

04/20/2020 04/20/2020 04/20/2020 04/20/2020 04/21/2020 04/21/2020 04/22/2020
04/22/2020 04/22/2020 04/22/2020

existing environmental health and safety program at both facilities." Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-20-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
50 Amended ORDER on Plaintiffs' Motion for a TRO. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-20-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
51 Amended MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-20-2020. (Attachments: # 1 Atch. 1- Amici Final Report, # 2 Atch. 2- Appendix to Final Report) (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
52 Memorandum in opposition to re 44 MOTION for Joinder of United States as a Necessary Party filed by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH. (Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
53 RESPONSE to the Court's April 15, 2020 Minute Order re: legal calls by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Saindon, Andrew) Modified text on 4/21/2020 (ztd). (Entered: 04/20/2020)
54 REPLY to opposition to motion re 44 MOTION for Joinder of United States as a Necessary Party filed by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON. (Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 04/21/2020)
55 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion for Leave to Join the United States as a Party by UNITED STATES (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Reply)(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 04/21/2020)
56 Memorandum in opposition to re 55 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion for Leave to Join the United States as a Party filed by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH. (Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
Minute order. The Court hereby sets a teleconference in this matter for APRIL 22, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. to discuss a briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-22-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference on the record set for 4/22/2020 at 4:30 PM before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. (dot) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Colleen KollarKotelly: Telephone Conference on the record held on 4/22/2020. Order

04/22/2020
04/23/2020 04/23/2020 04/24/2020

forthcoming. (Court Reporter Lisa Edwards.) (dot) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
57 TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly held on April 22, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-32. Date of Issuance: April 22, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Edwards. Telephone number (202) 354-3269. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 5/13/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/23/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/21/2020.(Edwards, Lisa) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
Minute order. The Court conducted a teleconference in this matter on April 22, 2020. During the teleconference, Defendant indicated that it consented to extending the Order on the TRO until at least MAY 15, 2020, in order to give the parties time to brief and the Court time to decide Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The parties shall provide the Court will a proposed schedule for briefing Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction by 4:00 p.m. on APRIL 28, 2020. The parties shall also consider how the amici of the Court, Grace Lopes and Mark Jordan, can be utilized in this upcoming stage of litigation. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-23-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/23/2020)
58 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 52 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Joinder filed by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH. (Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 04/23/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' 58 Supplemental Memorandum. The Court ORDERS that Defendants and the United States have until APRIL 27, 2020 at 4:00

04/24/2020 04/27/2020 04/27/2020 04/28/2020 04/28/2020 04/29/2020
04/29/2020 05/01/2020 05/01/2020

p.m. to file a Response. The Court notes that, in the April 22, 2020 teleconference, Plaintiff stated that it was requesting release of inmates only under habeas provisions. Because the United States has framed its interest as involving only the potential release of inmates, briefing should focus on how the United States is a necessary party to Plaintiffs' habeas claim. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-24-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
59 RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER of April 15, 2020 by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit USPC response)(Saindon, Andrew) Modified text on 4/27/2020 (ztd). (Entered: 04/24/2020)
60 RESPONSE re 58 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Join the United States as a Necessary Party filed by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON. (Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
61 RESPONSE re 58 Supplemental Memorandum filed by UNITED STATES. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
62 Consent ORDER for scheduling Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-28-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/28/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction due by 5/15/2020. Defendants' Response due by 5/22/2020. Plaintiffs' Reply due by 5/26/2020. (dot) (Entered: 04/29/2020)
Minute order. In consultation with amici of the Court as well as both parties, the Court hereby SCHEDULES a teleconference on MAY 11, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. to provide an oral report on the amici's findings in response to the questions set out by the parties. The amici shall also provide a written report to the Court by no later than MAY 20, 2020. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4-29-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/29/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Telephone Conference on the record set for 5/11/2020 at 2:00 PM before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. The amici shall also provide a written report to the Court by 5/20/2020. (dot) (Entered: 04/29/2020)
63 ORDER granting 44 Motion for Joinder. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 5-1-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
64 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 5-1-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 05/01/2020)

05/01/2020
05/06/2020 05/07/2020 05/07/2020 05/11/2020 05/11/2020
05/12/2020

65 ERRATA Correcting Error in Deterville Declaration by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH 24 Emergency MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Application for Temporary Restraining Order filed by EDWARD BANKS, ERIC SMITH, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, KEON JACKSON. (Perloff, Michael) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
66 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Acknowledgement of Confidentiality)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 05/06/2020)
67 NOTICE of Proposed Order (Revised) by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
68 ORDER granting 66 Consent Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 5-7-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Colleen KollarKotelly: Telephone Conference on the record held on 5/11/2020. (Court Reporter Lisa Edwards.) (dot) (Entered: 05/11/2020)
Minute Order. The Court held a teleconference in this matter on May 11, 2020. A court reporter was present and the public access line was open. Counsel for Plaintiffs, D.C. Defendants, and the United States were in attendance. During the teleconference, the Amici of the Court shared their findings in response to the five questions set out in the April 28, 2020 Consent Order and answered questions from the parties and from the Court. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 5-112020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 05/11/2020)
69 TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly held on May 11, 2020; Page Numbers: 1-67. Date of Issuance: May 12, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Edwards. Telephone number (202) 354-3269. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court rep orter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER

05/15/2020
05/15/2020 05/18/2020 05/18/2020

without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 6/2/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/12/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/10/2020.(Edwards, Lisa) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
70 Amended MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Supp Meyer Decl, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Thomas Decl, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Jenkins Decl, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Perry Decl, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Stankavage Decl, # 7 Exhibit 6 - Jaggers Decl, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Hightower Decl, # 9 Exhibit 8 Hightower Transcript, # 10 Exhibit 9 - K Johnson Decl, # 11 Exhibit 10 - Cooper Decl, # 12 Exhibit 11 - Horne Decl, # 13 Exhibit 12 - D Johnson Decl, # 14 Exhibit 13 - Robertson Decl, # 15 Exhibit 14 Ingraham Decl, # 16 Exhibit 15 - DOC Docs, # 17 Exhibit 16 - Burl Decl, # 18 Exhibit 17 - Quarles Decl, # 19 Exhibit 18 - Toran Decl, # 20 Exhibit 19 - Figures-Mormon Decl, # 21 Exhibit 20 - Doe Decl, # 22 Exhibit 21 - Warren Decl, # 23 Exhibit 22 - Phillip Decl, # 24 Exhibit 23 - Randolph Decl, # 25 Exhibit 24 - Miller Decl, # 26 Exhibit 25 - Barksdale Decl, # 27 Exhibit 26 - Lucas Decl, # 28 Exhibit 27 - Moseley Decl, # 29 Exhibit 28 - P Johnson Decl, # 30 Exhibit 29 - Schiraldi Decl, # 31 Exhibit 30 - Knight Decl, # 32 Exhibit 31 - Musa Rezeine Transcript, # 33 Exhibit 32 - Redacted, # 34 Exhibit 33 - Swint Decl, # 35 Exhibit 34 - Banks Decl, # 36 Exhibit 35 - A Jackson Decl, # 37 Exhibit 36 - Howard Decl, # 38 Text of Proposed Order)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 05/15/2020)
71 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 32, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 05/15/2020)
72 ORDER granting 71 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 5-18-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
Minute order. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' 70 Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Defendants' response is due May 22, 2020. In responding, the DOC shall address the following issues, in addition to any other issues presented in the Motion. The Court understands that DOC has decided to test all inmates who are transferred to other facilities. The DOC shall explain its position on testing inmates who are

05/18/2020 05/18/2020 05/19/2020
05/19/2020 05/22/2020 05/22/2020

being released from custody and testing all inmates currently detained. Additionally, the United States shall address the following issues, in addition to any other issues presented in the Motion. As the DOC is now testing inmates who are being transferred to new facilities, what procedures are currently in place or will soon be in place to move sentenced inmates to other BOP facilities in an expedited manner. Additionally, what procedures are currently in place or will soon be in place for the United States Parole Commission to review all parole detainers in an expedited manner. Signed by Judge Colleen KollarKotelly on 5-18-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
73 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH. re 70 Amended MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by EDWARD BANKS, ERIC SMITH, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, KEON JACKSON. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(ztd) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
74 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 24 - Sealed, # 2 Exhibit 34 - Sealed, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
75 NOTICE of Filing - Redacted Exhibits by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH re 74 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted Miller Decl, # 2 Exhibit Redacted Banks Decl)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
76 ORDER granting 74 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 5-19-2020. (lcckk3) (Main Document 76 replaced on 5/20/2020) (zdot). (Entered: 05/19/2020)
77 Report Submitted by Amicus Curiae pursuant to April 28, 2020 Consent Order. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 5-22-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
78 Consent MOTION to Modify the Briefing Schedule by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Disney, Pamela) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

05/22/2020 05/22/2020 05/22/2020 05/22/2020 05/26/2020
05/26/2020

79 ORDER granting 78 Motion to Modify. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 5-22-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to 70 due by 5/26/2020. Plaintiffs' Reply to 70 due by 5/29/2020. (dot) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
80 Memorandum in opposition to re 70 Amended MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by UNITED STATES. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Aaron Sawyer (USMS), # 2 Declaration of Andre Matevousian (BOP), # 3 Declaration of Stephen Husk (USPC))(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
81 Second MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LABOR COMMITTEE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order for Motion, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit Proposed Amicus Brief, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Proposed Amicus Brief, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Proposed Amicus Brief)(Hannon, J.) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
Minute Order. The Court is in receipt of the 81 Second Motion of the Fraternal Order of Police for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections Labor Committee for Leave to Submit an Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Motion as written. Amici request leave to file a brief in support of an "amended motion for a temporary restraining order." However, such a Motion does not exist. If amici, instead, intended to request leave to file a brief in support of Plaintiffs' amended motion for a preliminary injunction, amici may correct their materials and refile them. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 5-26-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 05/26/2020)
82 Memorandum in opposition to re 70 Amended MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex A Johnson Supplemental Declaration and Attachments, # 2 Exhibit Ex B Jordan Supplemental Declaration and Attachments, # 3 Exhibit Ex C Chakraborty Supplemental Declaration and Attachments, # 4 Exhibit Ex D Amici Oral Report, # 5 Exhibit Ex E Landerkin Declaration and Attachments, # 6 Exhibit Ex F Jones Declaration and Attachments, # 7 Exhibit Ex G Stewart-Ponder Declaration and Attachments, # 8 Exhibit Ex H Lopex Declaration and Attachments, # 9 Exhibit Ex I Williams Declaration, # 10 Exhibit Ex J Banks Superior Court documents, # 11 Text of Proposed Order)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 05/26/2020)

05/27/2020 05/28/2020
05/28/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020
05/29/2020

83 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LABOR COMMITTEE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Amicus Brief with Attachments)(Hannon, J.) (Entered: 05/27/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the Fraternal Order of Police for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections Labor Committee's 83 Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The Motion indicates that Defendants oppose the relief requested. The Court ORDERS Defendants to file a Response by JUNE 1, 2020. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 5-28-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants' Response to 83 due by 6/1/2020. (dot) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
84 NOTICE of Appearance by Rachel G. Miller-Ziegler on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Miller-Ziegler, Rachel) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
85 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeremy Kreisberg on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Kreisberg, Jeremy) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
86 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan S. Meltzer on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Meltzer, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
87 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Jacob S. Kreilkamp, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-7176184. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit)(Meltzer, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
88 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
89 REPLY to opposition to motion re 70 Amended MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - May 29 Meyer Decl., # 2 Exhibit B - Pictures of Jail_Redacted, # 3 Exhibit C - Anderson Decl., # 4 Exhibit D - Bhatt Decl., # 5 Exhibit E - Edmondson Decl., # 6 Exhibit F - Guillory Decl., # 7 Exhibit G - DOC Inmate Grievance Policy, # 8 Exhibit H - Murphy

06/01/2020 06/01/2020 06/01/2020
06/01/2020 06/01/2020
06/04/2020 06/05/2020 06/06/2020 06/08/2020

Decl., # 9 Exhibit I - Epps Decl.)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
90 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, filed by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
91 NOTICE of Appearance by Brendan B. Gants on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Gants, Brendan) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
MINUTE ORDER GRANTING 87 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Jacob Kreilkamp, in order for him to appear as co-counsel for Plaintiffs. Counsel shall promptly register for this Court's CM/ECF system. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. Signed by Judge Colleen KollarKotelly on 6/1/2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
92 ORDER granting 88 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 6-1-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
93 SEALED DOCUMENT filed by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH. re 89 Reply to opposition to Motion,, filed by EDWARD BANKS, ERIC SMITH, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, KEON JACKSON. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(ztd) (Entered: 06/02/2020)
94 NOTICE of Supplemental Declarations by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON re 82 Memorandum in Opposition,,, (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 06/04/2020)
95 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit S Bay United Pentecostal Church v Newsom)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 06/05/2020)
96 RESPONSE re 95 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY filed by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH. (Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 06/06/2020)
MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the 83 Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief by the Fraternal Order of Police Department of Corrections Labor Committee. Defendants oppose the relief requested on the grounds that the amicus brief raises issues

already presented by Plaintiffs. Despite these arguments, the Court GRANTS the 83 Motion. In considering the amicus brief, the Court will give the brief the weight it considers appropriate on the issues that are relevant. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 6-8-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 06/08/2020)

06/08/2020

98 AMICUS BRIEF by FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LABOR COMMITTEE. (ztd) (Entered: 06/11/2020)

06/10/2020 97 NOTICE of Appearance by Jacob Kreilkamp on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Kreilkamp, Jacob) (Entered: 06/10/2020)

06/18/2020

99 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 70 Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 618-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

06/18/2020

100 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 6-18-2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit April 19, 2020 Amici Report, # 2 Appendix Appendix to April 19, 2020 Report, # 3 Exhibit Transcript of May 11, 2020 Amici Oral Report, # 4 Exhibit May 22, 2020 Amici Report) (lcckk3) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

06/29/2020

101 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 99 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A - Sample COVID-19 Information Provided to Inmates, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B - Letter to Residents, # 3 Exhibit Ex. C - Sample COVID-19 Information Provided to Staff)(Disney, Pamela) (Entered: 06/29/2020)

06/30/2020

102 ERRATA Correcting Recent Testing Data by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON 101 Response to Order of the Court, filed by LENNARD JOHNSON, QUINCY L. BOOTH. (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

07/01/2020

103 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 99 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by UNITED STATES. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Aaron Sawyer, # 2 Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Husk)(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

07/15/2020

104 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Motion for Reconsideration and for Further Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint and Motion for Class Certification by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Disney, Pamela) (Entered: 07/15/2020)

07/16/2020

105 MOTION to Alter Judgment , MOTION to Vacate the Court's Preliminary Injunction by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A (Third Supp. Decl. of Dr. Beth Jordan), # 4 Exhibit B (Second Supp. Decl. of Lennard Johnson), # 5 Exhibit C (Supp. Decl. of Gitana Stewart-Ponder), # 6 Exhibit D (Supp. Decl. of Amy Lopez), # 7 Exhibit E (Supp. Decl. of Camile Williams), # 8 Exhibit F (Decl. of Desiree Townes))(Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 07/16/2020)

07/16/2020

106 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 99 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 100 Memorandum & Opinion, by LENNARD JOHNSON, QUINCY L. BOOTH. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 07/16/2020)

07/16/2020

107 ERRATA by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON 105 MOTION to Alter Judgment MOTION to Vacate the Court's Preliminary Injunction filed by LENNARD JOHNSON, QUINCY L. BOOTH. (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 07/16/2020)

07/16/2020

108 ERRATA re Declaration of Desiree Townes [105-8] by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Inmate Grievance Procedure), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Grievance Procedure Poster))(Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 07/16/2020)

07/17/2020

109 ORDER granting 104 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 7/17/2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 07/17/2020)

07/17/2020

110 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals docketing fee was not paid because the appeal was filed by the government re 106 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (ztd) (Entered: 07/17/2020)

07/20/2020

MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Defendants' 105 Motion to Alter and Vacate the Preliminary Injunction. The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file their Response by no later than AUGUST 7, 2020 and Defendants to file their Reply by no later than AUGUST 21, 2020. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 7-20-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 07/20/2020)

07/20/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs' Response to 105 due by 8/7/2020. Defendants' Reply to 105 due by 8/21/2020. (dot) (Entered: 07/20/2020)

07/21/2020 111 NOTICE by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 07/21/2020)

07/22/2020

USCA Case Number 20-5216 for 106 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by LENNARD JOHNSON, QUINCY L. BOOTH. (zrdj) (Entered: 07/22/2020)

07/22/2020

112 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) as to 106 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by LENNARD JOHNSON, QUINCY L. BOOTH ; USCA Case Number 20-5216. (zsb) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

07/31/2020

113 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 105 MOTION to Alter Judgment MOTION to Vacate the Court's Preliminary Injunction by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 07/31/2020)

08/03/2020

MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' 113 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Alter and Vacate the Court's Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs request a one-week extension due to the previously-scheduled unavailability of counsel. Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Response is due AUGUST 14, 2020 and Defendants' Reply is due AUGUST 28, 2020. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 8-3-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 08/03/2020)

08/03/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs' Response to 105 due by 8/14/2020. Defendants' Reply to 105 due by 8/28/2020. (dot) (Entered: 08/03/2020)

08/05/2020 114 NOTICE by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 08/05/2020)

08/06/2020

115 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 08/06/2020)

08/14/2020

116 Memorandum in opposition to re 105 MOTION to Alter Judgment MOTION to Vacate the Court's Preliminary Injunction filed by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Bess Decl., # 2 Exhibit B - Meyer Decl., # 3 Exhibit C - Taylor Decl., # 4 Exhibit D - Phillips Decl., # 5 Exhibit E - Johnson Decl., # 6 Exhibit F - Wilson Email)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/20/2020 117 RESPONSE re 103 Response to Order of the Court Requiring Reports from the United States and the United States Parole Commission filed

by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Edmondson Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Howard Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Guillory Declaration)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 08/20/2020)

08/24/2020

MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' 117 Response to the United States' Reports. Plaintiffs indicate that there are deficiencies in the United States' plans and in the execution of those plans. The Court ORDERS the United States to file a detailed Response to Plaintiffs' allegations by SEPTEMBER 4, 2020. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 8/24/2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 08/24/2020)

08/24/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: United States to file a detailed Response to Plaintiffs' allegations due by 9/4/2020. (dot) (Entered: 08/24/2020)

08/28/2020

118 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service, # 4 Attachment 1, # 5 Attachment 2)(Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

119 REPLY to opposition to motion re 105 MOTION to Alter Judgment MOTION to Vacate the Court's Preliminary Injunction (Redacted) filed by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Redacted), # 2 Exhibit B)(Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/31/2020

120 ORDER granting 118 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 8/31/2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 08/31/2020)

08/31/2020

121 SEALED REPLY TO OPPOSITION filed by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON re 105 MOTION to Alter Judgment MOTION to Vacate the Court's Preliminary Injunction (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(ztd) (Entered: 09/01/2020)

09/01/2020

122 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Allegations by UNITED STATES (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, Johnny) Modified on 9/2/2020 (ztd). (Entered: 09/01/2020)

09/02/2020

MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the United States' 122 Consent Motion for an Extension of Time. Currently, the United States' response to Plaintiff's August 20, 2020 filing is due September 4, 2020. The United States requests an extension because

the United States Parole Commission is conducting a review of individual cases to ascertain what actions have been taken and why. The United States' Motion is GRANTED. The United States' Response is due SEPTEMBER 11, 2020. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 9-2-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 09/02/2020)

09/02/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: USA's Response due by 9/11/2020. (dot) (Entered: 09/02/2020)

09/11/2020

123 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH (Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

124 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, filed by UNITED STATES. (Attachments: # 1 Husk Declaration (USPC), # 2 Matevousian Declaration (BOP), # 3 Sawyer Declaration (USMS))(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/16/2020 125 ORDER for amici of the Court. Signed by Judge Colleen KollarKotelly on 9-16-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 09/16/2020)

09/16/2020 126 Amended ORDER for Amici Curiae. Signed by Judge Colleen KollarKotelly on 9-16-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 09/16/2020)

09/16/2020

127 RESPONSE re 123 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY filed by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Lennard Johnson)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 09/16/2020)

10/23/2020

128 NOTICE of Filing by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Appellants Suggestion of Mootness and Motion to Vacate Preliminary Injunction)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 10/23/2020)

10/26/2020 129 Second Amended ORDER for Amici Curiae. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 10/26/2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 10/26/2020)

10/26/2020

MINUTE ORDER. In consultation with the amici of the Court and the parties, the Court hereby SCHEDULES a teleconference on NOVEMBER 9, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. for amici to provide an oral report on their findings regarding Defendants' compliance with the Court's preliminary injunction, the condition of the facilities, and any recommendations as appropriate. As indicated in the Court's 129 Second Amended Order for Amici Curiae, the amici shall also provide a written report to the Court by no later than NOVEMBER 20, 2020. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 10/26/2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 10/26/2020)

10/26/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Amici Written Report due by 11/20/2020 Telephone Conference set for 11/9/2020 at 10:00 AM via Telephonic before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. (dot) (Entered: 10/27/2020)

11/09/2020

130 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LABOR COMMITTEE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Hannon, J.) (Entered: 11/09/2020)

11/09/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Colleen KollarKotelly: Telephone Conference on the record held on 11/9/2020. Status Report due by 11/23/2020. (Court Reporter Lisa Edwads.) (dot) (Entered: 11/10/2020)

11/16/2020

131 TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly held on November 9, 2020; Page Numbers: 191. Date of Issuance: November 16, 2020. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Edwards. Telephone number (202) 354-3269. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.

Redaction Request due 12/7/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/17/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/14/2021.(Edwards, Lisa) (Entered: 11/16/2020)

11/16/2020

132 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Written Report by GRACE M. LOPES (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lopes, Grace) (Entered: 11/16/2020)

11/17/2020

133 ORDER granting 132 Motion for Extension of Time. Amici shall file their written report by DECEMBER 11, 2020. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 11/17/2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 11/17/2020)

11/23/2020

134 STATUS REPORT in Response to the November 9, 2020, Inquiry by the Court by UNITED STATES. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Conf. Tr. (Nov. 9, 2020), # 2 Declaration of Stephen Husk (USPC), # 3 Declaration of Andre Matevousian (BOP))(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 11/23/2020)

11/30/2020

135 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Brief by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 11/30/2020)

12/01/2020

136 ORDER granting 130 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney J. Michael Hannon terminated. Pursuant to LCvR 83.6(d), the Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to Amicus Fraternal Order of Police Department of Corrections Labor Committee. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 12/1/2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 12/01/2020)

12/02/2020

MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' 135 Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief. Plaintiffs move the Court for leave to file a supplemental brief on Defendants' 105 Motion to Alter and Vacate the Court's Preliminary Injunction in light of the written report by amicus curiae, which will be filed on December 11, 2020. Plaintiffs request that the Court order both parties to file supplemental briefs to "bring to the Court's attention any additional facts or expert reports that have developed since the parties' briefing" by no later than December 18, 2020. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' motion. Defendants propose, however, that in the event the Court orders supplemental briefs, Defendants be permitted to file their brief by no later than December 29, 2020.

12/03/2020

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion and ORDERS that both parties may file supplemental briefs no longer than 10 pages by DECEMBER 18, 2020. The Court further ORDERS that the supplemental briefs shall be limited to discussion of the factual developments in light of the amicis' report or any other new information. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 12/2/2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Supplemental briefs due by 12/18/2020. (kt) (Entered: 12/03/2020)

12/11/2020

137 ENTERED IN ERROR. . . . .NOTICE of Appearance by Lauckland Alexander Nicholas on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Nicholas, Lauckland) Modified on 12/14/2020 (ztd). (Entered: 12/11/2020)

12/12/2020

138 STATUS REPORT Submitted by Amicus Curiae Pursuant to September 16, 2020 Order by GRACE M. LOPES. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit App. A, Ex. 1A - Ex. 3C, # 2 Exhibit App. A, Ex. 4A - Ex.

4N, # 3 Exhibit App. A, Ex. 5A - Ex. 6, # 4 Exhibit App. B, Ex. 1)(Lopes, Grace) (Entered: 12/12/2020)

12/14/2020

NOTICE OF ERROR re 137 Notice of Appearance; emailed to lauckland1@aol.com, cc'd 28 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Please refile document, 2. Document is blank. (ztd, ) (Entered: 12/14/2020)

12/14/2020

139 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Appearance by Lauckland Alexander Nicholas on behalf of FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LABOR COMMITTEE (Nicholas, Lauckland) Modified on 12/16/2020 (zrdj). (Entered: 12/14/2020)

12/16/2020

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 139 Notice of Appearance was entered in error (Document is blank) and counsel is instructed to refile said pleading. (zrdj) (Entered: 12/16/2020)

12/18/2020

140 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 138 Status Report, filed by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -Jordan Decl., # 2 B - Williams Decl., # 3 C - Landerkin Decl.)(Disney, Pamela) (Entered: 12/18/2020)

12/18/2020

141 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re: Doc 138 , Amici Report filed by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Meyer Decl., # 2 Exhibit B - Winston Decl., # 3 Exhibit C - Deterville Decl.)(Cobb, Jenna) (Entered: 12/18/2020)

01/26/2021

142 ORDER DENYING Defendants' 105 Motion to Alter and Vacate the Court's Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 1/26/21. (lcckk3) (Entered: 01/26/2021)

01/26/2021

143 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen KollarKotelly on 1/26/21. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, Transcript of 11/9/20 Hearing, # 2 Attachment B, Amici Report) (lcckk3) (Entered: 01/26/2021)

02/02/2021

144 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 142 Order on Motion to Alter Judgment, Order on Motion to Vacate by LENNARD JOHNSON, QUINCY L. BOOTH. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Bluming, Micah) (Entered: 02/02/2021)

02/03/2021

145 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals docketing fee was not paid because the appeal was filed by the

government re 144 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (ztd) (Entered: 02/03/2021)

02/08/2021

USCA Case Number 21-5033 for 144 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by LENNARD JOHNSON, QUINCY L. BOOTH. (ztd) (Entered: 02/10/2021)

02/18/2021

146 MOTION to Withdraw by FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LABOR COMMITTEE. (Nicholas, Lauckland) (Entered: 02/18/2021)

02/18/2021

MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Amicus Fraternal Order of Police, D.C. Department of Corrections Labor Committee's ("FOP/DOC") Motion to Withdraw. The motion incorrectly suggests that FOP/DOC has intervened as a party in this matter. However, FOP/DOCs participation has been limited to that of an amicus curiae. In any event, the Court shall GRANT FOP/DOC's motion to withdraw from the case. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 2/18/21. (lcckk3) (Entered: 02/18/2021)

02/19/2021 147 Joint STATUS REPORT by QUINCY L. BOOTH, LENNARD JOHNSON. (Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 02/19/2021)

02/19/2021

MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the parties' 147 Joint Status Report. Defendants indicate that they intend to file a motion to stay the deadlines for responding to Plaintiffs' complaint and opposing Plaintiffs' 3 motion for class certification and to stay discovery pending Defendants' appeal of the Court's preliminary injunction order. Plaintiffs oppose a stay and oppose briefing on whether a stay is necessary. The Court finds that briefing on this issue would aid the Court in deciding whether a stay pending appeal is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Defendants shall file their motion to stay by FEBRUARY 26, 2021; Plaintiffs shall file their response by MARCH 5, 2021; and Defendants shall file their reply by MARCH 10, 2021. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 2/19/21. (lcckk3) (Entered: 02/19/2021)

02/19/2021

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants' Motion to Stay due by 2/26/2021. Response due by 3/5/2021. Reply due by 3/10/2021. (dot) (Entered: 02/19/2021)

02/19/2021

148 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by EDWARD BANKS, KEON JACKSON, D'ANGELO PHILLIPS, ERIC SMITH (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Marcus, Steven) (Entered: 02/19/2021)

02/22/2021

149 ORDER granting 148 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 2/22/21. (lcckk3) (Entered: 02/22/2021)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

02/24/2021 00:26:05

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 26

Cost:

Peach
1:20-cv-00849CKK 2.60

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners

v.
QUINCY BOOTH, in their official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

No. 1:20-cv-849

Defendants-Respondents.

APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Rule 65.1, Plaintiffs hereby apply for the issuance of an order temporarily restraining Defendants (along with their respective successors in office, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and anyone acting in concert with them) from continuing to violate the Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs and all members of the class they seek to represent by failing to take necessary measures to protect them against infection with the COVID-19 virus and the likely resulting serious illness or death. Specifically, Plaintiffs request that the Court immediately require Defendants to take all actions within their power to reduce the inmate population of the D.C. Jail and CTF including, but not limited to, releasing as many people as possible through the COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020 and immediately appoint an expert to make recommendations to the Court regarding how many and which class members to order released so as to ensure that the number of prisoners remaining at the CDF and CTF can be housed consistently with CDC guidance on best practices to prevent the spread of COVID-19, including the requirement that prisoners be

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 3

able to maintain six feet of space between them and further order that such recommendations take

into account CDC guidance concerning health factors that put individuals at elevated risk of death

from COVID-19. Plaintiffs also request that the Court immediately require Defendants adopt

policies and procedures detailed in the Memorandum of Law, and appoint an independent monitor

with medical expertise and who would have unfettered access to medical units, confidential

communication with inmates, and access to surveillance video of public areas of the facilities, to

ensure compliance with these conditions.

This motion is based on the memorandum of points and authorities, declarations, and other

evidence submitted herewith, and such oral arguments and evidence as may be presented at a

hearing on the motion. The grounds for this application are that Defendants’ actions and inactions

are violating, and unless restrained, will continue to violate, Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fifth and

Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable

injury if the Defendants are not restrained; that Defendants will not be injured if a temporary

restraining order issues; and that the public interest favors the issuance of a temporary restraining

order.

DATED: March 30, 2020 Washington, D.C.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Steven Marcus Steven Marcus (D.C. Bar # 1630882) Jonathan Anderson (D.C. Bar # 475306) Jenna Cobb (D.C. Bar # 979506) Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel. 202-824-2524 Fax 202-824-2525 smarcus@pdsdc.org
/s/ Scott Michelman

2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 3 Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar # 1006945) Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar # 235960) Michael Perloff (D.C. Bar # 1601047) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. 202-457-0800 smichelman@acludc.org
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners

v.
QUINCY BOOTH, in their official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

No. 1:20-cv-849

Defendants-Respondents.

PLAINTIFFS AND PROPOSED CLASS MEMBERS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PRELIMINARY STATEMENT “These are extraordinary times.”1 COVID-19 poses an unprecedented threat to a group of
District of Columbia residents in the custody of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (“DOC”). The DOC has already announced five positive cases, four of which are from different units in its facilities. The risk of rapid and pervasive infection is high. Indeed, the virus already appears to be spreading exponentially, from one positive test on March 25, to two positive tests on March 27, to four positive tests on March 28, and a fifth positive case on March 29.
The speed and breadth of this problem for incarcerated people is stark. At the peak of the outbreak in Wuhan, China — the province where COVID-19 originated — over half of all reported

1 This is how Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson began his opinion ordering the release of a man detained in a California jail. Matter of Extradition of Toledo Manrique, No. 19-MJ-71055 (TSH), 2020 WL 1307109, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020).

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 40

COVID-19 cases were incarcerated people. On Rikers Island, the rate of infection among incarcerated people is over seven times the rate of infection in New York City generally, and 25 times higher than the rate in Wuhan, China.2 This crisis recalls the 1918 flu pandemic, in which a cluster of infections at San Quentin Prison in California became “one of the primary foci” of a worldwide epidemic that killed between 20 million and 100 million people. See Niyi Awofeso, Prisons Show Prophylaxis for Close Contacts May Indeed Help in Next Flu Pandemic, 329 BMJ 173, 173 (2004); GINA KOLATA, FLU: THE STORY OF THE GREAT INFLUENZA PANDEMIC OF 1918 AND THE SEARCH FOR THE VIRUS THAT CAUSED IT 5 (2011).
The risk of mass contagion in the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”) — DOC’s two interconnected jails — facilities is high, and the effects of the outbreak will be devastating. Many cases can result in horrible pain, fevers, diarrhea, and difficulty breathing. More serious cases will require hospitalization, and severe cases can cause death or permanent lung and heart conditions. Among adults with preexisting medical conditions like high blood pressure, asthma, and diabetes — features that disproportionately characterize incarcerated people — the hospitalization and death rates are greatly elevated.
With over 1,600 vulnerable residents in its care and months to prepare for this coming catastrophe, the Department of Corrections has proven that it will not, and cannot, ensure the reasonable health and safety of its residents. The evidence in the record includes:
• Declarations from residents in DOC facilities who detail the days-long delays before they can receive medical care, the lack of soap, hand sanitizer, and disinfectant, the policies that require large groups of residents to congregate in close proximity, the lack of testing of residents showing

2

These numbers likely underestimate the infection rate on Rikers Island, as they do not

include the number of people contracted COVID-19 on Rikers Island but who have already been

released. The rates of infection rely on publicly released data collected by the Legal Aid Society.

See LEGAL AID SOCIETY, Analysis of COVID-19 Infection Rate in NYC Jails (last visited March

30, 2020, 11:00 AM), https://legalaidnyc.org/covid-19-infection-tracking-in-nyc-jails/.

2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 40
symptoms, and the lack of personal protective equipment for staff and residents;
• Declarations from attorneys and investigators of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (“PDS”), who witnessed first-hand the DOC’s failures to implement effective visitor and staff screening procedures, all but ensuring the virus’s introduction to DOC facilities; and
• Expert declarations from Dr. Jaimie Meyer, Assistant Professor of Medicine at Yale School of Medicine and former Infectious Disease physician for York Correctional Institution in Connecticut, and Dr. Marc Stern, an internist who most recently served as the Assistant Secretary of Health Care for the Washington State Department of Corrections. Drs. Meyer and Stern explain that the virus will spread rapidly in the DOC; that the DOC’s response has been, and is, entirely lacking; and that downsizing the incarcerated population is the best solution to ensure the safety of residents, staff, and the community.
This evidence, damning on its own, is all the more troubling because it is confirmed by reports from DOC staff. DOC staff themselves report that, even as of March 25, 2020, DOC staff have “no masks, insufficient gloves, no gowns, no disinfectants, and no comprehensive cleaning occurs on a regular basis.” See Ex. 1, Decl. of Dr. Jaimie Meyer (“Meyer Decl.”), Attch. C, Labor Committee Letter, at 3. They go on to identify the failure of the DOC to screen even new residents coming into the jail for COVID-19 and the failure of the DOC to provide social distancing between residents. Id. at 3–4.
The cumulative result of DOC’s failings is, in the professional judgment of Dr. Meyer, that the DOC is “dangerously under-equipped and ill-prepared to prevent and manage a COVID-19 outbreak, which would result in severe harm to detained individuals, jail and prison staff, and the broader community.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28. In reaching that conclusion, Dr. Meyer reviewed the District of Columbia’s own audits and evaluations of CDF and CTF, as well as the declarations from residents and PDS staff detailing the conditions in those facilities in the last few weeks. She identified the following problem areas: cleaning and disinfecting practices; hygiene; personal
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 40
protective equipment; screening of inmates, staff, and visitors; social distancing; management of the disease in the facility; sufficiency of isolation spaces; and medical care for other health conditions. Id. ¶ 28(a)-(d). In sum, Dr. Meyer concluded that the evidence in the record “make[s] it clear that conditions in the DC jails during this pandemic are dangerous.” Id. ¶ 33.
These are indeed extraordinary times. But in the face of “true urgency,” id. ¶ 31, and institutional failures such as those documented here, courts have taken a leading role. Across the country, state and federal court judges have issued orders that have resulted in the immediate release of incarcerated people, reducing the risk to the safety and health of those people and the community. On March 22, 2020, for instance, the New Jersey Supreme Court put in place a procedure for the release of 1,000 men and women serving sentences in New Jersey jails. See In the Matter of the Request to Commute or Suspend County Jail Sentences, Case No. 84230 (N.J. Mar. 22, 2020).
Plaintiffs and proposed class members are the over 1,600 residents of the D.C. Jail, which consists of two interconnected detention facilities: the CDF and the CTF. Defendants are the Director of the DOC and the warden of the Jail.
Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction directing Defendants to take all actions within their power to reduce the inmate population of CDF and CTF and appointing an expert to effectuate the rapid downsizing of those facilities, consistent with CDC guidance. Plaintiffs also ask the Court to require Defendants to immediately implement new procedures that will bring the DOC in compliance with expert guidance and to appoint an independent monitor to ensure such compliance. For the reasons that follow, the Court should enter that order.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 5 of 40
FACTUAL BACKGROUND I. COVID-19 poses a grave risk of serious injury or death to anyone who is infected.
As the Court well knows, COVID-19 is a coronavirus that has caused a worldwide global pandemic. There is no vaccine and no cure for COVID-19, a highly infectious and sometimes fatal disease. The World Health Organization (“WHO”) estimates that as of March 29, 2020, there are 638,146 confirmed cases, 30,105 confirmed deaths, and 203 countries, areas, or territories with confirmed cases. Docket No. 1 (“Compl.”), at ¶ 20. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) estimates that as of March 29, 2020, there are 122,653 confirmed cases and 2112 confirmed deaths in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Id. ¶ 21. Due to the highly contagious nature of COVID-19, data and statistical modeling show that absent intervention, COVID-19 will continue to grow exponentially. Id. ¶ 23.
People in all age brackets are at risk of serious injury and death from COVID-19. Reviewing data collected by the CDC, Dr. Marc Stern — an expert on correctional health care and a board-certified internist — explains:
Early reporting on the impacts of COVID-19, based in part on preliminary data emerging from China, seemed to indicate that the virus’ impact would remain relatively mild for younger people. Recent data released by the CDC suggests that this initial narrative is incorrect, and that adults aged 20-44 also face a risk of experiencing severe health outcomes as a result of contracting the disease. See Ex. 2, Decl. of Dr. Marc Stern (“Stern Decl.”) at ¶ 14. Nearly 40 percent of people requiring hospitalization due to COVID-19 were between the ages of 20 to 54. Id. For people who contract COVID-19, the symptoms can be extremely severe. Dr. Meyer writes that “[s]erious illness occurs in up to 16% of cases, including death.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 23. COVID-19 can cause intense pain, and recent research suggests that, in addition to the shortterm risk of death posed by COVID-19, contracting the virus can lead to other serious long-term
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 6 of 40
medical conditions, including cardiovascular disease. Compl. ¶ 27. One respiratory physician explained that the lungs “become filled with inflammatory material” and “are unable to get enough oxygen to the bloodstream.” Id. ¶ 25.
The available data from the CDC to date shows that, in total, 20.7 to 31.4 percent of people who tested positive for COVID-19 require hospitalization, 4.9 to 11.5 percent require admission to the ICU, and 1.8 to 3.4 percent die. Compl. ¶ 29. By way of comparison, the WHO estimates that the COVID-19 mortality rate is between three and four percent, while the mortality rate of seasonal influenza is well below 0.1 percent. Id. ¶ 30. Unlike the flu, however, there is no vaccine or cure for COVID-19. Id. ¶ 32.
II. Jails and prisons are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 and pose a public health risk to the broader community.
Correctional facilities are environments that enable and facilitate the spread of COVID-19. Dr. Marc Stern, an expert on correctional health care systems and a board-certified internist, has studied COVID-19 and “its transmission—especially in crowded and unsanitary conditions—and its ability to quickly spread through correctional facilities.” See Ex. 2, Stern Decl. at ¶ 6. Because people — staff, residents, contractors, attorneys, community members, and others — constantly cycle in and out of correctional facilities, there is an ever-present risk that new carriers will bring the virus into the facility. For example, in Jining, China, 207 people in a correctional facility contracted COVID-19 because a prison guard contracted it outside of the facility and then came to work, not knowing he was infected. Compl. ¶ 35. Even if correctional institutions screen outsiders, including staff and visitors, for symptoms of COVID-19, that will not stop the introduction of COVID-19 from the outside, as Dr. Meyer explains, because “people can transmit the virus before they start to show symptoms or for weeks after their symptoms resolve.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 22.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 7 of 40
Correctional facilities also are highly susceptible to rapid person-to-person transmission of the virus because cramped conditions place residents and staff in close proximity. Meyer Decl. ¶ 10. “Institutional settings such as jails, prisons, shelters, and inpatient treatment programs are congregate environments where people live, eat, and sleep closely together. In these environments, infections like COVID-19 can spread more rapidly.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 10. For example, in New York City, the first case of COVID-19 infection in a jail detainee was diagnosed on March 18, 2020. Within two days, thirty-eight cases had been diagnosed at the Rikers Island Correctional Complex. The current rate of infection in New York City jails is 3.00 percent. Compl. ¶ 42. This is seven times higher than the rate of infection in New York City generally (0.2 percent), over four times higher than the rate of infection in Lombardy, Italy (0.3 percent), and over ten times higher than the rate of infection in Wuhan, China (0.1 percent). Id.
The crisis at Rikers Island mirrors what has happened in prisons worldwide. Approximately one month into the pandemic in the province of Hubei, China, where the COVID19 outbreak started, over half of reported COVID-19 cases were from jails. Id. ¶ 43. In South Korea, which has enacted radical and effective public health measures to slow and stop the spread of the virus, “the single largest COVID-19 outbreak and mortality cluster was from the Daenam Prison Hospital, where 101 inmates were infected and seven died.” Id. ¶ 44.
Because incarcerated populations are so vulnerable to this disease, jurisdictions around the world and in the United States have taken bold actions to save lives for inmates and for the community. Germany released “1,000 prisoners who are close to the end of their sentences”; Canada released “1,000 inmates in the state of Ontario”; and Iran “temporarily release[d] 85,000 prisoners, with 10,000 of them being granted pardons.” Id. ¶ 5. Closer to home, the New Jersey Supreme Court announced that it would release “as many as 1,000 people from its jails,” In the
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 8 of 40
Matter of the Request to Commute or Suspend County Jail Sentences, Case No. 84230 (N.J. March 22, 2020). New York City is doing the same. Compl. ¶ 5. This effort to depopulate facilities like prisons and jails that are breeding grounds for the virus is not just limited to the East Coast. It is an urgent nationwide effort. Cuyahoga County, Ohio, released around 600 people from the county jail in a matter of days; Washington County, Oregon, released more than 120 people from the local jail; Alameda County, California, released 314 people from its jail; the Iowa Department of Corrections began to release 700 people from state prisons; Mercer County, Pennsylvania, released 60 of 308 people in its jail. Id.
III. The Department of Corrections has failed to take even basic precautions that would mitigate the spread and risk of COVID-19.
On February 28, 2020, Mayor Bowser called to activate the District’s Emergency Operations Center to coordinate responses to COVID-19, requiring Defendants to “remind their staff and constituencies” of “basic infection practices,” including to “[w]ash hands with soap and water” or an “alcohol-based hand sanitizer,” to “[a]void close contact with people who are sick,” and to “[c]lean and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces.” D.C. Mayor’s Order 2020035, § 10(a). The Executive Order specifically requires that “[a]ll relevant District agencies shall review their copy of the District Response Plan to evaluate the potential impacts of COVID-19 on emergency roles and responsibilities and take necessary steps to ensure continued performance.” Id. § 3(a).
Declarations from Plaintiffs, attorneys who have visited Defendants’ facilities, and medical professionals demonstrate Defendants’ failure to properly respond to this life-threatening pandemic. To adequately respond to COVID-19, correctional facilities must implement two measures: “thoughtful downsizing of the incarcerated population” along with “aggressive,
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 9 of 40
responsive prevention measures that are developed and guided by public health and medical experts.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 12. To date, Defendants have done neither.
A. Defendants have failed to significantly decrease the population of their facilities. Dr. Stern emphasizes the import of decreasing the jail population, stating that it “serves two critical public health aims: (1) targeting residents who are elevated risk of suffering from severe symptoms of COVID-19; and (2) allowing those who remain incarcerated to better maintain social distancing and avoid other risks associated with forced communal living.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 13. Although defendants have had the opportunity to begin reducing the jail population, they have not done so. Downsizing jail populations . . . will help to ‘flatten the curve’ overall—both within the jail setting and without.” Id. ¶ 13. Yet nearly a hundred people serving sentences for misdemeanors remain in the D.C. Jail, despite emergency legislation authorizing Defendants to release them immediately. See 67 D.C. Reg. 3093, COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020 (March 20, 2020). Defendants’ failure to deploy the tools available to them illustrates their disregard for the health and safety of Plaintiffs and their fellow class members. B. Defendants have maintained dangerous, unsanitary conditions. “The jail must be required to provide hand soap, disposable paper towels, and access to water to allow residents to wash their hands on a regular basis, free of charge and ensure replacement products are available as needed . . . . residents should be allowed to use hand sanitizer with alcohol when they are in locations or activities where hand washing is not available.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 16(e) (emphasis in original). Occasionally, a staff member makes an announcement for residents to “wash their hands.” Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 6(a). But Plaintiffs “have no hand sanitizer” and very little soap has been provided. Ex. 4, Banks Decl. ¶ 8.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 10 of 40
Even after making repeated requests for soap, residents have not been provided the soap necessary to engage in regular, let alone frequent, handwashing. See Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 6(d). While some residents were issued “a single bar of soap a couple of weeks ago,” Ex. 4, Banks Decl. ¶ 8, others were not provided their bar of soap until March 21, 2020, Ex. 5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 8. Because soap was not being supplied, “some residents were using shampoo to wash their hands in lieu of anything else; others had nothing with which to wash their hands.” Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 6(a). On one unit, soap dispensers that had recently been installed were removed and residents were “informed that the soap was not for them, but only for staff.” Id. ¶ 6(b). At times, Plaintiffs have been deprived of access to their cell for several hours at a time, rendering them unable to wash their hands. Ex. 5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 9. Even residents who previously had access to hand sanitizer while outside of their cells no longer do, as “CTF officials took the dispenser off the wall and placed it behind glass so that only officers could use hand sanitizer.” Ex. 5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 11; see also Ex. 6, Eric Smith Decl. ¶ 7.
To mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in the CTF and CDF, Defendants “must be required to provide adequate sanitation of high use/high touch areas and cells in accordance with CDC or local health authority guidelines.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 16(d); see also Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 13 (“High-touch surfaces . . . should also be cleaned and disinfected regularly with bleach to prevent virus spread . . . .”). But Defendants have failed to maintain even the most basic levels of sanitation. At CDF, other “inmates come in and sweep the unit,” but “jail staff is not doing anything additional to clean [the] unit.” Ex. 7, Phillips Decl. ¶ 7. Individual cells are not cleaned and they “do not wipe down surfaces with disinfectant.” Ex. 4, Banks Decl. ¶ 9. Though residents are responsible for cleaning their own cells, “disinfectant was not provided or available.” Ex. 8, Pond Decl. ¶ 6(a); Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶(a); Ex. 9, Cyphers Decl. ¶ 6(a). Communal showers have
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 11 of 40
not been cleaned regularly; in the past month, showers have been cleaned only “once or twice.” Ex. 5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 13.
The limited cleaning supplies that are available in Defendants’ facilities are ineffective at best and potentially counterproductive at worst. Cleaning solutions are “watered down,” and mops, when available, are old, “molding and stinking up the unit.” Ex. 5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 12. Some residents were given only Windex to clean. Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 6(a). One attorney visited CDF just yesterday and observed “a cleaning cart” where the only cleaning supply on the cart was “a bottle with a ‘Windex’ brand label on it.” Ex. 16, Sylvia Smith Decl. ¶ 4(f). Dr. Meyer specifically cautions that “Windex . . . contains 4% isopropyl alcohol, as compared to the 70% alcohol-containing products or bleach needed to disinfect, per CDC recommendations,” and, in fact, “since Windex contains 28% ammonia, it could actually be harmful if mixed with bleach because the reaction generates chlorine gas that irritates the respiratory tract, eyes, and skin.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(a)(ii). While this level of sanitation is inadequate at any time, it is potentially life-threatening during a viral pandemic.
The lack of “personal protective equipment” (or “PPE”) for staff and residents compounds the problem. Dr. Meyer explains: “The lack of personal protective equipment (“PPE”) for both D.C. DOC staff and inmates, as described in the declarations of inmates and attorneys, will result in an increased risk of COVID-19 infection.” Id. ¶ 28(a)(iii). DOC correctional officers “do not wear masks or gloves regularly.” Ex. 4, Banks Decl. ¶ 10; see also Ex. 8, Pond Decl. ¶ 5(c). In one instance, a correctional officer, who had been “eating dinner with his bare hands” immediately patted Plaintiff Banks down “with hands that had just been in or near his mouth.” Ex. 4, Banks Decl. ¶ 4. More alarmingly, when Plaintiff Banks went to receive his daily medication, a nurse, who is responsible for distributing medicine to approximately forty people, placed a cup of
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 12 of 40
medication to Plaintiff’s mouth. “Even though the nurse’s hands get very close to, and sometimes even touch, [his] mouth, the nurse does not replace gloves between patients.” Ex. 4, Banks Decl. ¶ 5. During the pandemic, inmates have been given a shared cooler of juice and “[a]ll day long inmates dip their cups into the top of the juice cooler to get ice out of it.” Ex. 6, Eric Smith Decl. ¶ 6. To the extent that there are regulations and procedures for Defendants’ staff to follow, either they permit the kinds of unsanitary, contagion-enabling practices described above, or there is insufficient enforcement of whatever procedures are in place. Either way, the actions of Defendants’ staff promise that the infection will pass from one resident to the next.
C. Plaintiffs in Defendants’ custody are not properly quarantined after potential exposure to COVID-19.
Defendants “must establish non-punitive quarantine for all individuals believed to have been exposed to COVID-19, but are not yet symptomatic, and non-punitive isolation for those believed to be infected with COVID-19 and potentially infectious.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 16(c). “In short, every possible effort must be made to separate infected or potentially infected individuals from the rest of the incarcerated population.” Id. But individuals who have been quarantined under suspicion of being infected with the coronavirus were only “gone for about a week” before being “back on the unit.” Ex. 7, Phillips Decl. ¶ 6; Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 6(c). Plaintiff Phillips, who was present in the courthouse the same week as the Deputy Marshal who tested positive for COVID-19, was never placed in a quarantine unit. Ex. 7, Phillips Decl. ¶ 5. Plaintiff Eric Smith, whose unit is next to a quarantine unit, describes the ventilation as “very poor” and “not sealed off” from his own unit. Ex. 6, Eric Smith Decl. ¶ 3. Shockingly, the units share a remote control, which has been brought back and forth between the units while some residents have been quarantined. Id. ¶ 4.
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 13 of 40
D. Defendants’ failure to implement proper screening protocol heightens the risk that Plaintiffs will be repeatedly exposed to COVID-19.
It is “critical” that “[c]orrectional authorities must be required to screen each employee or other person entering the facility every day according to current CDC or local health department guidelines.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 16(b); see also Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(b) (“It is . . . imperative that people entering closed confinement settings like prisons are properly screened to ensure that they do not bring the virus into the facility.”). Although Defendants tout a policy of screening every individual who enters into their facilities, the reality has been far different. Up through March 11, 2020 — four days after the District of Columbia saw its first confirmed case of COVID19 — no screening took place. See Ex. 8, Pond Decl. ¶ 5(a); Ex. 10, Wong Decl. ¶ 5(a); Ex. 9, Cyphers Decl. ¶ 5(a); Ex. 11, Resetarits Decl. ¶ 4. Once implemented, screening initially consisted only of filling out a three-question form, with visitors self-reporting whether they “had recently had a fever, dry cough or shortness of breath”; “had recently travelled to China, South Korea, or Italy,” or “had recently been in contact with a person exhibiting those symptoms or who had travelled to those countries.” Ex. 8, Pond Decl. ¶ 5(a); see also Compl. Ex. B, Questionnaire. In the days that followed, a nurse was often, but not always, stationed at the entrance of Defendants’ facilities to take the temperature of visitors and staff. When a staff member complained because the nurse was not wearing gloves, the nurse commented that “taking temperatures was only a ‘cosmetic’ step anyway and that the jail was doing it only to make visitors feel safer.” Ex. 12, Johnson Decl. ¶ 5(a) (emphasis in original).
On March 16, 2020 — after the screening measures were purportedly in full effect — several visitors were in CTF when “an announcement over the CTF loudspeaker asking everyone who had entered the CTF that morning to come back to security for coronavirus screening.” Ex.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 14 of 40
5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 8. By that time, it was too late, as anyone who had entered the facility who should have been prohibited from entering already came in contact with residents.
E. Plaintiffs are unable to take proper “social distancing” measures to protect themselves from infection.
Despite the CDC guidance regarding social distancing practices, DOC residents are forced to remain in close contact with large groups of people. Id. ¶ 5. “Residents [are] not being prevented from, or even advised against, eating or spending time in large groups, and crowds of people [have] been congregating together.” Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 6(d). Visitors have observed staff members failing to practice social distancing. Ex. 8, Pond Decl. ¶ 5(b-d). Defendants’ staff confirm this problem, raising several complaints to DOC leadership about the lack of effort to permit social distancing among staff. See, e.g., Ex. 1, Meyer Decl., Attch. C, Labor Committee Letter, at 3 (criticizing Defendants, inter alia, for failing to provide necessary equipment and for continuing to require residents and staff to gather in groups and in close proximity). These and other of Defendants’ actions have left Plaintiffs to believe that Defendants are not “taking coronavirus seriously.” Ex. 5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 2. In fact, when Plaintiff Jackson expressed concern about “not gathering in groups larger than 10 and staying six feet apart,” DOC staff accused him of “hyping this up” and instructed him to “stop watching the news.” Id. at ¶ 5. Plaintiff Jackson was not “hyping this up;” as Dr. Meyer declares: “The lack of ability to practice social distancing in the CDF and CTF is also concerning and will the increase rate of spread of the virus.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(c).
F. Plaintiffs do not have immediate access to health care. Dr. Stern is clear: “It is critical that inmates have rapid access to responsive medical treatment.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 16(f). Yet, Plaintiffs have had difficulty accessing prompt medical care during the pandemic. Several PDS attorneys and intern investigators have reported residents
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 15 of 40
experiencing symptoms including coughs, chest pains, chills, fevers, and body aches. See Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 5; Ex. 13, Kuenzle Decl. ¶ 4(a). One PDS attorney observed first-hand that her client had “a deep, guttural cough” and had to interrupt their “conversation several times to cough extensively.” Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 6(b). Residents themselves declare that “it takes days before you get a visit with anyone from the medical unit.” Ex. 7, Phillips Decl. ¶ 4; see also Ex. 6, Eric Smith Decl. ¶ 5 (“It takes days before anyone can get medical staff to come see them, even if you say you are having trouble breathing.”); Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶(d) (describing a client who was waiting “several nights before” anyone from medical responded to his “request for an asthma pump”). This was particularly concerning for Dr. Meyer, who writes that “[t]he failure of these facilities to adequately manage single individuals in need of emergency care is a strong sign that they will be seriously ill-equipped and under-prepared when a number of people will need urgent care simultaneously, as would occur during a COVID-19 epidemic.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(d)(ii).
Defendants are also ill-equipped to offer the type of medical treatment that will be needed during an outbreak. Dr. Meyer reviewed reports of Defendants’ facilities and concluded that they will be grossly insufficient when the outbreak expands: “The 2019 D.C. Auditor report suggests there is a single medical isolation space in CTF with negative pressure capacity, located in the Medical 82 unit. The same report notes that, at the time of the audit, the remainder of the 40 beds were nearly entirely filled (at 73% capacity), which would leave few beds available for COVID19 patients. To say this is unacceptable is an understatement.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(d)(i). In other words, Defendants’ residents are at “significantly higher risk of harm” because there are insufficient health care resources to treat the widespread outbreak that conditions at the D.C. Jail facilities.
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 16 of 40
The evidence in the record also shows that Defendants are not conducting sufficient testing to contain the outbreak. Testing is “crucial in identifying and managing widespread outbreaks of infectious diseases.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 17; see also Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 16(a) (“Patients who require testing, based on public health recommendations and the opinion of a qualified medical professional, should be tested for COVID-19.”). But Defendants are not testing even those people who exhibit symptoms of COVID-19. One defense attorney, Rachel Cicurel, observed that her client had “a deep, guttural cough” and had to interrupt their “conversation several times to cough extensively.” Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 6(b). Her client — like the other residents identified in declarations and in Defendants’ staffs’ own observations — had not been tested for COVID-19, despite displaying symptoms of COVID-19. Id.
Defendants’ actions have led Plaintiffs to believe that Defendants are not “taking coronavirus seriously.” Ex. 5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 4. It is not only Plaintiffs and who stand in fear due to Defendants’ inaction. Correctional officers have rung the alarm on Defendants’ failed response to the pandemic. On March 20, 2020, the Labor Committee for DOC unanimously voted “no confidence” in the jail’s leadership for “guaranteeing and accelerating the rampant spread of COVID-19.” See Compl. ¶ 6. A subsequent letter of March 25, 2020, sent to Director Booth on behalf of the Labor Committee detailed Defendants’ continued deficiencies. See Ex. 1, Meyer Decl, Attch. C, Labor Committee Letter. According to the letter, prior attempts to bring these issues to Defendant Booth’s attention had gone ignored. Id. at 2.
Some of the Labor Committee’s chief grievances mirror those of Plaintiffs: • “The corrections officers assigned to housing units have no masks,
insufficient gloves, no disinfectants, and no comprehensive cleaning occurs on a regular basis in these units.”
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 17 of 40

• “Inmates are not required to engage in any of the behaviors which the Mayor recommends for the general population, such as ‘social distancing,’ repeated hand-washing, and health monitoring.”

• “Inmates [who were thought to be exposed to a Deputy Marshal who had tested positive] were not ‘quarantined’ in any meaningful manner. They were housed two to a cell, and the corrections officers on the unit were not provided with any [personal protective equipment] or other means for protection against infections.”

• Id. at 3–4.

“Corrections Officers enter the Jail three shifts a day. There is no distancing at entrances, no distancing at roll calls, no attempt to obtain or record health concerns of each officer.”

Further highlighting the issues at Defendants’ facilities, the officers’ requests include

“regular disinfection of the CDF and CTF,” “establish[ing] a quarantine unit,” “[personal

protective equipment] for officers,” and a “COVID-19 protocol” to include social distancing at

DOC facilities and official reporting of symptoms affecting residents and inmates. Id. at 4.

The March 25, 2020 letter did not spur the DOC into action. Four days later, after the DOC

failed to take necessary steps to address the pandemic, the Labor Committee put out a press release,

announcing that “DOC is not following the ‘Guidance on Management of COVID-19 at

Correctional and Detention Facility.’” Ex. 1, Attch C, Labor Committee Press Release, at 2. The

Committee again reiterated the basic procedures that are not being followed:

• “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), recommended by CDC is not present at the Jail for corrections officers or is in short supply and hoarded by supervisors under lock and key.”

• “Cleaning and disinfection of the Housing Units is inadequately performed by inmates, and the Department of Health has not conducted inspections of the Housing Units to our knowledge.”

• “Testing is inadequate at the D.C. Jail. . . . No testing is available for corrections officers.”

17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 18 of 40
Id. The Committee stated that “approximately 25%” of corrections officers working at CTF are quarantined.” Id. “Soon,” the Committee warned, “the Jail will have no corrections officers.” Id.
ARGUMENT To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish (1) “that he is likely to succeed on the merits,” (2) “that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” (3) “that the balance of equities tips in his favor,” and (4) “that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Courts in this Circuit have traditionally applied these factors on a “sliding scale,” where a stronger showing on some factors can compensate for a weaker showing on others. See, e.g., Davenport v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 166 F.3d 356, 360 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The Circuit has suggested, but not decided, that an independent showing of likelihood of success is required. See Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392-93 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (citing Winter, 555 U.S. at 20-22). Under either approach, Plaintiff makes the necessary showing here. Standards for issuing a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are “the same” and can therefore be analyzed together. Singh v. Carter, 168 F. Supp. 3d 216, 223 (D.D.C. 2016). A. Plaintiffs and proposed class members are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. Plaintiffs and proposed class members are substantially likely to prevail. Defendants’ myriad failures to protect the health and safety of Plaintiffs and proposed class members constitute deliberate indifference to their wellbeing in violation of the Fifth Amendment (for pre-trial detainees) and in violation of the Eighth Amendment (for post-conviction detainees). Moreover, the record evidence — in the form of sworn affidavits from residents in Defendants’ custody and from attorneys and investigators from PDS who have witnessed first-hand the conditions of Defendants’ facilities, and two expert declarations from infectious disease and corrections
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 19 of 40
specialists — amply demonstrates the breadth and scope of Defendants’ unconstitutional actions and inactions. Notably, the evidence concerning conditions at CDF and CTF that residents and PDS staff supply is confirmed by assertions by Defendants’ own staff, who corroborate these other accounts.
1. Plaintiffs and proposed class members are likely to prevail on the merits of their Eighth Amendment claim.
“A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society.” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 510–11 (2011). To amount to the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment: (1) prison conditions must pose “an unreasonable risk of serious damage” to a prisoner’s health (an objective test), and (2) prison officials must have acted with deliberate indifference to the risk posed (a subjective test). Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33–35 (1993). Both prongs are met here.
a. The conditions at the District of Columbia jail, coupled with the risks posed by COVID-19, pose a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff and proposed class members’ health.
To prevail on the first prong of the Eighth Amendment analysis, Plaintiffs must show a “substantial risk of serious harm” to their health or safety. Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584, 594 (5th Cir. 2015). At bottom, the Supreme Court has explained, this prong requires Plaintiffs to show that “the risk of which [they] complain[] is not one that today’s society chooses to tolerate.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 36. Plaintiffs, who are prohibited by Defendants from taking nearly all of the precautions that “today’s society” mandates to mitigate risk of exposure to COVID-19, have made that showing here.
First, the risk to Plaintiffs and proposed class members is substantial. Notably, Plaintiffs do not need to show that they are currently infected or suffering “serious health problems” to show
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 20 of 40
that they face a “substantial risk” of serious harm. Helling, 509 U.S. at 34. The Supreme Court squarely rejected that proposition in Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, concluding that “[w]e have great difficulty agreeing that prison authorities may not be deliberately indifferent to an inmate's current health problems but may ignore a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering the next week or month or year.” Id. at 33. The Court went on: “Nor can we hold that prison officials may be deliberately indifferent to the exposure of inmates to a serious, communicable disease on the ground that the complaining inmate shows no serious current symptoms.” Id.
Ample record evidence, expert reports, and persuasive decisions from other circuits demonstrate that people in correctional institutions face a substantial risk of contracting COVID19. Most significantly, according to Defendants, there are already five confirmed cases of COVID19 in their facilities. For the reasons explained above, these five cases are undoubtedly harbingers of even greater infection. The first resident to test positive for COVID-19 had been in Defendants’ custody since July 2019, ensuring that he contracted the virus while he was in Defendants’ care and suggesting that he was infected by an outsider (a staff member or visitor) who likely infected others. The second resident to test positive did not live in the same housing unit as the first resident, all but guaranteeing that he contracted COVID-19 from a separate source. It is also troubling that the virus appears to be spreading rapidly, from one positive test on March 25 to five positive tests by March 29 — mirroring the rapid spread of the virus in correctional facilities that has been documented worldwide.
Dr. Stern’s and Dr. Meyer’s expert declarations also support Plaintiffs’ claim that their risk of contracting COVID-19 is substantial. In his expert report, Dr. Stern explains that “infections like COVID-19 can spread more rapidly” in correctional institutions where “people live, eat, and
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 21 of 40
sleep closely together.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 13. Likewise, Dr. Meyer explains that “[t]he risk posed by infectious diseases in jails and prisons is significantly higher than in the community, both in terms of risk of transmission, exposure, and harm to individuals who become infected.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 7. Dr. Meyer cites the “[r]educed prevention opportunities” that lead to the “rapid spread of infectious diseases,” including:
• the lack of ability to practice social distancing (the “best initial strategy” to combat infection), because residents “must share bathrooms, showers, and other common areas”;
• the lack of “adequate opportunities to exercise necessary hygiene measures, such as frequent handwashing or use of alcohol-based sanitizers when handwashing is unavailable”;
• the lack of adequate cleaning of “[h]igh-touch surfaces,” which must be “cleaned and disinfected regularly with bleach to prevent virus spread”;
• the lack of a “containment strategy” that calls for “people who are ill with symptoms to be isolated and . . . caregivers [who] have access to personal protective equipment, including gloves, masks, gowns, and eye shields”;
• the lack of “negative pressure rooms” for treatment of infected persons to ensure that the virus is not transmitted “through droplets to others”;
• the lack of “access to testing equipment, laboratories, and medications,” which are “crucial in identifying and managing widespread outbreaks of infectious diseases”; and
• the lack of sufficient ventilation, which “promotes highly efficient spread of diseases through droplets.”
Id. ¶¶ 8–17. Critically, after reviewing the evidence in the record, including the Office of the District of
Columbia Auditor’s 2019 report, the District of Columbia Corrections Information Council 2019 report, and declarations from residents in Defendants’ custody, Dr. Meyer concluded that CDF and CTF are “dangerously under-equipped and ill-prepared to prevent and manage a COVID-19
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 22 of 40
outbreak, which would result in severe harm to detained individuals, jail and prison staff, and the broader community.” Id. at ¶ 28.
Dr. Meyer’s conclusion that Defendants are “dangerously under-equipped and illprepared” is made plain in the declarations of residents in Defendants’ custody. They describe first-hand plainly dangerous conditions, including requiring residents to attend “group sessions” of “around 30 people” sitting in close proximity and passing pens and papers around for hours a day, Ex. 5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 7; the passing back-and-forth of a remote control between the so-called “quarantine” unit and another housing unit; the removal of hand sanitizer that was previously available to residents, id. ¶ 2; the providing a single “big cooler of juice” into which residents “dip their cups into the top of the juice cooler to get ice out,” Ex. 6, Eric Smith Decl. ¶ 6; the days-long delays to receive medical attention, Ex. 7, Phillips Decl. ¶ 4, even if you “say you are having trouble breathing,” Ex. 6, Eric Smith Decl. ¶ 5; and the lack of disinfectant for commonly touched surfaces, Ex. 4, Banks Decl. ¶ 9.
Dr. Meyer’s specific concerns about the lack of screening procedures to protect residents from infected visitors and staff are also revealed in declarations of PDS attorneys and staff who have themselves been through the screenings. Those declarations reveal that there was no visitor screening of any kind until March 11, 2020, Ex. 10, Wong Decl. ¶ 5(a); that the screening procedure implemented on that day asked only about travel to limited international countries, Ex. 8, Pond Decl. ¶ 5(b); that when temperature screenings were implemented on March 13, 2020, they utilized broken thermometers that generated a reading of 93 degrees (which is two degrees below the threshold for hypothermia), Ex. 14, Naini Decl. ¶ 5(c); and that staff who interact with visitors coming and going from CDF and CTF do not wear personal protective equipment, see, e.g., Ex. 12, Johnson Decl. ¶ 5(a); Ex. 15, Murphy Decl. ¶ 5(b).
22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 23 of 40
Reports from Defendants’ own staff echo the very same conditions identified by residents and PDS staff. Defendants’ officers report, consistent with the declarations of residents and PDS staff, that their officers “have no masks, insufficient gloves, no gowns, no disinfectants, and [that] no comprehensive cleaning occurs on a regular basis in [housing] units.” Ex. 1, Attch. C, Labor Committee Letter, at 3. Defendants’ officers also expose the inability to practice social distancing at CTF and CDF, both for residents and staff. Id. These officers also cast grave doubt on Defendants’ so-called “quarantine” policy, under which residents are “housed two to a cell” on a unit with staff who “were not provided with any PPE or other means for protection against infections.” Id. at 4.
On the basis of much thinner records — and, in many cases, before positive COVID-19 tests in the respective facilities — other district courts have granted TROs recognizing the rapid spread of COVID-19 and requiring the immediate release of detained people. Central District of California Judge Hatter granted a TRO on March 27, 2020, explaining that:
As the Court writes this order, the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the United States has already exceeded the number of confirmed cases in every other country on this planet. Indeed, all of the experts and political leaders agree that the number of confirmed cases in the United States will only increase in the days and weeks ahead. The number of cases in the United States has yet to peak. Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause at 10, Docket No. 32, Castillo v. Barr, No. 20-cv-605 (TJH) (C.D. Cal. March 27, 2020). Just a day earlier, on March 26, 2020, Southern District of New York Judge Torres recognized that “[t]he spread of COVID-19 is measured in a matter of a single day — not weeks, months, or years” and granted a TRO requiring the immediate release of ten people. See Basank v. Decker, No. 20-cv-2518 (AT), 2020 WL 1481503, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. March 26, 2020). On March 23, 2020, a panel of Ninth Circuit judges granted emergency relief and ordered a detained person released “[i]n light of the rapidly escalating public
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 24 of 40
health crisis.” Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 18-71460, Doc. No. 53 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2020) (unpublished).
At least one judge in this District has already granted a motion for emergency release from Defendants’ custody in light of the risks of COVID-19. On March 26, 2020, Judge Moss granted an emergency motion to be released from Defendants’ custody pending sentencing, recognizing that “[a]ll responsible government agencies have advised of the risk of transmission posed by large gatherings,” and expressing concern that residence at CDF and CTF requires being “housed in a unit with dozens of other detainees and inmates.” Order at 1–2, United States v. Harris, Docket No. 35, No. 19-cr-356 (RDM) (D.D.C. March 26, 2020). Prophetically, the Court observed that “[t]he risk of the spread of the virus in the jail is palpable, and the risk of overburdening the jail’s healthcare resources, and the healthcare resources of the surrounding community is real.” Id. at 2; see also Minute Order, United States v. Jaffee, 19-cr-88 (RDM) (D.D.C. March 26, 2020) (same).
In sum, the record evidence shows that Plaintiffs and proposed class members face a “substantial risk” of contracting COVID-19. Plaintiffs need not show, or even allege, that “the likely harm would occur immediately” or that the possible infection would “affect all of those exposed.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 33 (citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 682 (1978)). Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of showing their “substantial” or “significant” risk of contracting COVID-19.
Plaintiffs also must show that they suffer a substantial risk of “serious harm.” Put differently, the Supreme Court explained, this Court should ask “whether society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 36.
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 25 of 40
To conclude that COVID-19 poses a risk of serious harm, the Court need look no further than the drastic way that society has been reshaped in a matter of months solely in response to the pandemic. Schools are closed. Travel is restricted. Even this Court’s own operations have been dramatically changed by the “pandemic,” in Chief Judge Howell’s words, “reflecting the seriousness of the need to combat the community spread of the virus.” In re: Court Operations in Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic, Standing Order No. 20-9 (BAH), at 1–2.
The record before the Court also confirms what is now obvious to the world: COVID-19 poses a risk of serious harm. Dr. Stern explains that this severe risk extends not only to the elderly, but to “younger individuals” who “are not protected from severe complications requiring hospitalization and placement in intensive care.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 12. The available data from the CDC bears this out, showing that of Americans generally who tested positive for COVID-19, nearly a third require hospitalization, many others require admission to the ICU, and between 1.8 and 3.4 percent of people die. See Compl. ¶ 29. From a clinical and public health perspective, COVID-19 poses a risk of serious harm to anyone who contracts it.
Moreover, applying the Supreme Court’s reference to whether “society considers the risk . . . to be so grave” to COVID-19 likewise results in the inexorable conclusion that it poses a serious risk of harm. The declarations of emergency from nearly every level of government is strong evidence COVID-19 is a risk that society considers to be grave. In declaring a national emergency on March 13, 2020, President Trump proclaimed that “[t]he spread of COVID-19 within our Nation’s communities threatens to strain our Nation’s healthcare systems.” Compl. ¶ 59. Mayor Bowser’s Declaration of Public Health Emergency includes the finding that COVID-
25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 26 of 40
19 “poses a significant risk of substantial future harm to a large number of people in the District of Columbia.” Mayor’s Order 2020-046, § I(C) (March 11, 2020).
For these and other reasons, courts roundly agree that COVID-19 poses a risk of serious harm. The Court in Basank, 2020 WL 1481503, pointed to “[a] number of courts in this district and elsewhere [that] have recognized the threat that COVID-19 poses to individuals held in jails and other detention facilities.” Id. at *3 (citing United States v. Stephens, No. 15-cr-95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1295155, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020); United States v. Garlock, No. 18-cr-418 (VC), 2020 WL 1439980, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2020)). The New Jersey Supreme Court, in approving an order resulting in the release of around 1,000 people from New Jersey jails, described “the profound risk posed to people in correctional facilities arising from the spread of COVID19.” In the Matter of the Request to Commute or Suspend County Jail Sentences, Case No. 84230 (N.J. March 22, 2020).
These conclusions are even more pronounced when considered in connection with Dr. Meyer’s conclusion that compared to “the population in the community,” individuals in Defendants’ custody are “at a significantly higher risk of harm if they do become infected.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 34. Dr. Meyer cites specific features of Defendants’ facilities that will increase the risk of serious harm to Plaintiffs and proposed class members who contract COVID19. For example, Dr. Meyer relies on the “day-long delays to see medical staff” as a factor that will “increase the risk of infection-related morbidity and mortality,” as well as the fact that the Department of Health does not conduct “compliance checks [which are] essential to determining whether medical care is adequate.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(d). Dr. Meyer also identifies the “[l]imited bed space,” both in Defendants’ facilities themselves or in area hospitals, that increases the risk of “preventable complications and possibly death.” Id. ¶ 28(d)(i).
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 27 of 40
Finally, this Court also need look no further than the consensus among federal courts that exposure to tuberculosis — a less severe disease, at least in terms of mortality rate3 — is a “serious harm” for Eighth Amendment purposes. See, e.g., Jeffries v. Block, 940 F. Supp. 1509, 1514 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (citing the determination of the California Legislature that “tuberculosis is a serious contagious disease, which presents a serious risk to inmate health”); cf. Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1285 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (concluding, under the slightly different deliberate indifference to “serious medical needs” test, that gallstones were “easily” in the “category of serious medical needs,” a point conceded by the District of Columbia).
Taken together, the evidence in the record, and evidence of which the Court can and should take judicial notice, supports the conclusion that COVID-19 is a serious harm. To recap: Plaintiffs and proposed class members are likely to succeed on the merits of the first prong, or the “objective” prong, of the Eighth Amendment, by having shown that (1) they are at substantial risk of contracting COVID-19; and (2) contracting COVID-19 would cause them serious harm.
b. The Department of Corrections has acted with deliberate indifference to this risk.
To succeed on the second prong of the Eighth Amendment test, Plaintiffs and proposed class members must show that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to the risk posed. See Helling, 509 U.S. at 33–35. Plaintiffs may do so by showing that the identified risk was “longstanding, pervasive, well-documented, or expressly noted by prison officials in the past.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994). Plaintiffs must show both that (1) the defendant
3 Studies suggest “a TB-related mortality rate of 2.1% [in the United States], which was comparable to studies in Canada.” Chou-Han Lin, Tuberculosis Mortality: Patient Characteristics and Causes, 14 BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES (2014).
27

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 28 of 40
“knows of” the identified risk, and (2) the defendant “disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Both prongs are satisfied here.
There is overwhelming evidence, much of it from Defendants themselves, that they “knew of a substantial risk” posed by COVID-19. For one, Defendants’ boss — Mayor Bowser — announced as much on March 11, 2020, declaring that COVID-19 “poses a significant risk of substantial future harm to a large number of people in the District of Columbia.” Mayor’s Order 2020-046, § I(C) (March 11, 2020). The next day, the DOC announced that it was “continu[ing] to monitor COVID-19 in our community and follow[ing] guidance from DC Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” See D.C. Corrs. Info. Council, Statements from the BOP and the DOC Concerning the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-2019) (March 12, 2020), https://cic.dc.gov/release/statements-bop-and-doc-concerning-coronavirus-2019-covid-2019. Of course, that guidance repeatedly emphasized policies and procedures that Defendants steadfastly refused to take. Compare, e.g., CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR BUSINESSES AND EMPLOYERS TO PLAN AND RESPOND TO CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) (March 21, 2020) (calling on employers to minimize employees’ contact with workers, customers and visitors, and to increase ventilation rates), with Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(c) (describing the frequent and close-proximity contact between residents and staff and the poor ventilation in the facilities).
Defendants have also demonstrated that they were aware of particular deficiencies in their facilities that would increase the risk and severity of a COVID-19 outbreak in its premises. In responding to the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor’s report on their facilities, Defendants admitted in 2019 that “[t]he current HVAC system has significant design problems that inhibit proper airflow.” Id. Regarding the lack of Department of Health (“DOH”) compliance checks on
28

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 29 of 40
Defendants’ medical facilities, Defendants “recognize[d]” the Auditor’s recommendation that the medical unit should receive DOH inspections. Id.
Moreover, Defendants were also put on notice by their own staff of the myriad shortcomings of their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 20, 2020, the union of Defendants’ corrections officers unanimously voted “no confidence” in the jail’s leadership, highlighting the lack of personal protective equipment and medical professionals trained in COVID-19 response. See Compl. ¶ 6. And, as of March 25, 2020, Defendants were made acutely aware (if they were not already) of additional, specific shortcomings of their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was on that date that they received a detailed list of inadequacies from their own staff. See Ex. 1, Attch. C, Labor Committee Letter at 3–4.
Defendants are not spared liability by claiming that they are not aware of the risk of COVID-19 to specific individual residents. (Such a claim would be factually dubious, as for the reasons discussed above, all residents in Defendants’ care are at serious risk of harm if they contract COVID-19.) The Supreme Court held in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) that it “does not matter,” under the deliberate indifference prong, “whether a prisoner faces an excessive risk of attack for reasons personal to him or because all prisoners in his situation face such a risk.” Id. at 843. For that proposition, the Supreme Court relied upon Helling’s observation “that the Eighth Amendment requires a remedy for exposure of inmates to ‘infectious maladies’ such as hepatitis and venereal disease ‘even though the possible infection might not affect all of those exposed.’” Id. at 844 (quoting Helling, 509 U.S. at 33).
Plaintiffs and proposed class members are also likely to prevail in showing that Defendants have disregarded and continue to disregard the excessive risk to their health or safety. Dr. Meyer explains that the policies adopted by Defendants “lead [her] to conclude, in [her] professional
29

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 30 of 40
judgment, that the residents, visitors, and employees of these facilities are at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28. Dr. Meyer also concludes given “the state of limited medical care for residents at these facilities, any resident of [CDF and CTF] who contracts COVID-19 faces a serious and substantial risk of death from COVID-19.” Id.
The very failures of Defendants in this case have been found to constitute deliberate indifference in like cases. For instance, in Feliciano v. Gonzales, 13 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D.P.R. 1998), the Court found that the defendant’s “inability . . . to properly isolate cases of active tuberculosis,” the “insufficient medical dormitory beds,” the failure to “fully screen incoming inmates,” and the failure to “provide for a sick call system that ensures access to care and that is capable of effectively handling emergencies” constituted deliberate indifference. Id. at 208–09. In other cases, the defendant’s inability to “adequately quarantine or remove inmates and support staff known to have active tuberculosis” was found to constitute deliberate indifference. See Shimon v. Dep’t of Corr. Servs. for N.Y., No. 93-cv-3144 (DC), 1996 WL 15688, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 1996). And in Joy v. Healthcare CMS, 534 F. Supp. 2d 482 (D. Del. 2008), the Court found that the plaintiffs stated a claim under the Eighth Amendment where the warden “was aware that inmates were not thoroughly screened for disease before going into general population and that Correctional Medical Services does not have a policy in place to examine inmates before placing them into general population.” Id. at 485. As discussed above, the record is replete with Defendants’ deficient performance in all of these categories, including their failed quarantine policy, rampant medical delays, and ineffective screening procedures.
Defendants’ deliberate indifference can also be shown by reference to their failure to follow accepted medical standards. The Court in Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 110 F. Supp. 3d 929 (N.D. Cal. 2015) explained that “known noncompliance with generally accepted guidelines for
30

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 31 of 40
inmate health strongly indicates deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. at 943. Here, Dr. Meyer explains that Defendants are out of compliance in nearly every relevant category, including cleaning and disinfecting practices, hygiene policies, provisions of personal protective equipment, screening policies, social distancing requirements, and medical treatment facilities and protocols. Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(a)-(d).
In the context of COVID-19, courts have granted the relief requested here — immediate release — finding deliberate indifference on similar records. For instance, in Coronel v. Decker, 20-cv-2472 (AJN), 2020 WL 1487274 (S.D.N.Y. March 27, 2020), Judge Nathan pointed to “a series of problems” identified by the petitioner in his facility, including the failure to keep accurate and sufficient medical records and inadequate screening and testing procedures, in finding that the respondent was deliberately indifferent. Id. at *5. In Basank v. Decker, 2020 WL 1481503, the Court rejected the measures taken by the jail in that case, including “screening detainees upon intake for risk factors, isolating detainees who report symptoms, . . . providing soap and hand sanitizer to inmates, and increasing the frequency and intensity of cleaning jail facilities.” Id. at *5. Regarding those policies, the Court held that they “are patently insufficient to protect Petitioners,” because the jail “could not represent that the detention facilities were in a position to allow inmates to remain six feet apart from one another, as recommended by the CDC.” Id. Notably, even the policies and procedures that were found to be insufficient by the Basank court are even above and beyond what Defendants here are providing. Far from providing hand sanitizer to residents, Defendants actively removed it; instead of isolating detainees who report symptoms, Defendants placed “quarantined” inmates two-to-a-cell with no ventilation separation from nonquarantined inmates.
31

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 32 of 40
The record evidence thus shows that Defendants knew, and know, of the risk of COVID19, but that they have recklessly disregarded that risk. They have done so by failing to follow established guidelines for preventing the spread and severity of COVID-19 and by adopting policies, and failing to adopt others, that would mitigate the risk and harm of the virus. Plaintiffs and proposed class members are therefore likely to succeed on the deliberate indifference prong of the Eighth Amendment.
2. Plaintiffs and proposed class members are likely to prevail on the merits of their Fifth Amendment claim.
Plaintiffs and proposed class members who are detained pretrial have due process protections against punishment under the Fifth Amendment. Pretrial detainees are presumed innocent, and they are thus “entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322 (1982); see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979) (“Due process requires that a pretrial detainee not be punished.”). “While a convicted prisoner is entitled to protection only against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, a pretrial detainee, not yet found guilty of any crime, may not be subjected to punishment of any description.” Hardy v. District of Columbia, 601 F. Supp. 2d 182, 188 (D.D.C. 2009) (cleaned up).
Because pretrial detainees are entitled to protections “at least as great as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner,” City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983), conditions that would violate the Eighth Amendment are more than enough to also violate pretrial detainees’ Fifth Amendment rights. Hardy, 601 F. Supp. 2d at 189.
The Fifth Amendment and Eighth Amendment analysis differs in that under the former, a plaintiff can prevail in showing that the defendant “knew, or should have known, that the
32

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 33 of 40
[challenged] condition posed an excessive risk to health or safety,” Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 35 (2d Cir. 2017), while under the latter, a plaintiff must show that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to the risk posed, Helling, 509 U.S. at 33–35. In other words, the Eighth Amendment calls for a subjective analysis of the defendant’s intent, while the Fifth Amendment requires only an objective analysis of whether the defendant should have known of the risks of harm. In any event, as discussed above, Plaintiffs and proposed class members face no hurdle in establishing that Defendants knew of the risk of COVID-19 and that they recklessly disregarded that risk. By meeting their burden under the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiffs and proposed class members have, by definition, met their burden under the Fifth Amendment.
B. Plaintiff and proposed class members will suffer irreparable harm. Immediate injunctive relief is necessary because the danger here — vulnerable people in
inadequate and ill-equipped facilities condemned to severe illness and potential death — is the quintessential irreparable harm. COVID-19 is a serious, and possibly fatal, disease, that is rapidly spreading throughout Defendants’ facilities. As it did on Rikers Island, in Cook County, Chicago, in other prisons, on cruise ships, and in nursing homes, COVID-19 is infecting exponentially more residents day by day. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiff and proposed class members will suffer irreparable harm.
With the exponential growth of infection rates and a confirmed case of COVID-19 already having emerged in Defendants’ facilities, time is of the essence for Plaintiffs and proposed class members. To constitute irreparable harm, “the injury must be both certain and great; it must be actual and not theoretical,” and it must be imminent. Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). Far from speculative, an outbreak is now a certainty — five individuals detained in
33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 34 of 40
Defendants’ custody have already tested positive for COVID-19. The first, a 20-year-old male, has been detained at CTF since July of 2019, and Defendants claim to be unaware of how he contracted it. It is certain that this resident contracted COVID-19 while in Defendants’ custody, almost certainly transmitted from a visitor or staff member entering the jail from the community. Other residents were exposed to the virus, and the disease will continue to spread. Just two days later, Defendants announced that a second resident, a 44-year-old male tested positive; that man lived on a different housing unit as the first positive resident and had been housed with a cellmate. Less than 24 hours later, Defendants announced that two more residents had tested positive, and the following day the DOC announced that a fifth inmate had tested positive. Given the contagious nature of the disease and the conditions at Defendants’ facilities, absent a temporary restraining order, Plaintiffs and proposed class members face serious illness, long-term health issues, and possible death from a virus with no known cure and no vaccine. This establishes the irreparable harm necessary to justify injunctive relief.
Facing requests for preliminary injunctive relief, “courts often find a showing of irreparable harm where the movant’s health is in imminent danger.” Al-Joudi v. Bush, 406 F. Supp. 2d 13, 20 (D.D.C. 2005) (finding irreparable harm where “the threat of death or serious physical deterioration [was] real and imminent.”). The Court must not wait until each individual is infected with COVID-19 — by then it will be too late to prevent the irreparable harm Plaintiffs and proposed class members face. See id. (“It goes without saying that this Court need not wait to issue injunctive relief until a [plaintiff] has died.”). Even the failure to test for a disease has been sufficient to support a finding of irreparable harm. See Boone v. Brown, No. 05-cv-750 (AET), 2005 WL 2006997, at *14 (D.N.J. Aug. 22, 2005) (allegation of refusal to provide adequate testing for highly contagious infectious disease sufficient to demonstrate irreparable harm); Austin v. Pa.
34

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 35 of 40
Dep’t of Corr., No. 90-cv-7497 (JED), 1992 WL 277511, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 1992) (granting preliminary injunction for prison to develop testing and protocol for tuberculosis).
Courts have expressed no hesitation in finding that risk of contracting COVID-19 constitutes irreparable harm where plaintiffs are housed in facilities with a confirmed case of COVID-19. In Basank, 2020 WL 1481503, the Court observed that because “[e]ach of the jails where a Petitioner is being housed has reported confirmed cases of COVID-19,” the “risk that Petitioners will face a severe, and quite possibly fatal, infection if they remain in . . . detention constitutes irreparable harm warranting a TRO.” Id. at *4. There are already five confirmed cases of COVID-19 among the population in Defendants’ custody, with more sure to come.
C. The balance of equities tips in Plaintiffs and proposed class members’ favor and the public interest supports granting the injunction. Where, as here, plaintiffs demonstrate that their constitutional rights have been violated, it
follows that granting injunctive relief is in the public interest. “It is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Simms v. District of Columbia, 827 F. Supp. 2d 90, 105 (D.D.C. 2012). That interest alone is sufficient to weigh in favor of injunctive relief.
Here, however, the public has an additional independent and overwhelming interest in preliminary relief that would require Defendants to take action to minimize the spread of COVID19. It is well established that “public health” is a “significant public interest.” See Grand River Enters. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 425 F.3d 158, 169 (2d Cir. 2005).
Public health officials and medical professionals have concluded that the crucial step to minimize the spread of COVID-19 is to downsize jail populations. In Dr. Stern’s expert opinion, downsizing the population of the jail will “help to ‘flatten the curve’ overall—both within the jail setting and without.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 14. That is because, given the churn of people —
35

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 36 of 40
residents, staff, visitors — through Defendants’ facilities, the outbreak of COVID-19 in the jail will be impossible to confine to the DOC facilities. Compounding the problem, Dr. Stern explains, is that “vulnerable populations are at the highest risk of severe complications from COVID-19, and . . . when they develop severe complications they will be transported to community hospitals — thereby using scarce community resources (ER beds, general hospital beds, ICU beds).” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 13. Thus, “avoid[ing] disease in this population is a critical contribution to public health overall.” Id. For those reasons, the Basank Court explained, “public health and safety are served best by rapidly decreasing the number of individuals detained in confined, unsafe conditions.” 2020 WL 1481503, at *6; see also In the Matter of the Request to Commute or Suspend County Jail Sentences, Case No. 84230 (N. J. Mar. 22, 2020) (holding that “reduction of county jail populations, under appropriate conditions, is in the public interest to mitigate risks imposed by COVID-19” due to “the profound risk posed to people in correctional facilities arising from the spread of COVID-19”).
Similarly, the balance of the equities weighs heavily in plaintiffs’ favor. In evaluating this factor, the Court must “balance the competing claims of injury, which involves considering the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Shvartser v. Lekser, 308 F. Supp. 3d 260, 267 (D.D.C. 2018).
Here, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction will not “substantially injure other interested parties.” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, 454 F.3d at 297. To the contrary, given the nature of COVID-19, not issuing preliminary relief in this case would cause injury to parties beyond the plaintiffs, including the defendants, their staff and the public at large. As the Central District of California explained in granting a TRO:
The balance of the equities tip sharply in favor of the Petitioners. The Petitioners face[] irreparable harm to their constitutional rights and health. Indeed, there is no
36

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 37 of 40
harm to the Government when a court prevents the Government from engaging in unlawful practices. Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause at 10, Castillo, No. 20-cv-605. Here too, other than the relatively minimal administrative burden, there is no identifiable “harm” to Defendants. This burden is far outweighed by what is at stake to plaintiffs and the public if no TRO is issued. D. Release is the most effective remedy. Courts, public health experts, and corrections professionals agree: significantly downsizing populations in correctional institutions is the most important tool to combat the spread of COVID19 among residents, staff, and the greater community. Dr. Stern, the former Assistant Secretary of Health Care for the Washington State Department of Corrections puts it plainly: “Downsizing jail populations serves two critical public health aims: (1) targeting residents who are at elevated risk of suffering from severe symptoms of COVID-19 and (2) allowing those who remain incarcerated to better maintain social distancing and avoid other risks associated with forced communal living.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 13. After reviewing the particular outbreak in Defendants’ facilities and the specific conditions of CTF and CDF, Dr. Stern was “even more firmly convinced that downsizing the inmate population as much as possible will reduce the risk of contraction and transmission of COVID-19 — and the attendant risks of serious harm and death — within DOC facilities and the communities around them.” Id. ¶ 11. Dr. Meyer, who also reviewed the spread of COVID-19 in DOC facilities as well as the conditions and resources at CDF and CTF, comes to the same conclusion: “Reducing the size of the population in jails and prisons is crucially important to reducing the level of risk both for those within those facilities and for the community at large.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 34. Dr. Meyer considered both the risks that Plaintiffs and proposed class members would contract COVID-19,
37

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 38 of 40
and the risk that they would suffer serious illness . . . and death” from the infection. Id. ¶ 33. Because of the “significantly higher risk” to Plaintiffs and proposed class members, Dr. Meyer writes that “from a public health perspective,” she is “strongly of the opinion that individuals who are already in those facilities should be evaluated for release.” Id. at ¶ 35.
Courts have ordered release in cases like this, on emergency bases, even without the mutually-confirming reports of residents, attorneys, and corrections officers. See Coronel, 2020 WL 1487274 (granting release of four petitioners with medical conditions that render them particularly vulnerable to severe illness or death if infected by COVID-19 from immigration detention); 2020 WL 1481503 (granting release of ten petitioners who “suffer[] from chronic medical conditions, and face[] an imminent risk of death or serious injury in immigration detention if exposed to COVID-19” from immigration detention); United States v. Stephens, 15-cr-95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1295155 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) (granting motion for reconsideration of defendant’s bail conditions and releasing him from jail to home confinement, recognizing inmates may be at heightened risk of contracting COVID-19); Mem. Decision & Order, Jovel v. Decker, Docket No. 27, 20-cv-308 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y. March 26, 2020) (granting emergency request for release of petitioner from immigration detention in light of the COVID-19 crisis); People ex rel. Stoughton on behalf of Little et al. v. Brann, Index No. 260154/2020 (Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty. March 25, 2020) (releasing 106 individuals held at Rikers Island jail on parole violations who are particularly vulnerable to illness or death if infected by COVID-19); People ex rel. Stoughton on behalf of Hogan et al. v. Brann, Index No. 51078/2020 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. March 27, 2020) (releasing 16 individuals held at Rikers Island jail on pre-trial detention who were particularly vulnerable to illness or death due to COVID-19); Xochihua-Jaimes, No. 18-71460 (ordering, sua sponte, that petitioner be immediately released from immigration detention “[i]n light of the
38

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 39 of 40
rapidly escalating public health crisis” related to COVID-19); Castillo, 20-cv-605 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020) (ordering that petitioners be released from immigration detention in light of COVID-19 and noting “the risk of infection in immigration detention facilities – and jails – is particularly high”); Mem. & Order, Jimenez v. Wolf, Docket No. 507, 18-cv-225 (D. Mass. Mar. 26, 2020) (ordering release of petitioner from immigration detention due to COVID-19 concerns); In re Request to Commute or Suspend County Jail Sentences, Docket No. 084230 (N.J. Mar. 22, 2020) (ordering, based on the dangers posed by COVID-19, release of any inmate in New Jersey serving a county jail sentence as a condition of probation or as a result of a municipal court conviction).
This Court should also be guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011). In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s order requiring a “population reduction of 38,000 to 46,000 persons” in California state prisons. Id. at 510. The Court spelled out the State’s obligation under the Eighth Amendment: “To incarcerate, society takes from prisoners the means to provide for their own needs. Prisoners are dependent on the State for food, clothing, and necessary medical care.” Id. at 510. “If government fails to fulfill this obligation, the courts have a responsibility to remedy the resulting Eighth Amendment violation.” Id. at 511. Defendants have failed in the months preceding this outbreak to take necessary precautions, and they are failing now that the outbreak is upon them to take sufficient steps to protect residents who depend on them for “food, clothing, and necessary medical care.” Id. at 510.
To vindicate Plaintiffs’ and proposed class members’ rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, this Court should order a swift reduction in the population in Defendants’ custody. In so doing, the Court would join the legion of other jurisdictions that have recognized what public health experts and correctional professionals like Dr. Stern and Dr. Meyer explain is the soundest
39

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 40 of 40

way to avoid a constitutional and community crisis: to rapidly and thoroughly downsize correctional institutions. This Court has the authority to do so. See Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“[I]n a conditions of confinement claim [brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241] . . . a court may simply order the prisoner released unless the unlawful conditions are rectified . . . .”). Given the irreparable harm posed by this pandemic to Plaintiffs and proposed class members, the strong public interest in public health, and the balance of the equities, the Court should issue the requested temporary restraining order.

DATED: March 30, 2020 Washington, D.C.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Steven Marcus Steven Marcus (D.C. Bar # 1630882) Jonathan Anderson (D.C. Bar # 475306) Jenna Cobb (D.C. Bar # 979506) Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel. 202-824-2524 Fax 202-824-2525 smarcus@pdsdc.org
/s/ Scott Michelman Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar # 1006945) Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar # 235960) Michael Perloff (D.C. Bar # 1601047) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. 202-457-0800 smichelman@acludc.org

40

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 260





(;+,%,7





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 260
'HFODUDWLRQRI'U-DLPLH0H\HU 
3XUVXDQWWR86&,KHUHE\GHFODUHDVIROORZV   , %DFNJURXQGDQG4XDOLILFDWLRQV
 ,DP'U-DLPLH0H\HUDQ$VVLVWDQW3URIHVVRURI0HGLFLQHDW<DOH6FKRRORI0HGLFLQH DQG$VVLVWDQW&OLQLFDO3URIHVVRURI1XUVLQJDW<DOH6FKRRORI1XUVLQJLQ1HZ+DYHQ &RQQHFWLFXW,DPERDUGFHUWLILHGLQ,QWHUQDO0HGLFLQH,QIHFWLRXV'LVHDVHVDQG $GGLFWLRQ 0HGLFLQH ,FRPSOHWHGP\UHVLGHQF\LQ,QWHUQDO0HGLFLQHDW1< 3UHVE\WHULDQ+RVSLWDODW &ROXPELD1HZ<RUNLQ,FRPSOHWHGDIHOORZVKLSLQ FOLQLFDO,QIHFWLRXV'LVHDVHVDW <DOH6FKRRORI0HGLFLQHLQDQGDIHOORZVKLSLQ ,QWHUGLVFLSOLQDU\+,93UHYHQWLRQDW WKH&HQWHUIRU,QWHUGLVFLSOLQDU\5HVHDUFKRQ$,'6 LQ,KROGD0DVWHURI6FLHQFHLQ %LRVWDWLVWLFVDQG(SLGHPLRORJ\IURP<DOH 6FKRRORI3XEOLF+HDOWK
  ,KDYHZRUNHGIRURYHUDGHFDGHRQLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVLQWKHFRQWH[WRIMDLOVDQG SULVRQV )URP,VHUYHGDVWKH,QIHFWLRXV'LVHDVHSK\VLFLDQIRU<RUN &RUUHFWLRQDO ,QVWLWXWLRQLQ1LDQWLF&RQQHFWLFXWZKLFKLVWKHRQO\VWDWHMDLODQGSULVRQ IRUZRPHQLQ &RQQHFWLFXW ,QWKDWFDSDFLW\,ZDVUHVSRQVLEOHIRUWKHPDQDJHPHQWRI +,9+HSDWLWLV& WXEHUFXORVLVDQGRWKHULQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVLQWKHIDFLOLW\ 6LQFHWKHQ ,KDYHPDLQWDLQHGD GHGLFDWHG+,9FOLQLFLQWKHFRPPXQLW\IRUSDWLHQWVUHWXUQLQJ KRPHIURPSULVRQDQGMDLO,Q,YROXQWHHUHGWRUXQPRQWKO\$,'6 DZDUHQHVVSURJUDPPLQJDW'DQEXU\)&,DQG)6/IHGHUDOSULVRQVIRUZRPHQLQ 'DQEXU\&RQQHFWLFXW )RURYHUDGHFDGH,KDYHEHHQFRQWLQXRXVO\IXQGHGE\WKH 1,+LQGXVWU\DQGIRXQGDWLRQVIRUFOLQLFDOUHVHDUFKRQ+,9SUHYHQWLRQDQGWUHDWPHQW IRUSHRSOHLQYROYHGLQ WKHFULPLQDOMXVWLFHV\VWHPLQFOXGLQJWKRVHLQFDUFHUDWHGLQ FORVHGVHWWLQJVMDLOVDQG SULVRQVDQGLQWKHFRPPXQLW\XQGHUVXSHUYLVLRQSUREDWLRQ DQGSDUROH ,KDYHVHUYHGDV DQH[SHUWFRQVXOWDQWRQLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVDQGZRPHQ¶V KHDOWKLQMDLOVDQGSULVRQVIRUWKH 812IILFHRQ'UXJVDQG&ULPHVWKH)HGHUDO%XUHDX RI3ULVRQVDQGRWKHUV,DOVRVHUYHG DVDQH[SHUWKHDOWKZLWQHVVIRUWKH86 &RPPLVVLRQRQ&LYLO5LJKWV6SHFLDO%ULHILQJRQ :RPHQLQ3ULVRQ
  ,KDYHZULWWHQDQGSXEOLVKHGH[WHQVLYHO\RQWKHWRSLFVRILQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVDPRQJ SHRSOHLQYROYHGLQWKHFULPLQDOMXVWLFHV\VWHPLQFOXGLQJERRNFKDSWHUVDQGDUWLFOHVLQ OHDGLQJSHHUUHYLHZHGMRXUQDOVLQFOXGLQJ/DQFHW+,9-$0$,QWHUQDO0HGLFLQH $PHULFDQ-RXUQDORI3XEOLF+HDOWK,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI'UXJ3ROLF\RQLVVXHVRI SUHYHQWLRQGLDJQRVLVDQGPDQDJHPHQWRI+,9+HSDWLWLV&DQGRWKHULQIHFWLRXV GLVHDVHV DPRQJSHRSOHLQYROYHGLQWKHFULPLQDOMXVWLFHV\VWHP
  0\&9LQFOXGHVDIXOOOLVWRIP\KRQRUVH[SHULHQFHDQGSXEOLFDWLRQVDQGLWLV DWWDFKHG DV([KLELW$
  ,DPEHLQJSDLGSHUKRXUIRUP\WLPHUHYLHZLQJPDWHULDOVDQGSUHSDULQJWKLVUHSRUW


Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 260
 ,KDYHQRWWHVWLILHGDVDQH[SHUWDWWULDORUE\GHSRVLWLRQLQWKHSDVWIRXU\HDUV 
 ,KDYHEHHQDVNHGE\WKH3XEOLF'HIHQGHU6HUYLFHIRUWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELDWRUHYLHZ DQGFRPPHQWRQPDWHULDOVLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKDFDVHWREHILOHGRQEHKDOIRIFHUWDLQ LQFDUFHUDWHGLQGLYLGXDOVZKRDUHDWDQLQFUHDVHGULVNRIFRQWUDFWLQJDQGGHYHORSLQJ FRPSOLFDWLRQVIURPH[SRVXUHWR&29,',ZDVVSHFLILFDOO\DVNHGWRFRPPHQWRQMDLO FRQGLWLRQVGXULQJDQGSUHSDUHGQHVVIRUWKH&29,'SDQGHPLF
  ,QDGGLWLRQWRP\NQRZOHGJHWUDLQLQJHGXFDWLRQDQGH[SHULHQFHLQWKHILHOGRISULVRQ KHDOWKFDUHDQGLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVDQGWKHUHVRXUFHVUHOLHGXSRQE\H[SHUWVLQLQIHFWLRXV GLVHDVHVDQGSULVRQKHDOWK,DOVRUHYLHZHGVSHFLILFDOO\WKH&HQWHUVIRU'LVHDVH&RQWURO DQG3UHYHQWLRQ&'&JXLGDQFHRQPDQDJHPHQWRI&29,'LQFRUUHFWLRQDOIDFLOLWLHV DYDLODEOHDWKWWSVZZZFGFJRYFRURQDYLUXVQFRYFRPPXQLW\FRUUHFWLRQ GHWHQWLRQJXLGDQFHFRUUHFWLRQDOGHWHQWLRQKWPOWKH%XUHDXRI3ULVRQV%23PRGLILHG RSHUDWLRQVSODQDYDLODEOHDWKWWSVZZZERSJRYFRURQDYLUXVFRYLGBVWDWXVMVSWKH 1DWLRQDO&RPPLVVLRQRQ&RUUHFWLRQDO+HDOWK&DUH1&&+&PDWHULDOVRQ&29,' DYDLODEOHDWKWWSVZZZQFFKFRUJ&29,'5HVRXUFHVDQGWKH:RUOG+HDOWK 2UJDQL]DWLRQLQWHULPJXLGDQFHRQ3UHSDUHGQHVVSUHYHQWLRQDQGFRQWURORI&29,'LQ SULVRQVDQGRWKHUSODFHVRIGHWHQWLRQDYDLODEOHDW KWWSZZZHXURZKRLQWBBGDWDDVVHWVSGIBILOH3UHSDUHGQHVVSUHYHQWLRQ DQGFRQWURORI&29,'LQSULVRQVSGI"XD  
,, +HLJKWHQHG5LVNRI(SLGHPLFVLQ-DLOVDQG3ULVRQV 
 7KHULVNSRVHGE\LQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVLQMDLOVDQGSULVRQVLVVLJQLILFDQWO\KLJKHUWKDQLQ WKHFRPPXQLW\ERWKLQWHUPVRIULVNRIWUDQVPLVVLRQH[SRVXUHDQGKDUPWRLQGLYLGXDOV ZKREHFRPHLQIHFWHG7KHUHDUHVHYHUDOUHDVRQVWKLVLVWKHFDVHDVGHOLQHDWHGIXUWKHU EHORZ 
*OREDOO\RXWEUHDNVRIFRQWDJLRXVGLVHDVHVDUHDOOWRRFRPPRQLQFORVHGGHWHQWLRQ VHWWLQJVDQGDUHPRUHFRPPRQWKDQLQWKHFRPPXQLW\DWODUJH 3ULVRQVDQGMDLOVDUH QRW LVRODWHGIURPFRPPXQLWLHV 6WDIIYLVLWRUVFRQWUDFWRUVDQGYHQGRUVSDVVEHWZHHQ FRPPXQLWLHVDQGIDFLOLWLHVDQGFDQEULQJLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVLQWRIDFLOLWLHV 0RUHRYHU UDSLGWXUQRYHURIMDLODQGSULVRQSRSXODWLRQVPHDQVWKDWSHRSOHRIWHQF\FOHEHWZHHQ IDFLOLWLHVDQGFRPPXQLWLHV 3HRSOHRIWHQQHHGWREHWUDQVSRUWHGWRDQGIURPIDFLOLWLHV WR DWWHQGFRXUWDQGPRYHEHWZHHQIDFLOLWLHV 3ULVRQKHDOWKLVSXEOLFKHDOWK 
5HGXFHGSUHYHQWLRQRSSRUWXQLWLHV&RQJUHJDWHVHWWLQJVVXFKDVMDLOVDQGSULVRQVDOORZ IRU UDSLGVSUHDGRILQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVWKDWDUHWUDQVPLWWHGSHUVRQWRSHUVRQHVSHFLDOO\ WKRVH SDVVHGE\GURSOHWVWKURXJKFRXJKLQJDQGVQHH]LQJ:KHQSHRSOHPXVWVKDUH GLQLQJKDOOV EDWKURRPVVKRZHUVDQGRWKHUFRPPRQDUHDVWKHRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRU WUDQVPLVVLRQDUH JUHDWHU:KHQLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVDUHWUDQVPLWWHGIURPSHUVRQWR SHUVRQE\GURSOHWVWKH EHVWLQLWLDOVWUDWHJ\LVWRSUDFWLFHVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ :KHQMDLOHG RULPSULVRQHGSHRSOH KDYHPXFKOHVVRIDQRSSRUWXQLW\WRSURWHFWWKHPVHOYHVE\VRFLDO GLVWDQFLQJWKDQWKH\ ZRXOGLQWKHFRPPXQLW\6SDFHVZLWKLQMDLOVDQGSULVRQVDUHRIWHQ DOVRSRRUO\YHQWLODWHG ZKLFKSURPRWHVKLJKO\HIILFLHQWVSUHDGRIGLVHDVHVWKURXJK

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 260
GURSOHWV3ODFLQJVRPHRQHLQ VXFKDVHWWLQJWKHUHIRUHGUDPDWLFDOO\UHGXFHVWKHLUDELOLW\ WRSURWHFWWKHPVHOYHVIURP EHLQJH[SRVHGWRDQGDFTXLULQJLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHV  'LVFLSOLQDU\VHJUHJDWLRQRUVROLWDU\FRQILQHPHQWIDFLOLWLHVLVQRWDQHIIHFWLYHGLVHDVH FRQWDLQPHQWVWUDWHJ\%H\RQGWKHNQRZQGHWULPHQWDOPHQWDOKHDOWKHIIHFWVRIVROLWDU\ FRQILQHPHQW LVRODWLRQRISHRSOHZKRDUHLOOLQVROLWDU\FRQILQHPHQWUHVXOWVLQ GHFUHDVHGPHGLFDO DWWHQWLRQDQGLQFUHDVHGULVNRIGHDWK ,VRODWLRQRISHRSOHZKRDUH LOOXVLQJVROLWDU\ FRQILQHPHQWDOVRLVDQLQHIIHFWLYHZD\WRSUHYHQWWUDQVPLVVLRQRIWKH YLUXVWKURXJK GURSOHWVWRRWKHUVEHFDXVHH[FHSWLQVSHFLDOL]HGQHJDWLYHSUHVVXUH URRPVUDUHO\LQ PHGLFDOXQLWVLIDYDLODEOHDWDOODLUFRQWLQXHVWRIORZRXWZDUGIURP URRPVWRWKHUHVWRI WKHIDFLOLW\ 5LVNRIH[SRVXUHLVWKXVLQFUHDVHGWRRWKHUSHRSOHLQ SULVRQDQGVWDII%HFDXVHLQFDUFHUDWHGSHRSOHPD\SHUFHLYHTXDUDQWLQHDVSXQLWLYHRU DVDOLYLQJDUUDQJHPHQWWKDWDOORZVIHZHUSULYLOHJHVWKDQWKHLUUHJXODUKRXVLQJ LQFDUFHUDWHGSHRSOHPD\EHGHWHUUHGIURPVHOIUHSRUWLQJV\PSWRPVWRPHGLFDOVWDII $VDUHVXOWWKH\PD\UHPDLQLQFRQJUHJDWHVHWWLQJVZKLOHLQIHFWHGSRWHQWLDOO\ WUDQVPLWWLQJLQIHFWLRQVWRRWKHUV  5HGXFHGSUHYHQWLRQRSSRUWXQLWLHV'XULQJDQLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHRXWEUHDNSHRSOHFDQ SURWHFWWKHPVHOYHVE\ZDVKLQJKDQGV-DLOVDQGSULVRQVGRQRWSURYLGHDGHTXDWH RSSRUWXQLWLHVWRH[HUFLVHQHFHVVDU\K\JLHQHPHDVXUHVVXFKDVIUHTXHQWKDQGZDVKLQJRU XVHRIDOFRKROEDVHGVDQLWL]HUVZKHQKDQGZDVKLQJLVXQDYDLODEOH-DLOVDQGSULVRQVDUH RIWHQXQGHUUHVRXUFHGDQGLOOHTXLSSHGZLWKVXIILFLHQWKDQGVRDSDQGDOFRKROEDVHG VDQLWL]HUVIRUSHRSOHGHWDLQHGLQDQGZRUNLQJLQWKHVHVHWWLQJV+LJKWRXFKVXUIDFHV GRRUNQREVOLJKWVZLWFKHVHWFVKRXOGDOVREHFOHDQHGDQGGLVLQIHFWHGUHJXODUO\ZLWK EOHDFKWRSUHYHQWYLUXVVSUHDGEXWWKLVLVRIWHQQRWGRQHLQMDLOVDQGSULVRQVEHFDXVHRID ODFNRIFOHDQLQJVXSSOLHVDQGODFNRISHRSOHDYDLODEOHWRSHUIRUPQHFHVVDU\FOHDQLQJ SURFHGXUHV  5HGXFHGSUHYHQWLRQRSSRUWXQLWLHV'XULQJDQLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHRXWEUHDNDFRQWDLQPHQW VWUDWHJ\UHTXLUHVSHRSOHZKRDUHLOOZLWKV\PSWRPVWREHLVRODWHGDQGWKDWFDUHJLYHUVKDYH DFFHVVWRSHUVRQDOSURWHFWLYHHTXLSPHQWLQFOXGLQJJORYHVPDVNVJRZQVDQGH\HVKLHOGV -DLOVDQGSULVRQVDUHRIWHQXQGHUUHVRXUFHGDQGLOOHTXLSSHGWRSURYLGHVXIILFLHQWSHUVRQDO SURWHFWLYHHTXLSPHQWIRUSHRSOHZKRDUHLQFDUFHUDWHGDQGFDUHJLYLQJVWDIILQFUHDVLQJWKH ULVNIRUHYHU\RQHLQWKHIDFLOLW\RIDZLGHVSUHDGRXWEUHDN  ,QFUHDVHGVXVFHSWLELOLW\3HRSOHLQFDUFHUDWHGLQMDLOVDQGSULVRQVDUHPRUHVXVFHSWLEOHWR DFTXLULQJDQGH[SHULHQFLQJFRPSOLFDWLRQVIURPLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVWKDQWKHSRSXODWLRQ LQ WKHFRPPXQLW\7KLVLVEHFDXVHSHRSOHLQMDLOVDQGSULVRQVDUHPRUHOLNHO\WKDQ SHRSOHLQ WKHFRPPXQLW\WRKDYHFKURQLFXQGHUO\LQJKHDOWKFRQGLWLRQVLQFOXGLQJ GLDEHWHVKHDUW GLVHDVHFKURQLFOXQJGLVHDVHFKURQLFOLYHUGLVHDVHDQGORZHULPPXQH V\VWHPVIURP+,9  -DLOVDQGSULVRQVDUHRIWHQSRRUO\HTXLSSHGWRGLDJQRVHDQGPDQDJHLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVH
 Active case finding for communicable diseases in prisons7KH/DQFHW KWWSVZZZWKHODQFHWFRPMRXUQDOVODQFHWDUWLFOH3,,6IXOOWH[W

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 5 of 260
RXWEUHDNV 6RPHMDLOVDQGSULVRQVODFNRQVLWHPHGLFDOIDFLOLWLHVRUKRXUPHGLFDO FDUH 7KHPHGLFDOIDFLOLWLHVDWMDLOVDQGSULVRQVDUHDOPRVWQHYHUVXIILFLHQWO\HTXLSSHG WRKDQGOH ODUJHRXWEUHDNVRILQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHV7RSUHYHQWWUDQVPLVVLRQRIGURSOHW ERUQHLQIHFWLRXV GLVHDVHVSHRSOHZKRDUHLQIHFWHGDQGLOOQHHGWREHLVRODWHGLQ VSHFLDOL]HGDLUERUQHQHJDWLYHSUHVVXUHURRPV 0RVWMDLOVDQGSULVRQVKDYHIHZQHJDWLYH SUHVVXUH URRPVLIDQ\DQGWKHVHPD\EHDOUHDG\LQXVHE\SHRSOHZLWKRWKHUFRQGLWLRQV LQFOXGLQJ WXEHUFXORVLVRULQIOXHQ]D 5HVRXUFHVZLOOEHFRPHH[KDXVWHGUDSLGO\DQG DQ\EHGV DYDLODEOHZLOOVRRQEHDWFDSDFLW\7KLVPDNHVERWKFRQWDLQLQJWKHLOOQHVVDQG FDULQJIRU WKRVHZKRKDYHEHFRPHLQIHFWHGPXFKPRUHGLIILFXOW  -DLOVDQGSULVRQVODFNDFFHVVWRYLWDOFRPPXQLW\UHVRXUFHVWRGLDJQRVHDQGPDQDJH LQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHV-DLOVDQGSULVRQVGRQRWKDYHDFFHVVWRFRPPXQLW\KHDOWK UHVRXUFHV WKDWFDQEHFUXFLDOLQLGHQWLI\LQJDQGPDQDJLQJZLGHVSUHDGRXWEUHDNVRI LQIHFWLRXV GLVHDVHV 7KLVLQFOXGHVDFFHVVWRWHVWLQJHTXLSPHQWODERUDWRULHVDQG PHGLFDWLRQV  -DLOVDQGSULVRQVRIWHQQHHGWRUHO\RQRXWVLGHIDFLOLWLHVKRVSLWDOVHPHUJHQF\ GHSDUWPHQWVWRSURYLGHLQWHQVLYHPHGLFDOFDUHJLYHQWKDWWKHOHYHORIFDUHWKH\FDQ SURYLGHLQWKHIDFLOLW\LWVHOILVW\SLFDOO\UHODWLYHO\OLPLWHG'XULQJDQHSLGHPLFWKLV ZLOO QRWEHSRVVLEOHDVWKRVHRXWVLGHIDFLOLWLHVZLOOOLNHO\EHDWRURYHUFDSDFLW\ WKHPVHOYHV  +HDOWKVDIHW\$VDQRXWEUHDNVSUHDGVWKURXJKMDLOVSULVRQVDQGFRPPXQLWLHVPHGLFDO SHUVRQQHOEHFRPHVLFNDQGGRQRWVKRZXSWRZRUN$EVHQWHHLVPPHDQVWKDWIDFLOLWLHV FDQEHFRPHGDQJHURXVO\XQGHUVWDIIHGZLWKKHDOWKFDUHSURYLGHUV7KLVLQFUHDVHVD QXPEHU RIULVNVDQGFDQGUDPDWLFDOO\UHGXFHWKHOHYHORIFDUHSURYLGHG $VKHDOWK V\VWHPVLQVLGH IDFLOLWLHVDUHWD[HGSHRSOHZLWKFKURQLFXQGHUO\LQJSK\VLFDODQGPHQWDO KHDOWKFRQGLWLRQV DQGVHULRXVPHGLFDOQHHGVPD\QRWEHDEOHWRUHFHLYHWKHFDUHWKH\ QHHGIRUWKHVH FRQGLWLRQV $VVXSSO\FKDLQVEHFRPHGLVUXSWHGGXULQJDJOREDO SDQGHPLFWKHDYDLODELOLW\ RIPHGLFLQHVDQGIRRGPD\EHOLPLWHG  6DIHW\DQGVHFXULW\$VDQRXWEUHDNVSUHDGVWKURXJKMDLOVSULVRQVDQG FRPPXQLWLHV FRUUHFWLRQDORIILFHUVDQGRWKHUVHFXULW\SHUVRQQHOEHFRPHVLFNDQG GRQRWVKRZXSWRZRUN$EVHQWHHLVPSRVHVVXEVWDQWLDOVDIHW\DQGVHFXULW\ULVNWR ERWKWKHSHRSOHLQVLGHWKHIDFLOLWLHVDQGWKHSXEOLF  7KHVHULVNVKDYHDOOEHHQERUQHRXWGXULQJSDVWHSLGHPLFVRILQIOXHQ]DLQMDLOVDQG SULVRQV)RUH[DPSOHLQWKH&'&UHSRUWHGDQRXWEUHDNRILQIOXHQ]DLQIDFLOLWLHV LQ0DLQHUHVXOWLQJLQWZRLQPDWHGHDWKV 6XEVHTXHQW&'&LQYHVWLJDWLRQRI LQPDWHV DQGVWDIIPHPEHUVDFURVVWKHIDFLOLWLHVGLVFRYHUHGLQVXIILFLHQWVXSSOLHV RILQIOXHQ]D YDFFLQHDQGDQWLYLUDOGUXJVIRUWUHDWPHQWRISHRSOHZKRZHUHLOODQG SURSK\OD[LVIRU SHRSOHZKRZHUHH[SRVHG 'XULQJWKH+1VWUDLQIOXRXWEUHDNLQ
 Influenza Outbreaks at Two Correctional Facilities — Maine, March 2011&HQWHUVIRU'LVHDVH &RQWURODQG3UHYHQWLRQ KWWSVZZZFGFJRYPPZUSUHYLHZPPZUKWPOPPDKWP

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 6 of 260
KLJKQXNPQREZHUQRDIVFWDKVHHV³VZ(LQYHHQIOIXD´FLOLMWDLLHOVVRDQQG³TSXULDVURDQQVWLHQ[HS´HFURLHQQWLFQHXGHGDGWRLVDSFUFRHSSRWUQWLHRZQDLWQHWOD\N HV UHQGHULQJWKHTXDUDQWLQH LQFRPSOHWH7KHVHVFHQDULRVRFFXUUHGLQWKH³EHVWFDVH´RI LQIOXHQ]DDYLUDOLQIHFWLRQIRU ZKLFKWKHUHZDVDQHIIHFWLYHDQGDYDLODEOHYDFFLQHDQG DQWLYLUDOPHGLFDWLRQVXQOLNH &29,'IRUZKLFKWKHUHLVFXUUHQWO\QHLWKHU
 ,,, 3URILOHRI&29,'DVDQ,QIHFWLRXV'LVHDVH
 7KHQRYHOFRURQDYLUXVRIILFLDOO\NQRZQDV6$56&R9FDXVHVDGLVHDVHNQRZQDV &29,' 7KHYLUXVLVWKRXJKWWRSDVVIURPSHUVRQWRSHUVRQSULPDULO\WKURXJK UHVSLUDWRU\GURSOHWVE\FRXJKLQJRUVQHH]LQJEXWPD\DOVRVXUYLYHRQLQDQLPDWH VXUIDFHV 3HRSOHVHHPWREHPRVWDEOHWRWUDQVPLWWKHYLUXVWRRWKHUVZKHQWKH\DUH VLFNHVWEXWLWLVSRVVLEOHWKDWSHRSOHFDQWUDQVPLWWKHYLUXVEHIRUHWKH\VWDUWWRVKRZ V\PSWRPVRUIRUZHHNVDIWHUWKHLUV\PSWRPVUHVROYH ,Q&KLQDZKHUH&29,' RULJLQDWHGWKHDYHUDJHLQIHFWHGSHUVRQSDVVHGWKHYLUXVRQWRRWKHUSHRSOH WUDQVPLVVLRQRFFXUUHGDWDGLVWDQFHRIIHHW 1RWRQO\LVWKHYLUXVYHU\HIILFLHQWDW EHLQJWUDQVPLWWHGWKURXJKGURSOHWVHYHU\RQHLVDWULVNRILQIHFWLRQEHFDXVHRXULPPXQH V\VWHPVKDYHQHYHUEHHQH[SRVHGWRQRUGHYHORSHGSURWHFWLYHUHVSRQVHVDJDLQVWWKLV YLUXV $YDFFLQHLVFXUUHQWO\LQGHYHORSPHQWEXWZLOOOLNHO\QRWEHDYDLODEOHIRUDWOHDVW DQRWKHU\HDUWRWKH JHQHUDOSXEOLF $QWLYLUDOPHGLFDWLRQVDUHFXUUHQWO\LQWHVWLQJEXWQRW \HW)'$DSSURYHG VRRQO\DYDLODEOHIRUXVHLQFOLQLFDOWULDOV 3HRSOHLQSULVRQDQGMDLO ZLOOOLNHO\KDYHHYHQOHVVDFFHVVWRWKHVHQRYHOKHDOWKVWUDWHJLHVDVWKH\EHFRPH DYDLODEOH  0RVWSHRSOHZKREHFRPHLQIHFWHGZLWK&29,'ZLOOGHYHORSDPLOGXSSHU UWRHVSLUDWRRUI\FLDQVIHHVFWLLQRFQOXEGXLWQHJPGHHUDJWLKQJG6DHWUDLRIUXRVPLOO&QHKVLVQDDQVGXJGJHHDVWWKVLVVHPULRRXVVWFLOROQPHPVVRRQFDFPXURVQLQJXS SHRSOHZLWKXQGHUO\LQJFKURQLFKHDOWKFRQGLWLRQVOLNHKHDUWGLVHDVHOXQJGLVHDVHOLYHU GLVHDVHDQGGLDEHWHVDQGROGHUDJH 'HDWKLQ&29,'LQIHFWLRQLVXVXDOO\GXHWR SQHXPRQLDDQGVHSVLV 7KHHPHUJHQFHRI&29,'GXULQJLQIOXHQ]DVHDVRQPHDQV WKDW SHRSOHDUHDOVRDWULVNIURPVHULRXVLOOQHVVDQGGHDWKGXHWRLQIOXHQ]DHVSHFLDOO\
 'DYLG05HXWWHUSwine Flu Widespread in Prisons and Jails, but Deaths are Few3ULVRQ /HJDO1HZV)HEKWWSVZZZSULVRQOHJDOQHZVRUJQHZVIHEVZLQHIOX ZLGHVSUHDGLQSULVRQVDQGMDLOVEXWGHDWKVDUHIHZ 7KLVZKROHVHFWLRQGUDZVIURP%URRNV-*OREDO(SLGHPLRORJ\DQG3UHYHQWLRQRI&29,' &29,'6\PSRVLXP&RQIHUHQFHRQ5HWURYLUXVHVDQG2SSRUWXQLVWLF,QIHFWLRQV&52, YLUWXDO0DUFKCoronavirus (COVID-19)&HQWHUVIRU'LVHDVH&RQWURO KWWSVZZZFGFJRYFRURQDYLUXVQFRYLQGH[KWPO%UHQW*LEVRQCOVID-19 (Coronavirus): What You Need to Know in Corrections1DWLRQDO&RPPLVVLRQRQ&RUUHFWLRQDO +HDOWK&DUH)HEUXDU\KWWSVZZZQFFKFRUJEORJFRYLGFRURQDYLUXVZKDW\RX QHHGWRNQRZLQFRUUHFWLRQV ϱCoronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Summary&HQWHUVIRU'LVHDVH&RQWURODQG 3UHYHQWLRQ0DUFKKWWSVZZZFGFJRYFRURQDYLUXVQFRYVXPPDU\KWPO
ϲClinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. 7KH/DQFHWSXEOLVKHGRQOLQH0DUFK KWWSVZZZWKHODQFHWFRPMRXUQDOVODQFHWDUWLFOH3,,6IXOOWH[W

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 7 of 260
ZKHQ WKH\KDYHQRWUHFHLYHGWKHLQIOXHQ]DYDFFLQHRUWKHSQHXPRQLDYDFFLQH  7KHFDUHRISHRSOHZKRDUHLQIHFWHGZLWK&29,'GHSHQGVRQKRZVHULRXVO\WKH\DUH LOO3HRSOHZLWKPLOGV\PSWRPVPD\QRWUHTXLUHKRVSLWDOL]DWLRQEXWPD\FRQWLQXHWREH FORVHO\PRQLWRUHGDWKRPH 3HRSOHZLWKPRGHUDWHV\PSWRPVPD\UHTXLUH KRVSLWDOL]DWLRQ IRUVXSSRUWLYHFDUHLQFOXGLQJLQWUDYHQRXVIOXLGVDQGVXSSOHPHQWDO R[\JHQ 3HRSOHZLWK VHYHUHV\PSWRPVPD\UHTXLUHYHQWLODWLRQDQGLQWUDYHQRXV DQWLELRWLFV3XEOLFKHDOWK RIILFLDOVDQWLFLSDWHWKDWKRVSLWDOVHWWLQJVZLOOOLNHO\EH RYHUZKHOPHGDQGEH\RQGFDSDFLW\ WRSURYLGHWKLVW\SHRILQWHQVLYHFDUHDV&29,' EHFRPHVPRUHZLGHVSUHDGLQ FRPPXQLWLHV  &29,'SUHYHQWLRQVWUDWHJLHVLQFOXGHFRQWDLQPHQWDQGPLWLJDWLRQ &RQWDLQPHQW UHTXLUHVLQWHQVLYHKDQGZDVKLQJSUDFWLFHVGHFRQWDPLQDWLRQDQGDJJUHVVLYHFOHDQLQJRI VXUIDFHVDQGLGHQWLI\LQJDQGLVRODWLQJSHRSOHZKRDUHLOORUZKRKDYHKDGFRQWDFWZLWK SHRSOHZKRDUHLOOLQFOXGLQJWKHXVHRISHUVRQDOSURWHFWLYHHTXLSPHQW -DLOVDQGSULVRQV DUHWRWDOO\XQGHUUHVRXUFHGWRPHHWWKHGHPDQGIRUDQ\RIWKHVHVWUDWHJLHV $V LQIHFWLRXV GLVHDVHVVSUHDGLQWKHFRPPXQLW\SXEOLFKHDOWKGHPDQGVPLWLJDWLRQ VWUDWHJLHVZKLFK LQYROYHVVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJDQGFORVLQJRWKHUFRPPXQDOVSDFHV VFKRROVZRUNSODFHVHWF WRSURWHFWWKRVHPRVWYXOQHUDEOHWRGLVHDVH -DLOVDQG SULVRQVDUHXQDEOHWRDGHTXDWHO\ SURYLGHVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJRUPHHWPLWLJDWLRQ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVDVGHVFULEHGDERYH  7KHWLPHWRDFWLVQRZ 'DWDIURPRWKHUVHWWLQJVGHPRQVWUDWHZKDWKDSSHQVZKHQMDLOV DQGSULVRQVDUHXQSUHSDUHGIRU&29,' 7RGDWHIHZ VWDWHRUIHGHUDOSULVRQ V\VWHPVKDYHDGHTXDWHRUDQ\SDQGHPLFSUHSDUHGQHVVSODQVLQSODFH6\VWHPVDUHMXVW EHJLQQLQJWRVFUHHQDQGLVRODWHSHRSOHRQHQWU\DQGSHUKDSVSODFHYLVLWRUUHVWULFWLRQV EXWWKLVLVZKROO\LQDGHTXDWHZKHQVWDIIDQGYHQGRUVFDQVWLOOFRPHWRZRUNVLFNDQG SRWHQWLDOO\WUDQVPLWWKHYLUXVWRRWKHUV  ,9 5LVNRI&29,'LQWKH'&'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV¶³'&'2&´ &RUUHFWLRQDO7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLW\DQG&HQWUDO'HWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\³'&MDLOV´  ,QPDNLQJP\DVVHVVPHQWRIWKHGDQJHURI &29,'LQWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELDMDLOV, KDYHUHYLHZHGWKHIROORZLQJUHSRUWVDQGGHFODUDWLRQV
L 5HSRUWVSXEOLVKHGIROORZLQJORFDOJRYHUQPHQWLQVSHFWLRQVRIWKH'&MDLOV  'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD&RUUHFWLRQV,QIRUPDWLRQ&RXQFLO³'& 'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV,QVSHFWLRQ5HSRUW´SXEOLVKHG0D\   2IILFHRIWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD$XGLWRU³3RRU&RQGLWLRQV3HUVLVWDW $JLQJ'&-DLO1HZ)DFLOLW\1HHGHGWR0LWLJDWH5LVNV´SXEOLVKHG )HEUXDU\

ϳCoronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease&HQWHUVIRU'LVHDVH&RQWURODQG3UHYHQWLRQ 0DUFK KWWSVZZZFGFJRYFRURQDYLUXVQFRYKFSFOLQLFDOJXLGDQFH PDQDJHPHQW SDWLHQWVKWPO

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 8 of 260
 LL 5HSRUWUHVXOWLQJIURPDQRQSURILWDJHQF\LQVSHFWLRQRIWKH'&MDLOV
 :DVKLQJWRQ/DZ\HUV¶&RPPLWWHHIRU&LYLO5LJKWVDQG8UEDQ$IIDLUV ³'&3ULVRQHUV&RQGLWLRQVRI&RQILQHPHQWLQWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD´ SXEOLVKHG-XQH 
LLL 'HFODUDWLRQVIURPWKRVHOLYLQJDQGZRUNLQJZLWKLQWKH'&MDLOV  &7)LQPDWHV.HRQ-DFNVRQDQG(ULF6PLWK  &')LQPDWHV'¶$QJHOR3KLOOLSVDQG(GZDUG%DQNV  3XEOLF'HIHQGHU6HUYLFHVWDIIZKRHQWHUHGWKHMDLOIDFLOLWLHVWRPHHW ZLWKFOLHQWVDQGZKRKDYHFRQGXFWHGSKRQHLQWHUYLHZVZLWKFOLHQWV UHJDUGLQJFRQGLWLRQVZLWKLQWKHMDLOV  'LYLVLRQ&KLHI-RQDWKDQ$QGHUVRQ  6XSHUYLVLQJ$WWRUQH\-RVHSK:RQJ  6XSHUYLVLQJ$WWRUQH\,HVKDDK0XUSK\  6WDII$WWRUQH\'DQLHO3RQG  6WDII$WWRUQH\5DFKHO&LFXUHO  6WDII$WWRUQH\5RQDOG5HVHWDULWV  6WDII$WWRUQH\.DY\D1DLQL  ,QYHVWLJDWLYH,QWHUQ(LOHHQ-RKQVRQ  ,QYHVWLJDWLYH,QWHUQ.DWKHULQH.XHQ]OH  ,QYHVWLJDWLYH,QWHUQ6DPXHO&\SKHUV  0DUFK)UDWHUQDO2UGHURI3ROLFH'HSDUWPHQWRI &RUUHFWLRQV/DERU&RPPLWWHH/HWWHUWR4XLQF\/%RRWK 
%DVHGRQP\UHYLHZRIWKHVHPDWHULDOVP\H[SHULHQFHZRUNLQJRQSXEOLFKHDOWKLQMDLOV DQGSULVRQVDQGP\UHYLHZRIWKHUHOHYDQWOLWHUDWXUHLWLVP\SURIHVVLRQDOMXGJPHQW WKDW WKHVHIDFLOLWLHVDUHGDQJHURXVO\XQGHUHTXLSSHGDQGLOOSUHSDUHGWRSUHYHQWDQG PDQDJHD &29,'RXWEUHDNZKLFKZRXOGUHVXOWLQVHYHUHKDUPWRGHWDLQHG LQGLYLGXDOVMDLODQG SULVRQVWDIIDQGWKHEURDGHUFRPPXQLW\,QDGGLWLRQWKHSUDFWLFHV DQGUHVRXUFHVRI&')DQG&7)ZLWKUHJDUGWRVDQLWDWLRQDQGRWKHUSROLFLHVDVUHIOHFWHG LQWKHGHFODUDWLRQVRI&')DQG&7)LQPDWHVZKRKDYHUHVLGHGLQWKHVHIDFLOLWLHVLQ 0DUFKDQGWKHGHFODUDWLRQVRIWKH3'6DWWRUQH\VZKRKDYHYLVLWHGWKHVHIDFLOLWLHVLQ 0DUFKOHDGPHWRFRQFOXGHLQP\SURIHVVLRQDOMXGJPHQWWKDWWKHLQPDWHVYLVLWRUV DQGHPSOR\HHVRIWKHVHIDFLOLWLHVDUHDWLPPLQHQWULVNRIFRQWUDFWLQJ&29,')XUWKHU EDVHGRQWKHVHVDPHGHFODUDWLRQVLWLVP\SURIHVVLRQDOMXGJPHQWWKDWQRZWKDWWKHUHLVDW OHDVWRQHSRVLWLYHFDVHRI&29,'ZLWKLQWKH&')DQG&7)IDFLOLWLHVWKHFKDQFHVDUH H[WUHPHO\KLJKWKDWPRVWRUDOORIWKHRWKHULQPDWHVRIYLVLWRUVWRDQGHPSOR\HHVDWWKDW IDFLOLW\ZLOOFRQWUDFWLWDVZHOO)LQDOO\LWLVP\SURIHVVLRQDOMXGJPHQWWKDWEHFDXVHRIWKH KLJKOLNHOLKRRGWKDWLQPDWHVYLVLWRUVDQGHPSOR\HHVRI&')DQG&7)ZLOOFRQWUDFW &29,'FRPELQHGZLWKWKHVWDWHRIOLPLWHGPHGLFDOFDUHIRULQPDWHVDWWKHVH IDFLOLWLHVDQ\LQPDWHRIWKHVHIDFLOLWLHVZKRFRQWUDFWV&29,'IDFHVDVHULRXVDQG VXEVWDQWLDOULVNRIGHDWKIURP&29,'7KHUHDVRQVIRUWKLVFRQFOXVLRQDUHGHWDLOHG DV IROORZV
  ,QWKHEHORZVHFWLRQVXPPDULHVRI&'&JXLGDQFHDQGJHQHUDOFOLQLFUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 9 of 260
 D*HQHUDO3UHYHQWLRQ3UDFWLFHV 
L &OHDQLQJDQG'LVLQIHFWLQJ3UDFWLFHV%HFDXVHWKH6$56&R9YLUXVWKDW FDXVHV&29,'GLVHDVHFDQVXUYLYHRQLQDQLPDWHREMHFWVKLJKWRXFKVXUIDFHV LQFOXGLQJGRRUNQREVOLJKWVZLWFKHVFRXQWHUWRSVVKRXOGEHUHJXODUO\GLVLQIHFWHG ZLWKEOHDFK7KH&'&UHFRPPHQGVFOHDQLQJDQGGLVLQIHFWLQJVHYHUDOWLPHVSHU GD\VXUIDFHVWKDWDUHQRWRUGLQDULO\FOHDQHGGDLO\LQFOXGLQJGRRUNQREVOLJKW VZLWFKHVFRXQWHUWRSVVLQNKDQGOHVUHFUHDWLRQHTXLSPHQWWHOHSKRQHVNLRVNV$W OHDVWVHYHUDOWLPHVSHUGD\VWDIIVKRXOGFOHDQDQGGLVLQIHFWVKDUHGHTXLSPHQW LQFOXGLQJUDGLRVVHUYLFHZHDSRQVNH\VDQGKDQGFXIIV
 Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, CDF and CTF facilities were described, in a mix of government reports, audits and declarations, as being unsanitary and unhygienic with crumbling physical infrastructure. These conditions will contribute to the rapid spread of COVID-19 within the facility, in the absence of adequate cleaning and disinfecting protocols. Declarations from people incarcerated at CDF and CTF facilities reflect that inmates are provided with rare bottles of Windex to clear their cells, which contains 4% isopropyl alcohol, as compared to the 70% alcohol-containing products or bleach needed to disinfect, per CDC recommendations. In fact, since Windex contains 28% ammonia, it could actually be harmful if mixed with bleach because the reaction generates chlorine gas that irritates the respiratory tract, eyes, and skin.
 LL +\JLHQH3UHYHQWLRQRI&29,'UHTXLUHVWKDWSHRSOHKDYHDFFHVVWRVRDS SULYDWHVLQNVDQGFOHDQZDWHUIRUKDQGZDVKLQJRUDOFRKROEDVHGKDQGVDQLWL]HUV  Failure to provide CDF and CTF inmates with a consistent and free supply of hygienic products (including soap and hand sanitizer) will increase the rate at which COVID-19 spreads around these facilities, because hand washing is one of the most effective ways to prevent spread of the virus. Yet declarations from people currently incarcerated in these facilities reflect no access to alcohol-based sanitizers and completely inadequate provision of no-cost soap.  LLL 3HUVRQDOSURWHFWLYHHTXLSPHQW33(&'&UHFRPPHQGVWKDW³DOOVWDIIDQG LQFDUFHUDWHGGHWDLQHGSHUVRQVZKRZLOOKDYHFRQWDFWZLWKLQIHFWLRXVPDWHULDOVLQ WKHLUZRUNSODFHPHQWVKDYHEHHQWUDLQHGFRUUHFWO\WRGRQGRIIDQGGLVSRVHRI 33(´,QWKLVFDVH33(LQFOXGHVJRZQVJORYHVIDFHPDVNVUHVSLUDWRUVDQGH\H VKLHOGVRUJRJJOHV1UHVSLUDWRUVUHTXLUHVSHFLDOILWWHVWLQJDQGSHRSOHZLWK IDFLDOKDLUQHHGVSHFLDODFFRPPRGDWLRQVEHFDXVHWKH\FDQQRWDFKLHYHDWLJKW HQRXJKVHDOZLWK1UHVSLUDWRUV,QPDWHVLQYROYHGLQFOHDQLQJODXQGU\DQGPHDO VHUYLFHDOVRQHHGWREHWUDLQHGLQKRZWRGRQDQGGRIISHUVRQDOSURWHFWLYH HTXLSPHQW
 DUHIROORZHGE\DGLVFXVVLRQLQitalicsRIKRZWKHVHJXLGHOLQHVDSSO\WRWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD 'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 10 of 260

The lack of personal protective equipment (“PPE”) for both D.C. DOC staff and inmates, as described in the declarations of inmates and attorneys, will result in increased risk of COVID-19 infection. Even if PPE is accessible for CDF and CTF staff, it does not appear from PDS staff declarations that staff have been using PPE. This is also likely to increase the spread of the virus, as even asymptomatic people can transmit the virus. Of particular concern is the lack of PPE for staff who interact with the many visitors that cycle in and out of the facilities.

Inmates assigned to cleaning duties are also not provided appropriate PPE,

resulting in high risk of contracting COVID-19. The DOC Labor Committee

Letter reflects that Correctional Officers who requested PPE to extract inmates

who are possible COVID-19 infected and bring them to isolation or quarantine

were removed from duty. This is completely unacceptable and will undoubtedly

result in COVID-19 infections in the facility and harm to inmates and staff.

Absent from the documents I reviewed is any mention of planning for shortages

for PPE or training staff on how to use PPE. This is critical because, without

training, staff risk exposing themselves and inmates to COVID-19 infection when

donning and doffing equipment.



E6FUHHQLQJ&29,'LVDYLUXVWKDWVSUHDGVHDVLO\SULPDULO\IURPSHUVRQWR

SHUVRQWKURXJKUHVSLUDWRU\GURSOHWV,WLVWKHUHIRUHLPSHUDWLYHWKDWSHRSOHHQWHULQJ

FORVHGFRQILQHPHQWVHWWLQJVOLNHSULVRQVDUHSURSHUO\VFUHHQHGWRHQVXUHWKDWWKH\GR

QRWEULQJWKHYLUXVLQWRWKHIDFLOLW\5HVHDUFKVXJJHVWVWKDWSHRSOHZKRDUHLOOZLWK

&29,'DQGH[SHULHQFLQJV\PSWRPVDUHPRVWOLNHO\WRWUDQVPLWWKHYLUXVWRRWKHUV

7KHYLUXVFDQEHWUDQVPLWWHGYHU\HIILFLHQWO\IURPSHUVRQWRSHUVRQZLWKLQIHHW

SXWWLQJVWDIIDQGLQPDWHVDWULVNRIEHFRPLQJLQIHFWHGXQOHVVSURSHULQIHFWLRQ

SUHYHQWLRQDQGFRQWUROVWUDWHJLHVDUHLPSOHPHQWHG





L 6FUHHQLQJ,QPDWHV&XUUHQW&'&JXLGDQFHVXJJHVWVVFUHHQLQJVKRXOGFRQVLVWRI

WZRTXHVWLRQV³7RGD\RULQWKHSDVWKRXUVKDYH\RXKDGDQ\RIWKH

IROORZLQJV\PSWRPVIHYHUIHOWIHYHULVKKDGFKLOOVFRXJKGLIILFXOW\EUHDWKLQJ

,QWKHSDVWGD\VKDYH\RXKDGFRQWDFWZLWKDSHUVRQNQRZQWREHLQIHFWHGZLWK

&29,'"´



There is no description in any of the documents I reviewed, that inmates are being

screened for COVID-19 on intake. After completing screening, people without

symptoms or temperature but who have been exposed to COVID-19, should be

quarantined for 14 days to monitor for signs and symptoms of infection.

Declarations from inmates suggest quarantining after exposure is occurring but

for only 1 week. This premature release from quarantine will likely result in

people with COVID-19 infection entering the general population in the facility

and infecting others. Given that the average person with COVID-19 infection

transmits the disease to 2-3 others (in the best of circumstances in the community

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 11 of 260
where social distancing is possible), this will likely result in the disease spreading through the facility like wildfire.  LL 6FUHHQLQJ6WDII&'&UHFRPPHQGVYHUEDOO\VFUHHQLQJDOOVWDIIGDLO\RQHQWU\LQWR WKHIDFLOLW\IRU&29,'V\PSWRPVDQGFORVHFRQWDFWZLWKFDVHVDQG WHPSHUDWXUHFKHFNV
It is unclear from the documents I reviewed whether this is occurring, if at all. Per the DOC Labor Committee Letter, there has been no attempt to reassign staff who are at high-risk for COVID-19 themselves, putting staff at high risk of contracting the disease and transmitting to other staff and inmates residing inside the facility.
LLL 6FUHHQLQJ9LVLWRUV9HQGRUV&RQWUDFWRUV$FFRUGLQJWRWKH&'&YLVLWRUVDQG YROXQWHHUVVKRXOGDOVRFRPSOHWHYHUEDOVFUHHQLQJSURFHGXUHVDQGWHPSHUDWXUH FKHFNVRQHQWU\LQWRWKHIDFLOLW\
 The screening procedures described in the PDS staff declarations are insufficient to mitigate the risk that the virus will enter. Of particular concern is the lack of PPE for staff who interact with the many visitors that cycle in and out of the facilities delay; the inadequacy of the visitor screening program to identify asymptomatic carriers and the use of faulty equipment to recognize even symptomatic visitors will all but guarantee that someone infected with COVID-19 will enter the facilities. While some attempts have been clearly made to introduce a screening questionnaire, the questions used are outdated because they still focus on travel screening which has become a moot point in light of widespread community outbreaks, and thus do not align with CDC recommendations. The vast deficits in the screening process is especially important in DC jails, where medical care providers and contractors. If a medical care provider is infected with COVID-19, there is still the high likelihood that they will be able to enter the facility and can infect inmates with whom they have direct patient care contact.
 F6RFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ:KHQFRQWDLQPHQWVWUDWHJLHVEHFRPHRYHUZKHOPHGPLWLJDWLRQ VWUDWHJLHVUHTXLUHSHRSOHWRSUDFWLFHVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ&'&UHFRPPHQGVWKHIROORZLQJ VWUDWHJLHV0HDOVFDQEHVWDJJHUHGDQGVHDWLQJEHUHDUUDQJHGLQGLQLQJKDOOVDQG FRPPRQDUHDVOLNHZDLWLQJDUHDVWRHQDEOHVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJVXFKDVUHPRYLQJHYHU\ RWKHUVHDW$OWHUQDWLYHO\PHDOVFRXOGEHSURYLGHGLQKRXVLQJXQLWV0LWLJDWLRQ VWUDWHJLHVPXVWEHLQSODFHIRURWKHUKLJKO\FRQJUHJDWHVHWWLQJVVXFKDVUHFUHDWLRQ JURXSDFWLYLWLHVHGXFDWLRQDOFODVVHVYRFDWLRQDOWUDLQLQJDQGUHOLJLRXVVHUYLFHV  The lack of ability to practice social distancing in the CDF and CTF is also concerning and will the increase rate of spread of the virus. Continuing programming in groups of 30, as one inmate described in his declaration, will inevitably result in increased spread of the virus. The description by another inmate about inmates dipping their hands and cups into a communal cooler of juice also suggests that D.C. DOC is not enforcing even basic social distancing protocols. This is compounded by congregate housing units, in

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 12 of 260
which 40-50 men are sleeping in a single unit, many of whom have respiratory symptoms that are consistent with COVID-19 infection. CDF and CTF facilities are described, in a mix of government reports, audits and declarations as poorly ventilated with overwhelmingly communal shared spaces that are poorly ventilated. This scenario makes social distancing practices impossible, contributing to the rapid spread of COVID-19 once it enters a facility. The ventilation conditions described in the District of Columbia’s Auditor’s report is also concerning and will increase the rate of spread of the virus. The Department of Corrections’ response to the Auditor’s report includes D.C. DOC’s own conclusion that the “current HVAC system has significant design problems that inhibit proper airflow.” Because the virus can spread in an airborne state, ventilation is an important mitigator for the spread of the virus.  G0DQDJHPHQWRIWKHGLVHDVHLQWKHIDFLOLW\3HRSOHZKRKDYHEHHQGLDJQRVHGZLWK &29,'HLWKHUEHFDXVHWKH\H[KLELWFRQVLVWHQWV\PSWRPVRUEHFDXVHWKH\REWDLQHGD SRVLWLYHWHVWQHHGWREHPHGLFDOO\LVRODWHGWRSUHYHQWWKHYLUXVIURPEHLQJWUDQVPLWWHGWR RWKHUSHRSOHLQWKHIDFLOLW\SRSXODWLRQ,PSRUWDQWO\PHGLFDOLVRODWLRQGLIIHUVIURP GLVFLSOLQDU\VHJUHJDWLRQ,WVKRXOGEHXVHGDVDSXEOLFKHDOWKPHDVXUHWKDWDOVRDWWHQGVWR WKHPHGLFDOQHHGVRIWKHLQGLYLGXDOQRWXVHGWRGHSULYHWKHPRIDOOIUHHGRPRI PRYHPHQW,GHDOO\SHRSOHZLWK&29,'ZLOOEHPHGLFDOO\LVRODWHGQHDUPHGLFDOXQLWV ZKHUHWKH\FDQUHFHLYHFOLQLFDOFDUHDQGDWWHQWLRQ,QSHRSOHZKRDUHROGHU!DQGZLWK XQGHUO\LQJPHGLFDOFRQGLWLRQVWKHGLVHDVHFDQSURJUHVVH[WUHPHO\UDSLGO\VRPHGLFDO DWWHQWLRQLVFULWLFDO
The delays in access to care that already exist in normal circumstances will only become worse during an outbreak, making it especially difficult for the facilities to contain any infections and to treat those who are infected. The descriptions by inmates that there are day-long delays to see medical staff is highly concerning and will increase the risk of infection-related morbidity and mortality. The District of Columbia’s Auditor’s observation that the Department of Health does not conduct any inspections of the CTF is troubling, as regular compliance checks are essential to determining whether medical care is adequate.
L 6XIILFLHQF\RILVRODWLRQVSDFHV3ULVRQVDUHEXLOWWRFRQWDLQSHRSOHQRWGLVHDVHV *LYHQKRZ&29,'RXWEUHDNVKDYHRYHUZKHOPHGHYHQWKHPRVWVRSKLVWLFDWHG KRVSLWDOV\VWHPVQDWLRQZLGHLWLVXQOLNHO\WKDWWKH'&'2&ZLOOEHDGHTXDWHO\ HTXLSSHGRUVXSSRUWHGRQFHVRPHRQHLQWKHIDFLOLW\EHFRPHVLOOZLWK&29,' (YHQPLOGGLVHDVHUHTXLUHVFORVHPRQLWRULQJDQGWKDWFDUHJLYHUVDQGRUKHDOWKFDUH SHUVRQQHOKDYHSHUVRQDOSURWHFWLYHHTXLSPHQW33(LQFOXGLQJJORYHVJRZQV H\HVKLHOGVDQGPDVNVWKDWDUHQRWXVXDOO\DYDLODEOHLQWKH'&'2&RUDUH SRWHQWLDOO\LQOLPLWHGVXSSO\$LUERUQHLVRODWLRQURRPVDUHVSHFLDOO\HTXLSSHGZLWK QHJDWLYHSUHVVXUHWRDOORZDLUIORZIURPRXWVLGHWKHURRPWRLQVLGH7KHVH QHJDWLYHSUHVVXUHURRPVVKRXOGEHXVHGIRUSHRSOHZLWKGLDJQRVHGRUVXVSHFWHG &29,'ZKRKDYHPRUHVHYHUHGLVHDVHRUDUHDWKLJKULVNRIDHURVROL]LQJ GURSOHWVHJWKH\DUHFRXJKLQJIUHTXHQWO\


Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 13 of 260
$&29,'RXWEUHDNSRVHVSDUWLFXODUULVNWRSHRSOHZLWKXQGHUO\LQJFKURQLF KHDOWKFRQGLWLRQVLQFOXGLQJKHDUWGLVHDVHOXQJGLVHDVHOLYHUGLVHDVHSUHJQDQF\ GLDEHWHVDQGVXSSUHVVHGLPPXQHV\VWHPV7KH\KDYHKLJKHUULVNRIEHFRPLQJ LQIHFWHGZLWK&29,'LIH[SRVHGDQGKLJKHUULVNRIFRPSOLFDWLRQVDQGGHDWKLI LQIHFWHG3HRSOHDOVRQHHGFRQWLQXRXVDFFHVVWRWUHDWPHQWIRUWKHLURWKHU XQGHUO\LQJKHDOWKFRQGLWLRQVZKLFKDUHDWULVNGXULQJD&29,'SDQGHPLFLQ WKHFRQWH[WRIKHDOWKFDUHXQGHUVWDIILQJDQGUHGXFHGDFFHVVWRPHGLFDWLRQVLI VXSSO\FKDLQVDUHLQWHUUXSWHG
The 2019 D.C. Auditor report suggests there is a single medical isolation space in CTF with negative pressure capacity, located in the Medical 82 unit. The same report noted that, at the time of the audit, the remainder of the 40 beds were nearly entirely filled (at 73% capacity), which would leave few beds available for COVID-19 patients. To say this is unacceptable is an understatement. Given that, as of March 27, 2020 there are around 1600 individuals in D.C. DOC custody, that means approximately 1600 individuals would rely on that single isolation room if they became infected with COVID-19. Clearly demand would outpace need. Individuals who could not be isolated in single spaces could be isolated in cohorts, but only if testing were widely available in the facility, which does not appear to be the case. These issues will culminate in people with COVID-19 infection: 1) remaining in communal settings to easily transmit to everyone in their housing unit or 2) requiring transfer to area hospitals, which will likely also be limited in the context of a community-wide outbreak. Limited bed space may also mean that inmates and staff will be deterred from reporting their symptoms, potentially delaying medical attention and resulting in preventable complications and possibly death.  LL 0HGLFDOFDUHIRURWKHUKHDOWKFRQGLWLRQV)DLOXUHWRSURYLGHLQGLYLGXDOVZLWK FRQWLQXDWLRQRIWKHWUHDWPHQWWKH\ZHUHUHFHLYLQJLQWKHFRPPXQLW\RUHYHQMXVW LQWHUUXSWLRQRIWUHDWPHQWIRUFKURQLFXQGHUO\LQJKHDOWKFRQGLWLRQVZLOOUHVXOWLQ LQFUHDVHGULVNRIPRUELGLW\DQGPRUWDOLW\UHODWHGWRWKHVHFKURQLFFRQGLWLRQV )DLOXUHWRSURYLGHLQGLYLGXDOVDGHTXDWHPHGLFDOFDUHIRUWKHLUXQGHUO\LQJFKURQLF KHDOWKFRQGLWLRQVUHVXOWVLQLQFUHDVHGULVNRI&29,'LQIHFWLRQDQGLQFUHDVHG ULVNRILQIHFWLRQUHODWHGPRUELGLW\DQGPRUWDOLW\LIWKH\GREHFRPHLQIHFWHG 3HRSOHZLWKXQGHUO\LQJFKURQLFPHQWDOKHDOWKFRQGLWLRQVQHHGDGHTXDWHDFFHVVWR WUHDWPHQWIRUWKHVHFRQGLWLRQVWKURXJKRXWWKHLUSHULRGRIGHWHQWLRQ)DLOXUHWR SURYLGHDGHTXDWHPHQWDOKHDOWKFDUHDVPD\KDSSHQZKHQKHDOWKV\VWHPVLQMDLOV DQGSULVRQVDUHWD[HGE\&29,'RXWEUHDNVPD\UHVXOWLQSRRUKHDOWK RXWFRPHV0RUHRYHUPHQWDOKHDOWKFRQGLWLRQVPD\EHH[DFHUEDWHGE\WKHVWUHVV RILQFDUFHUDWLRQGXULQJWKH&29,'SDQGHPLFLQFOXGLQJLVRODWLRQDQGODFNRI YLVLWDWLRQ)RULQGLYLGXDOVLQWKHVHIDFLOLWLHVWKHH[SHULHQFHRIDQHSLGHPLFDQGWKH ODFNRIFDUHZKLOHHIIHFWLYHO\WUDSSHGFDQLWVHOIEHWUDXPDWL]LQJFRPSRXQGLQJWKH WUDXPDRILQFDUFHUDWLRQ  The commonplace neglect of, and delay in providing treatment to, individuals with acute pain and serious health needs under ordinary circumstances is also

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 14 of 260
strongly indicative that the facilities will be ill-equipped to identify, monitor, and
treat a COVID-19 epidemic. The failure of these facilities to adequately manage
single individuals in need of emergency care is a strong sign that they will be
seriously ill-equipped and under- prepared when a number of people will need
urgent care simultaneously, as would occur during a COVID-19 epidemic. The
statement by two inmates that it can take “days” to receive medical attention is
strong evidence that D.C. DOC is seriously ill-equipped and under-prepared, as
the COVID-19 outbreak will require D.C. DOC to provide medical attention to a
large number of people at once. 
7KHDERYHH[DPSOHVLOOXVWUDWHWKDWWKH'&'2&UHPDLQVXQSUHSDUHGWRDGGUHVVWKH FXUUHQW&29,'SDQGHPLF$VWKH&'&DFNQRZOHGJHVHYHQDSULVRQRSHUDWLQJ SUHFLVHO\XQGHULWVJXLGHOLQHVZRXOGEHDIDUPRUHGDQJHURXVHQYLURQPHQWWKDQWKH FRPPXQLW\JLYHQWKHPD\RU¶VGLUHFWLYHWRUHPDLQDWKRPHDQGEXVLQHVVDQGVFKRRO FORVXUHVLQSODFH 
'&'2&¶VLQDELOLW\WRDGHTXDWHO\FRQWDLQDQGWUHDW&29,'LVHVSHFLDOO\ FRQFHUQLQJIRUKLJKHUULVNLQGLYLGXDOVVXFKDVROGHUDGXOWVDQGSHRSOHZLWKFKURQLF LOOQHVVHVVXFKDVGLDEHWHVOLYHUGLVHDVHSUHJQDQF\KHDUWGLVHDVHDQGOXQJGLVHDVH 3HRSOHZLWKWKHVHSDUWLFXODUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDUHPRVWVXVFHSWLEOHWREHFRPLQJVHULRXVO\ LOORUHYHQG\LQJVKRXOGWKH\EHFRPHLQIHFWHGZLWK&29,' 
7KHUHLVWUXHXUJHQF\WRDFWRQWKHVHIDFWVQRZ'DWDIURPWKH86GXULQJRWKHULQIHFWLRXV GLVHDVHRXWEUHDNVHJLQIOXHQ]DDQGGDWDIURPRWKHUFRXQWULHVGXULQJ&29,'VKRZ WKDWZKHQSULVRQV\VWHPVDUHXQSUHSDUHGIRUSDQGHPLFVSHRSOHLQSULVRQH[SHULHQFH PXFKKLJKHUUDWHVRIPRUELGLW\DQGPRUWDOLW\WKDQHYHQDIIHFWHGFRPPXQLWLHV6XFK FULVHVZLWKLQSULVRQVHQGDQJHUFRPPXQLWLHVDVDZKROHE\LQFUHDVLQJWKHRYHUDOOQXPEHU RIFDVHVDQGLQFUHDVLQJSUHVVXUHRQKRVSLWDOV7KHUHLVQRFXUUHQWDSSURYHGYDFFLQHRU DQWLYLUDOPHGLFDWLRQWUHDWPHQWIRU&29,'VRSXEOLFKHDOWKSUHSDUHGQHVVLVWKHRQO\ WRROZHKDYH 
,QDGHTXDWHVFUHHQLQJDQGWHVWLQJSURFHGXUHVLQIDFLOLWLHVLQFOXGLQJIDLOLQJWRWHVW LQPDWHVZKRKDYHGHPRQVWUDWHGV\PSWRPVRI&29,'LQFUHDVHWKHZLGHVSUHDG &29,'WUDQVPLVVLRQ 
9 &RQFOXVLRQDQG5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV 
7KHGHFODUDWLRQVSURYLGHGE\SHRSOHFXUUHQWO\LQFDUFHUDWHGLQ&')DQG&7)DUH DODUPLQJDQGPDNHFOHDUWKDWFRQGLWLRQVLQWKH'&MDLOVGXULQJWKLVSDQGHPLFDUH GDQJHURXV,WLVP\SURIHVVLRQDOMXGJPHQWWKDWLQGLYLGXDOVSODFHGLQWKHVHMDLOVDUHDWD VLJQLILFDQWO\KLJKHUULVNRILQIHFWLRQZLWK&29,'DVFRPSDUHGWRWKHSRSXODWLRQLQ WKHFRPPXQLW\DQGWKDWWKH\DUHDWDVLJQLILFDQWO\KLJKHUULVNRIKDUPLIWKH\GREHFRPH LQIHFWHG7KHVHVLJQLILFDQWO\KLJKHUULVNVLQFOXGHDQHOHYDWHGULVNRIVHULRXVLOOQHVV SQHXPRQLDDQGVHSVLVDQGGHDWK'&MDLOVDUHLOOHTXLSSHGWRSUHYHQW&29,'IURP HQWHULQJLWVIDFLOLWLHVDQGZRHIXOO\XQSUHSDUHGWRSUHYHQWLWVVSUHDGZLWKLQWKHIDFLOLW\ 

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 15 of 260
5HGXFLQJWKHVL]HRIWKHSRSXODWLRQLQMDLOVDQGSULVRQVLVFUXFLDOO\LPSRUWDQWWR UHGXFLQJWKHOHYHORIULVNERWKIRUWKRVHZLWKLQWKRVHIDFLOLWLHVDQGIRUWKHFRPPXQLW\ DW ODUJH 
$VVXFKIURPDSXEOLFKHDOWKSHUVSHFWLYHLWLVP\VWURQJRSLQLRQWKDWLQGLYLGXDOVZKR FDQVDIHO\DQGDSSURSULDWHO\UHPDLQLQWKHFRPPXQLW\QRWEHSODFHGLQ'&MDLOVDWWKLV WLPH,DPDOVRVWURQJO\RIWKHRSLQLRQWKDWLQGLYLGXDOVZKRDUHDOUHDG\LQ WKRVH IDFLOLWLHVVKRXOGEHHYDOXDWHGIRUUHOHDVH 
7KLVLVHVSHFLDOO\LPSRUWDQWIRULQGLYLGXDOVZLWKSUHH[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQVHJKHDUW GLVHDVH FKURQLFOXQJGLVHDVHFKURQLFOLYHUGLVHDVHVXSSUHVVHGLPPXQHV\VWHP GLDEHWHVRU ZKRDUHRYHUWKHDJHRI1RQHWKHOHVVLWUHPDLQVWKHFDVHJLYHQWKH FRQGLWLRQVLQWKH'&MDLOVWKDWHYHU\RQHLQWKH&')DQG&7)LVULJKWQRZDWVHULRXV ULVNRIFRQWUDFWLQJ&29,'DQGLIWKDWRFFXUVRIG\LQJIURPLW 
,WLVP\SURIHVVLRQDORSLQLRQWKDWWKHVHVWHSVDUHERWKQHFHVVDU\DQGXUJHQW7KH KRUL]RQ RIULVNIRUUDSLGDQGVHYHUH&29,'VSUHDGLQWKHVHIDFLOLWLHVLVDPDWWHURI KRXUVQRWGD\V2QFHDFDVHRI&29,'LVLGHQWLILHGLQDIDFLOLW\LWLVRQO\DPDWWHU RIWLPHXQWLOWKHUHLVDZLGHVSUHDG RXWEUHDN,QWKHSDVWVHYHUDOGD\VILUVWRQHWKHQ WZRDQGQRZIRXULQPDWHVLQ'&'2&FXVWRG\KDYHWHVWHGSRVLWLYHIRU&29,' ZLWKPDQ\LQPDWHVUHSRUWHGO\LQTXDUDQWLQH0RUHFDVHVDUHVXUHWRIROORZEHFDXVHRI XQGHUUHVRXUFHGXQGHUVWDIIHGRUPLQLPDOO\LPSOHPHQWHGLQIHFWLRQSUHYHQWLRQDQG FRQWUROPHDVXUHV
 ,GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\WKDWWKHIRUHJRLQJLVWUXHDQGFRUUHFW   BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 'U-DLPLH0H\HU  0DUFK :LOWRQ&RQQHFWLFXW

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 16 of 260
(;+,%,7$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 17 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

CURRICULUM VITAE

ĂƚĞŽĨZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ͗ EĂŵĞ͗ ^ĐŚŽŽů͗

EŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬ͕ϮϬϭϵ :ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W zĂůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ

Education:
͕ĂƌƚŵŽƵƚŚŽůůĞŐĞŶƚŚƌŽƉŽůŽŐǇϮϬϬϬ D͕hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇŽĨŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϬϱ D^͕zĂůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚŝŽƐƚĂƚŝƐƚŝĐƐĂŶĚƉŝĚĞŵŝŽůŽŐǇϮϬϭϰ

Career/Academic Appointments:
ϮϬϬϱͲϮϬϬϴ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶĐǇ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕EzWƌĞƐďǇƚĞƌŝĂŶ,ŽƐƉŝƚĂůĂƚŽůƵŵďŝĂ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬ͕Ez ϮϬϬϴͲϮϬϭϭ &ĞůůŽǁƐŚŝƉ͕/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ͕zĂůĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕EĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ͕d ϮϬϬϴͲϮϬϭϮ ůŝŶŝĐĂů&ĞůůŽǁ͕/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ͕zĂůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕EĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ͕d ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϭϮ &ĞůůŽǁƐŚŝƉ͕/ŶƚĞƌĚŝƐĐŝƉůŝŶĂƌǇ,/sWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ͕ĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌ/ŶƚĞƌĚŝƐĐŝƉůŝŶĂƌǇZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽŶ
/^͕EĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ͕d ϮϬϭϮͲϮϬϭϰ /ŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŽƌ͕/^͕zĂůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕EĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ͕d ϮϬϭϰͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ƐƐŝƐƚĂŶƚWƌŽĨĞƐƐŽƌ͕/^͕zĂůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕EĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ͕d ϮϬϭϱͲϮϬϭϴ ƐƐŝƐƚĂŶƚůŝŶŝĐĂůWƌŽĨĞƐƐŽƌ͕EƵƌƐŝŶŐ͕zĂůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕EĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ͕d

Board Certification:
ŽĨ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕ϬϴͲϮϬϬϴ͕ϬϭͲϮϬϭϵ ŽĨ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ͕ϭϬͲϮϬϭϬ ŽĨWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝǀĞDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕ĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕ϬϭͲϮϬϭϴ

Professional Honors & Recognition:

International/National/Regional

ϮϬϭϴ

E/,ĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌ^ĐŝĞŶƚŝĨŝĐZĞǀŝĞǁ͕^ĞůĞĐƚĞĚĂƐĂƌůǇĂƌĞĞƌZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ

ϮϬϭϳ

ŽƌŝƐƵŬĞŚĂƌŝƚĂďůĞ&ŽƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ŽƌŝƐƵŬĞŚĂƌŝƚĂďůĞ&ŽƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶ^ĐŚŽůĂƌ

ϮϬϭϲ

ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŽůůĞŐĞŽĨWŚǇƐŝĐŝĂŶƐ͕&ĞůůŽǁ

ϮϬϭϲ

E/,,ĞĂůƚŚŝƐƉĂƌŝƚŝĞƐ͕>ŽĂŶZĞƉĂǇŵĞŶƚǁĂƌĚŽŵƉĞƚŝƚŝǀĞZĞŶĞǁĂů

ϮϬϭϲ

D͕ĂƌůǇĂƌĞĞƌtŽŵĞŶ&ĂĐƵůƚǇWƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ^ĞŵŝŶĂƌ

ϮϬϭϰ

E/,,ĞĂůƚŚŝƐƉĂƌŝƚŝĞƐ͕>ŽĂŶZĞƉĂǇŵĞŶƚWƌŽŐƌĂŵǁĂƌĚ

ϮϬϭϰ

E/͕tŽŵĞŶΘ^Ğǆͬ'ĞŶĚĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐ:ƵŶŝŽƌ/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌdƌĂǀĞůǁĂƌĚ

ϮϬϭϰ

/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůtŽŵĞŶΖƐͬŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚΘ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕dƌĂǀĞůǁĂƌĚ

ϮϬϭϰ

WĂƚƚĞƌƐŽŶdƌƵƐƚ͕ǁĂƌĚƐWƌŽŐƌĂŵŝŶůŝŶŝĐĂůZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ

ϮϬϭϯ

ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ͕dŚŽƌŶƚŽŶǁĂƌĚĨŽƌůŝŶŝĐĂůZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ

ϮϬϭϭ

ƌŝƐƚŽůDǇĞƌƐͲ^ƋƵŝďď͕sŝƌŽůŽŐǇ&ĞůůŽǁƐǁĂƌĚ

ϭ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 18 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

ϮϬϬϲ ϮϬϬϱ ϮϬϬϱ ϮϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ

EzŽůƵŵďŝĂWƌĞƐďǇƚĞƌŝĂŶ͕:ŽŚŶE͘>ŽĞď/ŶƚĞƌŶǁĂƌĚ American Medical Women’s Association, Medical Student Citation ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ^ƚĂƚĞDĞĚŝĐĂů^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ͕DĞĚŝĐĂů^ƚƵĚĞŶƚǁĂƌĚ ĂƌƚŵŽƵƚŚŽůůĞŐĞ͕,ĂŶŶĂŚƌŽĂƐĚĂůĞ^ĞŶŝŽƌǁĂƌĚ ĂƌƚŵŽƵƚŚŽůůĞŐĞ͕WĂůĂĞŽƉŝƚƵƐ^ĞŶŝŽƌ>ĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ/ŶĚƵĐƚĞĞ

Yale University

ϮϬϭϰ

Women’s Faculty Forum, Public Voices Thought Leadership Program Fellow

Grants/Clinical Trials History:

Current Grants ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗
W͘/͗͘ ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗ dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

ĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌ/ŶƚĞƌĚŝƐĐŝƉůŝŶĂƌǇZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽŶ/^;/ZͿ ϮϬϭϵͲϮϬWŝůŽƚWƌŽũĞĐƚǁĂƌĚƐ Optimizing PrEP’s Potential in NonͲůŝŶŝĐĂů^ĞƚƚŝŶŐƐ͗ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂWƌWĞĐŝƐŝŽŶŝĚĨŽƌtŽŵĞŶ^ĞĞŬŝŶŐŽŵĞƐƚŝĐsŝŽůĞŶĐĞ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ dŝĂƌĂtŝůůŝĞ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ Ϯй ΨϮϵ͕ϵϵϯ͘ϬϬ
ΨϮϵ͕ϵϵϯ͘ϬϬ ϳͬϭϭͬϮϬϭϵͲϳͬϭϬͬϮϬϮϬ

ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗
ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗ dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

^D,^ ,ϳϵd/ϬϴϬϱϲϭ ,E'͗ŽŵƉƌĞŚĞŶƐŝǀĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĂŶĚĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚEĞƚǁŽƌŬĨŽƌ 'ƌĞĂƚĞƌEĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ ϮϬй Ψϯϴϵ͕Ϭϱϰ͘ϬϬ
Ψϭ͕ϵϯϯ͕ϯϲϴ͘ϬϬ ϭϭͬϯϬͬϮϬϭϴͲϭϭͬϮϵͬϮϬϮϯ

ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗
ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗ dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ

'ŝůĞĂĚ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͘ /ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ^ƉŽŶƐŽƌĞĚǁĂƌĚ͕KͲh^ͲϮϳϲͲϭϯϲ ĞůŝǀĞƌŝŶŐ,/sWƌĞͲǆƉŽƐƵƌĞWƌŽƉŚǇůĂǆŝƐƚŽEĞƚǁŽƌŬƐŽĨ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞͲ/ŶǀŽůǀĞĚ tŽŵĞŶ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ ϴй Ψϴϭ͕ϭϱϭ͘ϬϬ

Ϯ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 19 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

ΨϯϬϲ͕ϭϵϵ͘ϬϬ ϲͬϭϵͬϮϬϭϴͲϭͬϯϭͬϮϬϮϬ

ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗ ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗ dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

E/ ZϮϭϬϰϮϳϬϮ WƌŝƐŽŶƐ͕ƌƵŐ/ŶũĞĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƚŚĞ,/sZŝƐŬŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ ϮϮй ΨϭϮϵ͕ϲϳϯ͘ϬϬ
Ψϯϱϴ͕Ϯϳϲ͘ϬϬ ϴͬϭͬϮϬϭϳͲϳͬϯϭͬϮϬϮϬ

ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗
ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗ dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

ŽƌŝƐƵŬĞŚĂƌŝƚĂďůĞ&ŽƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶ ůŝŶŝĐĂů^ĐŝĞŶƚŝƐƚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁĂƌĚ ĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐĂŶĚdĞƐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞĨĨĞĐƚŽĨĂWĂƚŝĞŶƚͲĞŶƚĞƌĞĚ,/sWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ ĞĐŝƐŝŽŶŝĚŽŶWƌWƵƉƚĂŬĞĨŽƌtŽŵĞŶǁŝƚŚ^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞhƐĞŝŶdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ ^ĞƚƚŝŶŐƐ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ Ϯϳй Ψϭϰϵ͕ϵϱϵ͘ϬϬ
Ψϰϵϯ͕ϵϲϱ͘ϬϬ ϳͬϭͬϮϬϭϳͲϲͬϯϬͬϮϬϮϬ

Past Grants ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗
ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗ dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

E/ <ϮϯϬϯϯϴϱϴ ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŶŐĂŶĚ/ŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐ,/sKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐŝŶŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇͲďĂƐĞĚtŽŵĞŶǁŚŽ /ŶƚĞƌĨĂĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ^ǇƐƚĞŵ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ ϳϱй Ψϭϰϵ͕ϱϬϵ͘ϬϬ
ΨϴϮϭ͕ϭϰϳ͘ϬϬ ϳͬϭͬϮϬϭϮͲϭϭͬϯϬͬϮϬϭϳ

ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗
ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗

ZŽďĞƌƚ>ĞĞƚΘůĂƌĂ'ƵƚŚƌŝĞWĂƚƚĞƌƐŽŶdƌƵƐƚ ZϭϮϮϮϱ͕ǁĂƌĚŝŶůŝŶŝĐĂůZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ ŝƐĞŶƚĂŶŐůŝŶŐƚŚĞĨĨĞĐƚŽĨ'ĞŶĚĞƌŽŶ,/sdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ KƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ ϭϬй Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ

ϯ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 20 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ

ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ

WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

ϭͬϯϭͬϮϬϭϰͲϭϬͬϯϭͬϮϬϭϱ

ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗
ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗ dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

ƌŝƐƚŽůͲDǇĞƌƐ^ƋƵŝďď ,/ssŝƌŽůŽŐǇ&ĞůůŽǁƐŚŝƉǁĂƌĚ ĨĨĞĐƚŽĨŶĞǁĞƌĂŶƚŝƌĞƚƌŽǀŝƌĂůƌĞŐŝŵĞŶƐŽŶ,/sďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐŝŶ,/sͲ ŝŶĨĞĐƚĞĚƉƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐ͗ĂϭϯǇĞĂƌƌĞƚƌŽƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ ϭϬй Ψϯϰ͕ϯϵϬ͘ϬϬ
Ψϯϰ͕ϯϵϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϮͬϭͬϮϬϭϭͲϭϭͬϯϬͬϮϬϭϮ

Pending Grants ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗
W͘/͗͘ ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗ dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

E/D, ZϬϭD,ϭϮϭϵϵϭ /ĚĞŶƚŝĨǇŝŶŐDŽĚŝĨŝĂďůĞZŝƐŬĂŶĚWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝǀĞWƌŽĐĞƐƐĞƐĂƚƚŚĞĂǇͲ>ĞǀĞůƚŚĂƚ WƌĞĚŝĐƚ,/sĂƌĞKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐĂŵŽŶŐtŽŵĞŶǆƉŽƐĞĚƚŽWĂƌƚŶĞƌsŝŽůĞŶĐĞ ^ƵůůŝǀĂŶ͕dĂŵŝ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ ϯϬй Ψϰϵϵ͕ϳϱϱ͘ϬϬ
Ψϰ͕ϭϰϴ͕ϴϮϯ͘ϬϬ ϭͬϭͬϮϬϮϬͲϭϮͬϯϭͬϮϬϮϰ

Invited Speaking Engagements, Presentations, Symposia & Workshops Not Affiliated With
Yale:
International/National ϮϬϭϵ͗ DKƵƚĨŝƚƚĞƌƐ͕tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ͕͘Η'ƌĂƐƐƌŽŽƚƐƉƉƌŽĂĐŚƚŽtĞĞĚŽƵƚ,/sĂŶĚ,sŝŶ^ƉĞĐŝĂů
KhWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐΗ ϮϬϭϵ͗ h^ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽŶŝvil Rights, Washington, DC. "An Analysis of Women’s Health, Personal
ŝŐŶŝƚǇĂŶĚ^ĞǆƵĂůďƵƐĞŝŶƚŚĞh^WƌŝƐŽŶ^ǇƐƚĞŵΗ ϮϬϭϴ͗ ŽůůĞŐĞŽĨWƌŽďůĞŵƐŽŶƌƵŐĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞ͕ŽůůĞŐĞŽĨWƌŽďůĞŵƐŽŶƌƵŐĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞ͕^ĂŶ
ŝĞŐŽ͕͘ΗZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽŶtŽŵĞŶǁŚŽhƐĞƌƵŐƐ͗<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚ/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ'ĂƉƐĂŶĚ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŐĞŶĚĂΗ ϮϬϭϴ͗ ůŝŶŝĐĂůĂƌĞKƉƚŝŽŶƐ͕tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ͕͘Η/ŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ,/sĂŶĚKƉŝŽŝĚƉŝĚĞŵŝĐƐΗ ϮϬϭϲ͗ ĂƌƚŵŽƵƚŚ'ĞŝƐĞů^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕,ĂŶŽǀĞƌ͕E,͘Η/ŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƐKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚǇ͗WƌŝƐŽŶĞƌ ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ,ĞĂůƚŚ/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐΗ ϮϬϭϬ͗ ZŚŽĚĞ/ƐůĂŶĚŚĂƉƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨEƵƌƐĞƐŝŶ/^ĂƌĞ͕WƌŽǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ͕Z/͘Η,/sĂŶĚ ĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶΗ

ϰ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 21 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

Regional ϮϬϭϴ͗ ůŝŶŝĐĂůŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐEĞƚǁŽƌŬ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬ͕Ez͘ΗWƌWǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐĂŵŽŶŐ^ƉĞĐŝĂůWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨ
tŽŵĞŶĂŶĚWĞŽƉůĞǁŚŽhƐĞƌƵŐƐΗ ϮϬϭϴ͗ &ƌĂŶŬ,͘EĞƚƚĞƌ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕YƵŝŶŶŝƉŝĂĐhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ͕,ĂŵĚĞŶ͕d͘Η,/sƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĨŽƌ
ũƵƐƚŝĐĞͲŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚǁŽŵĞŶΗ ϮϬϭϳ͗ ůŝŶŝĐĂůŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐEĞƚǁŽƌŬ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬ͕Ez͘ΗKƉƚŝŵŝǌŝŶŐƚŚĞ,/sĂƌĞŽŶƚŝŶƵƵŵĨŽƌWĞŽƉůĞǁŚŽ
ƵƐĞƌƵŐƐΗ ϮϬϭϲ͗ &ƌĂŶŬ,͘EĞƚƚĞƌ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕YƵŝŶŶŝƉŝĂĐhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ͕,ĂŵĚĞŶ͕d͘ΗdŽƉŝĐƐŝŶ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐ
ŝƐĞĂƐĞƐΗ ϮϬϭϲ͗ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚĚǀĂŶĐĞĚWƌĂĐƚŝĐĞZĞŐŝƐƚĞƌĞĚEƵƌƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ͕tĞƚŚĞƌƐĨŝĞůĚ͕d͘ΗdƌĞŶĚƐŝŶ,/s
WƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ͗/ŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŝŽŵĞĚŝĐĂůĂŶĚĞŚĂǀŝŽƌĂůƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐΗ

Peer-Reviewed Presentations & Symposia Given at Meetings Not Affiliated With Yale:

International/National ϮϬϭϵ͗ WϴϭƐƚŶŶƵĂů^ĐŝĞŶƚŝĨŝĐDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕W͕^ĂŶŶƚŽŶŝŽ͕dy͘ΗWƵŶŝƚŝǀĞĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐƚŽƉƌĞŐŶĂŶƚ
ǁŽŵĞŶǁŝƚŚŽƉŝŽŝĚƵƐĞĚŝƐŽƌĚĞƌ͗/ŵƉĂĐƚŽŶŚĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞƵƚŝůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ͕ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐĂŶĚĞƚŚŝĐĂů ŝŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐΗ ϮϬϭϵ͗ ϭϰƚŚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶ,/sdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕/WĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ DŝĂŵŝ͕&>͘ΗĞĐŝƐŝŽŶͲDĂŬŝŶŐĂďŽƵƚ,/sWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŵŽŶŐtŽŵĞŶŝŶƌƵŐdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ͗/ƐWƌW ŽŶƚĞǆƚƵĂůůǇZĞůĞǀĂŶƚ͍Η ϮϬϭϵ͗ ϮϬϭϵE//ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů&ŽƌƵŵ͕E/͕^ĂŶŶƚŽŶŝŽ͕dy͘ΗŝƉŚĞŶŚǇĚƌĂŵŝŶĞ/ŶũĞĐƚŝŽŶŝŶ<ǇƌŐǇǌ WƌŝƐŽŶƐ͗YƵĂůŝƚĂƚŝǀĞ^ƚƵĚǇKĨ,ŝŐŚͲZŝƐŬĞŚĂǀŝŽƌtŝƚŚ/ŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ&Žƌ,ĂƌŵZĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶΗ ϮϬϭϵ͗ 11th International Women’s and Children’s Health and Gender (InWomen’s) Group, InWomen’s 'ƌŽƵƉ͕^ĂŶŶƚŽŶŝŽ͕dy͘ΗhŶŝƋƵĞůǇƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŵĞƚŚĂĚŽŶĞƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŝŶĂ women’s prison ŝŶ<ǇƌŐǇǌƐƚĂŶΗ ϮϬϭϵ͗ ,ĂƌŵZĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů͕WŽƌƚŽ͕WŽƌƚŽŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͕WŽƌƚƵŐĂů͘Η,ŽǁĚŽĞƐŵĞƚŚĂĚŽŶĞƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ travel? On the ‘becomingͲŵĞƚŚĂĚŽŶĞͲbody’ of Kyrgyzstan prisons" ϮϬϭϵ͗ WŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞWĞƌƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞƐŽŶĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕WŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞWĞƌƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞƐ ŽŶĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕WƌŽǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ͕Z/͘Η/ŵƉĂĐƚŽĨdƌĂƵŵĂĂŶĚ^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞďƵƐĞŽŶ,/s

ϮϬϭϵ͗ ϮϬϭϵ͗ ϮϬϭϵ͗ ϮϬϭϵ͗

PrEP Outcomes among Women in Criminal Justice Systems. Symposium: “Partner Violence: /ŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŽƌWƌĞĚŝĐƚŝǀĞŽĨ^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞhƐĞĂŶĚ,ĞĂůƚŚWƌŽďůĞŵƐĂŵŽŶŐtŽmen.”" ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇĨŽƌĐĂĚĞŵŝĐŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ;^DͿ͕tŽƌĐĞƐƚĞƌ͕D͘ΗĨĨĞĐƚƐŽĨĂDƵůƚŝƐŝƚĞ DĞĚŝĐĂů,ŽŵĞ/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶŽŶŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚhƐĞĂŵŽŶŐhŶƐƚĂďůǇ,ŽƵƐĞĚWĞŽƉůĞ ǁŝƚŚ,ƵŵĂŶ/ŵŵƵŶŽĚĞĨŝĐŝĞŶĐǇsŝƌƵƐΗ ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶZĞƚƌŽǀŝƌƵƐĞƐĂŶĚKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƐƚŝĐ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ;ZK/Ϳ͕/^͕^ĞĂƚƚůĞ͕t͘ΗZĞůĞĂƐĞĚƚŽ ŝĞ͗ůĞǀĂƚĞĚDŽƌƚĂůŝƚǇŝŶWĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚ,/sĂĨƚĞƌ/ŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚŝŽŶΗ ϭϮƚŚĐĂĚĞŵŝĐĂŶĚ,ĞĂůƚŚWŽůŝĐǇŽŶŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů,ĞĂůƚŚ͕ϭϮƚŚĐĂĚĞŵŝĐĂŶĚ ,ĞĂůƚŚWŽůŝĐǇŽŶŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů,ĞĂůƚŚ͕>ĂƐsĞŐĂƐ͕Es͘ΗWƌWůŝŐŝďŝůŝƚǇĂŶĚ,/sZŝƐŬ WĞƌĐĞƉƚŝŽŶĨŽƌtŽŵĞŶĂĐƌŽƐƐƚŚĞƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞŽŶƚŝŶƵƵŵŝŶŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚΗ ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞͲ/ŶǀŽůǀĞĚ&ĞŵĂůĞKƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƚŝŽŶƐ;:&KͿ͕ƚůĂŶƚĂ͕'͘ΗdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ Women’s Substance UƐĞŝƐŽƌĚĞƌƐĂŶĚ,/sWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƵƌŝŶŐĂŶĚ&ŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ/ŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚŝŽŶΗ

ϱ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 22 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

ϮϬϭϴ͗ ϮϬϭϴ͗ ϮϬϭϴ͗ ϮϬϭϴ͗
ϮϬϭϴ͗ ϮϬϭϴ͗ ϮϬϭϴ͗ ϮϬϭϳ͗ ϮϬϭϳ͗ ϮϬϭϳ͗ ϮϬϭϳ͗ ϮϬϭϳ͗ ϮϬϭϳ͗ ϮϬϭϲ͗ ϮϬϭϱ͗

ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ;W,ͿŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚ ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ;W,ͿŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕^ĂŶŝĞŐŽ͕͘ΗEĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ^ǇƌŝŶŐĞ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵ͗ ŵŽĚĞůŽĨŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞĚŚĂƌŵƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŚĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐΗ ϭϮƚŚEĂƚŝŽŶĂů,ĂƌŵZĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ϭϮƚŚEĂƚŝŽŶĂů,ĂƌŵZĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕EĞǁ KƌůĞĂŶƐ͕>͘Η^ĞƌǀŝĐĞŶĞĞĚƐĂŶĚĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽĐĂƌĞĂŵŽŶŐƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞEĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ^ǇƌŝŶŐĞ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐWƌŽŐƌĂŵΗ ϮϮŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů/^ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ϮϮŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů/^ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ŵƐƚĞƌĚĂŵ͕E,͕ EĞƚŚĞƌůĂŶĚƐ͘Η,/sƌŝƐŬƉĞƌĐĞƉƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƌŝƐŬƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐĂŵŽŶŐƉƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐŝŶ<ǇƌŐǇǌƐƚĂŶ͗ ĂƋƵĂůŝƚĂƚŝǀĞƐƚƵĚǇΗ ϮϮŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů/^ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ϮϮŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů/^ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ŵƐƚĞƌĚĂŵ͕E,͕ EĞƚŚĞƌůĂŶĚƐ͘ΗDĞƚŚĂĚŽŶĞDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞdŚĞƌĂƉǇhƉƚĂŬĞ͕ZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚ>ŝŶŬĂŐĞĨŽƌWĞŽƉůĞ ǁŚŽ/ŶũĞĐƚƌƵŐƐdƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶŝŶŐ&ƌŽŵWƌŝƐŽŶƚŽƚŚĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŝŶ<ǇƌŐǇǌƐƚĂŶ͗ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂ EĂƚŝŽŶĂůWƌŽŐƌĂŵΗ E//ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů&ŽƌƵŵ͕E/͕^ĂŶŝĞŐŽ͕͘Η,/sĂŶĚƌƵŐhƐĞĂŵŽŶŐtŽŵĞŶŝŶWƌŝƐŽŶŝŶ ǌĞƌďĂŝũĂŶ͕<ǇƌŐǇǌƐƚĂŶĂŶĚhŬƌĂŝŶĞΗ ϮϬϭϴŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶZĞƚƌŽǀŝƌƵƐĞƐĂŶĚKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƐƚŝĐ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ;ZK/Ϳ͕ZK/͕ŽƐƚŽŶ͕D͘Η&ƌŽŵ prison’s gate to death’s door: Survival ĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐŽĨƌĞůĞĂƐĞĚƉƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐǁŝƚŚ,/sΗ ϭϭƚŚĐĂĚĞŵŝĐĂŶĚ,ĞĂůƚŚWŽůŝĐǇŽŶŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů,ĞĂůƚŚ͕ĐĂĚĞŵŝĐŽŶƐŽƌƚŝƵŵ ŽŶƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ,ĞĂůƚŚ͕,ŽƵƐƚŽŶ͕dy͘ΗƐƐĞƐƐŝŶŐŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚsĂůŝĚŝƚǇŽĨƌŝŵŝŶŽŐĞŶŝĐĂŶĚ ,ĞĂůƚŚZŝƐŬ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐĂŵŽŶŐtŽŵĞŶŽŶWƌŽďĂƚŝŽŶŝŶŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚΗ /tĞĞŬ͗ŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐŽĨ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŽĨŵĞƌŝĐĂ͕/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ ŽĨŵĞƌŝĐĂ͕^ĂŶŝĞŐŽ͕͘ΗWƌĞĚŝĐƚŽƌƐŽĨ>ŝŶŬĂŐĞƚŽĂŶĚZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶŝŶ,/sĂƌĞ&ŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ZĞůĞĂƐĞĨƌŽŵŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ͕h^:ĂŝůƐĂŶĚWƌŝƐŽŶƐ;KƌĂůƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶͿΗ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů/^^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ;/^ͿDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů/^^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ͕WĂƌŝƐ͕2ůĞͲĚĞͲ&ƌĂŶĐĞ͕ &ƌĂŶĐĞ͘Η>ĂƚĞďƌĞĂŬĞƌ͗WƌĞĚŝĐƚŽƌƐŽĨ>ŝŶŬĂŐĞƚŽĂŶĚZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶŝŶ,/sĂƌĞ&ŽůůŽǁŝŶŐZĞůĞĂƐĞ ĨƌŽŵŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ͕h^:ĂŝůƐĂŶĚWƌŝƐŽŶƐΗ E//ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů&ŽƌƵŵ͕E/͕DŽŶƚƌĞĂů͕Y͕ĂŶĂĚĂ͘ΗDŝǆĞĚDĞƚŚŽĚƐǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ,/s ZŝƐŬĂŵŽŶŐtŽŵĞŶǁŝƚŚKƉŝŽŝĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞŝŶhŬƌĂŝŶĞΗ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůtŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů tŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕DŽŶƚƌĞĂů͕Y͕ĂŶĂĚĂ͘ΗƐƐĞƐƐŝŶŐ ZĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐƚŽĂŶĚůŝŐŝďŝůŝƚǇĨŽƌWƌWŝŶƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞͲ/ŶǀŽůǀĞĚtŽŵĞŶΗ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůtŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů tŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕DŽŶƚƌĞĂů͕Y͕ĂŶĂĚĂ͘ΗDŝǆĞĚ DĞƚŚŽĚƐǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ,/sZŝƐŬĂŵŽŶŐtŽŵĞŶǁŝƚŚKƉŝŽŝĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞŝŶhŬƌĂŝŶĞΗ ŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇĨŽƌƉƉůŝĞĚŶƚŚƌŽƉŽůŽŐǇ͕^ŽĐŝĞƚǇĨŽƌƉƉůŝĞĚŶƚŚƌŽƉŽůŽŐǇ͕ ^ĂŶƚĂ&Ğ͕ED͘ΗtŚĞƌĞƌƵďďĞƌƐŵĞĞƚƚŚĞƌŽĂĚ͗,/sƌŝƐŬƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨŽƌǁŽŵĞŶŽŶƉƌŽďĂƚŝŽŶ;KƌĂů ƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶͿΗ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůtŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů tŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕WĂůŵ^ƉƌŝŶŐƐ͕͘ΗŶǀĞŶƚͲůĞǀĞů ǆĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ^ƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůŽŶĚŽŵEĞŐŽƚŝĂƚŝŽŶ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐĂŵŽŶŐŽůůĞŐĞtŽŵĞŶΗ EĂƚŝŽŶĂů,/sWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕͕ƚůĂŶƚĂ͕'͘ΗĞǇŽŶĚƚŚĞ^ǇŶĚĞŵŝĐ͗ŽŶĚŽŵ EĞŐŽƚŝĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚhƐĞĂŵŽŶŐtŽŵĞŶǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐŝŶŐWĂƌƚŶĞƌsŝŽůĞŶĐĞ;KƌĂůƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶͿΗ

ϲ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 23 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

ϮϬϭϱ͗ ϮϬϭϱ͗ ϮϬϭϰ͗ ϮϬϭϰ͗ ϮϬϭϰ͗ ϮϬϭϯ͗ ϮϬϭϯ͗ ϮϬϭϮ͗ ϮϬϭϮ͗ ϮϬϭϮ͗ ϮϬϭϭ͗

/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů,ĂƌŵZĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů,ĂƌŵZĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ͕<ƵĂůĂ>ƵŵƉƵƌ͕ &ĞĚĞƌĂůdĞƌƌŝƚŽƌǇŽĨ<ƵĂůĂ>ƵŵƉƵƌ͕DĂůĂǇƐŝĂ͘ΗǀŝĚĞŶĐĞͲĂƐĞĚ/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐƚŽŶŚĂŶĐĞ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ͕dƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ͕ĂŶĚĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞŝŶƚŚĞŚƌŽŶŝĐ,ĞƉĂƚŝƚŝƐĂƌĞŽŶƚŝŶƵƵŵΗ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůtŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů tŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕WŚŽĞŶŝǆ͕͘ΗsŝŽůĞŶĐĞ͕^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞ hƐĞ͕ĂŶĚ^ĞǆƵĂůZŝƐŬĂŵŽŶŐŽůůĞŐĞtŽŵĞŶΗ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůtŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů tŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕^ĂŶ:ƵĂŶ͕^ĂŶ:ƵĂŶ͕WƵĞƌƚŽZŝĐŽ͘ Η'ĞŶĚĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐŝŶ,/sĂŶĚƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐΗ ŽůůĞŐĞŽŶWƌŽďůĞŵƐŝŶƌƵŐĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞ;WͿ͕ŽůůĞŐĞŽŶWƌŽďůĞŵƐŝŶƌƵŐĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞ ;WͿ͕^ĂŶ:ƵĂŶ͕^ĂŶ:ƵĂŶ͕WƵĞƌƚŽZŝĐŽ͘Η'ĞŶĚĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐŝŶ,/sĂŶĚƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ KƵƚĐŽŵĞƐΗ ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶZĞƚƌŽǀŝƌƵƐĞƐĂŶĚKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƐƚŝĐ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ;ZK/Ϳ͕ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶZĞƚƌŽǀŝƌƵƐĞƐ ĂŶĚKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƐƚŝĐ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ;ZK/Ϳ͕ŽƐƚŽŶ͕D͘Η>ŽŶŐŝƚƵĚŝŶĂůdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐŝŶ,/sͲ /ŶĨĞĐƚĞĚWƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐĂŶĚ/ŶĨůƵĞŶĐĞŽĨZĞͲ/ŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚŝŽŶΗ ,/s/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕,/s/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕ĞƚŚĞƐĚĂ͕D͘ΗtŽŵĞŶZĞůĞĂƐĞĚĨƌŽŵ:ĂŝůǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ^ƵďŽƉƚŝŵĂů,/s dƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽDĞŶ͗ZĞƐƵůƚƐĨƌŽŵĂDƵůƚŝͲĞŶƚĞƌ^ƚƵĚǇΗ ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶZĞƚƌŽǀŝƌƵƐĞƐĂŶĚKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƐƚŝĐ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ;ZK/Ϳ͕ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶZĞƚƌŽǀŝƌƵƐĞƐ ĂŶĚKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƐƚŝĐ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ;ZK/Ϳ͕ƚůĂŶƚĂ͕'͘ΗtŽŵĞŶZĞůĞĂƐĞĚĨƌŽŵ:ĂŝůǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ ^ƵďŽƉƚŝŵĂů,/sdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽDĞŶ͗ZĞƐƵůƚƐĨƌŽŵĂDƵůƚŝͲĞŶƚĞƌ^ƚƵĚǇΗ /tĞĞŬ͗/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŽĨŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŽĨ ŵĞƌŝĐĂ͕^ĂŶŝĞŐŽ͕͘ΗŽƌƌĞůĂƚĞƐŽĨZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶŝŶ,/sĂƌĞĂĨƚĞƌZĞůĞĂƐĞĨƌŽŵ:Ăŝů͗ZĞƐƵůƚƐ ĨƌŽŵĂDƵůƚŝͲƐŝƚĞ^ƚƵĚǇΗ /tĞĞŬ͗/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŽĨŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŽĨ ŵĞƌŝĐĂ͕^ĂŶŝĞŐŽ͕͘Η&ƌĞƋƵĞŶƚŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚhƐĞĂŵŽŶŐZĞůĞĂƐĞĚWƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐǁŝƚŚ ,/s͗ŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ/ŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂEŽǀĞůDƵůƚŝŵŽƌďŝĚŝƚǇ/ŶĚĞǆΗ ϱƚŚĐĂĚĞŵŝĐĂŶĚ,ĞĂůƚŚWŽůŝĐǇŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů,ĞĂůƚŚ͕ϱƚŚĐĂĚĞŵŝĐĂŶĚ,ĞĂůƚŚ WŽůŝĐǇŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů,ĞĂůƚŚ͕ƚůĂŶƚĂ͕'͘ΗĨĨĞĐƚƐŽĨ/ŶƚŝŵĂƚĞWĂƌƚŶĞƌsŝŽůĞŶĐĞŽŶ ,/sĂŶĚ^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞďƵƐĞŝŶZĞůĞĂƐĞĚ:ĂŝůĞƚĂŝŶĞĞƐΗ /W,/sdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕/W͕DŝĂŵŝ͕&>͘ΗĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞƚŽ,/s ƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĐĂƌĞĂŵŽŶŐƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůǇŚŽŵĞůĞƐƐũĂŝůĚĞƚĂŝŶĞĞƐΗ

Regional ϮϬϭϵ͗ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ͕EĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ͕d͘ΗWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌǇ&ŝŶĚŝŶŐƐĨƌŽŵĂEŽǀĞů
WƌWĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚĨŽƌtŽŵĞŶ/ŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ^ǇƐƚĞŵƐĂŶĚDĞŵďĞƌƐŽĨ ƚŚĞŝƌZŝƐŬEĞƚǁŽƌŬƐΗ ϮϬϭϳ͗ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶŶŶƵĂůŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚ ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ͕&ĂƌŵŝŶŐƚŽŶ͕d͘ΗdŚĞEĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶƐǇƌŝŶŐĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵΗ ϮϬϭϰ͗ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ͕ KƌĂŶŐĞ͕d͘Η>ŽŶŐŝƚƵĚŝŶĂůdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐŝŶ,/sͲ/ŶĨĞĐƚĞĚWƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐĂŶĚ/ŶĨůƵĞŶĐĞŽĨZĞͲ /ŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚŝŽŶΗ

ϳ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 24 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

ϮϬϭϯ͗ ϮϬϭϭ͗

ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ͕ KƌĂŶŐĞ͕d͘ΗtŽŵĞŶZĞůĞĂƐĞĚĨƌŽŵ:ĂŝůǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ^ƵďŽƉƚŝŵĂů,/sdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽDĞŶ͗ZĞƐƵůƚƐĨƌŽŵĂDƵůƚŝͲĞŶƚĞƌ^ƚƵĚǇΗ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ͕ KƌĂŶŐĞ͕d͘ΗŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚhƐĞďǇZĞůĞĂƐĞĚWƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐǁŝƚŚ,/sΗ

Professional Service:
Peer Review Groups/Grant Study Sections ϮϬϭϵͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕E/͕E/,ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͗Z&ͲͲϭϵͲϬϮϱ͗,>/ŶŝƚŝĂƚŝǀĞ͗:ƵƐƚŝĐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ
KƉŝŽŝĚ/ŶŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶEĞƚǁŽƌŬ;:K/EͿůŝŶŝĐĂůZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĞŶƚĞƌƐ ϮϬϭϵͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕zĂůĞ&ZWŝůŽƚWƌŽũĞĐƚƐ ϮϬϭϴͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌ/ŶƚĞƌĚŝƐĐŝƉůŝŶĂƌǇZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽŶ/^;/ZͿ ϮϬϭϱͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇŽĨtŝƐĐŽŶƐŝŶͲDŝůǁĂƵŬĞĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ'ƌŽǁƚŚ/ŶŝƚŝĂƚŝǀĞ

Advisory Boards

ϮϬϭϳ

ĚǀŝƐŽƌ͕,/sWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŝŶŝƐͲ'ĞŶĚĞƌĞĚtŽŵĞŶ͕'ŝůĞĂĚ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͘

Journal Service
Editor/Associate Editor ϮϬϭϵͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚŝƚŽƌ͕:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨƚŚĞ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨWƌŽǀŝĚĞƌƐŽĨ/^ĂƌĞ
;:/WͿ͕^ĞĐƚŝŽŶĚŝƚŽƌ͗^ĞǆĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌ/ƐƐƵĞƐ

Reviewer ϮϬϭϵͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ

ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕:/^ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ^ĐŝĂŶĚůŝŶWƌĂĐƚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ĚĚŝĐƚŝǀĞĞŚĂǀZĞƉŽƌƚƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕/^ĂƌĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕^ŽĐŝĂů^ĐŝĞŶĐĞĂŶĚDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌWůƵƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞďƵƐĞdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚWŽůŝĐǇ Reviewer, Women’s Health Issues ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕zĂůĞ:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨŝŽůŽŐǇĂŶĚDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕/D^WƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽŶĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨƉŝĚĞŵŝŽůŽŐǇ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ŶŶĂůƐ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕DŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕D/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕DWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚ Reviewer, BMC Women’s Health

ϴ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 25 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ

ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ůŝŶŝĐĂů/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ƌŝƚŝĐĂůWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ƌƵŐĂŶĚůĐŽŚŽůĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ƌƵŐĂŶĚůĐŽŚŽůZĞǀŝĞǁ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ƉŝĚĞŵŝŽůŽŐŝĐZĞǀŝĞǁƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ƵƌŽƐƵƌǀĞŝůůĂŶĐĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ;^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌKƉĞŶͿ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨƌƵŐWŽůŝĐǇ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨWƌŝƐŽŶĞƌ,ĞĂůƚŚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨ^dƐĂŶĚ/^ Reviewer, International Journal of Women’s Health ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕:D/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨ&ĂŵŝůǇsŝŽůĞŶĐĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨ'ĞŶĞƌĂů/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨ/ŵŵŝŐƌĂŶƚĂŶĚDŝŶŽƌŝƚǇ,ĞĂůƚŚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů/^^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨWƐǇĐŚŽĂĐƚŝǀĞƌƵŐƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨhƌďĂŶ,ĞĂůƚŚ Reviewer, Journal of Women’s Health ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕KƉĞŶ&ŽƌƵŵ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕W>Ž^KE ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕WƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚZĞƉŽƌƚƐ

Professional Service for Professional Organizations
AAMC Group on Women in Medicine and Science (GWIMS) ϮϬϭϲͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ DĞŵďĞƌ͕D'ƌŽƵƉŽŶtŽŵĞŶŝŶDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞĂŶĚ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞ;'t/D^Ϳ

American College of Physicians ϮϬϭϲͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ &ĞůůŽǁ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŽůůĞŐĞŽĨWŚǇƐŝĐŝĂŶƐ ϮϬϭϯͲϮϬϭϲ DĞŵďĞƌ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŽůůĞŐĞŽĨWŚǇƐŝĐŝĂŶƐ

American Medical Association ϮϬϬϱͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ DĞŵďĞƌ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶDĞĚŝĐĂůƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ

American Medical Women’s Association ϮϬϭϭͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ Member, American Medical Women’s Association

American Society of Addiction Medicine ϮϬϬϵͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ DĞŵďĞƌ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŽĨĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ

ϵ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 26 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W
Connecticut Infectious Disease Society ϮϬϭϭͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ DĞŵďĞƌ͕ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ
Infectious Disease Society of America ϮϬϬϴͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ DĞŵďĞƌ͕/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŽĨŵĞƌŝĐĂ
InWomen’s Network, NIDA International Program ϮϬϭϯͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ Member, InWomen’s Network, NIDA International Program
New York State Medical Society ϮϬϬϱͲϮϬϬϴ DĞŵďĞƌ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬ^ƚĂƚĞDĞĚŝĐĂů^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ

Yale University Service University Committees ϮϬϭϲͲϮϬϭϴ Council Member, Leadership Council, Women’s Faculty Forum

Medical School Committees ϮϬϭϱͲϮϬϭϲ ŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞDĞŵďĞƌ͕h^,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞŽƵƌƐĞ͕zĂůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ ϮϬϭϰͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞDĞŵďĞƌ͕zĂůĞ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞdƌĂĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůZĞƐŝĚĞŶĐǇ/ŶƚĞƌŶ^ĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶ
ŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ

Public Service ϮϬϭϵͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϳͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϯͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϬϵͲϮϬϭϭ ϮϬϬϮ ϭϵϵϴͲϭϵϵϵ

&ĂĐƵůƚǇDĞŵďĞƌ͕zĂůĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇWƌŽŐƌĂŵŝŶĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ &ĂĐƵůƚǇDĞŵďĞƌ͕ƌƚŚƵƌ>ŝŵĂŶĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌWƵďůŝĐ/ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ>Ăǁ͕zĂůĞ>Ăǁ^ĐŚŽŽů DĞŶƚŽƌ͕tŽŵĞŶŝŶDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞĂƚzĂůĞDĞŶƚŽƌŝŶŐWƌŽŐƌĂŵ &ĂĐƵůƚǇDĞŵďĞƌ͕zĂůĞĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌ/ŶƚĞƌĚŝƐĐŝƉůŝŶĂƌǇZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽŶ/^ /ŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŽƌ͕WƌĞĐůŝŶŝĐĂůůĞƌŬƐŚŝƉdƵƚŽƌ͕zĂůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ &ĞůůŽǁ͕^ŽƌŽƐKƉĞŶ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞ &ĞůůŽǁ͕ŽƐƚĂZŝĐĂŶ,ƵŵĂŶŝƚĂƌŝĂŶ&ŽƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶ

Bibliography:
Peer-Reviewed Original Research ϭ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕YŝƵ:͕ŚĞŶE͕>ĂƌŬŝŶ'>͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƵƐĞďǇƌĞůĞĂƐĞĚƉƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐ
ǁŝƚŚ,/s͗ĂŶŽďƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶĂůůŽŶŐŝƚƵĚŝŶĂůƐƚƵĚǇ͘WůŽ^KŶĞϮϬϭϮ͕ϳ͗ĞϰϮϰϭϲ͘ Ϯ͘ ŚĞŶE͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ŽůůŝŶŐĞƌZ͕WĂŐĞ<Z͘,/sƚĞƐƚŝŶŐďĞŚĂǀŝŽƌƐĂŵŽŶŐ>ĂƚŝŶŽƐŝŶĂůƚŝŵŽƌĞŝƚǇ͘
:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨ/ŵŵŝŐƌĂŶƚŶĚDŝŶŽƌŝƚǇ,ĞĂůƚŚͬĞŶƚĞƌ&ŽƌDŝŶŽƌŝƚǇWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚϮϬϭϮ͕ϭϰ͗ϱϰϬͲϱϭ͘ ϯ͘ ŚŝƚƐĂǌ͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕<ƌŝƐŚŶĂŶ͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͕DĂƌĐƵƐZ͕ĂůůĞƌE͕:ŽƌĚĂŶK͕>ŝŶĐŽůŶd͕&ůĂŶŝŐĂŶdW͕
WŽƌƚĞƌĨŝĞůĚ:͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞƵƐĞĚŝƐŽƌĚĞƌƐŽŶ,/sƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐĂŶĚ ĂŶƚŝƌĞƚƌŽǀŝƌĂůŵĞĚŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĂĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞĂŵŽŶŐ,/sͲŝŶĨĞĐƚĞĚƉĞƌƐŽŶƐĞŶƚĞƌŝŶŐũĂŝů͘/^ŶĚĞŚĂǀŝŽƌ ϮϬϭϯ͕ϭϳ^ƵƉƉůϮ͗^ϭϭϴͲϮϳ͘

ϭϬ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 27 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W
ϰ͘ ŚĞŶE͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ǀĞƌǇ<͕ƌĂŝŶĞ:͕&ůĂŶŝŐĂŶdW͕>ŝŶĐŽůŶd͕^ƉĂƵůĚŝŶŐ͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ ĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞƚŽ,/sƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĐĂƌĞĂŵŽŶŐƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůǇŚŽŵĞůĞƐƐũĂŝůĚĞƚĂŝŶĞĞƐ͘/^ŶĚ ĞŚĂǀŝŽƌϮϬϭϯ͕ϭϳ͗ϮϲϱϰͲϲϲ͘
ϱ͘ ůƚŚŽĨĨ>͕ĞůĞŶĞǀ͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕&Ƶ:͕ƌŽǁŶ^͕sĂŐĞŶĂƐW͕ǀĞƌǇ<͕ƌƵǌĂĚŽͲYƵŝŹŽŶĞƐ:͕ ^ƉĂƵůĚŝŶŐ͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ŽƌƌĞůĂƚĞƐŽĨƌĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶŝŶ,/sĐĂƌĞĂĨƚĞƌƌĞůĞĂƐĞĨƌŽŵũĂŝů͗ƌĞƐƵůƚƐĨƌŽŵĂ ŵƵůƚŝͲƐŝƚĞƐƚƵĚǇ͘/^ŶĚĞŚĂǀŝŽƌϮϬϭϯ͕ϭϳ^ƵƉƉůϮ͗^ϭϱϲͲϳϬ͘
ϲ͘ tŝůůŝĂŵƐd͕<ŝŵ^͕DĞǇĞƌ:͕^ƉĂƵůĚŝŶŐ͕dĞŝǆĞŝƌĂW͕ǀĞƌǇ͕DŽŽƌĞ<͕ůƚŝĐĞ&͕DƵƌƉŚǇͲ^ǁĂůůŽǁ͕ ^ŝŵŽŶ͕tŝĐŬĞƌƐŚĂŵ:͕KƵĞůůĞƚ>:͘'ĞŶĚĞƌĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐŝŶďĂƐĞůŝŶĞŚĞĂůƚŚ͕ŶĞĞĚƐĂƚƌĞůĞĂƐĞ͕ĂŶĚ ƉƌĞĚŝĐƚŽƌƐŽĨĐĂƌĞĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂŵŽŶŐ,/sͲƉŽƐŝƚŝǀĞĐůŝĞŶƚƐůĞĂǀŝŶŐũĂŝů͘/^ŶĚĞŚĂǀŝŽƌϮϬϭϯ͕ϭϳ ^ƵƉƉůϮ͗^ϭϵϱͲϮϬϮ͘
ϳ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕tŝĐŬĞƌƐŚĂŵ:͕&Ƶ::͕ƌŽǁŶ^͕^ƵůůŝǀĂŶdW͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘WĂƌƚŶĞƌǀŝŽůĞŶĐĞĂŶĚ ŚĞĂůƚŚĂŵŽŶŐ,/sͲŝŶĨĞĐƚĞĚũĂŝůĚĞƚĂŝŶĞĞƐ͘/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨWƌŝƐŽŶĞƌ,ĞĂůƚŚϮϬϭϯ͕ϵ͗ϭϮϰͲϰϭ͘
ϴ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕YŝƵ:͕ŚĞŶE͕>ĂƌŬŝŶ'>͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘&ƌĞƋƵĞŶƚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƵƐĞĂŵŽŶŐ ƌĞůĞĂƐĞĚƉƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐǁŝƚŚŚƵŵĂŶŝŵŵƵŶŽĚĞĨŝĐŝĞŶĐǇǀŝƌƵƐ͗ĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝǌĂƚŝŽŶŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂŶŽǀĞů ŵƵůƚŝŵŽƌďŝĚŝƚǇŝŶĚĞǆ͘ĐĂĚĞŵŝĐŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͗KĨĨŝĐŝĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨdŚĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ&ŽƌĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϭϯ͕ϮϬ͗ϳϵͲϴϴ͘
ϵ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ĞƉĞĚĂ:͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͕tƵ:͕dƌĞƐƚŵĂŶZ>͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘,/sŝŶƉĞŽƉůĞƌĞŝŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚĞĚŝŶ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚƉƌŝƐŽŶƐĂŶĚũĂŝůƐ͗ĂŶŽďƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽŚŽƌƚƐƚƵĚǇ͘dŚĞ>ĂŶĐĞƚ͘,/sϮϬϭϰ͕ϭ͗ĞϳϳͲĞϴϰ͘
ϭϬ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ĞůĞŶĞǀ͕tŝĐŬĞƌƐŚĂŵ:͕tŝůůŝĂŵƐd͕dĞŝǆĞŝƌĂW͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘'ĞŶĚĞƌĚŝƐƉĂƌŝƚŝĞƐŝŶ,/s ƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƌĞůĞĂƐĞĨƌŽŵũĂŝů͗ƌĞƐƵůƚƐĨƌŽŵĂŵƵůƚŝĐĞŶƚĞƌƐƚƵĚǇ͘ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ:ŽƵƌŶĂů KĨWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚϮϬϭϰ͕ϭϬϰ͗ϰϯϰͲϰϭ͘
ϭϭ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ĞƉĞĚĂ:͕tƵ:͕dƌĞƐƚŵĂŶZ>͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͘KƉƚŝŵŝǌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŚƵŵĂŶ ŝŵŵƵŶŽĚĞĨŝĐŝĞŶĐǇǀŝƌƵƐƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĚƵƌŝŶŐŝŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͗ǀŝƌĂůƐƵƉƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŝƐŽŶŐĂƚĞ͘:D /ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϭϰ͕ϭϳϰ͗ϳϮϭͲϵ͘
ϭϮ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ĞƉĞĚĂ:͕dĂǆŵĂŶ&^͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘^ĞǆͲZĞůĂƚĞĚŝƐƉĂƌŝƚŝĞƐŝŶƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞĂŶĚ,/s dƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ͗ZĞƚƌŽƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞŽŚŽƌƚ^ƚƵĚǇŽĨ,/sͲ/ŶĨĞĐƚĞĚ/ŶŵĂƚĞƐ͘ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨ WƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚϮϬϭϱ͕ϭϬϱ͗ϭϵϬϭͲϭϬ͘
ϭϯ͘ ŽǇĚd͕^ŽŶŐ>͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƵƐĞĂŵŽŶŐ,/sͲŝŶĨĞĐƚĞĚƌĞůĞĂƐĞĚũĂŝů ĚĞƚĂŝŶĞĞƐ͘:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨhƌďĂŶ,ĞĂůƚŚ͗ƵůůĞƚŝŶKĨdŚĞEĞǁzŽƌŬĐĂĚĞŵǇKĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϭϱ͕ϵϮ͗ϭϬϴͲ ϯϱ͘
ϭϰ͘ ^ŚƌĞƐƚŚĂZ͕<ĂƌŬŝW͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͕,ƵĞĚŽͲDĞĚŝŶĂd͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕DĂĚĚĞŶ>͕ŽƉĞŶŚĂǀĞƌD͘ŽƌƌĞůĂƚĞƐŽĨ ǁŝůůŝŶŐŶĞƐƐƚŽŝŶŝƚŝĂƚĞƉƌĞͲĞǆƉŽƐƵƌĞƉƌŽƉŚǇůĂǆŝƐĂŶĚĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƉƌĂĐƚŝĐŝŶŐƐĂĨĞƌĚƌƵŐͲĂŶĚƐĞǆͲ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚďĞŚĂǀŝŽƌƐĂŵŽŶŐŚŝŐŚͲƌŝƐŬĚƌƵŐƵƐĞƌƐŽŶŵĞƚŚĂĚŽŶĞƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ͘ƌƵŐŶĚůĐŽŚŽů ĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞϮϬϭϳ͕ϭϳϯ͗ϭϬϳͲϭϭϲ͘
ϭϱ͘ WĞĂƐĂŶƚ͕^ƵůůŝǀĂŶdW͕tĞŝƐƐE,͕DĂƌƚŝŶĞǌ/͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘ĞǇŽŶĚƚŚĞƐǇŶĚĞŵŝĐ͗ĐŽŶĚŽŵŶĞŐŽƚŝĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚƵƐĞĂŵŽŶŐǁŽŵĞŶĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐŝŶŐƉĂƌƚŶĞƌǀŝŽůĞŶĐĞ͘/^ĂƌĞϮϬϭϳ͕Ϯϵ͗ϱϭϲͲϱϮϯ͘
ϭϲ͘ tŝĐŬĞƌƐŚĂŵ:͕'ŝďƐŽŶ͕ĂǌĂǌŝZ͕WŝůůĂŝs͕WĞĚĞƌƐĞŶ:͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ůͲĂƐƐĞůE͕DĂǇĞƌ<,͕ <ĂŵĂƌƵůǌĂŵĂŶ͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘WƌĞǀĂůĞŶĐĞŽĨ,ƵŵĂŶ/ŵŵƵŶŽĚĞĨŝĐŝĞŶĐǇsŝƌƵƐĂŶĚ^ĞǆƵĂůůǇ dƌĂŶƐŵŝƚƚĞĚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶƐŵŽŶŐŝƐŐĞŶĚĞƌĂŶĚdƌĂŶƐŐĞŶĚĞƌtŽŵĞŶ^ĞǆtŽƌŬĞƌƐŝŶ'ƌĞĂƚĞƌ<ƵĂůĂ >ƵŵƉƵƌ͕DĂůĂǇƐŝĂ͗ZĞƐƵůƚƐ&ƌŽŵĂZĞƐƉŽŶĚĞŶƚͲƌŝǀĞŶ^ĂŵƉůŝŶŐ^ƚƵĚǇ͘^ĞǆƵĂůůǇdƌĂŶƐŵŝƚƚĞĚ ŝƐĞĂƐĞƐϮϬϭϳ͕ϰϰ͗ϲϲϯͲϲϳϬ͘
ϭϳ͘ ,ŽĨĨ͕DĂƌĐƵƐZ͕ŽũŬŽD:͕DĂŬĂƌĞŶŬŽ/͕DĂǌŚŶĂǇĂ͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘dŚĞĞĨĨĞĐƚƐŽĨŽƉŝŽŝĚͲ ĂŐŽŶŝƐƚƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƐŽŶ,/sƌŝƐŬĂŶĚƐŽĐŝĂůƐƚĂďŝůŝƚǇ͗ŵŝǆĞĚŵĞƚŚŽĚƐƐƚƵĚǇŽĨǁŽŵĞŶǁŝƚŚŽƉŝŽŝĚ ƵƐĞĚŝƐŽƌĚĞƌŝŶhŬƌĂŝŶĞ͘:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨ^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞďƵƐĞdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚϮϬϭϳ͕ϴϯ͗ϯϲͲϰϰ͘
ϭϭ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 28 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W
ϭϴ͘ ZƵƚůĞĚŐĞZ͕DĂĚĚĞŶ>͕KŐďƵĂŐƵK͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘,/sZŝƐŬƉĞƌĐĞƉƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĞůŝŐŝďŝůŝƚǇĨŽƌƉƌĞͲĞǆƉŽƐƵƌĞ ƉƌŽƉŚǇůĂǆŝƐŝŶǁŽŵĞŶŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĐƌŝŵŝŶĂůũƵƐƚŝĐĞƐǇƐƚĞŵ͘/^ĂƌĞϮϬϭϴ͕ϯϬ͗ϭϮϴϮͲϭϮϴϵ͘
ϭϵ͘ WĞĂƐĂŶƚ͕^ƵůůŝǀĂŶdW͕ZŝƚĐŚǁŽŽĚd͕WĂƌƌĂ'Z͕tĞŝƐƐE,͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕DƵƌƉŚǇ:'͘tŽƌĚƐĐĂŶŚƵƌƚ͗ dŚĞĞĨĨĞĐƚƐŽĨƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůĂŶĚƉƐǇĐŚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƉĂƌƚŶĞƌǀŝŽůĞŶĐĞŽŶĐŽŶĚŽŵŶĞŐŽƚŝĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĐŽŶĚŽŵƵƐĞ ĂŵŽŶŐǇŽƵŶŐǁŽŵĞŶ͘tŽŵĞŶΘ,ĞĂůƚŚϮϬϭϴ͕ϱϴ͗ϰϴϯͲϰϵϳ͘
ϮϬ͘ >ŽĞůŝŐĞƌ<͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͕ĞƐĂŝDD͕ŝĂƌůĞŐůŝŽDD͕'ĂůůĂŐŚĞƌ͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘WƌĞĚŝĐƚŽƌƐŽĨůŝŶŬĂŐĞƚŽ,/s ĐĂƌĞĂŶĚǀŝƌĂůƐƵƉƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶĂĨƚĞƌƌĞůĞĂƐĞĨƌŽŵũĂŝůƐĂŶĚƉƌŝƐŽŶƐ͗ĂƌĞƚƌŽƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞĐŽŚŽƌƚƐƚƵĚǇ͘dŚĞ >ĂŶĐĞƚ͘,/sϮϬϭϴ͕ϱ͗ĞϵϲͲĞϭϬϲ͘
Ϯϭ͘ KĚŝŽ͕ĂƌƌŽůůD͕'ůĂƐƐ^͕ĂƵŵĂŶ͕dĂǆŵĂŶ&^͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚǀĂůŝĚŝƚǇŽĨ ĐƌŝŵŝŶĂůũƵƐƚŝĐĞĂŶĚĐůŝŶŝĐĂůĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƐĂŵŽŶŐǁŽŵĞŶŽŶƉƌŽďĂƚŝŽŶ͘,ĞĂůƚŚΘ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞϮϬϭϴ͕ϲ͗ϳ͘
ϮϮ͘ >ŽĞůŝŐĞƌ<͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͕ŝĂƌůĞŐůŝŽDD͕ZŝĐŚ<D͕ŚĂŶĚƌĂ<͕'ĂůůĂŐŚĞƌ͕ĞƐĂŝDD͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘ůůͲ ĐĂƵƐĞŵŽƌƚĂůŝƚǇĂŵŽŶŐƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚ,/sƌĞůĞĂƐĞĚĨƌŽŵĂŶŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞĚƐǇƐƚĞŵŽĨũĂŝůƐĂŶĚƉƌŝƐŽŶƐŝŶ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ͕h^͕ϮϬϬϳͲϭϰ͗ĂƌĞƚƌŽƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞŽďƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽŚŽƌƚƐƚƵĚǇ͘dŚĞ>ĂŶĐĞƚ͘,/sϮϬϭϴ͕ ϱ͗ĞϲϭϳͲĞϲϮϴ͘
Ϯϯ͘ >ŽĞůŝŐĞƌ<͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ĞƐĂŝDD͕ŝĂƌůĞŐůŝŽDD͕'ĂůůĂŐŚĞƌ͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶŝŶ,/sĐĂƌĞ ĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞϯǇĞĂƌƐĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƌĞůĞĂƐĞĨƌŽŵŝŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͗ĐŽŚŽƌƚƐƚƵĚǇ͘W>Ž^DĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϭϴ͕ ϭϱ͗ĞϭϬϬϮϲϲϳ͘
Ϯϰ͘ ǌďĞů>͕tĞŐŵĂŶDW͕WŽůŽŶƐŬǇD͕ĂĐŚŝƌĞĚĚǇ͕DĞǇĞƌ:͕^ŚƵŵƐŬĂǇĂE͕<ƵƌŵĂŶĂůŝĞǀĂ͕ǀŽƌǇĂŬ ^͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ƌƵŐŝŶũĞĐƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚŝŶƉƌŝƐŽŶŝŶ<ǇƌŐǇǌƐƚĂŶ͗ĞůĞǀĂƚĞĚ,/sƌŝƐŬĂŶĚŝŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƐĐĂůŝŶŐ ƵƉŽƉŝŽŝĚĂŐŽŶŝƐƚƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƐ͘/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨWƌŝƐŽŶĞƌ,ĞĂůƚŚϮϬϭϴ͕ϭϰ͗ϭϳϱͲϭϴϳ͘
Ϯϱ͘ WĞĂƐĂŶƚ͕DŽŶƚĂŶĂƌŽ͕<ĞƌƐŚĂǁd^͕WĂƌƌĂ'Z͕tĞŝƐƐE,͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕DƵƌƉŚǇ:'͕ZŝƚĐŚǁŽŽĚd͕ ^ƵůůŝǀĂŶdW͘ŶĞǀĞŶƚͲůĞǀĞůĞǆĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůĐŽŶĚŽŵŶĞŐŽƚŝĂƚŝŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐĂŵŽŶŐǇŽƵŶŐ ǁŽŵĞŶ͘:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨ,ĞĂůƚŚWƐǇĐŚŽůŽŐǇϮϬϭϵ͕Ϯϰ͗ϴϵϴͲϵϬϴ͘
Ϯϲ͘ ZĂŶũŝƚz^͕ǌďĞů>͕<ƌŝƐŚŶĂŶ͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ,/sƌŝƐŬĂŶĚŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐŝŶĂ ŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůůǇƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞƐĂŵƉůĞŽĨŝŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚĞĚǁŽŵĞŶŝŶǌĞƌďĂŝũĂŶ͕<ǇƌŐǇǌƐƚĂŶ͕ĂŶĚhŬƌĂŝŶĞ͘ /^ĂƌĞϮϬϭϵ͕ϯϭ͗ϳϵϯͲϳϵϳ͘
Ϯϳ͘ ZŚŽĚĞƐd͕ǌďĞů>͕>ĂŶĐĂƐƚĞƌ<͕DĞǇĞƌ:͘dŚĞďĞĐŽŵŝŶŐͲŵĞƚŚĂĚŽŶĞͲďŽĚǇ͗ŽŶƚŚĞŽŶƚŽͲƉŽůŝƚŝĐƐŽĨ ŚĞĂůƚŚŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƚƌĂŶƐůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘^ŽĐŝŽůŽŐǇKĨ,ĞĂůƚŚΘ/ůůŶĞƐƐϮϬϭϵ͕ϰϭ͗ϭϲϭϴͲϭϲϯϲ͘
Ϯϴ͘ KůƐŽŶ͕sŝŶĐĞŶƚt͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕<ĞƌƐŚĂǁd͕^ŝŬŬĞŵĂ<:͕,ĞĐŬŵĂŶd'͕,ĂŶƐĞŶE͘ĞƉƌĞƐƐŝǀĞ ƐǇŵƉƚŽŵƐ͕ƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůƐǇŵƉƚŽŵƐ͕ĂŶĚŚĞĂůƚŚͲƌĞůĂƚĞĚƋƵĂůŝƚǇŽĨůŝĨĞĂŵŽŶŐŽůĚĞƌĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚ,/s͘ YƵĂůŝƚǇKĨ>ŝĨĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ͗Ŷ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨYƵĂůŝƚǇKĨ>ŝĨĞƐƉĞĐƚƐKĨdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ͕ĂƌĞ ŶĚZĞŚĂďŝůŝƚĂƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϵ͘
Chapters, Books, and Reviews Ϯϵ͘ ǌĂƌDD͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ƐǇƐƚĞŵĂƚŝĐƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨĂůĐŽŚŽůƵƐĞ
ĚŝƐŽƌĚĞƌƐŽŶ,/sƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ͕ĂĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞƚŽĂŶƚŝƌĞƚƌŽǀŝƌĂůƚŚĞƌĂƉǇĂŶĚŚĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞ ƵƚŝůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ͘ƌƵŐŶĚůĐŽŚŽůĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞϮϬϭϬ͕ϭϭϮ͗ϭϳϴͲϵϯ͘ ϯϬ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞĂďƵƐĞ͕ǀŝŽůĞŶĐĞ͕ĂŶĚ,/sŝŶǁŽŵĞŶ͗ĂůŝƚĞƌĂƚƵƌĞƌĞǀŝĞǁ ŽĨƚŚĞƐǇŶĚĞŵŝĐ͘:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨtŽŵĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚ;ϮϬϬϮͿϮϬϭϭ͕ϮϬ͗ϵϵϭͲϭϬϬϲ͘ ϯϭ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ŚĞŶE͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͘,/sdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŚĞƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ^ǇƐƚĞŵ͗ƌŝƚŝĐĂů<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞ ĂŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ'ĂƉƐ͘/^ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŶĚdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚϮϬϭϭ͕ϮϬϭϭ͗ϲϴϬϲϭϳ͘ ϯϮ͘ ^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͕^ƉĂƵůĚŝŶŐ͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘WƵďůŝĐŚĞĂůƚŚŝŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶĂů ĐĂƌĞĨŽƌ,/sͲŝŶĨĞĐƚĞĚƉƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐ͗ĨŝǀĞĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂůĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐ͘ůŝŶŝĐĂů/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ͗ŶKĨĨŝĐŝĂů WƵďůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶKĨdŚĞ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇKĨŵĞƌŝĐĂϮϬϭϭ͕ϱϯ͗ϰϲϵͲϳϵ͘
ϭϮ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 29 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W
ϯϯ͘ ŚĞŶE͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͘ĚǀĂŶĐĞƐŝŶƚŚĞƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶŽĨŚĞƚĞƌŽƐĞǆƵĂůƚƌĂŶƐŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽĨ ,/sͬ/^ĂŵŽŶŐǁŽŵĞŶŝŶƚŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐ͘/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞZĞƉŽƌƚƐϮϬϭϭ͕ϯ͘
ϯϰ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:͕ůƚŝĐĞ&͘,/sŝŶ/ŶũĞĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚKƚŚĞƌƌƵŐhƐĞƌƐ͘^ŽŵĞƐŚ'ƵƉƚĂ͕ŚƵƐŚĂŶ<ƵŵĂƌ͕ĞĚƐ͘ ^ĞǆƵĂůůǇdƌĂŶƐŵŝƚƚĞĚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶƐϮŶĚĞĚ͘EĞǁĞůŚŝ͕/ŶĚŝĂ͗ůƐĞǀŝĞƌ͕ϮϬϭϮ͗ϭϬϲϭͲϴϬ͘/^EϵϳϴͲϴϭͲ ϯϭϮͲϮϴϬϵͲϴ͘
ϯϱ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ůƚŚŽĨĨ>͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘KƉƚŝŵŝǌŝŶŐĐĂƌĞĨŽƌ,/sͲŝŶĨĞĐƚĞĚƉĞŽƉůĞǁŚŽƵƐĞĚƌƵŐƐ͗ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞͲ ďĂƐĞĚĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐƚŽŽǀĞƌĐŽŵŝŶŐŚĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞĚŝƐƉĂƌŝƚŝĞƐ͘ůŝŶŝĐĂů/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ͗ŶKĨĨŝĐŝĂů WƵďůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶKĨdŚĞ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇKĨŵĞƌŝĐĂϮϬϭϯ͕ϱϳ͗ϭϯϬϵͲϭϳ͘
ϯϲ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:͕ůƚŝĐĞ&͘ŚĂƉƚĞƌϰϳ͕dƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŽĨĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶƐ͗dƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͘ZŽďĞƌƚ>͘ dƌĞƐƚŵĂŶ͕<ĞŶŶĞƚŚ>͘ƉƉĞůďĂƵŵ͕:ĞĨĨƌĞǇ>͘DĞƚǌŶĞƌ͕ĞĚƐ͘KǆĨŽƌĚdĞǆƚďŽŽŬŽĨŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů WƐǇĐŚŝĂƚƌǇ;tŝŶŶĞƌŽĨƚŚĞϮϬϭϲ'ƵƚƚŵĂĐŚĞƌǁĂƌĚͿ͘KǆĨŽƌĚhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇWƌĞƐƐϮϬϭϱ͘/^E ϵϳϴϬϭϵϵϯϲϬϱϳϰ͘
ϯϳ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕DŽŐŚŝŵŝz͕DĂƌĐƵƐZ͕>ŝŵ:<͕>ŝƚǁŝŶ,͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ǀŝĚĞŶĐĞͲďĂƐĞĚŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐƚŽ ĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ͕ƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ͕ĂŶĚĂĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞŝŶƚŚĞĐŚƌŽŶŝĐ,ĞƉĂƚŝƚŝƐĐĂƌĞĐŽŶƚŝŶƵƵŵ͘dŚĞ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůKŶƌƵŐWŽůŝĐǇϮϬϭϱ͕Ϯϲ͗ϵϮϮͲϯϱ͘
ϯϴ͘ DŽŚĂƌĞď͕dŝďĞƌŝŽW͕DĂŶĚŝŵŝŬĂ͕DƵƚŚƵůŝŶŐĂŵ͕DĞǇĞƌ:͘/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐŝŶhŶĚĞƌƐĞƌǀĞĚ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘KŶǇĞŵĂKŐďƵĂŐƵ͕'ĞƌĂůĚ&ƌŝĞĚůĂŶĚ͕DĞƌĐĞĚŝƚĂƐsŝůůĂŶƵĞǀĂ͕DĂƌũŽƌŝĞ'ŽůĚĞŶ͕ĞĚƐ͘ ƵƌƌĞŶƚŝĂŐŶŽƐŝƐĂŶĚdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚͲ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ͘DĐ'ƌĂǁͲ,ŝůůDĞĚŝĐĂůϮϬϭϲ͘
ϯϵ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕tŽŵĂĐŬ:͕'ŝďƐŽŶ͘ĞǇŽŶĚƚŚĞWĂƉ^ŵĞĂƌ͗'ĞŶĚĞƌͲƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝǀĞ,/sĂƌĞĨŽƌtŽŵĞŶ͘ dŚĞzĂůĞ:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨŝŽůŽŐǇŶĚDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϭϲ͕ϴϵ͗ϭϵϯͲϮϬϯ͘
ϰϬ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕DƵƚŚƵůŝŶŐĂŵ͕ůͲĂƐƐĞůE͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘>ĞǀĞƌĂŐŝŶŐƚŚĞh͘^͘ƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ^ǇƐƚĞŵƚŽ ĐĐĞƐƐtŽŵĞŶĨŽƌ,/s/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐ͘/^ŶĚĞŚĂǀŝŽƌϮϬϭϳ͕Ϯϭ͗ϯϱϮϳͲϯϱϰϴ͘
ϰϭ͘ ^ŚƌĞƐƚŚĂZ͕DĐŽǇͲZĞĚĚ͕DĞǇĞƌ:͘WƌĞͲǆƉŽƐƵƌĞWƌŽƉŚǇůĂǆŝƐ;WƌWͿĨŽƌWĞŽƉůĞtŚŽ/ŶũĞĐƚƌƵŐƐ ;Wt/Ϳ͘ƌŝĂŶŶĂEŽƌƚŽŶ͕Ě͘dŚĞKƉŝŽŝĚƉŝĚĞŵŝĐĂŶĚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ͘ůƐĞǀŝĞƌϮϬϭϵ͘
ϰϮ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕/ƐĂĂĐƐ<͕ůͲ^ŚĂŚĂǁǇK͕ƵƌůĞǁ<͕tĞĐŚƐďĞƌŐt͘ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽŶǁŽŵĞŶǁŝƚŚƐƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞ ƵƐĞĚŝƐŽƌĚĞƌƐ͗ZĞǀŝĞǁŝŶŐƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐĂŶĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐĂƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĂŶĚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶƌŽĂĚŵĂƉ͘ƌƵŐ ŶĚůĐŽŚŽůĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞϮϬϭϵ͕ϭϵϳ͗ϭϱϴͲϭϲϯ͘
Peer-Reviewed Educational Materials ϰϯ͘ dŚĞ&ŽƌƚƵŶĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇZĞĞŶƚƌǇĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚĞƚĂŝůŝŶŐ<ŝƚ͘EĞǁzŽƌŬŝƚǇĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ,ĞĂůƚŚ
ĂŶĚDĞŶƚĂů,ǇŐŝĞŶĞ͘KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϬϭϰ ϰϰ͘ hŶŝƚĞĚEĂƚŝŽŶƐKĨĨŝĐĞŽŶƌƵŐƐĂŶĚƌŝŵĞ͘sŝĞŶŶĂ͕ƵƐƚƌŝĂ
Invited Editorials and Commentaries ϰϱ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͘ĂƉƐƵůĞŽŵŵĞŶƚĂƌǇŽŶWǇƌĂĞƚĂů͕͘ƐĞǆƵĂůŵŝŶŽƌŝƚǇƐƚĂƚƵƐĂŶĚǀŝŽůĞŶĐĞĂŵŽŶŐ,/s
ŝŶĨĞĐƚĞĚĂŶĚĂƚͲƌŝƐŬǁŽŵĞŶ͘:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨ'ĞŶĞƌĂů/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϭϰ͕Ϯϵ͗ϭϭϲϰ͘ ϰϲ͘ ƌŝŶŬůĞǇͲZƵďŝŶƐƚĞŝŶ>͕ĂƵƌŝĂ͕dŽůŽƵͲ^ŚĂŵƐD͕ŚƌŝƐƚŽƉŽƵůŽƐ<͕ŚĂŶW͕ĞĐŬǁŝƚŚ'͕WĂƌŬĞƌ^͕
DĞǇĞƌ:͘dŚĞWĂƚŚƚŽ/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ,/sWƌĞͲĞǆƉŽƐƵƌĞWƌŽƉŚǇůĂǆŝƐĨŽƌWĞŽƉůĞ/ŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶ ƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ^ǇƐƚĞŵƐ͘ƵƌƌĞŶƚ,/sͬ/^ZĞƉŽƌƚƐϮϬϭϴ͕ϭϱ͗ϵϯͲϵϱ͘ ϰϳ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͘dŚĞ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĞĚ,ĂƌŵĨƵů,ĞĂůƚŚĨĨĞĐƚƐŽĨ/ŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌtŽŵĞŶ>ŝǀŝŶŐǁŝƚŚ,/s͘ :ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨtŽŵĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚ;ϮϬϬϮͿϮϬϭϵ͕Ϯϴ͗ϭϬϭϳͲϭϬϭϴ͘
ϭϯ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 30 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W
Case Reports, Technical Notes, Letters ϰϴ͘ WĂƵů:͘ƵůůŽƵƐƉĞŵƉŚŝŐŽŝĚŝŶĂƉĂƚŝĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƉƐŽƌŝĂƐŝƐĂŶĚƉŽƐƐŝďůĞĚƌƵŐƌĞĂĐƚŝŽŶ͗ĂĐĂƐĞƌĞƉŽƌƚ͘
ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϬϰ͕ϲϴ͗ϲϭϭͲϱ͘ ϰϵ͘ ,Žǁ:͕ǌĂƌDD͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘ƌĞEĞĐƚĂƌŝŶĞƐƚŽůĂŵĞ͍ĂƐĞZĞƉŽƌƚĂŶĚ>ŝƚĞƌĂƚƵƌĞZĞǀŝĞǁŽĨ
^ƉŽŶƚĂŶĞŽƵƐĂĐƚĞƌŝĂůWĞƌŝƚŽŶŝƚŝƐƵĞƚŽ>ŝƐƚĞƌŝĂŵŽŶŽĐǇƚŽŐĞŶĞƐ͘ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϭϱ͕ ϳϵ͗ϯϭͲϲ͘ ϱϬ͘ sĂǌƋƵĞǌ'ƵŝůůĂŵĞƚ>:͕DĂůŝŶŝƐD&͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘ŵĞƌŐŝŶŐƌŽůĞŽĨĐƚŝŶŽŵǇĐĞƐŵĞǇĞƌŝŝŶďƌĂŝŶ ĂďƐĐĞƐƐĞƐ͗ĐĂƐĞƌĞƉŽƌƚĂŶĚůŝƚĞƌĂƚƵƌĞƌĞǀŝĞǁ͘/ĂƐĞƐϮϬϭϳ͕ϭϬ͗ϮϲͲϮϵ͘ ϱϭ͘ ,ĂƌĂĚĂ<͕,ĞĂƚŽŶ,͕ŚĞŶ:͕sĂǌƋƵĞǌD͕DĞǇĞƌ:͘ŽƐƚĞƌǀĂĐĐŝŶĞͲĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚƉƌŝŵĂƌǇǀĂƌŝĐĞůůĂ ŝŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶŝŶĂŶŝŵŵƵŶŽĐŽŵƉĞƚĞŶƚŚŽƐƚ͘D:ĂƐĞZĞƉŽƌƚƐϮϬϭϳ͕ϮϬϭϳ͘ ϱϮ͘ ĞƌŶĂƌĚŽZ͕^ƚƌĞŝƚĞƌ^͕dŝďĞƌŝŽW͕ZŽĚǁŝŶ͕DŽŚĂƌĞď͕KŐďƵĂŐƵK͕ŵƵ͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘ŶƐǁĞƌƚŽ ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϬϭϳWŚŽƚŽYƵŝǌ͘:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨůŝŶŝĐĂůDŝĐƌŽďŝŽůŽŐǇϮϬϭϳ͕ϱϱ͗ϯϱϲϴ͘ ϱϯ͘ ĞƌŶĂƌĚŽZ͕^ƚƌĞŝƚĞƌ^͕dŝďĞƌŝŽW͕ZŽĚǁŝŶ͕DŽŚĂƌĞď͕KŐďƵĂŐƵK͕ŵƵ͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘WŚŽƚŽYƵŝǌ͗ WĞƌŝƉŚĞƌĂůůŽŽĚ^ŵĞĂƌŝŶĂhŐĂŶĚĂŶZĞĨƵŐĞĞ͘:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨůŝŶŝĐĂůDŝĐƌŽďŝŽůŽŐǇϮϬϭϳ͕ϱϱ͗ϯϯϭϯͲ ϯϯϭϰ͘ Scholarship In Press ϱϰ͘ ,ŽĨĨ͕ĚĂŵƐ͕ĂƐŐƵƉƚĂ͕'ŽĚĚĂƌĚ͕^ŚĞƚŚ^͕DĞǇĞƌ:͘ZĞƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀĞ,ĞĂůƚŚ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞĂŶĚ ƵƚŽŶŽŵǇ͗ƐǇƐƚĞŵĂƚŝĐƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨƉƌĞŐŶĂŶĐǇƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐŝŶƚĞŶƚŝŽŶƐ͕ŶĞĞĚƐ͕ĂŶĚŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐĂŵŽŶŐ women involved in US criminal justice systems. J Women’s Health
ϭϰ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 31 of 260
                   
(;+,%,7%

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 32 of 260

  -0,&+$(/+$1121 '$1,(/6&52:/(<Á
3$571(56 
 $11.$7+5<162 7$/215+8567 (5,.+)$:&(77__ '$9,6&5$-7,.
$662&,$7(6


 +$1121/$:*5283//3 &2816(/256$1'$77251(<6$7/$:
7+675((71( :$6+,1*721'&
(670$5&+

7~) ZZZKDQQRQODZJURXSFRP
 0DUFK

 

:,//,$0&/$<721%$7&+(/25 2)&2816(/
   $/62$'0,77(',10$5</$1' $/62$'0,77(',19,5*,1,$ Á$/62$'0,77(',10$66$&+86(776 $/62$'0,77(',11(:-(56(< __$'0,77(',10$5</$1'21/< 81'(5683(59,6,212)-0,&+$(/ +$1121

9,$(/(&7521,&75$160,66,2121/<



4XLQF\/%RRWK

2IILFHRIWKH'LUHFWRU

'&'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV



,03/(0(17$7,212)0$<25¶625'(5621&29,'





:HSUHVHQWWKLVOHWWHURQEHKDOIRIWKHEDUJDLQLQJXQLWIRUDOO'&-DLOFRUUHFWLRQV

RIILFHUVWKH)UDWHUQDO2UGHURI3ROLFH'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV/DERU&RPPLWWHH



,1752'8&7,21





7RGD\WKH0D\RUDQQRXQFHGWKHQXPEHURISRVLWLYH&29,'LQIHFWHGSHUVRQVLQWKH

'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELDLQFUHDVHGE\QHZFDVHVWRDWRWDORI1RWDEO\RIWKHQHZFDVHV

DUHLQWKHLUVDUHLQWKHLUVDQGRQO\DUHRYHUWKHDJHRI7KH0D\RU¶VXSGDWHDOVR

UHSRUWVWKHIROORZLQJ



:LWKRQJRLQJFRPPXQLW\WUDQVPLVVLRQFRQWDFWWUDFLQJLVIRFXVHGRQSRVLWLYHFDVHV

DVVRFLDWHGZLWKFKLOGFDUHIDFLOLWLHVVFKRROVDQGXQLYHUVLWLHVKHDOWKFDUHIDFLOLWLHVVHQLRU

FDUHIDFLOLWLHVcorrectional and detention centersDQGIDFLOLWLHVVHUYLQJLQGLYLGXDOVZKR

DUHH[SHULHQFLQJKRPHOHVVQHVV*XLGDQFHZLOOEHSXEOLVKHGIRUKHDOWKFDUHSURYLGHUV

HPSOR\HUVDQGWKHSXEOLFWRSURYLGHLQIRUPDWLRQRQZKDWWRGRLI\RXKDYHEHHQ

GLDJQRVHGZLWKRUDUHDFRQWDFWRIVRPHRQHZKRKDV&29,'





2Q0DUFKRXURIILFHVHQWDQHPDLOWR'2&UHJDUGLQJWKHTXDUDQWLQHRILQPDWHV

ZKRFDPHLQFRQWDFWZLWKDQLQIHFWHG860DUVKDODWWKH&RXUWKRXVH$WWDFKPHQW$:H

UHFHLYHGQRUHVSRQVH





2QWKHVDPHGDWH0DUFKZHVHQWD³5HTXHVWIRU,QIRUPDWLRQRQ3RWHQWLDOO\

'DQJHURXV&RQGLWLRQVDWWKH'2&)DFLOLWLHV´WR'2&¶V*HQHUDO&RXQVHODQGWRLWV+5'LUHFWRU

$WWDFKPHQW%7KHQH[WPRUQLQJ'2&¶V*HQHUDO&RXQVHOUHVSRQGHG³'2&LVSUHSDULQJD

UHVSRQVHWR\RXULQTXLUHVDQGZLOOFRQWDFW\RXDVVRRQDVSRVVLEOH´:HKDYHUHFHLYHGQR

UHVSRQVH





2Q0DUFKWKH)23'2&/DERU&RPPLWWHHGHOLYHUHGWRWKH'2&OHDGHUVKLS

DQGSRVWHGWKURXJKRXWWKH'&-DLODQ$QQRXQFHPHQWUHJDUGLQJFULWLFDODFWLRQVWREHDGGUHVVHG

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 33 of 260

3DJHRI

0DUFK

%RRWK4XLQF\/



E\WKH/DERU&RPPLWWHHUHJDUGLQJ&29,'DVZHOODVWKHIDLOXUHWRSURVHFXWHDQLQPDWHIRU

WKHEUXWDOEHDWLQJRIDFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHU$WWDFKPHQW&





,QVWHDGRIFRPPXQLFDWLQJZLWKWKH8QLRQDVUHTXHVWHGRQ0DUFK\RXLVVXHGD

QRWLFHRQWKHVDPHGDWHRI0DUFKDQQRXQFHGDWHYHU\UROOFDOOIDOVHO\VWDWLQJ³,WKDVFRPHWR

WKHDJHQF\
VDWWHQWLRQWKDWHPSOR\HHVRIWKH'2&LQWHQGWRHQJDJHLQHLWKHUDZDONRXWDQGRU

SURWHVWRQWKHJURXQGVRIWKH'2&´5DWKHUWKDQFRPPXQLFDWLQJKRQHVWO\ZLWKWKH8QLRQRQ

WKHVHFULWLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRIZRUN\RXWKUHDWHQHGWKHFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVZLWKGLVFLSOLQH7KLV

DFWLRQZDVFOHDUO\LQUHWDOLDWLRQIRUWKH8QLRQSUHVHQWLQJOHJLWLPDWHFRQFHUQVDERXW\RXUIDLOXUH

WRLPSOHPHQWSURWHFWLRQVIRULQPDWHVDQGFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUV7KLVLVQRWRQO\DQXQIDLUODERU

SUDFWLFHDQGDSURKLELWHGSHUVRQQHOSUDFWLFHEXWDOVRDYLRODWLRQRIWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD

:KLVWOHEORZHU5HLQIRUFHPHQW$FWRI





,QWKHDIWHUQRRQRI\HVWHUGD\0DUFK\RXVXPPRQHGWKH)23'2&/DERU&RPPLWWHH

3UHVLGHQW&SO%HQMDPLQ2OXEDVXVLWR\RXURIILFHDWWKH5HHYHV&HQWHU:LWKRXWQRWLFHWR

+$1121/$:*5283\RXSXW'HSXW\0D\RU.HYLQ'RQDKXHDQG0D\RU%RZVHURQ\RXU

VSHDNHUSKRQH7KH0D\RUWKHQIDOVHO\ZDUQHG&SO2OXEDVXVLWKDWLWLVD³FULPH´IRU'&

FRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUV³WRZDONRXWRIWKH-DLO´<RXDVNHG&SO2OXEDVXVLZKDWWKH8QLRQZDQWV

DVLIRXUFRPPXQLFDWLRQVRYHUWKHSDVWGD\VZHUHQHYHUUHDG





$OVR\HVWHUGD\DIWHUQRRQ+$1121/$:*5283SDUWLFLSDWHGLQD1DWLRQDO

&RQIHUHQFH&DOOVSRQVRUHGE\WKH1DWLRQDO)UDWHUQDO2UGHURI3ROLFHRQ&29,'6SHDNHUV

RQWKHFDOOLQFOXGHGKLJKUDQNLQJH[SHUWVIURPWKH'HSDUWPHQWRI+RPHODQG6HFXULW\)(0$

DQGWKH:KLWH+RXVHDVZHOODV)236WDWH5HSUHVHQWDWLYHVIURPDOOVWDWHV7KHSXUSRVHRI

WKHFDOOLVWRLPSOHPHQWSURWRFROVIRUODZHQIRUFHPHQWRIILFHUVDQGFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUV

QDWLRQZLGH+LJKOLJKWVIURPWKHFDOODUHWKHIROORZLQJ





,QFUHDVLQJLQIHFWLRQVZLOOUHGXFHWKHQXPEHURIRIILFHUVRQGXW\





/RVVRIRIILFHUVRQGXW\ZLOOLQFUHDVHWKHZRUNORDGRQWKHXQLQIHFWHGRIILFHUV





7KHUHVXOWDQWODFNRIRIILFHUVZLOOOHDGWRDGGLWLRQDOFULPHDQGULVNLQWKHFRUUHFWLRQV



V\VWHP





33(HTXLSPHQWLVQRWEHLQJSURYLGHGWRRIILFHUVQDWLRQZLGH





%HFDXVH³VRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ´LVLPSRVVLEOHLQODZHQIRUFHPHQWWKHLQIHFWLRQUDWHDPRQJ



RIILFHUVZLOOEHKLJKHUWKDQWKHJHQHUDOSRSXODWLRQ





&RRUGLQDWLRQDQG&RPPXQLFDWLRQEHWZHHQDQGDPRQJSROLWLFDOOHDGHUVDQGRIILFHUVLVWKH



PRVWLPSRUWDQWFULWHULDWRPHHWWKLVFKDOOHQJH





6WDWHKHDOWKGHSDUWPHQWVZKLFKDUHLQFRQWURORIWKHGLVWULEXWLRQRI33(PXVWPDNHODZ



HQIRUFHPHQWDQGFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVDSULRULW\JURXSIRUUHFHLSWRI33(DQGHGXFDWLRQ



Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 34 of 260

3DJHRI

0DUFK

%RRWK4XLQF\/



&21',7,216$77+('&-$,/





7KH)23'2&/DERU&RPPLWWHHLWV6KRS6WHZDUGVDQGLWVPHPEHUVZDONWKHOLQHLQWKH

'&-DLO<RX'LUHFWRU%RRWKDUHPLOHVDZD\DWWKH5HHYHV&HQWHUDQG\RXU

DGPLQLVWUDWLYHVWDIIUHPDLQEHKLQGJODVVZDOOVDQGGRRUVLQWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHVHFWLRQRIWKH'&

-DLODOOLQVSOHQGLGLVRODWLRQIURPWKHLQPDWHSRSXODWLRQZLWKUHJXODUGLVLQIHFWLRQWHDPVLQ

JRZQVJORYHVDQGPDVNV+HUHLVWKHUHSRUWRIRXUPHPEHUVRQFRQGLWLRQVDWWKH-DLO



 7KHUHLVQR&RPPXQLFDWLRQDQG&RRUGLQDWLRQEHWZHHQ'2&OHDGHUVDQGWKH

)23'2&/DERU&RPPLWWHH/DERU0DQDJHPHQWPHHWLQJVDUHUHSHDWHGO\

FDQFHOOHGLQFOXGLQJRQHPHHWLQJVFKHGXOHGGXULQJWKLVFULWLFDOWLPHSHULRG



 ,QPDWHVFRPLQJLQWRWKH-DLODUHQRWVFUHHQHGIRUV\PSWRPVRI&29,'



 &RUUHFWLRQV2IILFHUVUHFHLYLQJDQGGLVFKDUJLQJLQPDWHVKDYHQR33(KRZHYHU

WKH\PXVWKDYHGLUHFWFRQWDFWZLWKWKHVHLQPDWHV



 ,QPDWHVFRQWLQXHWRPRYHZLWKLQWKH-DLO7KRVHLQPDWHVLQWKHIRXUUHVWULFWHG

KRXVLQJXQLWVPXVWEHHVFRUWHGE\KDQGE\FRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVZLWKRXWDQ\33(

,QPDWHVLQQRQUHVWULFWHGKRXVLQJXQLWVWUDYHODORQHWKURXJKWKH-DLODVUHTXLUHG

IRUDSSRLQWPHQWV$WODWHVWFRXQWWKHUHZHUHLQPDWHVLQWKH&HQWUDO

'HWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\DQGLQWKH&RUUHFWLRQDO7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLW\



 7KHFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVDVVLJQHGWRKRXVLQJXQLWVKDYHQRPDVNVLQVXIILFLHQW

JORYHVQRJRZQVQRGLVLQIHFWDQWVDQGQRFRPSUHKHQVLYHFOHDQLQJRFFXUVRQD

UHJXODUEDVLVLQWKHVHXQLWV,QHDFKXQLWRQHFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHULVUHTXLUHGWREH

RXWDPRQJWKHLQPDWHVDWDOOWLPHVZLWKRXWDQ\SURWHFWLRQ



 ,QPDWHVDUHQRWUHTXLUHGWRHQJDJHLQDQ\RIWKHEHKDYLRUVZKLFKWKH0D\RU

UHFRPPHQGVIRUWKHJHQHUDOSRSXODWLRQVXFKDV³VRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ´UHSHDWHG

KDQGZDVKLQJDQGKHDOWKPRQLWRULQJ



 &DVHZRUNHUVPXVWPHHWZLWKLQPDWHVLQVPDOORIILFHVZLWKQR33(RURWKHU

GLVWDQFLQJPHDVXUHV



 ,QPDWHVFRQWLQXHWRHQJDJHLQUHFUHDWLRQLQDFRPPRQ\DUGDOVRZLWKRXWVRFLDO

GLVWDQFLQJRURWKHUSURWHFWLRQVIURPWKHVSUHDGRI&29,'



 &RUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVHQWHUWKH-DLOWKUHHVKLIWVDGD\7KHUHLVQRGLVWDQFLQJDW

HQWUDQFHVQRGLVWDQFLQJDWUROOFDOOVQRDWWHPSWWRREWDLQRUUHFRUGKHDOWK

FRQFHUQVRIHDFKRIILFHU



 :KHQWKH'&-DLOZDVIRUFHGWRTXDUDQWLQHLQPDWHVZKRZHUHDWULVNWR

H[SRVXUHWR&29,'ZKHQWKH\ZHUHDWFRXUWDQ(57ZDVGHVLJQDWHGWR

UHPRYHWKHPIURPWKHJHQHUDOSRSXODWLRQWRD³TXDUDQWLQH´KRXVLQJXQLW7KH

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 35 of 260

3DJHRI

0DUFK

%RRWK4XLQF\/



(57PHPEHUVUHIXVHGWKHDVVLJQPHQWZLWKRXWSURYLVLRQRIJRZQVDQGRWKHU

DSSURSULDWH33(SURWHFWLRQ7KH\ZHUHRUGHUHGWRUHPRYHWKHLQPDWHVZLWKRQO\

PDVNVDQGJORYHV'XULQJWKHH[WUDFWLRQRQHRIWKHPHPEHUVZDVVSLWXSRQE\DQ

LQPDWH6JW$OH[DQGHUDQG6JW*UDKDPZHUHWKHQUHPRYHGIURPWKH(57WHDP

DQGDVVLJQHGWRDQRWKHUSRVWRXWVLGHWKH-DLO



 7KHVHLQPDWHVZHUHQRW³TXDUDQWLQHG´LQDQ\PHDQLQJIXOPDQQHU7KH\ZHUH

KRXVHGWZRWRDFHOODQGWKHFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVRQWKHXQLWZHUHQRWSURYLGHG

ZLWKDQ\33(RURWKHUPHDQVIRUSURWHFWLRQDJDLQVWLQIHFWLRQV



:+$7'2:(:$17"





%RWK\RXDQGWKH0D\RUDVNHG&SO2OXEDVXVL³:KDWGR\RXZDQW"´:KLOHWKLVFULVLV

VKRXOGQRWEHDWLPHRIOHJDOWHFKQLFDOLWLHVZHFKRRVHWRYLHZWKLVDVDZLOOLQJQHVVE\

PDQDJHPHQWWREDUJDLQRYHUWKHWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVRIHPSOR\PHQWRIRXURIILFHUV7KH

IROORZLQJLVDQHQXPHUDWLRQRIRXUUHTXHVWV7KLVOLVWDVZHDOONQRZLVVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHDVWKH

SDQGHPLFFKDQJHV



  $'DLO\0HHWLQJDPRQJWKH/DERU&RPPLWWHHLWV6KRS6WHZDUGVLWVFRXQVHODQG

 WKH'2&'LUHFWRU'HSXW\'LUHFWRUDQGLWVFRXQVHOWRGLVFXVVFRQGLWLRQVDQG

 UHVSRQVHVWR&29,'



  $&29,'3URWRFROIRURIILFHUVDQGLQPDWHVLQFOXGLQJWKHIROORZLQJ









5HVWULFWHGPRYHPHQWRILQPDWHV





'LVWDQFLQJDPRQJLQPDWHVLQPDWHVRIILFHUVRIILFHUVDQGRIILFHUVLQPDWHV





,QFLGHQW5HSRUWLQJRIRIILFHUVDQGLQPDWHV¶V\PSWRPVRILOOQHVV

  5HJXODU'LVLQIHFWLRQRIWKH&')DQG&7)

  3ULRULW\IRU33(IRURIILFHUV

  'LVFRQWLQXDWLRQRILQPDWHWUDQVSRUWIRUFRXUWDSSHDUDQFHV

  GD\4XDUDQWLQHIRUQHZLQPDWHV

  (VWDEOLVKDTXDUDQWLQHXQLW

  (VWDEOLVKDQRQVLWHWHVWLQJXQLWIRUWKRVHPHHWLQJ&'&WHVWFULWHULDLQFOXGLQJ  SHUVRQVOLYLQJLQWKHKRXVHKROGRIDFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHU 
  7UHDW&29,'DPRQJRIILFHUVDVGXW\FRQQHFWHG

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 36 of 260

3DJHRI

0DUFK

%RRWK4XLQF\/





,QDGGLWLRQZHUHTXLUHSURGXFWLRQRIDOOYLGHRWDSHDQGLQYHVWLJDWLYHUHSRUWVRIWKHDVVDXOW

RQ2IILFHU6XODLPRQ7$ELRODVRWKDWZHPD\LQYHVWLJDWHWKHDVVDXOWDQGSUHVHQWLWWRWKH86

$WWRUQH\¶V2IILFHIRUSURVHFXWLRQ&RUSRUDO$\RGHML)DODGH2IILFHU2OXPLGH3RSRROD2IILFHU

-RKQ/HZLV2IILFHU5DKVDUG5REHUWV2IILFHU$EGRX$ODJXLWRXQLDQG&RUSRUDO'DPLDQ%DUQHV

DQGDQ\RWKHUVXVSHQGHGRIILFHUVPXVWEHUHWXUQHGWRZRUNSHQGLQJ\RXULQYHVWLJDWLRQLQWRWKH

DVVDXOW



&21&/86,21





:HDJUHHZLWK0D\RU%RZVHU¶VVHQWLPHQWWKDWWKHVHDUHGLIILFXOWWLPHVDQGZHVKRXOGDOO

EHSXOOLQJRQWKHVDPHURSH+RZHYHUFRRSHUDWLRQLVDWZRZD\VWUHHW:HQRWHZLWKDJUHDW

GHDORIFRQFHUQWKDWDWWRGD\¶VQHZVFRQIHUHQFHWKH0D\RUVWDWHGWKDWFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVGRQRW

UHTXLUH33(EHFDXVHWKH\GRQRWSURYLGHPHGLFDOFDUH





7KH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELDFDQQRWWUHDWLWVFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVDVFKDWWHO$OUHDG\WKHOLIH

H[SHFWDQF\DPRQJFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVQDWLRQZLGHLVDPRQJWKHORZHVWLQODZHQIRUFHPHQW





7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUFRXUWHVLHV















6LQFHUHO\



s/ J. Michael Hannon















-0LFKDHO+DQQRQ























Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 37 of 260
        
$77$&+0(17$



Case 1:20-cv-00849+D-CQQKRQK/DZD*oURcXSu0mDeLOn&tUL5WLF-D2O,QFFLGHilQeWdDWW0KH3'/3&0-/D2LO00DPUFKage38 of 260
-0LFKDHO+DQQRQMKDQQRQ#KDQQRQODZJURXSFRP!

&ULWLFDO,QFLGHQWDWWKH'&-DLO0DUFK
PHVVDJH

$QQ.DWKU\Q6RDNVR#KDQQRQODZJURXSFRP!

7KX0DUDW30

7R4XLQF\%RRWK#GFJRYOHQQDUGMRKQVRQ#GFJRY(ULF*ORYHU#GFJRY

SDXOHWWHMRKQVRQ#GFJRY

&FNHYLQGRQDKXH#GFJRYOLQGVH\PD[ZHOO#GFJRY-0LFKDHO+DQQRQ

MKDQQRQ#KDQQRQODZJURXSFRP!2OXEDVXVL%HQMDPLQ5'2&

EHQMDPLQROXEDVXVL#GFJRY!

*RRGDIWHUQRRQ 7RGD\0DUFKDWWKH6TXDG/HDGHU6JW-RVHSK$OH[DQGHUDQGWKH 7HDP/HDGHU6JW'RQDOG*UDKDPRIWKH'2&
V(PHUJHQF\5HVSRQVH7HDP(57 ZHUHFDOOHGLQDQGLQIRUPHGWKDWD860DUVKDODW'&6XSHULRU&RXUWWHVWHGSRVLWLYHIRU &29,'7KHWZR6HUJHDQWVZHUHKDQGHGDOLVWRILQPDWHVZKRSRVVLEO\FDPHLQ FRQWDFWZLWKWKH860DUVKDO7KH\ZHUHRUGHUHGWRH[WUDFWWKHLQPDWHVDQG TXDUDQWLQHWKHPLQDQHPSW\FHOOEORFN7KH\ZHUHRUGHUHGWRGRVRXVLQJRQO\IDFH PDVNVDQGJORYHV%RWK6HUJHDQWVUHTXHVWHGIXOOERG\FRYHUDJHIDFHVKLHOGFORWKLQJ FRYHUDJHHWFDVSHUVRQDOSURWHFWLYHHTXLSPHQW33(DQGZHUHUHIXVHG6JW $OH[DQGHUKDVSHUVRQDONQRZOHGJHWKDWWKHLWHPVUHTXHVWHGDUHLQWKH$JHQF\
V LQYHQWRU\%RWK6HUJHDQWVLQGLFDWHGWKH\ZHUHXQFRPIRUWDEOHSHUIRUPLQJWKHLQPDWH H[WUDFWLRQZLWKRXWSURSHU33(7KH'2&0DQDJHPHQWUHSUHVHQWDWLYH'HSXW\:DUGHQ IRU2SHUDWLRQV.DWKOHHQ-R/DQGHUNLQDJDLQUHIXVHGWRSURYLGHWKHHTXLSPHQWDQG DVNHGZKRRQWKH(57ZDVDOVRXQFRPIRUWDEOHFRQGXFWLQJWKHH[WUDFWLRQZLWKRQO\IDFH PDVNVDQGJORYHV(YHU\PHPEHURIWKH(57UHVSRQGHGSRVLWLYHO\7KH(57ZDV RUGHUHGWRFRQGXFWWKHH[WUDFWLRQDQ\ZD\$OOGLGDVWKH\ZHUHWROG$WWKHWLPHRIWKH H[WUDFWLRQDOOLQPDWHVZHUHKRXVHGLQJHQHUDOSRSXODWLRQZLWKRWKHULQPDWHV6JW $OH[DQGHUDVNHGLILQPDWHVZLWKZKRPWKHZHUHKRXVHGVKRXOGEHTXDUDQWLQHG PDQDJHPHQWWROGKLPRQO\WKHLQPDWHVZHUHWREHPRYHGLQWRWKHHPSW\FHOOEORFN 7KRVHFHOOPDWHVDUHVWLOOLQJHQHUDOSRSXODWLRQ'XULQJWKHH[WUDFWLRQDSSUR[LPDWHO\KDOI RIWKHLQPDWHVUHVLVWHGEHLQJPRYHG$OOEXWRQHPRYHGHYHQWXDOO\ZLWKRXWLQFLGHQW KRZHYHURQHLQPDWHVSLWLQWKHIDFHRIRQHRIWKH(57RIILFHUVZKRZDVRQO\SURWHFWHG E\WKHIDFHPDVN7KHDWULVNLQPDWHVDUHEHLQJKRXVHGWZRWRDFHOOLQ³TXDUDQWLQH´ LQDQLVRODWHGFHOOEORFN7KHRIILFHUZKRZDVVSLWRQ+DNHHP6PLWKKDVJRQHKRPH ,PPHGLDWHO\DIWHUWKHH[WUDFWLRQWKHWZR6HUJHDQWVZHUHUHDVVLJQHGWRDGLIIHUHQWXQLW FHQWUDOFHOOEORFNDQGGLIIHUHQWVKLIWQLJKWDQGWKHLUGHSDUWPHQWSKRQHVKDYHEHHQ WDNHQDZD\,QDGGLWLRQWKH\ZHUHUHPRYHGIURPWKH(577KH\ZHUHWROGE\0DMRU &DUORV%LYHQVWKDWWKLVZDVQRWDGLVFLSOLQDU\DFWLRQ 7KH'2&PDQDJHPHQWKDVFUHDWHGDQXQFRQVFLRQDEOHSXEOLFKHDOWKFULVLVDQGDOPRVW FHUWDLQO\JXDUDQWHHGDQGDFFHOHUDWHGWKHUDPSDQWVSUHDGRI&29,'ZLWKLQWKH'2& IDFLOLWLHVDQGWKHFRPPXQLWLHVLQZKLFKWKHVWDIIOLYH0V/DQGHUNLQGLUHFWO\SXWWKHOLYHV RIWKHRIILFHUVRQWKH(57LQLPPLQHQWGDQJHU6KHGLGVRZLWKRXWUHJDUGIRUWKHLU SHUVRQDOVDIHW\RUWKDWRIWKHLQPDWHSRSXODWLRQ,QDGGLWLRQWREHLQJFDOORXVDQG UHSUHKHQVLEOHKHUDFWLRQVDUHLQREYLRXVYLRODWLRQRIVHYHUDOSURYLVLRQVRIWKH&ROOHFWLYH %DUJDLQLQJ$JUHHPHQWDQGDUHDUJXDEO\LOOHJDO7KH$JHQF\LVIROORZLQJDEVROXWHO\QR DSSURSULDWHJXLGHOLQHVZLWKUHJDUGWRWKHVDIHKDQGOLQJDQGWUHDWPHQWRIWKHIURQWOLQH VWDIIRULQPDWHSRSXODWLRQ7KHDWULVNLQPDWHVDUHKRXVHGWZRWRDFHOOLQ ³TXDUDQWLQH´VWDWXV7KH\ZHUHH[WUDFWHGIURPFHOOEORFNVZKHUHWKH\ZHUHKRXVHGPRUH WKDQRQHWRDFHOODQGUHTXLUHGWRSDUWLFLSDWHLQUHFUHDWLRQDQGRWKHUJURXSDFWLYLWLHV$OO RIWKLVLVLQYLRODWLRQRIWKH0D\RU¶V2UGHU3URKLELWLRQRQ0DVV*DWKHULQJV 'XULQJ3XEOLF+HDOWK(PHUJHQF\&RURQDYLUXV&29,',QDGGLWLRQZKHQDVNHGE\ WKH(57RIILFHUVLIWKHLQPDWHVZLWKZKRPWKHDWULVNLQPDWHVZHUHKRXVHGRULJLQDOO\ DOVRVKRXOGEHTXDUDQWLQHG'2&PDQDJHPHQWUHIXVHG0DQDJHPHQW¶VUHVSRQVHZDV WKDWLIWKH\ZHUHQRWRQWKHOLVWWKH\ZHUHWREHOHIWLQWKHLUXQLW
KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 



Case 1:20-cv-00849+D-CQQKRQK/DZD*oURcXSu0mDeLOn&tUL5WLF-D2O,QFFLGHilQeWdDWW0KH3'/3&0-/D2LO00DPUFKage39 of 260

$VLIWKLVSXEOLFKHDOWKFULVLVFUHDWHGE\0V/DQGHUNLQZDVQRWHQRXJK'2&

PDQDJHPHQWFOHDUO\UHWDOLDWHGDJDLQVW6JWV$OH[DQGHUDQG*UDKDPIRUWKHLUUHTXHVWIRU

33($WWKHWLPHRIWKHRUGHUUHDVVLJQLQJWKHPWKH\ZHUHWROGLWZDVQRWDGLVFLSOLQDU\

DFWLRQ0DQDJHPHQWFDQFDOOLWZKDWHYHUWKH\FKRRVHKRZHYHULWLVFOHDUO\

UHWDOLDWRU\7KH'2&RUGHUHGVWDIILQWRDOLIHWKUHDWHQLQJVLWXDWLRQZLWKRXWWKHSURSHU

HTXLSPHQWDQGUHWDOLDWHGDJDLQVWWKHPIRUDVNLQJIRUWKHSURSHU33(7KH33(

UHTXHVWHGZDVQRWXQUHDVRQDEOHLWZDVH[DFWO\ZKDWLVEHLQJUHFRPPHQGHGWKURXJKRXW

WKHLQGXVWU\DQGWKHQDWLRQIRUKDQGOLQJRILQIHFWLRXVLQGLYLGXDOV7KHUHLVDEVROXWHO\QR

MXVWLILFDWLRQIRUQRWSURYLGLQJWKLVHTXLSPHQWHVSHFLDOO\XSRQUHTXHVWDQGLQOLJKWRIWKH

IDFWWKDWLWZDVRQKDQG7KLVWUHDWPHQWZLOOQRWEHWROHUDWHG

,LQGLFDWHGLQP\HPDLO5HTXHVWIRU,QIRUPDWLRQVHQWHDUOLHUWRGD\WR(ULF*ORYHUDQG 3DXOHWWH-RKQVRQWKDWWKH8QLRQ¶VSULRULW\ZDVWRSURWHFWWKHKHDOWKDQGVDIHW\RIWKH VWDII:HZLOOWDNHLPPHGLDWHDQGGHFLVLYHDFWLRQWRGRVRLQWKHIDFHRIWKHGHOLEHUDWH DQGGDQJHURXVDFWLRQVWDNHQE\'2&PDQDJHPHQWWRGD\2QHVXFKDFWLRQLVWRILOHD JURXSJULHYDQFHIRUPXOWLSOHYLRODWLRQVRIWKH&ROOHFWLYH%DUJDLQLQJ$JUHHPHQW$ GHWDLOHGHPDLOZLOOIROORZZLWKWKHH[DFWSURYLVLRQVWKDWKDYHEHHQYLRODWHG3OHDVH FRQVLGHUWKLVRIILFLDOQRWLFH

95

$QQ.DWKU\Q6R



Ǧ 
ǡ
WK6WUHHW1(
:DVKLQJWRQ'& ǡ ȋʹͲʹȌʹ͵ʹǦ͵͹ͲͶǡ 

dŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂŽŶĐ ŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐĞͲŵĂŝůŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚŽŶůǇĨŽƌƚŚĞƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůĂŶĚĐŽŶĮĚĞŶĂůƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶ ƚ;ƐͿŶĂŵĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͘dŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ ŵĂǇďĞĂŶĂ ŽƌŶĞǇͲĐůŝĞŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶĂŶĚĂƐƐƵĐŚŝƐ WZ/s/>'EKE&/Ed/>͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƌŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ ƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕ǇŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďǇŶŽĮĞĚƚŚĂƚǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐ ĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĂŶǇƌĞǀŝĞǁ͕ĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂŽŶ͕ĚŝƐ ƚƌŝďƵŽŶ͕ŽƌĐ ŽƉǇŝŶŐŽĨ ƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůǇƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŶŽĨ ǇƵƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇďǇĞͲŵĂŝůĂŶĚĚĞůĞƚĞƚŚĞ ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͘
dŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂŽŶĐ ŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐĞͲŵĂŝůŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚŽŶůǇĨŽƌƚŚĞƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůĂŶĚĐŽŶĮĚĞŶĂůƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶ ƚ;ƐͿŶĂŵĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͘dŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ ŵĂǇďĞĂŶĂ ŽƌŶĞǇͲĐůŝĞŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶĂŶĚĂƐƐƵĐŚŝƐ WZ/s/>'EKE&/Ed/>͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƌŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ ƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕ǇŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďǇŶŽĮĞĚƚŚĂƚǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐ ĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĂŶǇƌĞǀŝĞǁ͕ĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂŽŶ͕ĚŝƐ ƚƌŝďƵŽŶ͕ŽƌĐ ŽƉǇŝŶŐŽĨ ƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůǇƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŶŽĨ ǇƵƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇďǇĞͲŵĂŝůĂŶĚĚĞůĞƚĞƚŚĞ ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͘

KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 40 of 260
        
$77$&+0(17%



Case +1D:Q2Q0RQ-c/vDZ-0*0UR8X4S90-DCLOK)KZG5DHToXcHVuWmIRUe,QnIRtUP5D-W2LRQRFQi3leRWdHQ0WLD3OO\/3'0DQ/J2H0URXVP&aRQgGeLWLR4QV1DWoWKfH2'620&)DFLOLWLHV
-0LFKDHO+DQQRQMKDQQRQ#KDQQRQODZJURXSFRP!

)ZG5HTXHVWIRU,QIRUPDWLRQRQ3RWHQWLDOO\'DQJHURXV &RQGLWLRQVDWWKH'2&)DFLOLWLHV
PHVVDJH

$QQ.DWKU\Q6RDNVR#KDQQRQODZJURXSFRP!

0RQ0DUDW30

7R-0LFKDHO+DQQRQMKDQQRQ#KDQQRQODZJURXSFRP!

+HUHLVKLVUHVSRQVHWRP\ILUVWHPDLO,KDYHKHDUGQRWKLQJDERXWWKHVHFRQG

)RUZDUGHGPHVVDJH )URP*ORYHU(ULF'2&HULFJORYHU#GFJRY! 'DWH)UL0DUDW$0 6XEMHFW5(5HTXHVWIRU,QIRUPDWLRQRQ3RWHQWLDOO\'DQJHURXV&RQGLWLRQVDWWKH'2& )DFLOLWLHV 7R$QQ.DWKU\Q6RDNVR#KDQQRQODZJURXSFRP!-RKQVRQ3DXOHWWH'2& SDXOHWWHMRKQVRQ#GFJRY! &F2OXEDVXVL%HQMDPLQ5'2&EHQMDPLQROXEDVXVL#GFJRY!

0V6R  7KDQN\RXIRUFRQWDFWLQJWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV'2&LVSUHSDULQJDUHVSRQVH WR\RXULQTXLUHVDQGZLOOFRQWDFW\RXDVVRRQDVSRVVLEOH  5HJDUGV  (ULF6*ORYHU *HQHUDO&RXQVHO 'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD 'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV WK6WUHHW1: 6HYHQWK)ORRU
KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 



Case +1D:Q2Q0RQ-c/vDZ-0*0UR8X4S90-DCLOK)KZG5DHToXcHVuWmIRUe,QnIRtUP5D-W2LRQRFQi3leRWdHQ0WLD3OO\/3'0DQ/J2H0URXVP&aRQgGeLWLR4QV2DWoWKfH2'620&)DFLOLWLHV

:DVKLQJWRQ'&

3KRQH

2IILFH&HOO

)D[

&RQILGHQWLDOLW\1RWLFH7KLVPHVVDJHLVEHLQJVHQWE\RURQEHKDOIRIDODZ\HU,WLVLQWHQGHGH[FOXVLYHO\IRU WKHLQGLYLGXDORUHQWLW\WRZKLFKLWLVDGGUHVVHG7KLVFRPPXQLFDWLRQPD\FRQWDLQLQIRUPDWLRQWKDWLV SURSULHWDU\SULYLOHJHGRUFRQILGHQWLDORURWKHUZLVHOHJDOO\H[HPSWIURPGLVFORVXUH,I\RXDUHQRWWKHQDPHG DGGUHVVHH\RXDUHQRWDXWKRUL]HGWRUHDGSULQWUHWDLQFRS\RUGLVVHPLQDWHWKLVPHVVDJHRUDQ\SDUWRILW ,I\RXKDYHUHFHLYHGWKLVPHVVDJHLQHUURUSOHDVHQRWLI\WKHVHQGHULPPHGLDWHO\E\HPDLODQGGHOHWHDOO FRSLHVRIWKHPHVVDJH

0HWDGDWD7KLVHPDLOWUDQVPLVVLRQDQGDQ\DFFRPSDQ\LQJPDWHULDOPD\FRQWDLQHPEHGGHGPHWDGDWD$Q\ LQFOXGHGPHWDGDWDLVFRQILGHQWLDORUSULYLOHJHGLQIRUPDWLRQDQGLVQRWLQWHQGHGWREHYLHZHGE\DQRQFOLHQW UHFLSLHQW

&ƌŽŵ͗ŶŶͲ<ĂƚŚƌǇŶ^Ž΀ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗DNVR#KDQQRQODZJURXSFRP΁ ^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂǇ͕DĂƌĐŚϭϵ͕ϮϬϮϬϭϭ͗ϬϬD dŽ͗'ůŽǀĞƌ͕ƌŝĐ;KͿфHULFJORYHU#GFJRYх͖:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ͕WĂƵůĞ Ğ;KͿфSDXOHWWHMRKQVRQ#GFJRYх Đ͗KůƵďĂƐƵƐŝ͕ĞŶũĂŵŝŶZ͘;KͿфEHQMDPLQROXEDVXVL#GFJRYх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂ ŽŶŽŶWŽƚĞŶ ĂůůǇĂŶŐĞƌŽƵƐŽŶĚŝ ŽŶƐĂƚƚŚĞK&ĂĐŝůŝ ĞƐ

hd/KE͗dŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůŽƌŝŐŝŶĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵŽƵƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ͘ŽŶŽƚĐůŝĐŬŽŶůŝŶŬƐŽƌŽƉĞŶĂ ĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐƵŶůĞƐƐǇŽƵ ƌĞĐŽŐŶŝǌĞƚŚĞƐĞŶĚĞƌĂŶĚŬŶŽǁƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŽŶƚĞŶƚŝƐƐĂĨĞ͘/ĨǇŽƵďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůŝƐƐƵƐƉŝĐŝŽƵƐ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƚŽ SKLVKLQJ#GFJRYĨŽƌĂĚĚŝ ŽŶĂůĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐďǇKdK^ĞĐƵƌŝƚǇKƉĞƌĂ ŽŶƐĞŶƚĞƌ;^KͿ͘
 *RRGPRUQLQJ

KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 



Case +1D:Q2Q0RQ-c/vDZ-0*0UR8X4S90-DCLOK)KZG5DHToXcHVuWmIRUe,QnIRtUP5D-W2LRQRFQi3leRWdHQ0WLD3OO\/3'0DQ/J2H0URXVP&aRQgGeLWLR4QV3DWoWKfH2'620&)DFLOLWLHV

,QOLJKWRIWKHHYHUFKDQJLQJODQGVFDSHZLWKUHVSHFWWRWKHSDQGHPLFZHZRXOGOLNHWR

HQVXUHWKDWWKH$JHQF\LVGRLQJHYHU\WKLQJLWFDQWRNHHSWKHVWDIIUHVLGHQWVDQGYLVLWRUV

DVVDIHDVSRVVLEOHIURP&29,'6ZLIWHIIHFWLYHDFWLRQLVFULWLFDODVWKHQXPEHUVRI

VXVSHFWHGDQGFRQILUPHGFDVHVULVHH[SRQHQWLDOO\7KLVLVHVSHFLDOO\WUXHIRU'2&VWDII

PHPEHUVZKRKDYHUHJXODUFRQWDFWZLWKWKHLQPDWHSRSXODWLRQ7KH\PXVWEH

SURWHFWHG



7KH'2&KDVSXEOLFL]HGDQXPEHURIPHDVXUHVLWKDVRUZLOOEHWDNLQJ3OHDVHFRQILUP WKHIROORZLQJ'2&HIIRUWV



x+DYHDOOLQSHUVRQYLVLWVSURJUDPPLQJDQGYROXQWHHUDFWLYLWLHVDWDOO$JHQF\ IDFLOLWLHVLQIDFWEHHQVXVSHQGHG"

x+DYH'2&RIILFLDOVHVWDEOLVKHG,QFLGHQW&RPPDQG7HDP":KRLVRQWKDW WHDP"$UHDQ\PHPEHUVRIWKH8QLRQRQWKDWWHDP"

x,VWKH0HGLFDO6WDIIPHHWLQJZLWKHDFKKRXVLQJXQLWDQGRIILFHUUROOFDOO" 3OHDVHSURYLGHGHWDLOVDVWRWLPHSODFHDQGIUHTXHQF\RIWKHPHHWLQJVWKDWWKH 0HGLFDO6WDIILVKROGLQJ

x:KDWLVWKH$JHQF\
VVWUDWHJLFFRPPXQLFDWLRQVSODQZLWKUHJDUGWR&29,' DQGKRZKDVLWEHHQFRPPXQLFDWHGWRWKHVWDII",VLWXSGDWHGDQG FRPPXQLFDWHGUHJXODUO\DVWKLVVLWXDWLRQHYROYHV"7KHODVWXSGDWHRQWKH'2& ZHESDJHLVGDWHG0DUFK

x:KDWGRHVHQKDQFHGFOHDQLQJHIIRUWVPHDQ"+DYHWKRVH³HQKDQFHG FOHDQLQJHIIRUWV´EHHQLPSOHPHQWHGHVSHFLDOO\ZLWKLQFRPPRQDUHDV"+RZ RIWHQLVWKLVOHYHORIFOHDQLQJEHLQJGRQH"

x7KH$JHQF\SURPLVHGWRRUGHUDGGLWLRQDOFOHDQLQJDQGVDQLWDWLRQVXSSOLHV LQFOXGLQJSURWHFWLYHJORYHVPDVNVDQGFORWKLQJIRUVWDII1RLQIRUPDWLRQZDV SURYLGHGDERXWGLVSHQVLQJWKHVHLWHPV+DYHWKHVHLWHPVEHHQUHFHLYHGDQG GLVWULEXWHG"$UHWKHUHDQ\VXSSOLHV\RXQHHGWKDW\RXGRQRWKDYH"+DYH VDQLWL]LQJZLSHVEHHQSURYLGHGE\WKH$JHQF\",VWKHVWDIISHUPLWWHGWREULQJ SHUVRQDOVDQLWDWLRQPDWHULDORWKHUWKDQZLSHV"$UHLQPDWHVEHLQJSURYLGHG VDIHW\PDWHULDOVWKDWWKHVWDIILVQRW"

x:DVWKHUHDWZRKRXUFOHDQLQJRIWKHHQWLUHIDFLOLW\"+RZPDQ\WLPHVKDV WKLVKDSSHQHG",VWKLVRFFXUULQJGDLO\UHJXODUO\"

x3OHDVHGHVFULEHWKH$JHQF\
VHIIRUWVLQSDUWQHULQJDQGRUVKDULQJ LQIRUPDWLRQZLWKFULPLQDOMXVWLFHSDUWQHUV"

KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 



Case +1D:Q2Q0RQ-c/vDZ-0*0UR8X4S90-DCLOK)KZG5DHToXcHVuWmIRUe,QnIRtUP5D-W2LRQRFQi3leRWdHQ0WLD3OO\/3'0DQ/J2H0URXVP&aRQgGeLWLR4QV4DWoWKfH2'620&)DFLOLWLHV
x$UHGDLO\XSGDWHVFRQWLQXLQJWREHVHQWYLDHPDLOVWRWKHVWDIIUHJDUGLQJ &29,'"&DQ\RXSOHDVHPDNHWKRVHDYDLODEOH"



0RVWQRWDEOHLQWKH$JHQF\¶VSXEOLFUHVSRQVHWR&29,'LVWKDWWKHUHLVQRWKLQJWKDW DGGUHVVHVWKHSURFHGXUHVIRUWKHVFUHHQLQJTXDUDQWLQHDQGRUWUHDWPHQWRIVWDII LQPDWHVDQGRUDQ\RQHZKRFRPHVLQWRFRQWDFWZLWKHLWKHURUERWK&DQ\RXSURYLGH GHWDLOHGLQIRUPDWLRQDVWRZKDWWKRVHSURFHGXUHVDUH"6SHFLILFDOO\



x+DYHWKH'2&HPSOR\HHVRIILFHUVDQGPHGLFDOVWDIIEHHQSURYLGHG DSSURSULDWHSURWHFWLYHGHYLFHVPDWHULDOWUDLQLQJ"$UHVWDIIPHPEHUV NQRZOHGJHDEOHRQDQGDGHTXDWHO\HTXLSSHGWRSUHYHQWWUDQVPLVVLRQPLQLPL]H VSUHDGDQGSURWHFWWKHPVHOYHVDQGWKHLQPDWHSRSXODWLRQIURPFRQWDFWLQJ &29,'"

x,VWKH'2&ZRUNLQJLQFORVHFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKH'&'HSDUWPHQWRI+HDOWK" :KDWPHGLFDOVXSSRUWGRHVWKH$JHQF\KDYHVSHFLILFDOO\IRUWKHYLUXV"

x$UHDOOLQFRPLQJLQPDWHVVWDIIDQGRWKHULQGLYLGXDOVZLWKDFFHVVWRWKH'2& IDFLOLWLHVTXHVWLRQHGDVWRWKHLUOHYHORIULVN"

x:KDWLVWKHSURFHGXUHIRUSURFHVVLQJDOOQHZLQPDWHVWRWKHIDFLOLWLHV"

x:KDWLVWKHSURFHGXUHIRUDVVHVVLQJWKHULVNWRH[LVWLQJLQPDWHV"

x:KDWWHVWLQJLVEHLQJRIIHUHGWRFRQILUPDGLDJQRVLVRI&29,'"

x:KDWSURFHGXUHVDUHLQSODFHLIDQLQPDWHLVV\PSWRPDWLF"

x:KDWSURFHGXUHVDUHLQSODFHLIDQLQPDWHWHVWVSRVLWLYH"

x:KDWSURFHGXUHVDUHLQSODFHIRUTXDUDQWLQHV"

x$UHWKHUHDQ\RIWKHIROORZLQJ

x$V\PSWRPDWLFLQPDWHVFXUUHQWO\KRXVHGDWDQ\RIWKHIDFLOLWLHVZKRDUHDW KLJKULVNIRUFRQWUDFWLQJ&29,'"

x6\PSWRPDWLFLQPDWHVFXUUHQWO\KRXVHGDWDQ\RIWKHIDFLOLWLHV",IVRZKDW DFWLRQVDUHEHLQJWDNHQZLWKUHJDUGWRWKRVHLQGLYLGXDOV"

x,QPDWHVFXUUHQWO\KRXVHGDWDQ\RIWKHIDFLOLWLHVZKRKDYHWHVWHGSRVLWLYHIRU &29,'"

x:KDWLVEHLQJGRQHWRWUDFNDQ\LQPDWHVYLVLWRUVVWDIIRURWKHULQGLYLGXDOV ZLWKDFFHVVWRDQ\RIWKHIDFLOLWLHVZKRKDYHEHHQDWDQ\'2&IDFLOLW\ZLWKLQWKH
KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 



Case +1D:Q2Q0RQ-c/vDZ-0*0UR8X4S90-DCLOK)KZG5DHToXcHVuWmIRUe,QnIRtUP5D-W2LRQRFQi3leRWdHQ0WLD3OO\/3'0DQ/J2H0URXVP&aRQgGeLWLR4QV5DWoWKfH2'620&)DFLOLWLHV
SDVWWZRZHHNVLQFOXGLQJDQ\LQGLYLGXDOVZKRZHUHKHOGDQGUHOHDVHGRU WUDQVIHUUHG"

x:KDWLVWKHLPSDFWRIWKH$JHQF\¶VUHVSRQVHWRWKH0D\RU
V2UGHU 3URKLELWLRQRQ0DVV*DWKHULQJV'XULQJ3XEOLF+HDOWK(PHUJHQF\ &RURQDYLUXV&29,'"



2IDPRVWFULWLFDOQDWXUHLWKDVFRPHWRRXUDWWHQWLRQWKDWWKHUHPD\EHRQHRU PRUHLQPDWHVFXUUHQWO\KRXVHGZLWKLQ'2&IDFLOLWLHVZKRDUHHLWKHUV\PSWRPDWLF DQGRUWHVWHGSRVLWLYHIRU&29,'3OHDVHFRQILUPLIWKH$JHQF\LVDZDUHRIDQ\RQH KRXVHGDWRUZLWKDFFHVVWRDQ\RIWKHLUIDFLOLWLHVZKRHLWKHULVV\PSWRPDWLFRUKDVWHVWHG SRVLWLYHIRU&29,'DQGLIVRZKDWDFWLRQVKDYHEHHQWDNHQDQGZLOOEHWDNHQLQ UHVSRQVH,VWKH$JHQF\IROORZLQJWKH&'&¶V*XLGHOLQHIRU,VRODWLRQ3UHFDXWLRQV 3UHYHQWLQJ7UDQVPLVVLRQRI,QIHFWLRXV$JHQWVLQ+HDOWKFDUH6HWWLQJVRUVLPLODU JXLGHOLQHV"3OHDVHSURYLGHWKH8QLRQ
V([HFXWLYH0DQDJHPHQWZLWK\RXUGHWDLOHG HPHUJHQF\DFWLRQSODQ



:LWKRXWTXHVWLRQWKLVSDQGHPLFLVDKHDOWKDQGVDIHW\FULVLV7KH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD KDVEHHQLQWKHIRUHIURQWRIDSURDFWLYHUHVSRQVHDQGWKDWPXVWH[WHQGWRWKH'2&7KH HQWLUH'2&SRSXODWLRQLVDWKLJKHUULVNWKDQWKHJHQHUDOSXEOLFDQGHYHU\SUHFDXWLRQDQG VDIHW\PHDVXUHPXVWEHWDNHQ,WLVWKH8QLRQ¶VSULRULW\WRSURWHFWWKHVWDIIDQGLWZLOO WDNHDFWLRQVQHFHVVDU\WRGRVR


,ORRNIRUZDUGWRKHDULQJIURP\RX 7KDQN\RX 95 $QQ   

Ǧ 
ǡ WK6WUHHW1( :DVKLQJWRQ'& ǡ ȋʹͲʹȌʹ͵ʹǦ͵͹ͲͶǡ 

KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 



Case +1D:Q2Q0RQ-c/vDZ-0*0UR8X4S90-DCLOK)KZG5DHToXcHVuWmIRUe,QnIRtUP5D-W2LRQRFQi3leRWdHQ0WLD3OO\/3'0DQ/J2H0URXVP&aRQgGeLWLR4QV6DWoWKfH2'620&)DFLOLWLHV

dŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂŽŶĐ ŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐĞͲŵĂŝůŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚŽŶůǇĨŽƌƚŚĞƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůĂŶĚĐŽŶĮĚĞŶĂůƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶ ƚ;ƐͿŶĂŵĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͘dŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ ŵĂǇďĞĂŶĂ ŽƌŶĞǇͲĐůŝĞŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶĂŶĚĂƐƐƵĐŚŝƐ WZ/s/>'EKE&/Ed/>͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƌŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ ƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕ǇŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďǇŶŽĮĞĚƚŚĂƚǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐ ĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĂŶǇƌĞǀŝĞǁ͕ĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂŽŶ͕ĚŝƐ ƚƌŝďƵŽŶ͕ŽƌĐ ŽƉǇŝŶŐŽĨ ƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůǇƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŶŽĨ ǇƵƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇďǇĞͲŵĂŝůĂŶĚĚĞůĞƚĞƚŚĞ ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͘
dŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂŽŶĐ ŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐĞͲŵĂŝůŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚŽŶůǇĨŽƌƚŚĞƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůĂŶĚĐŽŶĮĚĞŶĂůƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶ ƚ;ƐͿŶĂŵĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͘dŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ ŵĂǇďĞĂŶĂ ŽƌŶĞǇͲĐůŝĞŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶĂŶĚĂƐƐƵĐŚŝƐ WZ/s/>'EKE&/Ed/>͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƌŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ ƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕ǇŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďǇŶŽĮĞĚƚŚĂƚǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐ ĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĂŶǇƌĞǀŝĞǁ͕ĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂŽŶ͕ĚŝƐ ƚƌŝďƵŽŶ͕ŽƌĐ ŽƉǇŝŶŐŽĨ ƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůǇƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŶŽĨ ǇƵƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇďǇĞͲŵĂŝůĂŶĚĚĞůĞƚĞƚŚĞ ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͘
)RUWKHODWHVWLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKH'LVWULFW*RYHUQPHQW¶VUHVSRQVHWR&29,' &RURQDYLUXVSOHDVHYLVLWFRURQDYLUXVGFJRY

Ǧ 
ǡ WK6WUHHW1( :DVKLQJWRQ'& ǡ ȋʹͲʹȌʹ͵ʹǦ͵͹ͲͶǡ 
dŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂŽŶĐ ŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐĞͲŵĂŝůŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚŽŶůǇĨŽƌƚŚĞƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůĂŶĚĐŽŶĮĚĞŶĂůƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶ ƚ;ƐͿŶĂŵĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͘dŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ ŵĂǇďĞĂŶĂ ŽƌŶĞǇͲĐůŝĞŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶĂŶĚĂƐƐƵĐŚŝƐ WZ/s/>'EKE&/Ed/>͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƌŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ ƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕ǇŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďǇŶŽĮĞĚƚŚĂƚǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐ ĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĂŶǇƌĞǀŝĞǁ͕ĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂŽŶ͕ĚŝƐ ƚƌŝďƵŽŶ͕ŽƌĐ ŽƉǇŝŶŐŽĨ ƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůǇƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŶŽĨ ǇƵƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇďǇĞͲŵĂŝůĂŶĚĚĞůĞƚĞƚŚĞ ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͘
dŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂŽŶĐ ŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐĞͲŵĂŝůŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚŽŶůǇĨŽƌƚŚĞƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůĂŶĚĐŽŶĮĚĞŶĂůƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶ ƚ;ƐͿŶĂŵĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͘dŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ
KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 



Case +1D:Q2Q0RQ-c/vDZ-0*0UR8X4S90-DCLOK)KZG5DHToXcHVuWmIRUe,QnIRtUP5D-W2LRQRFQi3leRWdHQ0WLD3OO\/3'0DQ/J2H0URXVP&aRQgGeLWLR4QV7DWoWKfH2'620&)DFLOLWLHV

ŵĂǇďĞĂŶĂ ŽƌŶĞǇͲĐůŝĞŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶĂŶĚĂƐƐƵĐŚŝƐ WZ/s/>'EKE&/Ed/>͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƌŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ

ƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕ǇŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďǇŶŽĮĞĚƚŚĂƚǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐ ĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĂŶǇƌĞǀŝĞǁ͕ĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂŽŶ͕ĚŝƐ ƚƌŝďƵŽŶ͕ŽƌĐ ŽƉǇŝŶŐŽĨ

ƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůǇƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŶŽĨ ǇƵƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇďǇĞͲŵĂŝůĂŶĚĚĞůĞƚĞƚŚĞ

ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͘

KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 48 of 260
        
$77$&+0(17&

 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 49 of 260

&ƌĂƚĞƌŶĂůKƌĚĞƌŽĨWŽůŝĐĞ
ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ>ĂďŽƌŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ϳϭϭϰd,^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕EŽƌƚŚǁĞƐƚ tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ͕ϮϬϬϬϭ 
$11281&(0(1772'2&)230(0%(56 0$5&+ 
7KHVHDUHJUDYHWLPHVDWWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV'2& 7KHUHLVQRTXHVWLRQWKDWGLUHWKUHDWVIDFHRXUZRUNIRUFH7KH([HFXWLYH%RDUGRIWKH )UDWHUQDO2UGHURI3ROLFH'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV/DERU&RPPLWWHH¶V)23'2&/& LVFRPPLWWHGWRVXSSRUWLQJDQGSURWHFWLQJWKH8QLRQ¶VPHPEHUVKLSDQGLVGRLQJDOOWKDW LWFDQWRGRVR:HDOONQRZZHIDFHVHULRXVWKUHDWVERWKLQVLGHDQGRXWVLGHRIWKH '2&IDFLOLWLHV7KHUHLVQRTXHVWLRQWKDWHDFKRQHRIXVSXWVRXUOLYHVDQGRXU OLYHOLKRRGVRQWKHOLQHHYHU\WLPHZHUHSRUWWRZRUNDQGPDQRXUSRVWRUWDNHRXUVHDWDW RXUGHVN
We know your health and safety is at risk every day, and we want you to know it is our TOP priority to tackle the critical issues we all face with speed and effectiveness!!
,QNHHSLQJZLWKRXUSULRULWLHVWKLVVHUYHVDVRIILFLDOQRWLFHRIWKUHHFUXFLDODFWLRQVWKH )23'2&/&¶V([HFXWLYH%RDUGLVWDNLQJWRSURWHFWWKHPHPEHUVKLS
&29,'²'2&KDVQRWSURYLGHGLWVHPSOR\HHVDYDOLGDFWLRQSODQLQUHVSRQVHWR &29,':HKHDUPRUHHYHU\GD\DERXWWKHYLUXV\HWWKH'2&KDVGRQHYHU\OLWWOH WRVXSSRUWWKHIURQWOLQHRIILFHUVDQGVWDIIDJDLQVW&29,'7KH'2&¶VSXEOLFZHEVLWH DERXW&29,'KDVQRWEHHQXSGDWHGVLQFHDWOHDVW0DUFK2XUDWWRUQH\V VHQWD5HTXHVWIRU,QIRUPDWLRQRQ0DUFKDVNLQJLIWKH'2&KDGGRQHZKDWLW SURPLVHGWRSURWHFWRXUPHPEHUVDQGZKDWIXWXUHVWHSVZRXOGEHWDNHQ1RDQVZHU KDVEHHQUHFHLYHGDVRI0DUFK'2&PDQDJHPHQWKDVFDQFHOHGRXU ODERUPDQDJHPHQWPHHWLQJVDWWKLVFULWLFDOWLPH2XUDWWRUQH\VDOVRPDGHWKH'2& DZDUHRIVHYHUDOYLRODWLRQVWKH\FRPPLWWHGLQWKH³TXDUDQWLQH´RUGHU'2&0DQDJHPHQW LVVXHGDQGKDGH[HFXWHGRQ0DUFK7KLVDFWLRQOHGWRD³1R&RQILGHQFH´YRWH E\WKH%RDUG7KH'2&LVXSDJDLQVWLWVGHDGOLQHWRUHVSRQGWRWKDWOHWWHU:HFRQWLQXH WRZRUNRQJHWWLQJWKDWLQIRUPDWLRQWRKROG'2&0DQDJHPHQWDFFRXQWDEOH
2IILFHU$VVDXOW²2QHRIRXURIILFHUVZDVYLFLRXVO\DVVDXOWHGRQ0DUFKE\DQ LQPDWH'2&0DQDJHPHQW¶VUHVSRQVHWRWKLVZDVWRLVVXHGLVFLSOLQDU\DFWLRQDJDLQVW WZRIHOORZRIILFHUVZKRUHVSRQGHGDVWKH\VKRXOGKDYHWRVDYHWKHOLIHRIWKHDVVDXOWHG RIILFHU'XHWR'2&0DQDJHPHQW¶VLQFRPSHWHQWSUHVHQWDWLRQRIWKHFDVHWRWKH86 $WWRUQH\¶V2IILFHQRFKDUJHVZHUHPDGHDJDLQVWWKHLQPDWHIRUWKHXQSURYRNHGDWWDFN RQRXURIILFHU



 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 50 of 260

:HKDYHLQVWUXFWHGWKH+$1121/$:*5283WRLQYHVWLJDWHWKHLQFLGHQWDQGZHDUH FRQILGHQWWKH\ZLOOGRVRIXOO\:HDQWLFLSDWHWKDWDVDUHVXOWRIWKHLUHIIRUWV+$1121 /$:*5283ZLOOUHSUHVHQWWKHFDVHWRWKH86$WWRUQH\¶V2IILFHIRUSURSHU SURVHFXWLRQRIWKHLQPDWH0U-0LFKDHO+DQQRQLVDIRUPHU$VVLVWDQW8QLWHG6WDWHV $WWRUQH\
:HDUHDOVRFRQWHVWLQJWKHUHPRYDORIWKHRIILFHUVZKRFDPHWRWKHDLGRIRXUFROOHDJXH
1DWLRQDO)23²:HDUHZRUNLQJZLWKWKH'&/RGJH/HDGHUVKLSDQG1DWLRQDO )UDWHUQDO2UGHURI3ROLFH)23RUJDQL]DWLRQWRDGYRFDWHRQ<285EHKDOI:HKDYH PDGHWKHPDZDUHRIWKHIDLOXUHRIWKH'2&0DQDJHPHQWWHDPWR
x HQVXUHWKDWSURSHUSURWRFROVDUHIROORZHGZLWKERWKVWDIILQPDWHVDQGYLVLWRUV DWDOO'2&IDFLOLWLHV
x ZRUNZLWKWKH8QLRQRQVROXWLRQVDVWKH&29,'VLWXDWLRQHYROYHVDQG x SURYLGHDVDIHZRUNLQJHQYLURQPHQWDQG x RIIHUWKHSURSHUHTXLSPHQWWRHQVXUHWKDWWKHVWDIILQPDWHVDQGYLVLWRUVDUH
SURWHFWHG  :HH[SHFWWRSUHVHQWWRWKH'2&RXURZQVHWRISURWRFROVEDVHGRQQDWLRQDOVWDQGDUGV EHLQJIROORZHGE\RWKHUFRUUHFWLRQDOLQVWLWXWLRQV,IWKRVHSURWRFROVDUHQRWDGRSWHGRXU PHPEHUVFDQQRWZRUNVDIHO\DWWKH'&-DLO  :HDUHSUHSDUHGWRWDNHHYHU\DFWLRQQHFHVVDU\WRSURWHFW\RXDQG\RXUIDPLO\:HDUH SUHSDUHGWRHVFDODWHWKHVHLVVXHVDVIDUDVWKH\QHHGWRJRWRREWDLQWKHDWWHQWLRQRIRXU FLWL]HQVWKH0D\RUDQGWKHFRXUWVLIQHFHVVDU\     


Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 51 of 260
                   
(;+,%,7&

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 52 of 260

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail; New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

A report by the Ofﬁce of the District of Columbia Auditor

February 25, 2019

A report by the Ofﬁce of the District of Columbia Auditor

Audit Team
Ed Pound, Audit Supervisor Matthew Separa, Auditor-in-Charge
Candace McCrae, Analyst James Wright, Analyst
Lawrence Perry, Deputy Auditor and Audit Supervisor
Kathleen Patterson, District of Columbia Auditor www.dcauditor.org

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 53 of 260

Executive Summary

What ODCA Found
The Department of Corrections (DOC) operates two correctional facilities in Southeast D.C. The Central Detention Facility (CDF), which opened in 1976 and is referred to as the D.C. Jail, houses male inmates. The Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) houses female inmates and serves as the medical facility for all inmates.
ODCA conducted site observations at the D.C. Jail and CTF, examined Department of Health (DOH) inspection reports of the D.C. Jail, reviewed DOC’s mental health services and reviewed budget requests and documents. Findings include the following:
Ŷ DOC was repeatedly cited by DOH for violations of industry standards related to environmental conditions, including water penetration through the walls from a leaking roof, mold growth on walls, damaged shower stalls and temperatures outside of allowable standards.
Ŷ Aramark, DOC’s food service provider, was cited by DOH for repeated violations of District regulations related to public health and food service such as unsanitary conditions in food preparation areas.
Ŷ During our scope, FY 2014 through FY 2018, DOH conducted the required three inspections per year in only two years. DOH acknowledged this, noted three inspections were completed in 2017 and 2018, and stated that “The issues contributing to fewer inspections in prior years have been resolved.”
Ŷ The Mayor and Council did not appropriate the full amounts in capital funding DOC requested to make necessary facility improvements. For example, in agency submissions for FY 2014 through FY 2018, DOC sought 1-year capital allocations totaling $62.4 million, or an average of $12.5 million each year. The Mayor and Council approved a total of $15.7 million, or an average in one-year allocations of $3.1 million.

Why ODCA Did This Audit
1. To assist DOC in conjunction with any pending construction of a new correctional facility by identifying areas for improvement in facilities, programs, and policies that can be incorporated over time: and
2. To assess the adequacy of DOC’s existing policies and facilities to provide high quality mental health treatment programs consistent with best practices identiﬁed by the American Correctional Association and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care.
What ODCA Recommends
Ŷ DOC should take all steps necessary, including requesting additional funding if necessary, to achieve and maintain full compliance with all ACA and APHA requirements.
Ŷ The District should move forward with a new D.C. Jail.
Ŷ DOH should continue to comply with D.C. Code 7-731(a-1)(1) and conduct three inspections per year of the D.C. Jail to help ensure that environmental conditions meet required standards.
Ŷ DOC should conduct regular documented monitoring of Aramark’s compliance with all requirements of its contract and District food safety laws and regulations and sanction the contractor appropriately if necessary.
Ŷ The Mayor and Council should provide a capital budget for DOC that considers the risk of failure to address health and safety hazards identiﬁed by the DOH including the risk to the safety of inmates and staff and the risk of additional litigation.
For more information: 202-727-3660.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 54 of 260
Contents:
Background ………………………………………………… 1 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ……………… 6 Audit Results………………………………………………… 7 Auditor Concerns ………………………………………… 16 Conclusion …………………………………………………… 17 Agency Comments………………………………………… 18 ODCA’s Response to Agency Comments ………… 31 Summary of Report Recommendations…………… 32

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 55 of 260

Background
The mission of the Department of Corrections (DOC) is to provide a safe, secure, orderly, and humane environment for the conﬁnement of pretrial detainees and sentenced inmates, while affording those in custody meaningful rehabilitative opportunities for successful community reintegration.
DOC has ﬁve strategic objectives: Ŷ Upgrade its workforce to better serve the District’s public safety needs. Ŷ Foster an environment that promotes safety for inmates, staff, visitors and the community at large. Ŷ Improve inmate education, job skill levels, and facilitate successful community reintegration. Ŷ Maintain and improve inmate physical and mental health to support successful community re-entry. Ŷ Create and maintain a highly efﬁcient, transparent and responsive District government.
DOC had an approved Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 operating budget of $146,923,266 and 1,162 full-time employees. DOC operates two correctional facilities on its campus in Southeast D.C. that house inmates: The Central Detention Facility (CDF) commonly referred to as the D.C. Jail, and the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) which serves as the medical facility for all inmates. DOC also has had contracts with three private and independently operated halfway houses: Extended House, Fairview, and Hope Village. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the Superior Court of D.C. may place eligible pretrial offenders and sentenced misdemeanants in halfway houses as an alternative to incarceration. The scope of this report focuses primarily on the D.C. Jail and CTF operations.
The D.C. Jail and the CTF
The D.C. Jail, which opened in 1976, is in Southeast D.C., and houses only male inmates. Women are housed at the neighboring CTF. As of June 2018, the average daily population at the D.C. Jail was 1,346. Most inmates housed at the D.C. Jail are awaiting adjudication of cases or are serving a sentence for misdemeanor offenses. Some sentenced felons are housed in the D.C. Jail prior to being transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.1 According to DOC, it offers many programs to inmates, including HIV/AIDS prevention; education and intervention services; individual and group counseling services, literacy education and religious services.
As of June 2018, the nearby CTF, which opened in 1992, had an average daily population of 692. In addition to female inmates, the CTF houses minimum to medium custody male inmates and inmates requiring medical accommodation in the disabled and inﬁrmary units. Prior to October 1, 2018 and the passage of D.C. Law 21-238, the Comprehensive Youth Justice Amendment Act of 2016, the CTF housed a small number of juveniles charged as adults in a separate unit who are now housed at the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services. Between 1997 and 2017 control of the CTF was managed by a private corrections company, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), as part of a saleleaseback proposed and approved when the District was in severe ﬁnancial distress. The District received an infusion of cash from CCA, then paid the corporation back until February 2017 when control of the property reverted to the District. Medical services for inmates housed at both the CTF and the D.C. Jail are provided at the CTF through a contract between the DOC and Unity Health Care, Inc. According to the contract, Unity Healthcare Care, Inc. is to provide a comprehensive medical, mental health, pharmacy, and dental health services program for D.C. inmates.

1. The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Pub.L. 105-33, enacted by Congress, paved the way for major changes to the District’s criminal justice system. One major change was the closure of Lorton Correctional Complex, which housed inmates convicted of D.C. Code felonies. These inmates were transferred to the federal Bureau of Prisons.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

1

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 56 of 260

The ﬁgures below provide a demographic breakdown at the D.C. Jail and CTF, based upon the average daily population of 1,346 at the D.C. Jail and 692 at the CTF.2

Figure 1: Inmate Population by Gender
Women
6.3%
Men
93.7%

Figure 2: Inmate Population by Race3

Other
5%

White
3%

Hispanic
5%

African American
87%

Figure 3: Inmate Population by Religious Afﬁliation4

Other Faiths/Beliefs
7.4%

Did Not Declair
5.1%

Other Major Religions
11.4%
Atheist/Denies
14.1%

Christian Faith
36.6%
Muslim
25.5%

Figure 4: Age Distribution of Inmates

Over 61

51-60

41-50

34-40

21-30

Under 21

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2. Source: DC Department of Corrections Facts and Figures, June 2018
3. Per the DOC June 2018 report, “the category other includes Native American and those who have declared their race as Other or not declared a race. Blacks are overrepresented compared to the population which is 47.7% Black.Whites, Hispanics and Asians are under- represented compared to the DC population which is 44.6% White, 10.9% Hispanic, 4.1% Asian and 0.8% Other.”
4. Per the DOC June 2018 report, “all data is self-reported by inmates in DOC custody between October 1, 2016, and June 30, 2018.The category “Other Major Religions” includes other faiths such as Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and Rastafarian which occur infrequently among inmates.”

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

2

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 57 of 260

A troubled past
For 30 years the D.C. Jail had a history of severe overcrowding, unsafe facilities, and unsanitary conditions. Two lawsuits were ﬁled in 1971 and 1975, Campbell v. McGruder and Inmates of D.C. Jail v. Jackson, respectively, both of which alleged unconstitutional conditions at the D.C. Jail and are the oldest District prison reform cases. These cases were consolidated in a class action lawsuit5 and challenged the totality of the conditions at the D.C. Jail. Ultimately, the U.S. District Court found that conditions violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. After years of District noncompliance with Court orders with regard to medical and mental health care services, the Court appointed a Receiver for medical care at the D.C. Jail in 1995. This receivership was terminated on September 18, 2000.
The U.S. District Court terminated the underlying cases in March 2003, after 32 years of court oversight of the D.C. Jail. The termination came in the wake of the Prison Litigation Reform Act6 approved by Congress in 1996 which placed restrictions on the ability of prisoners to ﬁle lawsuits based on the conditions of conﬁnement. The District government’s ﬁnal documents ﬁled in the cases included this paragraph from the District of Columbia’s Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Terminate in 2003:
Inmates at the D.C. Jail are not systematically subjected to inhumane conditions of conﬁnement, and defendants are not deliberately indifferent to their health and safety, both of which are required to ﬁnd a constitutional violation. To the contrary, defendants have committed approximately $30 million toward a capitol [sic] improvement program at the Jail, which is designed to remedy historic deﬁciencies and refurbish the HVAC, cold and hot water, plumbing and electrical systems. Moreover, in collaboration with plaintiffs and the Special Ofﬁcer, defendants have developed and are implementing an environmental program designed to protect the health and safety of inmates and staff at the Jail, including a computerized inspection system to report, monitor, track and abate maintenance problems.
The federal law’s higher bar and the commitment by the District to spend signiﬁcant capital funds to improve conditions at the D.C. Jail were likely factors in the Court’s decision to terminate the judicial oversight. According to a DOC press release at the time, “a number of signiﬁcant improvements, initiated as a part of a six-year, $30 million capital improvement plan, were major contributing factors to ﬁnally ending court intervention in the daily operations of the facility.”
Nevertheless, at the same time, a continuation of overcrowding at the D.C. Jail prompted signiﬁcant local legislative reforms known as the Jail Improvement Amendment Act of 2003.7 The Committee Report states that the Act was needed to improve “what are currently unsafe, unhealthy, overcrowded and inhumane conditions at the District of Columbia Central Detention Facility (“Jail”) through inspections, monitoring, and reporting; initiate immediate changes in operating protocols including a classiﬁcation system and housing plan; institute a population ceiling at the Jail; and the requirement that the facility obtain accreditation by a national professional correctional organization. These speciﬁc improvements are designed to result in a safer institution.”8
A decade later, a rash of suicides led to the formation of a suicide prevention task force within the D.C. Jail in 2013. An October 14, 2013 Suicide Prevention Task Force Report identiﬁed the following four areas for improvement with respect to suicide prevention at DOC: (1) increasing the ability to identify high-risk inmates, (2) creating more suicide-

5. See Campbell v. McGruder (Case No. CA 1462-71) and Inmates of D.C. Jail v. Jackson Case No. 1:75-cv-01688-WBB), U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
6. See Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
7. See B15-31 (Law 15-62), Effective January 30, 2004.
8. See Committee on the Judiciary, Committee Report, Bill 15-31, “District of Columbia Jail Improvement Act of 2003”, May 22,2003

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

3

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 58 of 260

resistant jail practices, (3) improving housing unit determination processes, and (4) strengthening DOC’s culture of suicide prevention and on Aug. 9, 2017, DOC promulgated a new Suicide Prevention and Intervention Policy.9
In 2015 a report by the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs described conditions within the D.C. Jail and the CTF: “The D.C. Jail’s physical condition is alarming. Inspection reports by the D.C. Department of Health (DOH) have identiﬁed numerous violations of established correctional and public health standards, as well as structural and mechanical problems that are serious to extremely serious.”10
Plans for a new D.C. Jail
Planning for the construction of a new jail has been discussed by prior mayoral administrations prompting numerous media articles. In a memorandum dated December 21, 2010, DOC requested $420 million in capital funding allotments for the six-year period of 2012 through 2017 for a project entitled, “New facility- per DC General and Mass Ave Proposed Master Plan.” The project description/scope/justiﬁcation stated that:
“The purpose of this project is to perform capital improvements and facility condition assessment to ensure DOC facilities remain in good condition, to support the cost-effective delivery of programs and services. Among the capital improvements required are roof replacements, window renovation/replacements, interior renovations, electrical, HVAC (heating and air-conditioning system) replacements. In addition, this project can be used for priority building improvement projects that arise that may not have been planned for as part of the condition assessment. Even with excellent planning there is often a need to address critical infrastructure needs.”
Under former Mayor Vincent Gray, the District’s Public Safety Master Plan (completed in 2015) recommended that the city build a criminal justice center at Blue Plains or Hill East.11 The Bowser Administration’s Ofﬁce of Public-Private Partnerships’ (OP3) has had a new corrections center under consideration. According to the post on the OP3 website, last updated October 2, 2017:
“The Department of Corrections will seek the design, build, ﬁnance, and maintenance (DBFM) of a new corrections center that consolidates existing Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) and Central Detention Facility (CDF) located at 1901 D Street, SE. The new facility must be able to accommodate the current inmate population, with the ﬂexibility to efﬁciently adjust for future populations during the lifetime of the facility. This secure environment must include various support services and inmate treatment-related programs and activities (e.g., counseling, substance abuse treatment, education, job training, recreation, religion, work assignments, health and dental care, food service and laundry, among others). The new facility could be located on the existing site or another property owned by the District government or a third party, but continuous availability during the transition between facilities is critical. The DOC’s administrative ofﬁces, which are currently housed in the Reeves Center located at 2000 14th Street, NW, could also be consolidated into the new facility for more efﬁcient operations to house approximately 80 staff in 20,000 square feet. Additionally, the District is considering the potential to house more inmates currently housed in out-of-state facilities managed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.”12 The website also indicates that the DOC and the Department of General Services (DGS) will be the agencies involved and community engagement will be conducted, and feedback will be incorporated into the project requirements before OP3 begins procurement.

9. See District of Columbia Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure, Subject: Suicide Prevention and Intervention, Number: 6080.2G (effective date August 9, 2017).Policy Number 6080.2G which was reviewed August 9, 2018 supersedes Policy Number 6080. 2F (effective date March 10, 2010).
10. See Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs report, “D.C. Prisoners:Conditions of Conﬁnement in the District of Columbia”, June 11,2015
11. http://www.dlrgroup.com/work/district-of-columbia-public-safety-facilities-master-plan/
12. Ofﬁce of Public-Private Partnerships’ website https://op3.dc.gov/node/1195540

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

4

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 59 of 260
In an August 14, 2018, interview, Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice Kevin Donahue said the planning for a new jail was placed on “pause,” and indicated that $100,000 has been budgeted to conduct a study within ﬁscal year 2019 that looks at the needs for a new facility, including how many people it will be designed to house, programming space, and so on. He acknowledged the earliest that construction could start would be 2025, and it could take four to ﬁve years to ﬁnish. In October 2018 the Ofﬁce of Victim Services and Justice Grants issued a Request for Applications, for a grant award of up to $150,000 to engage an organization to build stakeholder engagement and solicit feedback related to the design and construction of a new correctional facility in the District of Columbia.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

5

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 60 of 260
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Objectives
Because of the ongoing challenges at DOC facilities and consistent with its mission to improve the effectiveness, efﬁciency, and accountability of the District government, the Ofﬁce of the D.C. Auditor (ODCA) initiated this discretionary audit of conditions of conﬁnement at the D.C. Jail. The audit focused on environmental conditions, incident reporting and tracking, and compliance with American Correctional Association, American Public Health Association, and National Commission on Correctional Health Care standards. The audit also reviewed the adequacy of jail inspections conducted by the Department of Health, and issues relating to planning for a new jail.
Speciﬁcally, the objectives of the audit were to: Ŷ Assist DOC in conjunction with any pending construction of a new correctional facility by identifying areas for improvement in facilities, programs, and policies that can be incorporated over time. Ŷ Assess the adequacy of DOC’s existing policies and facilities to provide high quality mental health treatment programs consistent with best practices identiﬁed by the American Correctional Association and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care.
Scope
The scope of this report focused on Fiscal Years 2014 through 2018, but we also reviewed data as far back as Fiscal Year 2007 for historical purposes and context.
Methodology
To complete this review, we conducted site observations at the D.C. Jail and CTF and interviewed relevant employees. We reviewed D.C. Code provisions as well as standards established by the American Correctional Association, American Public Health Association, and National Commission on Correctional Health Care. We examined Department of Health (DOH) inspection reports of the D.C. Jail for calendar years 2007 through the present, as well as related documentation, including DOC’s ofﬁcial responses to these inspections. Regarding incidents at the D.C. Jail, we reviewed DOC’s incident tracking system and related incidents within the scope of our review. Lastly, ODCA reviewed DOC’s mental health services, provided by Unity Health Care Corrections, for compliance with requirements issued by the American Correctional Association and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC).
This report was drafted, reviewed, and approved in accordance with the standards outlined in ODCA’s Policy and Procedure Manual.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

6

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 61 of 260
Audit Results
DOH has cited DOC for repeated and uncorrected violations of industry standards related to environmental conditions, including room temperatures, sanitary conditions, pests, broken ﬁxtures, and inadequate lighting, among other issues. DOH also has cited both DOC and the food service provider Aramark13 for repeated violations of District regulations related to public health and food service.
As the federal court terminated its oversight of the D.C. Jail, which had included regular inspections, The Council of the District of Columbia (The Council) enacted the District of Columbia Jail Improvement Amendment Act of 200314 and required DOH to conduct inspections three times per year. For its inspections, the department’s Health Regulation and Licensing Administration Health Care Facilities Division uses a standardized form at the D.C. Jail to document compliance with environmental standards as deﬁned by the American Public Health Association (APHA) and the American Correctional Association (ACA). In each inspection, DOH examined 39 APHA standards and 24 ACA standards.
In March 2018, DOH found that DOC was out of compliance with 7 of 24 ACA standards (29%) and 6 of 39 APHA standards (15%). The DOH inspections found that DOC was not in compliance with standards designed to ensure that:
Ŷ Indoor heating, ventilation and air conditioning control systems were maintained within acceptable ranges.15 Ŷ Cellblocks and common areas were maintained in a clean and sanitary manner and in good repair. Ŷ Clothing or bedding in disrepair is replaced or repaired, and that clothing bedding, mattresses, and pillows
must be cleaned and sanitized before being reissued to a new user. Ŷ Light levels in inmate cells/rooms were adequate in personal grooming areas and writing surfaces and that
lighting throughout the facility was sufﬁcient for the tasks performed. Ŷ Inmates had access to operable showers with temperature controlled hot and cold running water. Unfortunately, these issues are not new. In the health inspections between 2014 and March of 2018, DOH repeatedly cited DOC for the same or very similar issues of noncompliance in the reports. Some examples of repeated deﬁciencies cited include a leaking roof and subsequent water penetration through walls; unhealthy levels of dust; unsanitary conditions in food preparation areas; broken plumbing ﬁxtures, especially inmate showers; large numbers of broken ﬂuorescent lights in cells; and temperatures outside of allowable standard of at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit during the coldest months. Evidence suggests an increase in citations as the facility ages. For example, DOH cited DOC for 222 blown ﬂuorescent tubes in inmate cells in March of 2018, an increase from just 28 cited in May of 2016.

13. DOC contracts with Aramark Correctional Services LLC to provide to operate and manage DOC’s inmate food service programs at the Jail and CTF. Aramark is also to provide meals for purchase by staff in the Ofﬁcer’s Dining Room (ODR) at the Jail.
14. B15-31; Law 15-62.Effective January 30, 2004.
15. ACA standards require that: (1) the ventilation system supplies at least 15 cubic feet per minute of circulated air per occupant with a minimum of ﬁve cubic feet per minute of outside air.Toilet rooms and cells with toilets have no less than four air changes per hour unless state or local codes require a qualiﬁed independent source and are checked less than once per accreditation cycle. (2) Temperature and humidity are mechanically raised or lowered to acceptable comfort levels.(3) In hot and dry climates, exterior window shields, shutters, or awnings must be provided to exclude solar radiation. (4) in hot humid climates when the facility does not have mechanical chilled-air systems, adequate windows and wall openings should be provided and the location must provide cross-ventilation.Gyms and swimming pools require special temperature, humidity, and ventilation control. (5) The building design, insulation, and exterior surface and color minimize heat absorption.(6) Clothes, towels, sheets, draperies, posters, and other objects should not interfere with airﬂow in or out of living areas. (7) The control system should maintain an indoor air temperature of at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit during the coldest months.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

7

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 62 of 260

ODCA accompanied a DOH health inspector during the September 2017 inspection of the D.C. Jail which encompassed ﬁve days. That on-site inspection revealed several signiﬁcant deﬁciencies, including food preparation and handling issues, cleanliness issues in the cell blocks, including the shower areas, and safety issues. At an elevator bank, the inspector pointed out that wires and conduits that penetrated through the walls and ceilings had not been properly sealed with caulk. According to the inspector, if there was a ﬁre, smoke could move through the walls and affect other areas of the building.

DOH citations that have reoccurred: Ŷ Leaking damage or inoperable plumbing ﬁxtures from
2014 through 2018 Ŷ Leaking roof from 2014 through 2018 Ŷ Peeling paint on metal desks, door frames, tables and
bed frames from 2014 through 2018 Ŷ Water penetration through walls from 2014 through 2018 Ŷ Damaged janitor’s closets from 2014 through 2016 Ŷ Damaged Formica tables from 2014 through 2018 Ŷ Damaged showers stalls from 2014 through 2018 Ŷ Bent seats/no seats from 2014 through 2018

In addition to the review of ACA and APHA standards, ODCA also examined DOH’s inspections of DOC’s culinary operations. DOC contracts with Aramark Correctional Services LLC to operate and manage DOC’s inmate food service programs at the D.C. Jail and the CTF. Aramark is also the vendor selected to provide meals for purchase by staff in the Ofﬁcer’s Dining Room at the D.C. Jail.

ODCA found that DOH has cited both DOC and Aramark, for violations of Title 25-A of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR), which governs food operations. Speciﬁcally, DOC and Aramark have, according to several reports:
Ŷ Failed to keep food and non-food contact surfaces clean and sanitized. Ŷ Received, stored, held, and/or served food at improper temperatures. Ŷ Failed to keep kitchen equipment in good repair. Ŷ Failed to control pests in the culinary area.
Notwithstanding these citations by DOH, the D.C. Jail has been accredited by the ACA since 200916. To maintain its accreditation, DOC adheres to the ACA’s “Expected Practices.’’ For speciﬁc standards, DOC must meet 100% compliance and for other standards, DOC must meet 90% compliance to maintain accreditation. Reaccreditation occurs every three years with the D.C. Jail’s last accreditation in 2015 and paperwork ﬁled for accreditation in 2018.17 As part of its 2015 accreditation, ACA told DOC that it had found the condition of the D.C. Jail to be in notably good repair for its age (emphasis added.)

Although DOC has received ACA accreditation for the jail, some issues raised by DOH continue to reoccur without being successfully addressed. DOC has not consistently taken the steps necessary to correct the all of the issues identiﬁed by DOH’s health inspectors.

In some cases, DOC does not respond to citations as needing corrective action. In some cases, DOC states that for ACA accreditation purposes, compliance is not possible due to the age of the structure and the limited resources DOC has on hand. In those instances when DOC agrees there is a problem, but the agency cannot correct the citation and

16. The Jail Improvement Amendment Act of 2003 required DOC to obtain ACA accreditation within four years of enactment.See B15-31; Law 15-62 §5(e).Effective January 30, 2004.
17. According to the 2015 ACA Accreditation report, dated January 25, 2016 the CTF has not yet been accredited since the facility has been under the management of DOC.The report indicates that the CTF initial accreditation will occur in 2018.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

8

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 63 of 260

issues the same response, sometimes word for word, in its corrective action plans each time the violation is cited. Although DOC ofﬁcials indicated that they have sufﬁcient budget to meet their maintenance improvement needs, DOH’s repeated ﬁndings of faulty or broken equipment and a decaying physical plant strongly suggest that additional investment may be needed.
Ensuring that DOC substantially complies with standards and regulations is necessary for the health of inmates and correctional ofﬁcers. While there has been talk of a new jail, no real planning is in evidence and it is likely that a new facility will not be built for many years. It seems likely that the jail will serve as the principal incarceration facility in the District for years to come. The record of DOH’s repeated ﬁndings over the last 11 years presents a liability risk to DOC and the District by presenting an opportunity for further lawsuits alleging a violation of inmate constitutional rights.
Recommendations: 1. DOC should take all steps necessary, including requesting additional funding if necessary, to achieve and maintain full compliance with all ACA and APHA requirements.
2. DOC should conduct regular documented monitoring of Aramark’s compliance with all requirements of its contract and District food safety laws and regulations and sanction the contractor appropriately if necessary.
3. The District should move forward with a new D.C. Jail.
4. When considering a new correctional facility, DOC should analyze DOH violations to ensure that the design of the new facility minimizes the challenges of complying with standards and regulations that DOH frequently cited as having been violated.
In past budget cycles DOC has requested but successive mayors have not proposed nor has the Council appropriated capital funding for DOC to fully address the agency’s capital budget needs as indicated in the repeated DOH ﬁndings on conditions of conﬁnement, putting at risk the health and safety of inmates and staff, adding to the risk of litigation, and leading to incorrect information in the District’s CIP.
In the 2003 District of Columbia Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Terminate in the pending cases18, the District government stated its commitment to approximately $30 million toward capital improvements “designed to remedy historic deﬁciencies and refurbish the HVAC, cold and hot water, plumbing and electrical systems.” In the intervening years the department has expended a total of $74.5 million in capital improvements (FY2004 through FY2018) of which $10.3 million has been spent on AMO-CR104C-HVAC. The description of the “AMO-CR104-HVAC Replacement for CDF” project, in DOC capital budget request documents is as follows.
“The heating, ventilation and air-conditioning system at the Central Detention Facility has been in disrepair for years. Additionally, the water supply to the facility has been extremely problematic. The main booster pumps are at the end of their useful life and no ﬁlters, softeners or strainers are installed on the system. All work that was part of the original contract has been completed. However, for the system to perform in accordance with the design parameters and deliver the requisite amount of air in the cellblocks, additional ﬁne tuning is necessary; four large rooftop duct ﬁttings need to be replaced, transitions from the large rooftop units need to be modiﬁed and ﬁnal air and water balancing needs to be done for the system to work properly. Chiller, steam station and associated piping overhaul is also included.”19
DOC has submitted capital budget requests that reﬂect the need to fund critical capital projects. It is clear from DOC budget requests over the last ﬁve completed budget cycles that the agency has sought signiﬁcant capital funding

18. See Campbell v. McGruder (Case No. CA 1462-71) and Inmates of D.C. Jail v. Jackson Case No. 1:75-cv-01688-WBB), U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
19. DOC’s FY 2015-20 Enhancements Budget Submission dated November 13, 2013.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

9

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 64 of 260

that is has not received in the annual budget process. In agency submissions for FY2014 through FY2018, DOC sought 1-year capital allocations totaling $62.4 million, or an average of $12.5 million each year. The Mayor and Council approved a total of $15.7 million, or an average in one-year allocations of $3.1 million. In the CIP six-year funding requests for those ﬁve budget cycles, DOC sought a total of $329.4 million or an average of $65.9 million over the sixyear cycle, but the CIP as proposed only allocated $31.3 million, or an average for the six-year cycle of just $6.3 million.

To be sure, in the District of Columbia the CIP budget is an imprecise spending plan at best. The ODCA audit reports on school modernization have made clear that simply being included in a capital budget plan does not indicate accuracy in the amount that will eventually be spent. But it is also the case in all the school spending audits to date, the capital expenditures have consistently gone over the original budget and not under. In allocating well under what was requested in order to maintain DOC facilities. the executive and legislative branches of the District government have risked a failure to meet real needs as reﬂected in the DOH inspection reports.

The DOH inspection reports have repeatedly found deﬁciencies within several areas of the D.C. Jail’s infrastructure, including leaks in the roof and water penetration throughout the walls, HVAC issues (temperatures too hot or too cold), and nonfunctioning equipment, including showers, toilets, lights, etc.

DOC has recognized these issues and submitted capital budget requests since 2010 that include projects that would speciﬁcally address some of DOH’s concerns. For instance, DOC identiﬁed the need for general renovations to the D.C. Jail, justifying the project by saying “the CDF is almost a 40 years (sic) old structure continuously used 24/7, 365 days a year that faces extreme wear and tear. Upkeep and maintenance of the CDF is critical to the mission of the agency because it is required to safely house over 2,000 inmates and provide operational support, while complying with applicable standards and regulations.” DOC has similarly stated the need for signiﬁcant projects related to HVAC replacement and roof refurbishment.

In an interview in August 2018 Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice Kevin Donahue sought to minimize the obvious discrepancies between what DOC requested and what the Mayor and Council approved in DOC’s capital budget. He explained that agency leaders are encouraged to “blue sky” their requests as if funding were no object, and that capital allocations are then pared down in an interative process. He said that the yearly allocations are more serious endeavors than the 6-year requests and reﬂect more closely what an agency actually needs.

Figure 5 below presents the capital budget request (in millions) since 2014 and the approved budgets.

Figure 5: DOC Capital Budget Requests (In Millions)

Fiscal Year

Years Covered

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2014-2019 2015-2020 2016-2021 2017-2022 2018-2023 Totals

DOC Year 1 Request
$15.3 $5.9 $4.8 $16.4 $20.0 $62.4

Year 1 Approved Per Budget Book
$11.2 $1.5 $1.0
$0 $2.0 $15.7

DOC 6-Year Total
Request $62.7 $39.6 $26.7 $78.8 $121.6
$329.4

6-Year Approved Per Budget Book
$14.5 $4.5 $2.3 $5.0 $5.0 $31.3

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

10

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 65 of 260

In DOC’s FY 2018 capital budget request, the agency sought $21,974,188 for general renovations to the D.C. Jail, $12,000,000 for HVAC replacement, and $1,000,000 for roof refurbishment over the six-year period from FY 2018 through FY 2023. A signiﬁcant portion of DOC’s requested capital funding that year came in the ﬁnal three years of the capital plan (FY 2021-2023), in which DOC requested a total of $70,574,188 across all projects (including those above). In the ﬁnal year (FY 2023) alone, DOC requested $44,750,000 in capital funds, anticipating a need to replace boiler units at the CTF and the D.C. Jail.
The FY 2018 and FY 2019 CIPs proposed by the Mayor did not include any capital funding for DOC beyond ﬁscal year 2020. The FY 2018 capital plan provided DOC with $2 million in FY 2018, $2 million in FY 2019, and $1 million in FY 2020, but nothing in FYs 2021 through FY 2023.
In addition to the risk of harm and legal liability, the lack of support for recognized maintenance and repair needs expressed by the agency may be failing to meet CIP regulations. The purposes of the District’s CIP are as follows (emphasis added):
“The CIP is used as the basis for formulating the District’s annual capital budget. The Council and Congress adopt the budget as part of the District’s overall six-year CIP. Inclusion of a project in a congressionally adopted capital budget and the approval of requisite ﬁnancing gives the District the authority to spend funds for each project. The remaining ﬁve years of the program show the ofﬁcial plan for making improvements to District-owned facilities in future years.”20
“The text of the CIP is an important planning and management resource…The CIP is ﬂexible, allowing project expenditure plans to be amended from one year to the next in order to reﬂect actual expenditures and revised expenditure plans. However, consistent with rigorous strategic planning, substantial changes in the program are discouraged.”21 The CIP is updated each year by adding a planning year and reﬂecting any necessary changes in projected expenditure schedules, proposed projects and District priorities.
“Under the program, projects should complement the planning of other District agencies and must constitute a coordinated, long-term program to improve and effectively use the capital facilities and agency infrastructure.”22
There are several effects that result from not accurately portraying DOC’s capital needs in the six-year CIP:
Ŷ The plan distorts the true capital needs of the District, and other projects may need to be cut down the line to make room for emergency capital needs. Using DOC as an example, in this case, the agency will need some level of capital funding in FY 2021 through FY 2024.
Ŷ The public is not informed regarding the true level of capital investment needed at DOC to correct the deﬁciencies found by DOH and to adequately maintain the existing equipment and facilities at a suitable level.
While ofﬁcials within the Executive Ofﬁce of the Mayor (EOM) are aware of DOC’s capital needs, the administration, like its immediate predecessors, has not made accurate projections for the agency’s expected need for continued capital funding in future years in the CIP. EOM ofﬁcials acknowledged that they expect the D.C. Jail will need signiﬁcant capital investments in future years and that there is a need for better long-term planning. EOM ofﬁcials further explained that the CIP is supposed to be a six-year plan, but in reality, is being used—as evidenced by DOC in this case—to make short term decisions about where money needs to be spent. EOM ofﬁcials expressed concern that if DOC does have additional immediate needs in the near future capital funding will have to be pulled from other sources to address the need because EOM already allocated capital funding for the next six years.

20. See FY 2019 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Congressional Submission, Volume 5- FY2019 to FY2024, page 5-2. 21. See FY 2019 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Congressional Submission, Volume 5- FY2019 to FY2024, page 5-15. 22. See FY 2019 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Congressional Submission, Volume 5- FY2019 to FY2024, page 5-23.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

11

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 66 of 260

Recommendations: 5. The Mayor and Council should provide a capital budget for DOC that considers the risk of failure to address health
and safety hazards identiﬁed by the DOH including the risk to the safety of inmates and staff and the risk of additional litigation.

6. EOM should, working with the other members of the District’s Capital Budget Team, develop policies and procedures for the capital budgeting process that ensure the plan accurately reﬂects the known capital needs of agencies, including DOC, over the entire six-year capital budgeting period.

The Department of Health did not regularly conduct three inspections of the D.C. Jail each year as required by the D.C. Code.

D.C. Code states that, “[t]he Department of Health shall conduct a minimum of 3 inspections per year of the environmental conditions at the Central Detention Facility. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “environmental conditions” shall include temperature control, ventilation, and sanitation.” The Code requires that the Department of Health submit the report of each inspection to the Council and the Mayor within 30 days of the inspection.23

In a review of health inspections of the D.C. Jail between 2014 and 2018 we found that DOH conducted the required three inspections in only two of the ﬁve years. DOH acknowledges that it had not conducted the required inspections in prior years and by email July 12, 2018, indicated that the three inspections were conducted in 2017, and would be in 2018. “The issues contributing to fewer inspections in prior years have been resolved,” DOH said. The agency recounted the email text in responding to our draft report and stated that the requirement was met in 2017 and 2018. Figure 6 on the following page presents an analysis of the number of inspections conducted per year. Health inspections conducted by DOH between 2007 and 2013 are included for historical purposes.

Figure 6: DOH Inspections of the D.C. Jail

Calendar Year

Number of DOH Inspections

Compliancy with Required # of Inspections

2007

3

Yes

2008

2

No

2009

2

No

2010

3

Yes

2011

1

No

2012

3

Yes

2013

2

No

2014

2

No

2015

2

No

2016

2

No

2017

3

Yes

2018

3

Yes

Source: Department of Health Inspection Reports

23. See § 7-731 (a-1).

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

12

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 67 of 260

DOH ofﬁcials cited several reasons why the agency did not conduct the correct number of inspections required under D.C. Code in previous years:
Ŷ DOH was tasked with conducting the inspections but was not provided adequate funding to cover the costs of the inspections.
Ŷ During some years, a contractor was conducting inspections and there were contracting delays. Ŷ DOH waited for the Department of Corrections to respond to the prior inspection before scheduling the next
inspection. Ŷ DOH must coordinate the inspections with the Department of Corrections as the surveyor must be
accompanied on the inspections of the correctional facility.
The inspections are designed to ensure the health and well-being of correctional ofﬁcers and inmates. If the inspections are not occurring as regularly scheduled, there is a potential risk to the health and safety of ofﬁcers and inmates.
Recommendation: 7. DOH should continue to comply with D.C. Code 7-731(a-1)(1) and conduct three inspections per year of the D.C. Jail
to help ensure that environmental conditions meet required standards.
DOC’s health services contractor, Unity Health Care Corrections, complies with basic industry accreditation requirements for mental health screenings and suicide prevention, but DOC and Unity should update and clarify some internal written policies and procedures to ensure screenings remain consistent with accreditation requirements.
In reviewing Unity and DOC health care policies, ODCA examined accreditation requirements of the American Correctional Association (ACA) and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC).
Both ACA and NCCHC require that the mental health intake screenings contain certain components, including information on whether an inmate has ever had a history of seizures or head trauma, as well as information on an inmate’s orientation to time and space and overall appearance.
ODCA’s review of DOC’s Ofﬁce of Health Administration (OHSA) shows that DOC is capturing all medical information required by ACA and NCCHC. However, OHSA is relying on requirements and information contained within its initial medical assessment to fulﬁll ACA and NCCHC requirements that are supposed to be part of the initial mental health assessment.
ODCA reviewed three policies and practices, speciﬁcally:
Ŷ Intake mental health screening Ŷ Comprehensive mental health screening Ŷ Suicide prevention
While ODCA observed that the procedures followed by DOC and Unity covered all the elements required by ACA and NCCHC, both DOC and Unity’s mental health policies do not explicitly contain some of the ACA and NCCHC requirements with respect to intake mental health screenings of inmates. For instance, both ACA and NCCHC require that the mental health intake screenings contain components, including information on whether an inmate has ever had a history of seizures or head trauma, as well as information on an inmate’s orientation to time and space. These

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

13

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 68 of 260

items are not contained within DOC’s mental health screening requirements because they are practiced as part of DOC’s intake medical screenings, conducted and recorded at intake immediately before the mental health screening and thus not repeated.
ODCA also reviewed accreditation documents provided by DOC demonstrating that NCCHC considered the components of the intake medical screenings to fulﬁll some of the mental health screening components during the most recent accreditation process. This demonstrates that DOC is not at risk of losing its accreditation simply because its mental health exam policies do not repeat those items.
DOC and Unity have not speciﬁcally written their policies and procedures to match them against ACA and NCCHC requirements. Unity’s contract requires that Unity comply with ACA and NCCHC requirements but does not state how the contractor should do so (for instance, by maintaining policies and procedures that are consistent with those requirements).
Because DOC and Unity’s policies for intake mental health examinations do not explicitly address all aspects of the ACA and NCCHC requirements, there is a risk that if the current intake medical exam process changes, DOC may no longer be in compliance with these ACA and NCCHC requirements in performing its intake mental health screenings.
Recommendation: 8. DOC should update their mental health intake screening policies and procedures to ensure they fully meet ACA
and NCCHC accreditation requirements without having to rely on questions and procedures administered as part of the intake medical exam, ensure that the agency’s health services contractor’s (currently Unity) policies and procedures mirror those of DOC and are in full compliance with ACA and NCCHC accreditation requirements and see that OHSA’s and contractors written policies remain consistent with the standards.
DOC’s Ofﬁce of Heath Administration regular audits of Unity represent good internal control and monitoring practices that reduce the likelihood of noncompliance and the risk of negative outcomes.
OHSA is a division within the DOC and is overseen by DOC’s Deputy Director of Administration. Its primary responsibility is to oversee the effective implementation of the Agency’s medical service contract with its current vendor, Unity Health Care, Incorporated (Unity). Since 2006, Unity has provided medical, dental, and mental health services to DOC’s male, female, and juvenile population. In addition to assuring compliance with the contract, OHSA oversees the vendor’s compliance with NCCHC and ACA standards to help assure re-accreditation every three years.
As previously stated, the CTF was not inspected as part of the 2015 ACA accreditation.24 We understand from DOC’s comments on our draft report that the ACA accreditation received in January 2019 included the CTF. We found, that OHSA had in place a system of audits to monitor Unity’s performance in quality measures established by NCCHC, the ACA, Unity’s contract, and District and federal laws and regulations. OHSA is scheduled to conduct 162 audits annually across 64 performance measures. Most of these audits are conducted two to three times per year, and DOC has developed a risk assessment process to determine how frequently audits should occur.
The audits themselves typically consist of reviewing a sample of electronic medical records of patients who have used speciﬁc programs and determining whether the records contain the required information or whether the patient has received the service indicated. DOC’s OHSA compares the performance on these audits with the established performance benchmarks and issues corrective action plans if compliance is not met. OHSA then conducts a re-audit 60 days later to determine whether the Corrective Action Plan has been met.

24. According to the 2015 ACA Accreditation report, dated January 25, 2016 the CTF has not yet been accredited since the facility has been under the management of DOC.The report indicates that the CTF initial accreditation will occur in 2018.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

14

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 69 of 260
OHSA’s performance was measured against the United States Government Accountability Ofﬁce (GAO) Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government which state: “Management establishes activities to monitor performance measures and indicators. These may include comparisons and assessments relating to different sets of data to one another so that analyses of the relationships can be made, and appropriate actions taken. Management designs controls aimed at validating the propriety and integrity of both entity and individual performance measures and indicators.”25
Additionally, GAO’s principles for monitoring state, in part: “Corrective actions are a necessary complement to control activities to achieve objectives. Management should establish and operate monitoring activities to monitor the internal control system and evaluate the results. Management should remediate identiﬁed internal control deﬁciencies on a timely basis.”26
Moreover, ODCA reviewed DOC’s auditing practices in the context of DOC’s policies, which state: “DOC will audit Contractors [sic] provision of quality health care consistent with ACA, NCCHC, Federal and District regulatory standards, as noted in the ‘DOC Performance Improvement Tool. DOC may utilize this tool to conduct independent and/or joint audits with Contractor.”27
In summary, the practices employed by OHSA provide reasonable assurance that Unity is complying with established performance benchmarks and that OHSA is taking appropriate steps to address issues requiring corrective action. It is important to note that the scope of ODCA’s assessment was narrow. ODCA did not assess whether mental health services provided to inmates are adequate. ODCA assessed DOC’s compliance with the ACA and NCCHC requirements related to three items—the intake mental health assessment, the comprehensive mental health assessment, and suicide prevention policies. ODCA concluded that DOC’s audits of Unity reduce the risk that the contractor will not comply with contractual or accreditation requirements. OHSA should continue its monitoring of Unity’s service performance, including annual evaluations of risk to determine audit frequency as well as issuing and following up on corrective action plans when necessary to ensure services provided to inmates meet all established benchmarks.

25. United States Government Accountability Ofﬁce, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, September 2014, Page 47. 26. United States Government Accountability Ofﬁce, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, September 2014, Page 64. 27. See Contract CW37196, dated October 1, 2015, section C.5.30.10

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

15

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 70 of 260
Auditor’s Concerns
D.C. Code does not require the agency to inspect the Correctional Treatment Facility.
Currently the Department of Health does not conduct inspections at the Correctional Treatment Facility because the D.C. Code does not require such inspections. Regular inspections should be conducted to ensure the health and wellbeing of correctional ofﬁcers and inmates. If inspections are not occurring there is a potential risk to the health and safety of ofﬁcers and inmates.
Although ODCA could not conclusively determine why the law does not require CTF inspections by DOH, one potential reason is that prior to January 30, 2017, the treatment facility was managed by a private, for proﬁt company— the Corrections Corporation of America and the CTF was not a part of the federal court oversight. During receivership, the U.S. District Court required inspections and the provision in the Jail Improvement Amendment Act of 2003 may have been written to to ensure the monitoring requirements during court oversight were maintained.
Recommendation: 9. DOC and the Council should review this inspection requirement and make necessary adjustments to the Code in
the best interest of inmates housed at the CTF.
Video Visitation Policy
In 2012, DOC began video visitation at the D.C. Jail after in- person visitation was terminated. Currently, this is the primary way inmates communicate with their visitors. In-person visitations for inmates, however, were reinstated in 2015 at the CTF and the D.C. Jail for those with good behavior. DOC ofﬁcials stated that video visitation has resulted in more communication between inmates and their families and fewer cancellations of visits.
However, as a new technology, the long-term effects of video visitation are not well understood. There is some research that suggests it may lead to a breakdown in an inmate’s communication with family and a higher likelihood of recidivism down the line.28 Other research suggests this is not the case.
Recommendation: 10. DOC should closely study the effects of its video visitation systems and consider including sufﬁcient space in the
plans for the new jail for both in-person and video visitations for

28. See:Prison Visitation Policies:A Fifty State Survey, Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz, and Aaron Litman. Yale Law & Policy Review, Volume 321, Issue 1, Article 5. https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1654&context=ylpr

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

16

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 71 of 260
Conclusion
The D.C. Jail is an aging and deteriorating 40-year-old facility that must be operational 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. While age is a contributing factor, the conditions within the D.C. Jail could worsen if DOC is not able to address health and environmental citations issued by DOH. We found that DOC made requests for capital funds over and above what was provided by the Mayor and Council to address facility improvements. The Mayor and the DC Council must work in concert to appropriate sufﬁcient capital for DOC to make necessary repairs to the facility. Not doing so would put the health and safety of inmates and DOC staff at risk and increase the risk of lawsuits against the District.
One of the goals of this audit was to identify areas for improvement in facilities and policies that could assist with planning for the construction of a new jail. By reviewing DOH’s inspection reports, ODCA found that DOC was repeatedly cited by DOH for violations of industry standards related to environmental conditions. Some of the citations that were repeated throughout the scope of this audit included water penetration through the walls due to a leaking roof, mold growth on walls, damaged shower stalls, temperatures outside of allowable standards and other issues clearly associated with an aging facility. Aramark, DOC’s food service provider, was cited by DOH for repeated violations of District regulations related to public health and food service such as unsanitary conditions in food preparation areas.
The persistence and seriousness of facility citations clearly point to the need for a new jail. According to Kevin Donahue, the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice, the earliest construction of a new facility could begin is 2025 and would likely take four to ﬁve years to complete the project. Further delay heightens the risks associated with the age and deterioration of the facility.
We are pleased to note that DOC accepted four of the six recommendations directed to them in our report.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

17

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 72 of 260
Agency Comments
On December 21, 2018, we sent a draft copy of this report to the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Department of Health (DOH) for review and written comment. DOC responded with comments on January 30, 2019, and DOH responded with comments on January 18, 2019. The comments are appended in full to this report.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

18

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 73 of 260
*29(510(172)7+(',675,&72)&2/80%,$ '(3$570(172)&255(&7,216

 2IILFHRIWKH'LUHFWRU 
D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS’ RESPONSE TO THE AUDIT OF D.C. JAIL CONDITIONS BY THE OFFICE OF THE D.C. AUDITOR

I. The District’s Demonstrated Performance in Achieving Established Standards Regarding Conditions of Confinement at the D.C. Jail
dŚĞKĨĨŝĐĞŽĨƚŚĞ͘͘ƵĚŝƚŽƌ;KͿŐŽĞƐďĂĐŬĚĞĐĂĚĞƐƚŽƐĞƚƚŚĞƐƚĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞƵĚŝƚŽĨƚŚĞ͘͘:Ăŝů͕ďƵƚ ĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞŽƌƌĞĐŽŐŶŝǌĞƚŚĂƚĂůŽŶŐůŽŽŬͲďĂĐŬŝŶĨĂĐƚĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞƐƚŚĞƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐƚŚĞ͘͘ ŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚŚĂƐŵĂĚĞĂŶĚƚŚĞĨƵůůĂŶĚƌĞƉĞĂƚĞĚƌĞĐŽŐŶŝƚŝŽŶŝƚŚĂƐƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚĂƐďĞŝŶŐĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚǁŝƚŚ ŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘tŚŝůĞƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŽĨŽůƵŵďŝĂ:ĂŝůǁĂƐƵŶĚĞƌŽƵƌƚƐƵƉĞƌǀŝƐŝŽŶĂŶĚ ƌĞĐĞŝǀĞƌƐŚŝƉŝŶƚŚĞĚŝƐƚĂŶƚƉĂƐƚ͕ĂĨƚĞƌǇĞĂƌƐŽĨĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞĚĚĞĚŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƚŽƐǇƐƚĞŵŝĐƌĞĨŽƌŵďǇŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ŽĨĨŝĐŝĂůƐ͕ƚŚĂƚĐŽƵƌƚŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚǁĂƐƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚĞĚϭϲǇĞĂƌƐĂŐŽŝŶϮϬϬϯ͘dŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŽƵƌƚ ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŽĨĐŽŶĨŝŶĞŵĞŶƚŵĞƚĐŽŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶĂůƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂŶĚŶŽůŽŶŐĞƌƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ũƵĚŝĐŝĂůŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚ͕ĂƐƚĂƚƵƐƚŚĂƚĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƐƚŽĚĂƚĞ͘
/ŶϮϬϬϯ͕ƚŚĞ͘͘ŽƵŶĐŝůƉĂƐƐĞĚƚŚĞ:Ăŝů/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚĐƚŽĨϮϬϬϯ;>ĂǁϭϱͲϲϮͿ͕ǁŚŝĐŚ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚƌĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ͘/ƚĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ ;KͿŝŶŝƚŝĂƚĞŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƐŝŶŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐƉƌŽƚŽĐŽůƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂĐůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐǇƐƚĞŵĂŶĚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ƉůĂŶ͖ŝŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞĂƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĐĞŝůŝŶŐĂƚƚŚĞ:Ăŝů͖ĂŶĚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇŽďƚĂŝŶĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶďǇĂ ŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƚŝŽŶŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂƐĂĨĞƌŝŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ͘KĐŽŵƉůŝĞĚǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐǁŝƚŚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐŝŶĐůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƉƌŽƚŽĐŽůƐ͘/ƚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚĂŶĚŚĂƐĂĚŚĞƌĞĚ ƚŽƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶůĞǀĞůƐďĞůŽǁƚŚĞĐĂƉŽĨϮ͕ϭϲϰƉƌŽŵƵůŐĂƚĞĚďǇKŝŶDZϮϴͲϱϯϮ͘dŚŝƐĐĂƉǁĂƐďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶƚŚĞƌĂƚĞĚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇĂƐĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚďǇŝŶĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚĞǆƉĞƌƚĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂŶƚƐWƵůŝƚǌĞƌͬŽŐĂƌĚ ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐ͘ŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚ͘͘ŽĚĞΑϮϰͲϮϭϭ͘ϬϮ;ďͿ;ϮͿ͕KƐƵďŵŝƚƐYƵĂƌƚĞƌůǇ:Ăŝů/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚĐƚ ƌĞƉŽƌƚƐƚŽƚŚĞ͘͘ŽƵŶĐŝů͕ĂƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďǇƚŚĞĐƚ͕ƌĞůĂƚŝŶŐƚŽůŝǀŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƚŚĞĞŶƚƌĂůĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶ &ĂĐŝůŝƚǇ;&Ϳ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐŝŶŵĂƚĞŐƌŝĞǀĂŶĐĞƐ͕ŝŶĂƌǇƐƚĂůƌĞƉŽƌƚ;ĂtŝŶĚŽǁƐͲďĂƐĞĚƚŽŽůƚŚĂƚĂůůŽǁƐ ĂŐŐƌĞŐĂƚĞƌĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐŽĨĚĂƚĂĨƌŽŵĚŝǀĞƌƐĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐͿ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕KƉƌŽĚƵĐĞƐĂŶĚƐƵďŵŝƚƐƚŽƚŚĞ͘͘ ŽƵŶĐŝůĂŵŽŶƚŚůǇƌĞƉŽƌƚŽŶƚŚĞWƌŝŽƌŝƚǇKŶĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůƉƌŽďůĞŵƐĂŶĚƚŚĞƚŝŵĞƚŽƌĞƉĂŝƌ͕ĂŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ƌĞƉŽƌƚŽĨƚŚĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů^ĂĨĞƚǇKĨĨŝĐĞ͕ĂŵŽŶƚŚůǇƌĞƉŽƌƚŽŶƚĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚǀĞŶƚŝůĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚ ĂŵŽŶƚŚůǇƌĞƉŽƌƚŽŶƚŚĞũĂŝůƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞǁĂŝƚŝŶŐĨŽƌƚƌĂŶƐĨĞƌƚŽƚŚĞ &ĞĚĞƌĂůƵƌĞĂƵŽĨWƌŝƐŽŶƐĂŶĚƚŚĞĂǀĞƌĂŐĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨĚĂǇƐƚŚĂƚŝŶŵĂƚĞƐǁĂŝƚĞĚĨŽƌƚƌĂŶƐĨĞƌ͘
dŚĞĐƚĂůƐŽƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚKƚŽĂĐŚŝĞǀĞŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ;ͿĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ǁŚŝĐŚ͕ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŚĂƌĚǁŽƌŬ͕ĐŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞĚĞĚŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕ǁĞĚŝĚ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕K

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

19

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 74 of 260

ĂůƐŽĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĚEĂƚŝŽŶĂůŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů,ĞĂůƚŚĂƌĞ;E,ͿĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘ĂŶĚE, ĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐĂƌĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚƚŚĞŐŽůĚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐŝŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚŵĞĚŝĐĂůͬŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚ ĐĂƌĞƌĞƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞůǇ͘/ŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽďĞĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚďǇ͕ƚŚĞ͘͘:ĂŝůŚĂƐƚŽďĞŽŶĞŚƵŶĚƌĞĚƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ ĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚǁŝƚŚĂůů͞ŵĂŶĚĂƚŽƌǇƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͕͟ĂŶĚŶŝŶĞƚǇƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚǁŝƚŚĂůů͞ŶŽŶͲŵĂŶĚĂƚŽƌǇ ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘͟/ŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶE,ĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚĞ͘͘:ĂŝůŚĂƐƚŽďĞŽŶĞŚƵŶĚƌĞĚ ƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚǁŝƚŚĂůů͞ĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂů͟E,ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂŶĚĞŝŐŚƚǇͲĨŝǀĞƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚǁŝƚŚĂůů ͞ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ͟E,ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘dŚĞ͘͘:ĂŝůĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĚŝŶŝƚŝĂůĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶŝŶƵŐƵƐƚϮϬϬϵ͕ ƌĞĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶŝŶ:ĂŶƵĂƌǇϮϬϭϱĂŶĚǁĂƐƌĞĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚĂŐĂŝŶŽŶ:ĂŶƵĂƌǇϭϮ͕ϮϬϭϵ͘͘͘:ĂŝůDĞĚŝĐĂůĂŶĚ DĞŶƚĂů,ĞĂůƚŚ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐǁĞƌĞŝŶŝƚŝĂůůǇĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚďǇE,ŝŶKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϬϬϭ͕ĂŶĚŵŽƐƚƌĞĐĞŶƚůǇŝŶƉƌŝů ϮϬϭϴ͘DŽƌĞŽǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞ͘͘:ĂŝůǁĂƐŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůǇĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĞĚĂƐŝŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞWƌŝƐŽŶZĂƉĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ Đƚ;WZͿŽŶĞĐĞŵďĞƌϵ͕ϮϬϭϰ͕ĂŶĚŵŽƐƚƌĞĐĞŶƚůǇŽŶEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϰ͕ϮϬϭϳ͘dŚĞŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů dƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇ;d&ͿǁĂƐĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚďǇǁŚŝůĞƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ ŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŵĞƌŝĐĂ;ͿĨƌŽŵϭϵϵϳƵŶƚŝůϮϬϭϲĂŶĚƌĞĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚƵŶĚĞƌKŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŽŶ :ĂŶƵĂƌǇϭϮ͕ϮϬϭϵ͘d&DĞĚŝĐĂůĂŶĚDĞŶƚĂů,ĞĂůƚŚ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐǁĞƌĞĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞEĂƚŝŽŶĂůŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ŽŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů,ĞĂůƚŚĂƌĞ;E,Ϳ͕ƚŚĞŝŶŝƚŝĂůĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶŝŶKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϬϬϰ͕ĂŶĚŵŽƐƚƌĞĐĞŶƚůǇŝŶ ƉƌŝůϮϬϭϴ͘dŚĞd&ŝƐĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĞĚĂƐĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞWƌŝƐŽŶZĂƉĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶĐƚĂƐŽĨ:ƵůǇϮϵ͕ϮϬϭϲ͘
dŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ,ĞĂůƚŚ;,ĞĂůƚŚͿĐŽŶĚƵĐƚƐŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞ͘͘:Ăŝů͕ĂƐƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚ ƚŚĞƵĚŝƚŽƌ͛ƐƌĞƉŽƌƚ͕ƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͛Ɛ,ĞĂůƚŚZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ>ŝĐĞŶƐŝŶŐĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ,ĞĂůƚŚ ĂƌĞ&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ;,&ͿƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŝǌĞĚĨŽƌŵƚŽĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂƐĚĞĨŝŶĞĚďǇƚŚĞŵĞƌŝĐĂŶWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ;W,ͿĂŶĚƚŚĞŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ;Ϳ͘/ŶĐŽŶĚƵĐƚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕,ĞĂůƚŚĂƉƉůŝĞƐƚŚĞW,ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĨŽƌĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů ĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ĂůƚŚŽƵŐŚ͘͘KĨĨŝĐŝĂůŽĚĞΑϳͲϳϯϭ;ĂͲϭͿĚŽĞƐŶŽƚƐĞƚŽƵƚǁŚĂƚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ;ƐͿƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĂƉƉůŝĞĚ ǁŚĞŶĐŽŶĚƵĐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͘ĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞW,ŝƐŶŽƚĂŶĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚŝŶŐĂŐĞŶĐǇ͕ŝƚŝƐW,͛ƐƉŽůŝĐǇƚŚĂƚ ĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚE,ĂƐŝƚŝƐƚŚĞŐŽůĚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŝŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů ŚĞĂůƚŚ͘ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞW,͕ƚŚĞE,ŚĂƐĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐƚŚĂƚĂůŝŐŶǁŝƚŚW, ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͖ƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ĂĐŚŝĞǀŝŶŐE,ĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶŝƐĂĐŚŝĞǀŝŶŐƐƵďƐƚĂŶƚŝĂůĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚ W,ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘ƐŵĞŶƚŝŽŶĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ƚŚĞ͘͘:ĂŝůǁĂƐĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚďǇE,ŝŶKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϬϬϭĂŶĚ ƌĞĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚŝŶƉƌŝůϮϬϭϴ͘dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ƚŚĞ:ĂŝůŝƐŝŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚW,^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐƉĞƌƚŚĞW,͘
&ŽƌŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶĂĚĞĐĂĚĞ͕ƚŚĞKǁĂƐǁĞůůďĞůŽǁƚŚĞŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůĂǀĞƌĂŐĞĨŽƌƐƵŝĐŝĚĞƐŝŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů ĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞƌĞǁĂƐĂƐƵĚĚĞŶŽĐĐƵƌƌĞŶĐĞŽĨĂĐůƵƐƚĞƌŽĨƐƵŝĐŝĚĞƐŝŶϮϬϭϯ͕ƉƌŽŵƉƚŝŶŐƚŚĞ ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƚŽŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇďƌŝŶŐŝŶĞǆƉĞƌƚĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂŶƚ>ŝŶĚƐĂǇD͘,ĂǇĞƐĂŶĚĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĂ^ƵŝĐŝĚĞWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ dĂƐŬ&ŽƌĐĞƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŐŝŶ͗;ϭͿŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐƚŚĞĂďŝůŝƚǇƚŽŝĚĞŶƚŝĨǇŚŝŐŚͲƌŝƐŬŝŶŵĂƚĞƐ͕;ϮͿĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐŵŽƌĞƐƵŝĐŝĚĞͲ ƌĞƐŝƐƚĂŶƚũĂŝůƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ͕;ϯͿŝŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚ;ϰͿƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚĞŶŝŶŐK͛Ɛ ĐƵůƚƵƌĞŽĨƐƵŝĐŝĚĞƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂƐƌĞĨůĞĐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĂŐĞŶĐǇ͛ƐŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚKWŽůŝĐǇϲϬϴϬ͘Ϯ'͕^ƵŝĐŝĚĞ WƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ͘ϭͿ/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞdĂƐŬ&ŽƌĐĞ͕ƚŚĞKƌĞŐƵůĂƌůǇƚƌĂŝŶƐŽƵƌƐƚĂĨĨŝŶƚŚĞ ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨďĞŚĂǀŝŽƌƐƚŚĂƚŵĂǇŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞĂƌŝƐŬŽĨƐƵŝĐŝĚĞ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƉƌŽƚŽĐŽůƐĨŽƌƐƵŝĐŝĚĞ ƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ͘dŚŝƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽĂĐůƵƐƚĞƌŽĨƐƵŝĐŝĚĞƐĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞƐƚŚĞĂŐĞŶĐǇ͛Ɛ ĐŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĂďŝůŝƚǇƚŽŝĚĞŶƚŝĨǇĂŶĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐĨŽƌŝŶŵĂƚĞƐĂĨĞƚǇ ĂŶĚǁĞůůͲďĞŝŶŐ͘
II. Official Action to Ensure that the Maintenance and Repair of the D.C. Jail Meet Industry and Constitutional Standards for Conditions of Confinement
dŚĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ͘͘ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ;KͿŝƐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂƐĂĨĞ͕ƐĞĐƵƌĞ͕ŽƌĚĞƌůǇ͕ĂŶĚ ŚƵŵĂŶĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŽŶĨŝŶĞŵĞŶƚŽĨƉƌĞƚƌŝĂůĚĞƚĂŝŶĞĞƐĂŶĚƐĞŶƚĞŶĐĞĚŝŶŵĂƚĞƐ͕ǁŚŝůĞĂĨĨŽƌĚŝŶŐ

ϭŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬĚŽĐ͘ĚĐ͘ŐŽǀͬƉƵďůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͬƐƵŝĐŝĚĞͲƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶͲĂŶĚͲŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

20

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 75 of 260

ƚŚŽƐĞŝŶĐƵƐƚŽĚǇŵĞĂŶŝŶŐĨƵůƌĞŚĂ ŝůŝƚĂƚŝǀĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĨŽƌƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇƌĞŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘ŝŝ Ɛ ŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝƐĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƚĞĚƌĞƉĞĂƚĞĚůǇƚŽƐƚĂĨĨ͕ĂŶĚŝƐĐĂƌƌŝĞĚŽƵƚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŶƵŵĞƌŽƵƐ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ ϮͿ/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĂŶĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚƉƌŽŵŽƚĞƐƐĂĨĞƚǇĨŽƌŝŶŵĂƚĞƐ͕ƐƚĂĨĨ͕ǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐĂŶĚ ƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĂƚůĂƌŐĞ͕ƚŚĞKĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂƌĞĂƉůĂĐĞŚĞƌĞ ǁĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐĂŶĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƚŽ ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŝŶŵĂƚĞĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚũŽďƐ ŝůůůĞǀĞůƐ͕ĂŶĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚĂƚĞƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇƌĞŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘K ĂůƐŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐŝŶŵĂƚĞƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůĂŶĚŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŝ ƚǇ,ĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞ͕ĂƉƌĞŵŝĞƌĞĂŶĚ ƌĞƐƉĞĐƚĞĚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŚĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƌ͕ƚŚĂƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĚĂŝůǇĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƐŝĐ ĐĂůů͕ϮϰͬϳƵƌŐĞŶƚĐĂƌĞ͕ŝŶͲ ŚŽƵƐĞĂŶĚŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůƚǇĐĂƌĞ͕ĨƵůůƉŚĂƌŵĂĐĞƵƚŝĐĂůƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂŶĚŚŽƐƉŝƚĂůƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ĚĞŶƚĂůĐĂƌĞ͕ĂŶĚ ,/sͬ ^ƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘DĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƉƐǇĐŚŝĂƚƌŝĐĂŶĚƉƐǇĐŚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůĐĂƌĞ͕ĐůŝŶŝĐĂů ƐŽĐŝĂůŽ ƌĞ ƌƐ͕ŐƌŽƵƉƚŚĞƌĂƉǇĂŶĚŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůĐŽƵŶƐĞůŝŶŐ͕ƐƵ ƐƚĂŶĐĞĂ ƵƐĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͕ĂŶŶ ƚĞŶƐŝǀĞDĞŶƚĂů ,ĞĂůƚŚ ŝƚ͕ĂŶĚĂĞƉ ŽŶ ĞŶƚĂů,ĞĂůƚŚŝ ƚ KƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐŚŝ ĐŚŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ĂĚƵůƚĂƐŝ ĐĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ ͕ĐŽůůĞŐĞĐŽƵƌƐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚǀŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĂůƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͕ĂƐĞ ůůĂƐũŽďƌĞĂĚŝŶĞƐƐƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ dŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĂůƐŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƌĞůŝŐŝŽƵƐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐĂŶĚĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌŝŶŵĂƚĞƌĞůŝŐŝŽƵƐĞů ŝĞĨƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ƌĞůŝŐŝŽƵƐĚŝĞƚƐ͕ĐůŽƚŚŝŶŐĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌŝƚĞŵƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞŽĨĨĂŝƚŚĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚŝ ƚŚƚŚĞ ƐĂĨĞƚǇĂŶĚƐĞĐƵƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͘Ŷ ŵĂƚĞƐŚĂǀĞƌĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ͕ŽƵƚŽĨĐĞůůĂĐƚŝǀŝƚǇ͕ƚĞůĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ͕ůŝ ƌĂƌǇĐĂƌƚ ƌĞĂĚŝŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͕ĐŽŵŵŝƐƐĂƌǇ͕ƐŽĐŝĂůǀŝƐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ϮϰͬϳůĞŐĂůǀŝƐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƚĞůĞƉŚŽŶĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ;ƐŽĐŝĂůĂŶĚůĞŐĂů ĐĂůůƐͿ͕ŵĂŝůƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ;ƌĞŐƵůĂƌĂŶĚůĞŐĂůͿ͕ĐĂƐĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ůĂ ůŝďƌĂƌǇƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ŐƌŽŽŵŝŶŐ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚŝŶŵĂƚĞƐŵĂǇŐƌŝĞǀĞĂŶǇĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐŽƌĐŽŵƉůĂŝŶƚƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞŶ ŵĂƚĞƌŝ ĞǀĂŶĐĞWƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐ ;ŵĞĚŝĐĂůĂŶĚƌĞŐƵůĂƌͿ ĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚŝŶŐŽƵƌĐŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚƚŽƌĞŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞ:Ăŝů͛ƐƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ ůĂƌŐĞƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͕ƚŚĞK͛ƐŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚŝŶĐŽůůĞŐĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐĂŶĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨǀŽƚŝŶŐ ǇŝŶŵĂƚĞƐ ĂƌĞƌĞĐŽŐŶŝǌĞĚŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůůǇĂƐƉĂƚŚͲďƌĞĂŝ ŶŐĂŶĚƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐŝǀĞ͘
ůůŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ŚĞƌĞƚŚĞƌĞǁĂƐĂŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞĚĂŝůǇƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŽĨϭϭϳϯƚŽ ϭϯ ĨƌŽŵϮϬϭϱƚŽϮϬϭϴ͘ŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞŽĨƚĞ ůǀĞƚŚŽƵƐĂŶĚ;ϭϮ͕ϬϬϬͿŝŶŵĂƚĞƐĐŽŵĞƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞ.C JĂŝů ĂŶŶƵĂůůǇ͕ƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌĂƌŽďƵƐƚƉƌĞǀĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞƉůĂŶĨŽƌƚŚĞƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůƉůĂŶƚĂŶĚĂ ƉƌŝŽƌŝƚǇƚƌŝĂŐŝŶŐƐǇƐƚĞŵĨŽƌŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞƌĞƉĂŝƌƐ Ğ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĐƚŝǀŝƚǇǀŽůƵŵĞ͕ŚŝŐŚƚƵƌŶŽǀĞƌ͕ĂŶĚ Ϯϰ ϳŽĐĐƵƉĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ͘͘:ĂŝůƚƌĂŶƐůĂƚĞƐƚŽĂĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇŚŽ ƐĞƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůƉůĂŶƚŝƐƵŶĚĞƌĐŽŶƐƚĂŶƚƵƐĂŐĞĂŶĚ ƐƚƌĂŝŶĂƐƌĞĨůĞĐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƌĞŽĐĐƵƌƌĞŶĐĞŽĨĨĂƵůƚǇƉůƵŵďŝŶŐĨŝƚ ƵƌĞƐĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞĂŶĚƌĞƉĂŝƌƐ Śŝ ĐŚ͕ŽŶĐĞĨŝǆĞĚ͕ƌĞŽĐĐƵƌĞůƐĞ ŚĞƌĞŝŶƚŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͘dŚĞ͘͘ ĂŝůŚĂƐĂůĂƌŐĞĂŶĚĐŽŵƉůĞ ƉůƵŵďŝŶŐ ƐǇƐƚĞŵƚŚĂƚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐĂůůĂƐƉĞĐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŵŵŽŶĂƌĞĂƐŽĨƚŚĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐ͕ƐƵĐŚ ĂƐƐŚŽĞ ƌƐ͕ĂƐĞ ůůĂƐŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůůǇƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐϭϯ ĐĞůůƐ͕ĞĂĐŚŝ ƚŚŝƚƐŽŶ ƐŝŶ ĂŶĚƚŽŝůĞƚ͘dŚŝƐĞ ƚĞŶƐŝǀĞ ĨŽŽƚĂŐĞŽĨƉůƵŵďŝŶŐĂŶĚůĂƌŐĞŶƵŵĞ ƌŽĨĨŝƚƵƌ ĞƐŝƐƌĞĨůĞĐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƌƚŝŽŶĂƚĞƌĂƚŝŽŽĨƉůƵŵďŝŶŐ ƌĞƉĂŝƌƐĐŝƚĞĚŝŶ,ĞĂůƚŚŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƚŚĞĨĂĐƚƚŚĂƚƐŝŵŝůĂƌƉƌŽďůĞŵƐƌĞŽĐĐƵƌŝŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚĐĞůůƐĂĨƚĞƌ ƌĞƉĂŝƌ ƐƐƵĐŚ͕ƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƉůƵŵďŝŶŐĨŝƚ ƵƌĞƐŶĞĞĚŝŶŐƌĞƉĂŝƌĚŽĞƐŶŽƚƌĞĨůĞĐƚĂĨĂŝůƵƌĞƚŽƌĞƉĂŝƌƚŚĞŵ ŝŶĂƚŝŵĞůǇŵĂŶŶĞƌ͕Ƶ ƚƌĂƚŚĞƌƚŚĂƚĂŶŽƚŚĞƌŶĞĞĚŽĐĐƵƌƌĞĚŝŶĂŶŽƚŚĞƌĐĞůůŝŶƚŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͕ƌĞƵ ŝƌŝŶŐ ĐŽŶƐƚĂŶƚŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞĂŶĚƵƉĞ ĞƉĂŶĚƌĞŽĐĐƵƌƌŝŶŐŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞĐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘
EŽƚĂů Ǉ͕ŝĨƚŚĞƉůƵŵďŝŶŐŝŶĂĐĞůůŝƐŶŽƚŽƉĞƌĂ ůĞ͕ŽƌŝĨƚŚĞƌŽŽĨůĞĂƐ ŝŶƚŽĂĐĞůů͕ƚŚĞĐĞůůŝƐŶŽƚŽĐĐƵƉŝĞĚǇ  ĂŶŝŶŵĂƚĞƵŶƚŝůĨŝǆĞĚ͖ƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ŝŶŵĂƚĞƐĂƌĞŶŽƚƐƵ ũĞĐƚĞĚƚŽĂŶǇĚĞƉƌŝǀĂƚŝŽŶƐŽƌŚĂƌŵŚŝ ůĞĨŝǆƚƵƌĞƐ ĂƌĞŝŶŽƉĞƌĂů ĞŽƌƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂůĞĂ ͘
ƚƚŚĞ͘͘Ăŝ ů͕ŵŽƐƚŽĨƚŚĞ ϴŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐŚĂǀĞϴƐŚŽǁĞƌƐ͕ƚŽƚĂůŝŶŐϭϯϮƐŚŽǁĞƌƐ͕ƐŝŵŝůĂƌůǇƌĞĨůĞĐƚŝŶŐĂ ƉƌŽƉŽƌƚŝŽŶĂůŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨŶĞĞĚĞĚƐŚŽĞ ƌƌĞƉĂŝƌƐĂƚĂŶǇŐŝǀĞŶƚŝŵĞ Ğƌ ĞĨŽƌĞ͕ŽŶĞĂĐŚƵŶŝƚ͕ŝĨĂƐŚŽĞ ƌ ĨŝƚƵƌ ĞƌĞƵ ŝƌĞƐƌĞƉĂŝƌ͕ŝŶŵĂƚĞƐŚĂǀĞƵƉƚŽϳŽƚŚĞƌƐŚŽĞ ƌƐƚŽƵƐĞ͕ƚŚƵƐŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌŶĞĞĚƐ ^ŚŽĞ ƌ ƌĞƉĂŝƌƐĂƌĞŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝǌĞĚ ǇŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚƌĞƉĂŝƌƐĂƌĞƚĂƌŐĞƚĞĚĨŽƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶŝ ƚŚŝŶ ϮϰͲŚŽƵƌƐ;ĂĐƚƵĂůĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶƚŝŵĞŽĨĐŽƵƌƐĞĚĞƉĞŶĚƐƵƉŽŶƚŚĞĐŽŵƉůĞŝ ƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƌĞƉĂŝƌͿ. TherĞĂƌĞƐŽŵĞ

ϮŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬĚŽĐĚ ĐŽǀ ͬƉĂŐĞŽ ĐͲƉƌŽŐƌĂŵͲƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐ

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

21

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 76 of 260

ƐŚŽǁĞĂĞĂ ƐƚŚĂƚƐƵĞ ŽŵĂŶƵŵďĞ ŽƐƚ Ƶ ƚƵĂů ĂŶĚ ĞŚĂŶ ŝĂů Ğŝ ŝ ĞŶŝ ĞƐ͕ƐƵŚ ĂƐŽƌŝ ŝŶĂů ƉůƵŵďŝŶŐƐ ƐƚĞ ƐƚŚĂƚĂĞ Ğ ƉĞŝ ĞŶŝ ŶŐĞŶ ͲŽĨͲůŝĞ Ăŝ ůƵĞƐ 
dŚĞƵƌ ĞŶƚ HVAƐǇƐƚĞŵŚĂƐƐŝŐŶŝŝ ĂŶ ƚĚĞƐŝŐŶƉ ŽďůĞŵƐƚŚĂƚŝŶŚŝďŝƚƉŽ ƉĞ Ăŝƌů ŽǁĂŶĚƚĞŵƉĞĂ ƚƵĞ Ž Ŷƚ ŽůƐ͘/ŶůŝŐŚƚŽƚ ŚĞ,sŝƐƐƵĞƐĞ ƉĞŝ ĞŶĞŝ ŶƚŚĞƐƵ ŵĞ ŽϮ Ϭϭϲ͕Kŝŝ ŶŽ ŶƵ Ŷƚŝ ŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ ͘͘ ĞƉĂ ƚŵĞŶƚŽ ŶĞĂ ů ServŝĐĞƐ;'^Ϳ͕Ž ŵƉůĞƚĞĚĂŶĞĞĚƐĂƐƐĞƐƐ ĞŶƚĂŶ  ĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚ ƐƚƵĚǇƚŽ ĞƉů ĂĞ ĂŶĚͬŽƌƵƉŐĂĚ ĞƚŚĞĞ ŝƐƚŝŶŐ HVAĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚĂŶ ĂƐƐŽŝ ĂƚĞ ŵĞŚĂŶ ŝĂů Ɛ ƐƚĞŵƐ Ă Ğ ƐƵůƚ  Ɖŝ Ž ƚŽƚŚĞƐƵŵŵĞ Ž ϮϬϭϳƚƚ ŚĞ KŝŶƐƚĂůůĞƚ ǁŽŶĞǁǁĂƚĞ Śŝ ůůĞƐ ĂŶĚ ĞƉůĂ ĞƚŚĞ ƌŽŽƚ ŽƉůĂŐ ĞĂŝƌ ƐƵƉƉůǇĚƵƚƐ ͘KǁĂƐĂ ůĞƚŽ Ğŝ ŶƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŽ ŵŽǀŝŶŐƚŚĞƐǇƐƚĞŵƌ ŽŵĂŵĂŶƵĂůŽ Ŷƚ ŽůƚŽ ĞĂůͲ ƚŝŵĞŝ ŐŝƚŝǌĞ ŽŶƚ Žů͘ Kŝŝ ŶŽ ŶƵ Ŷƚŝ ŽŶǁŝƚŚ'^͕ĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƐƚŽǁŽ ƚŽǁĂƐ ,sŝŵƉŽ ǀĞŵĞŶƚƐƚŽ ŝŶĞĂƐĞ ƚŚĞů ŽǁŽ ĂŝƌƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞĂŝ ůŝƚ ͘DŽĞ ŽǀĞဠ KŵŽŶŝƚŽƐŝ ŶĚŽŽƌƚĞ ƉĞ ĂƚƵ ĞƐĚĂŝůǇĂŶĚ  ǁŚĞŶƚĞŵƉĞĂƚƵ ĞƐ ĂĞ ĂƉƉŽ ĂŚ ŝŶ ĂŶƵŶĂĞ ƉƚĂů ĞĂŶ Ğ KŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĞ ƐƚĂĂƵ ƐƚƐƚŚĞ ƚĞŵƉĞĂƚƵĞ WĞ ƚŚĞĞƚƚ Ğ WƌĂƚŝ ĐĞ>&ͲϭͲϮϬ͕ƚŚĞƚĞŵƉĞĂƚƵ ĞĂƚKĂŝ ůŝƚŝĞƐŝƐĂŝ ƐĞŽ ƌ ůŽǁĞĞƚ ŽĂĞĞ ƉƚĂů ĞĐŽŵŽ ƚ ůĞ ĞůƐ͕ƚŚƵƐƚŚĞĂǀĞĂ ĞĚĂŝůǇƚĞŵƉĞĂƚƵ ĞŝŶƚŚĞ:ĂŝůŝƐǁŝƚŚŝŶŶŽƌŵĂů ĂŶ ŐĞƐ͘  WĞ ƉĞ ƚĞ ĚWĂĐ ƚŝĞ ϰͲ>&ͲϰͲϬϮƚƚ ŚĞĨŽŽĚƉ ĞƉĂĂƚŝ ŽŶĂ ĞĂŝŶů ƵĚĞƐƐƉĂĐĞĂŶĚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ Ž Ž ŽĚƉ ĞƉĂ ĂƚŝŽŶĂƐĞ ŽŶƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŝǌĞ ƚǇƉĞŽĨ ŽŽĚƉĞƉ ĂĂƚŝ ŽŶ͕ĂŶĚ ĞƚŚŽĚƐŽ ŵĞĂůƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ĞĞ Ă ĞƐĂŶŝƚĂ Ǉ͕ƚĞŵƉĞ ĂƚƵ ĞͲŽ ŶƚŽ ůůĞĂ ĞĂƐ Ž ƌ ŽŽĚƐƚŽĂŐ e. WĞĞů ǇŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐĂŶ Ăŝ ůǇ ŝŶƐƉĞƚŝ ŽŶƐĂĞ Ž ŶĚƵƚ Ğ ƚŽĞŶƐƵĞ ƚŚĂƚů ĞĂŶůŝŶĞƐƐĂŶĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĂĞ ŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞŝ ŶƚŚĞŝ ƚŚĞŶ  ƵůŝŶĂϿ ƐƚĂ ŚĂƐĂŶĂƐƐŝŐŶĞĞ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůŽŝŝ ĐĞ ĂŶĚĞŶǀŝŽŶ ŵĞŶƚĂůĞƚĂŝ ůƐŽŶĞĂŚ ƐŚŝĨƚ ^ŽŵĞ ŝŶŵĂƚĞƐĞǀĞŶƉĂƚŝ ŝ ƉĂƚĞŝŶƵů ŝŶĂϿ ƚĂŝ ŶŝŶŐůĞĂ ŝŶŐƚŽŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůůǇͲƌĞ ŽŐŶŝǌĞĞ ƌƚŝŝ Ăƚŝ ŽŶĂŶ  ŽďͲ ĞĂ ŝŶĞƐƐƵƉŽŶƚŚĞŝƌ ĞůĞĂƐĞ 
ŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚDĂŶĚĂƚŽƌǇƉƉ Ğƚ Ğ Ă ƚŝ ĐĞϰͲ>&ͲϰͲϭϭ͕ƚŚĞ ĞŝƐ ŽƵ ŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ǇĂŶ ŝŶĚĞƉĞŶ ĞŶƚƐŽƵĞĞ ͕͘͘ ĞĂůƚŚƚ ŚĂƚĨŽŽ ƐĞǀ ŝĞ Ă ŝ ůŝƚŝĞƐĂŶĚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚŵĞĞƚĞƐƚĂ ůŝƐŚĞ  ŐŽǀĞŶ ŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚƐĂĞƚ  ŽĚĞƐt ŚĞŶƚŚĞ ĞĂ ĞĂŶǇ Ğŝ ŝ ĞŶŝ ĞƐ ĐŽĞĞ ƚŝ ǀĞĂƚŝ ŽŶŝƐƚĂĞ Ŷ ŝŵŵĞŝ ĂƚĞůǇ͘Ăů ƚŚƵƚŝůŝǌĞƐƚŚĞĨŽŽĚƐĞƚŝ ŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ HCFŝŶƐƉĞ ƚŝŽŶƌĞƉŽƌƚƚŽŝŶƐƉĞƚ ƚŚĞĐƵůŝŶĂϿ ĂĞĂ ĂŶĚŽĨĨŝĐĞƌƐ͛ĚŝŶŝŶŐƌŽŽŵ͘ůůďƌŽŬĞŶĞƵ ŝƉŵĞŶƚŝƐĞ ƉĂŝƌĞ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ϴŚŽƵƐဢ Ğ ŽŶůǇĞĞĞ ƉƚŝŽŶŝƐ ǁŚĞŶĞƵ ŝƉŵĞŶƚƉĂƚ ƐĂĞ ƵŶĂ ĂŝůĂ ůĞĂŶ ƚŚĞŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĞ ǀĞŶ Ž ŵƵƐƚĞ ůǇŽŶƚŚĞŵĂŶƵĂƚƵĞ ƚŽ ƐƵƉƉůǇŶĞǁƉĂ ƚƐ͘
KŚĂƐĂǀĞ ŵŝŶĂŶ ƉĞƐƚ ŽŶƚ ŽůƉůĂŶƚŚĂƚŝŶů ƵĚĞƐŵŽŶƚŚůǇŝŶƐƉĞƚŝ ŽŶƐϿ Ă ƵĂůŝŝ Ğ ƉĞƐŽ ŶĂŶ  ƵƚŝůŝǌĞƐƚŚĞĨŽŽĚƐĞƚŝ ŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ ŝŶƐƉĞƚ ŝŽŶĞ ƉŽƚ ĂƐĂŵĞĂƐƵ ĞƚŽŝŶƐƉĞƚ ƚŚĞ ƵůŝŶĂϿ ĂĞĂ ĂŶ  ŽĨĨŝĐĞƌƐ͛ĚŝŶŝŶŐƌŽŽŵ͘KŚĂƐĂŶĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĚĞƚĂŝůĚĞĚŝĂƚĞ ĚĞ ů ƵƐŝǀĞůǇƚŽƚŚĞƵů ŝŶĂϿ ƚĞĂ ŽŶ ĞĂŚƐŚŝ ƚဠ ĚĂŝůǇ. ThiƐƚĞĂŵŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƐ ůĞĂŶůŝŶĞƐƐĂŶĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘ƐĂŶĂ ĚĞů ĞǀĞůŽƉ ŽƚĞƚŝ ŽŶ͕K ŚĂƐŚĂ ĂĐŽŶƚĂƚ ǁŝƚŚĂƉĞƐƚ ŽŶƚ Žů ŽŵƉĂŶǇ ŽƐ ĞǀĞĂů ǇĞĂ s. InƚŚĞƉĂƐƚ ǁŚĞŶĂƉĞƐƚĐŽŶƚ Žů Ž ŵƉĂŶǇŚĂƐďĞĞŶƵŶĂ ůĞƚŽŽďƚĂŝŶƐĂƚŝƐĂƚ ŽƌǇĞ ƐƵůƚƐ ƚŚĞĂĞŶ ĐǇŚĂƐƚĞ ŵŝŶĂƚĞƚŚĂƚ Ž ŶƚĂ ƚ ĂŶ  ŝŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞĚĂŶĞǁŽŶĞǁŝƚŚĂŝ ĨĞĞŶƚ Ž ŵƉĂŶǇǁŝƚŚĂ ǀŽĂď ůĞĞƐƵů ƚƐ͘
/ŶϮϬϭϳ͕ŝŶĞ ƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽŝƐƐƵĞƐŝ ƚĞŝ ŶƚŚĞĂů ƚŚƌĞƉŽƚ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽŽ ŽĚƐĞǀ ŝĐĞƚƚ ŚĞKƵŶĚĞ ƚŽŽŬĂ ƐĞ ĞĂů ǁĞĞŬƐ͛ůŽŶŐĞ ŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶŽƚ ŚĞŽ ŽĚƐĞǀ ŝĞ Ă ĞĂƚŚĂƚŝŶů ƵĚĞ ƚŚĞ ĞƉůĂĞ ŵĞŶƚŽĨ Ă Ž ĞƵ ŝƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƚŚĞŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂŶĞǁƉĞƐƚĐŽŶƚŽ ůǀĞŶ Žƌ͕ǁŚŝŚ ŚĂƐ ŝĞůĚĞƉŽ ƐŝƚŝǀĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐ 
/Ŷ Ϭϭϴ͕ƚŚĞK ŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶŽŶ Ğǁ ŽŽŝ ŶŐ͘ǀĞŶǁŝƚŚĂŶĞǁŽ Žf, hŽǁĞǀĞဠ ůĞĂƐ ĂŶ ĂŶ  Ž Žccur͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚŽƐĞĨƌŽŵƐŽƵĞƐ ŽƚŚĞ ƚŚĂŶƚŚĞŽ ŽĨ͘/Ŷ Ϭϭϵ͕ƚŚĞKŝƐǁŽŝŝ ŶŐǁŝƚŚ '^ƚŽ Ž ŶƚŝŶƵĞƐƚƵƚƵ Ăů ĞƉĂŝƐ ƚŽĂ Ğ ƐƐǁĂƚĞƌƉĞŶĞƚĂ ƚŝŽŶŝŶƚŽƚŚĞĂŝ ůŝƚǇϿ ǁĂǇŽƚ ŚĞĂĞĞ ĂŶ  ǁŝŶ ŽǁƐ͘Ŷ ƚĞŝ Žƌ ŽŽĨůĞĂ ƐĂĞ ƌĞƉĂŝĞĚ ŝŶĂƚŝŵĞůǇ ĂŶŶĞဠ ďƵƚŚĂ ĞĞ ŽĐƵƌ ĞĚ ŝŶĚŝĨĨĞĞŶƚ ĂĞĂƐ Ž ƚŚĞĂŝ ůŝƚǇƵ ĞƚŽƚŚĞĂ ĞŽƚ ŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ĚĞƐƉŝƚĞŽŶŐŽŝŶŐŝ ůŝŐĞŶƚ ĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶ Ğ͘/ŶĞŶĞĂů ͕

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

22

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 77 of 260

ƐƵƉĞƌĂŶŶƵĂƚĞĚƵ ŝůĚŝŶŐƐƐƌŝ ŶŐŵŽƌĞƌŽŽĨůĞĂ ƐƚŚĂŶŶĞ Ƶ ŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͖ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ ƌĞƉĂŝƌƐĂƌĞŵĂĚĞŝŝ ĐŬůǇ͕ ĂŶĚĂŶ ĞĨĨĞĐƚƐŽĨƚƚ ĞƌŽŶƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐƚƌ Đƚƌ ĞĂŶĚƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ͕ƐĐŚ ĂƐƚŚĞŝŶĨƌĞ ƵĞŶƚ ŽĐĐƌƌ ĞŶĐĞŽĨŵŽůĚ͕ĂƌĞŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚĂŶĚĂ ĂƚĞĚŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇ͘
III. Certified Accredited Medical and Mental Health Care Meet Correctional Standards of Excellence
KDĞĚŝĐĂůĂŶĚ ĞŶƚĂů ĞĂůƚŚ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂƌĞŽ ƚŚĂŶĚ ,ĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚ͘ ŽƚŚĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚŝŶŐĂŐĞŶĐŝĞƐ ƌĞ ŝƌĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚŝŶƚĂĞ ƐĐƌĞĞŶŝŶŐƐĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĐĞƌƚĂŝŶĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŽŶ Ğƚ ŚĞƌĂŶŝŶŵĂƚĞŚĂƐĞǀĞƌŚĂĚĂŚŝƐƚŽƌ ŽĨƐĞŝǌƵƌĞƐŽƌŚĞĂĚƚƌĂ ŵĂĂƐ  ĞůůĂƐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŽŶĂŶ ŝŶŵĂƚĞ͛ƐŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŝŵĞĂŶĚƐƉĂĐĞĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂůůĂƉƉĞĂƌĂŶĐĞ͘dŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŝƐĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚϿ ƚŚĞ ŵĞĚŝĐĂůŝŶƚĂĞ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇƌŝ ŽƌƚŽƚŚĞŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚŝŶƚĂĞ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĂŶĚŝƐƌĞĐŽƌĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ ƉĂƚŝĞŶƚĐŚĂƌƚĨŽƌŵĞĚŝĐĂůĂŶĚŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚ͛ƐƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĂŶĚƵƐĞ͘ĞĐĂƐ ĞŽĨƚŚŝƐƚƚ ŚĞƐĂŵĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ŝƐŶŽƚƐŽůŝĐŝƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚŝŶƚĂŬĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐƚŚĂƚŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇĨŽůůŽǁŵĞĚŝĐĂůŝŶƚĂŬĞ͛ƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐ ĂŶĚĚŽĐŵ ĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘ŝ ůĞƚŚĞ ĚŝƚƐĞ Đů ĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚƉƌŽďůĞŵƐĐŽƵůĚĂƌŝƐĞŝŶƚŚĞŚǇƉŽƚŚĞƚŝĐĂůƐŝƚĂƚŝ ŽŶ ĞƌĞ ŝŶƚŚĞŵĞĚŝĐĂůŝŶƚĂĞ ƐĐƌĞĞŶŝŶŐĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƐĐŚ ĂƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽŝƐƉƵƌĞůǇƐĞĐů ĂƚŝǀĞĂŶĚŶ ůŝŬĞůǇƚŽ ŽĐĐƵƌŐŝǀĞŶK͛ƐĐůŽƐĞŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚŽĨŚĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ĂƐŶŽƚĞĚ ƚŚĞ ĚŝƚŽƌ͕ĂŶĚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞĨĂĐƚ ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĂĐƚŝ ĐĞŚĂƐĞ ĞŶƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚĂŶĚŵĞĞƚƐE ĂŶĚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘EŽƚĞǁŽƌƚŚǇŝƐƚŚĂƚK Ă ƚŽŵĂƚŝĐĂůůǇƐĐƌĞĞŶƐĂůůŝŶŵĂƚĞƐĂƚŝŶƚĂ ĞĨŽƌǀŽůƵŶƚĂƌ ,/sƚĞƐƚŝŶŐƐƐĞƌǀŝŶŐĂƐŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞůĂƌŐĞƐƚ ƐĐƌĞĞŶĞƌƐŝŶƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ĂŶĚƌŽ ǀŝĚĞƐ/ sͬ ƐŵĞĚŝĐĂůƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĂƐ ĞůůĂƐ sͬ ƐĐŽƵŶƐĞůŝŶŐĂŶĚ ĞĚ ĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘
IV. Budgeting for a New Jail
dŚĞDĂ Žƌ ĞƵ ƚǇ Ă ŽƌĨŽƌWƵďůŝĐ^ĂĨĞƚǇĂŶĚƵ ƐƚŝĐĞ ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌŽĨKĂŶĚƚŚĞ͘͘ŽƵŶĐŝůĂůůŚĂǀĞ ĂĐŶŽ ǁůĞĚŐĞĚƚŚĂƚĂŶĞ ĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚ ŝƐĚĞƐŝƌĂďůĞ͘ƐƚŚĞƵĚŝƚŽƌ͛ƐƌĞƉŽƌƚŶŽƚĞĚ͕ƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ŝƐůŽŽŝ ŶŐĂƚĂůůŽƉƚŝŽŶƐŽĨŚŽǁƚŽĨŶ ĚĂŶĞ :Ăŝů͕ŝŶĐů ĚŝŶŐƚŚĞŽ ƐƐŝďŝůŝƚǇŽĨĂ ƵďůŝĐWƌŝǀĂƚĞ WĂƌƚŶĞƌƐŚŝƉ;Wϯ Ɛ ĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞ&z ϬϭϵƵ ĚŐĞƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌ ŽĐĞƐƐŝŝ ƚ ĂƐĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚƚŚĂƚĂWϯ ƉƌŽĞĐ ƚƐƐ ŶŽƚƚŚĞŵŽƐƚ ƌ ĚĞŶƚĐŽƵƌƐĞŽĨĂĐƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĞĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŝŶƐƚĞĂĚĐŚŽƐĞƚŽĨƵŶĚĂƐƚĚ Ǉ ƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĚŽĐ ŵĞŶƚƚŚĞŶĞĞĚƐĨŽƌĂŶĞ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇŝŝ ŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ͗ŚŽǁŵĂŶǇĞ ŽƉůĞŝƚǁŝůůĞĚĞƐŝ ŐŶĞĚƚŽŚŽƵƐĞ͕ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐƐĂĐ Ğ ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŶĚĐĂ ĂĐŝƚ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ ŝŶKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϬϭϴ͕ƚŚĞ KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ Đƚŝŵƌ ǀŝĐĞƐĂŶĚƵ ƐƚŝĐĞĂŶ ƚƐ;Ks^:'ͿŝƐƐƵĞĚĂ ĞƵ ĞƐƚĨŽƌ ƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨ ŽƌĂŐƌĂŶƚĂ ĂƌĚ ŽĨ ƚŽΨϭϱϬ͕ϬϬϬƚŽĞŶŐĂŐĞĂŶŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƚŝŽŶƚŽďƵŝůĚƐƚĂĞ ŚŽůĚĞƌĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐŽůŝĐŝƚĨĞĞĚ ĂĐ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƚƌĐƚŝ ŽŶŽĨĂŶĞ ĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚ ŝŶƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŽĨŽůƵŵďŝĂ͘  ƚƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚŝŵĞƚƚ ŚĞ ĂǇŽƌŵĂĚĞŝƚĂĨŶ ĚŝŶŐƌŝ ŽƌŝƚǇƚŽŝŶǀĞƐƚŝŶŝŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐĂŶĚƉ ŐƌĂĚŝŶŐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ Ɛ ƐƚĞŵƐĂƚƚŚĞŝ ůͲďŽƚŚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƌĞŐ ůĂƌŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞĂŶĚŝŶƌĞƐ ŽŶƐĞƚŽŵŽƌĞĂĐ ƚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚ ŶĞĞĚƐ Ͳŝŝ ůĞƚŚĞĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŝŝ ƚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞƐů ƚƐŽĨƚŚĞƐƚĚ ǇŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉĂƌŽ ƉĞƌďƵĚŐĞƚĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞ ĨŽƌƚŚĞĂ ŝƚĂů ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚWůĂŶ;W Ϳ͘/ŶƚŚĞ WƐ ŵŝƚƚĞĚŝŶ ϮϬϭϵƚƚ ŚĞ ĂǇŽƌ͛ƐďƵĚŐĞƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ Ψϭϯ͘ ŵŝůůŝŽŶĨŽƌŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞĐƌ ƌĞŶƚĨŝƐĐĂůǇĞĂƌĂŶĚ ϲŵŝůůŝŽŶĨŽƌĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐŝŶ FY 2ϬϮϬ͘dŚĞ ϮϬϭϵʹ&zϮϬϮϬĨŶ ĚƐĂƌĞĨŽƌŐĞŶĞƌĂůƌĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶƐŽŽ ǁĞƌƐ ƐƚĞŵƉ ŐƌĂĚĞƐ Ğ ƚĞƌŝŽƌ ƐƚƌĐƚƌ ĂůĨŝŶŝƐŚŝŶŐĂŶĚ s ƌĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚǁŽƌ ĂƚƚŚĞ&͘  Ğ ĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŝƐĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŽĨŶ ĚŝŶŐŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞŶĞĞĚƐĂƚƚŚĞŝ ůǁŚŝůĞƚŚĞƐƚĚ ǇŝƐŽĐĐƌ ŝŶŐ ĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞ ŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌĂŶĞ ĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇĂƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚ ŝƚŚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚ ƌƌ ĞƚƵƌŶŝŶŐĐŝƚŝǌĞŶƐ ĂŶĚĐƌŝŵŝŶĂůƐƚŝ ĐĞƌĞĨŽƌŵĞ ƉĞƌƚƐ͛ŝŶƉƵƚ͘ƐĂƌĞƐů ƚ ƚŚĞŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞŶĞĞĚƐĨŽƌKǁŝůůďĞĚŝƐĐƐƐĞĚ ĂŶĚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚĨŽƌĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĨ ŶĚƐŝŶ ϬϮϬĂŶĚĞ ǇŽŶĚĂƐ ŝƐĚŽŶĞĨŽƌĂůůŵƵŶŝĐŝĂ ůĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂƐĂƌ ƚ ŽĨƚŚĞĂŶŶƵĂů ƵĚŐĞƚƌ ŽĐĞƐƐ͘&ƌŽŵϮϬϬϬʹϮϬϮϬKŚĂƐĞĞŶĂ ƌĚĞĚ ĂƚŽƚĂůŽĨΨϭ͘͘ ϯŵŝůůŝŽŶĨŽƌ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚ ŝŵƉƌŽǀŵĞŶƚƐŝŶŽ ƚŚƚŚĞKĂŶĚ'^Ƶ ĚŐĞƚƐ͘

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

23

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 78 of 260
 dŚĞĚĞƐŝƌĞƚŽďƵŝůĚĂŶĞǁũĂŝůŚĂƐďĞĞŶƌĞĨůĞĐƚĞĚďǇKŝŶƚŚĞŝƌŝŶŝƚŝĂůďƵĚŐĞƚƐƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͘ŐĞŶĐŝĞƐĂƌĞ ĞĐŽƵƌĂŐĞĚƚŽƐƵďŵŝƚĂŶǇĂŶĚĂůůŝĚĞĂƐ͕ƌĞŐĂƌĚůĞƐƐŽĨĨŝƐĐĂůĐŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶƚƐ͕ƐŽƚŚĞĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŚĂƐĂĨƵůů ǀŝĞǁŽĨĂůůŝĚĞĂƐƚŽŝŵƉƌŽǀĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐĂŶĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͘ŐĞŶĐŝĞƐĂƌĞŐŝǀĞŶƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌǇŶƵŵďĞƌƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞŶ ƚŚĞǇŵĂŬĞĐůĞĂƌǁŚĂƚŝƐĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůǇŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽĨƵůĨŝůůƚŚĞŝƌƐƚĂƚƵƚŽƌǇĚƵƚŝĞƐĂŶĚŵĞĞƚƉƌŝŽƌŝƚǇŐŽĂůƐ͘ ĞǇ ƚŚĞŶĞŶŐĂŐĞŝŶĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƌŽƵŶĚƐŽĨĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞKĨĨŝĐĞŽĨƵĚ ŐĞƚĂŶĚ ĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƐĞŶŝŽƌŽĨĨŝĐĂůƐǁŚŽŵƵƐƚďĂůĂŶĐĞƚŚĞŶĞĞĚƐĂŶĚŶĞǁƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐĂĐƌŽƐƐ ŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚĂŐĂŝŶƐƚĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͘ƐƚŚĞĞƉƵƚǇDĂǇŽƌĞ ƉůĂŝŶĞĚŝŶŚŝƐŝŶƚĞƌǀŝĞǁǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ ƵĚŝƚŽƌ͕ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐĨƌŽŵĂŐĞŶĐŝĞƐĐĂŶƐŽŵĞƚŝŵĞƐďĞƚǁŽƚŽƚŚƌĞĞƚŝŵĞƐƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞǇǁŽƵůĚ ƵůƚŝŵĂƚĞůǇƌĞĐĞŝǀĞ͘/ĨĂůůŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐǁĞƌĞĨƵůůĨŝůůĞĚ͕ƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞĂďůĞƚŽƐƵďŵŝƚĂ ďĂůĂŶĐĞĚďƵĚŐĞƚĂŶĚĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůƉůĂŶ͕ĂƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďǇůĂǁ͘  Ğ DĂǇŽƌƚƌĂŶƐŵŝƚƐŚĞƌďƵĚŐĞƚƚŽƚŚĞ͘͘ŽƵŶĐŝů͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝŶƚƵƌŶĚĞĐŝĚĞƐǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐĂŶĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ ƚŽĨƵŶĚ͕ŚĂǀŝŶŐƚŚĞďĞŶĞĨŝƚŽĨŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƐ͕ďƵĚŐĞƚŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƐǁŝƚŚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐ͕ĞƉƵƚǇ ĂǇŽƌƐ͕ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞŝƚǇĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŽƌ͕ŶƵŵĞƌŽƵƐƌĞƉŽƌƚƐ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĂůůƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŝŶƉƵƚƚŚĞǇƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĐĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞƐ ĂŶĚůĞŐŝƐůĂƚŽƌƐ͘ ŽŐĞƚŚĞƌ͕ƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝůĂŶĚDĂǇŽƌĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚƚŚĂƚĨƵŶĚŝŶŐĨŽƌŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ͕ƌĂƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶ ĂŶĞǁĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͕ǁĂƐƉƌĞĨĞƌĂďůĞĂƚƚŚŝƐƚŝŵĞĂŶĚůĞŐĂůůǇƐŽƵŶĚ͘ ŶŽƌĞƐƉĞĐƚƐŚŽƵůĚĂŶŝŶŝƚŝĂů͕ŝŶƚĞƌŶĂů͕ ͞ďůƵĞƐŬǇ͟ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌĚĞůŝďĞƌĂƚŝǀĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶďĞĞƋƵĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĂĨŝŶĂůĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚĂŶĞǁ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇŝƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƚƚŚĞŚĞĂůƚŚŽĨŝŶŵĂƚĞƐŽƌƌĞƐƉĞĐƚƚŚĞŝƌůĞŐĂůƌŝŐŚƚƐ͘ 
V. District Responses to ODCA Recommendations
Recommendations:
1. KƐŚŽƵůĚƚĂŬĞĂůůƐƚĞƉƐŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶŐĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĨƵŶĚŝŶŐŝĨŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ͕ƚŽ ĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĨƵůůĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚĂůůĂŶĚ ,ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ Response: KĂĐĐĞƉƚƐƚŚŝƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚǁŝůůĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽƚĂŬĞƚŚĞƐƚĞƉƐ ŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚĂŶĚ ,ĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘
2. KƐŚŽƵůĚĐŽŶĚƵĐƚƌĞŐƵůĂƌĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞĚŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐŽĨƌĂŵĂƌŬ͛ƐĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚĂůů ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨŝƚƐĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚĂŶĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚĨŽŽĚƐĂĨĞƚǇůĂǁƐĂŶĚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƐĂŶĐƚŝŽŶƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞůǇŝĨŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ͘ Response: KĂĐĐĞƉƚƐƚŚŝƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚǁŝůůĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĞĨŽŽĚ ǀĞŶĚŽƌ͛ƐĚĂŝůǇĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚĂŶĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚĨŽŽĚƐĂĨĞƚǇůĂǁƐĂŶĚ ƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘
3. ĞŶ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐĂŶĞǁĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͕KƐŚŽƵůĚĂŶĂůǇ K ǀŝŽůĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽĨƚŚĞŶĞǁĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇŵŝŶŝŵŝǌĞƐƚŚĞĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐŽĨĐŽŵƉůǇŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂŶĚ ƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŚĂƚKĨƌ ĞƋƵĞŶƚůǇĐŝƚĞƐĂƐŚĂǀŝŶŐďĞĞŶǀŝŽůĂƚĞĚ͘ Response͗KĂĐĐĞƉƚƐƚŚŝƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚǁŝůůĂŶĂůǇǌĞƉĂƐƚĂů ƚŚĐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ ĨŽƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŝŶƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽĨĂŶĞǁĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͘ 
4. Ğ DĂǇŽƌĂŶĚŽƵŶĐŝůƐŚŽƵůĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĐĂƉŝƚĂůďƵĚŐĞƚĨŽƌKƚŚĂƚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƐƚŚĞƌŝƐŬŽĨĨĂŝůƵƌĞ ƚŽĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŚĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚƐĂĨĞƚǇŚĂ ĂƌĚƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚďǇƚŚĞK ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƌŝƐŬƚŽƚŚĞƐĂĨĞƚǇŽĨ ŝŶŵĂƚĞƐĂŶĚƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚƚŚĞƌŝƐŬŽĨĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůůŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ͘ Response: ĞĞ DĂǇŽƌĂŶĚŽƵŶĐŝůĂůǁĂǇƐĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƌŝƐŬƐǁŚĞŶďƵŝůĚŝŶŐďŽƚŚĐĂƉŝƚĂůĂŶĚ ŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐďƵĚŐĞƚƐ͕ĂŶĚǁŝůůĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽĚŽƐŽ͘

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

24

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 79 of 260
5. KDƐŚŽƵůĚ͕ǁŽƌŬŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŽƚŚĞƌŵĞŵďĞƌƐŽĨƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐĂƉŝƚĂůƵĚŐĞƚdĞĂŵ͕ĚĞǀĞůŽƉ ƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐĂŶĚƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĐĂƉŝƚĂůďƵĚŐĞƚŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐƚŚĂƚĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĞƉůĂŶĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞůǇ ƌĞů ĞĐƚƐƚŚĞŬŶŽǁŶĐĂƉŝƚĂůŶĞĞĚƐŽĂĞŶ ĐŝĞƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ K͕ŽǀĞƌƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞƐŝǆͲǇĞĂƌĐĂƉŝƚĂů ďƵĚŐĞƚŝŶŐƉĞƌŝŽĚ͘ Response: Ğ ĐĂƉŝƚĂůďƵĚŐĞƚŝƐƉƌŽĞĐ ƚĞĚĂƐĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞůǇĂƐƉŽƐƐŝďůĞŽǀĞƌƚŚĞƐŝ ǇĞĂƌ ĐĂƉŝƚĂůďƵĚŐĞƚƉĞƌŝŽĚďĂƐ ĞĚŽŶĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞŝŶ ŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĂ ĂŝŶƐƚĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͘ ĐŚǇ ĞĂƌƚ ŚĞĐĂƉŝƚĂůďƵĚŐĞƚŝƐƌĞǀŝƐŝƚĞĚƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚŶĞǁŝŶ ŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞ ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶŽĨŽƵƌĂƐƐĞƚƐĐĂŶďĞĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚĂŶĚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚ. FƵŶĚŝŶŐŝƐƚŚĞŶĂůůŽĐĂƚĞĚďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕Ğ ŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚƚŚĞƚŝŵĞŝƚƚĂŬĞƐƚŽƌĞƉĂŝƌĂŶĚͬŽƌ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŶĞǁĂƐƐĞƚƐ 
6. ƐŚ ŽƵůĚĐŽŵƉůǇǁŝƚŚ͘ ŽĚĞΑϳͲϳϯϭ;ĂͲϭͿ;ϭͿĂŶĚĐŽŶĚƵĐƚƚŚƌĞĞŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌŽƚ ŚĞ ͘͘:ĂŝůƚŽŚĞůƉĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŵĞĞƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘ Response: KĂĐĐĞƉƚƐƚŚŝƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚǁŝůůĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽĐŽŵƉůǇǁŝƚŚ ,ĞĂůƚŚŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐĂƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚĂŶĚƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚďǇƚŚĞĂĞŶ ĐǇ͘ 
7. Ɛ ŚŽƵůĚƵƉĚĂƚĞƚŚĞŝƌŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚŝŶƚĂŬĞƐĐƌĞĞŶŝŶŐƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐĂŶĚƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĞǇ ĨƵůůǇŵĞĞƚ ACAĂŶĚ NCC,ĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐǁŝƚŚŽƵƚŚĂǀŝŶŐƚŽƌĞůǇŽŶƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚ ƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚĞƌĞĚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽƚ ŚĞŝŶƚĂŬĞŵĞĚŝĐĂůĞ Ăŵ͕ĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĂŐĞŶĐǇ͛ƐŚĞĂůƚŚ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌ͛Ɛ;ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇhŶŝƚǇͿƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐĂŶĚƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐŵŝƌƌŽƌƚŚŽƐĞŽ KĂŶĚ ĂƌĞŝŶ Ƶ ůůĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚ ĂŶĚ NCC,ĂĐĐƌĞ ĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚƐĞĞƚŚĂƚK,^͛ƐĂŶĚ ĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐ͛ǁƌŝƚƚĞŶƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐƌĞŵĂŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘ Response:KĂĐĐĞƉƚƐƚŚŝƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚǁĞŚĂǀĞĐŽŶĨĞƌƌĞĚǁŝƚŚhŶŝƚǇ ,ĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞƌĞĂ ƌĚŝŶŐŝt. WĞĂƌĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŽĨƵƉĚĂƚŝŶŐƚŚŽƐĞƌĞƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞ ƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐĂŶĚƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐƚŽƌĞů ĞĐƚƚŚĞŶŽƚĞĚƌĞǀŝƐŝŽŶƐ  Ğ ƉĞĐƚƐƚŽŚĂǀĞƚŚĞƐĞ ƵƉĚĂƚĞƐŽ ƌŵĂůůǇĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚďǇƉƌŝů ͕ Ϭϭϵ͘ 
8. ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ŽƵŶĐŝůƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞǀŝĞǁƚŚŝƐŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚŵĂŬĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ ĂĚƵ ƐƚŵĞŶƚƐƚŽƚŚĞŽĚĞŝŶƚŚĞďĞƐƚŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚŽĨŝŶŵĂƚĞƐŚŽƵƐĞĚĂƚƚŚĞCTF.  Response͗KƌĞĐŽŐŶŝǌĞƐƚŚŝƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĚĞĨĞƌƐƚŚŝƐƚŽƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝů͛Ɛ ůĞ ŝƐůĂƚŝǀĞƉŽǁĞƌƐ 
9. Ɛ ŚŽƵůĚĐůŽƐĞůǇƐƚƵĚǇƚŚĞĞĞ ĐƚƐŽŝ ƚƐǀŝĚĞŽǀŝƐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐǇƐƚĞŵƐĂŶĚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ƐƵ ŝ ĐŝĞŶƚƐƉĂĐĞŝŶƚŚĞƉůĂŶƐŽ ƌƚŚĞŶĞǁĂŝ ůŽ ƌďŽƚŚŝŶͲƉĞƌƐŽŶĂŶĚǀŝĚĞŽǀŝƐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ ŽƌĂůů ŝŶŵĂƚĞƐĚĞƉĞŶ ĚŝŶŐŽŶǁŚŝĐŚŽ ƌŵŽ ǀŝƐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĂ ŵŝůŝĞƐƉƌĞĞ ƌ  Response:KŚĂƐƚĂŬĞŶƚŚŝƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƵŶĚĞƌĂĚǀŝƐĞŵĞŶƚ 
  :ĂŶƵĂƌǇϯϬ͕ϮϬϭϵ

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

25

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 80 of 260

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

26

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 81 of 260

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

27

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 82 of 260

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

28

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 83 of 260

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

29

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 84 of 260

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

30

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 85 of 260
ODCA’s Response to Agency Comments
We thank the Department of Corrections, the Department of Health, the Executive Ofﬁce of the Mayor and the Ofﬁce of the Chief Financial Ofﬁcer for their cooperation and assistance during our audit. We are pleased that DOC and DOH concurred with most of our recommendations. We will follow-up with the agencies on the implementation status of these recommendations as part of our annual recommendation compliance monitoring process.
Based on the items discussed during the exit conference and comments received from the agencies, we made changes to the report where applicable. Most important, we made explicit our recommendation that the District should move forward with building a new jail to address the risks identiﬁed in the audit. With regard to the Department of Health, we revised our description of the inspection reports completed during the scope of the audit to acknowledge the completion of the three required inspections in 2018.
At the request of the Department of Corrections we added information from an interview with Deputy Mayor Kevin Donahue pertaining to the initial capital funding requests made as a part of annual budget deliberations.
We also note the extensive description provided in the DOC comments on the improvements made in the operations of the D.C. Jail in the years following the enactment of the Jail Improvement Act of 2003. Although the government’s compliance with the terms of the legislation are in many respects outside the scope of this audit, we acknowledge that there have been improvements in the conditions of conﬁnement from the severe overcrowding of the facility that occurred prior to the enactment of the law.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

31

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 86 of 260

Summary of Report Recommendations

Most of the recommendations in this report can be implemented without any additional costs to the agencies, have the potential to generate revenue and/or cost savings to the District, and/or help to advance or support the mission and/or the strategic objectives of the Department of Corrections (DOC), the Department of Health (DOH), as well as the Mayor and the Council.

Recommendation

Is There a Cost to the Agency to Implement?

Potential to Generate Revenue or Savings for the District?

Speciﬁc Agency or District-Wide Goal Advanced by Recommendation

1. DOC should take all steps

Yes

No

DOC’s Mission Statement: The mission of the

necessary, including requesting

Department of Corrections (DOC) is to provide a

additional funding if necessary,

safe, secure, orderly, and humane environment

to achieve and maintain full

for the conﬁnement of pretrial detainees and

compliance with all ACA and APHA

sentenced inmates, while affording those in

requirements.

custody meaningful rehabilitative opportunities

for successful community re-integration.

DOC’s Strategic Objective #2: Foster Environment That Promotes Safety for Inmates, Staff, Visitors and the Community at Large.

2. DOC should conduct regular documented monitoring of Aramark’s compliance with all requirements of its contract and District food safety laws and regulations and sanction the contractor appropriately if necessary.

Yes, if this

No

requires an

additional

FTE.

DOC’s Mission Statement: The mission of the Department of Corrections (DOC) is to provide a safe, secure, orderly, and humane environment for the conﬁnement of pretrial detainees and sentenced inmates, while affording those in custody meaningful rehabilitative opportunities for successful community re-integration.
DOC’s Strategic Objective #2: Foster Environment That Promotes Safety for Inmates, Staff, Visitors and the Community at Large.

3. The District should move forward Yes

Yes

DOC’s Mission Statement: The mission of the

with a new D.C. Jail.

Department of Corrections (DOC) is to provide a

safe, secure, orderly, and humane environment

for the conﬁnement of pretrial detainees and

sentenced inmates, while affording those in

custody meaningful rehabilitative opportunities

for successful community re-integration.

DOC’s Strategic Objective #2: Foster Environment That Promotes Safety for Inmates, Staff, Visitors and the Community at Large.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

32

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 87 of 260

Recommendation
4. When considering a new correctional facility, DOC should analyze DOH violations to ensure that the design of the new facility minimizes the challenges of complying with standards and regulations that DOH frequently cites as having been violated.
5. The Mayor and Council should provide a capital budget for DOC that considers the risk of failure to address health and safety hazards identiﬁed by the DOH including the risk to the safety of inmates and staff and the risk of additional litigation.
6. EOM should, working with the other members of the District’s Capital Budget Team, develop policies and procedures for the capital budgeting process that ensure the plan accurately reﬂects the known capital needs of agencies, including DOC, over the entire six-year capital budgeting period.
7. DOH should continue to comply with D.C. Code 7-731(a-1)(1) and conduct three inspections per year of the D.C. Jail to help ensure that environmental conditions meet required standards.

Is There a Cost to the Agency to Implement?

Potential to Generate Revenue or Savings for the District?

Speciﬁc Agency or District-Wide Goal Advanced by Recommendation

Yes

Yes –

DOC’s Mission Statement: The mission of the

reducing

Department of Corrections (DOC) is to provide a

health

safe, secure, orderly, and humane environment

violations

for the conﬁnement of pretrial detainees and

reduces the sentenced inmates, while affording those in

chance of a custody meaningful rehabilitative opportunities

lawsuit and for successful community re-integration.

a potential settlement.

DOC’s Strategic Objective #2: Foster Environment That Promotes Safety for Inmates,

Staff, Visitors and the Community at Large.

Yes

Yes –

N/A

reducing

risks

reduces the

chances of

a lawsuit

and a

potential

settlement.

No

No

N/A

No

No

DOH’s mission to promote health, wellness and

equity, across the District, and protect the safety

of residents, visitors and those doing business

in our nation’s Capital. DOH’s responsibilities

include identifying health risks; educating the

public; preventing and controlling diseases,

injuries and exposure to environmental hazards;

promoting effective community collaborations;

and optimizing equitable access to community

resources.29

29. Information about the Department of Health and a list of their responsibilities can be found here: https://dchealth.dc.gov/page/about-dc-health

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

33

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 88 of 260

Recommendation
8. DOC should update their mental health intake screening policies and procedures to ensure they fully meet ACA and NCCHC accreditation requirements without having to rely on questions and procedures administered as part of the intake medical exam, ensure that the agency’s health services contractor’s (currently Unity) policies and procedures mirror those of DOC and are in full compliance with ACA and NCCHC accreditation requirements and see that OHSA’s and contractors written policies remain consistent with the standards.
9. DOC and the Council should review this inspection requirement and make necessary adjustments to the Code in the best interest of inmates housed at the CTF.
10. DOC should closely study the effects of its video visitation systems and consider including sufﬁcient space in the plans for the new jail for both in-person and video visitations for all inmates, depending on which form of visitation families prefer.

Is There a Cost to the Agency to Implement?

Potential to Generate Revenue or Savings for the District?

Speciﬁc Agency or District-Wide Goal Advanced by Recommendation

No

No

DOC’s Mission Statement: The mission of the

Department of Corrections (DOC) is to provide a

safe, secure, orderly, and humane environment

for the conﬁnement of pretrial detainees and

sentenced inmates, while affording those in

custody meaningful rehabilitative opportunities

for successful community re-integration.

DOC’s Strategic Objective #2: Foster

Environment That Promotes Safety for Inmates,

Staff, Visitors and the Community at Large.

No

No

DOC’s Mission Statement: The mission of the

Department of Corrections (DOC) is to provide a

safe, secure, orderly, and humane environment

for the conﬁnement of pretrial detainees and

sentenced inmates, while affording those in

custody meaningful rehabilitative opportunities

for successful community re-integration.

DOC’s Strategic Objective #2: Foster

Environment That Promotes Safety for Inmates,

Staff, Visitors and the Community at Large.

Yes

No

DOC’s Mission Statement: The mission of the

Department of Corrections (DOC) is to provide a

safe, secure, orderly, and humane environment

for the conﬁnement of pretrial detainees and

sentenced inmates, while affording those in

custody meaningful rehabilitative opportunities

for successful community re-integration.

DOC’s Strategic Objective #2: Foster

Environment That Promotes Safety for Inmates,

Staff, Visitors and the Community at Large.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

34

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 89 of 260
About ODCA
The mission of the Ofﬁce of the District of Columbia Auditor (ODCA) is to support the Council of the District of Columbia by making sound recommendations that improve the effectiveness, efﬁciency, and accountability of the District government. To fulﬁll our mission, we conduct performance audits, non-audit reviews, and revenue certiﬁcations. The residents of the District of Columbia are one of our primary customers and we strive to keep the residents of the District of Columbia informed on how their government is operating and how their tax money is being spent. Ofﬁce of the District of Columbia Auditor 717 14th Street N.W. Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Call us: 202-727-3600 Email us: odca.mail@dc.gov Tweet us: https://twitter.com/ODCA_DC Visit us: www.dcauditor.org
Information presented here is the intellectual property of the Ofﬁce of the District of Columbia Auditor and is copyright protected. We invite the sharing of this report, but ask that you credit ODCA with authorship when
any information, ﬁndings, or recommendations are used. Thank you.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 90 of 260
www.dcauditor.org

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 91 of 260
                   
(;+,%,7'

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 92 of 260
District of Columbia Corrections Information Council
District of Columbia
Department of Corrections
2018 Inspection Report

Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF)

Central Detention Facility (CDF)

May 21, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 93 of 260
District of Columbia Corrections Information Council
Charles Thornton, Board Chair Katharine A. Huffman, Board Member Calvin Woodland Jr., Board Member Nkechi Taifa, Board Member Charlie Whitaker, Board Member
About the District of Columbia Corrections Information Council The District of Columbia Corrections Information Council (CIC) is an independent oversight body mandated by the United States Congress and the Council of the District of Columbia to inspect, monitor, and report on the conditions of confinement in correctional facilities where residents from the District of Columbia are incarcerated. This includes facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC), and private contractors. The CIC reports its observations and recommendations to the District of Columbia Representative in the United States Congress, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Council of the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice, the Director of the BOP, the Director of the DOC, and the community. Although the CIC does not handle individual complaints or provide legal representation or advice, individuals are still encouraged to contact the CIC. Reports, concerns, and general information from incarcerated DC residents and the public are very important to the CIC, and they greatly inform our inspection schedule, recommendations, and reports. However, unless expressly permitted by the individuals or required by law, names and identifying information of residents, corrections staff not in leadership, and members of the general public will be kept anonymous and confidential.
DC Corrections Information Council 441 4th Street, NW Suite 270N Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 478-9211 Email: dccic@dc.gov Website: https://cic.dc.gov/
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 94 of 260
Executive Summary

Correctional Treatment Facility Profile

Dates of Inspection: September 20, 2018 Location: SE, Washington, DC Security Level: Minimum, Medium

Rated Capacity: 1,400 10/01/18 Population: 685 Resident-to-Staff Ratio: 2.37:1

Central Detention Facility Profile

Dates of Inspection: September 26, 2018 Location: SE, Washington, DC Security Level: Minimum, Medium, Maximum

Rated Capacity: 2,164 10/01/18 Population: 1,348 Resident-to-Staff Ratio: 2.37:1

DOC Population Profile (September 2018, Fiscal Year Totals)

Women Daily Average Population: 155 (CTF) Modal Age Range: 31-40 Average Length of Stay: 44 days

Men Daily Average Population: 1,849 (CDF/CTF) Modal Age Range: 21-30 Average Length of Stay: 79 days

Key Findings
The CIC highlights the following programs and facility practices:
ƒ The DOC made notable efforts to expand educational offerings to those in custody, particularly within the CTF facility, developing a model college and career readiness department.
ƒ All of the juvenile offenders charged as adults who were in DOC custody were transferred to New Beginnings prior to October 1, 2018.
ƒ The CIC received numerous reports that case managers were not regularly available on units at CDF.
ƒ During the fiscal year there were reported incidents of possible miscalculations in custody scores and subsequent security level classifications that prompted the CIC to look into the DOC classification process.
ƒ The CIC received complaints from at least 11 DOC residents regarding their medical care. ƒ In FY 2018 the DOC revised its policies on medical assisted treatment (MAT). It now
continues suboxone treatments for individuals who were receiving treatment in the community, and identifies individuals to begin MAT while in custody. ƒ There is little to no programming outside of the GED unit for individuals who are housed at
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 95 of 260
the CDF, particularly those who are maximum security residents. ƒ Residents on the administrative housing unit raised concerns about the informal disciplinary
process on that unit. ƒ The CIC received numerous reports throughout FY 2018 about conditions on the
government witness unit regarding the lack of programming, extended investigations, and concerns about daily life. ƒ From September to October 2018, the CIC received concerns from residents on the Special Management Unit (SMU) of CTF, regarding changes in recreation practices on the unit. ƒ The CIC received frequent resident concerns regarding deficiencies in the DOC grievance process, mainly that residents seldom receive any response to grievances that they submit. ƒ The CIC received numerous comments from residents that they did not receive documentation of disciplinary incidents. ƒ The CIC received complaints about access to religious programs and services as well as religious diet trays, ongoing throughout the fiscal year. ƒ Throughout the fiscal year the CIC received numerous reports about recreation – including comments about not having outdoor recreation or opportunities for recreation in general. ƒ The DOC has two employees that are trained to provide ADA services to residents who are referred for services, via the DOC medical department. ƒ Many residents reported to the CIC that their personal property was never returned after they transferred units. ƒ Throughout the fiscal year, individuals in both the CTF and CDF reported concerns about the physical conditions of the facilities.
Recommendations
Based on the inspection of the CTF and CDF, the CIC makes the following recommendations:
ƒ The DOC should expand educational and vocational programming options generally to those housed at the CDF with a focus on safe and innovative provision of services and programming to maximum security residents, restrictive housing residents, and residents with a classification status other than general population.
ƒ The DOC should ensure that case managers are in fact available on every unit on a daily basis; offer office hours or easily scheduled appointments; and effectively assist residents with their needs.
ƒ The DOC should ensure that case managers are accurately distinguishing between types of convictions and the offense severity points that are assigned to each conviction. The DOC should assess data systems to verify that case managers are accurately interpreting other documents assessed in calculating the custody score. The DOC should provide training to address common errors.
ƒ The DOC should clearly communicate medical decisions and care updates to residents and ensure all appropriate follow-up care is scheduled and completed in a timely manner.
ƒ The DOC should ensure that unit officers are allowing residents to access approved medical accommodations.
ƒ Mental health staff should ensure that daily evaluations of psychiatric status, cell amenities, and life activities are fully completed and documented every day.
ƒ The DOC should ensure that restrictions are only being placed on residents after documentation of a legitimate violation of DOC policy and a fair hearing.
ƒ The DOC should ensure that there is a clear policy that applies to decisions made regarding
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 96 of 260 individuals with a special handling status, and should clearly communicate the restrictions, reasons for them, and process for having the restrictions lifted. ƒ The DOC should ensure that residents are always provided with documentation stating why they are under investigation. ƒ The DOC should work to provide residents on the government witness unit with adequate programming opportunities and recreation time. ƒ The DOC should ensure that the government witness unit operates in a sanitary and safe manner, including the delivery of cleaning supplies and the proper sealing, labeling, and handling of meals. ƒ The DOC should ensure that correctional staff is appropriately equipped with schedules for resident’s detail assignments in order to preserve safety while ensuring that residents can report for their duties. ƒ The DOC should provide residents timely answers to all filed grievances in a manner that comports with its stated policies and procedures. ƒ The DOC should provide residents with documentation of all filed disciplinary actions that are formally charged or result in sanctions. ƒ DOC staff should ensure that the process for reviewing and approving religious diet requests is timely and efficient. ƒ DOC staff should ensure that all individuals have access to adequate recreation time and opportunities. ƒ DOC staff should clearly communicate the process for transferring property when a resident transfers units, document and inform the resident of any property that has been confiscated and will not be returned, and communicate to residents a clear process for addressing missing property complaints. ƒ The DOC should ensure that the physical premises of both the CDF and CTF are clean and safe at all times.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 97 of 260
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Correctional Treatment Facility Profile ..................................................................................................... 3 Central Detention Facility Profile............................................................................................................... 3 DOC Population Profile (September 2018, Fiscal Year Totals) ............................................................ 3 Key Findings.................................................................................................................................................. 3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Facility Overviews ............................................................................................................................................. 7
CTF Inspection Summary ........................................................................................................................... 7 CDF Inspection Summary......................................................................................................................... 10 DOC Operational Findings ........................................................................................................................... 13 I. Educational Programming .......................................................................................................... 13 II. Title 16 Transfer of Juvenile Offenders Charged as Adults................................................... 14 III. Case Management......................................................................................................................... 14 IV. Classification.................................................................................................................................. 15 V. Medical Concerns ......................................................................................................................... 16 VI. New Policies for Opioid MAT ................................................................................................... 16 VII. Safe Cells and Suicide Watch and Precaution .......................................................................... 17 VIII. Maximum Security Programming .............................................................................................. 18 IX. CDF Administrative Housing / Special Management Unit ................................................... 19 X. Special Handling ........................................................................................................................... 19 XI. Government Witness Unit .......................................................................................................... 20 XII. CTF Special Management Unit .................................................................................................. 21 XIII. Grievances ..................................................................................................................................... 22 XIV. Disciplinary Process ..................................................................................................................... 23 XV. Religious Programming and Meals............................................................................................. 23 XVI. Recreation ...................................................................................................................................... 24 XVII. ADA Specialists ............................................................................................................................ 24 XVIII. Property.......................................................................................................................................... 25 XIX. Facility Physical Conditions ........................................................................................................ 25 XX. Additional Concerns .................................................................................................................... 26 APPENDIX A: Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 27 APPENDIX B: DOC Response................................................................................................................... 30
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 98 of 260
Introduction
The DC Department of Corrections (hereinafter, DOC) operates two jail facilities: the Correctional Treatment Center (hereinafter, CTF), and the Central Detention Facility also known as the DC Jail (hereinafter, CDF). The facilities are adjacent to one another and are located in Southeast Washington, D.C.
The CTF complex typically houses residents who are minimum or medium security, including female and juvenile1 DC residents, as well as male residents who have specialized confinement needs. The CDF houses male residents, a majority of whom are held pending adjudication of a criminal case or are sentenced to a period of incarceration following conviction for a misdemeanor offense.2 Other CDF residents include those held on United States Parole Commission (USPC) warrants, those awaiting transfer to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and those held due to a writ or hold typically awaiting transfer to another jurisdiction.
Throughout the 2018 fiscal year, CIC staff met with residents housed at the CTF and CDF in order to interview them about conditions and experiences in custody. The CIC conducted its onsite inspection of the CTF on September 20, 2018, and the CDF on September 26, 2018. Following the inspection of facility grounds, the CIC submitted a document request to DOC staff on October 9, 2018. For a complete explanation of the report methodology, see Appendix A: Methodology.

Facility Overviews

As part of the DOC inspection, the CIC toured areas of both the CTF and CDF, including units about which the CIC received resident concerns; units or programs that the CIC had experienced change since the FY2017 CIC inspection; or that the DOC choose to include in the 2018 inspection. For a complete list of the units that the CIC requested to visit and the units that the DOC included as part of the tour, see Appendix A: Methodology. The names of the units toured, information about the population and staff on each unit, as well as a brief description of daily life on each unit can be found in the chart below.
CTF Inspection Summary

Medical 96 Unit Capacity: 36
Population September 20: 36
Unit Population: Residents who require close, but not constant, monitoring. Typically houses individuals in need of ambulatory accommodations.
Unit Staff: Corrections officers; case management rotation;3 nurses

Medical 96 houses residents with ongoing medical needs. The unit does not have medical staff on the unit at all times; however, there is regular medication delivery and medical staff is available on call and during rounds. Dialysis occurs on the unit Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. The cells on this unit have hospital-type beds with wheels and safety rails. Residents on this unit have recreation for one hour per day in an area on the unit, and staff said that they are able to have outdoor recreation, weather permitting. Residents are also able to leave the unit to go to education, programs, barbering, and more. Staff explained that higher security residents have access to programming on the unit, although

1 See DOC Operational Highlights (II) for more information about the transfer of juvenile offenders from CTF to New Beginnings. 2 See id. 3 “Case management rotation” refers to case management staff being available on units at the CTF and CDF, but on a rotating basis. The CIC received resident reports throughout the 2018 fiscal year saying that case managers are not available on their units daily, with the exception of specific units. While many residents reported that case managers are infrequently available on the unit and the same case managers are not always staffing their units, during the 2018 CIC tour of the CTF and CDF, DOC staff said that case managers are available on each unit every day. See DOC Operational Highlights (III) for more information about case management.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 99 of 260

complete rounds 3x/day; physical therapy; and medical staff (on call 24/7). Medical 82 Unit Capacity: 40 Population September 20: 29 Unit Population: Male and female residents with acute medical needs. Unit Staff: Corrections officers; case manager rotation; two or more nurses at all times; and medical provider on call.
Women’s Mental Health Unit Unit Capacity: 50 (Single cells; two safe cells) Population September 20: 34 Unit Population: Women who have acute mental health needs, a special housing status, or women completing the intake process. Unit Staff: Corrections officers; case manager; 24 hour nurse (Monday-Friday); medical staff (on call on weekends); and mental health clinician (9:00am-5:00pm).

most higher security residents are housed on Medical 82.
Medical 82 houses residents with acute medical needs. There are various cell layouts on the unit, including 25 single cells, three dorm cells (fitting up to four people), two female cells (one single, one dorm), three safe cells (two in operation), and one isolation cell (for residents with tuberculosis or other contagious diseases). Staff explained that dorm cells are used for intake before residents are classified but have a medical need, or general population security level residents can be housed in dorm cells if needed. Staff explained that medical status is taken into account in deciding whether a resident can be in a cell with others. Pregnant residents are housed on Medical 82 at eight months into their pregnancy, or sometimes at six months if there are specific issues. Residents are not free to leave their cells and walk around the unit because the residents are different genders and security levels. There are four stall showers, and a television room on the unit. Residents do not go to outdoor or off-unit recreation due to the level of their medical needs.
Staff explained that when women come into the facility and report that they are taking psychotropic medication, DOC staff coordinates with DC Department of Behavioral Health (DBH) to obtain records of prescriptions, or – if the woman was formerly in DOC custody – look within DOC records for verification of prescriptions. Staff also explained that the DOC pharmacy is typically able to give individuals at least a generic version of their medication, but medication can be delayed if the facility pharmacy does not have the required medication. Women on the mental health unit meet with liaisons from the DBH when they are going through intake and are cross-matched for DBH services. If they are not already linked to DBH services, DBH liaisons will determine what their needs are so that they can be linked to community service providers. When women are approaching release from DOC custody, DBH liaisons are also able to schedule appointments for them prior to their release. In terms of daily life, women are out of their cells between 9:00am and 3:00pm for programming, therapy, treatment team meetings, group counseling, recreation on and off unit, and a therapeutic arts program (offered on Thursdays). Residents who are taking medication meet with a psychiatrist every 30 days. Once every week women have a treatment team meeting: the treatment team determines if women are stable on their medication, and can be transferred to a general population unit.

Young Men Emerging Unit (YME)

Unit Capacity: 25

The Young Men Emerging Unit (YME) opened on June 30, 2018. The

Population September 20: 23
Unit Population: Men 18-25 years old who have been screened into the program, based on mentor and staff interviews and evaluations, as well as a clear record of behavioral conduct.
Unit Staff: Corrections officers; case manager; program analyst; and mental health specialist (9:00am-5:00pm).

ideology behind the unit, as well as its structure, is based on science regarding the developing mind, and the average age at which the brain reaches maturity – typically at about 25 years old. The YME unit was created to positively influence young men and create a sense of community and partnership. Staff and residents described to the CIC that the goal is to create a community within the unit, and also with the larger DC area, with the idea that if one feels connected to a community, they will also contribute to that community. The unit consists of young residents as well as six older mentors. The mentors on the unit are men who were incarcerated between the ages of 18-25, who provide guidance for the younger men on the unit. At the time of the CIC inspection, all six mentors on the unit were enrolled in college programs. Daily life on

8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 100 of 260

Work Readiness Unit Unit Capacity: 25
Population September 20: 20
Unit Population: Minimum and medium security men within four to six weeks of release (either sentenced misdemeanants or individuals coming back from the BOP), who are DC residents, do not have pending charges or warrants, do not have any Class I disciplinary infractions, and who are otherwise screened into the program.
Unit Staff: Corrections officers, group facilitator, case manager, work force development specialist (employee of Department of Employment Services (DOES), and Information Technology instructor.

the unit consists of a room inspection, community conversation, group session, lunch, educational programs, Street Law, and recreation. Community providers instruct different groups and programs on the unit. Programs include yoga, meditation, substance abuse groups, entrepreneurship, industrial banking, information sessions with MORCA, life skills, and parenting. Additionally, residents on the unit are able to earn spending money based on completion of special assignments and positive behavior. This money goes into YME bank accounts and can be spent on commissary or privileges such as use of a Bluetooth radio, air hockey, X-Box, etc.
The Work Readiness programs consists of two components – the first takes place while participants are in DOC custody and spans five weeks, and the second takes place post release, so that participants can continue the program in the community, where there is subsidized participation for up to eight months. The goal of work readiness is for participants to be employed upon release, or shortly after. The unit moved from CDF to CTF in 2017, and opened in the CTF in October 2017.
In each of the five weeks of the program, the daily instruction has a different topical focus – including resume creation, mock interviews, answering questions about criminal records, attitude sessions, etc. There is also computer instruction in the evenings. Other programs that take place on the unit are yoga, substance abuse sessions with the Hope Foundation, informational sessions with representatives from the Department of Health (DOH), computer basics, and Inside Out.
While in the five-week CTF component, participants meet weekly with a work force development specialist, who assesses their work skills, any additional needs such as mental health, and resources that they may require during the community component. The specialist then creates recommendations for the community component, including but not limited to, additional education, GED attainment, additional training, subsidized work, and involvement in an entrepreneurship program. The work force development specialist also helps participants create resumes and forwards those resumes to prospective employers.

The day after each participant is released from DOC custody, the work force development specialist meets with them in the community to assist with the transition either into work or educational programs. Typical job placements post-release include: the Department of Health and Mary’s Center, as well as positions in the fields of construction, entrepreneurship, food service, and IT.

Finally, the case manager on the unit assists participants with finding housing and clothing, and working through other barriers to employment. DOC staff explained that one such barrier can be the conditions of supervised release, and that while DOC case management does attempt to work with the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) prior to release in order to arrange a plan that will help participants meet supervision requirements, it can still be difficult for participants to work and meet supervision requirements – particularly requirements that are scheduled during work hours.
General Population Housing Unit

9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 101 of 260

Unit Capacity: 43
Population September 20: 42
Unit Population: Individuals involved in college programs (Georgetown, Ashland, UDC, and Howard).
Unit Staff: Corrections officers and case manager rotation.

Staff explained that this particular unit was in the process of becoming a programming unit, meaning that all or most of the male residents on the unit are supposed to be enrolled in an educational program. These educational programs include college courses through Ashland University, Georgetown University, Howard University, or the University of the District of Columbia. Individuals enrolled in Ashland University courses are instructed through tablets; the majority of residents enrolled in Ashland are housed on this unit so that the tablets can be kept in one secure area, but also remain accessible for use. See DOC Operational Highlights (I) for more information about educational programming.

CDF Inspection Summary

Intake Reception Center (IRC) N/A

The Intake Reception Center (IRC) is the filter for processing people who are coming into DOC custody or returning to the CDF or CTF, and tracking those who are leaving the facility – for court, transfer, or release. The intake reception center has separate admission areas for males and females, where people are searched, exchange clothes, store clothing and property, shower with delousing shampoo, are photographed and fingerprinted, and receive an identifying wristband. Incoming individuals also receive a “wing card,” which tracks completion of the remaining steps of the intake process. In a common area (male and female), individuals wait to complete the intake process, which includes a series of intake questions; measuring of vitals; TB, HIV, and syphilis tests; an assessment of medical needs and medication; a mental health screening; completion of an emergency contact form; and completion of a Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) questionnaire.

The mental health screening consists of 20 questions, and if those questions indicate a need for a full evaluation, a mental health clinician is able to complete a full evaluation later that day. Staff explained that certain people are flagged for full evaluations, including those who are incarcerated for the first time, have high-profile cases, have previously documented mental health needs, or are at risk of suicide. There are separate holding cells in the reception center for individuals who need to be kept away from the general population until they receive a full evaluation.

Transition Center Unit Capacity: 140
Population September 26: 121
Unit Population: Residents who are going through the process of intake.
Unit Staff: Corrections officers and case manager rotation.

Residents then go to the transition center, a specialized housing unit, or the CTF. Residents leaving the facility for release or transfer also exit through the IRC. Individuals being released receive a DC ID, library card, a 30-day supply of medication if HIV positive, and for general medications a three-day supply plus a prescription for a 30-day refill. Individuals being transferred to BOP custody receive a seven-day supply of their medication.
Following the IRC process, unless otherwise specified, male residents in the CDF go to the Transition Center where they wait to be classified (in terms of security level and permanent housing unit), have orientation, and complete an interest list of programs in which they would like to be involved while in custody. Orientation is offered on every Wednesday. Residents receive information about case management, accessing phones, visits, etc., and learn about different programs that are offered. Each individual fills out an “interest list” indicating the programs/services in which they would like to participate, in the event that they meet the

10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 102 of 260

custody and other criteria for those programs. The programs for which each person is eligible will depend on their security level; the facility in which they are housed; and other factors, such as eligibility for a Pell Grant, which is a prerequisite for taking college courses through Ashland University. Classification is typically completed within 72 hours (not counting weekends, holidays, or days that a resident spends at court).

Acute Mental Health Unit

Unit Capacity: 80

The Acute Mental Health Unit (Acute Unit) is split into two sides: the

Population September 26: 37
Unit Population: People who are a threat to themselves, or do not take their medication and those who medical staff has determined need to be on suicide watch or precaution.
Unit Staff: Corrections officers, case manager, clinician (MondayFriday, 8:00am-5:00pm hours); Psychologist (Monday-Sunday, evening hours); a psychiatric nurse (24/7), and nurse on call (24/7).

intake side and the general population side. When residents experiencing a mental health crisis first arrive on the unit they are housed on the intake side, typically for two weeks to one month. On the intake side, individuals are out of cell for two hours every day. The cell lights on the intake side also remain on 24/7, so that the officers are able to see into the cells at all times. The lights can only be dimmed if ordered by a mental health professional. Individuals are assessed daily, and depending on their progress, they can be stepped down to the general population side. On the general population side individuals are out of cell for five hours per day, have more opportunities to interact with other residents on the unit, can participate in yoga or art, and the lights in their cells are turned off at night. Nurses walk the unit every two hours, and officers make rounds every 15 minutes. There are six suicide safe cells on the unit (See Operational Highlights (VII) for more information on safe cells). If

a resident is stable and on their medication after being on the intake and

then general population side of the Acute Unit, they can either be

stepped down to the Mental Health Step-Down Unit, or sent back to

general population.

Mental Health Step-Down Unit (MHSDU)

Unit Capacity: 25

The Mental Health Step Down Unit (MHSDU) incorporates a nine-week

Population September 26: 4
Unit Population: Minimum and medium custody residents with mental health needs.
Unit Staff: Corrections officers, case manager, and mental health staff.

program, where participants progress through three program levels. If needed, people may stay on the unit for more than nine weeks. Residents are able to progress through the levels by attending and participating in weekly group sessions. With each level of progression comes increased “unstructured” time, as well as increased access to commissary. Groups offered on the unit include Men’s Group (led by a DBH liaison), art therapy, anger management (led by a clinician three times per week), narcotics anonymous, trauma management, and yoga. Individuals on the

unit are able to request to meet individually for therapy. All residents on

the unit meet with a clinician once a month for medication adjustments.

In addition to on-unit programming, those who are able may walk to

other units in the facility in order to participate in programs that are off-

unit, and go to outdoor recreation when it is offered. During

“unstructured” time, residents can play games, watch TV, read, exercise,

etc. Residents are able to move off the unit and back to a general

population, programming, or other status unit if they are stable and

compliant in taking their medications.

GED Unit

Unit Capacity: 150

The GED unit is a programming unit designed to house residents

Population September 26: 47 (16 Ashland)
Unit Population: Medium or maximum custody residents who are also GED students, GED tutors, or those enrolled in college courses students.

studying for the GED – in English or Spanish – and in 2018 expanded to include individuals taking college courses. Additionally, a number of ABE and vocational courses are offered. The unit schedule includes morning and afternoon academic periods and afternoon and evening groups. The GED test is offered the last full week of every month. When individuals pass the GED, they are often able to stay on the unit and continue their education by enrolling in college courses. Currently, for college courses, qualifying residents (qualification depends on Pell Grant

11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 103 of 260

Unit Staff: Corrections officers, case manager, volunteer Spanish GED instructor, and seven to eight academic volunteers.

eligibility) are able to take courses through Ashland University. Ashland offers courses through tablet software, and the tablets are available to residents on the GED unit daily from 8:00am – 11:00pm. In addition to course information, the tablets allow residents to have access to Khan Academy, TED talks, and radio programs. See Operational Highlights (I) for more information about educational programming.

Administrative Housing Unit / Special Management Unit

Unit Capacity: 40 (single cells)
Population September 26: 23
Unit Population: Maximum security residents who need to be segregated, have high profile cases, require total separation, are on administrative segregation, have a history of staff assault, are on disciplinary segregation, or have special handling status.

The administrative housing/special management unit is the highest security unit in the CDF. There is limited movement and programming available to residents on the unit. Regular movement outside of cells includes recreation time, which is two hours long. In the two-hour time period, residents have recreation by themselves in a recreation cage, can take a shower, and use the phone to make social calls. Residents on the unit are escorted within and outside of the unit in full restraints: leg irons, handcuff box, and belly chains.

Unit Staff: Five Corrections officers per shift and case manager rotation.

Restrictive Housing Unit Unit Capacity: 72
Population September 26: 43
Unit Population: Residents with a history of sexual misconduct, protective custody residents who have separations, those on administrative segregation, and those on disciplinary segregation.
Unit Staff: Corrections staff (five officers on shift during the day, three overnight) and case manager rotation.

The restrictive housing unit is broken into quadrants by tier, each housing residents with a specific status, including one tier for people with separations, one for administrative segregation, and one that acts as the sexual misconduct unit. Residents on this unit have limited movement, which typically includes only two hours for recreation. In the two-hour time period, residents can have recreation with another resident, take a shower, and use the phone for social calls. There are limited programs on the unit, and when the CIC asked unit officers about programming opportunities on the unit, one responded “there are no programs.” Residents are, however, supposed to have access to the law library and mobile library, and in particular instances they are referred to counseling with a social worker. There is a classroom on the unit for students entitled to education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). While staff said that they would not necessarily describe the space as a classroom, there are four desks available for students to meet with DCPS teachers. Staff said that a DCPS teacher goes to the unit daily to meet with students, but it is a different teacher every day.

12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 104 of 260
DOC Operational Findings
The following section highlights aspects of DOC operations, which may be department-wide or specific to the CTF or CDF. These findings relate to the daily operations and functions of the facility, with particular focus on the perception of residents and the treatment they receive. The information in this section was primarily gathered during interviews with residents throughout the 2018 fiscal year, discussions with DOC executive staff, discussions with facility staff during the tour, as well as information sent to the CIC from the DOC as part of an information request. The CIC interviewed roughly 40 individuals during the fiscal year. Their comments and concerns are noted in the following sections:
I. Educational Programming
The DOC made notable efforts to expand educational offerings to those in custody, particularly within the CTF facility, developing a model college and career readiness department.
In 2017, the DOC began to revamp its educational programming in an effort to increase the number and types of educational programs that are available to residents. The revitalized department, now known as the Department of College and Career Readiness, offers courses in the areas of Career and Technical Education (CTE), academic education, post-secondary education, cognitive intervention courses, master classes, work readiness, and legislative theatre. See the list of courses offered in each area below:
Career and Technical Education (CTE)
ƒ Network Cabling Copper-Based Systems ƒ Applied Systems Integration: Grounding and Bonding Copper Connectivity Systems ƒ Network Cabling Fiber Optic Systems ƒ Introduction to Telecommunications Technologies ƒ Introduction to Home Entertainment Audio/Video Systems ƒ Guest Services Professional ƒ Connecting to Business ƒ Reentry Ventures Entrepreneur Course ƒ Graphic Design/Journalism ƒ Commercial Cleaning ƒ Digital Literacy
Academic Courses
ƒ Literacy Courses – Levels I, II, III ƒ *('3UHSDUDWRU\ ƒ (QJOLVKDVD6HFRQG/DQJXDJH(6//LWHUDF\DQG*('3UHSDUDWRU\ ƒ ,QGLYLGXDOL]HG*('3UHSDUDWRU\&RXUVHVVXSSRUWHGE\WKH3HWH\*UHHQH3URJUDP? ƒ Free Minds Book Club
Post-Secondary Courses
ƒ For-credit courses leading to an Associate’s or Bachelor’s degree are offered by Ashland University ƒ Georgetown University Martin Tankleff Prison Scholars Program – for-credit college courses that
lead to a Liberal Arts Associate’s Degree and ultimately a Bachelor’s Degree ƒ College level courses that do not result in college credit are offered by Georgetown University ƒ Music Production and the Carceral Soundscape (Georgetown University) ƒ Georgetown University Street Law
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 105 of 260
ƒ Howard University – college-level courses that do not result in college credit through the Inside Out Prison Exchange Program
Cognitive Intervention
ƒ Thinking for a Change
The courses offered are widely available to qualifying residents4 – both female and male – at the CTF, but only selectively available to those at the CDF, which also houses the GED unit. From those who are able to participate, the CIC has heard overwhelmingly positive feedback about the quality and value of the educational opportunities. Throughout FY 2018, the CIC had the opportunity to attend a number of graduation ceremonies that the DOC arranged in order to congratulate participants for their accomplishments, while creating a space for peers to praise and encourage each other – in addition to receiving support from family members, who are also invited to the graduation ceremonies.
Additionally, the CIC received feedback from individuals at the CDF, particularly those in maximum security general housing population units and restrictive housing (or status) units, expressing their desire to participate in educational programming. There are still very limited options for programming at the CDF, leaving those DOC residents who are higher security and in DOC custody for the longest durations of time with virtually no educational opportunities, outside of the GED unit.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should expand educational and vocational programming options generally to those housed at the CDF with a focus on safe and innovative provision of services and programming to maximum security residents, and residents with a classification status other than general population.
II. Title 16 Transfer of Juvenile Offenders Charged as Adults
All of the juvenile offenders charged as adults who were in DOC custody were transferred to New Beginnings prior to October 1, 2018.
Pursuant to the Comprehensive Youth Justice Amendment Act of 2016, DC juveniles charged as adults were to move from the CTF adult facility to New Beginnings, which is operated by the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS), by October 1, 2018. Prior to the transfers of the juveniles, DOC staff along with staff from DYRS, held meet and greets with family members of the individuals, as well as town halls, Q&A sessions, and transition conferences. During the CIC’s 2018 inspection, the DOC reported that the first individuals were transferred from CTF to New Beginnings on the weekend of September 15, 2018. On the second day of the inspection, September 26, 2018, the DOC reported that all the transfers would be completed that day.
III. Case Management
The CIC received numerous reports throughout the fiscal year, the majority of which came from those housed in the CDF, that case managers were not regularly available on their units. During FY 2018, the CIC received at least seven complaints about lack of regular access to case managers. Multiple individuals explained that there was a shortage of case managers (a concern that was heard
4 Most courses have a number of requirements that individuals must meet in order to enroll in the program. Example requirements include CASAS scores, literacy retirements (GED programs), GED/high school diploma (post-secondary courses), minimum stay to finish course work, and no Class1 or II disciplinary violations.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 106 of 260
particularly from individuals on maximum security general population and status units at the CDF), so case managers had multiple units assigned to them. As a result, many units went for weeks at a time without being visited by a case manager. Additionally, when a case manager did go to the unit, it was typically for a short amount of time and only to meet with a few select individuals on the unit. According to some reports, case managers would go to the unit during a count when residents must remain in their cells, or they would simply log in and out of the log book without actually meeting with anyone.
When DOC staff was asked to address the shortage of case managers, they said that every unit has case manager, there is always a backup case manager, and case managers are available Monday-Friday on their assigned unit(s). Staff clarified that some case managers have multiple units in their purview. The staff vacancy list that the DOC sent to the CIC as part of the 2018 information request shows that as of September 20, 2018, there were nine vacant case management positions.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should ensure that case managers are in fact available on every unit on a daily basis; offer office hours or easily scheduled appointments; and effectively assist residents with their needs.
IV. Classification
During the fiscal year there were reported incidents of possible miscalculations in custody scores and subsequent security level classifications that prompted the CIC to look into the DOC classification process.
The DOC system of classifying residents gives each resident a total custody score that corresponds to a specific security level. This score is based a number of factors that, at a basic level, account for the individual’s current offense, prior convictions, institutional history, drug/alcohol history, age, education, and employment prior to arrest. Within each of these categories, individuals are given a number of points, corresponding to the level of severity or the degree of positive adjustment in that category. These points are added to create the total custody score. A custody score that is above 12 points corresponds to maximum custody; 5-11 points corresponds to medium; four points with additional restrictions corresponds to medium; and four points without additional restrictions corresponds to minimum.
Multiple residents in FY 2018, who felt that their total custody scores had been miscalculated from anywhere between four and six additional points, contacted the CIC. For example, if the original charge of a felony was erroneously counted, instead of the ultimate conviction for a lower misdemeanor offense, then that error would result in a higher sub-score. Even in situations where the correction of a presumed mistake would not necessarily lead to a lower classification score, it is still in a resident’s best interest to assure accuracy and achieve the lowest possible point score, because the DOC warden has the discretion to make a custody override based on the particular circumstances of the individual.
When the CIC contacted executive staff at the DOC about particular cases and the classification process in general, the DOC was responsive. Staff reviewed the cases and met with CIC staff to provide information about the classification process.
During the 2018 inspection, the CIC asked for further clarification about the classification process, and whether residents may have their total custody scores reevaluated if they believe an error exists within their score calculation. DOC staff explained that case managers complete the initial classification form using the Prism system to conduct a case search. Staff said that each case should show the conviction, rather than the original charge. While each resident is to be reclassified 90 days after coming into DC custody, residents can ask their case managers to reassess their classifications. However, residents who do not have regular access to their case manager cannot reasonably request such a reclassification.
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 107 of 260
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should ensure that case managers are accurately distinguishing between types of convictions and the offense severity points that are assigned to each conviction. The DOC should assess data systems to verify that case managers are accurately interpreting other documents assessed in calculating the custody score. The DOC should provide training to address common errors.
V. Medical Concerns
Throughout the fiscal year, the CIC received complaints from at least 11 DOC residents regarding their medical care.
Multiple residents expressed the feeling that their medical needs were not seriously evaluated, and that the predominating determination of their medical care was based on DOC administration recommendations, not medical staff recommendations. Residents said they were told that they would receive a reference to either meet with a specialist or receive outside care, but they did not receive this additional treatment in a timely manner, and were not given clear updates about the status of their appointments or next steps. Also, there were reports of unit officers failing to accommodate the physical needs of residents which had been approved by medical staff, such as the use of canes, access to bottom bunks, and dietary requirements.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should clearly communicate medical decisions and care updates to residents and ensure all appropriate follow-up care is scheduled and completed in a timely manner.
ƒ The DOC should ensure that unit officers are allowing residents to access approved medical accommodations.
VI. New Policies for Opioid MAT
In FY 2018 the DOC revised its policies on medical assisted treatment (MAT). It now continues suboxone treatments for individuals who were receiving treatment in the community, and identifies individuals to begin MAT while in custody. DOC medical staff described FY 2018 changes to the practice of providing medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid dependence. In January 2018, the DOC began a new initiative whereby individuals may commence suboxone treatment while in custody. Previously, all residents, except for pregnant females (who were able to continue on methadone or suboxone treatments), were tapered off of treatment after intake. The determination of whether to provide this treatment to a particular individual rests on multiple factors, including personal history, withdrawal symptoms, etc. As of September 26, 2018, the DOC had initiated treatment for 30 people.
While the policy has not changed as to pregnant women, the DOC now maintains treatment for people who are already receiving suboxone. However, if a non-pregnant person was receiving methadone treatments in the community prior to their entry into DOC custody, they will be tapered off of those treatments. Additionally, the DOC does not initiate treatment for individuals who are going to the BOP, because the BOP will not continue it. If an individual receiving suboxone treatment prior to entering the DOC is going to the BOP, the individual will be tapered off of treatment.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 108 of 260
VII. Safe Cells and Suicide Watch and Precaution
The CIC received concerns from incarcerated individuals and attorneys about the conditions of safe cells. The CIC spoke to DOC staff to gain clarification on the 2017 DOC policy on Suicide Prevention.
Safe cells are cells designed to be suicide resistant. They have specific amenities, such as plastic beds, for individuals whom the DOC medical team places on suicide watch or precaution. In the CDF, there are safe cells on the medical unit and acute mental health unit. Additionally, the administrative housing unit contains suicide-resistant cells, which means that there are no points from which someone could hang himself while inside of the cell. In the CTF, there are safe cells on the Medical 82 unit and the women’s mental health unit.
Individuals may be held in a safe cell either when they are on suicide watch or precaution. Suicide watch consists of 24-hour observation of the individual, while suicide precaution involves frequent, staggered spot checks of the individual being evaluated. According to DOC staff, individuals on both suicide watch and precaution are assessed daily by a psychiatrist. Individuals on suicide watch, who are evaluated by a psychologist, may be stepped down to suicide precaution for at least 24 hours; however, the amount of time one spends on watch or precaution is a decision that is always made by a psychiatrist. One individual with whom the CIC spoke said that they had been living in a safe cell for four months, and DOC staff confirmed this time period.
According to DOC policy,5 safe cells are equipped with certain amenities, and individuals on suicide watch or precaution have restricted access to the usual conveniences available to residents. Such amenities and conveniences include running water in cells, safe mattresses and blankets, dim lighting, use of phones, access to legal visits, access to personal property, etc.6 DOC staff explained that there is a presumption that residents on suicide watch or precaution can have running water in their cells, unless the individual has a history of drowning attempts or using the water to destroy their cell.
DOC staff explained its policy that each individual on suicide watch or precaution may have access to the listed amenities and conveniences, and that access is to be evaluated by a psychiatrist every day. Restrictions for amenities and conveniences must be signed by the psychiatrist, and posted on the outside of the door to each resident’s cell.
Throughout FY 2018, the CIC had the opportunity to speak with individuals who had been placed on suicide watch or precaution for varying periods of time. They described the daily evaluations by mental health staff as sporadic, and lasting for durations of less than one minute. They also described the evaluations as comprised of simple questions, such as “are you ok?”, and “are you suicidal?” One individual with whom the CIC spoke detailed his amenity and convenience restrictions, which DOC policy states are discretionary. They included the following: no phone, no recreation, no visits, no eating utensils, no curtains over the window, no socks, and no shoes; additionally, he was allowed a mattress and blankets, a smock, continuous bright lights in his cell, showers every three days, and access to running water in cell. His access to running water depended on which corrections officers were on duty, because the officers control the water. Some would turn the water in his cell on and some would not.
During the September 26, 2018 inspection of the CDF, the CIC observed safe cells on the acute mental health unit. Two of the cells that were in use had signed lists stating relevant restrictions, which were signed and individually dated for September 21, 2018 and September 23, 2018. It appeared as though DOC mental health staff were not in compliance with the departmental policy requiring a daily review of
5 See D.C. DEP’T OF CORR., SUICIDE PREVENTION AND PRECAUTION 6080.2G 5 (2017), available at https://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/PP%206080.2G%20Suicide%20Prevention%20 and%20Intervention%208-9-2017.pdf. 6 See id. at 21-22.
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 109 of 260
restrictions; however, it is possible that those individuals were evaluated, regardless of the lack of updates to their lists.
As part of the CIC request for information, the DOC provided data that there were four resident deaths in FY 2018, two of which were medical in nature, and two of which were suicides by hanging. There were additionally 112 documented suicide attempts, the majority of which were attempted by tied sheet, swallowed pills, or swallowed batteries.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ Mental health staff should ensure that daily evaluations of psychiatric status, cell amenities, and life activities are fully completed and documented every day.
VIII. Maximum Security Programming
There is little to no programming outside of the GED unit for individuals who are housed at the CDF, particularly those who are maximum security residents. The CIC received comments from at least five individuals about the about the lack of programming options at CDF, particularly on maximum security general population units and restrictive housing units. Throughout FY 2018, residents on maximum security and restrictive housing units continually expressed that they are unable to participate in programs. Some were also on units where the radios were removed around October 2017, and not returned. One resident noted the impact of not having programming, saying that most issues between inmates occur on the maximum units because people are bored and have nothing to do, nothing to work for, and no privileges to maintain. He explained that the DOC classification system and levels “weren’t built for longterm inmates,” and that there are no benefits to staying out of trouble once you are at maximum security, because there is essentially no way to move down custody levels. Some maximum security residents reported that they participate in counseling with DOC staff. DOC staff explained that a DOC employed counselor provides long-term counseling to residents mostly in restrictive housing units. The counselor works with residents on a variety of issues, including anger management. There is also an informal DOC project called the CARE team, which consists of social workers and licensed therapists who work with residents, particularly on restrictive housing units, to identify ongoing needs and connect individuals with mentors when possible. The project is in the early stages, and selections for participation in the program are based on the individual therapy list. DOC staff stated that it is more difficult to have programs at CDF, as compared to CTF, due to the layout of CDF. However, they explained that they try to be creative and still offer CDF residents programs by moving them to empty housing units for programming. Staff also said, when possible, they bring CDF residents over to CTF for job fairs and other events, and they can participate before CTF residents participate.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should work to provide meaningful programming opportunities for residents at CDF, particularly for maximum security units and restrictive housing units.
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 110 of 260
IX. CDF Administrative Housing / Special Management Unit
The CIC spoke with a number of people residing on the administrative housing unit, who raised concerns about its informal disciplinary process.
During FY 2018, at least four residents contacted the CIC about conditions on the administrative housing unit. All reported no consistent case management services on the unit for months. Additionally, others reported instances where they were subject to restrictions that did not result from a disciplinary hearing.
One individual explained that after failing to get out of the shower when told to do so, he was sprayed with a chemical agent, and restrictions were imposed. The CIC viewed the memorandum stating the restrictions, which was posted outside of his cell. It appears verbatim below:
“The below steps are to be made in regards to (resident) and his out of cell movement: Effective immediately: 1. A supervisor will be present for all movement of (resident) until he is behind a secured door. 2. A cell door, officer doors, shower doors, closets and housing unit doors are to remain in the closed and locked position at all times. When opening any of these doors, they should be immediately closed upon inmate and/or staff entry or exit. 3. At the completion of the strip search each time inmate (resident) comes out of the cell, the hand wand will be used to scan him once on the tier. 4. A cell search is to be completed once inmate (resident) is secured for any out of cell activity. Any items such as bowls, cups, or anything that can be used to store substances is to be removed from his cell and documented as nuisance contraband and discarded. 5. All (resident’s) activities will be conducted on shift #2, to include education, showers, recreation, case management, and medical when possible. 6. All (resident’s) out of cell activity will be conducted in handcuffs and waist chain restraints, with the exception of a shower. 7. These steps are to remain in effect until further notice.”
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should ensure that restrictions are only being placed on residents after documentation of a legitimate violation of DOC policy and a fair hearing.
X. Special Handling
Special handling status is a high security status that places individualized, additional restrictions on particular residents.
The special handling status is a security status that places specific restrictions on inmates who the DOC determines require security restrictions in addition to their residency inside of the restrictive housing unit. They may leave their cells for recreation, legal visits, medical emergencies, and other specialized needs. There are very few people with a special handling status, and all are housed in CDF on the administrative housing unit.
Special handling requires that any time a resident is moved out of cell, there must be at least one lieutenant present to escort them, and no other residents can be out of cell on the unit tiers. When a special handling resident leaves their unit, they are typically escorted by four officers. Staff was unable to provide a general explanation of the decision-making process for categorizing an individual as special handling; however, every decision made about a resident on special handling must be approved by the warden. Individuals with whom the CIC spoke stated that their interactions with the warden are few and infrequent. One resident estimated that he saw the warden two times across the span of one year.
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 111 of 260
According to DOC policy, there is to be a written memorandum designating each individual’s specific restrictions. During the September inspection, DOC staff explained that the restrictions are determined on an individual basis. One resident explained that he knew that there was a memorandum detailing his restrictions because he could hear officers reference it; however, he never saw or received a copy of the memorandum.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should ensure that there is a clear policy governing individuals with a special handling status; DOC should clearly communicate to such individuals any restrictions, the reasons for them, and the process for having the restrictions lifted.
XI. Government Witness Unit
The CIC received reports throughout FY 2018 about the government witness unit regarding the lack of programming, extended investigations, and daily conditions.
During FY 2018, the CIC spoke with seven individuals housed on the government witness unit. Ɣ Programming – The general policy of the DOC is to keep government witness residents separate from general population residents in order to preserve the identity and safety of government witnesses. As a result, government witnesses spend most of their time in the unit, because the facility common areas need to be clear of other residents in order for the government witnesses to access them. This also prevents government witnesses from participating in programming with the general population residents.
Government witnesses commented on the lack of programs that are offered on their unit. Programs offered include life skills, commercial cleaning, industrial banking, and a drug program, as well as opportunities to rent books from the mobile library and participate in on-unit chapel. However, residents are not allowed to participate in life skills if they already participate in commercial cleaning, and vice versa. It was also reported that no programs are offered for the Spanish speakers, and the programs offered in English are not translated.
During an interview with the CIC, one individual communicated that unit residents would like to have access to GED classes; barbershop and cosmetology classes; parenting classes; abusive relationship classes; foreign language classes, particularly for Spanish speakers; and business classes.
Ɣ Investigations – Residents reported that they have been under investigations that last for over 90 days and suspend their social visits during that time. All of the residents subjected to these investigations reported that they never received any documentation regarding the investigation or its reason; they were only made aware of the suspended visits when families called to schedule inperson visits and were informed that the residents’ visits were suspended.
During FY 2018, the CIC contacted the case manager on the unit seeking insight regarding the origin and scope of the investigations, and subsequent restrictions; however, the case manager was unaware of the source and reasons for the investigations.
During the September 2018 inspection, the CIC asked executive staff whether the investigations were internal to the DOC or coming from an outside agency. The CIC also inquired about residents’ lack of notice and documentation regarding the investigations. In response, DOC staff members explained that they were not aware of any internal or outside investigations that are unaccompanied by documentation and suspend social visits for government witness unit residents.
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 112 of 260
According to staff, a resident only has visits suspended if he receives a disciplinary violation with loss of visits as part of the sanction, or if he is sent to the Secure Management Unit. If the suspension is due to a disciplinary violation, residents are informed by the Adjustment board and receive documentation of the process.
Ɣ Recreation – Residents reported that they do not have recreation regularly throughout the week. They reported that they have recreation once or twice a week, and sometimes not at all.
Ɣ Unit – Residents reported that the unit is not provided with adequate cleaning products, supplies, or tools. Residents have to ask officers to call and request that supplies, including toilet paper, be delivered. Residents have also said that they have requested remotes for the televisions on the unit. When they do not receive remotes, they change the channel with a broom or mop handle.
Ɣ Detail – Residents reported that some corrections officers say that there are too many people working detail. Reportedly, some officers do not want to let the people working detail out of their cells at the designated times for their shifts.
Ɣ Visits – The CIC received reports about visitors being turned away for various reasons, such as wearing a work uniform or smelling like marijuana.
Ɣ Mail – Residents reported incidents where they have not received mail that was sent to them. Also, family members have reported not receiving mail sent to them by residents.
Ɣ Food – Residents explained that they do not always eat food that is delivered to the unit, because there is a history of food tampering by individuals working the kitchen, who know that particular trays will be delivered to the government witness unit. Most said that residents on the unit never drink from juice or milk jugs; they only drink beverages delivered in sealed single servings, because some past jug deliveries contained urine.
Ɣ Staff – Residents reported insults and profanity from staff due to their status as government witnesses.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should ensure that residents are always provided with documentation stating why they are under investigation and the basis of the investigation.
ƒ The DOC should work to provide residents on the government witness unit with access to adequate programming opportunities and recreation time.
ƒ The DOC should ensure that the government witness unit operates in a sanitary and safe manner, including the delivery of cleaning supplies and the proper sealing, labeling, and handling of meals.
ƒ The DOC should ensure that correctional staff is appropriately equipped with schedules for resident’s detail assignments in order to preserve safety while ensuring that residents can report for their duties.
XII. CTF Special Management Unit
From September to October 2018, the CIC received concerns from residents on the Special Management Unit (SMU) of CTF, regarding changes in recreation practices on the unit.
At least five residents of SMU contacted the CIC to discuss the change in recreation practices on the unit, which caused difficulty in communicating with family members. In mid-September the recreation time changed from starting at 8:00am and lasting until 12:00pm, to starting at 5:00am and lasting until 9:00pm.
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 113 of 260
Recreation is the only time that the phones are available for residents to make social calls. Each resident on the SMU is allowed to have recreation for two hours within the recreation time (i.e. a two-hour time slot between the hours of 5:00am and 9:00pm). Despite the extended hours, after the change, those with recreation at 5:00am could not reach their families because they were unlikely to be awake at that time. There were also reports that recreation no longer occurs on the weekends.
In September 2018, the CIC reached out to the DOC about these issues. The DOC responded that it would look into the unit issues, particularly the availability of recreation on the weekends.
XIII. Grievances
The CIC received resident concerns regarding deficiencies in the DOC grievance process, mainly that residents seldom receive any response to grievances that they submit.
Throughout FY 2018, the CIC received complaints from residents explaining that the DOC grievance process is inadequate. During interviews with individuals, at least nine individuals raised concerns about grievances. The most frequent concern is that residents do not receive responses to their written and submitted grievances.
As part of the information request made by the CIC to DOC, the DOC provided documentation about informal and formal grievances in FY 2018. Informal grievances are complaints communicated to the unit case manager. Formal grievances are complaints filed with the grievance coordinator.
x Informal Grievances: There were 810 informal grievance complaints filed in FY 2018, 727 of which were resolved in less than 30 days.
x Formal Grievances: There were 144 formal grievance complaints filed in FY 2018, 140 of which were resolved in less than 30 days.

Formal Grievances - Most Common Issues

Ϯϱ

Ϯϭ

ϮϬ

ϮϬ

ϭϱ

ϭϮ

ϭϭ

ϭϬ

ϭϬ

ϱ

Ϭ

mail

improper staff quality of health access to health food service

action

care

care

During the 2018 inspection, the CIC asked DOC for clarification on the recently changed grievance process. Staff explained that residents can still ask their case managers to resolve an issue, but communication with a case manager is not part of the formal process. Instead, all grievances are now delivered to the grievance coordinator, who then sends the complaints to the corresponding department. Following an inquiry, the relevant department sends a response to the coordinator, and then the coordinator sends the grievance back to the resident.

22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 114 of 260
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should provide residents timely answers to all filed grievances in a manner that comports with its stated policies and procedures.
XIV. Disciplinary Process
The CIC received numerous comments from residents that they did not receive documentation of disciplinary incidents.
Throughout FY 2018, multiple DOC residents raised concerns regarding the lack of documentation for disciplinary incidents that resulted in sanctions. For example, one individual described being placed on a seven-day cell restriction, which prohibited showers, recreation, and any property in his cell. The individual reported that they requested written documentation on the fourth day of the seven-day restriction period, and were released from restricted status on the following day, but no explanation of why the restriction was issued or removed was ever provided.
In response to the CIC’s request, DOC provided information about disciplinary actions in FY 2018. In total there were 1,402 violations, 1,387 of which were sanctioned. During the fiscal year, there was one “not guilty” finding during the disciplinary hearing process.

Most Common Disciplinary Violations

ϰϬϬ ϯϰϭ ϯϱϬ

ϯϬϬ

ϮϱϬ

ϮϮϳ

ϮϬϬ ϭϱϬ ϭϬϬ

ϭϰϳ ϭϮϮ

ϵϳ

ϴϰ

ϴϬ

ϴϬ

ϱϬ

Ϭ

CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should provide residents with documentation of all filed disciplinary actions that are formally charged or result in sanctions.
XV. Religious Programming and Meals
The CIC received complaints about access to religious programs and services as well as religious diet trays, ongoing throughout the fiscal year. During FY 2018, the CIC received reports regarding residents’ inability to access religious services and accommodations, such as prayer observance. Five individuals reported times when they were not allowed to come out of their cells to pray or when officers failed to take them to the chapel area to participate in religious services or programming.
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 115 of 260
Additionally, at least five individuals reported issues with accessing their religious meals. Some residents experienced weeks to months of delays in the process of being approved to receive a religious diet tray. Once individuals were approved for the diet, some reported that religious diet trays were not always brought to the units. Also, there are ongoing concerns about certain food items not being sealed or labeled. In particular, persons observing a kosher diet are not able to distinguish if the food is in fact kosher because it is not labeled.
In November 2018, the CIC received reports that the DOC had recently begun providing a Halal diet for Muslim individuals who had previously been given kosher trays. The Halal diet consists of one hot meal per day and lower quality than the kosher diet, which has two hot meals per day. Similar to the kosher trays, not all items are sealed or labeled, so residents are unable to determine if the items do in fact meet Halal standards.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ DOC staff should ensure that all residents have the opportunity to regularly attend religious services and programs in a manner that comports with its stated policies and procedures.
ƒ DOC staff should ensure that the process for reviewing and approving religious diet requests is timely and efficient.
ƒ DOC staff should ensure the proper sealing and labeling of specialized dietary trays in order to assure quality control.
XVI. Recreation
Throughout FY 2018, the CIC received reports about recreation, including no outdoor recreation or opportunities for indoor recreation.
The CIC received reports from residents on particular units that they do not have opportunities for indoor recreation, and other comments that the majority of residents do not have regular opportunities for outdoor recreation.
At the CTF, residents on the medical units and government witness reported issues with access to indoor recreation. Additionally, residents in one discrete CTF unit have weekly outdoor recreation, whereas other housing units in CTF reported that they have not received any outdoor recreation for at least the past 5-7 months. At least five individuals from CDF expressed that they do not have meaningful opportunities for recreation, both indoor and outdoor.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ DOC staff should ensure that all individuals have regular access to indoor recreation, and adequate access to outdoor recreation time that comports with stated policies and procedures.
XVII. ADA Specialists
The DOC has two employees that are trained to provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) services to residents who are referred by the DOC medical department.
There are two DOC employees who have specialty training for providing services to residents under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). According to DOC staff, residents can be referred by the medical department to receive ADA services. If they are referred for services, one of the two trained DOC employees are able to meet with them according to individual service needs. The amount of time an individual spends with a specialist is dependent on the requirements of their services. At the time of the inspection, there were reportedly three residents who were utilizing ADA services.
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 116 of 260
XVIII. Property
Many residents reported to the CIC that their personal property was never returned to them by DOC after they transferred units.
Throughout FY 2018, the CIC received at least five complaints regarding lost property. Many of the reports involved residents who had to transfer units, whose their property was never delivered from the old unit to the new unit; or, residents who never received their property after temporary property restrictions were lifted.
During the 2018 inspection, the CIC asked DOC staff about the process for property transfer and retention while a resident transfers units or is subject to a property restriction. Staff explained that property is supposed to be sent with residents as they transfer units. DOC staff further explained the process for residents who go from general population to a status housing unit, and have their property restricted. Upon entry to a restrictive housing unit, a resident is placed in the holding cell at the entrance of the unit and strip-searched. Their personal property is also reduced to the limit allowed on the unit. Any property that is over the limit is sent to storage, and residents are supposed to receive it within 24 hours of release back to general population. Staff suggested that residents who spoke to the CIC about lost property and were transferred to a secure housing unit may have had property confiscated as part of an investigation by the DOC Office of Investigative Services (OIS). However, that possibility assumes there was an incident preceding their transfer that would have necessitated OIS involvement.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ Whenever a resident transfers units, DOC staff should clearly document a resident’s property, and explain the process for moving, holding, storing, and returning property.
ƒ DOC staff should clearly document property that has been confiscated and will not be returned. ƒ DOC staff should communicate to residents a clear resolution process if the resident has missing
property.
XIX. Facility Physical Conditions
Throughout the fiscal year, individuals in both the CTF and CDF reported concerns about the physical conditions of the facilities.
During interviews throughout FY 2018, at least six individuals raised concerns about the physical conditions of the CTF and CDF. The concerns are listed below:
ƒ Temperature concerns: There is no circulation of air in the summer and freezing conditions in the winter since heat does not reach individual cells.
ƒ Flooding and sewage on bottom tier of a unit: The DOC responded to this concern during the year and commenced maintenance on a number of units.
ƒ Mold in units, closets, and showers: Residents informed the CIC that mold was painted over in preparation for inspections.
ƒ Cleaning supplies: Residents are not provided sufficient cleaning supplies. ƒ Rusty cage bearings: Cage bearings are not secure.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should ensure that the physical premises of both the CDF and CTF are clean and safe at all times.
25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 117 of 260 XX. Additional Concerns
The following list of resident comments includes the areas in which additional issues were raised to the CIC throughout FY 2018:
ƒ Assaults by staff ƒ Unprofessional staff conduct ƒ Staff retaliation following a grievance or other report ƒ Reported inmate on inmate conflict (including physical altercations and stabbings) ƒ Issues with good time credits ƒ Not enough detail jobs for women ƒ Law librarian requests unanswered and little assistance
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 118 of 260
Appendix A: Methodology
27

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 119 of 260
CIC FY 2018 DOC Inspection: Methodology
In accordance with D.C. Code § 24-101.01(d)(1)(2019), the Corrections Information Council (CIC) sent a request to tour the Department of Corrections (DOC) facilities, the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF), and the Central Detention Facility (CDF). The CIC conducted an onsite inspection of the CTF on September 20, 2018, and an onsite inspection of the CDF on September 26, 2018. The CIC representatives on the inspection include Board Chair Charles Thornton; Program Analysts Laura de las Casas, Rebekah Joab, Nicole Ukaegbu, and Chrisiant Bracken; Communications Specialist Mabel Tejada, and interns Samantha Kramer and Justin Penik.
On each respective day, the onsite inspection processes included opening sessions with DOC executive staff, tours of the facility grounds, and closing remarks with the DOC executive staff.
The inspection request itinerary included a tour of select units and program areas, which were the locality of comments, both positive and negative, made by DC residents throughout the fiscal year. The units toured, along with those that the CIC requested to visit, but was unable, are listed below:
CTF ƒ Medical 96 ƒ Medical 82 ƒ Women’s Mental Health Unit ƒ Young Men Emerging Unit (YME) ƒ Work Readiness Unit ƒ General Population Housing Unit
Areas that the CIC requested to tour but was not able to: ƒ Government Witness Unit ƒ Special Management Unit
CDF
ƒ Intake Reception Center (IRC) ƒ Transition Center ƒ Acute Mental Health Unit ƒ Mental Health Step-Down Unit (MHSDU) ƒ GED Unit ƒ Administrative Housing Unit / Special Management Unit ƒ Restrictive Housing Unit
Areas that the CIC requested to tour but was not able to: ƒ Maximum security general population housing unit
Prior to the onsite inspection, the CIC communicated with residents at the CTF and CDF about conditions. During those interviews the CIC met with residents to discuss their concerns and ongoing issues. The concerns and remarks made by residents throughout FY 2018 informed the
28

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 120 of 260
areas that the CIC toured during the 2018 inspection, and were also included as resident feedback in the body of the report. The CIC met with more than 40 individuals in the fiscal year. On October 9, 2018, the CIC sent the DOC a request for documents, including:
ƒ Roster of residents including commitment date, race, age, facility, classification, projected release date, and inmate status
ƒ Breakdown of facility units ƒ List of staff vacancies as of September 20, 2018 ƒ Summary of FY 2018 disciplinary actions and sanctions ƒ Summary of FY 2018 Informal Grievance Logs ƒ Summary of FY 2018 Formal Grievance Logs ƒ List of community partners for programming ƒ Complete list and explanation of courses offered through the department of College and
Career Readiness ƒ Data on restrictive housing population in FY 2018 ƒ Inmate deaths in FY 2018 ƒ Inmate suicide attempts in FY 2018 ƒ Summary of FY 2018 significant incidents ƒ Summary of FY 2018 use of force incidents ƒ Information on food services and commissary The CIC provided the DOC with a draft version of this report for review of factual information and an opportunity to respond to any information contained in the report. The DOC response can be found as an attachment.
29

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 121 of 260
Appendix B: DOC Response
30

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 122 of 260
                   
(;+,%,7(

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 123 of 260
D.C. Prisoners: Conditions of Confinement in the District of Columbia June 11, 2015
A report of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs 11 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 www.washlaw.org

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 124 of 260

D.C. PRISONERS: CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS


PAGE(S)

Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 2
I. District Department of Corrections Facilities and Populations ............. 4
A. Facilities ........................................................................................................ 5 B. Policies Affecting Prisoner Population ......................................................... 7 C. Demographics and Budget...........................................................................11
II. Recurring Issues and Problems Involving the D.C. Jail and CTF......... 12
A. Crumbling physical infrastructure.............................................................. 13 B. Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Practices at the D.C. Jail ..............20 C. Issues Confronting Youth ........................................................................... 25
III. Costs of Confinement & Contracted Services ............................................ 33
A. The CTF & Corrections Corporation of America ........................................33 B. Unity Health Care ....................................................................................... 45 C. Halfway Houses ..........................................................................................46
IV. Looking Forward ............................................................................................... 47
A. Recommendation 1: Close the D.C. Jail and the CTF and construct a new, safer, more effective facility.............................................................48
B. Recommendation 2: Expand the Secure Residential Treatment Program ....................................................................................................... 48
C. Recommendation 3: Correct deficiencies in suicide prevention and youth confinement ......................................................................................48
D. Recommendation 4: Conduct a review of training ...................................49 E. Recommendation 5: Revise current policies restricting “Good Time
Credits” ........................................................................................................ 49 F. Recommendation 6: Return management of the CTF to District
control .........................................................................................................49 G. Recommendation 7: Increase public access to records ............................. 51
Appendix A - Demographics & Budget
Appendix B - D.C. Department of Corrections Response

L

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 125 of 260

PREFACE
The appalling conditions of confinement in D.C. prison facilities, especially in light of their disproportionate impact on African-Americans, are a key criminal justice and civil rights issue in Washington DC. This is the third in a series of reports focusing on criminal justice reform and civil rights issues by the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.
We want to express our appreciation for the invaluable assistance in researching and writing this report provided by a team of lawyers from Covington & Burling LLP: Kevin Glandon, Shelton Abramson, Brandon Myers, and Alan Pemberton, who were the principal authors of this report, as well as paralegals Kimberly Bickham and Eric Barros.
All these reports are dedicated to Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer, the distinguished jurist, who inspired the creation of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee in 1968 while a partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. Judge Oberdorfer served on the Committee’s Board of Trustees until his elevation to the bench in 1977. Throughout his long career, Judge Oberdorfer, who died in February of 2013, spoke eloquently in support of civil rights and criminal justice reform. In his memory, the Louis F. Oberdorfer Fund has been established to support the Committee’s ongoing work on criminal justice reform and civil rights advocacy. We are pleased to note that one of the significant contributors to this report was Elliot Mincberg, who is serving as the Louis Oberdorfer Senior Counsel on the Washington Lawyers’ Committee staff. A stipend to support his work is provided by the Oberdorfer Memorial Fund.
The Washington Lawyers’ Committee would also like to acknowledge with particular gratitude the service of the following retired and senior Federal and District of Columbia Judges who composed the Advisory Committee assisting with this study:
John M. Ferren, Senior Judge, District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Rufus G. King III, Senior Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia
James Robertson, Retired Judge, United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Ricardo M. Urbina, Retired Judge, United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Patricia M. Wald, Retired Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Roderic V.O. Boggs, Executive Director

June 11, 2015

Deborah M. Golden, Director, DC Prisoners’ Rights Project

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 126 of 260

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



On average, the daily population of D.C. Department of Corrections (DCDOC)

facilities exceeds 2,000 prisoners. About three-quarters of these individuals are

detained at the Central Detention Facility, a nearly forty-year-old facility commonly

referred to as the “D.C. Jail.” Just under one quarter are detained at the privately-run

Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF). The rest are located at one of the District’s three

halfway houses.

This report examines the conditions of confinement at the D.C. Jail and the CTF and discusses several recurring and serious problems that require the prompt attention of the DCDOC and District policymakers.

x The D.C. Jail’s physical condition is alarming. Inspection reports by the D.C. Department of Health (DOH) have identified numerous violations of established correctional and public health standards, as well as structural and mechanical problems that are “serious to extremely serious.” Some of the problems noted in recent inspections appear to be a matter of poor housekeeping and sanitation practices — e.g., an “active infestation of vermin/pests throughout the facility.” Others indicate more fundamental degradation of the D.C. Jail’s physical infrastructure. Inspectors found “openings in the wall” of several cells, “damaged concrete in several of the cell blocks,” “water penetration through the walls,” mold growth, and a leaking roof. In addition, inspectors have noted that “most of the plumbing fixtures were in different stages of disrepair.”

x Suicide prevention practices in the D.C. Jail are “in need of immediate corrective action.” An expert report (the “Hayes Report”) arrived at this conclusion in 2013 after being commissioned to examine the D.C. Jail conditions and policies following a ten-month period during which four prisoners in the D.C. Jail committed suicide. The Hayes Report found that the D.C. Jail did not have enough suicide-resistant cells, and that prisoners under observation were subject to “overly restrictive and seemingly punitive” precautionary measures. The Hayes Report also criticized the infrequency of monitoring, which demonstrated “complete unconcern for inmate safety.” In response to the Hayes Report, the DCDOC formed a Suicide Prevention Task Force, which took steps to correct some of the issues noted in the report. However, the Task Force has not published anything in more than one year, so it is difficult to assess whether all of the required remedial measures have been implemented.

x Facilities for youth are inadequate and programming is insufficient. A report conducted by an outside correctional consulting group (the “Ridley Report”) identified significant problems with the conditions of confinement for youth housed at the CTF and found that boys at the CTF “have needs far greater than the services currently provided.” The Ridley Report highlighted the

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 127 of 260

inadequacies of the juvenile facilities at the CTF, the excessive imposition of segregation and isolation, and the insufficient programming for boys held there. The report also notes that many boys may only visit with family members through video visitation, which can interfere with maintaining critical family bonds. The DCDOC reports that it has “worked diligently to implement the Ridley recommendations,” but we recommend further actions, including reducing the use of isolation and segregation among youth prisoners, further increasing and improving youth programing, and expanding access to in-person visitation for all youths.
x The District should not renew its contract with CCA, the for-profit corporation running the CTF. Since 1997, the CTF has been operated under contract by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). It appears that the District’s compensation to CCA was 31% higher than CCA’s reported average, at least as of 2014. During that year, CCA reported an operating margin of 29.7%. CCA’s contract is set to expire in 2017 and issues related to CCA operation of prisons around the country since the beginning of the contract indicate that it would not be in the District’s interests to continue to contract out the operation of the CTF.
x The Secure Residential Treatment Program needs expansion. The Secure Residential Treatment Program, operated out of the CTF by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency and the U.S. Parole Commission, offers a helpful alternative to incarceration for those suffering from addiction, but is unavailable to women and to many men due to the location of the facility and its limited size.
x “Good time credit” policies deny early release based on arbitrary distinctions. District policies regarding the availability of “good time credit” for academic, vocational, and rehabilitation achievement contain arbitrary restrictions with respect to certain offenses. Federal policy governs good time credits for inmates who will be transferred to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.
x Correctional officers may not have been provided sufficient training. A theme running throughout prior reports is that some of the District’s correctional officers have not been provided modern, effective training.
x Public records regarding the D.C. Jail and the CTF are difficult to obtain. The process for obtaining public records regarding the District’s correctional system is complex, time-consuming, occasionally befuddling, and sometimes fruitless.
We conclude by offering seven proposed recommendations to address recurring issues outlined in the report. They would not solve all the issues facing the District’s correctional system, but we believe they would be important and tangible improvements.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 128 of 260

Although we detail multiple areas of concern, it should be said at the outset that this report is not intended to find fault with any particular person, organization, or institution. Corrections officers face dangerous, even life-threatening, conditions on a regular basis. The job is stressful and can be thankless. Administrative staff who help run the Department of Corrections and its facilities and programs are often faced with competing safety, budgetary, time, practical, political, and legal pressures. None of this is to say that the District cannot make improvements in every area of concern. We can. But assigning blame is less productive than collaborating to advance practical, effective solutions. 

, DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FACILITIES AND POPULATIONS



Individuals in the DCDOC system are generally subject to confinement at either

of two facilities within the District, the D.C. Jail and the CTF,1 or at one of the District’s

three contracted halfway houses. Prisoners convicted of a felony are transferred to a

Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facility and may become eligible for parole.

In FY14, the average daily population for all DCDOC facilities combined was 2,041.2 Approximately three quarters (1,474) of those individuals were detained at the D.C. Jail. Twenty-four percent (489) of those in DCDOC custody were located at CTF, and the rest were in one of the contract halfway houses in the District.3 While most youth charged with crimes in the District are held at Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) facilities, an average of sixteen boys were located at CTF (the only DCDOC facility that houses youth) in FY14.4 Pursuant to the Revitalization Act of 1997, individuals convicted of felonies in D.C. are transferred to the custody of the BOP.

 1 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2013 Performance Accountability Report, 1.
2 See D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DC Department of Corrections Facts and Figures, http://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/DC%20Departmen t%20of%20Corrections%20Facts%20and%20Figures%20October%202014.pdf
3 See id.
4 This number represents juveniles that the District tried as adults. See id.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 129 of 260

A. Facilities
1. D.C. Jail
The DCDOC operates the D.C. Jail.5 The D.C. Jail’s population comprises solely adult men who: (1) are awaiting trial or a parole revocation decision and are subject to pre-trial detention, (2) have been convicted of a misdemeanor, or (3) have been convicted of a felony and are awaiting a transfer to a BOP facility.6 The D.C. Jail houses all three categories (Low, Medium, and High) of the DCDOC’s Inmate Classification System (ICS), which is used to categorize prisoners for housing purposes based on “a number of factors that include the nature of their current criminal charges, prior criminal history and prior incarceration history.”7
We appreciate the willingness of the DCDOC to allow us to tour the D.C. Jail in February 2015. The D.C. Jail cell blocks include eighteen housing units, one of which is currently being used as an inmate receiving center. Each housing unit has eighty cells which, pursuant to current practices, hold up to two individuals each. The facility has of late been housing fewer District prisoners than the capacity of the D.C. Jail would allow. The tour was brief, we did not tour the entire facility, and we did not bring experts or otherwise attempt to audit the facility or assess shortcomings addressed in environmental inspection reports discussed in section III(A). Nonetheless, the tour was informative. The D.C. Jail is an aging facility and is visibly suffering from wear and tear.
2. Correctional Treatment Facility
Unlike the D.C. Jail, the CTF is operated for the District by a contractor, the Corrections Corporation of America (traded as CXW on the New York Stock Exchange), pursuant to a 20-year contract that runs through January 30, 2017.8 The CTF population comprises primarily adult men and women who: (1) are awaiting trial or a parole revocation hearing and are subject to pre-trial detention, (2) have been convicted of a misdemeanor, or (3) have been convicted of a felony and are awaiting a transfer to a BOP facility.9 The CTF also houses youth of both sexes and some U.S. Marshals Service
 5 Located at 1901 D Street, SE, Washington, DC 20003; see also D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2013 Performance Accountability Report, 1.
6 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Frequently Asked Questions, http://doc.dc.gov/page/doc-frequentlyasked-questions.
7 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Frequently Asked Questions, http://doc.dc.gov/page/doc-frequentlyasked-questions.
8 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America (effective Jan. 30, 1997, as modified); D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Frequently Asked Questions, http://doc.dc.gov/page/doc-frequently-asked-questions.
9 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Frequently Asked Questions, http://doc.dc.gov/page/doc-frequentlyasked-questions.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 130 of 260

prisoners, and is permitted to house up to 200 sentenced BOP prisoners.10 Unlike the D.C. Jail, the CTF only houses prisoners with a “Low” or “Medium” ICS category.11 The CTF’s operating capacity is between 1,400 and 1,500.12
3. Halfway Houses
Until recently, the DCDOC contracted with four separate, contractor-owned and operated halfway houses in the District, which are “often used as alternatives to incarceration”:13 (1) Efforts From Ex-Convicts; (2) Extended House, Inc.; (3) Fairview; and (4) Hope Village.14 The District no longer contracts with Efforts From ExConvicts.15 Data from the first week in February 2015 indicate that the Fairview housed about ten women, Extended House held about twenty-six men, and Hope Village housed about thirty men.16 These figures are lower than the average daily populations for FY 2014, which were as follows: Efforts From Ex-Convicts (15 individuals), Fairview (24), Extended House (40), and Hope Village (43).17
 10 Id.; D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Official Population Counts by Facility (Feb. 6, 2015), http://doc.dc.gov/node/307122; Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, Modification 10. As of January 1, 2003, the District permitted the CCA to fill empty beds at the CTF with prisoners from other jurisdictions, with the District receiving a per diem for any such prisoners. Id. Modification 3. As of November 4, 2008, the District’s contract with the CCA was expressly modified to permit the CCA to house USMS prisoners at the CTF. Id. Modification 9.
11 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Frequently Asked Questions, http://doc.dc.gov/page/doc-frequentlyasked-questions.
12 The District reports that the operating capacity is 1,400; CCA filings cite a 1,500 figure. Compare D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Official Population Counts by Facility (Feb. 6, 2015), http://doc.dc.gov/node/307122, with Corrections Corporation of America, Annual Report (Form 10-K), 14, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000119312514072723/d664216d10k.htm.
13 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2015 Performance Plan, 1, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC15.pdf.
14 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2013 Performance Accountability Report, 1, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC_FY13PAR.pdf
15 See D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Keeping the Promises: FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, C-37, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _1_web.pdf; D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2015 Performance Plan, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC15.pdf.
16 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Official Population Counts by Facility (Feb. 6, 2015), http://doc.dc.gov/node/307122.
17 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DC Department of Corrections Facts & Figures October 2014, http://doc.dc.gov/node/344892.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 131 of 260

B. Policies Affecting Prisoner Population
1. U.S. Bureau of Prisons
Unlike each of America’s fifty states, management of the District of Columbia is vested in a Mayor and City Council, but subject to control and oversight by the United States Congress.18 One result of this control is that, pursuant to a federal law,19 sentenced felons in the District have been required to be transferred to the BOP.20 Before the enactment of the National Capital and Self-Government Act of 1997 (the “Revitalization Act”), many of those prisoners had been housed at the Lorton Correctional Complex21 in Virginia; by December 31, 2001, the District had ceased operations at Lorton.22
Almost sixty percent of the District’s prisoner population are accused or convicted of felonies: Within that population, nearly fifty percent of all District prisoners are standing trial on a felony charge and 10% have been convicted and are awaiting transfer to the BOP.23 As a result, the District’s prisoner population is highly transitory: Those awaiting trial for felonies will generally be released after the trial if acquitted or sent to the BOP if convicted, and misdemeanants will not be confined for more than one year.
2. Reason for Incarceration
The majority of individuals in DCDOC custody are either awaiting trial or awaiting transfer to a BOP facility. Forty-eight percent have a felony legal matter pending, and another 10% have been sentenced to felony time (presumably awaiting transfer to a BOP facility). Seven percent have a misdemeanor legal matter pending and are held pre-trial. Only 11% of DCDOC prisoners are sentenced misdemeanants— individuals, not awaiting a transfer, who are serving imposed sentences in a DCDOC
 18 The Constitution grants legislative authority over the District to Congress. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17.
19 National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 712.
20 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Correctional Facilities, http://doc.dc.gov/page/correctional-facilities.
21 The conditions at Lorton were examined through a series of interviews with staff and prisoners in a 1990 article authored by Professor Robert Blecker of New York Law School. See Robert Blecker, Haven or Hell? Inside Lorton Central Prison: Experiences of Punishment Justified, 42 Stan. L. Rev. 1149 (1990).
22 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., About DOC, http://doc.dc.gov/page/about-doc.
23 See infra D.C. Dep’t of Corr., D.C. Department of Corrections’ PREA, Safety and Security Report 2014, http://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/DOCPREASafetyan dSecurityReport2014.pdf.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 132 of 260

facility.24 The remaining 24% of the prisoners are incarcerated for violation of parole, being held pursuant to a writ or hold, or for “other” reasons.
Of the male DCDOC prisoners, about 19% are classified as “Federal Inmates,” i.e., prisoners accused of violating federal law who are temporarily held in a DCDOC facility. Sixteen percent of the men being held for a D.C. Code offense are incarcerated for assault or domestic violence, 13.6% are in for a parole violation, and 9.4% are incarcerated for a burglary/robbery/carjacking. The remaining prisoners are incarcerated for various offenses including property crimes (8.2%), drug offenses (6.6%), weapons possession (6.4%), and homicide (4%). Approximately 32% of male DCDOC prisoners are incarcerated for “violent” or “dangerous” crimes (“dangerous crimes” includes possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance).
The top two reasons for incarceration of female DCDOC prisoners are (1) assault/domestic violence and (2) parole violations, with each of the two categories accounting for 20% of the DCDOC female population. Of female DCDOC prisoners, 13.7% are federal inmates. Other reasons for incarceration include property crimes (7.9%), failure to appear in court25 (6.5%), and white collar crimes26 (5.8%). Twenty-six percent of female prisoners are incarcerated for violent or dangerous offenses.
3. Length of Stay and “Good Time” Credits
The average length of stay in a DCDOC facility is 179 days for male prisoners, and 94 days for female prisoners. Under District law, prisoners27 may earn “Good Time Credits” for completion of academic and vocational programs or rehabilitation programs; for “exceptionally meritorious service”; or “performing duties of outstanding importance in connection with institutional operations”; and for “demonstrat[ing] successful participation in one or more rehabilitation programs, work details, or special projects.28
One credit is equal to one full day of reduction in a sentence. Prisoners earn one credit for completing a “program, detail, or project” that lasts twenty days or less, two credits for completing a program that lasts between twenty and twenty-six days; and  24 See id.
25 “Failure to appear” generally refers to an individual’s failure to appear before any court or judicial officer when ordered to do so. See, e.g., D.C. Code §23-1327.
26 “White collar crime” generally refers to financially-motivated, nonviolent crime that is often committed by government and business professionals. See, e.g., DC Code §22-3225.02 (Insurance fraud).
27 The District’s good time credit laws apply only to pretrial and subsequently sentenced misdemeanants. Inmates charged with felonies and sentenced to more than one year of incarceration will be transferred to BOP custody and can only earn good time credits in accordance with federal law and BOP policies.
28 D.C. Code §§ 24-221.01 to 24-221.01c.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 133 of 260

three credits if a program lasts twenty-six days or more.29 There are a few limitations on the use of this policy. First, only prisoners serving sentences for misdemeanors are eligible (however, credits can begin to accrue pre-sentencing while the individual is incarcerated).30 Second, credits may not reduce a prisoner’s sentence by more than 15% if the conviction was for a crime of violence, and credits may not reduce the minimum sentence at all for a specified list of crimes, including certain crimes under the Controlled Substances Act.31 There are limitations on how many credits a prisoner may earn per month.32
4. Parole/Supervised Release
When a D.C. Code offender33 has served his or her minimum felony sentence, s/he may be eligible for parole.34 In addition to the standard parole system, the District also provides for medical parole for permanently incapacitated or terminally ill prisoners, and for geriatric release for prisoners at least sixty-five years old who have a chronic illness.35
The U.S. Parole Commission is vested with the authority to grant or deny parole to D.C. Code felony offenders and to revoke parole and supervised release for those under its supervision.36 Before August 5, 1998, the D.C. Board of Parole was responsible for making parole decisions, but its authority was transferred by the Revitalization Act.37
Even though D.C. Code felony offenders are transferred into the federal BOP system, the Commission applies District (rather than federal) guidelines and procedures to all D.C. Code offenders.38 However, the Commission has the authority to amend the
 29 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Program Statement 4341.1, § 10(b) (Aug. 17, 2012) (Good Time Credits).
30 See id. § 10(a)-(b).
31 Id. § 13(a)-(b).
32 Id. § 13(d).
33 By “D.C. Code offender,” we refer to an individual who has violated a section of the D.C. criminal code, as opposed to a District resident who violated a federal law.
34 D.C. Code § 24-404(a).
35 See id. §§ 24-464, 24-465.
36 See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, FAQs, http://www.justice.gov/uspc/frequently-askedquestions#q46.
37 See id. The D.C. Board of Parole retained the authority to revoke parole until August 5, 2000, when that authority was also transferred to the Commission and the Board was abolished. Id.; D.C. Code § 24-131(a)(1).
38 See Parole FAQs. Specifically, D.C. Code offenders are addressed in Subpart C of the Commission’s manual, which is available at http://www.justice.gov/uspc/documents/uspcmanual111507.pdf.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 134 of 260

rules, and it did so in 2000, potentially requiring prisoners to serve time beyond when they become eligible for parole until they are deemed “suitable” for parole.39 The Commission’s guidelines have been subject to challenge. For example, a class action filed by D.C. Code offenders challenges the application of the Commission’s rules, arguing that the Commission’s rules unconstitutionally apply retroactively to extend the length of time before prisoners will receive parole.40
While D.C. Code offenders are on parole, they are subject to supervision by an independent federal agency, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA).41 CSOSA also supervises pre-trial defendants who have been released to the community.
5. Secure Residential Treatment Program
The Secure Residential Treatment Program (SRTP) is a residential substance abuse treatment program for individuals who have violated the terms of their parole or supervised release and who have addiction needs.42 The benefit of the SRTP is that the participants receive substance abuse counseling and earn street-time credit, meaning that they are still considered to be on supervised release for purposes of calculating the length of their supervised release. The SRTP started as “a joint collaboration of CSOSA, the DC Government, the United States Parole Commission, and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)” to address the needs of “chronic substance abusing, and criminally-involved DC Code offenders” and “increase their chances of successful community reintegration.”43 According to the DCDOC, the SRTP is currently operated by CSOSA and the U.S. Parole Commission, which control eligibility requirements and the content of the program.44
 39 Id.; Daniel v. Fulwood, 766 F.3d 57, 59 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 12, 2014).
40 See Daniel v. Fulwood, 766 F.3d 57; see also Spencer Hsu, U.S. appeals court revives parole challenge by D.C. inmates imprisoned since 1985, The Washington Post, Sept. 12, 2014,http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/us-appeals-court-revives-parole-challengeby-dc-inmates-imprisoned-since-1985/2014/09/12/5c4a78ce-3a97-11e4-bdfbde4104544a37_story.html.
41 Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, Mission and Goals, http://www.csosa.gov/about/mission.aspx.
42 See Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, FAQs: Supervision Programs and Initiatives (“Describe CSOSA’s planned participation in the [SRTP]”), http://www.csosa.gov/about/faqs/programs.aspx#faq19.
43 Id.
44 D.C. Department of Corrections Response to Washington Lawyers’ Committee White Paper, May 5, 2015 (hereinafter “DCDOC Response”). A draft of this report was shared with the DCDOC and, on May 5, the DCDOC provided its comments. This draft incorporates DCDOC comments, along with analysis of those comments. The DCDOC Response is included as Appendix B to this report.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 135 of 260

Participants in the SRTP are housed for up to 180 days in a special thirty-two-bed unit at the CTF. The SRTP is administered by Phoenix House, a third-party contractor.45
The SRTP makes a significant difference in the lives of many of its participants and can help reduce the rate of recidivism.46 But currently, the number of individuals who could benefit from the program far exceeds the SRTP’s capacity. The SRTP is available only to men, and its limited capacity means that many individuals who might benefit from the program are unable to participate.
Those who are unable to participate in the program are held in custody and can wait months to begin participating in the program. During that time, the individuals who are held for a violation of their supervised release but who are unable to participate in the SRTP do not receive street time credit. Also, because the SRTP is operated out of the CTF, it is not available to individuals with a “High” ICS rating. As a result, individuals with a High ICS rating are put in custody at the D.C. Jail instead of being able to participate in the SRTP and will likely have their parole or supervised release revoked. They may apply for a waiver, but those waivers can take months, if they are ever granted at all.47
C. Demographics and Budget
As District leadership and community stakeholders confront the challenges presented by the conditions of confinement in the District, it is vital to consider two additional aspects of the correctional system: The system’s disproportionate impact on certain populations, and its cost. In addition to the discussion in this section,
 45 See Phoenix House, Secure Residential Treatment Program, http://www.phoenixhouse.org/locations/metro-dc/secure-residential-treatment-program/.
46 See generally Press Release, Norton Announces the Secure Residential Treatment Program for Non-Violent Offenders Will Continue, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, http://norton.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/norton-announces-the-secureresidential-treatment-program-for-non.
47 The SRTP is distinct from the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, which is available to male and female inmates in DCDOC custody. See D.C. Department of Corrections, Substance Abuse Treatment at DOC, http://doc.dc.gov/page/substance-abusetreatment-doc. According to the DCDOC, inmates may volunteer to participate in the RSAT, join via referral or self-report, or enroll if they “have violated the terms of their probation and otherwise meet the requirements of the program.” See DCDOC Response. The RSAT is generally a 30- to 120-day program that includes services on relapse prevention, as well as “workshops on domestic violence, parenting, fatherhood, life skills, arts, behavior modification, vocational education and health education.” Id.; D.C. Department of Corrections, Substance Abuse Treatment at DOC, http://doc.dc.gov/page/substance-abuse-treatment-doc. This curriculum has been “licensed by Addiction Prevention and Recovery Administration (APRA), the regulating body for policy for substance abuse, prevention, treatment, and recovery services.” DCDOC Response. Individuals who successfully complete the RSAT program are reinstated to supervision and are generally placed in a 30- to 60-day aftercare program.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 136 of 260

demographics and cost issues are addressed in more detail in the appendix to this report.

The District’s prisoner population is

Slightly less than half (49.5%) of the District’s
total population, but 91% of the District’s prisoner population,
is Black.

disproportionately Black and male as compared to the District’s total population. Slightly less than half (49.5%) of the District’s total population, but 91% of the District’s prisoner population, is Black. By contrast, 43.4% of the District’s total population, but only a small fraction (3%) of the District’s prisoner population,

is White. And, while 92% of the DCDOC population is male, only 47% of the District’s total population is male. 48 When it comes to youth, the racial and gender disparities are

And, while 92% of the DCDOC population is male,
only 47% of the District’s total population is male.

even starker.

Since 2007, the District’s prisoner population has declined significantly, and may well decline further as a result of District policies relating to the decriminalization of marijuana. A report studying the District’s high incarceration rate identified a lack of affordable housing, high rates of homelessness, education deficiencies, lack of access to mental health and substance abuse treatment, and high unemployment as relevant factors.49

,, RECURRING ISSUES AND PROBLEMS INVOLVING THE D.C. JAIL AND CTF

Despite the tremendous investments that the D.C. government has made in its prison system, discussed in more detail in the Appendix, the D.C. Jail and CTF continue to face significant problems. As the following sections explain:

x The D.C. Jail’s physical infrastructure appears to be crumbling and multiple inspections have revealed unsanitary conditions and non-compliance with basic standards established by national correctional authorities;

48 United States Census Bureau, State & County QuickFacts, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html.
49 Justice Policy Institute, A Capitol Concern: The Disproportionate Impact of the Justice System on Low-Income Communities in D.C., http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/10-07_EXS_CapitolConcern_AC-PS-RD-DC.pdf.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 137 of 260

x An independent expert found that the suicide prevention program employed at the D.C. Jail has significant shortcomings despite the fact that four prisoners recently committed suicide in the span of less than one year; and
x The CTF is not adequately providing for the needs of juveniles who are incarcerated there.
x For nearly twenty years, the CTF has been operated under contract by CCA. Continued problems at the CTF, the fact that the District’s compensation to CCA appears to be 34% higher than CCA’s reported average, at least as of 2013, and CCA’s operational track record around the country since the beginning of the contract all strongly indicate that it would not be in the District’s interests to continue to contract out CTF operations when the CCA contract expires in 2017.
A. Crumbling physical infrastructure
1. Recent reports
The District’s jail facilities are not new. The CTF was opened in 1992 and has now been in operation for over twenty years.50 The D.C. Jail was opened in 1976 and has been in operation for nearly forty years.51 Based on discussions with DCDOC staff, as well as testimony provided to the D.C. Council by DCDOC officials, maintenance and upkeep for the D.C. Jail will continue to consume resources and may require expensive upgrades.
Inspection reports prepared by the D.C. Department of Health (DOH) paint a troubling picture of the physical condition of the D.C. Jail. The two most recent inspection reports that are available account for a September 2013 to October 2013 inspection period (the “Fall 2013 Inspection”) and a February 2014 to March 2014 inspection period (the “Spring 2014 Inspection”).52 A cover letter from the DOH to the Director of the DCDOC accompanies each of the inspection reports and explains that:
This inspection identified areas of non-compliance with environmental requirements as defined by the American Correctional Association Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities and the American Public Health Association Standards for Health Services Correctional Institutions.53
 50 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Correctional Facilities, http://doc.dc.gov/page/correctional-facilities.
51 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Correctional Facilities, http://doc.dc.gov/page/correctional-facilities.
52 Although additional inspections likely occurred since March 2015, prior requests to obtain access to any associated reports through the FOIA process were unsuccessful.
53 Letter from Joxel Garcia, Director, D.C. Department of Health, to Thomas Faust, Director, D.C. Department of Corrections (May 20, 2014); Letter from Joxel Garcia, Acting Director, D.C. FRQWLQXHG«

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 138 of 260

The inspection reports themselves raise grave concerns. Although some of the problems could conceivably be addressed through improvements in housekeeping and sanitation or maintenance practices, others speak to larger problems with the physical infrastructure of the D.C. Jail and indicate that the facility itself—which opened nearly forty years ago—may require significant renovations or need to be replaced.

In both the Fall 2013 Inspection and the Spring 2014 Inspection, the inspector found that “the cell blocks and several common areas were not maintained in a clean and sanitary manner and in good repair.”54 In the reports accompanying each inspection, the inspector provided a list of more than 100 problems to support this conclusion.55 Problems that pertain to sanitation failures and a lack of routine maintenance and that could possibly be corrected through significant improvements in housekeeping practices include, for example:

“There is an active infestation of vermin/pests
throughout the facility”

x “There is an active infestation of vermin/pests throughout the facility;”56

x There were numerous sanitation issues in the kitchen, such as unsanitary equipment and improper temperature control for refrigerated foods;57

x “The showers throughout the housing units were not sanitarily maintained and in good working order;”58

Department of Health, to Thomas Faust, Director, D.C. Department of Corrections (Dec. 4, 2013).
54 See generally Ralph Spencer, Central Detention Facility Inspection Report, February 18 to March 21, 2014 (Mar. 21, 2014) (hereinafter “Spring 2014 Inspection Report”); Ralph Spencer, Central Detention Facility Re-Inspection Report, February 18 to March 21, 2014 (Mar. 21, 2014) (hereinafter “Spring 2014 Re-Inspection Report”); Ralph Spencer, Central Detention Facility Inspection Report, September 17 to October 11, 2013 (Oct. 18, 2013) (hereinafter “Fall 2013 Inspection Report”); Ralph Spencer, Central Detention Facility Re-Inspection Report, September 17 to October 11, 2013 (Oct. 18, 2013) (hereinafter “Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report”).
55 See Spring 2014 Re-Inspection Report, 2 - 6; Spring 2014 Inspection Report, 2 - 6; Fall 2013 Inspection Report, 2 - 6; Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report, 2 - 7.
56 Memorandum from Ralph Spencer, Safety and Environmental Health Specialist, to Senior Deputy Director, Health Regulation and Licensing Administration, 6 (Feb. 18, 2014 to Mar. 21, 2014) (hereinafter “Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum”); Memorandum from Ralph Spencer, Safety and Environmental Health Specialist, to Feseha Woldu, Senior Deputy Director, Health Regulation and Licensing Administration (Sept. 17, 2013 to Oct. 11, 2013) (hereinafter “Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum”)
57 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 6; Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 4 - 5.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 139 of 260

x Numerous parts of the medical facility were deemed “dirty” or “damaged” and there was “a sewer odor” in some of the rooms;59 and

x “[T]he lighting was not functioning properly” in many of the cell blocks.60

By contrast, other problems cited in the

Department of Health:

reports could be remedied only through significant renovations to the facility or by

“structural and mechanical deficiencies were more prominent than
environmental deficiencies”

replacing the D.C. Jail entirely. Indeed, the Department of Health noted in its Fall 2013 Inspection that “structural and mechanical deficiencies were more prominent than environmental deficiencies,”61 and many of those

issues remained uncorrected during the Spring

2014 Inspection.62 Structural or mechanical deficiencies observed during the

inspections, included, for example:

x “There were openings in the wall” of several cells63 and “damaged concrete in several of the cell blocks;”64

x “Most of the plumbing fixtures were in different stages of disrepair;65

x The roof was leaking;66

x There was “water penetration through the walls;”67

58 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 7; Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 6.
59 Fall 2013 Inspection Report, 4 - 5; Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report, 4 - 5; see also Spring 2014 Inspection Report, 4 - 6; Spring 2014 Re-Inspection Report, 4 - 5.
60 Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report, 11; see also Spring 2014 Inspection Report, 11 (“There were several blown fluorescent tubes throughout the cell blocks and in the stairwells.”).
61 Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 2.
62 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 2.
63 Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report, 8; Fall 2013 Inspection Report, 2; see also Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 9 (identifying “Openings in the wall” as a general maintenance concern).
64 Spring 2014 Re-Inspection Report, 2; Spring 2014 Inspection Report, 2; Fall 2013 ReInspection Report, 8; Fall 2013 Inspection Report, 2.
65 Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report, 4, 12.
66 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 2; Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 2.
67 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 2; Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 2.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 140 of 260
x Mold was growing on many of the walls;68 x There was “concrete separating at the corners in the gym;”69 x The floors, walls, and ceilings in many rooms were “damaged;”70 x Floor tiles in many of the rooms were missing or damaged;71 x There were rusted areas in the ceiling and the wall;72 x There were damaged and rusted windows and “damaged and missing caulk from
around the window in several of the cell blocks;”73 x There was “peeling paint on the walls throughout the facility;”74 and x There was damage to the “concrete walkway around the exterior premises.”75
The DOH emphasized the seriousness of the water leakage in particular, which it blamed for mold growth and described as “a health and safety issue which can have serious effects.”76

 68 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 2; Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 2.
69 Spring 2014 Inspection Report, 2; Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report, 2.
70 See generally Spring 2014 Inspection Report; Spring 2014 Re-Inspection Report; Fall 2013 Inspection Report; Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report.
71 See generally Spring 2014 Inspection Report; Spring 2014 Re-Inspection Report; Fall 2013 Inspection Report; Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report.
72 Spring 2014 Inspection Report, 12; Spring 2014 Re-Inspection Report, 12; Fall 2013 Inspection Report, 12; Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report, 12.
73 Spring 2014 Inspection Report, 3; Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report, 2.
74 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 8; Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 7.
75 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 2; Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 2.
76 Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 3; see also 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 10.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 141 of 260

2. Persistent problems

A review of reports from ten recent inspections indicates that many issues have

not been adequately addressed after being noted in prior reports.77 For example, in the

report accompanying the Spring 2014

Inspection, the inspector noted that “[s]everal of

the structural and mechanical deficiencies observed in previous inspections . . . remained outstanding.”78 These issues include: “leaking roof, water penetration through the walls, mold growth on the walls,” and “leaking damaged and

The Department of Health described these problems as
“serious to extremely serious”

or inoperable plumbing fixtures.”79 In past

reports, the Department of Health described

these problems as “serious to extremely serious” and explained that some of these

problems “can have a negative impact on the health and safety of the inmates and staff if

they are not addressed in a timely manner.”80

However, despite the seriousness of these and other concerns, many of the same problems persisted—and in some cases deteriorated—between reports.81 Thus, while it is helpful that the DOH inspects the D.C. Jail on a regular basis, it is not clear that these reports are being translated into actions that significantly improve the condition of the facility.

It is standard for periodic inspections to consist of an initial inspection and a follow-up inspection to determine compliance with corrective action plans submitted by

77 The ten inspections were conducted in February 2014 - March 2014; September 2013 October 2013; April 2013 - May 2013; November 2012; May 2012 - June 2012; January 2012 February 2012; May 2011; May 2010 - June 2010; June 2009; January 2009.
78 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, p. 2.
79 Id.
80 See, e.g., Memorandum from Milton Anderson and Ralph Spencer to Feseha Woldu, Senior Deputy Director, Health Regulation and Licensing Administration, 6 (May 18, 2010 to June 2, 2010); Memorandum from Milton Anderson and Ralph Spencer to Feseha Woldu, Senior Deputy Director, Health Regulation and Licensing Administration, 18 (June 8, 2009 to June 19, 2009); Memorandum from Milton Anderson and Ralph Spencer to Feseha Woldu, Senior Deputy Director, Health Regulation and Licensing Administration, 17 (Jan. 12, 2009 to Jan. 30, 2009).
81 See, e.g., Memorandum from Milton Anderson and Ralph Spencer to Feseha Woldu, Senior Deputy Director, Health Regulation and Licensing Administration, 6 (May 18, 2010 to June 2, 2010); Memorandum from Milton Anderson and Ralph Spencer to Feseha Woldu, Senior Deputy Director, Health Regulation and Licensing Administration, 18 (June 8, 2009 to June 19, 2009); Memorandum from Milton Anderson and Ralph Spencer to Feseha Woldu, Senior Deputy Director, Health Regulation and Licensing Administration, 17 (Jan. 12, 2009 to Jan. 30, 2009).

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 142 of 260

the facility based on the initial inspection. The DCDOC states that it is “committed to performing preventative and day to day maintenance of the CDF and CTF facilities in order to provide a clean and safe environment,” and, typically, the DCDOC will have addressed or fixed at least some of the problems identified in the initial inspection by the time the follow-up inspection occurs. The DCDOC did not dispute the findings from these past reports, but noted that DOH had recently cited “noticeable improvements in the facility,” and observed that “areas that were in need of repair and in poor condition during the initial inspection have improved significantly.”82 Further, the DCDOC maintained that 87% of the items identified in a March 2015 inspection have already been “abated.”83 Nonetheless, as DCDOC acknowledged, some of the issues noted in DOH inspection reports are, “due to the age and deterioration of the physical structure,” “outside of DOC’s control.”84
During our tour of the D.C. Jail, we did not attempt to re-evaluate the facility or verify the findings of the environmental inspection reports. Nonetheless, we did observe that, although many parts of the facility were painted and appeared to be maintained, in other areas of the facility, paint was peeling or scratched, metal frames and hinges were rusted, the ceiling was stained and missing ceiling tiles, and piping insulation was frayed or damaged. We observed flies in the culinary area, though not to such an extent that we would term it an “infestation.” We also learned that mice posed an occasional problem in dry storage. We did not observe any mice during the tour.
The DCDOC acknowledged that it has not been able to fix certain shortcomings
“due to the age and deterioration of the physical structure.”
3. Addressing these structural deficiencies
These DOH reports underscore the urgent need for improvements to the D.C. Jail. Many of these issues may not be easily remedied. Indeed, the DCDOC acknowledged that it has not been able to fix certain shortcomings “due to the age and deterioration of the physical structure.”85 But if District prisoners are to be housed in a facility that is clean, sanitary, and up to the minimum standards that have been established by national correctional authorities, then they must be addressed. A full examination of the potential remedies—including physical plant issues such as the replacement of aging facilities with one or more new, modern facilities—is necessary. The status quo is unacceptable.
82 DCDOC Response.
83 Id.
84 Id.
85 DCDOC Response.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 143 of 260

4. Additional Concerns
In a recent hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, Director Thomas Faust suggested that the D.C. Jail’s lack of program space makes it difficult to provide significant programming.86 Director Faust also stated that the facility is well-worn and that it will continue to need significant repairs.
During our tour, we discussed a number of structural issues at the facility that appear to pose current risks and may require costly improvements.
First, the D.C. Jail has four electrical generators, three of which are as old as the D.C. Jail itself, and a fourth that was transferred from the Lorton facility and was likely not new when that facility closed in 2001. Although the generators are reportedly all functioning and able to provide emergency back-up power, the current generator system is unable to provide enough power to meet all of the facility’s electricity needs. In particular, the system would not be able to support full operation of the air chillers on a hot day. There is no indication of a security risk, but the result could be an inability to maintain reasonable temperatures in the facility. Additionally, due to the age of the generators, parts are increasingly unavailable on the market, driving up the cost of maintenance and repair.
Second, the air handlers that control air flow and help balance temperatures in the cells were moved nearly two decades ago in an effort to increase efficiency. Unfortunately, it appears that there were fairly severe problems in the implementation of the system redesign and the current system has not been able to maintain consistent temperatures in the cellblocks. Moreover, the air handlers are reportedly nearing the end of their useful life and replacement and attendant redesign of the structure may cost millions.
Third, the D.C. Jail relies on the D.C. General steam plant for steam, which is used for heating. When the steam plant goes offline, as it has in the past, the D.C. Jail does not have an alternate source of steam for heat and has no control over the repair of that facility. This lack of a contingency is concerning, particularly if a failure results in an inability to adequately heat the facility in winter.
Fourth, the D.C. Jail contains a number of structural flaws that limit its utility and cost-effectiveness. For example, during the tour, DCDOC staff noted that one of the elevators was designed to skip a floor in the facility. Staff were uncertain as to the original intent behind the design, but the feature is apparently no longer necessary. Nevertheless, staff must contend with an elevator that does not stop at all floors. Additionally, the 1970s facility was not designed with energy efficiency in mind, a concept that would be expected to save costs in a modern facility.
 86 D.C. City Council, Public Hearing, Committee on the Judiciary (Feb. 19, 2015), http://208.58.1.36:8080/DCC/February2015/02_19_15_Judici.mp4 (video) (testimony of Director Faust).

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 144 of 260

Fifth, although the cell blocks we toured contained common areas, the D.C. Jail appeared to have limited space available for programming.
B. Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Practices at the D.C. Jail

Between November 2012 and August 2013, four
prisoners at the D.C. Jail committed suicide, bringing the suicide
rate to three times the national average.

Prisoners at the D.C. Jail receive on-site mental health services from the D.C. Department of Mental Health,87 and clinicians from Unity Health Care, an outside vendor that provides a range of health care services to prisoners in DCDOC facilities.88 In recent years, prisoner suicides at the D.C. Jail have highlighted potential shortcomings in this mental health system.89

Between November 2012 and August 2013, four

prisoners at the D.C. Jail committed suicide, bringing the suicide rate to three times the

national average.90 At the time, the DCDOC’s contract with Unity Health Care provided

for certain suicide-prevention measures, including safe cells, a suicide intake protocol,

and periodic suicide screening.91

In the midst of the dramatic increase in suicides at the D.C. Jail, the DCDOC engaged an outside consultant in mid-2013 to draft a report on suicide prevention practices within the D.C. Jail.92 The DCDOC also formed a Suicide Prevention Task Force (the “Task Force”), whose membership includes representatives of the Department of Corrections, Unity Health Care, the Department of Mental Health, and the Corrections Corporation of America.93 The Task Force took steps to correct some of

87 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Mental Health Services at DOC, http://doc.dc.gov/page/mental-healthservices-doc. Mental health services may also be provided by “community service agencies.” See id.
88 See Lindsay M. Hayes, Report on Suicide Prevention Practices within the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections’ Central Detention Facility (Sept. 13, 2013) (hereinafter “Hayes Report”).
89 Aaron C. Davis, Report: Rash of suicides at D.C. Jail points to deep problem with inmates’ mental health care, The Washington Post, Nov. 7, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/report-rash-of-suicides-at-dc-jail-points-todeep-problem-with-inmates-mental-health-care/2013/11/07/caecf39c-47e5-11e3-b6f83782ff6cb769_story.html.
90 Id.
91 D.C. Contract, DCFL-2006-D-6001 & Modifications (Unity Health Care, Inc.), Contract §§ C.3.2.3, C.3.12; id. at Modification 8, §§ C.3.2.4, C.3.12.7.
92 See generally Hayes Report.
93 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Office of Health Administrations, Suicide Prevention Task Force Report (Oct. 14, 2013) (hereinafter “Task Force Report”).

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 145 of 260

the issues noted in the Hayes Report, but,94 after an initial report in October 2013, the Task Force has not published anything further in more than a year. Nevertheless, Director Faust characterized the Task Force as “very active” in a recent hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety.95
1. Hayes Report
The DCDOC engaged Lindsey Hayes, an expert in the area of suicide prevention in correctional facilities, to assess the policies and practices at the D.C. Jail and to issue a report summarizing his findings (the “Hayes Report”).96 The Hayes Report found that, while the DCDOC and Unity Health Care had policies that “more than adequately cover the required components of a suicide prevention program . . . the suicide prevention practices for many of these required components [were] lacking in varying degrees and in need of immediate corrective action.”97 The D.C. Jail was particularly lacking in the following areas:
x Lack of Suicide-Resistant Cells. Hayes found that the D.C. Jail included an inadequate number of suicide-resistant cells.98 Such cells do not include protrusions that could serve as an anchoring device for a prisoner trying to commit suicide by hanging. At the time of the assessment, the D.C. Jail included only nine suicide-resistant cells, but “there were more than nine (9) inmates on observation status each day.”99 As a result, several prisoners who were under observation for potentially suicidal behavior were housed in non-suicide resistant cells that contained “dangerous anchoring devices.”100 In response, the Hayes Report “strongly recommended that DOC officials embark upon an inspection program to ensure that prisoners on suicide precautions are housed in ‘suicideresistant’ cells.”101
x Punitive Conditions. Hayes found that the “precautions” taken with respect to prisoners who were possibly suicidal were “overly restrictive and seemingly punitive.”102 When prisoners were designated for “behavioral observation,” they
 94 See id.
95 D.C. City Council, Public Hearing, Committee on the Judiciary (Feb. 19, 2015), http://208.58.1.36:8080/DCC/February2015/02_19_15_Judici.mp4 (video) (testimony of Director Faust).
96 See generally Hayes Report.
97 Id. at 6.
98 See id. at 23.
99 Id.
100 Id.
101 Id. at 26.
102 Id. at 24.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 146 of 260

were isolated and “stripped of all clothing and possessions, and given only a paper gown without undergarments.”103 While under behavioral observation, prisoners were permitted to leave their cells only for showers and legal visits, and were prohibited from using the telephone or having family visits.104 Hayes noted that many of these measures were counterproductive: “Confining a suicidal inmate to their cell for 24 hours a day only enhances isolation and is antitherapeutic.”105 The “seemingly punitive” conditions also decreased the chances that prisoners would honestly report suicidal ideations.106 According to Hayes, it was “obvious” that the punitive measures were premised on “a misguided belief that most inmates who threaten suicide and/or engage in self-injurious behavior are simply manipulative” and that the overly “restrictive and punitive aspects of Behavioral Observation [are meant] to deter such behavior.”107
x Insufficient Supervision of Potentially Suicidal Prisoners. Hayes was most critical of the DCDOC’s use of a monitoring protocol called “behavioral observation” for suicidal prisoners instead of “Suicide Watch” or “Suicide Prevention.” Hayes found it “incredibl[e]” that, “there were not any inmates on either Suicide Watch or Suicide Prevention status” during the three-day on-site assessment.108 This is significant because while prisoners who are on Suicide Watch or Suicide Prevention would be monitored continuously or once every fifteen minutes, respectively, prisoners placed on “behavioral observation” were monitored only once every 30 to 60 minutes.109 Hayes even suggested that this irregular monitoring of suicidal prisoners showed “complete unconcern for inmate safety,”110 and that it was “obvious” that behavioral observation was being used to by-pass more regular monitoring. 111 The Hayes Report cites one case of a prisoner who had attempted suicide on several occasions in the previous two months but was nevertheless placed on behavioral observation where he might be monitored only once every sixty minutes.112
x Inadequate Training. Hayes found that “correctional officers that are assigned to the mental health unit do not receive any specialized mental health and/or
 103 Id. at 23.
104 Id. at 24.
105 Id.
106 Id.
107 Id. at 33.
108 Id. at 31.
109 Id. at 30, 32.
110 Id. at 33.
111 Id.
112 Id. at 34 - 35.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 147 of 260

suicide prevention training.”113 The suicide prevention training program for all employees was “a 39-slide PowerPoint presentation . . . encompassing only one hour of instruction.”114 Overall, the report concluded that “the number of hours devoted to both pre-service and annual suicide prevention training for correctional, medical, and mental health staff is inadequate, and the content of the training curricula is in need of improvement.”115
2. Suicide Prevention Task Force
In response to the increase in prisoner suicides, the DCDOC formed the Suicide Prevention Task Force to review “custodial practices related to medical and mental health issues in DOC facilities.”116 On October 14, 2013, the Task Force published a report summarizing a recent meeting and other steps taken by the Task Force to date.117 In the report, the Task Force noted that, as of the date of the report, the suicide rate for the DCDOC as a whole, when accounting for the average daily population of its facilities, was “more than 3 times the average” of local jails nationwide.118
The report also described positive steps that the Task Force had taken to address some of the concerns outlined in the Hayes Report. For example, the following Task Force recommendations were implemented:
x Increase the frequency of “Segregation and Intake unit checks” to at least once every fifteen minutes.119
x Ensure that “NO ONE is placed in a single cell unless there’s an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.”120
x Include a dedicated booking supervisor at intake to “monitor all high-risk inmates . . . to determine if an expedited referral to a mental health clinician is warranted.”121
x Implement a new “Razor plan” that prohibits prisoners from accessing razors.122  113 Id. at 9.
114 Id.
115 Id. at 10.
116 See Task Force Report, 2.
117 See generally id.
118 Id. at 4.
119 Id. at 6.
120 Id.
121 Id. at 5.
122 Id. at 6.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 148 of 260

x Institute a more robust four-hour suicide prevention training curriculum.123
In its report, the Task Force also described a set of “long-term suicide prevention strategies undergoing consideration.”124 For example, in order to improve suicideresistance in prisoner cells, the “DOC’s Facilities team” worked on and had “nearly completed a ‘suicide-resistant’ cell prototype.”125
Although the Task Force report signaled some improvements in the DCDOC’s suicide prevention program, more work needed to be done beyond what was described in the October 2013 report. The DCDOC has reported that, as of May 2015, it has taken the following additional steps to improve its suicide prevention practices.
x The DCDOC reports that, as of October 2014, “all 40 designated cells have been completed and retrofitted as follows: to decrease ligature points, handles have been removed from toilets and desks, vents are covered with anti-ligature grade mesh, pick-proof, penal-grade caulking has been used in the cells, and doors have been replaced to allow for 2 clear panels that provide enhanced vision into and out of the cells.”126
x As of May 2015, the DCDOC “provides suicide-resistant smocks and blankets.”127 In addition, “more time out of cells and the provision of more family visits and telephone access is under review.”128
x The DCDOC reports that it “immediately discontinued “Behavior Management” status…upon receipt of the Hayes Report.” As of May 2015, the DCDOC reports that there are “two categories of observation: Suicide Watch for inmates thought to be actively suicidal and Suicide Precaution for inmates who are at risk of suicide, but less acutely compared to inmates on Suicide Watch.”129 The DCDOC states that “Inmates on Suicide Watch are placed in a safe cell on 3rd floor medical and are provided one-to-one constant monitoring by a healthcare professional,” whereas “Inmates on Suicide Precaution are monitored by officers every fifteen (15) minutes in staggered intervals.”130
 123 Id.
124 Id. at 7.
125 Id. at 8.
126 DCDOC Response.
127 Id.
128 Id.
129 Id.
130 Id.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 149 of 260

x The DCDOC also reports that “Suicide Prevention training has been significantly enhanced.”131 As of May 2015, “[a[ll correctional officers, other DOC staff and healthcare vendor staff must undergo four (4) hours annually of Suicide Prevention training.”132 The DCDOC also stated that it “brought in national expert Dr. Dean Aufderheide to conduct a full day of training on self-injurious behavior issues which involved inmates with mental health issues as well as those exhibiting ‘bad behavior.’”133 That training was attended by “[c]orrectional officers on the mental health and segregation units, as well as mental health staff.”134

The DCDOC reports that the recommendations of the Hayes Report “have been implemented.” However, the WLC was unable to verify that this is the case. Based on the information provided, none of these improvements make clear how prisoners who were isolated for exhibiting suicidal behavior would be treated in a manner that is less restrictive or punitive than before. Hayes had noted that these seemingly punitive conditions were based on false assumptions and that they were actually counterproductive. Moreover, it is not clear that the 40 designated safe cells are being made available to inmates in all cases where there may be a need. For example, although a new inmate processing center currently under construction at the D.C. Jail contains a suicide-resistant cell, or safe cell, the existing inmate processing center (a converted housing unit) does not. It also is not clear whether a best-practices standard has been applied to confirm that safe cells are in fact adequately suicide-resistant. On our tour, a cell at the D.C. Jail deemed to be a safe cell appeared to be little different from a regular cell and included potentially dangerous fixtures, such as bunk beds.

Even though the D.C. Jail’s recent District inmate population is well below operating capacity, the DCDOC has a practice of double-celling, or holding two people in a single cell, for the general population. This practice was described as a suicide prevention measure. Individuals in the mental health unit, however, are generally housed one to a cell.
C. Issues Confronting Youth

Significant problems with the conditions of confinement for youth who are housed at the CTF were identified in a 2013 report prepared by a criminal justice consulting firm (the “Ridley

“Juveniles at CTF have needs far greater than the services
currently provided.”

131 Id. 132 Id. 133 Id. 134 Id.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 150 of 260

Report”).135 The DCDOC operates the Incarcerated Juvenile Program at CTF, which includes youth who “have been charged in the court system as adults and are awaiting trial or currently serving their sentence.”136 According to the Ridley Report, approximately one girl and seventy boys are processed through CTF each year, and approximately 26% of these youth have mental health issues.137 At the time of the onsite assessments by the Ridley Group, the CTF was housing twenty-five youth, all but one of whom were boys.

The Ridley Report found that “juveniles at CTF have needs far greater than the services currently provided.”138 The report highlights the inadequacies of the facilities at the CTF, the excessive imposition of segregation and isolation, and the insufficient programming for juveniles. The report also notes that boys may only visit with family members through video visitation, which can interfere with maintaining critical family bonds. As the following analysis suggests, many of these problems are exacerbated by the fact that the DCDOC is housing an average of twenty-five youth at a facility that also houses hundreds of adults.139
1. Inadequate Facility

The Ridley Report concluded that the youth’s “Unit Space is inadequate for the

population served.”140 Units for youth should include “sufficient space for adequate

physical exercise; provision of regular, special, and vocational education; and

therapeutic programming.”141 However, the Ridley Report found that at the CTF, the

on-site “school is cramped and the unit does not have dedicated programming or

recreation space.”142 Some of

The on-site “school is cramped and the

the issues appear to arise from

unit does not have dedicated

the fact that the small number

programming or recreation space.”

of youth must be separated

from the adult prisoner

135 Walter B. Ridley, Francis Mendez, and Ghia Ridley Pearson, The District of Columbia Department of Corrections Correctional Treatment Facility Juvenile Unit Assessment (2013). Mr. Ridley is a former Director of the DCDOC.
136 Id. at 6.
137 Id.
138 Id. at 47.
139 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Official Population Counts by Facility, http://doc.dc.gov/node/307122; D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Quarterly Population Statistics October 2014, http://doc.dc.gov/node/344902.
140 Walter B. Ridley, Francis Mendez, and Ghia Ridley Pearson, The District of Columbia Department of Corrections Correctional Treatment Facility Juvenile Unit Assessment (2013), 9.
141 Id. at 13.
142 Id. at 9.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 151 of 260

population by both sight and sound. For example, the juveniles are permitted to use the gym and outdoor recreation facilities only when the adults are not using those facilities. The Ridley Report recommended that the DCDOC “explore whether there are unused spaces in the complex that can be used for recreation activities and or to move the unit to a larger space.”143
2. Use of Segregation
The Ridley Report, which was released in 2013, suggests that the use of isolation and segregation for youth at CTF is excessive. Generally, youth in D.C. are not supposed to be subject to isolation for more than five days, and a hearing of the housing board is required to extend the isolation of a juvenile beyond five days.144 However, the Ridley Group found that in some cases “segregation had been extended multiple times,” causing the “juveniles to remain in segregation for longer periods of time.”145 Indeed, “a few juveniles reported being placed in segregation for 2 months with 1 hour of recreation daily.”146 In response, the Ridley Report recommended that DOC adopt a
[W]ritten policy which reflects clearly the process and procedure which ensures (a) juveniles are returned to the general population within the mandated five days of segregation/the duration of the segregation is as short as possible to address the risk to the other juveniles or (b) clear guidelines are defined and followed for segregation extensions.147
In addition, the report recommended that “segregation should be revoked as soon as it is considered no longer reasonable and necessary for the purpose for which it was implemented.”148 In March 2014, Daniel Okonkwo, the Executive Director of D.C. Lawyers for Youth testified before the D.C. City Council Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, asserting that, as of that time, the DCDOC had “still not established and published” a written policy “that defines the procedure and requirements for imposing solitary confinement.”149 As a result, it appeared “that there [still] is no upper limit to how long a youth can be held in solitary.”150  143 Id. at 13.
144 Id. at 36.
145 Id. at 37.
146 Id. at 15
147 Id. at 37.
148 Id.
149 Testimony of R. Daniel Okonkwo, Executive Director, Committee on Public Safety & the Judiciary, Performance Oversight Hearing on the Department of Corrections (Mar. 19, 2014),http://www.dcly.org/cpsj_doc_2014#_ftn2.
150 Id.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 152 of 260

Excessive use of solitary confinement is troubling because of the effect that it can

have on juveniles’ development. A joint report by the American Civil Liberties Union

and Human Rights Watch found that “solitary confinement of young people often

seriously harms their mental and

physical health, as well as their

development,” and called for the practice “Solitary confinement of young

to be abolished.151 Clinical studies of the use of solitary confinement have “shown

people often seriously harms their mental and physical health,

that adult prisoners generally exhibit a

as well as their development”

variety of negative physiological and

psychological reactions to conditions of

solitary confinement,”152 and the “American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry has concluded that, due to their ‘developmental vulnerability,’ adolescents

are in particular danger of adverse reactions to prolonged isolation and solitary

confinement.”153

While the inadequate facilities and excessive use of isolation are significant problems in their own right, the Ridley Report suggested that they may be linked. Inadequate space might require corrections staff to use isolation and segregation on youth more frequently than they would if they were housed in a more appropriate facility: “Based on the fact that all juveniles are housed on one unit, at CTF, it is difficult to separate them without the use of segregation.”154

The DCDOC has provided information on the use of administrative segregation subsequent to the release of the Ridley Report. The following chart provided by DCDOC shows the number of juveniles who were segregated over the past year (either because they were “awaiting a disciplinary hearing or placed in administrative segregation”):

151 Human Rights Watch and American Civil Liberties Union, Growing Up Locked Down: Youth in Solitary Confinement in Jails and Prisons Across the United States, https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/us1012webwcover.pdf.
152 American Civil Liberties Union, Alone and Afraid, https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Alone%20and%20Afraid%20COMPLETE%20FINAL.pdf.
153 Id. (internal citations omitted).
154 Ridley Report, 37.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 153 of 260

Further, the DCDOC provided the following information about how, as of May 2015, it uses isolation and segregation with juveniles.
x Juveniles in administrative segregation are “housed in a separate cell on the lower tier within the juvenile unit.”155
x According to the DCDOC, those juveniles are able to “attend school through DCPS and have access to legal services, programming, counseling services, and meaningful contact with the other juvenile inmates.”156
x In addition, “[i]f a juvenile is placed in administrative segregation . . . officers are required to do a visual security check of the juvenile every fifteen (15) minutes,” and the “juvenile receives individual recreation for two (2) hours per day.”157
As of May 2015, the DCDOC reports that, over the past year, “the average stay in segregation” is “approximately two (2) days.”158 The DCDOC states that “[j]uveniles will not be placed in segregation for longer than five (5) days unless extenuating circumstances exist.”159 It is unclear what these extenuating circumstances are or how frequently they are deemed to exist.
3. Insufficient Programming and Staffing
Insufficient programming for youth is a significant problem. According to the Ridley Report, “programming at the Juvenile Unit is insufficient and needs to be  155 Id.
156 Id.
157 Id.
158 Id.
159 Id.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 154 of 260

expanded.”160 The lack of programming left youth “without structured activity for the majority of the weekend.” Feedback from youth cited in the Ridley Report indicated that there “is too much down time with nothing structured to do.”161 In addition, youth who completed their GED or high school diploma did not have any academic programming provided and were instead “assigned to detail duty for extended periods of time.”162 With regard to re-entry programming, the Ridley Report recommended that CTF “incorporate evidence-based reentry planning as early as possibly for all juveniles from the moment they are admitted.”163 Such programming can be critical for helping to ensure that problems do not carry over into adulthood and that the youth are best equipped to succeed when they re-enter their communities. While the Ridley Group acknowledged that the DCDOC had “significantly expanded programming” in recent months, it stated that “there is still an opportunity to increase programming even further.”164 According to the DCDOC, it has further expanded the juvenile program since the Ridley Report.165 For example, the DCDOC expanded an after-school program so that it now operates Monday through Friday.166
The Ridley Report also raised concerns with the staffing of the juvenile unit for youth prisoners, finding that many of the corrections officers lacked proper training. In response, the Ridley Group recommended that “Personnel on all shifts should be trained to work with juveniles.”167 As a recent report by D.C. Lawyers for Youth and Youth Justice acknowledged, staffing issues were at least partially attributable to the fact that a small number of boys and girls are housed at an otherwise adult facility: “Given that youth are such a small fraction of CTF’s population, it is perhaps unsurprising that CTF does not have a separate position description for hiring corrections officers to the Juvenile Unit and that the Unit sometimes utilizes relief staff who normally work with adults.”168 The DCDOC reports that, “[a]s of September 2014, all correctional officer recruits are trained in Positive Youth Development (PYD), as well as the operational and disciplinary procedures of the Juvenile Unit.”169 The DCDOC states that its PYD training “emphasizes building skills and assets in youth in addition to preventing
 160 Ridley Report, 11.
161 Id.
162 Id. at 12.
163 Id. at 21.
164 Id. at 11.
165 DCDOC Response.
166 Id.
167 Ridley Report, 14.
168 Campaign for Youth Justice and D.C. Lawyers for Youth, Capital City Correction: Reforming D.C.’s Use of Adult Incarceration Against Youth, 18, http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/pdf/Capital_City_Correction.pdf.
169 DCDOC Response.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 155 of 260

negative outcomes.”170 For existing correctional staff, this PYD training will be “phased into” annual training.171

4. Shortcomings of Video Visitation

Contrary to the American Bar

Not surprisingly, boys said that the video visitations “make it
hard for [them] to communicate with their family members.”

Association’s Standards for Treatment of Prisoners, youth housed at the CTF are generally restricted to video visitation in lieu of in-person visitation. Although there may be benefits to the selective

implementation of video visitation, the

ABA has taken the position that video

visitation should not be used as a replacement for in-person visitation.172 However, it

appears that, for youth at the CTF, video visitation has replaced in-person visitation,

even though CTF offers in-person visits to adults. The use of video visitation is

particularly problematic for youth because “[a] key part of working with juveniles is

being able to engage the families and help to strengthen the relationship between the

juveniles and their parent/guardian.”173 Moreover, according to a report by the

Campaign for Youth Justice and D.C. Lawyers for Youth, the “visitation monitors are

located in a common space, so youth have no privacy while speaking with their family

members.”174 Not surprisingly, boys said that the video visitations “make it hard for

[them] to communicate with their family members.”175

In its Standards for Treatment of Prisoners, the American Bar Association states that video visitation should not be used as a replacement for in-person visitation.176 And while video visitation is sometimes cited as a means to reduce the introduction of contraband into a prison, a recent study in Texas found that, after a county replaced in-

170 Id.
171 Id.
172 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Treatment of Prisoners, http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_standards/Trea tment_of_Prisoners.authcheckdam.pdf.
173 Ridley Report, 45.
174 Campaign for Youth Justice and D.C. Lawyers for Youth, Capital City Correction: Reforming D.C.’s Use of Adult Incarceration Against Youth, 18, http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/pdf/Capital_City_Correction.pdf.
175 Ridley Report, 15.
176 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Treatment of Prisoners, http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_standards/Trea tment_of_Prisoners.authcheckdam.pdf.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 156 of 260

person visitation with video visitation, there was an increase in contraband and disciplinary infractions.177
The DCDOC began providing some limited in-person visitation for minors in March 2014, but it appears that this has been made available to fewer than 50% of youths.178 While applauding this development, the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety has requested “that the Department consider providing in-person visits to all juveniles, given the unique nature of their confinement.”179 The DCDOC reports that, as of May 2015, “juveniles who have reached the Gold Tier in the Juvenile Unit are given contact visitation with their parent or guardian once per month.”180 Whether a youth is eligible for Gold Tier is “based on several factors such as behavior, program
The DCDOC reports that, as of May 2015, “juveniles who have reached the Gold Tier in the
Juvenile Unit are given contact visitation with their parent or guardian once per month.”
participation, and educational factors.”181 As of May 5, 2015, the DCDOC reported that eight juveniles had attained “Gold Tier” status, and that two more were expected by May 7, 2015.182 In addition, youth inmates “are given contact visits during the holiday season in December.”183
The use of video visitation is not confined to youth at the CTF. Since 2012, inperson visitation for prisoners at the D.C. jail has been limited to visits with lawyers or with clergy, or with others in exceptional circumstances. By all indications, the availability of video visitation is not, in itself, a concern. Indeed, it appears to provide additional opportunities for adult prisoners at the D.C. Jail to communicate with family and friends. However, video visitation should not come at the cost of heavy restrictions on in-person visitation.
177 Texas Criminal Justice Coalition & Grassroots Leadership, Video Visitation: How Private Companies Push for Visits by Video and Families Pay the Price, http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Video%20Visitation%20%28web% 29.pdf.
178 Report and Recommendations of the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety on the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget for Agencies Under Its Purview, May 14, 2014, http://dccouncil.us/files/performance_oversight/Committee_on_the_Judiciary_and_Public_ Safety.pdf.
179 Id.
180 DCDOC Response.
181 Id.
182 Id.
183 Id.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 157 of 260

,,, COSTS OF CONFINEMENT & CONTRACTED SERVICES
Over the past decade, the DCDOC’s budget has averaged $141.7 million. As discussed in more detail in the Appendix, a significant percentage of the Department of Corrections budget is devoted to payment for contractual services, including the DCDOC’s contracts with CCA, with the private halfway houses, and for prisoner health care.
A. The CTF & Corrections Corporation of America
Since January 30, 1997, the District has been paying CCA both a management fee to operate the CTF and a lease payment for the CTF facility. The management fee has varied over time pursuant to a twenty-year contract, which is set to expire in 2017, but appears to have been $14.4 million for 2014.184 When the District entered into the operations contract with CCA, the District and CCA also entered into an agreement to sell the CTF facility to CCA for $52 million.185 The CCA was required to make initial improvements to the facility and, over the duration of the operations contract, the District agreed to pay $2.8 million each year (and a lesser amount in the final year of the contract, 2017) in lease payments in addition to paying any real estate taxes imposed on CCA as a result of ownership of the CTF.186 At the end of the operations contract, ownership of the CTF will revert to the District.187

 184 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America (effective Jan. 30, 1997, as modified). We were able to review a copy of the operations contract and fourteen modifications, as well as the lease agreement. We were initially unable to obtain other contract documents such as the lease agreement or any modifications after modification number nine. The DCDOC referred our request for contract documents to the Office of Contracting and Procurement (OCP), which initially failed to provide any documents. Under the District’s freedom of information law, we appealed that non-response to the Mayor’s office. After over nine weeks and a series of followup communications with the Mayor’s General Counsel Office, and the Mayor’s Office of Legal Counsel, OCP ultimately provided documents. It should not be so difficult to obtain public documents.
185 Lease Agreement by and between Corrections Corporation of America as Lessor and The District of Columbia as Lessee; Stephanie Mencimer, Let’s Make a Deal, Wash. City Paper (May 9, 1997), http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/12631/lets-make-a-deal.
186 See id.
187 See id.; Corrections Corporation of America, 2009 Letter to Shareholders.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 158 of 260

1. The Contract
The term of CCA’s contract with the District is significantly longer than what CCA describes as its typical contract duration, which is typically for a term of “up to five years,” with additional renewals at the option of the government.188
The District pays CCA in a number of ways. As drafted, CCA’s contract provided that the District’s primary expense associated with CCA operation of the CTF is based on a per-prisoner daily rate that is increased by 3% annually. In 1997, the first year of the contract, the District was required to pay CCA $70.40 per prisoner per day.189 Due to contract modifications, the base rate (before annual increases are figured in) has been adjusted several times. For example, during a period in 2003, the per diem rate was dropped as low as $51.40 as part of a settlement of claims the District “may have had against [CCA] related to the Management Contract and [CCA’s] alleged non-compliance, known and documented by the Department of Corrections (DOC) as of January 1, 2003.”190 Assuming standard annual increases since the last contractual modification of the per diem, the per diem rate the District is obligated to pay in 2015 is $85.95 per prisoner per day.191 Based on a calculated 2014 per diem rate of $83.45, and an average adult prisoner population at the CTF during 2014 of 473, the 2014 management fee would have been roughly $14.4 million.
By way of comparison, CCA reported that, nationally, its revenue per “compensated man-day” in calendar year 2014 was $63.54, an increase over the 2013 figure of $60.57.192 Assuming that CCA’s SEC filings reported an average rate, a degree of variation between the per diem rates of various jurisdictions due to different economic conditions and different regulatory regimes is to be expected.
Whether such variation fully explains the rates in the District’s contract, which were approximately 31% higher in 2014 than the average, is unclear.193 However, labor costs may play a role in explaining the variation. CCA often markets its services as
 188 Corrections Corporation of America, Annual Report (Form 10-K), 28, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000119312514072723/d664216d10k.htm.
189 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, ¶ 7.1.
190 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, Modification 4.
191 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, ¶ 7.1.2; Modification 6 (setting a per diem rate of $62.09 as of February 1, 2004, to be adjusted annually thereafter).
192 Corrections Corporation of America, Annual Report (Form 10-K), 56 (Feb. 25, 2015) http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000119312515061839/d853180d10k.htm.
193 This assumes a 2014 per diem rate of $83.45, which was calculated based on annual increases since Modification 6 in 2004.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 159 of 260

leading to cost-savings, in part based on savings in expenses for labor. In states where it can operate without unions, its employee pay floor may be set by the minimum wage. By contrast, the District’s contract with CCA provides that CCA must recognize the right of employees to unionize194 and District contracts are subject to the federal Service Contract Act, which sets wage floors for various occupation codes (e.g., “Accounting Clerk II,” “Pharmacy Technician,” etc.) that, depending on the type of service, may be significantly higher than the federal minimum wage.195 According to the most recent U.S. Department of Labor wage determination, the hourly wage for the occupation of “Corrections Officer” is $22.80, not including fringe benefits.196 By way of comparison, the District’s minimum wage as of the date of this report was $9.50 per hour, and the “Living Wage” for 2015 that the District requires its major contractors to pay is $13.80 per hour.197
Nonetheless, one of the DCDOC’s plans for FY13 was to seek to re-negotiate the CTF per-diem rates, though this initiative was “discontinued due to a change in priorities” and has not been proposed in the department’s FY14 or FY15 plans.198
In addition to regular payments based on the per diem rate, the District has paid CCA lump sum amounts on multiple occasions over the years. For example, a September 2005 contract modification included an additional payment of $960,000 in connection with a dispute between the District and CCA over a Department of Labor wage determination applicable to correctional officers, and $26 million in FY06 for prisoner bed space and a lease payment.199

 194 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, ¶5.2.4
195 See 41 U.S.C. §§ 6702-6703.
196 U.S. Dep’t of Labor, WD 05-2103 (Rev. -14), http://www.wdol.gov/wdol/scafiles/std/052103.txt.
197 See D.C. Dep’t of Employment Servs., Wage and Hour Compliance, http://does.dc.gov/service/wage-and-hour-compliance; D.C. Dep’t of Employment Servs., Living Wage Act of 2006 Fact Sheet, http://does.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/does/page_content/attachments/Living%20Wa ge%20Act%20Fact%20Sheet%202015.pdf.
198 See D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2013 Performance Accountability Report, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC_FY13PAR.pdf ; D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2014 Performance Plan, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC14.pdf; D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2015 Performance Plan, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC15.pdf.
199 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, Modifications 7-8.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 160 of 260
For calendar year 2014, CCA reported that its operating margin was 29.7%, slightly up from the 29.4% margin it achieved in 2013.200
One cost to the District is for a building and equipment lease between the District and CCA for the CTF. CCA reports that it expects to receive a minimum of $2.8 million each year in rental income for 2014-2016 and an additional $694,000 in 2017, the last year of its current contract.201
CCA has been involved in lawsuits and investigations over the years, including an agreement to pay the State of Idaho $1 million as a result of “contractual disputes related to staffing at the Idaho Correction Center.”202 CCA is also being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in connection with its actions at the Idaho facility, which has reportedly been referred to by prisoners as “Gladiator School.”203 The FBI is investigating whether CCA violated federal law prohibiting fraud following CCA’s apparent acknowledgment that it violated its contract with the state by understaffing the facility “by thousands of hours” and that CCA’s employees “falsified reports to cover up the vacancies.”204
CCA has acknowledged that, “[t]he operation of correctional and detention facilities by private entities has not achieved complete acceptance by either governments or the public,” that “[t]he movement toward privatization of correctional and detention facilities has also encountered resistance from certain groups,” and that “negative publicity about an escape, riot or other disturbance or perceived poor operational performance, contract compliance, or other conditions at a privately managed facility may result in adverse publicity to [CCA] and the private corrections industry in general,” any of which may “make it more difficult for [CCA] to renew or maintain existing contracts or to obtain new contracts.”205

 200 Corrections Corporation of America, Annual Report (Form 10-K), 56, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000119312515061839/d853180d10k.htm.
201 Corrections Corporation of America, Annual Report (Form 10-K), F-20, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000119312514072723/d664216d10k.htm
202 Corrections Corporation of America, Annual Report (Form 10-Q), 18, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000119312514300102/d755063d10q.htm,
203 See id.; Rebecca Boone, APNewsBreak: FBI investigates prison company, Associated Press, March 7, 2014, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/apnewsbreak-fbi-investigates-prison-companycca.
204 Rebecca Boone, APNewsBreak: FBI investigates prison company, Associated Press, March 7, 2014, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/apnewsbreak-fbi-investigates-prison-company-cca.
205 Corrections Corporation of America, Annual Report (Form 10-K), 27-28, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000119312514072723/d664216d10k.htm.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 161 of 260
2. Profile of CCA and its relationship with the District
CCA, founded in 1983, is a publicly traded real estate investment trust, and is the oldest and largest private prison company in America.206 Because CCA’s contract is set to expire in 2017, it is appropriate to consider events involving CCA that have occurred since 1997, when the contract was signed. The DCDOC itself apparently planned to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of continuing a privatized model for the CTF or returning management to the District in FY12 and FY13, but this initiative was at first delayed due to “an incredible backlog of critical DOC procurements at [the Office of Contracting and Procurement],” and ultimately “discontinued due to a change in priorities.”207
CCA “owns or controls 52 correctional and detention facilities and manages 13 additional facilities owned by [its] government partners, with a total design capacity of approximately 86,500 beds in 20 states and the District of Columbia.”208 In 2013, CCA reported revenue of approximately $1.69 billion.209

Source: “See CCA’s Nationwide System of Correctional Centers,” CCA.com, http://www.cca.com/locations.
 206 See Matt Stroud, The Private Prison Racket, POLITICO Magazine, Feb. 24, 2014, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/private-prison-racket103893.html#.VCXP12ddV8E.
207 See D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2013 Performance Accountability Report, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC_FY13PAR.pdf ; D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2012 Performance Accountability Report, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC_FY12PAR.pdf ; D.C. Dep’t of Corr. FY 2012 Performance Plan, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC12.pdf.
208 Corrections Corporation of America, CCA Announces 2014 First Quarter Financial Results, News Release, May 7, 2014, http://ir.correctionscorp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=117983&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=1928425&highlight=.
209 Corrections Corporation of America Revenue & Earnings Per Share (EPS), NASDAQ, http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/cxw/revenue-eps.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 162 of 260

In 1997, CCA contracted with the District to “operate, maintain and manage the

CTF” for a term of 20 years.210 In the event that CCA fails to comply with the provisions

in its contract, federal or state and local requirements and laws, the District may

terminate its contract with CCA after allowing a 30 day cure period.211 However, “if any

action, or failure to act, by [CCA] results in any risk

to the safety or welfare of the prisoners assigned to In 1997, CCA contracted

the CTF, the staff of the CTF or the general public,

with the District to

the District may immediately initiate the action it “operate, maintain and

deems appropriate to eliminate or reduce such risk, including assumption of the operation of the

manage the CTF” for a term of 20 years.

CTF.”212

CCA, along with other private prison companies, has been the subject of much criticism. Joshua Miller, a labor economist with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, asserted that the private corrections model was “structurally flawed” because “[t]he profit motive drastically changes the mission of corrections from public safety and rehabilitation to making a quick buck.”213 Public criticisms of CCA generally fall into two categories: (1) Allegations that CCA provides substandard services resulting in harm to both prisoners and prisoners, and (2) Allegations that CCA supports policy measures that have the effect of keeping more people in prison and for longer periods of time.
a) Allegations of substandard services

The first criticism stems, in part, from a number of instances where CCA

employees reportedly exhibited misconduct. For example, in 2006, a former CCA

corrections officer admitted to “putting human waste in an inmate’s drinking jug” after

the company was sued by four prisoners alleging that they were forced to eat food

contaminated with urine and feces.214 Reportedly, “[o]ne of many instances of prisoner

sexual abuse” occurred in a Texas

In Idaho, the state’s largest prison was given the nickname “Gladiator School”
because of its violent reputation.

CCA facility where a CCA employee “was found guilty of sexually abusing at least eight female immigrant detainees while

210 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America (1997).
211 Id. at 9.1-9.3.
212 Id. at 9.3
213 Grassroots Leadership, The Dirty Thirty: Nothing to Celebrate About 30 Years of Corrections Corporation of America, 4, http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/GRL_Dirty_Thirty_formatted_for _web.pdf.
214 Kelli Kennedy, Human Waste Put in Food, Ex-inmates Claim, Associated Press, Mar. 12, 2006, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-119683145.html/.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 163 of 260
transporting them in a van alone.”215 In 2007, a Justice Department survey of local jails showed that a CCA facility in New Mexico had “the highest rate of sexual victimization (13.4 percent), more than four times the national average,” and “the highest rate of staffon-inmate sexual victimization – 7 percent, as compared with a national average of around 2 percent.”216 Additionally, CCA facilities have seen numerous escapes, mistaken releases, and riots.217 In Idaho, the state’s largest prison was given the nickname “Gladiator School” because of its violent reputation, allegedly caused by understaffing.218 After multiple lawsuits and an Associated Press investigation revealing that records had been falsified in order to meet minimum staffing requirements, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced that it was investigating CCA “and looking at whether various federal fraud statutes were violated and possibly other federal statutes connected with the fraud.”219
At the District’s CTF, there have been a series of instances where CCA corrections officers and guards allegedly accepted bribes to smuggle contraband (including cash, electronic items, cigarettes, and drugs) to prisoners. In 2002, four guards were indicted on charges that they smuggled drugs, pagers and cash to prisoners in exchange for bribes.220 In 2010, another CCA correctional officer pled guilty to bribery for accepting

 215 Grassroots Leadership, The Dirty Thirty: Nothing to Celebrate About 30 Years of Corrections Corporation of America, 5, http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/GRL_Dirty_Thirty_formatted_for _web.pdf.
216 James Ridgeway, Ex-Con Shareholder Goes After World’s Biggest Prison Corporation, Mother Jones, May 10, 2012, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/ex-con-alexfriedmann-cca-private-prison-rape.
217 Grassroots Leadership, The Dirty Thirty: Nothing to Celebrate About 30 Years of Corrections Corporation of America, 5-9, http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/GRL_Dirty_Thirty_formatted_for _web.pdf.
218 Rebecca Boone, FBI investigates prison company, Associated Press, Mar. 7, 2014, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fbi-takes-investigation-idaho-gladiator-schoolarticle-1.1714357.
219 Id.
220 Grassroots Leadership, The Dirty Thirty: Nothing to Celebrate About 30 Years of Corrections Corporation of America, 5, http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/GRL_Dirty_Thirty_formatted_for _web.pdf.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 164 of 260

money to smuggle an iPod and cigarettes to prisoners.221 More recently, in April 2014, two CCA corrections officers were arrested and charged on similar bribery charges.222
Also, in 2010, two former CTF prisoners sued the District of Columbia and CCA for civil rights violations alleging that CCA employees “preyed on them sexually and banished them to solitary lockdown when they complained.”223 One of the female prisoners alleged that a CCA officer paid her “sugar daddy,” who was on the outside, and then demanded sex from the prisoner.
b) CCA lobbying efforts and political contributions
In its Annual Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, CCA includes the following which it classifies as a “forward-looking statement”:
Our ability to secure new contracts to develop and manage correctional and detention facilities depends on many factors outside our control. Our growth is generally dependent upon our ability to obtain new contracts to develop and manage new correctional and detention facilities. This possible growth depends on a number of factors we cannot control, including crime rates and sentencing patterns in various jurisdictions, governmental budgetary constraints, and governmental and public acceptance of privatization. The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Immigration reform laws are currently a focus for legislators and politicians at the federal, state, and local level. Legislation has also been proposed in numerous jurisdictions that could lower minimum sentences for some non-violent crimes and make more inmates eligible for early release based on good behavior. Also, sentencing alternatives under consideration could  221 Dep’t of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office District of Columbia, Former Correctional Officer Sentenced in Bribery Case, News Release, http://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/news/2010/jul/10171.pdf.
222 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Corrections Officer Arrested on Federal Bribery Charge, Press Release, http://www.fbi.gov/washingtondc/press-releases/2014/corrections-officerarrested-on-federal-bribery-charge; Keith L. Alexander, Second guard at D.C. jail charged with bribery in smuggling contraband, The Washington Post, Apr. 30, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/second-guard-at-dc-jail-charged-with-briberyin-smuggling-contraband/2014/04/30/260e88e4-d0ad-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html.
223 Tim Hull, Women Call Private Prison Guards Predators, Courthouse News Service, Feb. 23, 2010, http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/23/24939.htm.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 165 of 260

put some offenders on probation with electronic monitoring who would otherwise be incarcerated. Similarly, reductions in crime rates or resources dedicated to prevent and enforce crime could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities. Our policy prohibits us from engaging in lobbying or advocacy efforts that would influence enforcement efforts, parole standards, criminal laws, and sentencing policies.224
Except for the last sentence, the above statement, or one substantially similar to it, appears on every CCA annual SEC filing for the last ten years. However, not until FY11 does the final sentence, setting forth CCA’s position as to lobbying with regard to criminal justice policy, appear.
Consistent with this timing (perhaps coincidentally), in 2011 CCA ended its membership with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), of which CCA had been a corporate member for over twenty years.225 ALEC, by its own description, is a nonprofit organization that “works to advance limited government, free markets and federalism at the state level” through the partnership of private entities, the general public, and state legislators.226 While CCA was a member of ALEC, it served on ALEC’s Criminal Justice task force (later called the Public Safety & Elections task force) that developed model legislation227 for what has been called “some of the toughest sentencing laws on the books today[:] . . . mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenders, ‘three strikes’ laws, and ‘truth in sentencing’ laws.”228
The so-called “truth in sentencing” (TIS) laws refer to practices “designed to reduce the apparent disparity between court-imposed sentences and the time offenders actually serve in prison.”229 Such policies are particularly relevant to D.C., where  224 Corrections Corporation of America, Annual Report (Form 10-K), 29, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000119312514072723/d664216d10k.htm#t x664216_1a.
225 Bog Ortega, Arizona prison businesses are big political contributors, Sept. 4, 2011, http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/09/04/20110904arizona-prison-businesspolitics.html.
226 American Legislative Exchange Council, “About ALEC,” http://www.alec.org/about-alec/.
227 Additionally, through ALEC, the CCA was reportedly able to review and give its approval for draft legislation that would later become Arizona’s controversial SB 1070. The CCA’s interest in such legislation would likely be heightened given that CCA “is the nation’s largest detainer of immigrants.” See Harvey Silverglate and Kyle Smeallie, Freedom watch: Jailhouse bloc, The Phoenix, Dec. 9, 2008, http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/73092-Freedom-watch-Jailhousebloc/?page=3.
228 Mike Elk and Bob Sloan, The Hidden History of ALEC and Prison Labor, The Nation, Aug. 1, 2011, http://www.thenation.com/article/162478/hidden-history-alec-and-prison-labor#.
229 Katherine J. Rosich and Kamala Mallik Kane, Truth in Sentencing and State Sentencing Practices, NIJ Journal No. 252, http://nij.gov/journals/252/Pages/sentencing.aspx.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 166 of 260

statutes limit prisoners’ use of good time credits and eligibility for parole. ALEC’s Criminal Justice Task Force reportedly drafted a model TIS bill—CCA was a member of the task force at the time.230 In 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which, among other things, offered federal grant money for states and the District of Columbia to “expand their prison capacity if they imposed TIS requirements on violent offenders.” In order to qualify for this grant funding, states and the District of Columbia were required to “have or pass laws requiring serious violent offenders to serve at least 85 percent of their imposed sentences in prison.”231 That same year, the District of Columbia enacted the Omnibus Criminal Justice Reform Amendment Act of 1994, D.C. Law 10-151 which, among other things, prevented good time credits from reducing the minimum sentence of someone convicted of a crime of violence by more than 15%, and prevented persons convicted of violent offenses from being paroled prior to serving 85% of the minimum sentence imposed.232

Additionally, numerous reports have indicated that CCA has lobbied for policies

affecting criminal statutes and sentencing. In 2008, The Phoenix reported that CCA

“spent more than $2.7 million from 2006 through September 2008 on lobbying for

stricter laws.”233 The Associated Press reported that in CCA spent about half a million

dollars in the first half of

2010 “lobbying federal officials.” Targets of CCA’s lobbying efforts included Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Marshals Service and U.S.

In its self-published Political Activity Report, CCA reported that it and its consultant lobbyists spent approximately
$2.7 million “in fees and other expenditures related to lobbying on behalf of
CCA at the Federal, state and local levels.”

Immigration & Customs

Enforcement.234 The chart below details the amount of money CCA has spent on federal

lobbying efforts each year from 1998 until 2014.

230 Karen Olsson, Ghostwriting the Law, Mother Jones, September/October 2002 Issue, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2002/09/ghostwriting-law.
231 Katherine J. Rosich and Kamala Mallik Kane, Truth in Sentencing and State Sentencing Practices, NIJ Journal No. 252, http://nij.gov/journals/252/Pages/sentencing.aspx.
232 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, National Institute of Corrections Information Center, State Legislative Actions on Truth in Sentencing: A Review of Law and Legislation in the Context of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34, http://static.nicic.gov/Library/012259.pdf.
233 Harvey Silverglate and Kyle Smeallie, Freedom watch: Jailhouse bloc, The Phoenix, Dec. 9, 2008, http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/73092-Freedom-watch-Jailhouse-bloc/?page=3.
234 Corrections Corp. spent $240,000 on 2Q lobbying, Associated Press, Sept. 1, 2010, http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HVBLM80.htm.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 167 of 260

Source: “Client Profile: Summary, 2013,” OpenSecrets.org, https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000021940&year=2013.

However, as the above chart only involves expenditures on the federal level, it does not tell the whole story. Most of CCA’s lobbying expenditures occur on the state and local level. In its self-published Political Activity Report, CCA reported that it and its consultant lobbyists spent approximately $2.7 million “in fees and other expenditures related to lobbying on behalf of CCA at the Federal, state and local levels.” Of that sum, $1.1 million was attributable to lobbying on the federal level, and $1.6 million was attributable to state and local activities.235

CCA has invested significant

CCA has spent over $7 million in its lobbying efforts to prevent private prisons from being subjected to the
same public disclosure requirements as public prisons.

resources in lobbying against several incarnations of the Private Prison Information Act (PPIA)—an act that has been introduced in Congress multiple times over the course of several years and which would

essentially subject private prisons to

the requirements of the Freedom of

Information Act. CCA spent $1.84 million lobbying against the PPIA of 2007, $1.48

million lobbying against the PPIA of 2009, and $3.85 million lobbying against the PPIA

of 2011.236 Thus, since 2007, CCA has spent over $7 million in its lobbying efforts to

prevent private prisons from being subjected to the same public disclosure requirements

235 See Corrections Corporation of America, CCA Political Activity and Lobbying Report 2013, 6, http://ir.correctionscorp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=117983&p=irol-politicalcontributions_pf.
236 OpenSecrets, Corrections Corporation of America, Bills Lobbied, 2007, https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientbills.php?id=D000021940&year=2007.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 168 of 260

as public prisons. We note, however, that in recent years, CCA’s lobbying disclosures have consistently included the following disclaimer:
CCA DOES NOT LOBBY FOR OR AGAINST ANY POLICIES OR LEGISLATION THAT WOULD DETERMINE THE BASIS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL’S INCARCERATION OR DETENTION.237
It is not clear whether this statement is intended to cover lobbying efforts by any other organization to which CCA may provide financial support. For example, due to disclosure rules for certain entities, such as 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, whether CCA supports other organizations that in turn have expressed views regarding legislation may not be publicly available information.
Over the years, CCA has also made substantial political contributions on both the federal and state levels. In 2013, CCA and its political action committee CCA PAC, contributed a total of $875,350—including contributions to (i) federal candidates, parties and committees; (ii) state/local candidates, parties, and committees; and (iii) 527 organizations (“political organizations” under 26 U.S.C. § 527).238 With regard to District political elections, CCA has made contributions to the campaigns of several candidates running for City Council and Mayor, with such contributions occurring in 2002, 2006, 2008, and 2009, and totaling $4,500.239 A CCA subsidiary, CCA of Tennessee, LLC, actually exceeded the CCA’s contribution rate by contributing over $7,000 in District races in the last five years, 240 and another $5,000 to a mayoral inaugural committee.241 None of these figures include direct contributions to candidates by the officers or employees of the CCA or a CCA subsidiary.  237 See, e.g., Corrections Corporation of America Lobbying Report 2013, Q2 (4/1-6/30), http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=1699C3FE-3358-4854A8D5-BAE4143E294A&filingTypeID=60.
238 See Corrections Corporation of America, CCA Political Activity and Lobbying Report 2013.
239 District of Columbia Office of Campaign Finance, Contribution & Expenditure Search, http://www.ocf.dc.gov/dsearch/searchresultcon.asp?mf1=&ml1=&ms1=&mc1=corrections%20c orp&mo1=N&xa=&sa=&ea=&ca=N&sc=&mf3=&ml3=&ms3=&mc3=&mf4=&ml4=&ms4=&mo 4=N&d1=0&m1=0&y1=0&d2=0&m2=0&y2=0&d3=0&m3=0&y3=0&mo5=N&sc5=&sr=6&ob1 =agyname&ob2=&ob3=&type=pcc&searchtype=org.
240 District of Columbia Office of Campaign Finance, Contribution & Expenditure Search, http://www.ocf.dc.gov/dsearch/searchresultcon.asp?mf1=&ml1=&ms1=&mc1=cca%20of%20te nnessee&mo1=N&xa=&sa=&ea=&ca=N&sc=&mf3=&ml3=&ms3=&mc3=&mf4=&ml4=&ms4= &mo4=N&d1=0&m1=0&y1=0&d2=0&m2=0&y2=0&d3=0&m3=0&y3=0&mo5=N&sc5=&sr=6 &ob1=agyname&ob2=&ob3=&type=pcc&searchtype=org.
241 District of Columbia Office of Campaign Finance, Contribution & Expenditure Search, http://www.ocf.dc.gov/dsearch/searchresultcon.asp?mf1=&ml1=&ms1=&mc1=cca%20of%20te nnessee&mo1=N&xa=&sa=&ea=&ca=N&sc=&mf3=&ml3=&ms3=&mc3=&mf4=&ml4=&ms4= &mo4=N&d1=0&m1=0&y1=0&d2=0&m2=0&y2=0&d3=0&m3=0&y3=0&mo5=N&sc5=&sr=6 &ob1=agyname&ob2=&ob3=&type=pcc&searchtype=org.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 169 of 260

B. Unity Health Care
Between July 19, 2006, and September 30, 2013, the District paid approximately $185 million for health care services for District prisoners, or about $26 million per year.242 The contract with Unity is based on a fixed-price model, in which the cost is not dependent upon the prisoner population or number of individuals treated.243
The prisoner population at the D.C. Jail and the CTF “is highly transient and exhibits a wide array of serious health problems, including tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, and mental illness.”244 Prisoners are provided with medical care through a contract with Unity Health Care, Inc. (Unity).245
Unity has been providing medical care services to District prisoners since 2006.246 This arrangement represented a change for CTF prisoners. Originally, the contract between the District and CCA contemplated that CCA would provide medical services to prisoners, and that CCA would be responsible for a range of both outpatient and inpatient costs. 247 Six years into the contractual arrangement, in January 2003, the District and CCA modified their contract to begin transferring responsibility for the provision of medical care back to the District. During the transition, the District initially agreed to pay CCA for the subcontracted services of the Center for Correctional Health and Policy Studies, Inc. while it negotiated its own contract with a medical provider without CCA as an intermediary.248 That same contract modification included a reduction in CCA’s compensation “as full and final settlement of any and all claims the District may have against the Operator related to the Management Contract and Operator’s alleged non-compliance.”249 In April 2003, the District took over
 242 D.C. Contract, DCFL-2006-D-6001 & Modifications (Unity Health Care, Inc.). Based on the contract documents, the annual cost did not consistently increase each year over the life of the contract; the contract cost for FY13 (Oct. 1, 2012, through Sept. 30, 2013) was $23.6 million.
243 See D.C.-Unity Health Care, Inc. Contract, ¶ B.2 (2006); Letter from Mayor Vincent Gray to The Honorable Phil Mendelson, Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia (Sept. 24, 2013), http://dcclims1.dccouncil.us/images/00001/20130925162240.pdf.
244 D.C.-Unity Health Care, Inc. Contract, ¶ C.2 (2006).
245 DOC, FAQs, http://doc.dc.gov/page/doc-frequently-asked-questions
246 Unity Health Care, Inc., About Unity Health Care / Our History, http://www.unityhealthcare.org/AboutHistory.html.
247 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, ¶ 5.4.5.
248 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, Modification 3, at 3.
249 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, Modification 3, at 4.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 170 of 260

responsibility for providing both medical services and all food services to CTF prisoners.250
The District has been developing a new contract model for health care services that moves away from a fixed price model to a mixed compensation model that would account for volume of services rendered.251 Initially, then Mayor Gray transmitted a proposed contract for services with Corizon Health, Inc.252 However, concerns were raised about the firm,253 and Mayor Gray withdrew the contract from consideration by the Council.254 Mayor Bowser asked the Council to revisit the proposal and, on April 14, 2015, the D.C. Council voted against awarding the contract to Corizon.255 While the District continues procurement of a new long-term contract, it appears that Unity continues to provide health care pursuant to short-term extensions of its contract.
C. Halfway Houses
As noted, until recently, the DCDOC contracted with four separate, privatelyowned and operated halfway houses in the District: Efforts From Ex-Convicts; Extended House, Inc.; Fairview; and Hope Village.256 The District no longer contracts
 250 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, Modification 4.
251 See Letter of Mayor Vincent Gray to The Honorable Phil Mendelson, Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia (Dec. 8, 2014), http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/33020/CA200548-Introduction.pdf.
252 See id. D.C. Office of Contracting and Procurement, Determination and Findings for a Sole Source Extension of Contract (Contract CW2669, Unity Health Care, Inc.) (unsigned), http://app.ocp.dc.gov/intent_award/D_F/DF_SS_UnityHealth_DOC_022515.pdf (proposing a payment of $5.9 million for services rendered during a three-month period between April 1, 2015, and June 30, 2015).
253 See, e.g., Human Rights Defense Center, Letter, Contract with Corizon for Medical Care at D.C. Jail (Dec. 13, 2014), https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/Letter%20to%20DC%20councilmember s%202014%20Chairman.pdf.
254 See Mike DeBonis, Gray halts D.C. Council vote on controversial pick for jail contract, Wash. Post (Dec. 16, 2014), http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/gray-halts-dccouncil-vote-on-controversial-pick-for-jail-contract/2014/12/16/93e9057e-855c-11e4-9534f79a23c40e6c_story.html.
255 Abigail Hauslohner, D.C. Council rejects Corizon Health contract after lobbying battle, Wash. Post (Apr. 14, 2015), http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-councilrejects-corizon-health-contract-after-lobbying-battle/2015/04/14/b784c8e2-e222-11e4-81ea0649268f729e_story.html.
256 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2013 Performance Accountability Report, at 1 (Jan. 2014).

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 171 of 260

with Efforts From Ex-Convicts.257 Each of the other three halfway houses received a contract with a maximum value of $990,000 for a one-year period ending on August 13, 2015.258 The halfway houses serve as an alternative to incarceration for individuals awaiting trial and for sentenced misdemeanants. The goal of halfway houses is to provide a number of important services designed to help residents with educational, professional, and interpersonal skills, as well as providing support for residents’ mental and physical health and wellbeing.259
Unfortunately, reports of inadequate services and safety concerns point to a need for a review of the capabilities and performance of the District’s contract facilities. For example, an op ed by a Washington Post editor reported in 2013 that, of the approximately 2,000 offenders “return[ed] to the District each year after their release from incarceration, . . . half are re-arrested within three years,” a statistic that casts doubt on whether the halfway houses are indeed “helping ex-offenders adjust” to life outside.260
,9 LOOKING FORWARD
Based on our review of the conditions of confinement for District prisoners, we believe a number of steps are urgently needed to address deficiencies ranging from physical infrastructure to training, availability of programming, and oversight. Due to the nature of the problems and the measures needed to resolve them, it is apparent that efforts to move forward should be carried forward by the Mayor and City Council. We believe these proposed steps are consistent with the DCDOC’s expressed “commit[ment] to improving operations and achieving the status of a benchmark correctional agency.”261 For each of these following recommendations, we strongly encourage active, good-faith collaboration by all stakeholders. Effective solutions will require input from advocates, lawyers, corrections and law enforcement personnel, and politicians. The goal of this report is not to dictate specific solutions, but to continue the Washington Lawyers’ Committee’s efforts to address criminal justice issues writ large, and to begin a series of much needed conversations about the District’s approaches to confinement.  257 See D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Keeping the Promises: FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, C-37, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _1_web.pdf.
258 See D.C. Contracts CW 30866 (Extended House), CW 30868 (Hope Village), and CW30870 (Fairview - Reynolds & Associates); see also D.C. Office of Contracting & Procurement, Contract Awards Notification Report, http://app.ocp.dc.gov/RUI/information/award/search.asp.
259 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Correctional Facilities, http://doc.dc.gov/page/correctional-facilities.
260 Justin Moyer, To some, D.C. halfway house is more like ‘Hopeless Village’, The Washington Post, Aug. 29, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2013/08/29/cd282a86-f4c111e2-9434-60440856fadf_story.html.
261 DCDOC Response.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 172 of 260

A. Recommendation 1: Close the D.C. Jail and the CTF and construct a new, safer, more effective facility
This report identifies serious recurring and structural problems at the D.C. Jail and the CTF. The D.C. Jail is suffering from degraded infrastructure, as evidenced by recurring plumbing problems and holes in the walls, and insufficient protections for those under observation due to suicide risk. Although we have less information about the condition of the CTF’s physical infrastructure, problems associated with the juvenile unit, including space and difficulty providing in-person visitation, and with the Secure Residential Treatment Program, indicate that the CTF is not well-designed for the specialized populations it contains.
Rather than invest considerable resources in a significant overhaul of both the D.C. Jail and the CTF, the District should be proactive and design a new facility or facilities designed to meet modern correctional facility standards, with the flexibility to handle the District’s prisoner populations, and which will be easier to maintain.
Additionally, the trends in the District’s prisoner population, as well as changes to the District’s drug policy, necessitate a reevaluation of the District’s true correctional needs. A new facility could be designed to address the prisoner population the District expects to have, and provide for the different prisoner populations, including men and women, those awaiting trial, those post-conviction awaiting transfer to the BOP, parole violators, juveniles of both sexes, individuals within each population who have special physical or mental health needs (including suicide monitoring), and individuals of all ages and gender who could benefit from substance abuse programming such as the SRTP.
B. Recommendation 2: Expand the Secure Residential Treatment Program
The SRTP should be expanded. First, women should be able to participate. In addition, CSOSA and the U.S. Parole Commission should ensure that more than thirtytwo beds are dedicated to the SRTP and make the program available for individuals with a “high” ICS rating.
C. Recommendation 3: Correct deficiencies in suicide prevention and youth confinement
Significant work has already been undertaken by the DCDOC to assess the conditions of, and identify problems in the DCDOC’s juvenile unit and mental health and suicide programs through the Hayes Report and Ridley Report. Although the DCDOC takes the position that it has addressed the issues outlined in the Hayes Report, more work should still be done. The DCDOC should invite independent third party assessment, such as a review by Hayes, as to whether the issues identified in the Hayes Report have been fully addressed, culminating in a published report. The DCDOC also notes that it has “worked diligently to implement the Ridley recommendations,”

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 173 of 260

including by creating a “Juvenile Administrative Housing and Hearing policy,” that has been in place since June 2013.262 In order to address issues raised by the Ridley Report, the DCDOC should consider, among other things, reducing the use of isolation and segregation among youth prisoners, further increasing and improving youth programing, and expanding access to in-person visitation for all youths.
D. Recommendation 4: Conduct a review of training
In both the Hayes Report and the Ridley Report, one of the common themes was inadequacy of training of correctional officers tasked with specialized functions related to mental health or the juvenile unit. The DCDOC maintains that the “review of training for correctional officers tasked with specialized functions such as juvenile custody and suicide prevention . . . has been addressed . . . and is ongoing.”263
We recommend continuing to ensure that adequate training is provided, as described in both reports, but we also believe it would be useful to take a step back and evaluate training across the correctional system in a comprehensive fashion. We propose that the District retain an independent consultant with extensive experience in the corrections field to conduct a review of all training programs needed for correctional officers (and any others, including contract staff) who work at the D.C. Jail, the CTF, and the halfway houses, to ensure that the right people are receiving the right training, and that the training they receive is sufficiently thorough and reflects modern correctional practices.
E. Recommendation 5: Revise current policies restricting “Good Time Credits”
As discussed above, DCDOC prisoners are eligible to earn “good time credits” and reduce their sentences for successfully completing academic, vocational, and rehabilitation programs and for performing duties of “outstanding importance” or reflecting “exceptionally meritorious service.” Other DCDOC policies, however, arbitrarily restrict the earning of such credits with respect to drug or violent offenses. These restrictive policies should be carefully reviewed and revised so that the important penological tool of good time credits is available for the benefit of prisoners and the system alike to the maximum extent possible.
F. Recommendation 6: Return management of the CTF to District control
When the District’s contract with CCA expires, the District should return management of the CTF to District control. The benefits of continuing to contract with a private corrections corporation are doubtful, and there are a number of disadvantages.
 262 DCDOC Response.
263 Id.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 174 of 260

Private corrections companies such as CCA tout a number of purported benefits as rationales for contracting out correctional services, including taxpayer savings, rehabilitation and reentry services, quality of operations, flexibility, security, and economic benefits to the local community.264
However, prisoners’ rights advocates have argued that these benefits are questionable and that the companies themselves have had numerous safety and quality issues. For example, a paper issued by The Sentencing Project pointed out the “promise of meaningful savings is . . . specious at best,” citing reviews by the then General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Bureau of Justice Assistance.265 Others have argued that the CCA has used cost-cutting measures such as “operating on routinely low and dangerous staff-to-prisoner ratios.”266 This concern was also raised by a ten-year veteran CCA employee who provided testimony at a City Council oversight hearing that “corners are being cut,” and “the facility is being operated understaffed to avoid paying overtime to . . . employees.”267 The witness also testified that “the company has been grossly negligent in their management of time.”268 The witness recalled that, on Mother’s Day (May 13, 2012), ten units were being manned by five officers, there was no emergency response team on site, the radios and telephones were faulty, and, as a result, they were “in a death trap.”269 The witness also listed various examples of understaffing.270 Additionally, the witness noted that the prisoners had been notified by memo of a facility-wide shakedown, potentially allowing prisoners to dispose of
 264 Corrections Corporation of America, Value and Benefits of Partnership Corrections, http://www.cca.com/partner-with-cca/value-benefits; Corrections Corporation of America, Value of Partnering with CCA, http://www.cca.com/partner-with-cca/valuebenefits/partnership-value; Corrections Corporation of America, Answers for Our Communities, http://www.cca.com/partner-with-cca/value-benefits/community-benefits.
265 The Sentencing Project, Prison Privatization and the Use of Incarceration, http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_prisonprivatization.pdf.
266 Grassroots Leadership, The Dirty Thirty: Nothing to Celebrate About 30 Years of Corrections Corporation of America, 3, http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/GRL_Dirty_Thirty_formatted_for _web.pdf.
267 D.C. City Council, Public Hearing, Committee on the Judiciary (Sept. 20, 2012), http://dccarchive.oct.dc.gov/services/on_demand_video/on_demand_September_2012_week _3.shtm (video) (testimony of Ms. Dana Bushrod); see also D.C. City Council, Cmte. on the Judiciary, Public Oversight Hearing on Corrections Corporation of America’s Management of the District’s Correctional Treatment Facility: Witness List, http://dccouncil.us/files/user_uploads/event_testimony/sept20_judiciary_corrections_witnes slist.pdf.
268 Id.
269 Id.
270 Id.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 175 of 260

contraband and, according to the witness, potentially avoiding reporting of negative incidents.271
Additionally, in a recent hearing, witness testimony indicated that CCA may not be adequately informing prisoners at the CTF of the availability of good time credits.272 If this is accurate, it is concerning in part because CCA would be paid more if an prisoner resided in the facility for a longer period of time.
There are also downsides to utilizing a private contractor, especially with respect to accountability. Unlike government agencies (including the D.C. Department of Corrections), private corporations are generally not subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) laws. Consequently, it is difficult to obtain internal documentation that would allow for effective oversight of the District’s corrections system without engaging in expensive civil litigation. The District-CCA contract provides that a limited set of reports and audits of CCA’s operations ought to be in the possession of at least one of the District’s departments and therefore subject to FOIA. But these documents can be difficult to obtain, particularly when department FOIA officials fail to comprehensively respond to requests and point the finger at other agencies, as the authors of this report experienced. Anecdotally, and notwithstanding difficulties in obtaining certain information from the Department of Corrections, the authors of this report found it easier to identify facts and data regarding the D.C. Jail than the CTF.
G. Recommendation 7: Increase public access to records
One of the most challenging aspects of public oversight is unearthing the facts. Former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas once said, “sunlight is the best disinfectant,” meaning that government and freedom of information laws service the public good because more information available to more people will lead to less waste, more justice, and better government. To that aim, under the District of Columbia Freedom of Information Act, public bodies of the D.C. government must disclose public records to any person upon request (unless the record is covered by a statutory exemption).273 The “basic purpose” of this Act was “to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.”274
Unfortunately, in our efforts to gather information for this report, we encountered barriers that impede public access to corrections information. First, although the District has in place the Freedom of Information Act, its implementation is far from perfect. We submitted FOIA requests to four District agencies. All but one  271 Id.
272 See D.C. City Council, Cmte. on the Judiciary, Agency Performance Oversight Hearings on Fiscal Year 2014-2015 (Feb. 19, 2015), http://dccouncil.us/events/committee-on-the-judiciarypoh1.
273 See D.C. Code § 2-534.
274 District of Columbia v. Fraternal Order of Police, 75 A.3d 259, 265 (D.C. 2013).

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 176 of 260

exceeded the fifteen-day statutorily mandated time limit on responding to requests. On one occasion, an agency seemed to wholly ignore our request, prompting us to appeal the request to the Mayor’s Office. As a result of the appeal, and following further dialogue, the requested documents were released—more than four months after the statutory deadline. On another occasion, a public information officer asserted that we had contacted the wrong agency in our effort to obtain a report, despite the fact that D.C. law required that agency to conduct such reports. Many other requests did not result in any substantive response at all.
Although some of the individuals we spoke with during this process tried to be helpful, it is our impression that all public information officers could benefit from significant improvements in their ability to identify records within their agencies. Specifically, (i) public information officers should be made aware of the scope of work the agency performs as well as documents created by other agencies or persons that the agency is likely to possess; (ii) standard operating procedures for agencies responding to a FOIA request should require the agency to make reasonable efforts to identify records responsive to requests before asserting they do not exist (on more than one occasion, public information officers responding to our request denied possession or knowledge of reports we requested, even though a cursory internet search could have revealed that such reports were produced by the agency in the past); (iii) if an agency makes documents available on its website, it should identify where those documents are located with specificity; (iv) agencies should implement measures to increase agency accountability in their responses to FOIA requests and to ensure that public information officers have an accurate understanding of the scope of disclosure requirements and of the limitations on FOIA exemptions,275 and (v) agency FOIA performance should be assessed for the purpose of determining whether individual agency FOIA units require additional staffing, training, or oversight. Public information officers should not be permitted to ignore requests, flout deadlines without explanation.
Second, notwithstanding our difficulties obtaining certain information from District agencies, it was even harder to identify anyone who would admit to possessing information regarding CCA’s operation of the CTF. All of our efforts to obtain the reports and audits authorized by the DC-CCA Contract were unsuccessful. And, while the D.C. Department of Health provided us with its inspection reports of the D.C. Jail
 275 Agencies currently submit annual reports providing basic information regarding the number of requests received, the amount of time spent processing FOIA requests, and similar information. See, e.g., D.C. Office of the Sec’y, Annual Reports, http://os.dc.gov/page/annualreports. In general, it appears that FOIA oversight currently focuses on quantification of FOIA data; it is less clear that oversight adequately assesses whether FOIA requests are accurately processed. For example, an analysis of the 2012 FOIA reports found that one-third of FOIA requests were subject to delays and, when requesters chose to appeal agency determinations, agency actions were found incorrect “nearly half the time.” See D.C. Open Government Coalition, DC FOIA delays, denials, attorney fee awards jump in 2012, http://www.dcogc.org/content/dc-foia-delays-denials-attorney-fee-awards-jump-2012 (last visited Feb. 10, 2015).

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 177 of 260
upon request, the agency specifically indicated that it was not authorized to inspect the CTF.276 This points to a larger issue associated with private operation of a large prison facility. CCA itself has resisted efforts to be subjected to sunshine laws, spending millions of dollars over several years to opposed federal legislation alone.
In light of the problems facing those who seek public access to corrections information, we recommend a review of the District’s freedom of information laws and practices, to ensure that the laws are functioning as they should, and that staff have the information and resources to respond accurately, helpfully, and promptly to all requests. The need for improvement is especially compelling where it involves the District’s oversight of a private prison.

 276 We remain uncertain about the accuracy of this assertion. A 2004 Report by the Government Accountability Office mentions “health and safety inspection reports for the Jail and the CTF that were prepared from January 2002 through April 2004 by the District’s Department of Health.” See District of Columbia Jail: Management Challenges Exist in Improving Facility Conditions.” GAO-04-742, http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/243835.html.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 178 of 260

Appendix A
Demographics & Budget
Deficiencies in the conditions of confinement in the District disproportionately impact the District’s Black men. We cannot fully understand and correct deficiencies in the correctional system without understanding these realities. Likewise, an understanding of the District’s budget for corrections is important, because the high cost1 of confinement should be a call to action for those unhappy with the status quo.
, DEMOGRAPHICS
A. Racial Disparities
The District’s prisoner population is disproportionately Black and male as compared to the District’s total population. Slightly less than half (49.5%) of the District’s total population, but 91% of the District’s prisoner population, is Black. By contrast, 43.4% of the District’s total population, but only a small fraction (3%) of the District’s prisoner population, is White. And, while 92% of DCDOC prisoners are male, only 47% of District residents are male.2

Prisoners

%ODFN 

(in the District)
(by Ethnicity)

+LVSDQLF
2WKHU :KLWH   

%ODFN +LVSDQLF :KLWH 2WKHU

%ODFN 
+LVSDQLF 

Population

(of the District)
(by Ethnicity)

:KLWH 
$VLDQ 

%ODFN :KLWH $VLDQ +LVSDQLF

1 Although this Appendix primarily focuses on the monetary costs to the District (and taxpayers) of confining and providing health care to District prisoners, there are numerous other costs associated with confinement, such as the economic cost to individuals and to society of lost productivity both due to confinement and due to difficulty obtaining employment following release, and the economic and non-economic costs to the families of prisoners, to name a few.
2 United States Census Bureau, State & County QuickFacts, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html.

$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 179 of 260
The significance of this disparity is highlighted when considering the history of vast racial disparities in arrest rates for marijuana possession in D.C. In 2010, the District had the highest overall marijuana possession arrest rate in the nation with 846 marijuana possession arrests per 100,000 residents.3 Ninety-one percent of individuals arrested were Black, causing D.C. to also have one of the largest racial disparities in its arrest rates for marijuana possession.4 Thus, District law enforcement officers arrested one White person for marijuana possession for every eight Black people they arrested for marijuana possession.5 Between 2009 and 2011, more than eight out of ten adult residents arrested for marijuana possession were Black.6 Marijuana use, however, is roughly equal among Blacks and Whites.7 Although the District’s legalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana for at-home use (discussed elsewhere in this Report) is sure to affect the arrest rates, racial disparities in arrest and conviction rates are certainly not unique to marijuana-related offenses.8 We remain concerned that the existence of such a marked disparity in marijuana arrest rates, like the overrepresentation of Blacks in DCDOC custody, is a symptom of a larger problem with regard to the impact of the criminal justice system on minorities, and particularly Black men.
B. Gender Disparities
DCDOC’s prisoner population is also predominantly male; in FY14, men represented approximately 92% of those in DCDOC custody. All of the prisoners in the D.C. Jail are male (it only houses male prisoners), and 70% of CTF prisoners are male, as are 80% of those in halfway houses in the District.9 This percentage is somewhat
 3 See American Civil Liberties Union, The War on Marijuana in Black and White: Billions of Dollars Wasted on Racially Biased Arrests, 18, https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/1114413-mjreport-rfs-rel1.pdf.
4 See id. at 18.
5 See id. at 18–19.
6 See Washington Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Racial Disparities in Arrests in the District of Columbia, 2009-2011, http://www.washlaw.org/pdf/wlc_report_racial_disparities.pdf.
7 See id. at 21.
8 See Washington Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Racial Disparities in Arrests in the District of Columbia, 2009-2011, at 8, 20, 23, http://www.washlaw.org/pdf/wlc_report_racial_disparities.pdf (reporting that in 2011, black arrestees in D.C. accounted for nearly 70 percent of the Metropolitan Police Department’s traffic arrests, 76 percent of the disorderly conduct arrests, and 87.5 percent of the simple assault arrests).
9 See D.C. Dep’t of Corr., “DC Department of Corrections Facts and Figures,” http://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/DC%20Departmen t%20of%20Corrections%20Facts%20and%20Figures%20October%202014.pdf.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 180 of 260
higher than the percentage of the national average daily prison population that is male (86%).10
This gender disparity is even more drastic when it comes to youth. While youth incarcerated in the juvenile system are generally held in a DYRS or contract facility, youth tried as adults may be placed at the CTF. An assessment from 2013 reports that only one girl per year is processed through CTF, compared to seventy boys per year.11 The prosecution of girls as adults is not only infrequent, but it also appears to be a fairly recent phenomenon.12 When in 2006, a sixteen-year-old girl was accused of stabbing a man to death, the Washington Post reported that this was “the first time in recent memory in the District that a girl was charged as an adult with murder.”13 In contrast, in FY12, girls represented 12% of youth committed to DYRS.14
C. Trends
1. History of Disputes Regarding D.C. Jail Population Size.
Over the course of multiple decades, the District had been the subject of lawsuits alleging that the number of prisoners in the D.C. Jail was unsafe and that overcrowding
 10 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail Inmates at Midyear 2013 - Statistical Tables, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/jim13st.pdf. 11 The Ridley Group & Associates, LLC, The District of Columbia Department of Corrections Correctional Treatment Facility Juvenile Unit Assessment, http://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/release_content/attachments/DOC%20CTF %20JUV%20ASSESSMENT%20REPORT.pdf. The Campaign for Youth Justice (CFYJ) cited different, but similarly dramatic figures: CFYJ reported that, between 2007 and 2012, 528 boys and 13 girls were processed through the CTF. Campaign for Youth Justice, Capital City Correction: Reforming DC’s Use of Adult Incarceration Against Youth, 12 (May 2014), http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/pdf/Capital_City_Correction.pdf. 12 It is unclear how much of this disparity is due to prosecutorial discretion as opposed to fewer female juveniles being arrested for higher level violent crimes. A juvenile who is charged with certain D.C. Code violations, like murder or burglary, will be eligible for “direct filing,” meaning the prosecutor may try the juvenile as an adult from the start without having to seek permission from a court. See D.C. Code § 16-203(3). Nevertheless, prosecutors retain sole discretion in deciding whether to direct file an eligible juvenile. Prosecutors may also petition the court to “transfer” a juvenile’s case from the D.C. Superior Court Family Division (i.e. juvenile court) to the criminal division (to be tried as an adult). 13 Henri E. Cauvin, Jail Options Few for Young Female Suspects, The Washington Post, Sept. 14, 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091301937.html. 14 Dep’t of Youth Rehab. Servs., “Youth Population Snapshot,” http://dyrs.dc.gov/page/youthsnapshot.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 181 of 260
and other conditions there amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.15 In 1985, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia capped the population at 1,674. The District never fully complied with this order, nor with a consent decree issued after another prisoner suit, and the District successfully moved to lift this cap in March of 2002 after the enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Soon thereafter, the D.C. Jail population reportedly skyrocketed and two prisoners were stabbed to death, while another prisoner was stabbed but survived, in unrelated incidents within the facility.16 City Council member Kathy Patterson said she believed these incidents were related to jail overcrowding—at the time, the D.C. Jail population exceeded 2,400.17
The Jail Improvement Act of 2003 required the Mayor to establish a maximum number of prisoners at the D.C. Jail based on recommendations from an independent consultant. A study commissioned by the Mayor determined that the D.C. Jail population should remain between 1,958 and 2,164 at any given time. Nevertheless, the D.C. Jail’s population often exceeded 2,16418 and the District was sued again in June 2005. In response, the District initially asserted that it should not be bound by these recommendations. In 2007, D.C. Superior Court Judge Melvin Wright, who presided over the suit, disagreed, stating that the District “does not have the right to choose which laws it will obey” and considered a contempt finding against the Mayor. 19 A week later, the District agreed to cap the number of D.C. Jail prisoners at 2,164 except in “exigent circumstances.”20
 15 See, e.g., Beale v. District of Columbia, No. 1:04-CV-0959 (D.D.C.); Anderson v. Fenty, No. 2005 CA 005030 B (D.C. Super. Ct.); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 824 F.2d 1049 (D.C. Cir. 1987). 16 Michael Rigby, Officials Agree To Cap Population at D.C. Jail, Prison Legal News, Feb. 15, 2009, https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2009/feb/15/officials-agree-to-cap-populationat-dc-jail/. 17 See Second D.C. inmate stabbed to death in jail, The Washington Times, Dec. 17, 2002, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/dec/17/20021217-110323-2832r/. 18 Serge F. Kovaleski, D.C. Jail Conditions Unchanged Despite Law, The Washington Post, Apr. 24, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A122592005Apr23.html?nav=rss_topnews. 19 Robert E. Pierre, D.C. Judge Pressures City on Jail Population, The Washington Post, Oct. 6, 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502268.html. 20 David Nakamura, D.C. Agrees to Abide by 2004 Limit On Inmates, The Washington Post, Oct. 11, 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101001743.html; D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Correctional Facilities, http://doc.dc.gov/page/correctional-facilities.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 182 of 260
2. From Highest in the Nation to Downward Trend
The District had a higher incarceration rate in 2007 than any state in the country.21 The District saw a 48% growth of its prisoner population from 1982 to 2007.22 In 2007, across the nation as a whole about 1 in every 100 adults was confined behind bars; in the District, the figure was 1 in 50.23 The Justice Policy Institute asserted that these high numbers were largely due to problems particularly affecting low income communities in the District: A report studying the District’s high incarceration rate identified a lack of affordable housing, high rates of homelessness, education deficiencies, lack of access to mental health and substance abuse treatment, and high unemployment as relevant factors.24
Whether or not these factors cause higher incarceration rates in the District,25 there is no doubt that one or more of these factors impact many District prisoners. Only about 30% of male DCDOC prisoners reported having a high school diploma, and 3.5% report having a college degree. Additionally, census data show a disproportionate number of prisoners reside in the Southeast quadrant of the city. As the Justice Policy Institute reports, the Southeast quadrant of the city primarily consists of Black residents who also “have the lowest median income of the city as well as the highest unemployment rates.” Meanwhile, as shown below, very few members of DCDOC’s prisoner population come from the Northwest quadrant of the city. By contrast, the Northwest quadrant is home to the two wards with “the highest median household income and lowest percentage of people of color in the entire District.”26
 21 The PEW Center On the States, One In 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections, at 43, http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2009/03/02/PSPP_1in31_report_FINAL_WEB_3 2609.pdf. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 Justice Policy Institute, A Capitol Concern: The Disproportionate Impact of the Justice System on Low-Income Communities in D.C., http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/10-07_EXS_CapitolConcern_AC-PS-RD-DC.pdf. 25 This question is beyond the scope of this report. 26 Id.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 183 of 260
Source: D.C. Dep’t of Corrs., “DC Department of Corrections Facts and Figures” (Oct. 8, 2014), http://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/DC%20Department%20of%
20Corrections%20Facts%20and%20Figures%20October%202014.pdf.
There has recently been a downward trend in the District’s overall prisoner population—the average daily population for DCDOC facilities in 2009 was 3,089; in 2013, it was 2,289; it was 2,041 in 2014; and there has been a drop of over 700 prisoners from January 2011 through June 2014.27 This trend is also reflected in decreasing intake numbers over the last five years: Intake was 17,903 in 2009, 17,047 in 2011, and 12,334 in 2013. And, whereas the number of intakes exceeded number of releases by seventy-six in 2009, releases exceeded intakes by 642 in 2013.28 In contrast, however, the overall population of D.C. residents has increased from 572,059 residents in 2000 to  27 See D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Demographics and Statistics, http://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/Demographics%20 and%20Statistics%20June%202014.pdf. 28 See D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DC Department of Corrections Facts and Figures, http://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/DC%20Departmen t%20of%20Corrections%20Facts%20and%20Figures%20October%202014.pdf.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 184 of 260
601,723 residents in 2010 to 646,449 residents in 2013 to an estimated 658,893 residents in 2014.29
Drug policy, such as the recent legislation legalization of use and possession of small amounts of marijuana, is also likely to impact prisoner population size. Legislation related to this initiative began in July 2014, when the District enacted the Marijuana Possession Decriminalization Amendment Act which decriminalized the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. Thus, under D.C. law, possession or transfer without exchange of money of a small amount of marijuana became a civil violation (with a $25 fine) instead of an arrestable offense30 and violators were not subject to jail time.31 The effects of this change may already be apparent: The percent of men being held in the DCDOC system for drug offenses dropped from 2013, 8.4% in FY13 to 6.6% in FY14.
On February 26, the District passed a ballot initiative legalizing the possession of up to two ounces of marijuana, and permitting individuals to grow up to three marijuana plants in the home.32 The ballot initiative garnered 70% of the vote.33
Efforts toward marijuana legalization in the District have not gone unchallenged. As noted, the District is subject to congressional control and, in late 2014, the U.S. Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that included a provision prohibiting the use of federal or local funds in the Act to “enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution” of
 29 See United States Census Bureau, “State & County QuickFacts, District of Columbia,” http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html. 30 See D.C. Metropolitan Police, Marijuana Possession Decriminalization Amendment Act of 2014, Special Order Number SO-14-04, July 17, 2014, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1219510-metropolitan-police-department-specialorder-on.html. 31 See Mike DeBonis and Peter Hermann, Decriminalization arrives, and D.C. police prepare for sea change in marijuana laws, The Washington Post, July 17, 2014,http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/decriminalization-arrives-and-dcpolice-prepare-for-sea-change-in-marijuana-laws/2014/07/16/0f21a2b8-0c82-11e4-b8e5d0de80767fc2_story.html. 32 Mike Coneen, Recreational marijuana use, possession now legal in D.C., WJLA, Feb. 26, 2015, http://www.wjla.com/articles/2015/02/recreational-marijuana-now-legal-in-d-c-111817.html. 33 Aaron Davis, D.C. voters overwhelmingly support legalizing marijuana, joining Colo., Wash., Washington Post, Nov. 4, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dcvoters-titling-heavily-toward-legalizing-marijuana-likely-joining-colowash/2014/11/04/116e83f8-60fe-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 185 of 260
certain substances, including marijuana.34 Additionally, the day before the initiative went into effect, two Members of Congress wrote a letter to the Mayor of the District stating, in relevant part, that if the Mayor were to “decide to move forward . . . with the legalization of marijuana . . . [the Mayor would] be doing so in knowing and willful violation of the law.”35 In an interview, one Congressman suggested that officials who continued with the legalization efforts would face prison time.36 Although District officials were not deterred from moving forward with legalization, it appears that they have (at least for the time being) refrained from pressing forward with efforts to legalize the sale of marijuana, notwithstanding prior discussions of passing legislation to create a “legitimate cannabis industry” in the District.37 However, the City Council has advanced a bill that, if enacted, would limit employers’ ability to require job applicants to undergo drug testing as part of the hiring process.38
 34 Alex Rogers, Congress Approves Trillion-Dollar Spending Bill, Time, Dec. 14, 2014, http://time.com/3632125/congress-spending-bill/; Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-235, 113th Cong. § 809 (2014). 35 Jonathan Topaz, Muriel Bowser: D.C. won’t back down in Chaffetz pot showdown, POLITICO, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/jason-chaffetz-and-dc-in-pot-showdown115495.html; http://www.scribd.com/doc/256910143/Letter-to-d-c-Mayor-Muriel-BowserRegarding. 36 Mike DeBonis, Bowser: Legal pot possession to take effect at midnight in the District, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/house-republicans-warndc-mayor-not-to-legalize-pot/2015/02/25/2f784a10-bcb0-11e4-bdfa-b8e8f594e6ee_story.html. 37 See Aaron Davis, D.C. Council backs down on marijuana hearing after attorney general warning, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-councilwarned-not-to-move-forward-on-marijuana-legalization/2015/02/09/2c1593aa-b067-11e4827f-93f454140e2b_story.html; Mike DeBonis, Legal marijuana could be $130 million a year business in D.C., study finds, The Washington Post, Oct. 30, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/legal-marijuana-could-be-a-130-million-ayear-business-in-dc-officials-find/2014/10/30/d6f80a52-603d-11e4-9f3a7e28799e0549_story.html?wprss=rss_local. 38 Aaron Davis, Bill to limit marijuana screening by D.C. employers advances in council, The Washington Post, Mar. 4, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/bill-to-limitmarijuana-screening-by-dc-employers-advancing-in-council/2015/03/04/72569e0c-c28e-11e49ec2-b418f57a4a99_story.html.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 186 of 260
,, THE DISTRICT’S BUDGET: COSTS OF CONFINEMENT
A. D.C. Department of Corrections Budget
Over the past decade, the DCDOC’s budget has averaged $141.7 million, with peak funding39 in FY08. The Department’s FY15 request for $151.6 million would bring the Department’s budget within $2 million of the FY08 level.
When considering the District’s budgeting and priorities, one should note that the District has less control over its budget than do states over their budgets. The District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act of 1973 (also known as the “Home Rule” Act) is a federal law that devolves certain decision making responsibilities to the District, including a degree of authority to help determine the District’s budget.40 To simplify, once the City Council adopts the Mayor’s budget, which is effectively a request to Congress for approval of local budget priorities as well as any federal funding, the Mayor sends the budget to the President, who transmits it to the House and the Senate for review.41 Congress is not required to follow the District’s budget when it approves the District’s use of its own revenue or when it appropriates funding in the bill it sends to the President for signature. As a consequence, District funding remains subject to the oversight of a political body that is not accountable to residents of the District, an arrangement that can and has led to disputes over funding and puts the District at risk when Congress cannot pass legislation, such as those discussed previously relating to legislation regarding possession of marijuana.42
The District’s annual budget figures are divided into “actual,” “approved,” and “requested” figures. Actual figures are dollars actually spent, as determined by an audit; “approved” figures are amounts approved to be spent; and requested amounts denote spending that the District has proposed, but which has not yet been approved.43
 39 This report considers budgets for FY05 through the FY15 request. 40 See District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-198, 87 Stat. 777 (Dec. 24, 1973); see also D.C. Code §§ 1-201.1, et seq. 41 See D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Keeping the Promises: FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, 1-16 - 1-17, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _1_web.pdf. 42 See, e.g., Erik Wasson, DC cannot declare budget freedom from Congress, GAO says, The Hill, Jan. 30, 2014, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/197019-dc-cannot-declare-budgetfreedom-from-congress-gao-says. 43 See DC Fiscal Policy Institute, A Citizen’s Guide to the DC Budget, 8-9, http://www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/3-26-13-Citizens-Budget-Guide.pdf.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 187 of 260
The DCDOC’s approved budget for FY14 was $140.3 million.44 The FY14 approved budget represented an increase of 7% over the FY13 actual budget ($131.1 million).45 For FY15, the Department has proposed a budget of $151.6 million, which represents an increase of approximately 8% over FY14 approved levels.46
Figure 147 indicates the Department’s budget for fiscal years 2005 through 2015.48 As the data indicate, during the covered period (FY05-FY15), the Department  44 D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Keeping the Promises: FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, C-37, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _2_web.pdf.
45 D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Keeping the Promises: FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, C-37, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _2_web.pdf.
46 D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Keeping the Promises: FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, C-37, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _2_web.pdf.
47 Figure 1 was calculated using information made available by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. See D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Keeping the Promises: FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _2_web.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2014 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _2_Final.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Seizing Our Future: FY 2013 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_fy2013_volu me_2_chapters_part_1.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, One City Rising to the Challenge: FY 2012 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_volume_2_a gency_chapters_part_i_web.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Maximizing Efficiency: FY 2011 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/2011_Volume_1Executive_Summary_Web.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Meeting the Challenge: FY 2010 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_volume_2_a gency_chapters_part_i_web_1.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2009 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_agency_budg et_chapters_part_1_of_2.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Moving Forward: FY 2008 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_volume_2a_ web2.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2007 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2007 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_dc_budget_v FRQWLQXHG«
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 188 of 260
received peak funding in FY08 ($153.4 million). The FY12 budget was the lowest the Department had seen since FY05.
Figure 1
D.C. Department of Corrections Budget
(in thousands of dollars)
ΨϭϲϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ΨϭϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ΨϭϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ΨϭϯϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ΨϭϮϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ΨϭϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ΨϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬ &zϬϱ &zϬϲ &zϬϳ &zϬϴ &zϬϵ &zϭϬ &zϭϭ &zϭϮ &zϭϯ &zϭϰ;Ϳ &zϭϱ;ZͿ
 olume_3d.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2008 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2008 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_volume_3_w eb.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2009 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2009 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_operating_ap pendices_part_2_of_4.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2010 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2010 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/volume_4__operating_appendices_-_part_i_web.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2011 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2011 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/2011_Volume_4Operating_Appendices-Part_I_Web.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2012 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2012 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_volume_4_o perating_appendices_part_i_web_r.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2013 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2013 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_fy2013_volu me_4_appendices_part_1_0.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2014 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2014 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _4_Final.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2015 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _5_web.pdf.
48 Figures for FY05 through FY13 are actual budget figures, while FY14 is the approved budget and FY15 is the Department’s request.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 189 of 260

The DCDOC’s budget can be further divided to into “Personal Services,” (PS) (Figure 249) which is essentially labor expenses, and “Nonpersonal Services,” (NPS) (Figure 350) which is a catch-all category for other expenses, generally including operational costs including supplies, equipment, and contractual services.

Figure 2

Figure 3

Personal Services (PS)
(in thousands of dollars)
ϵϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϴϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϴϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϳϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϲϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϲϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϱϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϰϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ

Nonpersonal Services (NPS) (in thousands of dollars)
ϵϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϴϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϴϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϳϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϲϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϲϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϱϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϰϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ

&zϬϱ &zϬϲ &zϬϳ &zϬϴ &zϬϵ &zϭϬ &zϭϭ &zϭϮ &zϭϯ &zϭϰ;Ϳ &zϭϱ;ZͿ &zϬϱ &zϬϲ &zϬϳ &zϬϴ &zϬϵ &zϭϬ &zϭϭ &zϭϮ &zϭϯ &zϭϰ;Ϳ &zϭϱ;ZͿ

A review of notices of intent to award sole source contracts issued by the Office of Contracting and Procurement51 provide some insight into the cost of various contractual services:52
x Inmate Telephone, Inc. provides prisoner telephone services for the DCDOC, including labor, equipment, and materials. A proposed extension of a contract for services provided through September 30, 2015, indicates that services would be provided at no cost to the District. Presumably, the company pays for these costs through revenue generated by system use.53
 49 See supra n.47.  50 See supra n.47. 51 See D.C. Office of Contracting and Procurement, Notice of Intent to Award Sole Source Contracts, http://app.ocp.dc.gov/intent_award/intent_award_opic.asp. 52 It is not clear precisely which budget category encompasses these expenditures, though it is not unreasonable to expect that they would be categorized as contractual services. 53 D.C. Office of Contracting and Procurement, Determinations and Findings for Sole Source Extension of Contract (Contract CW12929, Inmate Telephone Inc.) (unsigned), http://app.ocp.dc.gov/intent_award/D_F/DF_Sole_Source_Inmate_Telephone.pdf.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 190 of 260
x Centric GRP LLC/Keefe Supply Company provides commissary services. A proposed extension of a contract for services would pay the company about $631,000 for the seven-month period from January 1, 2015, through July 31, 2015.54
x Virginia Correctional Enterprises provides off-site laundry services for the D.C. Jail. A proposed extension of a contract for services would pay the company $200,000 for the nine-month period from January 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015.55
x Johnson Control provides maintenance services for the D.C. Jail air, heat, power, and ventilation systems. A proposed extension of a contract for services would pay the company about $70,000 from the date of the award through September 30, 2015.56
x URS Federal Technical Services, Inc./EG&G Technical Services, Inc. provide warehouse management and logistics services, including management of supply operations at the D.C. Jail. A proposed contract for services would pay URS about $694,000 for services between October 1, 2014, and September 30, 2015.57
B. Private Contracts: CCA, Unity Health Care, Halfway Houses
One NPS component, “Contractual Services - Other” (Figure 458) accounted for between 75% and 86% of all NPS expenses for FY05 through FY15, and for between 36% and 48% of the entire budget. The contractual services component appears to include the Department’s contracts with CCA, with the private halfway houses, and for prisoner medical services.
Because the “Contractual Services - Other” category accounts for such a significant percentage of the total NPS budget, it is useful to examine the NPS budget
 54 D.C. Office of Contracting and Procurement, Determination and Findings for Sole Source Extension of Contract (Contract CW18182, Centric GRP/Keefe Supply Company) (unsigned), http://app.ocp.dc.gov/intent_award/D_F/DF_CW18182_R1.pdf. 55 D.C. Office of Contracting and Procurement, Determination and Findings for Sole Source Extension of Contract (Contract CW17235, Virginia Correctional Enterprises) (unsigned), http://app.ocp.dc.gov/intent_award/D_F/DF_CW17235_R1.pdf. 56 D.C. Office of Contracting and Procurement, Determination and Findings for Sole Source Extension of Contract (Johnsons Control) (unsigned), http://app.ocp.dc.gov/intent_award/D_F/DF_Johnson_Control_R1.pdf. 57 D.C. Office of Contracting and Procurement, Determination and Findings for Sole Source Extension of Contract (Contract CW12688, URS) (unsigned), http://app.ocp.dc.gov/intent_award/D_F/DF_CW12688%208_26_14R.pdf. 58 See supra n.47.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 191 of 260

without the contractual services category (Figure 559). As Figure 5 demonstrates, the NPS budget sans the “Contractual Services - Other” category has been subject to a fair degree of year-to-year fluctuation. The figures also reveal comparatively higher expenses in FY10 and FY11. In both fiscal years—and only those fiscal years—the second largest expense category after contractual services was “Expense Not Budgeted Others,” which accounted for $10.6 million in expenses in FY10 and $8.6 million in FY11. It is not clear precisely what accounts for the variations in this budget category. For FY15, this budget category includes $6.5 million for supplies and materials, such as books, writing materials, and other goods purchased for prisoner use and consumption; $2.7 million for equipment; $60,000 for telecommunications.60 For FY15, this budget category also includes $2.8 million for land and building rental, which may represent the District’s lease payment to CCA for the CTF facility, as discussed below.61

Figure 4

Figure 5

NPS: Contractual Services - Other
(in thousands of dollars) ϵϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ϴϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ϳϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ϲϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ

NPS Minus Contractual Services - Other
(in thousands of dollars) ϮϮ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϴ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϲ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϮ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ

&zϬϱ &zϬϲ &zϬϳ &zϬϴ &zϬϵ &zϭϬ &zϭϭ &zϭϮ &zϭϯ &zϭϰ;Ϳ &zϭϱ;ZͿ &zϬϱ &zϬϲ &zϬϳ &zϬϴ &zϬϵ &zϭϬ &zϭϭ &zϭϮ &zϭϯ &zϭϰ;Ϳ &zϭϱ;ZͿ

A significant percentage of the Department of Corrections’ budget is devoted to paying for contracts with private entities, including CCA and private halfway houses.

 59 See supra n.47. 60 See D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Keeping the Promises: FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, C-37 to C-39, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _2_web.pdf. 61 See id.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK D$ocSumSeHnQt 5G-2L[Fil%ed 03/30/20 Page 192 of 260
*29(510(172)7+(',675,&72)&2/80%,$ '(3$570(172)&255(&7,216
 
'&'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV5HVSRQVH WR
:DVKLQJWRQ/DZ\HUV¶&RPPLWWHH:KLWH3DSHU
  7KH:DVKLQJWRQ/DZ\HUV¶&RPPLWWHHFRPPLVVLRQHG&RYLQJWRQDQG%XUOLQJWRSUHSDUHDZKLWH SDSHUUHJDUGLQJFRQGLWLRQVRIFRQILQHPHQWDWWKH'&-DLODQG&7)WRLQFOXGHSK\VLFDO LQIUDVWUXFWXUHPHQWDOKHDOWKVXLFLGHSUHYHQWLRQGUXJWUHDWPHQWSUDFWLFHVMXYHQLOHXQLW GHPRJUDSKLFVEXGJHWFRVWVDQGFRQWUDFWLQJ7KH'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQVSURYLGHVWKH IROORZLQJFRPPHQWVLQUHVSRQVHWRWKLVUHSRUW  &')DQG&7))DFLOLWLHV 
x '2&LVFRPPLWWHGWRSHUIRUPLQJSUHYHQWDWLYHDQGGD\WRGD\PDLQWHQDQFHRIWKH&') DQG&7)IDFLOLWLHVLQRUGHUWRSURYLGHDFOHDQDQGVDIHHQYLURQPHQWIRUVWDIIDQGLQPDWHV
x '2+QRWHGLQLWVH[LWLQWHUYLHZZLWK'2&VWDIIRQ0DUFKWKDWWKHUHKDGEHHQ QRWLFHDEOHLPSURYHPHQWVLQWKHIDFLOLW\DQGDUHDVWKDWZHUHLQQHHGRIUHSDLUDQGLQSRRU FRQGLWLRQGXULQJWKHLQLWLDOLQVSHFWLRQKDYHLPSURYHGVLJQLILFDQWO\
x ,QWKHPRVWUHFHQW0DUFK'2+LQVSHFWLRQRIWKHLGHQWLILHGLWHPVKDYHDOUHDG\ EHHQDEDWHGWRGDWHWKHUHPDLQLQJLWHPVDUHHLWKHUFXUUHQWO\EHLQJFRUUHFWHGRUGXHWRWKH DJHDQGGHWHULRUDWLRQRIWKHSK\VLFDOVWUXFWXUHDUHRXWVLGHRI'2&¶VFRQWURO
 -XYHQLOH3URJUDPV 
x 6LQFHWKHLVVXDQFHRIWKH5LGOH\5HSRUW'&'2&KDVVLJQLILFDQWO\H[SDQGHGWKHMXYHQLOH SURJUDP o 7KHDIWHUVFKRROSURJUDPKDVEHHQH[SDQGHGDQGQRZUXQVIURP0RQGD\)ULGD\ 7KLVSURJUDPIRFXVHVRQUHLQIRUFLQJWKHGD\¶VOHVVRQVWHDFKLQJJRRGFLWL]HQVKLS DQGSURVRFLDOGHYHORSPHQW o 7KHUHLVDGDLO\EDUEHULQJSURJUDPIRUWKHPDOHMXYHQLOHV o 7KHUHLVDFRPSUHKHQVLYH9LFWLP,PSDFW7UDLQLQJSURJUDPWKDWFRPELQHVLQWHQVLYH UHFRYHU\VXSSRUWPHQWRULQJDQGDQJHUPDQDJHPHQWVHUYLFHVDQGZRUNIRUFH GHYHORSPHQWVNLOOV o 2WKHUZHHNO\SURJUDPVLQFOXGH/LIH6NLOOVZRUNVKRSV)UHH0LQGV%RRN&OXE $GMXVWLQJ2XU$WWLWXGHVDQGVXEVWDQFHDEXVHHGXFDWLRQ
x 7KH-XYHQLOH8QLWSURJUDPPDQDJHULVFXUUHQWO\LQWKHSURFHVVRIQHJRWLDWLQJDFDUHHUDQG WHFKQLFDOWUDLQLQJIRUZHHNHQGSURJUDPPLQJ
x $VRI6HSWHPEHUDOOFRUUHFWLRQDORIILFHUUHFUXLWVDUHWUDLQHGLQ3RVLWLYH<RXWK 'HYHORSPHQW3<'DVZHOODVWKHRSHUDWLRQDODQGGLVFLSOLQDU\SURFHGXUHVRIWKH
WK6WUHHW1:WK)ORRU:DVKLQJWRQ'&3KRQH

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 193 of 260

-XYHQLOH8QLW7KLVWUDLQLQJLVEHLQJSKDVHGLQWRWKHDQQXDOLQVHUYLFHWUDLQLQJIRUDOO

FRUUHFWLRQDOVWDII

x 3<'HPSKDVL]HVEXLOGLQJVNLOOVDQGDVVHWVLQ\RXWKLQDGGLWLRQWRSUHYHQWLQJQHJDWLYH

RXWFRPHV



-XYHQLOH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH6HJUHJDWLRQ



7KH'2&GRHVQRWXVHH[FHVVLYHLVRODWLRQDQGVHJUHJDWLRQZLWKWKHMXYHQLOHSRSXODWLRQ7KH

QXPEHURIMXYHQLOHVVHJUHJDWHGHLWKHUDZDLWLQJDGLVFLSOLQDU\KHDULQJRUSODFHGLQDGPLQLVWUDWLYH

VHJUHJDWLRQRYHUWKHSDVW\HDUDUHDVIROORZVZLWKWKHDYHUDJHVWD\LQVHJUHJDWLRQEHLQJ

DSSUR[LPDWHO\WZRGD\V



0RQWK

1XPEHURIMXYHQLOHV

0D\

6L[

-XQH -XO\ $XJXVW 6HSWHPEHU

=HUR 7KUHH 7KUHH 7ZR

2FWREHU

6L[

1RYHPEHU

7ZR

'HFHPEHU

=HUR

-DQXDU\

=HUR

)HEUXDU\

=HUR

0DUFK $SULO 0D\


)LYH 7ZR =HUR

x 7KH'2&KDVKDG-XYHQLOH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH+RXVLQJDQG+HDULQJ3URFHGXUHVLQSODFH

VLQFH-XQH

x $Q\MXYHQLOHSODFHGLQDGPLQLVWUDWLYHVHJUHJDWLRQLVKRXVHGLQDVHSDUDWHFHOORQWKH

ORZHUWLHUZLWKLQWKHMXYHQLOHXQLW

o 7KHVHMXYHQLOHVDWWHQGVFKRROWKURXJK'&36DQGKDYHDFFHVVWROHJDOVHUYLFHV SURJUDPPLQJFRXQVHOLQJVHUYLFHVDQGPHDQLQJIXOFRQWDFWZLWKWKHRWKHUMXYHQLOH

LQPDWHV

x ,IDMXYHQLOHLVSODFHGLQDGPLQLVWUDWLYHVHJUHJDWLRQWKHIROORZLQJRFFXUV

o 2IILFHUVDUHUHTXLUHGWRGRDYLVXDOVHFXULW\FKHFNRIWKHMXYHQLOHHYHU\ILIWHHQ

PLQXWHV

o 7KHMXYHQLOHUHFHLYHVLQGLYLGXDOUHFUHDWLRQIRUWZRKRXUVSHUGD\ o -XYHQLOHVZLOOQRWEHSODFHGLQVHJUHJDWLRQIRUORQJHUWKDQILYHGD\VXQOHVV

H[WHQXDWLQJFLUFXPVWDQFHVH[LVW



9LVLWDWLRQIRU-XYHQLOHV



x ,QDGGLWLRQWRYLGHRYLVLWDWLRQMXYHQLOHVZKRKDYHUHDFKHGWKH*ROG7LHULQWKH-XYHQLOH

8QLWDUHJLYHQFRQWDFWYLVLWDWLRQZLWKWKHLUSDUHQWRUJXDUGLDQRQFHSHUPRQWK(OLJLELOLW\

IRUWKH*ROG7LHULVEDVHGRQVHYHUDOIDFWRUVVXFKDVEHKDYLRUSURJUDPSDUWLFLSDWLRQDQG

HGXFDWLRQDOIDFWRUV

x 7KHUHDUHFXUUHQWO\HLJKWMXYHQLOHVRQWKH*ROG7LHUZLWKWZRPRUHH[SHFWHGE\

0D\

x -XYHQLOHLQPDWHVDUHJLYHQFRQWDFWYLVLWVGXULQJWKHKROLGD\VHDVRQLQ'HFHPEHU







Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 194 of 260
6XLFLGH3UHYHQWLRQ  7KH'2&WKURXJKDSURDFWLYHLQLWLDWLYHUHTXHVWHGWKDWFRQVXOWDQW/LQGVD\+D\HVLQGHSHQGHQWO\ DVVHVVFXUUHQWSUDFWLFHVDQGSURYLGHDQ\DSSURSULDWHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVUHODWLQJWRVXLFLGH SUHYHQWLRQSROLFLHVDQGSURFHGXUHVZLWKLQ'2&+LVUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVKDYHEHHQLPSOHPHQWHG 
x $VRI2FWREHUDOOGHVLJQDWHGFHOOVKDYHEHHQFRPSOHWHGDQGUHWURILWWHGDV IROORZVWRGHFUHDVHOLJDWXUHSRLQWVKDQGOHVKDYHEHHQUHPRYHGIURPWRLOHWVDQGGHVNV YHQWVDUHFRYHUHGZLWKDQWLOLJDWXUHJUDGHPHVKSLFNSURRISHQDOJUDGHFDXONLQJKDV EHHQXVHGLQWKHFHOOVDQGGRRUVKDYHEHHQUHSODFHGWRDOORZIRUFOHDUSDQHOVWKDW SURYLGHHQKDQFHGYLVLRQLQWRDQGRXWRIWKHFHOOV
x ,QUHVSRQVHWRWKH+D\HV5HSRUWUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVUHODWLQJWRVXLFLGHSUHFDXWLRQVWKH '2&SURYLGHVVXLFLGHUHVLVWDQWVPRFNVDQGEODQNHWVPRUHWLPHRXWRIFHOOVDQGWKH SURYLVLRQRIPRUHIDPLO\YLVLWVDQGWHOHSKRQHDFFHVVLVXQGHUUHYLHZ
x ³%HKDYLRU0DQDJHPHQW´VWDWXVZDVLPPHGLDWHO\GLVFRQWLQXHGXSRQUHFHLSWRIWKH+D\HV 5HSRUW7KHUHDUHQRZWZRFDWHJRULHVRIREVHUYDWLRQ6XLFLGH:DWFKIRULQPDWHVWKRXJKW WREHDFWLYHO\VXLFLGDODQG6XLFLGH3UHFDXWLRQIRULQPDWHVZKRDUHDWULVNRIVXLFLGHEXW OHVVDFXWHO\FRPSDUHGWRLQPDWHVRQ6XLFLGH:DWFK,QPDWHVRQ6XLFLGH:DWFKDUHSODFHG LQDVDIHFHOORQUGIORRUPHGLFDODQGDUHSURYLGHGRQHWRRQHFRQVWDQWPRQLWRULQJE\D KHDOWKFDUHSURIHVVLRQDO,QPDWHVRQ6XLFLGH3UHFDXWLRQDUHPRQLWRUHGE\RIILFHUVHYHU\ ILIWHHQPLQXWHVLQVWDJJHUHGLQWHUYDOV
x 6XLFLGH3UHYHQWLRQWUDLQLQJKDVEHHQVLJQLILFDQWO\HQKDQFHG$OOFRUUHFWLRQDORIILFHUV RWKHU'2&VWDIIDQGKHDOWKFDUHYHQGRUVWDIIPXVWXQGHUJRIRXUKRXUVDQQXDOO\RI 6XLFLGH3UHYHQWLRQWUDLQLQJ$GGLWLRQDOO\'2&EURXJKWLQQDWLRQDOH[SHUW'U'HDQ $XIGHUKHLGHWRFRQGXFWDIXOOGD\RIWUDLQLQJRQVHOILQMXULRXVEHKDYLRULVVXHVZKLFK LQYROYHGLQPDWHVZLWKPHQWDOKHDOWKLVVXHVDVZHOODVWKRVHH[KLELWLQJ³EDGEHKDYLRU´ &RUUHFWLRQDORIILFHUVRQWKHPHQWDOKHDOWKDQGVHJUHJDWLRQXQLWVDVZHOODVPHQWDOKHDOWK VWDIISDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKLVWUDLQLQJ
x '2&LVLQWKHSURFHVVRIGHYHORSLQJD0HQWDO+HDOWK6WHS'RZQ8QLWZKLFKVHHNVWR WUDQVLWLRQVWDELOL]HGLQPDWHVRQWKH&ULVLV,QWHUYHQWLRQ8QLWWRDGLIIHUHQWZLQJRIWKH VDPHDUHDZKLFKZRXOGLQYROYHHQKDQFHGSURJUDPPLQJDVZHOODVGRXEOHEXQNLQJDVD ZD\WRKHOSWKHPIXOO\WUDQVLWLRQWRJHQHUDOSRSXODWLRQDVWKHLUIXQFWLRQDOLW\LPSURYHV
  6XEVWDQFH$EXVH7UHDWPHQW3URJUDPV 
x 7KH6HFXUH5HVLGHQWLDO7UHDWPHQW3URJUDP6573LVDMRLQWSURJUDPRI&626$DQGWKH 863DUROH&RPPLVVLRQWKDWLVORFDWHGLQWKH&7)(OLJLELOLW\UHTXLUHPHQWVDQGWKH FRQWHQWRIWKHSURJUDPDUHFRQWUROOHGE\WKRVHDJHQFLHV
x 7KH'2&RIIHUVD5HVLGHQWLDO6XEVWDQFH$EXVH7UHDWPHQW56$7SURJUDPWRERWKPDOH DQGIHPDOHLQPDWHV7KH56$7FXUULFXOXPLVOLFHQVHGE\$GGLFWLRQ3UHYHQWLRQDQG 5HFRYHU\$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ$35$WKHUHJXODWLQJERG\IRUSROLF\IRUVXEVWDQFHDEXVH SUHYHQWLRQWUHDWPHQWDQGUHFRYHU\VHUYLFHV o 56$7LVDGD\SURJUDPWKDWLQFOXGHVVHUYLFHVVXFKDVUHODSVHSUHYHQWLRQ SDUHQWLQJFODVVHVDQGOLIHVNLOOV o 7KHSURJUDPLVRSHQWRYROXQWHHUVDQGDOVRDFFHSWVUHIHUUDOVDQGVHOIUHSRUWV o ,QPDWHVZKRKDYHYLRODWHGWKHWHUPVRIWKHLUSUREDWLRQDQGRWKHUZLVHPHHWWKH UHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKHSURJUDPPD\DOVRHQUROO
 

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 195 of 260
 *RRG7LPH&UHGLWV
 x 7KH'2&DPHQGHGWKHJRRGWLPHFUHGLWVODZLQLQRUGHUWRH[SDQGWKHDSSOLFDWLRQ
RIJRRGWLPHFUHGLWVWRDOORZSUHWULDOGHWDLQHHVLQDGGLWLRQWRVHQWHQFHGPLVGHPHDQDQWV WRHDUQFUHGLWVIRUJRRGEHKDYLRUDQGIRUVXFFHVVIXOSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQDQH[SDQGHGOLVWRI SURJUDPVLQFOXGLQJUHKDELOLWDWLYHSURJUDPVZRUNGHWDLOVDQGVSHFLDOSURMHFWVZLWKRU ZLWKRXWFRPSOHWLRQRIWKHSURJUDP x 7KH'LVWULFW¶VJRRGWLPHFUHGLWODZVRQO\DSSO\WRSUHWULDODQGVXEVHTXHQWO\VHQWHQFHG PLVGHPHDQDQWV,QDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH1DWLRQDO&DSLWDO5HYLWDOL]DWLRQDQG6HOI *RYHUQPHQW,PSURYHPHQW$FWRI3XE/1R6WDWDQG'&&RGH LQPDWHVFKDUJHGZLWKIHORQLHVDQGVHQWHQFHGWRPRUHWKDQRQH\HDURI LQFDUFHUDWLRQDUH)HGHUDO%XUHDXRI3ULVRQVLQPDWHVDQGFDQRQO\HDUQJRRGWLPHFUHGLWV LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKIHGHUDOODZDQG)%23SROLFLHV  :/&5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV  $VH[SODLQHGDERYHWKH'2&KDVDOUHDG\WDNHQDFWLRQRQVHYHUDORIWKH5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV FRQWDLQHGLQWKH:/&5HSRUW,QUHJDUGWRVXLFLGHSUHYHQWLRQSUDFWLFHVPHQWLRQHGLQ 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQWKH'2&EURXJKWLQRQLWVRZQLQLWLDWLYHDQLQGHSHQGHQWFRQVXOWDQW /LQGVD\+D\HVPDGHWKHUHSRUWSXEOLFDQGKDVLPSOHPHQWHGWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVIURPKLV UHSRUW,QDVPXFKDV5HFRPPHQGDWLRQUHODWHVWRMXYHQLOHFRQILQHPHQWWKH'2&VLPLODUO\ FRPPLVVLRQHGWKH5LGOH\UHSRUWDQGSXEOLFL]HGLWDQGKDVZRUNHGGLOLJHQWO\WRLPSOHPHQWWKH 5LGOH\UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVLQFOXGLQJDFRPSUHKHQVLYH-XYHQLOH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH+RXVLQJDQG +HDULQJSROLF\WKDWLVFXUUHQWO\LQSODFH7KHUHYLHZRIWUDLQLQJIRUFRUUHFWLRQDORIILFHUVWDVNHG ZLWKVSHFLDOL]HGIXQFWLRQVVXFKDVMXYHQLOHFXVWRG\DQGVXLFLGHSUHYHQWLRQFRQWDLQHGLQ 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQKDVEHHQDGGUHVVHGDVH[SODLQHGDERYHDQGLVRQJRLQJ:KLOHPXFK SURJUHVVKDVEHHQPDGHWKH'2&UHPDLQVFRPPLWWHGWRLPSURYLQJRSHUDWLRQVDQGDFKLHYLQJWKH VWDWXVRIDEHQFKPDUNFRUUHFWLRQDODJHQF\          
 

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 196 of 260
EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 197 of 260
DECLARATION OF DR. MARC STERN, MD MPH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION
On this 29th day of March, 2020, I hereby declare: 1. My name is Marc Stern. I am a board certified internist specializing in correctional health care. I have managed health care operations and practiced health care in multiple correctional settings. Most recently, I served as the Assistant Secretary of Health Care for the Washington State Department of Corrections. In terms of educational background, I received a Bachelor of Science degree from State University of New York (Albany) in 1975, a medical degree from State University of New York (Buffalo) in 1982, and a Master of Public Health from Indiana University in 1992. I am an Affiliate Assistant Professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health. 2. On a regular basis, I investigate, evaluate, and monitor the adequacy of health care delivery systems in correctional institutions on behalf of a variety of parties including federal courts. My prior experience includes working with the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice; and state departments of corrections and county jails. 3. Through 2013, I taught the National Commission on Correctional Health Care’s (NCCHC) correctional health care standards semi-annually to correctional health care administrators at NCCHC’s national conferences. I authored a week-long curriculum commissioned by the National Institute of Corrections of the U.S. Department of Justice to train jail and prison wardens and health care administrators in the principles and practice of operating safe and effective correctional health care operations, and served as the principal instructor for this course. 4. In the past four years alone, I have been qualified as an expert in several
1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 198 of 260
jurisdictions on correctional health care systems and conditions of confinement. My full curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
5. I am not receiving payment in exchange for providing this affidavit to the D.C. Public Defender Services regarding appropriate correctional healthcare measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. In light of the emergency conditions occurring in jails and prisons across the country, I am providing my services pro bono.
6. Due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic affecting the nation and world, I have familiarized myself with the virus from a clinical perspective, including its causes and conditions, its transmission – especially in crowded and unsanitary conditions – and its ability to quickly spread through correctional facilities.
7. In the context of a pandemic like the one we currently face, public health and public safety interests are closely intertwined. When and if correctional staffing challenges arise due to the need for staff to quarantine, seek treatment, or care for dependents, managing internal safety in carceral settings becomes even more challenging. Understaffing in the correctional setting is dangerous for staff as well as incarcerated people, and the stress and fear of the current crisis only serve to increase those risks.
8. I have reviewed the March 25, 2020, letter sent from the union to the D.C. DOC, spelling out in the public health dangers at the D.C. DOC. If accurate, such conditions heighten the urgency of addressing these problems.
9. For example, if true, the grievance’s allegations that correctional officers responsible for receiving and overseeing inmates do not any, or sufficient, personal protective equipment (PPE) for use when indicated,1 and that officers are not required to participate in social distancing during shift changes, raise serious concerns that those officers may contract and transmit COVID-19 to their co-workers, families, and inmates in the facility. Accordingly, reducing the number of inmates with whom those
1 Grievance at 3.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 199 of 260
correctional officers must interact will reduce the risk that those correctional officers will contract COVID-19 or transmit it to others in the community.
10. I have also reviewed the declarations of four inmates detained in DOC facilities. As with the union’s grievance letter, the inmates’ allegations, if true, heighten the urgency of taking immediate and aggressive action. For example, the housing of multiple inmates within a single cell and lack of adequate cleaning supplies increases the probability that COVID-19 is already spreading throughout the facilities. Accordingly, housing only one inmate per cell and either providing sufficient cleaning supplies or reducing the amount of space requiring thorough cleaning will decrease the virus’s ability to spread within DOC facilities.
11. In light of the conditions described in the documents that I have reviewed, the four confirmed cases of COVID-19 inside of DOC facilities, and the apparent resource-shortages facing the DOC, I am even more firmly convinced that downsizing the inmate population as much as possible will reduce the risk of contraction and transmission of COVID-19—and the attendant risks of serious harm and death—within DOC facilities and the communities around them.
12. Thoughtful downsizing should be implemented in tandem with aggressive, responsive prevention measures that are developed and guided by public health and medical experts.
13. Institutional settings such as jails, prisons, shelters, and inpatient treatment programs are congregate environments where people live, eat, and sleep closely together. In these environments, infections like COVID-19 can spread more rapidly. Downsizing jail populations serves two critical public health aims: (1) targeting residents who are at elevated risk of suffering from severe symptoms of COVID-19; and (2) allowing those who remain incarcerated to better maintain social distancing and avoid other risks associated with forced communal living. Because vulnerable populations are at the highest risk of severe complications from COVID-19, and because when they develop severe complications they will be transported to community hospitals—thereby using scarce community
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 200 of 260
resources (ER beds, general hospital beds, ICU beds)—avoiding disease in this population is a critical contribution to public health overall.
14. Downsizing jail populations by releasing high risk individuals and others the court system deems eligible for release will help to “flatten the curve” overall—both within the jail setting and without. Early reporting on the impacts of COVID-19, based in part on preliminary data emerging from China, seemed to indicate that the virus’ impact would remain relatively mild for younger people. Recent data released by the CDC suggests that this initial narrative is incorrect, and that adults aged 2044 also face a risk of experiencing severe health outcomes as a result of contracting the disease. The CDC released data based on the reported cases in the United States between February 12 and March 16, 2020. This data showed the thirty-eight percent (38%) of the hospitalizations from coronavirus occurred in patients under 55 years old.2 French health officials have released statements saying that half of intensive care admission in that country involve individuals under 65. In the Netherlands, half of intensive care admissions were for people under the age of 50.3
15. While the highest risk of death remains among the elderly, it is becoming clear that younger individuals are not protected from severe complications requiring hospitalization and placement in intensive care, using valuable community resources that are expected to become more scarce.
16. At the same time criminal justice authorities work to downsize jail populations, it is critical that the D.C. Department of Corrections, the D.C. Department of Behavioral Health, and any other public agency responsible for maintaining congregate living conditions of detained individuals in the D.C. system immediately undertake the following prevention and planning measures:
2 Severe Outcomes Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) — United States, February 12–March 16, 2020, available at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm?s_cid=mm6912e2_w 3 https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/19/younger-adults-are-large-percentagecoronavirus-hospitalizations-united-states-according-new-cdc-data/
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 201 of 260
a. Immediate testing. Patients who require testing, based on public health recommendations and the opinion of a qualified medical professional, should be tested for COVID-19.
b. Immediate Screening. Correctional authorities must be required to screen each employee or other person entering the facility every day to according to current CDC or local health department guidelines A record should be made of each screening.
c. Quarantine. The jail must establish non-punitive quarantine for all individuals believed to have been exposed to COVID-19, but are not yet symptomatic, and nonpunitive isolation for those believed to be infected with COVID-19 and potentially infectious. Any individual who must interact with those potentially or likely infected with COVID-19 must utilize protective equipment as directed by public health authorities. In short, every possible effort must be made to separate infected or potentially infected individuals from the rest of the incarcerated population. Individuals requiring continued quarantine, isolation, or health care after release from incarceration should be transferred from the institution to the appropriate outside venue.
d. Institutional Hygiene. The jail must be required to provide adequate sanitation of high use/high touch areas and cells in accordance with CDC or local health authority guidelines. i. This includes a prompt way to dispose of tissues used by incarcerated individuals as well as staff.
e. Personal Hygiene. The jail must be required to provide hand soap, disposable paper towels, and access to water to allow residents to wash their hands on a regular basis, free of charge and ensure replacement products are available as needed. Correctional staff should be allowed to carry hand sanitizer with alcohol on their person, and residents should be allowed to use hand sanitizer with alcohol when they 5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 202 of 260
are in locations or activities where hand washing is not available. i. Inmates should be permitted access to cleaning supplies so they may clean their
individual cells. This will both keep cells cleaner, and also stem panic amongst the incarcerated population. f. Access to treatment. It is critical that inmates have rapid access to responsive medical treatment. Those with a cough should be provided masks as soon as they inform staff of this symptom or staff notice this symptom. 17. The measures I propose above are baseline steps to help slow the spread of COVID-19 in all facilities. However, each correctional facility has its own unique combination of physical structure and layout, operations, policies, logistics, inmate characteristics, and staffing factors that determine what additional measures may be necessary to minimize the spread of COVID-19. Only a public health expert who is able to review a particular facility firsthand can account for all of those factors and provide a meaningful and facility-specific opinion about what additional measures are necessary to reduce the risk of transmission. 18. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on March 29, 2020.
Marc Stern, MD MPH
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 203 of 260
EXHIBIT A
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 204 of 260

MARC F. STERN, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.P.

March, 2020

marcstern@live.com +1 (360) 701–6520

SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE

CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE CONSULTANT

2009 – PRESENT

Consultant in the design, management, and operation of health services in a correctional setting to assist in evaluating, monitoring, or providing evidence-based, cost-effective care consistent with constitutional mandates of quality.

Current activities include: x COVID-19 Medical Advisor, National Sheriffs Association (2020 - )
x Advisor to various jails in Washington State on patient safety, health systems, and related health care and custody staff activities and operations, and RFP and contract generation (2014 - )
x Consultant to the US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section. Providing investigative support and expert medical services pursuant to complaints regarding care delivered in any US jail, prison, or detention facility. (2010 - ) (no current open cases)
x Physician prescriber/trainer for administration of naloxone by law enforcement officers for the Olympia, Tumwater, Lacey, Yelm, and Evergreen College Police Departments (2017 - )
x Consultant to the Civil Rights Enforcement Section, Office of the Attorney General of California, under SB 29, to review the healthcare-related conditions of confinement of detainees confined by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in California facilities (2017 - )
x Rule 706 Expert to the Court, US District Court for the District of Arizona, in the matter of Parsons v. Ryan (2018 - )

Previous activities include: x Consultant to Human Rights Watch to evaluate medical care of immigrants in Homeland Security detention (2016 -
2018)
x Consultant to Broward County Sheriff to help develop and evaluate responses to a request for proposals (2017 2018)
x Member of monitoring team (medical expert) pursuant to Consent Agreement between US Department of Justice and Miami-Dade County (Unites States of America v Miami-Dade County, et al.) regarding, entre outre, unconstitutional medical care. (2013 - 2016)
x Jointly appointed Consultant to the parties in Flynn v Walker (formerly Flynn v Doyle), a class action lawsuit before the US Federal District Court (Eastern District of Wisconsin) regarding Eighth Amendment violations of the health care provided to women at the Taycheedah Correctional Institute. Responsible for monitoring compliance with the medical component of the settlement. (2010 - 2015)
x Consultant on “Drug-related Death after Prison Release,” a research grant continuing work with Dr. Ingrid Binswanger, University of Colorado, Denver, examining the causes of, and methods of reducing deaths after release from prison to the community. National Institutes of Health Grant R21 DA031041-01. (2011 - 2016)
x Consultant to the US Department of Homeland Security, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Providing investigative support and expert medical services pursuant to complaints regarding care received by immigration detainees in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2009 - 2014)
x Special Master for the US Federal District Court (District of Idaho) in Balla v Idaho State Board of Correction, et al., a class action lawsuit alleging Eighth Amendment violations in provision of health care at the Idaho State Correctional Institution. (2011 - 2012)
x Facilitator/Consultant to the US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, providing assistance and input for the development of the first National Survey of Prisoner Health. (2010-2011 )
x Project lead and primary author of National Institute of Corrections’ project entitled “Correctional Health Care Executive Curriculum Development,” in collaboration with National Commission on Correctional Health Care. NIC commissioned this curriculum for its use to train executive leaders from jails and prisons across the nation to better manage the health care missions of their facilities. Cooperative Agreement 11AD11GK18, US Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. (2011 - 2015 )

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 205 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 2

x Co-teacher, with Jaye Anno, Ph.D., for the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, of the Commission’s standing course, An In-Depth Look at NCCHC’s 2008 Standards for Health Services in Prisons and Jails taught at its national meetings. (2010 - 2013)
x Contributor to 2014 Editions of Standards for Health Services in Jails and Standards for Health Services in Prisons, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (2013)
x Consultant to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation court-appointed Receiver for medical operations. Projects included: o Assessing the Receiver’s progress in completing its goal of bringing medical care delivered in the Department to a constitutionally mandated level. (2009) o Providing physician leadership to the Telemedicine Program Manager tasked with improving and expanding the statewide use of telemedicine. (2009)
x Conceived, co-designed, led, and instructed in American College of Correctional Physicians and National Commission on Correctional Health Care’s Medical Directors Boot Camp (now called Leadership Institute), a national training program for new (Track “101”) and more experienced (Track “201”) prison and jail medical directors. (2009 - 2012)
x Participated as a member of a nine-person Delphi expert consensus panel convened by Rand Corporation to create a set of correctional health care quality standards. (2009)
x Convened a coalition of jails, Federally Qualified Health Centers, and community mental health centers in ten counties in Washington State to apply for a federal grant to create an electronic network among the participants that will share prescription information for the correctional population as they move among these three venues. (2009 2010)
x Participated as a clinical expert in comprehensive assessment of Michigan Department of Corrections as part of a team from the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (2007)
x Provided consultation to Correctional Medical Services, Inc., St. Louis (now Corizon), on issues related to development of an electronic health record. (2001)
x Reviewed cases of possible professional misconduct for the Office of Professional Medical Conduct of the New York State Department of Health. (1999 – 2001)
x Advised Deputy Commissioner, Indiana State Board of Health, on developing plan to reduce morbidity from chronic diseases using available databases. (1992)
x Provided consultation to Division of General Medicine, University of Nevada at Reno, to help develop a new clinical practice site combining a faculty practice and a supervised resident clinic. (1991)

OLYMPIA BUPRENORPHINE CLINIC, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON

2019 - PRESENT

Volunteer practitioner at a low-barrier clinic to providing Medication Assisted Treatment (buprenorphine) to opioid dependent individuals wishing to begin treatment, until they can transition to a long-term treatment provider

OLYMPIA FREE CLINIC, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON

2017 - PRESENT

Volunteer practitioner providing episodic care at a neighborhood clinic which provides free care to individuals without health insurance until they can find a permanent medical home

OLYMPIA UNION GOSPEL MISSION CLINIC, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON

2009 – 2014

Volunteer practitioner providing primary care at a neighborhood clinic which provides free care to individuals without health insurance until they can find a permanent medical home; my own patient panel within the practice focuses on individuals recently released jail and prison.

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

2002 – 2008

Assistant Secretary for Health Services/Health Services Director, 2005 – 2008 Associate Deputy Secretary for Health Care, 2002 – 2005

Responsible for the medical, mental health, chemical dependency (transiently), and dental care of 15,000 offenders in total confinement. Oversaw an annual operating budget of $110 million and 700 health care staff.
x As the first incumbent ever in this position, ushered the health services division from an operation of 12 staff in headquarters, providing only consultative services to the Department, to an operation with direct authority and

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 206 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 3

responsibility for all departmental health care staff and budget. As part of new organizational structure, created and filled statewide positions of Directors of Nursing, Medicine, Dental, Behavioral Health, Mental Health, Psychiatry, Pharmacy, Operations, and Utilization Management.
x Significantly changed the culture of the practice of correctional health care and the morale of staff by a variety of structural and functional changes, including: ensuring that high ethical standards and excellence in clinical practice were of primordial importance during hiring of professional and supervisory staff; supporting disciplining or career counseling of existing staff where appropriate; implementing an organizational structure such that patient care decisions were under the final direct authority of a clinician and were designed to ensure that patient needs were met, while respecting and operating within the confines of a custodial system.
x Improved quality of care by centralizing and standardizing health care operations, including: authoring a new Offender Health Plan defining patient benefits based on the Eighth Amendment, case law, and evidence-based medicine; implementing a novel system of utilization management in medical, dental, and mental health, using the medical staffs as real-time peer reviewers; developing a pharmacy procedures manual and creating a Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee; achieving initial American Correctional Association accreditation for 13 facilities (all with almost perfect scores on first audit); migrating the eight individual pharmacy databases to a single central database.
x Blunted the growth in health care spending without compromising quality of care by a number of interventions, including: better coordination and centralization of contracting with external vendors, including new statewide contracts for hospitalization, laboratory, drug purchasing, radiology, physician recruitment, and agency nursing; implementing a statewide formulary; issuing quarterly operational reports at the state and facility levels.
x Piloted the following projects: direct issuance of over-the-counter medications on demand through inmates stores (commissary), obviating the need for a practitioner visit and prescription; computerized practitioner order entry (CPOE); pill splitting; ER telemedicine.
x Oversaw the health services team that participated variously in pre-design, design, or build phases of five capital projects to build complete new health units.

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

2001 – 2002

Regional Medical Director, Northeast Region, 2001 – 2002
Responsible for clinical oversight of medical services for 14,000 offenders in 14 prisons, including one (already) under court monitoring.
x Oversaw contract with vendor to manage 60-bed regional infirmary and hospice.
x Coordinated activities among the Regional Medical Unit outpatient clinic, the Albany Medical College, and the 13 feeder prisons to provide most of the specialty care for the region.
x Worked with contracting specialists and Emergency Departments to improve access and decrease medical out-trips by increasing the proportion of scheduled and emergency services provided by telemedicine.
x Provided training, advice, and counseling to practitioners and facility health administrators in the region to improve the quality of care delivered.

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. (now CORIZON)

2000 – 2001

Regional Medical Director, New York Region, 2000 – 2001
Responsible for clinical management of managed care contract with New York State Department of Correctional Services to provide utilization management services for the northeast and northern regions of New York State and supervision of the 60-bed regional infirmary and hospice.
x Migrated the utilization approval function from one of an anonymous rule-based “black box” to a collaborative evidence-based decision making process between the vendor and front-line clinicians.

MERCY INTERNAL MEDICINE, ALBANY, NEW YORK
Neighborhood three-physician internal medicine group practice. Primary Care Physician, 1999 – 2000 (6 months) Provided direct primary care to a panel of community patients during a period of staff shortage.

1999 – 2000

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 207 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 4

ALBANY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ALBANY, NEW YORK

1998 – 1999

Acting Facility Medical Director, 1998 – 1999

Directed the medical staff of an 800 bed jail and provided direct patient care following the sudden loss of the Medical Director, pending hiring of a permanent replacement. Coordinated care of jail patients in local hospitals. Provided consultation to the Superintendent on improvements to operation and staffing of medical unit and need for privatization.

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, ALBANY, NY

1992 – 1998

Assistant Chief, Medical Service, 1995 – 1998 Chief, Section of General Internal Medicine and Emergency Services, 1992 – 1998
Responsible for operation of the general internal medicine clinics and the Emergency Department.
x Designed and implemented an organizational and physical plant makeover of the general medicine ambulatory care clinic from an episodic-care driven model with practitioners functioning independently supported by minimal nursing involvement, to a continuity-of-care model with integrated physician/mid-level practitioner/registered nurse/licensed practice nurse/practice manager teams.
x Led the design and opening of a new Emergency Department.
x As the VA Section Chief of Albany Medical College’s Division of General Internal Medicine, coordinated academic activities of the Division at the VA, including oversight of, and direct teaching in, ambulatory care and inpatient internal medicine rotations for medical students, residents, and fellows. Incorporated medical residents as part of the general internal medicine clinics. Awarded $786,000 Veterans Administration grant (“PRIME I”) over four years for development and operation of educational programs for medicine residents and students in allied health professions (management, pharmacy, social work, physician extenders) wishing to study primary care delivery.

ERIE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, BUFFALO, NY

1988 – 1990

Director of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Services, 1989 – 1990 Staff Physician, STD Clinic, 1988 – 1989 Staff Physician, Lackawanna Community Health Center, 1988 – 1990
Provided leadership and patient care services in the evaluation and treatment of STDs. Successfully reorganized the county’s STD services which were suffering from mismanagement and were under public scrutiny. Provided direct patient care services in primary care clinic for underserved neighborhood.

UNION OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTER, BUFFALO, NY Staff Physician, 1988 – 1990 Provided direct patient care for the evaluation of occupationally-related health disorders.

1988 – 1990

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, BUFFALO, NY

1985 – 1990

Chief Outpatient Medical Section and Primary Care Clinic, 1986 – 1988 VA Section Head, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Buffalo, 1986 – 1988
x Developed and implemented a major restructuring of the general medicine ambulatory care clinic to reduce fragmentation of care by introduction of a continuity-of-care model with a physician/nurse team approach.

Medical Director, Anticoagulation Clinic 1986 – 1990 Staff Physician, Emergency Department, 1985 – 1986

FACULTY APPOINTMENTS

2007 – present
1999 – present
1996 – 2002 1992 – 2002

Affiliate Assistant Professor, Department of Health Services, School of Public Health, University of Washington
Clinical Professor, Fellowship in Applied Public Health (previously Volunteer Faculty, Preventive Medicine Residency), University at Albany School of Public Health
Volunteer Faculty, Office of the Dean of Students, University at Albany
Associate Clinical/Associate/Assistant Professor of Medicine, Albany Medical College

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 208 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 5

1993 – 1997 1990 – 1992 1985 – 1990 1982 – 1985

Clinical Associate Faculty, Graduate Program in Nursing, Sage Graduate School Instructor of Medicine, Indiana University Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Buffalo Clinical Assistant Instructor of Medicine, University of Buffalo

2016 – present 2016 – present 2016 – 2017 2013 – present 2013 – 2016
2013 – present 2011 – 2012 2007 – present 2004 – 2006
2004 2003 – present
2001 – present 1999 – present
1999
1997 – 1998 1996 – 2002 1996 – 2002 1995 – 1998 1995
1994 – 1998
1993 1993
1988 – 1989
1987 – 1990 1987 – 1989
1987 – 1988 1987 1986 – 1988 1986 – 1988
1979 – 1980 1973 – 1975

OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Chair, Education Committee, Academic Consortium on Criminal Justice Health Washington State Institutional Review Board (“Prisoner Advocate” member) Mortality Reduction Workgroup, American Jail Association Conference Planning Committee – Medical/Mental Health Track, American Jail Association “Health in Prisons” course, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University/International Committee of the Red Cross Institutional Review Board, University of Washington (“Prisoner Advocate” member), Education Committee, National Commission on Correctional Health Care National Advisory Committee, COCHS (Community–Oriented Correctional Health Services) Fellow’s Advisory Committee, University of Washington Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar
Program External Expert Panel to the Surgeon General on the “Call to Action on Correctional Health Care” Faculty Instructor, Critical Appraisal of the Literature Course, Family Practice Residency Program,
Providence St. Peter Hospital, Olympia, Washington Chair/Co-Chair, Education Committee, American College of Correctional Physicians Critical Appraisal of the Literature Course, Preventive Medicine Residency Program, New York State
Department of Health/University at Albany School of Public Health Co–Chairperson, Education Subcommittee, Workshop Submission Review Committee, Annual
Meeting, Society of General Internal Medicine Northeast US Representative, National Association of VA Ambulatory Managers Faculty Mentor, Journal Club, Internal Medicine Residency Program, Albany Medical College Faculty Advisor and Medical Control, 5 Quad Volunteer Ambulance Service, University at Albany Preceptor, MBA Internship, Union College Quality Assurance/Patient Satisfaction Subcommittee, VA National Curriculum Development
Committee for Implementation of Primary Care Practices, Veterans Administration Residency Advisory Committee, Preventive Medicine Residency, New York State Department of
Health/School of Public Health, University at Albany Chairperson, Dean's Task Force on Primary Care, Albany Medical College Task Group to develop curriculum for Comprehensive Care Case Study Course for Years 1 through 4,
Albany Medical College Teaching Effectiveness Program for New Housestaff, Graduate Medical Dental Education Consortium
of Buffalo Human Studies Review Committee, School of Allied Health Professions, University of Buffalo Chairman, Subcommittee on Hospital Management Issues and Member, Subcommittee on
Teaching of Ad Hoc Committee to Plan Incoming Residents Training Week, Graduate Medical Dental Education Consortium of Buffalo Dean's Ad Hoc Committee to Reorganize "Introduction to Clinical Medicine" Course Preceptor, Nurse Practitioner Training Program, School of Nursing, University of Buffalo Course Coordinator, Simulation Models Section of Physical Diagnosis Course, University of Buffalo Chairman, Service Chiefs' Continuity of Care Task Force, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Buffalo, New York Laboratory Teaching Assistant in Gross Anatomy, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium Instructor and Instructor Trainer of First Aid, American National Red Cross

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 209 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 6

1972 – 1975 1972 – 1975

Chief of Service or Assistant Chief of Operations, 5 Quad Volunteer Ambulance Service, University at Albany.
Emergency Medical Technician Instructor and Course Coordinator, New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services

2019 – present 2015 – present 2015 – present
2011 – present 2010 – present 2010 – present 2001 – present 2001 – 2004 1996
1990 – 1992

REVIEWER/EDITOR
Criminal Justice Review (reviewer) PLOS ONE (reviewer) Founding Editorial Board Member and Reviewer, Journal for Evidence-based Practice in Correctional Health, Center for Correctional Health Networks, University of Connecticut American Journal of Public Health (reviewer) International Advisory Board Member and Reviewer, International Journal of Prison Health Langeloth Foundation (grant reviewer) Reviewer and Editorial Board Member (2009 – present), Journal of Correctional Health Care Journal of General Internal Medicine (reviewer) Abstract Committee, Health Services Research Subcommittee, Annual Meeting, Society of General Internal Medicine (reviewer) Medical Care (reviewer)

EDUCATION
University at Albany, College of Arts and Sciences, Albany; B.S., 1975 (Biology) University at Albany, School of Education, Albany; AMST (Albany Math and Science Teachers) Teacher Education
Program, 1975 Université Libre de Bruxelles, Faculté de Medecine, Brussels, Belgium; Candidature en Sciences Medicales, 1980 University at Buffalo, School of Medicine, Buffalo; M.D., 1982 University at Buffalo Affiliated Hospitals, Buffalo; Residency in Internal Medicine, 1985 Regenstrief Institute of Indiana University, and Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Administration Medical Center; VA/NIH
Fellowship in Primary Care Medicine and Health Services Research, 1992 Indiana University, School of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Bloomington; M.P.H., 1992 New York Academy of Medicine, New York; Mini-fellowship Teaching Evidence-Based Medicine, 1999

CERTIFICATION
Provisional Teaching Certification for Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Grades 7–12, New York State Department of Education (expired), 1975
Diplomate, National Board of Medical Examiners, 1983 Diplomate, American Board of Internal Medicine, 1985 Fellow, American College of Physicians, 1991 License: Washington (#MD00041843, active); New York (#158327, inactive); Indiana (#01038490, inactive) “X” Waiver (buprenorphine), Department of Health & Human Services, 2018

2019 – present 2005 – 2016 2004 – 2006
2000 – present

MEMBERSHIPS
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs American Correctional Association/Washington Correctional Association American College of Correctional Physicians (Member, Board of Directors, Chair Education Committee) American College of Correctional Physicians

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 210 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 7

RECOGNITION
B. Jaye Anno Award for Excellence in Communication, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. 2019 Award of Appreciation, Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. 2018 Armond Start Award of Excellence, American College of Correctional Physicians. 2010 (First) Annual Preventive Medicine Faculty Excellence Award, New York State Preventive Medicine Residency Program, University at Albany School of Public Health/New York State Department of Health. 2010 Excellence in Education Award for excellence in clinical teaching, Family Practice Residency Program, Providence St. Peter Hospital, Olympia, Washington. 2004 Special Recognition for High Quality Workshop Presentation at Annual Meeting, Society of General Internal Medicine. 1996 Letter of Commendation, House Staff Teaching, University of Buffalo. 1986
WORKSHOPS, SEMINARS, PRESENTATIONS, INVITED LECTURES
It’s the 21st Century – Time to Bid Farewell to “Sick Call” and “Chronic Care Clinic”. Annual Conference, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 2019
HIV and Ethics – Navigating Medical Ethical Dilemmas in Corrections. Keynote Speech, 14th Annual HIV Care in the Correctional Setting. AIDS Education and Training Program (AETC) Mountain West, Olympia, Washington. 2019
Honing Nursing Skills to Keep Patients Safe in Jail. Orange County Jail Special Training Session (including San Bernardino and San Diego Jail Staffs), Theo Lacy Jail, Orange, California. 2019
What Would You Do? Navigating Medical Ethical Dilemmas. Leadership Training Academy, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. San Diego, California. 2019
Preventing Jail Deaths. Jail Death Review and Investigations: Best Practices Training Program, American Jail Association, Arlington, Virginia. 2018
How to Investigate Jail Deaths. Jail Death Review and Investigations: Best Practices Training Program, American Jail Association, Arlington, Virginia. 2018
Executive Manager Program in Correctional Health. 4-day training for custody/health care teams from jails and prisons on designing safe and efficient health care systems. National Institute for Corrections Training Facility, Aurora, Colorado, and other venues in Washington State. Periodically. 2014 – present
Medical Ethics in Corrections. Criminal Justice 441 – Professionalism and Ethical Issues in Criminal Justice. University of Washington, Tacoma. Recurring seminar. 2012 – present
Medical Aspects of Deaths in ICE Custody. Briefing for U.S. Senate staffers, Human Rights Watch. Washington, D.C. 2018
Jails’ Role in Managing the Opioid Epidemic. Panelist. Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs Annual Conference. Spokane, Washington. 2018
Contract Prisons and Contract Health Care: What Do We Know? Behind Bars: Ethics and Human Rights in U.S. Prisons Conference. Center for Bioethics – Harvard Medical School/Human Rights Program – Harvard Law School. Boston, Massachusetts. 2017
Health Care Workers in Prisons. (With Dr. J. Wesley Boyd) Behind Bars: Ethics and Human Rights in U.S. Prisons Conference. Center for Bioethics – Harvard Medical School/Human Rights Program – Harvard Law School. Boston, Massachusetts. 2017
Prisons, Jails and Medical Ethics: Rubber, Meet Road. Grand Rounds. Touro Medical College. New York, New York. 2017
Jail Medical Doesn’t Have to Keep You Up at Night – National Standards, Risks, and Remedies. Washington Association of Counties. SeaTac, Washington. 2017
Prison and Jail Health Care: What do you need to know? Grand Rounds. Providence/St. Peters Medical Center. Olympia, Washington. 2017
Prison Health Leadership Conference. 2-Day workshop. International Corrections and Prisons Association/African Correctional Services Association/Namibian Corrections Service. Omaruru, Namibia. 2016; 2018

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 211 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 8

What Would YOU Do? Navigating Medical Ethical Dilemmas. Spring Conference. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Nashville, Tennessee. 2016
Improving Patient Safety. Spring Provider Meeting. Oregon Department of Corrections. Salem, Oregon 2016
A View from the Inside: The Challenges and Opportunities Conducting Cardiovascular Research in Jails and Prisons. Workshop on Cardiovascular Diseases in the Inmate and Released Prison Population. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Bethesda, Maryland. 2016
Why it Matters: Advocacy and Policies to Support Health Communities after Incarceration. At the Nexus of Correctional Health and Public Health: Policies and Practice session. Panelist. American Public Health Association Annual Meeting. Chicago, Illinois. 2015
Hot Topics in Correctional Health Care. Presented with Dr. Donald Kern. American Jail Association Annual Meeting. Charlotte, North Carolina. 2015
Turning Sick Call Upside Down. Annual Conference. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Dallas, Texas, 2015.
Diagnostic Maneuvers You May Have Missed in Nursing School. Annual Conference. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Dallas, Texas. 2015
The Challenges of Hunger Strikes: What Should We Do? What Shouldn’t We Do? Annual Conference. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Dallas, Texas. 2015
Practical and Ethical Approaches to Managing Hunger Strikes. Annual Practitioners’ Conference. Washington Department of Corrections. Tacoma, Washington. 2015
Contracting for Health Services: Should I, and if so, how? American Jail Association Annual Meeting. Dallas, Texas. 2014
Hunger Strikes: What should the Society of Correctional Physician’s position be? With Allen S, May J, Ritter S. American College of Correctional Physicians (Formerly Society of Correctional Physicians) Annual Meeting. Nashville, Tennessee. 2013
Addressing Conflict between Medical and Security: an Ethics Perspective. International Corrections and Prison Association Annual Meeting. Colorado Springs, Colorado. 2013
Patient Safety and ‘Right Using’ Nurses. Keynote address. Annual Conference. American Correctional Health Services Association. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2013
Patient Safety: Overuse, underuse, and misuse…of nurses. Keynote address. Essentials of Correctional Health Care conference. Salt Lake City, Utah. 2012
The ethics of providing healthcare to prisoners-An International Perspective. Global Health Seminar Series. Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 2012
Recovery, Not Recidivism: Strategies for Helping People Who are Incarcerated. Panelist. NAMI Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington, 2012
Ethics and HIV Workshop. HIV/AIDS Care in the Correctional Setting Conference, Northwest AIDS Education and Training Center. Salem, Oregon. 2011
Ethics and HIV Workshop. HIV/AIDS Care in the Correctional Setting Conference, Northwest AIDS Education and Training Center. Spokane, Washington. 2011
Patient Safety: Raising the Bar in Correctional Health Care. With Dr. Sharen Barboza. National Commission on Correctional Health Care Mid-Year Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee. 2010
Patient Safety: Raising the Bar in Correctional Health Care. American Correctional Health Services Association, Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon. 2010
Achieving Quality Care in a Tough Economy. National Commission on Correctional Health Care Mid-Year Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, 2010 (Co-presented with Rick Morse and Helena Kim, PharmD.)
Involuntary Psychotropic Administration: The Harper Solution. With Dr. Bruce Gage. American Correctional Health Services Association, Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon. 2010
Evidence Based Decision Making for Non-Clinical Correctional Administrators. American Correctional Association 139th Congress, Nashville, Tennessee. 2009
Death Penalty Debate. Panelist. Seattle University School of Law, Seattle, Washington. 2009

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 212 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 9

The Patient Handoff – From Custody to the Community. Washington Free Clinic Association, Annual Meeting, Olympia, Washington. Lacey, Washington. 2009
Balancing Patient Advocacy with Fiscal Restraint and Patient Litigation. National Commission on Correctional Health Care and American College of Correctional Physicians “Medical Directors Boot Camp,” Seattle, Washington. 2009
Staff Management. National Commission on Correctional Health Care and American College of Correctional Physicians “Medical Directors Boot Camp,” Seattle, Washington. 2009
Management Dilemmas in Corrections: Boots and Bottom Bunks. Annual Meeting, American College of Correctional Physicians, Chicago, Illinois. 2008
Public Health and Correctional Health Care. Masters Program in community–based population focused management – Populations at risk, Washington State University, Spokane, Washington. 2008
Managing the Geriatric Population. Panelist. State Medical Directors’ Meeting, American Corrections Association, Alexandria, Virginia. 2007
I Want to do my own Skin Biopsies. Annual Meeting, American College of Correctional Physicians, New Orleans, Louisiana. 2005
Corrections Quick Topics. Annual Meeting, American College of Correctional Physicians. Austin, Texas. 2003
Evidence Based Medicine in Correctional Health Care. Annual Meeting, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Austin, Texas. 2003
Evidence Based Medicine. Excellence at Work Conference, Empire State Advantage. Albany, New York. 2002
Evidence Based Medicine, Outcomes Research, and Health Care Organizations. National Clinical Advisory Group, Integrail, Inc., Albany, New York. 2002
Evidence Based Medicine. With Dr. LK Hohmann. The Empire State Advantage, Annual Excellence at Work Conference: Leading and Managing for Organizational Excellence, Albany, New York. 2002
Taking the Mystery out of Evidence Based Medicine: Providing Useful Answers for Clinicians and Patients. Breakfast Series, Institute for the Advancement of Health Care Management, School of Business, University at Albany, Albany, New York. 2001
Diagnosis and Management of Male Erectile Dysfunction – A Goal–Oriented Approach. Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, San Francisco, California. 1999
Study Design and Critical Appraisal of the Literature. Graduate Medical Education Lecture Series for all housestaff, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York. 1999
Male Impotence: Its Diagnosis and Treatment in the Era of Sildenafil. 4th Annual CME Day, Alumni Association of the Albany–Hudson Valley Physician Assistant Program, Albany, New York. 1998
Models For Measuring Physician Productivity. Panelist. National Association of VA Ambulatory Managers National Meeting, Memphis, Tennessee. 1997
Introduction to Male Erectile Dysfunction and the Role of Sildenafil in Treatment. Northeast Regional Meeting Pfizer Sales Representatives, Manchester Center, Vermont. 1997
Male Erectile Dysfunction. Topics in Urology, A Seminar for Primary Healthcare Providers, Bassett Healthcare, Cooperstown, New York. 1997
Evaluation and Treatment of the Patient with Impotence: A Practical Primer for General Internists. Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, Washington D.C. 1996
Impotence: An Update. Department of Medicine Grand Rounds, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York. 1996
Diabetes for the EMT First–Responder. Five Quad Volunteer Ambulance, University at Albany. Albany, New York. 1996
Impotence: An Approach for Internists. Medicine Grand Rounds, St. Mary's Hospital, Rochester, New York. 1994
Male Impotence. Common Problems in Primary Care Precourse. American College of Physicians National Meeting, Miami, Florida. 1994
Patient Motivation: A Key to Success. Tuberculosis and HIV: A Time for Teamwork. AIDS Program, Bureau of Tuberculosis Control – New York State Department of Health and Albany Medical College, Albany, New York. 1994

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 213 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 10

Recognizing and Treating Impotence. Department of Medicine Grand Rounds, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York. 1992
Medical Decision Making: A Primer on Decision Analysis. Faculty Research Seminar, Department of Family Practice, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1992
Effective Presentation of Public Health Data. Bureau of Communicable Diseases, Indiana State Board of Health, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1991
Impotence: An Approach for Internists. Housestaff Conference, Department of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1991
Using Electronic Databases to Search the Medical Literature. NIH/VA Fellows Program, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1991
Study Designs Used in Epidemiology. Ambulatory Care Block Rotation. Department of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1991
Effective Use of Slides in a Short Scientific Presentation. Housestaff Conference, Department of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1991
Impotence: A Rational and Practical Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment for the General Internist. Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, Washington D.C. 1991
Nirvana and Audio–Visual Aids. With Dr. RM Lubitz. Society of General Internal Medicine, Midwest Regional Meeting, Chicago. 1991
New Perspectives in the Management of Hypercholesterolemia. Medical Staff, West Seneca Developmental Center, West Seneca, New York. 1989
Effective Use of Audio–Visual Aids. Nurse Educators, American Diabetes Association, Western New York Chapter, Buffalo, New York. 1989
Management of Diabetics in the Custodial Care Setting. Medical Staff, West Seneca Developmental Center, West Seneca, New York, 1989
Effective Use of Audio–Visuals in Diabetes Peer and Patient Education. American Association of Diabetic Educators, Western New York Chapter, Buffalo, New York. 1989
Pathophysiology, Diagnosis and Care of Diabetes. Nurse Practitioner Training Program, School of Nursing, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. 1989
Techniques of Large Group Presentations to Medical Audiences – Use of Audio–Visuals. New Housestaff Training Program, Graduate Medical Dental Education Consortium of Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. 1988

PUBLICATIONS/ABSTRACTS
Borschmann, R, Tibble, H, Spittal, MJ, … Stern, MF, Viner, KM, Wang, N, Willoughby, M, Zhao, B, and Kinner, SA. The Mortality After Release from Incarceration Consortium (MARIC): Protocolfor a multi-national, individual participant data meta-analysis. Int. J of Population Data Science 2019 5(1):6
Binswanger IA, Maruschak LM, Mueller SR, Stern MF, Kinner SA. Principles to Guide National Data Collection on the Health of Persons in the Criminal Justice System. Public Health Reports 2019 134(1):34S-45S
Stern M. Hunger Strike: The Inside Medicine Scoop. American Jails 2018 32(4):17-21
Grande L, Stern M. Providing Medication to Treat Opioid Use Disorder in Washington State Jails. Study conducted for Washington State Department of Social and Health Services under Contract 1731-18409. 2018.
Stern MF, Newlin N. Epicenter of the Epidemic: Opioids and Jails. American Jails 2018 32(2):16-18
Stern MF. A nurse is a nurse is a nurse…NOT! Guest Editorial, American Jails 2018 32(2):4,68
Wang EA, Redmond N, Dennison Himmelfarb CR, Pettit B, Stern M, Chen J, Shero S, Iturriaga E, Sorlie P, Diez Roux AV. Cardiovascular Disease in Incarcerated Populations. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2017 69(24):2967-76
Mitchell A, Reichberg T, Randall J, Aziz-Bose R, Ferguson W, Stern M. Criminal Justice Health Digital Curriculum. Poster, Annual Academic and Health Policy Conference on Correctional Health, Atlanta, Georgia, March, 2017

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 214 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 11

Stern MF. Patient Safety (White Paper). Guidelines, Management Tools, White Papers, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. http://www.ncchc.org/filebin/Resources/Patient-Safety-2016.pdf. June, 2016
Binswanger IA, Stern MF, Yamashita TE, Mueller SR, Baggett TP, Blatchford PJ. Clinical risk factors for death after release from prison in Washington State: a nested case control study. Addiction 2015 Oct 17
Stern MF. Op-Ed on Lethal Injections. The Guardian 2014 Aug 6
Stern MF. American College of Correctional Physicians Calls for Caution Placing Mentally Ill in Segregation: An Important Band-Aid. Guest Editorial. Journal of Correctional Health Care 2014 Apr; 20(2):92-94
Binswanger I, Blatchford PJ, Mueller SR, Stern MF. Mortality After Prison Release: Opioid Overdose and Other Causes of Death, Risk Factors, and Time Trends From 1999 to 2009. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013 Nov; 159(9):592-600
Williams B, Stern MF, Mellow J, Safer M, Greifinger RB. Aging in Correctional Custody: Setting a policy agenda for older prisoner health care. American Journal of Public Health 2012 Aug; 102(8):1475-1481
Binswanger I, Blatchford PJ, Yamashita TE, Stern MF. Drug-Related Risk Factors for Death after Release from Prison: A Nested Case Control Study. Oral Presentation, University of Massachusetts 4th Annual Academic and Health Policy Conference on Correctional Healthcare, Boston, Massachusetts, March, 2011
Binswanger I, Blatchford PJ, Forsyth S, Stern MF, Kinner SA. Death Related to Infectious Disease in Ex-Prisoners: An International Comparative Study. Oral Presentation, University of Massachusetts 4th Annual Academic and Health Policy Conference on Correctional Healthcare, Boston, Massachusetts, March, 2011
Binswanger I, Lindsay R, Stern MF, Blatchford P. Risk Factors for All-Cause, Overdose and Early Deaths after Release from Prison in Washington State Drug and Alcohol Dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence Aug 1 2011;117(1):1-6
Stern MF, Greifinger RB, Mellow J. Patient Safety: Moving the Bar in Prison Health Care Standards. American Journal of Public Health November 2010;100(11):2103-2110
Strick LB, Saucerman G, Schlatter C, Newsom L, Stern MF. Implementation of Opt-Out HIV testing in the Washington State Department of Corrections. Poster Presentation, National Commission on Correctional Health Care Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, October, 2009
Binswanger IA, Blatchford P, Stern MF. Risk Factors for Death After Release from Prison. Society for General Internal Medicine 32nd Annual Meeting; Miami: Journal of General Internal Medicine; April 2009. p. S164-S95
Stern MF. Force Feeding for Hunger Strikes – One More Step. CorrDocs Winter 2009;12(1):2
Binswanger I, Stern MF, Deyo RA, Heagerty PJ, Cheadle A, Elmore JG, Koepsell TD. Release from Prison – A High Risk of Death for Former Inmates. New England Journal of Medicine 2007 Jan 11;356(2):157–165
Stern MF, Hilliard T, Kelm C, Anderson E. Epidemiology of Hepatitis C Infection in the Washington State Department of Corrections. Poster Presentation, CDC/NIH ad hoc Conference on Management of Hepatitis C in Prisons, San Antonio, Texas, January, 2003
Phelps KR, Stern M, Slingerland A, Heravi M, Strogatz DS, Haqqie SS. Metabolic and skeletal effects of low and high doses of calcium acetate in patients with preterminal chronic renal failure. Am J Nephrol 2002 Sep–Dec;22(5–6):445–54
Goldberg L, Stern MF, Posner DS. Comparative Epidemiology of Erectile Dysfunction in Gay Men. Oral Presentation, International Society for Impotence Research Meeting, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, August 1998. Int J Impot Res. 1998;10(S3):S41 [also presented as oral abstract Annual Meeting, Society for the Study of Impotence, Boston, Massachusetts, October, 1999. Int J Impot Res. 1999;10(S1):S65]
Stern MF. Erectile Dysfunction in Older Men. Topics in Geriatric Rehab 12(4):40–52, 1997. [republished in Geriatric Patient Education Resource Manual, Supplement. Aspen Reference Group, Eds. Aspen Publishers, Inc., 1998]
Stern MF, Wulfert E, Barada J, Mulchahy JJ, Korenman SG. An Outcomes–Oriented Approach to the Primary Care Evaluation and Management of Erectile Dysfunction. J Clin Outcomes Management 5(2):36–56, 1998
Fihn SD, Callahan CM, Martin D, et al.; for the National Consortium of Anticoagulation Clinics.* The Risk for and Severity of Bleeding Complications in Elderly Patients Treated with Warfarin. Ann Int Med. 1996;124:970–979
Fihn SD, McDonell M, Martin D, et al.; for the Warfarin Optimized Outpatient Follow–up Study Group.* Risk Factors for Complications of Chronic Anticoagulation. Ann Int Med. 1993;118:511–520. (*While involved in the original proposal development and project execution, I was no longer part of the group at the time of this publication)
Stern MF, Dittus RS, Birkhead G, Huber R, Schwartz J, Morse D. Cost–Effectiveness of Hepatitis B Immunization Strategies for High Risk People. Oral Presentation, Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, Washington, D.C., May 1992. Clin Res 1992

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 215 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 12

Fihn SD, McDonell MB, Vermes D, Martin D, Kent DL, Henikoff JG, and the Warfarin Outpatient Follow–up Study Group. Optimal Scheduling of Patients Taking Warfarin. A Multicenter Randomized Trial. Oral Presentation, Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, Washington, D.C., May 1992. Clin Res 1992
Fihn SD, McDonnell MB, Vermes D, Kent DL, Henikoff JG, and the Warfarin Anticoagulation Study Group. Risk Factors for Complications During Chronic Anticoagulation. Poster Presentation, Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, Seattle, May 1991
Pristach CA, Donoghue GD, Sarkin R, Wargula C, Doerr R, Opila D, Stern M, Single G. A Multidisciplinary Program to Improve the Teaching Skills of Incoming Housestaff. Acad Med. 1991;66(3):172–174
Stern MF. Diagnosing Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhea Infections. (letter) J Gen Intern Med. 1991;6:183
Stern MF, Fitzgerald JF, Dittus RS, Tierney WM, Overhage JM. Office Visits and Outcomes of Care: Does Frequency Matter? Poster Presentation, Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting, Seattle, May 1991. Clin Res 1991;39:610A
Stern MF. Cobalamin Deficiency and Red Blood Cell Volume Distribution Width. (letter) Arch Intern Med. 1990;150:910
Stern M, Steinbach B. Hypodermic Needle Embolization to the Heart. NY State J Med. 1990;90(7):368–371
Stern MF, Birkhead G, Huber R, Schwartz J, Morse D. Feasibility of Hepatitis B Immunization in an STD Clinic. Oral Presentation, American Public Health Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta, November 1990

EXPERT TESTIMONY Pajas v. County of Monterey, et al. US District Court for the Northern District of California, 2019 (trial) Dockery, et al. v. Hall et al. US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Northern Division, 2018 (trial) Benton v. Correct Care Solutions, et al. US District Court for the District of Maryland, 2018 (deposition) Pajas v. County of Monterey, et al. US District Court Northern District of California, 2018 (deposition) Walter v. Correctional Healthcare Companies, et al. US District Court, District of Colorado, 2017 (deposition) Winkler v. Madison County, Kentucky, et al. US District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division at Lexington, 2016 (deposition) US v. Miami-Dade County, et al. US District Court, Southern District of Florida, periodically 2014 - 2016

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 216 of 260
EXHIBIT 3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 217 of 260
DECLARATION OF RACHEL CICUREL STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Rachel Cicurel, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Rachel Cicurel. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am a staff attorney in the Trial Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since October 3, 2016. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as a trial attorney at PDS is to represent people in criminal proceedings in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
3. As part of my duties as an attorney at PDS, I regularly conduct legal visits with clients in the custody of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections, both at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”).
4. Since March 1, 2020, I have visited CTF two times.
5. While I was in that facility, I observed the following:
a. On March 1, 2020, I visited CTF. I observed staff at CTF acting in their normal manner regarding entrance protocol and cleanliness. When I entered the facility, I provided my PDS identification card and the required visitor paperwork to the staff behind the first window. I was not asked about my current health or the health of those around whom I had recently been. My temperature was not taken, and I was not asked if I had recently been out of the country. After receiving a visitor pass, I put my personal items and shoes through the metal detector and prepared to be screened. The screening and pat down processes were normal. I did not observe staff members wearing masks. I was permitted to bring in my own cleaning wipes, but did not observe CTF staff wiping down any surfaces or taking any other notable measures to keep the facility particularly clean. Despite the global epidemic, everything at CTF seemed to be business as usual.
b. On March 3, 2020, I visited CTF. I observed nothing out of the ordinary. The entrance procedures were standard, with no additional screening about my recent whereabouts or current health. The staff were not wearing masks, not wiping down surfaces, and did not appear to be taking any extra measures to keep the facility clean. However, I was allowed to bring my own wipes into CTF with me.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 218 of 260
6. Since last visiting CTF, I have spoken further to clients. Through those conversations, I learned the following:
a. On March 19, 2020, I spoke with Client A at CTF. I learned that Client A was sick with a cough, but that it was taking many days, and sometimes over a week, to obtain a medical visit. I learned that at least 15 to 18 people on the 50-and-over block had coughs or colds. I learned that the 50-and-over block at CTF had been provided with almost no information about coronavirus or how to combat it; specifically, the only instruction given to the 50-and-over block was to wash their hands. Reminders for residents to wash their hands came about once per day. However, the residents had not been given soap or hand sanitizer. Rather, in order to wash their hands, the residents had to purchase their own soap to use. As a result, some residents were using shampoo to wash their hands in lieu of anything else; others had nothing with which to wash their hands. I learned that the common areas were cleaned once each day, but that CTF had no limit imposed regarding how many people could use the common areas at one time. Instead, an entire unit could be in the common area at once. I learned that the residents had been given Windex to clean their cells approximately once every three days, but had not been given any cleaning products with bleach or chemicals strong enough to actually sterilize the cells. When the supplies ran out, the residents had to wait several more days for supplies to be restocked. Meanwhile, only some of the staff were wearing gloves and masks; others were not.
b. On March 22, 2020, I spoke with Client B at CTF. During the conversation, I could hear Client B’s deep, guttural cough, as he had to stop the conversation several times to cough extensively. I learned that a few days prior, Client B had sought medical help for chest pains, a cough, and the chills. At the time, Client B’s body ached, and a staff member took Client B to the medical unit. The medical unit determined that Client B also had a fever, but did not test Client B for COVID-19 or quarantine him from other residents. Instead, the medical staff specifically told Client B that he did not have COVID-19, failed to provide an explanation as to how they had come to such a conclusion without testing him, and placed him back in his unit. I also learned that on the unit, none of the residents had been given any soap. Although soap dispensers had been added to the units about two weeks prior, they had been removed the previous week. Residents had been informed that the soap was not for them, but only for staff. Cleaning supplies was also scarce. I learned that whether or not the residents were given supplies to clean depended on which staff members were on duty, and that even when supplies was provided, residents were given three to four cleaning wipes total—not three to four wipes per person, but three to four wipes for the entire unit to share—to clean the unit’s common area. The residents were responsible for cleaning their own cells, but had gone days without cleaning supplies. The supplies had run out, but had not yet been replaced.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 219 of 260
c. On March 25, 2020, I spoke with Client B at CTF. I learned that Client B had again gone to see the medical unit a few days prior with at least five other men from his unit, all of whom were coughing. At that time, the medical unit checked Client B for the flu by swabbing inside his nose with Q-tips, but did not take his temperature. Despite being sick, Client B had been permitted to continue to work in the kitchen. He had worked at the end of last week, despite having a fever, and at the beginning of this week, despite still being congested, which I could hear in his voice during the conversation. No masks were available to those working in the kitchen even though a group of about 20 people work in the kitchen together, without much space between them, as they prepare three meals each day. Additionally, I learned that Client B’s unit was void of any cleaning products, and several days had passed since the residents on his unit had been able to clean. This was particularly concerning because a resident had been quarantined last week, but had already come back to Client B’s unit.
d. On March 25, 2020, I also spoke with Client A at CTF. I learned that Client A had been having night sweats and continuing to find himself light-headed. He suffers from asthma, and had put in a medical request for an asthma pump several nights before. However, since he had still not been called to the medical unit, he intended to file a grievance form to attempt to obtain the asthma pump. I learned that residents were not being prevented from, or even advised against, eating or spending time in large groups, and crowds of people had been congregating together. Nonetheless, the common areas were only being cleaned with Windex— nothing stronger and nothing with bleach. I learned that approximately 25 to 30 people on the 50-and-over block had been repeatedly asking staff for soap, but staff were continuously refusing to provide any. No hand sanitizer was available, either, and residents who ran out of soap had to borrow from one another. Additionally, I learned that staff had not been wearing masks or gloves. During our conversation, several staff members were seen wearing neither masks nor gloves. I learned that a sizeable number of residents on the 50-and-over unit had coughs, and several staff members had coughs, as well. Client A could think of four specific officers with coughs and two who were involved in food preparation.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 26th day of March 2020, in Washington, D.C.
____________________________ Rachel Cicurel Staff Attorney Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 220 of 260
EXHIBIT 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 221 of 260

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 222 of 260

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 223 of 260
EXHIBIT 5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 224 of 260

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 225 of 260

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 226 of 260
EXHIBIT 6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 227 of 260

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 228 of 260

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 229 of 260
EXHIBIT 7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 230 of 260

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 231 of 260
EXHIBIT 8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 232 of 260
'(&/$5$7,212)'$1,(/'321' 67$))$77251(<$77+(38%/,&'()(1'(56(59,&(
 I, Daniel D. Pond, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and
correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
  0\QDPHLV'DQLHO'3RQG,PDNHWKHVHVWDWHPHQWVEDVHGXSRQP\SHUVRQDO
NQRZOHGJH   ,DPDVWDIIDWWRUQH\LQWKH&RPPXQLW\'HIHQGHU'LYLVLRQDWWKH3XEOLF'HIHQGHU6HUYLFH IRUWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELDKHUHLQDIWHU³3'6´DQGKDYHVHUYHGLQWKLVUROHVLQFH -DQXDU\3'6LVDIHGHUDOO\IXQGHGLQGHSHQGHQWRUJDQL]DWLRQGHGLFDWHGWR UHSUHVHQWLQJLQGLJHQWDGXOWVDQGFKLOGUHQDFFXVHGRIFULPHVLQWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD 0\SULQFLSDOUHVSRQVLELOLW\DVDVWDIIDWWRUQH\DWLVWRUHSUHVHQWFOLHQWVLQDYDULHW\RI PDWWHUVLQFOXGLQJSULVRQHUV¶ULJKWVLVVXHV   $VSDUWRIP\GXWLHVDVDQDWWRUQH\DW3'6,UHJXODUO\FRQGXFWOHJDOYLVLWVZLWKFOLHQWVLQ WKHFXVWRG\RIWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD¶V'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQVERWKDWWKH&HQWUDO 'HWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\³&')´DQGDWWKH&RUUHFWLRQDO7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLW\³&7)´   6LQFH0DUFK,KDYHYLVLWHG&')WZLFHDQG&7)WZLFH   :KLOH,ZDVLQWKRVHIDFLOLWLHV,REVHUYHGWKHIROORZLQJ 
D 2Q0DUFK,YLVLWHG&'),GLGQRWREVHUYH'2&VWDIIDWWKHHQWUDQFH PRQLWRULQJTXHVWLRQLQJRUWDNLQJWKHWHPSHUDWXUHRIDQ\YLVLWRUV0\WHPSHUDWXUH DQGWKHWHPSHUDWXUHRIRWKHUYLVLWRUVZHUHQRWEHLQJWDNHQDWWKDWWLPH,GLGQRW REVHUYH'2&VWDIIZHDULQJPDVNV,GLGQRWREVHUYHVRDSRUKDQGVDQLWL]HUIRU YLVLWRUVDSDUWIURPWKHKDQGVRDSLQWKHPHQ¶VUHVWURRP,GLGQRWREVHUYHVWDII ZLSLQJGRZQDQ\VXUIDFHV,QRWLFHGQRGLIIHUHQFHVIURPDQ\RIP\SUHYLRXVYLVLWV RYHUWKH\HDUV 
E 2Q0DUFK,YLVLWHG&7),REVHUYHG'2&VWDIIDWWKHHQWUDQFHDVNLQJ YLVLWRUVLIWKH\KDGUHFHQWO\KDGDIHYHUGU\FRXJKRUVKRUWQHVVRIEUHDWKLI WKH\KDGUHFHQWO\WUDYHOOHGWR&KLQD6RXWK.RUHDRU,WDO\RULIWKH\KDG UHFHQWO\EHHQLQFRQWDFWZLWKDSHUVRQH[KLELWLQJWKRVHV\PSWRPVRUZKRKDG WUDYHOOHGWRWKRVHFRXQWULHV0\WHPSHUDWXUHDQGWKHWHPSHUDWXUHRIRWKHUYLVLWRUV ZHUHQRWEHLQJWDNHQDWWKDWWLPH,GLGQRWREVHUYH'2&VWDIIZHDULQJPDVNV, GLGQRWREVHUYHVRDSRUKDQGVDQLWL]HUIRUYLVLWRUVDSDUWIURPWKHKDQGVRDSLQWKH PHQ¶VUHVWURRP,GLGQRWREVHUYHVWDIIZLSLQJGRZQDQ\VXUIDFHV1RVWDII UHVLGHQWVRUYLVLWRUVZHUHREVHUYLQJIRRWVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ,GLGREVHUYHSRVWHG QRWLILFDWLRQVDERXWVORZLQJWKHVSUHDGRI&29,'EXWDSDUWIURPWKRVHSRVWHG

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 233 of 260
QRWLFHVDQGWKHWKUHHTXHVWLRQIRUPDWWKHHQWUDQFH,QRWLFHGQRGLIIHUHQFHVIURP DQ\RIP\SUHYLRXVYLVLWVRYHUWKH\HDUV  F 2Q0DUFK,YLVLWHG&7),REVHUYHG'2&VWDIIDWWKHHQWUDQFHDVNLQJ YLVLWRUVLIWKH\KDGUHFHQWO\KDGDIHYHUGU\FRXJKRUVKRUWQHVVRIEUHDWKLI WKH\KDGUHFHQWO\WUDYHOOHGWR&KLQD6RXWK.RUHDRU,WDO\RULIWKH\KDG UHFHQWO\EHHQLQFRQWDFWZLWKDSHUVRQH[KLELWLQJWKRVHV\PSWRPVRUZKRKDG WUDYHOOHGWRWKRVHFRXQWULHV0\WHPSHUDWXUHDQGWKHWHPSHUDWXUHRIRWKHUYLVLWRUV ZHUHWDNHQEHIRUHEHLQJDOORZHGLQ,GLGREVHUYHRQHRUWZR'2&VWDIIPHPEHUV ZHDULQJPDVNVEXWGR]HQVRIRWKHUVZHUHQ¶W'2&VWDIIPHPEHUVZKRZHUH PDQQLQJWKH[UD\PDFKLQHDQGFRQGXFWLQJSDWGRZQVZHUHZHDULQJODWH[JORYHV EXWGR]HQVRIRWKHUVWDIIPHPEHUVZHUHQ¶W,GLGQRWREVHUYHVRDSRUKDQG VDQLWL]HUIRUYLVLWRUVDSDUWIURPWKHKDQGVRDSLQWKHPHQ¶VUHVWURRP,GLGQRW REVHUYHVWDIIZLSLQJGRZQDQ\VXUIDFHV1RVWDIIUHVLGHQWVRUYLVLWRUVZHUH REVHUYLQJIRRWVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ,GLGREVHUYHSRVWHGQRWLILFDWLRQVDERXW VORZLQJWKHVSUHDGRI&29,'EXWDSDUWIURPWKRVHSRVWHGQRWLFHVDQGWKH WKUHHTXHVWLRQIRUPDWWKHHQWUDQFH,QRWLFHGQRGLIIHUHQFHVIURPDQ\RIP\ SUHYLRXVYLVLWVRYHUWKH\HDUV  G 2Q0DUFK,DOVRYLVLWHG&'),REVHUYHG'2&VWDIIDWWKHHQWUDQFH DVNLQJYLVLWRUVLIWKH\KDGUHFHQWO\KDGDIHYHUGU\FRXJKRUVKRUWQHVVRI EUHDWKLIWKH\KDGUHFHQWO\WUDYHOOHGWR&KLQD6RXWK.RUHDRU,WDO\RULI WKH\KDGUHFHQWO\EHHQLQFRQWDFWZLWKDSHUVRQH[KLELWLQJWKRVHV\PSWRPVRUZKR KDGWUDYHOOHGWRWKRVHFRXQWULHV0\WHPSHUDWXUHDQGWKHWHPSHUDWXUHRIRWKHU YLVLWRUVZHUHWDNHQEHIRUHEHLQJDOORZHGLQ,GLGREVHUYHRQHRUWZR'2&VWDII PHPEHUVZHDULQJPDVNVEXWGR]HQVRIRWKHUVZHUHQ¶W'2&VWDIIPHPEHUVZKR ZHUHPDQQLQJWKH[UD\PDFKLQHDQGFRQGXFWLQJSDWGRZQVZHUHZHDULQJODWH[ JORYHVEXWGR]HQVRIRWKHUVWDIIPHPEHUVZHUHQ¶W,GLGQRWREVHUYHVRDSRUKDQG VDQLWL]HUIRUYLVLWRUVDSDUWIURPWKHKDQGVRDSLQWKHPHQ¶VUHVWURRP,GLGQRW REVHUYHVWDIIZLSLQJGRZQDQ\VXUIDFHV1RVWDIIUHVLGHQWVRUYLVLWRUVZHUH REVHUYLQJIRRWVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ,GLGREVHUYHSRVWHGQRWLILFDWLRQVDERXW VORZLQJWKHVSUHDGRI&29,'EXWDSDUWIURPWKRVHSRVWHGQRWLFHVDQGWKH WKUHHTXHVWLRQIRUPDWWKHHQWUDQFH,QRWLFHGQRGLIIHUHQFHVIURPDQ\RIP\ SUHYLRXVYLVLWVRYHUWKH\HDUV   :KLOH,ZDVLQWKRVHIDFLOLWLHV,FRQGXFWHGOHJDOYLVLWVZLWKP\FOLHQWV7KURXJKWKRVH PHHWLQJV,OHDUQHGWKHIROORZLQJ  D &HOOVZHUHQRWEHLQJFOHDQHGRUGLVLQIHFWHGE\VWDIISURIHVVLRQDOGHHSFOHDQHUVRU UHVLGHQWVZRUNLQJGHWDLO5HVLGHQWVZHUHUHVSRQVLEOHIRUDOOWKHFOHDQLQJZDVKLQJ DQGGLVLQIHFWLQJRIWKHLURZQFHOOV)RUUHVLGHQWVZLWKFHOOPDWHVLWSURYHGGLIILFXOW WRSURSHUO\FOHDQDQGGLVLQIHFWFHOOVLIWKHFHOOPDWHKDGQRWERXJKWLQWRWKH QHFHVVLW\RIWKHFOHDQLQJ,IUHVLGHQWVGLGQRWSURDFWLYHO\ZDVKFOHDQDQGGLVLQIHFW

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 234 of 260

WKHLURZQFHOOVWKHLUFHOOVZRXOGQRWEHZDVKHGFOHDQHGRUGLVLQIHFWHGDWDOO &OLHQWV,VSRNHZLWKKDGVRDSEXWLWZDVVRDSWKDWWKH\SXUFKDVHGWKHPVHOYHV IURPFRPPLVVDU\QRWSURYLGHGWRWKHPE\'2&'LVLQIHFWDQWZDVQRWSURYLGHG RUDYDLODEOHWRDQ\RIWKHUHVLGHQWV,VSRNHZLWK/XFNLO\QRQHRIP\FOLHQWVZHUH VLFNDWWKDWWLPH&RPPRQDUHDVZHUHQRWEHLQJFOHDQHGDQ\PRUHRIWHQRU WKRURXJKO\WKDQDQ\RWKHUPRUHµQRUPDO¶WLPH1RRQHLQHLWKHUIDFLOLW\ZDV SUDFWLFLQJIRRWVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ  E 7KURXJKP\GLVFXVVLRQVZLWKFOLHQWVDWERWKIDFLOLWLHV,OHDUQHGWKDWDOWKRXJKWKHUH LVDKLJKOHYHORIDZDUHQHVVDERXW&29,'DPRQJVWDIIDQGUHVLGHQWVLQWKH '2&DWWKHWLPHRIP\YLVLWVDQGFRQYHUVDWLRQVQRFRQFUHWHDFWLRQZDVEHLQJ WDNHQZKDWVRHYHUWRNHHSSHRSOHKHDOWK\DSDUWIURPVFUHHQLQJYLVLWRUVDWWKH HQWUDQFH 

,GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVWKDWWKHIRUHJRLQJLVWUXH DQGFRUUHFWWRWKHEHVWRIP\NQRZOHGJHDQGEHOLHI



([HFXWHGRQWKHWK GD\RI0DUFKLQ:DVKLQJWRQ'& 









































'DQLHO'3RQG















6WDII$WWRUQH\

3XEOLF'HIHQGHU6HUYLFHIRU'&

,QGLDQD$YH1:

:DVKLQJWRQ'& 









Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 235 of 260
EXHIBIT 9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 236 of 260
'(&/$5$7,212)6$08(/ &<3+(56 ,19(67,*$7,9(,17(51$77+(38%/,&'()(1'(56(59,&(
,6$08(/&<3+(56FHUWLI\XQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\WKDWWKHIROORZLQJVWDWHPHQWLVWUXHDQGFRUUHFWSXUVXDQWWR86& 
 0\QDPHLV6$08(/&<3+(56,PDNHWKHVHVWDWHPHQWVEDVHGXSRQP\SHUVRQDONQRZOHGJH  ,DPDQLQYHVWLJDWLYHLQWHUQIRUWKH7ULDO'LYLVLRQDWWKH3XEOLF'HIHQGHU6HUYLFHIRUWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD
KHUHLQDIWHU³3'6´DQGKDYHVHUYHGLQWKLVUROHVLQFH)HEUXDU\3'6LVDIHGHUDOO\IXQGHGLQGHSHQGHQW RUJDQL]DWLRQGHGLFDWHGWRUHSUHVHQWLQJLQGLJHQWDGXOWVDQGFKLOGUHQDFFXVHGRIFULPHVLQWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD0\ SULQFLSDOUHVSRQVLELOLW\DVDQLQYHVWLJDWLYHLQWHUQDW3'6LVWRDVVLVWLQWKHSUHSDUDWLRQRIWULDOFDVHVWKURXJKZLWQHVV LQWHUYLHZVLQYHVWLJDWLRQDQGUHYLHZLQJUHFRUGV  $VSDUWRIP\GXWLHVDVDQLQYHVWLJDWLYHLQWHUQDW3'6,UHJXODUO\FRQGXFWOHJDOYLVLWVZLWKSHRSOHLQWKHFXVWRG\RIWKH 'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD¶V'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQVERWKDWWKH&HQWUDO'HWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\³&')´DQGDWWKH &RUUHFWLRQDO7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLW\³&7)´  6LQFH0DUFK,KDYHYLVLWHG&')DQG&7)RQHWLPHHDFK  :KLOH,ZDVLQWKRVHIDFLOLWLHV,REVHUYHGWKHIROORZLQJ
D 2Q0DUFK,YLVLWHG&7),REVHUYHGWKHVWDQGDUGVFUHHQLQJSURFHVVIRUHQWHULQJWKHIDFLOLW\,ZDV QRWDVNHGDQ\DGGLWLRQDOTXHVWLRQVDERXWP\KHDOWKRUUHFHQWWUDYHOQRUZDV,VFUHHQHGIRUV\PSWRPVRI &29,':LWKLQWKHIDFLOLW\,GLGQRWVHHDQ\VWDIIPHPEHUVZLWKPDVNVRUJORYHV,GLGQRWVHHDQ\VRDS RUKDQGVDQLWL]HUIRUYLVLWRUV,GLGQRWVHHVWDIIPHPEHUVZLSLQJGRZQVXUIDFHV(YHU\WKLQJDSSHDUHGWREH IXQFWLRQLQJWKHVDPHZD\,KDGVHHQLWIXQFWLRQLQ)HEUXDU\,GLGQRWREVHUYHDQ\SUHFDXWLRQVEHLQJWDNHQWR SUHYHQWWKHVSUHDGRI&29,'
D 2Q0DUFK,YLVLWHG&'),REVHUYHGWZRSHRSOHVLWWLQJEHIRUHWKHVHFXULW\FKHFNSRLQWZHDULQJ JORYHVEXWQRWPDVNV,GLGQRWVHHDQ\UHDGLO\DYDLODEOHVRDSRUKDQGVDQLWL]HULQWKHOREE\DUHD,REVHUYHG WRSHRSOHH[LWIURPWKHVHFXULW\FKHFNSRLQW1RQHRIWKHVHSHRSOHKDGRQJORYHVRUPDVNV7KH'2& HPSOR\HHZKREURXJKWPHUHFRUGVOLNHZLVHODFNHGJORYHVRUDPDVN$IWHUVKHJDYHPHWKHUHFRUGVVKH UHHQWHUHGWKHIDFLOLW\ZLWKRXWEHLQJVFUHHQHG,GRQRWNQRZZKDWWKHSURWRFROWRHQWHUWKHIDFLOLW\LVEHFDXVH ,GLGQRWVHHNHQWUDQFHSDVWWKHOREE\
 ,FRQGXFWHGDOHJDOYLVLWZLWKD3'6FOLHQWZKRLVFXUUHQWO\LQFDUFHUDWHGDW&7)YLDSKRQH7KURXJKWKDWPHHWLQJV, OHDUQHGWKHIROORZLQJ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 237 of 260
D &OLHQWVDLGWKHUHDUHEHWZHHQDQGSHRSOHRQKLVXQLWWKDWDUHFXUUHQWO\LOODQGVHYHUDORIWKHPDUH FRXJKLQJ&OLHQWVDLGDOOWKHSHRSOHZKRDUHVLFNRQKLVXQLWLQFOXGLQJKLPVHOIZHQWWRPHGLFDOWRJHWKHURQ )ULGD\0DUFKDQGRQ6XQGD\0DUFK&OLHQWVDLGFOHDQLQJSURGXFWVLQFOXGLQJVRDSDQGGLVLQIHFWDQW DUHQRORQJHUDYDLODEOHWRUHVLGHQWVDW&7)&OLHQWVDLGWKHODVWWLPHWKH\ZHUHDEOHWRFOHDQWKHLUFHOOVZDV GD\VEHIRUH0DUFK
,GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVWKDWWKHIRUHJRLQJLVWUXHDQGFRUUHFWWRWKHEHVWRIP\ NQRZOHGJHDQGEHOLHI
([HFXWHGRQWKHGD\RI0DUFKLQ:DVKLQJWRQ'&
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6DPXHO&\SKHUV ,QYHVWLJDWLYH,QWHUQ
3XEOLF'HIHQGHU6HUYLFHIRU'& ,QGLDQD$YH1: :DVKLQJWRQ'&

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 238 of 260
EXHIBIT 10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 239 of 260
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH WONG STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Joseph Wong, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Joseph Wong. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am a supervising attorney in the Trial Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since February of 2020 and as a PDS staff attorney since October of 2013. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as a trial attorney at PDS is to represent people in criminal proceedings in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
3. As part of my duties as an attorney at PDS, I regularly conduct legal visits with clients in the custody of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections, both at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”).
4. Since March 1, 2020, I have visited CDF one time.
5. While I was in CDF, I observed the following:
a. On 3/11/20, I visited CDF. I observed that there were no changes to the protocol for entering the facility. Visitors were not asked any questions about their health or screened in any way, nor were the security staff engaged in any visible precautions such as wearing masks or gloves or sanitizing surfaces. The process included security staff going through personal belongings of visitors prior by hand and patting down visitors with their hands. I do not recall the officers conducting the pat downs or searching through personal belongings wearing gloves. I do not recall observing any available soap or hand sanitizer stations for visitors.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 25th day of March 2020, in Washington, D.C.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 240 of 260
_______________________________ Joseph Wong Supervising Attorney Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 241 of 260
EXHIBIT 11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 242 of 260
DECLARATION OF RONALD B. RESETARITS STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Ronald B. Resetarits, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Ronald B. Resetarits. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am a staff attorney in the Trial Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since September 2014. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as a trial attorney at PDS is to represent people in criminal proceedings in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
3. As part of my duties as an attorney at PDS, I regularly conduct legal visits with clients in the custody of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections, both at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”).
4. On March 11, 2020, I entered CDF to conduct several legal visits. When I entered CDF, there was no screening or questionnaire related to COVID-19. I saw no changes at all related to COVID-19 when I entered the jail for my legal visits on March 11, 2020. When I was finished with my legal visits and exited the jail, I saw that jail officials were setting up a table in the jail entrance area.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 25th day of March 2020, in Washington, D.C.
_______________________________ Ronald B. Resetarits Staff Attorney Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW, Washington, DC rresetarits@pdsdc.org 202-824-2406

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 243 of 260
EXHIBIT 12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 244 of 260
DECLARATION OF EILEEN JOHNSON INVESTIATIVE INTERN AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Eileen Johnson, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Eileen Johnson. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am an investigative intern for the Parole Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since December of 2019. Prior to joining the parole division, I was an investigative intern for the Trial Division at PDS from 6/15/2019 to 11/15/2019. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as an investigative intern at PDS is to assist in the preparation of parole cases through witness interviews, investigation, client meetings, and record collection and review.
3. As part of my duties as an investigative intern at PDS, I regularly conduct legal visits with people in the custody of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections, both at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”).
4. Since March 1, 2020, I have visited CDF three times and CTF two times.
5. While I was in those facilities, I observed the following:
a. On March 17, 2020 around 8:30 AM, I visited CDF. In the entrance area, there was a table set up with two men who were asking visitors to fill out forms in order to enter. On the form, I had to check off that I hadn’t been having any symptoms and that I hadn’t had any contact with anyone who had traveled outside the country. I observed one of the men that was sitting at the table eating as he gave out the forms. I don’t remember whether either was wearing a mask or gloves. Right outside the door to enter security, there was a nurse stationed who was taking temperatures with a forehead thermometer. As I proceeded to the nurse’s station, I witnessed an argument break out between the nurse and the woman who usually sits on the third floor visiting room. The woman is older and has short hair. I saw the nurse try to take the woman’s temperature. As soon as the nurse brought the thermometer close to the woman’s face, the woman yelled at her, asking why she was getting so close to her face without wearing gloves. I observed the nurse not wearing gloves. I can’t recall if she was wearing a mask. I then heard the nurse yell back that she didn’t need to wear gloves because she

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 245 of 260
wasn’t touching anyone. The woman said she did not believe the nurse and continued to yell at her and to refuse the thermometer. She then commented that she was going to report the nurse for not wearing gloves. The nurse did not put on gloves and the woman proceeded into the security area. The nurse then commented to me that taking temperatures was only a “cosmetic” step anyway and that the jail was doing it only to make visitors feel safer. I felt uncomfortable with the nurse getting so close to my face without wearing gloves but I let her take my temperature so that I would be allowed to enter the facility. I observed her continue to take temperatures without gloves and never saw her look at the thermometer to actually check the temperature reading. I then proceeded into the security area. The scanner seemed to be broken so I was instructed to place my items in a bin. A CO then went through the bin. I can’t remember if the CO was wearing gloves. I entered the scanner as usual. I observed one security officer wearing a mask in the lobby area. I did not observe any other COs wearing masks inside the facility. There was a hand sanitizer dispenser in the lobby that I used before starting my visit. I then proceeded to the second floor to start my visit. Because it was before 9, my partner and I were the first ones to that floor. When we got there, we observed a female CO wiping down the area where the CO sits in the visiting area. She told us to sit down and we waited for approximately ten minutes while she cleaned every inch of her station. I did not see this CO or any other CO wipe down any other surfaces during my visit. The CO then assigned us to room 2. Before leaving the lobby, I commented to the CO that I had brought my own wipes to wipe down our visiting room, just as she had wiped down her area. She responded that that was a good idea on my part. When we got to the visiting room, I wiped down the table and all three chairs with the wipes I had brought. There was no hand sanitizer or other cleaning product in my visiting room or in any of the others that I could see. I did not observe any hand sanitizer or other cleaning product in the waiting area of the second floor. In between clients, I went to the bathroom on the second floor. There was soap in the bathroom. After concluding my visits, I left the second floor and went to the first floor to wait for Ms. Boykin to come down with the medical records I had requested. While waiting, the female CO that was wearing the mask started to speak to me and another CO about how she was worried about coronavirus. She said she was really scared because she heard a CO had died of coronavirus somewhere else and that she did not feel safe from the virus. After getting the records from Ms. Boykin, I departed the facility around 1 PM. b. On March 11th, 2020, around 9 AM, I went to CTF for a parole final revocation hearing. I did not have to do anything out of the ordinary in order to enter CTF. Final revocation hearings happen in an area of the jail near the activity center and below the basketball courts, judging by the noise. I observed hand sanitizer in the large room where the legal team waits. There was also soap in the bathroom. There was no hand sanitizer in the client holding rooms when I entered them to meet with my client. There was no hand sanitizer in the smaller room where the

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 246 of 260
hearing took place. I did not observe any staff members wiping down any surfaces. c. On March 10th, 2020, around 5 PM, I went to CDF for a client visit. I had not been expecting to go on the visit so I did not bring any cleaning supplies. I felt uncomfortable using the visiting room without cleaning it first. During my time at CDF that day, I did not observe any staff members wearing a mask or gloves. I saw hand sanitizer in the lobby but did not see it on the visiting floor or in the visiting rooms. I did not observe any COs wiping down any surfaces. d. On March 2nd, 2020, around 11 AM, I went to CDF for a client visit. I did not observe any surfaces being wiped down. There was hand sanitizer in the lobby but not anywhere else in the facility. I did not have to do anything out of the ordinary to enter the facility. e. On March 2nd, 2020, around 1 PM, I visited a client at CTF. I did not observe any staff members wearing masks in the entrance or security areas. I did not observe any COs wearing gloves. I did not observe any hand sanitizer in the entrance or security areas. I did not observe any COs wiping down any surfaces. I proceeded to the second floor visiting area. I wanted to wash my hands because I had come to CTF from the jail but was told there was no bathroom on that floor. I did not see any hand sanitizer to use so I did not clean my hands. 6. While I was in those facilities, I conducted legal visits with PDS clients. Through those meetings, I learned the following:
a. According to one client at CDF, multiple people were sick on his tier. He said that he had to buy cleaning products because what was provided was not effective. This client works in the kitchen and thus touches the food of hundreds of people each day. He was dressed in his white work uniform when I met with him and was not wearing a mask. I did not ask if he had access to a mask for his kitchen work.
7. As a parole division intern, I frequently communicate closely with family members of PDS clients. Through conversations with family members, I learned the following.
a. On March 8th, 2020, I received an email from a client’s girlfriend. In her email she said, “I know you are aware of the virus going around, inmates are sick of [sic] there and not being treated properly. They have nothing to sanitize there [sic] area. I’m afraid of him getting sick being over there.” I followed up by text message to get more information and received the following information from the client’s girlfriend: “Some of the guys have the flu and other cold like symptoms…The other guys haven’t been tested so no telling what they have.” On March 20th, 2020, she reached out to me again, texting, “There [sic] planning on being on lockdown and he hasn’t been released…He said it’s sick people in there and it’s hot in there. I’m really scared for him I don’t want him to catch anything.”

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 247 of 260
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 25th day of March 2020, in Washington, D.C.
_______________________________ Eileen Johnson Investigative Intern Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 248 of 260
EXHIBIT 13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 249 of 260
DECLARATION OF Katherine Kuenzle INVESTIATIVE INTERN AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Katherine Kuenzle, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Katherine Kuenzle. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am an investigative intern for the Trial Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since 02/03/2020. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as an investigative intern at PDS is to assist in the preparation of trial cases through witness interviews, investigation, and reviewing records.
3. As part of my duties as an investigative intern at PDS, I conduct phone calls with clients in the custody of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections, both at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”).
4. While I was conducting a phone call with a PDS client who is a resident of CTF, I learned the following: a. Client went to medical twice in one week because he had a fever, cough, sore throat, and chills. During client’s first trip to medical on a Friday, client’s temperature was taken. However, when client returned to medical the second time on a Sunday, despite still complaining of a fever, client’s temperature was not taken. Instead, medical checked for the flu by putting a q-tip in client’s nsoe. b. Despite having a fever, cough, sore throat, and chills, client still worked in the kitchen preparing 3-4 meals a day without a mask on a Friday and the following Tuesday. Client worked in the kitchen with 20 other people who were unable to maintain a far distance between each other.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 26th day of March 2020, in Washington, D.C.
_______________________________ Katherine Kuenzle Investigative Intern Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 250 of 260
EXHIBIT 14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 251 of 260
DECLARATION OF KAVYA L. R. NAINI STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Kavya Naini, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Kavya Naini. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am a staff attorney in the Special Litigation Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since October 2019. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. One of my responsibilities as a staff attorney in the Special Litigation Division is to represent people in criminal and post-conviction proceedings in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
3. As part of my duties as an attorney at PDS, I regularly conduct legal visits with clients in the custody of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections, both at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”).
4. Since March 1, 2020, I have visited CTF at least 5 times (confirmed visits on 3/1, 3/5, 3/12, 3/13, 3/20).
5. While I was in those facilities, I observed the following:
a. On March 1, 5, and 12, I did not see any noticeable difference in CTF operations. I was not screened when entering the facility. The visiting areas were full of individuals. On March 5, my visit overlapped with a social visit and the visiting area was full of families and friends visiting their loved ones – including my client, who had a visit from his elderly mother and friend. On each of those visits, residents were forced to wait in the back sitting next to each other while they waited to be escorted to their units.
b. On March 13, I visited CTF in the early morning around 8:30am. When I arrived, there were two individuals right by the front door, and one asked me if I had traveled to countries with COVID-19 in the past 30 days or had any symptoms associated with COVID-19. I was allowed to enter. Apart from this initial screen, there were no noticeable changes in CTF’s operations. No one was wearing gloves or masks, and I did not see people wiping down surfaces. There was a hand sanitizer dispenser in the visiting area that was available to everyone.
c. On March 20, I visited CTF in the late morning. I observed that there were two stations set up when you entered the facility. The first station was right by the entrance and had two DOC staff members seated in close proximity to each other,
1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 252 of 260
neither was wearing a mask. One of them used a forehead thermometer to check my temperature. When I asked my temperature, she said that it was 93 degrees. About 10 feet away, there was a second station with three staff members seated at it. All three were seated next to each other. Only one was wearing gloves. There was a sheet of paper on the table along with some pens. I filled out the sheet of paper which asked questions about COVID symptoms and if I had been to highrisk countries in the past thirty days. When I answered no and signed the paper. The employee with gloves fastened a wristband on my right wrist. I did not see her change her gloves at any point before or after our interactions. I asked the employees how they were doing, and they said they were fine for now but seemed nervous about what was coming.
After finishing the initial screen, I entered the facility. I submitted my legal visit form to the employee in the front office, who was in close physical conversation with another employee. Neither were wearing masks or gloves. I went through the security check. Neither employee running the conveyor machine or the body scanner was wearing gloves or a mask. I was able to carry my small bottle of hand sanitizer with me.
I went upstairs to see my clients. There was a hand sanitizer dispenser near the door of the visiting area. I handed my sheets to the employee at the front desk in the visiting area. The employee was not wearing gloves or a mask. My clients were brought up one by one. But after my visit with one was over, my two clients had to squeeze by each other in a tight hallway of space to enter the bigger visiting area. My first client used the hand sanitizer dispenser when he first came into the visiting area, and I gave my second client some hand sanitizer from my bottle when he came into the legal visiting room.
There was nobody else in the visiting area except for me, my client, and the lady at the front desk for the large portion of our visit. I was there for about 3.5 hours. Most of the time was spent in one of the small legal visit rooms, but in my time there, I did not see staff wiping down any surfaces. I saw nobody wearing a mask. As I was leaving the facility, I saw one man spraying down the trays that are used on the conveyor belt when the guards are scanning visitor’s items.
6. While I was in those facilities, I conducted legal visits with my clients. Through those meetings, I learned the following:
a. My clients told me that there were announcements at various points of the day asking people to clean. However, there was no enforcement of the cleaning and it was mainly expected that residents would be cleaning. I learned that one of my clients was still programming because only outside programming had stopped. And because programming was a requirement to stay in the unit, he had to
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 253 of 260
participate. I also learned that residents had been given a bar of soap the week of March 16, but that it was not a big bar, and for those people who did not have money to buy soap for the shower or to wash their clothes, it would not last long. My clients confirmed that they were not told that they would be getting any more soap once it was finished. In addition, hand sanitizer in the units had been primarily reserved for use by staff alone. Clients were also concerned about cleaning supplies. One mentioned that it had been several days since anything in the unit was properly cleaned because they had not gotten a refill of their cleaning supplies. He was starting to think about using shampoo to clean the showers because he did not have any disinfectant.
One of my clients lived in a unit where people from his unit were escorted out by staff in masks because of possible exposure to the U.S. Marshal. He said that those people had been living in the unit and interacting with others, and that no one had spoken to the rest of them about their interactions with the people that were quarantined. Another client said that staff do not clean common areas in the unit, it is up to the residents to clean their cells and common areas. One of my clients said that his unit did have cleaning supplies. He said he was trying to clean regularly but there were other guys in his unit that were not taking it seriously and were not cleaning or washing their hands regularly.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 29th day of March 2020, in Washington, D.C.
_______________________________ Kavya Naini Staff Attorney Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 254 of 260
EXHIBIT 15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 255 of 260
DECLARATION OF IESHAAH MURPHY SUPERVISING ATTORNEY AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Ieshaah Murphy, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Ieshaah Murphy. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am a supervising attorney in the Trial Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since February 19, 2017. Prior to working as a supervising attorney, I was a staff attorney in the Trial Division at PDS. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as a supervising trial attorney at PDS is to represent people in criminal proceedings in the District of Columbia Superior Court and to supervise the practice of PDS’s trial attorneys.
3. As part of my duties as an attorney at PDS, I regularly conduct legal visits with clients in the custody of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections, both at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”).
4. Since March 1, 2020, I have visited CDF two times.
5. While I was in those facilities, I observed the following:
a. On March 5, I visited CDF. I observed no changes to the normal protocol of entering the facility. I entered the front door, placed my bag, which included a laptop and client files, onto the conveyor belt to be searched, and I was patted down. None of the corrections officers were wearing gloves, masks, or any other protective gear. Another attorney entered the facilty just after I did. He was also searched. The two corrections officers who searched my bag and patted me down did not wash their hands before also doing the same things to the other attorney. In the visiting hall, the corrections officer was not wearing gloves or a mask. I never saw anyone attempt to clean or wipe down the visiting hall area.
b. On March 18, I visited CDF. I observed a slight change in protocol to enter the building. Before entering, staff checked my temperature with a forehead thermometer and provided me with a questionnaire. The questionnaire asked me if I had any lower respiratory symptoms (cough, shortness of breath) or fever, if I had come into close contact with someone diagnosed with or suspected of having COVID-19, or if I had recently traveled to an area with known local spread of COVID-19. I answered “No” to all questions. No one asked any follow-up

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 256 of 260
questions. My temperature was 98.2 degress. Upon entering the jail, the procedure for getting searched and getting an ID remain unchanged. None of the corrections officers were wearing gloves, masks, or any other protective gear. The corrections officer who search my bag did not wash his hands prior. The corrections officer behind the glass partition, responsible for giving me an ID and entering into the computer which clients I came to visit, was coughing. He did not cover his mouth and coughed all over the keyboard and the paperwork I had filled out to see my clients. He returned my ID and the paperwork to me. The corrections officers would not let me take a container of Lysol up to the visiting hall with me. They allowed me to take disinfectant wipes and hand sanitizer. The proctocol in the visiting hall was the same as any other visit. The corrections officer administering the legal visit was not wearng gloves or a mask. Upon noticing me giving one client hand sanitizer, she told me that was not allowed. During the two hours I was there, I did not notice any attempts by staff to clean the area.
6. While I was in those facilities, I conducted legal visits with my clients. Through those meetings, I learned the following:
a. There are multiple residents on various units who are sick and coughing. b. One client had a cell mate who was currently sick (coughing, sore throat). c. The process for getting seen at the infirmary still takes 2-3 days, at best. d. The staff is not cleaning common areas regularly (not even once a day). e. They are not provided with products to clean their cells.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 27th day of March 2020, in Washington, D.C.
_______________________________ Ieshaah Murphy Supervising Attorney Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 257 of 260
EXHIBIT 16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 258 of 260
DECLARATION OF SYLVIA SMITH STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Sylvia Smith, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Sylvia Smith I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am a staff attorney in the Trial Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since October 5, 2015. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as a trial attorney at PDS is to represent people in criminal proceedings in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
3. As part of my duties as an attorney at PDS, I regularly conduct legal visits with clients in the custody of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections, both at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”).
4. On March 29, 2020, I visited CDF. While I was in CDF, I observed the following:
a. When I entered CDF, there were three correction officers (“COs”) with gloves and masks on. Besides these three women, during the course of my visit, I did not see any other COs with masks on, and only saw one other CO wearing gloves. That is, between the seven COs I personally interacted with, and one CO that I observed, none were wearing masks, and only one was wearing gloves.
b. When I entered into the screening area, there were two COs, one operating the metal detection conveyor belt, the other CO was operating the x-ray machine and the hand-wand metal-detector. Neither CO was wearing masks or gloves.
c. Another CO entered behind me with a pizza in her hand. The same CO with the pizza ran the x-ray machine for me.
d. At the time I headed up to the 2nd floor for my visit, the CO with the pizza was trying to find some plastic to wrap it in.
e. When I got to the 2nd floor, there was a female CO in the area where our clients are called down to visitation. That CO did not have a mask nor did she have gloves on. She was eating sunflower seeds and spitting them into a paper or Styrofoam cup. As she was entering my information and calling for my client, I asked about whether or not the area had been washed down. She told me that she thinks the visitation area is cleaned once a day, though she hadn’t seen them do it that day, and did not know if they wiped down the phones.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 259 of 260
f. I saw a cleaning cart in the visitation area. On the cart was a bag full of rags in it. There was also a bottle with a “Windex” brand label on it. I didn’t see other cleaning supplies on the cart and it was just stationed there without anyone around.
g. After meeting with my client, I asked a CO if I could leave my client with a mask as I had heard that some residents had masks. The CO said I could not and that masks were considered contraband.
h. I was at the facility for 2 hours and did not hear any announcements over the intercom. I am certain there were no announcements while I was in the facility.
5. While I was at CDF I conducted meeting(s) with my client(s), through which I learned the following:
a. There are approximately 180 people on the unit. b. Residents are getting updates about people testing positive at CDF and CTF not
through staff, but through reading the news. c. Residents are not being provided with laundry detergent, and have not been
offered detergent for free. d. Residents worried about getting infected through the food have had to rely solely
on food through commissary. e. No one is cleaning residents’ cells, and they have not been offered cleaning
supplies to clean their cells. f. The COs are not wearing masks and most do not wear gloves. g. The staff at the facility do not appear to be cleaning common areas regularly, or
even daily. The cleaning supplies are limited and appear to be watered down. Residents on “detail” are responsible for cleaning, not DOC staff. h. The phones on the units are being used frequently, and not being wiped down between calls. i. More people are exhibiting symptoms. When they report these symptoms, staff tell them to put in a request for medical. It takes 2 to 3 days to get seen by medical.
6. While I was at CTF on March 29, 2020, I learned the following from the CO who was operating the metal detection conveyer belt:
x Three people were in “safe cell” at CDF because they had been exhibiting symptoms and awaiting testing;
x 25 staff members were on administrative leave from CTF after one of the residents tested positive for Covid-19.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 260 of 260
Executed on the 29th day of March 2020, in Washington, D.C.
Sylvia Smith Staff Attorney Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners

v.
QUINCY BOOTH, in their official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

No. 1:20-cv-849

Defendants-Respondents.

[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Upon consideration Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order, and any opposition, reply, and further pleadings and argument submitted in support thereof, or in opposition thereto; It appearing to the Court that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their action, that Plaintiffs and the members of the class they seek to represent will suffer irreparable injury to their Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights and, at a minimum, severely increased risks to their health, perhaps including death, if Defendants are not immediately ordered to take appropriate measures against Plaintiffs’ exposure to the COVID-19 virus, that the Defendants will not be harmed if such an order is issued, and that the public interest favors the entry of such an order, it is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order is hereby GRANTED; and Defendants Booth and Johnson (together with their respective successors in

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 4
office, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and anyone acting in concert with them) are, for fourteen days from the date and time shown below, hereby:
1. Immediately take all actions within their power to reduce the inmate population of the D.C. Jail and CTF including, but not limited to, releasing as many people as possible through the COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020, which allows the Department of Corrections “to award additional credits beyond the limits described . . . to effectuate the immediate release of persons sentenced for misdemeanors[.]” 67 D.C. Reg. 3106 (March 20, 2020);
2. Ensure that each inmate receives, free of charge, an individual supply of hand soap, sufficient to allow frequent hand washing; paper towels; toilet paper; running water; and facial tissue;
3. Provide no-touch trash receptacles for tissue and paper towel disposal; 4. Ensure that all inmates, when not in cells with access to hand soap and running water,
have access to hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol; 5. Provide access to daily showers for each inmate and daily access to clean laundry,
including clean personal towels and washrags after each shower; 6. Require that all DOC staff wear personal protective equipment, including masks and
gloves when interacting with visitors and residents or when touching surfaces in common areas; 7. Provide an anonymous mechanism for residents to report staff who violate these guidelines so that appropriate corrective action can be taken to ensure staff compliance. 8. Take each inmate’s temperature daily (with a functioning and properly operated thermometer) to identify potential COVID-19 infections;
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 4
9. Assess (through questioning) each inmate daily to identify potential COVID-19 infections;
10. Conduct immediate testing for anyone displaying known symptoms of COVID-19; 11. Immediately provide masks for any individual displaying or reporting COVID-19
symptoms until they can be evaluated by a qualified medical professional or placed in non-punitive quarantine; 12. Frequently communicate to inmates to provide information about COVID-19, reducing the risk of transmission, and any changes in policies or practices; 13. Provide inmates with an adequate supply of disinfectant hand wipes or disinfectant products effective against the virus that causes COVID-19 (at the manufacturer’s recommended concentration), to clean their cells and other surfaces; 14. Clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces with disinfectant products effective against the virus that causes COVID-19 (at the manufacturer’s recommended concentration), as well as surfaces in common areas, every two hours during waking hours, and at least once during the night; 15. Ensure that individuals identified as having COVID-19 or having been exposed to COVID-19 are properly quarantined in a non-punitive setting, with continued access to showers, recreation, mental health services, reading materials, commissary, phone and video visitation with loved ones, communication with counsel, and personal property; 16. Respond to all emergency (as defined by the medical community) requests for medical attention within an hour;
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 4 17. Provide access to unmonitored, confidential legal calls and video visits with counsel to
reduce the need for defense teams to enter into the facility and meet with clients in dangerously close quarters; and 18. Facilitate video conferencing and telephonic conferencing, when requested, as an alternative to in-person court appearances. 19. Provide any independent monitor to be appointed by this Court with unfettered access to medical units, confidential communication with detained individuals in and out of quarantine, and surveillance video of public areas of the facilities. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall not be required to furnish security for costs. Entered on April ___, 2020 at ______a.m./p.m.
By: ______________________________ United States District Judge
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-4 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL REQUIRED BY LOCAL RULE 65.1(a) Pursuant to Local Rule 65.1(a), the undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs hereby certifies as follows: (1) Copies of all pleadings and papers filed in this action to date, or to be presented to the Court at the hearing on the application for a Temporary Restraining Order, have been delivered to Defendants by email addressed to Fernando Amarillas, Chief of the Equity Section at the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, at fernando.amarillas@dc.gov, at approximately 3:27 p.m. on March 30, 2020. A copy of the summons and file-stamped papers will be hand-delivered to the Office of the Attorney General (or whomever is designated to receive papers on its behalf during this emergency period, and to the extent that office is accepting paper copies and hand deliveries) promptly after receiving summonses from the Clerk of Court.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 5-4 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 2

(2) Mr. Amarillas has been notified, in the same email, that the time of presenting

the application for the temporary restraining order to the Court has not yet been set by the

Court; Plaintiffs’ counsel will notify him as soon as it is.

(3) Moments after undersigned counsel emailed Mr. Amarillas, undersigned

counsel further reached Mr. Amarillas by telephone at his office in order to alert him that

he received these papers by email.

March 30, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Scott Michelman Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar # 1006945) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. 202-457-0800 smichelman@acludc.org

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS Central Detention Facility 1901 D Street SE Washington, DC 20003,
D’ANGELO PHILLIPS Central Detention Facility 1901 D Street SE Washington, DC 20003,
KEON JACKSON Correctional Treatment Facility 1901 E Street SE Washington, DC 20003,
ERIC SMITH Correctional Treatment Facility 1901 E Street SE Washington, DC 20003,
Plaintiffs-Petitioners
v.
QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Dep’t of Corrections,
2000 14th Street NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20009
LENNARD JOHNSON, in his official capacity as Warden, D.C. Dep’t. Corrections
1901 D Street SE Washington, DC 20003
Defendants-Respondents.

No. 1:20-cv-849

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 37
Plaintiffs Edward Banks, D’Angelo Phillips, Keon Jackson, and Eric Smith (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) on behalf of a class of similarly situated detained people in the custody of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections (“DOC”), of Quincy Booth, Director of the DOC, and of Lennard Johnson, Warden of the DOC (collectively, “Defendants”), allege as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. The District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections now has five confirmed cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the highly contagious SARS-CoV-2 virus. For those who become infected, COVID-19 creates significant odds of death or severe illness, which can include extreme chest pain and difficulty breathing, and can in some cases require highly invasive and psychologically traumatic life-support treatments. The global pandemic caused by COVID19 has been predicted by epidemiologists to be the worst since the 1918 influenza pandemic, one of the deadliest in human history. 2. In the past month, the vulnerable residents of the District of Columbia’s correctional facilities watched in panic as the COVID-19 epidemic spread across the world, the United States, and the District of Columbia, wondering what, if anything, the Department of Corrections would do to keep them safe. Now that the virus is confirmed to have entered the DOC, the answer is clear: too little and far too late. Like much of society, these residents watched the news and saw the President of the United States and the Mayor of the District of Columbia imploring — and in some instances requiring — all Americans to practice “social distancing,” to avoid congregating in groups, to wash their hands and use hand sanitizer regularly, to disinfect frequently touched surfaces, and to seek prompt medical attention if symptoms develop. Unlike the rest of society — people who are able to, and must, heed this guidance — DOC residents cannot. Although they are fully aware of the risks of COVID-19 and the precautions that need to
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 37
be taken to prevent those risks, Plaintiffs are systematically denied the opportunity to take the same preventative care that others are required or urged to take by local and federal officials. That is because, despite knowledge of these directives, the DOC has failed to implement many basic procedures — steps as simple as distributing sufficient hygienic products and providing prompt medical attention and testing to those with COVID-19 symptoms — and has waited far too long to implement others. Consequently, experts predict that COVID-19 will “spread like wildfire” in DOC facilities. The DOC has violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
3. Defendants are the leadership of the Department of Corrections, which operates two physically connected jail buildings, the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”) and the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”), between which staff pass back and forth each day. The named plaintiffs in this lawsuit are four people who are currently in Defendants’ custody. The named plaintiffs include a pretrial detainee at CTF, a pretrial detainee at CDF, a post-conviction detainee at CTF, and a post-conviction detainee at CDF.
4. Defendants’ ongoing failure to take reasonable precautions to prevent the spread and severity of a COVID-19 outbreak gravely jeopardizes the safety of Plaintiffs and all of the approximately 1,600 individuals confined in the CDF or CTF. While the world watched COVID19 spread in January and February, Defendants did not act until March 11, 2020 — over six weeks after the World Health Organization declared a “public health emergency of international concern” and four days after the first positive COVID-19 test in the District of Columbia — to begin even the most basic screening of visitors to their facilities. Since then, despite multiple declarations of emergency and guidance regarding practices for correctional institutions, Defendants have not taken necessary steps to ensure Plaintiffs’ safety.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 37
5. While Defendants have moved slowly and meekly in response to the threat of COVID-19, jurisdictions around the world and in the United States have taken bold actions to save lives for inmates and for the community. Germany released “1,000 prisoners who are close to the end of their sentences”; Canada released “1,000 inmates in the state of Ontario”; and Iran “temporarily release[d] 85,000 prisoners, with 10,000 of them being granted pardons.”1 Closer to home, the New Jersey Supreme Court announced that it would release “as many as 1,000 people from its jails”2 and New York City is releasing more than 1,000 people from its jails.3 This effort to downsize facilities like prisons and jails, which are breeding grounds for the highly contagious virus, is not limited to the East Coast. It is an urgent nationwide effort. Cuyahoga County, Ohio, announced plans to rapidly release around 600 people from the county jail just two days after President Trump declared a national emergency; Washington County, Oregon, released more than 120 people from the local jail; Alameda County, California, released 314 people from their jail; the Iowa Department of Corrections began to release 700 people from state prisons; Mercer County, Pennsylvania, released 60 of 308 people in their jail.4
6. The District of Columbia Department of Corrections has not taken similar precautions. Defendants’ failures to act are recorded and documented by the people in Defendants’ custody, by lawyers who have observed first-hand the lack of preparation, and perhaps most alarmingly of all, by the union of Defendants’ correctional officers, who unanimously voted “no
1 Michael Nienaber et al., Lock 'Em Up or Let 'Em Out? Coronavirus Prompts Wave of Prisoner Releases, REUTERS, March 25, 2020. 2 Tracey Tully, 1,000 Inmates Will Be Released From N.J. Jails to Curb Coronavirus Risk, N.Y. TIMES, March 23, 2020. 3 NYC to Release More Than 1,000 Prison Inmates Due to Coronavirus Concerns, ASSOC. PRESS, March 25, 2020. 4 Kimberly Kindy et al., ‘Disaster Waiting to Happen’: Thousands of Inmates Released as Jails and Prisons Face Coronavirus Threat, WASH. POST, March 25, 2020.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 5 of 37
confidence” in Defendants’ leadership for “guaranteeing and accelerating the rampant spread of COVID-19.”5 In a damning rebuke of Defendants’ preparedness, DOC staff wrote on March 25, 2020, that staff have “no masks, insufficient gloves, no gowns, no disinfectants, and [that] no comprehensive cleaning occurs on a regular basis.”6 They report that residents “coming into the Jail are not screened for symptoms of COVID-19,” that residents “are not required to engage in any of the behaviors which the Mayor recommends for the general population, such as ‘social distancing’, repeated hand-washing, and health monitoring”; and that “[t]here is no distancing [for staff] at entrances, no distancing at roll calls, [and] no attempt to obtain or record health concerns of each officer.”7 These observations are the canary in the coalmine.
7. Corrections experts recognize that the only way to minimize the harm done by COVID-19 is through “thoughtful downsizing of the incarcerated population . . . in tandem with aggressive, responsive prevention measures that are developed and guided by public health and medical experts.”8
8. Defendants violate the due process rights of pretrial detainees — who are presumed innocent — when they “recklessly fail[] to act with reasonable care to mitigate the risk” of a condition that Defendants “knew, or should have known” posed an excessive risk to health or safety. Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 35 (2d Cir. 2017).
5 Sophie Kaplan, Union Votes ‘No Confidence’ in D.C. Jail Leaders for Handling of COVID19, WASH. TIMES, March 20, 2020. 6 Letter from J. Michael Hannon to Quincy L. Booth (“Labor Committee Letter”) at 3 (March 25, 2020), https://www.hannonlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/379/2020/03/here.-1.pdf. 7 Id. 8 Exhibit A, Declaration of Dr. Marc Stern (“Stern Decl.”), at ¶ 9.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 6 of 37
9. Defendants violate the Eighth Amendment by acting with “deliberate indifference” to an “unreasonable risk of serious damage” to a post-conviction detainee’s health. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33–35 (1993).
10. Because of Defendants’ ongoing, systemic violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, Plaintiffs seek class-wide relief requiring Defendants to join other jurisdictions in reducing the population in their facilities and to implement other basic policies and procedures that would mitigate the risk to Plaintiffs’ health and safety.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, specifically 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 12. Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02, by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65, and by the inherent equitable powers of this Court. 13. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred, and continue to occur, in this District.
PARTIES 14. Plaintiff-petitioner D’Angelo Phillips is currently in the custody of the DOC at the Central Detention Facility, where he is at risk of death or serious injury if exposed to COVID-19. He is being held in pre-trial custody and is presumed innocent.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 7 of 37
15. Plaintiff-petitioner Edward Banks is currently in the custody of the DOC at the Central Detention Facility, where he is at risk of death or serious injury if exposed to COVID-19. He has pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing.
16. Plaintiff-petitioner Eric Smith is currently in the custody of the DOC at the Correctional Treatment Facility, where he is at risk of death or serious injury if exposed to COVID19. He is being held in pre-trial custody and is presumed innocent.
17. Plaintiff-petitioner Keon Jackson is currently in the custody of the DOC at the Correctional Treatment Facility, where he is at risk of death or serious injury if exposed to COVID19. He is being held post-conviction.
18. Defendant-respondent Quincy Booth is the Director of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections and is being sued in his official capacity. The DOC is responsible for the safekeeping, care, protection, instruction, and discipline of “all persons committed to” the “Jail.” D.C. Code § 24-211.02(a). As the Director of the DOC, Defendant Booth is responsible for developing, administering, and enforcing DOC policies. Id. § 24-211.01.
19. Defendant-respondent Lennard Johnson, Plaintiffs’ immediate custodian, is the Warden of the Central Detention Facility (CDF) and the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) and is being sued in his official capacity.
STATEMENT OF FACTS a. COVID-19 is a highly contagious virus that poses a serious risk of injury and death
for anyone who is infected. 20. COVID-19 is the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus that has caused a global pandemic. The World Health Organization (“WHO”) estimates that as of March 30, 2020, there
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 8 of 37
are 638,146 confirmed cases, 30,039 confirmed deaths, and 203 countries, areas, or territories with confirmed cases.9
21. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) estimates that as of March 30, 2020, there are 122,653 confirmed cases and 2,112 confirmed deaths in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.10
22. COVID-19 is highly contagious. COVID-19 is thought to survive for three hours in the air in droplet form that can be inhaled or transferred to surfaces, up to twenty-four hours on cardboard, up to two days on plastic, and up to three days on steel.11
23. Due to the highly contagious nature of COVID-19, data and statistical modeling show that absent intervention, the rate of COVID-19 infections has grown, and is expected to grow, exponentially.12
24. People in all age brackets are at risk of serious injury and death from COVID-19.13 25. Although only about “one person in six becomes seriously ill” from COVID-19, the virus causes excruciating pain to those who become ill. One respiratory physician explained
9 See WORLD HEALTH ORG., Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Pandemic (last visited March 30, 2020, 11:00 AM), https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019. 10 See CTRS. DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, Cases in U.S. (last visited March 30, 2020, 11:00 AM), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. 11 Neeltje van Doremalen et al., Correspondence, Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1, NEW ENGLAND J. MEDICINE, March 17, 2020, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973. 12 Kenneth Chang, A Different Way to Chart the Spread of Coronavirus, N.Y. TIMES, March 20, 2020 (“Unconstrained, the coronavirus spreads exponentially, the caseload doubling at a steady rate.”). 13 CTRS. DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, Severe Outcomes Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) — United States, February 12–March 16, 2020 tbl. (2020), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm?s_cid=mm6912e2_w.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 9 of 37
that the lungs “become filled with inflammatory material” and “are unable to get enough oxygen to the bloodstream.”14
26. The virus leads to acute respiratory distress syndrome, in which fluid displaces the air in the lungs. The sensation of that illness is akin to being drowned.15 Some individuals who have survived the illness experienced fatigue so extreme they cannot get out of bed or walk to the bathroom and a cough severe enough to prevent sleep.16 In more serious forms, the individual can experience excruciating pain, days or weeks of fever and chills, uncontrollable diarrhea and inability to keep down food or water, and extremely labored breathing requiring oxygen therapy.17 The most severe forms — of which symptoms such as vomiting and diarrhea are thought to be early signs — require hospitalization and often artificial ventilation to preserve life. The artificial ventilation process is highly invasive and many who have undergone the process describe it as psychologically traumatic. Some patients are placed in medically induced comas for such treatment. Some do not survive.
27. Emerging medical research also demonstrates that, in addition to the short-term risk of death posed by COVID-19, contracting the virus can lead to other serious long-term medical conditions, including cardiovascular disease and permanent reduction of lung function.18
14 Graham Readfearn, What Happens to People’s Lungs When They Get Coronavirus, GUARDIAN, March 24, 2020. 15 Lizzie Presser, A Medical Worker Describes Terrifying Lung Failure From COVID-19 — Even in His Young Patients, PROPUBLICA, March 21, 2020. 16 Id. 17 Leah Groth, Is Diarrhea a Symptom of COVID-19? New Study Says Digestive Issues May Be Common With Coronavirus, HEALTH, March 20, 2020. 18 Tian-Yuan Xiong et al., Coronaviruses and the Cardiovascular System: Acute and Long-Term Implications, EURO. HEART J, ehaa231 (2020).
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 10 of 37
28. Because of these short-term and long-term dangers, treating COVID-19 requires a
team of health care providers, including nurses, respiratory therapists, and intensive care physicians.19
29. The available data from the CDC to date shows that, in total, 20.7 to 31.4 percent
of people who tested positive for COVID-19 require hospitalization, 4.9 to 11.5 percent require admission to the ICU, and 1.8 to 3.4 percent die.20 Patients in DOC custody who require
hospitalization will also require, by DOC policy, a round-the-clock guard by law enforcement and
constant shackling while hospitalized, which inhibits emergency medical care.
30. The WHO estimates that the COVID-19 mortality rate is between three and four
percent. The CDC estimates that the COVID-19 mortality rate in the United States is between 1.8 and 3.4 percent.21 By comparison, the mortality rate of seasonal influenza is well below 0.1 percent.22
31. The CDC reports that in China, the mortality rate was “as high as 12 percent in the center of the epidemic.”23
32. There is no vaccine or cure for COVID-19.24
b. COVID-19 has already, and will, spread with vicious speed in correctional institutions.
19 Pauline W. Chen, The Calculus of Coronavirus Care, N.Y. TIMES, March 20, 2020. 20 Id. 21 CTRS. DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, Severe Outcomes Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) — United States, February 12–March 16, 2020 tbl. (2020), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm?s_cid=mm6912e2_w. 22 WORLD HEALTH ORG., CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) SITUATION REPORT – 46 p. 2 (2020). 23 Kenji Mizumoto, Estimating Risk for Death from 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease, China, January–February 2020, 26 J. EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES (2020). 24 CTRS. DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) (2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/ 2019-ncov-factsheet.pdf.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 11 of 37
33. Like nursing homes, cruise ships, and college dormitories, correctional facilities are environments that enable, and in fact facilitate, the spread of COVID-19.
34. Because people — staff, residents, contractors, community members, and others — constantly cycle in and out of correctional facilities, there is an ever-present risk that new carriers will bring the virus into the facility.
35. In Jining, China, 207 people in a correctional facility contracted COVID-19 because a prison guard contracted it outside of the facility and then came to work, not knowing he was infected.25
36. Even if correctional institutions screen outsiders, including staff and visitors, for symptoms of COVID-19, that will not stop the introduction of COVID-19 from the outside because the CDC confirms that COVID-19 can be spread “before people show symptoms.”26
37. Correctional facilities also are highly susceptible to rapid person-to-person transmission of the virus because cramped conditions place residents and staff in close proximity.27
38. History also bears out that prisons and jails become breeding grounds for epidemics that eventually spread out to broader communities.
39. Public health research shows that an “influenza epidemic in San Quentin prison” spread to 26 percent of prisoners and became “one of the primary foci” of the 1918 flu epidemic.28
25 N.Y. TIMES, New Clusters of the Virus are Found in China’s Prisons, Feb. 21, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/world/asia/china-coronavirus.html. 26 See CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, How It Spreads, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html (last accessed March 23, 2020). 27 Kindy et al., supra note 4. 28 Niyi Awofeso, Prison Show Prophylaxis for Close Contacts May Indeed Help in Next Flu Pandemic, 329 BMJ 173, 173 (2004).
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 12 of 37
The outbreak at San Quentin was started by the introduction of a “newly received prisoner” who had the influenza.29
40. During the H1N1 epidemic in 2009, jails and prisons were also epicenters for transmission.30
41. In New York City, the first case of COVID-19 infection in a jail detainee was diagnosed on March 18, 2020. Within two days, thirty-eight cases had been diagnosed at the Rikers Island Correctional Complex.
42. As of March 30, 2020, the rate of COVID-19 infection in New York City jails is 3.00 percent. This is over seven times higher than the rate of infection in New York City generally (0.40 percent), over seven times higher than the rate of infection in Lombardy, Italy (0.41 percent), and 25 times higher than the rate of infection in Wuhan, China (0.12 percent).31
43. Approximately one month into the pandemic in the province of Hubei, China, where the COVID-19 outbreak started, over half of reported COVID-19 cases were from jails.32
44. In South Korea, which has enacted radical and effective public health measures to slow and stop the spread of the virus, “the single largest COVID-19 outbreak and mortality cluster was from the Daenam Prison Hospital, where 101 inmates were infected and seven died.”33
29 Stuart A. Kinner et al., Comment, Prisons and Custodial Settings Are Part of a Comprehensive Response to COVID-19, LANCET, March 17, 2020. 30 Nicole Westman, Prisons and Jails are Vulnerable to COVID-19 Outbreaks, VERGE, March 12, 2020. 31 LEGAL AID SOCIETY, Analysis of COVID-19 Infection Rate in NYC Jails (last visited March 30, 2020, 11:00 AM), https://legalaidnyc.org/covid-19-infection-tracking-in-nyc-jails/. 32 Zi Yang, Cracks in the System: COVID-19 in Chinese Prisons, DIPLOMAT, March 9, 2020, https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/cracks-in-the-system-covid-19-in-chinese-prisons/. 33 Nancy Gertner & John Reinstein, Opinion, Compassionate Release Now for Prisoners Vulnerable to the Coronavirus, BOSTON GLOBE, March 23, 2020.
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 13 of 37
45. The spread of COVID-19 in District of Columbia correctional institutions is not only a risk to Plaintiffs and Defendants’ staff, it is a risk to the entire D.C. community.
46. “Substantial epidemiological research shows that mass incarceration raises contagion rates for infectious disease — both for people in jails, and for the community at large.”34
47. Empirical evidence shows how outbreaks in correctional institutions quickly reflect back into the greater community: In 1997, near the height of the HIV epidemic, fully 20 percent of all HIV-infected Americans had been in a correctional facility at least once during that year.35
c. While many jurisdictions took decisive action as COVID-19 rapidly spread, the Department of Corrections failed to take necessary precautions.
48. As COVID-19 spread around the world from December through early March, nearly every level and sector of government, from international organizations, to countries, states, cities, and the District of Columbia, issued emergency declarations warning of the spread of the virus.
49. Despite these clear calls of emergency, of which Defendants were no doubt aware, Defendants did not take sufficient precautions.
50. On January 21, 2020, the first confirmed COVID-19 case was diagnosed in the United States.36
51. On January 30, 2020, the WHO declared a “public health emergency of international concern.”37
34 Sandhya Kajeepeta & Seth J. Prins, Why Coronavirus in Jails Should Concern All of Us, THE APPEAL, March 24, 2020, https://theappeal.org/coronavirus-jails-public-health/. 35 Anne C. Spaulding et al., HIV/AIDS Among Inmates of and Releasees from US Correctional Facilities, 2006: Declining Share of Epidemic but Persistent Public Health Opportunity, 4 PLOS ONE 7558 (2009). 36 Derrick Bryson Taylor, A Timeline of the Coronavirus, N.Y. TIMES, March, 2020 https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-timeline.html (last visited March 24, 2020). 37 Id.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 14 of 37
52. By February 12, 2020, the death toll in China reached 1,113, and the total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases worldwide reached 44,653.38
53. By February 23, 2020, Italy locked down a vast region of the country, closing schools and cancelling events in order to promote social distancing.39
54. By February 25, 2020, the CDC “warned of an almost certain outbreak” in the United States.40
55. On February 28, 2020, the United States saw its first COVID-19 death.41 56. On February 28, 2020, Mayor Bowser ordered the activation of the District’s Emergency Operations Center to coordinate responses to COVID-19, requiring Defendants to “remind their staff and constituencies” of “basic infection practices,” including to “[w]ash hands with soap and water” or an “alcohol-based hand sanitizer,” to “[a]void close contact with people who are sick,” and to “[c]lean and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces.”42 The Executive Order specifically requires that “[a]ll relevant District agencies shall review their copy of the District Response Plan to evaluate the potential impacts of COVID-19 on emergency roles and responsibilities and take necessary steps to ensure continued performance.”43 57. By March 3, 2020, about 3,000 people worldwide had died from COVID-19.44 58. On March 7, 2020, the District of Columbia announced that the first COVID-19 case in the District had been confirmed by laboratory testing.
38 Id. 39 Id. 40 Id. 41 Id. 42 D.C. Mayor’s Order 2020-035, § 10(a). 43 Id. § 3(a). 44 Id.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 15 of 37
59. On March 13, 2020, President Trump declared a national emergency.45 60. On March 15, 2020, the CDC issued guidance advising no gatherings of 50 or more people in the United States.46 61. On March 16, 2020, Mayor Bowser ordered District of Columbia bars and restaurants to close.47 62. On March 25, 2020, Mayor Bowser ordered all non-essential District of Columbia businesses to close.48 63. Defendants’ response was slow and insufficient. 64. On March 3, 2020, Defendant Booth wrote a letter to all DOC employees informing them of symptoms of COVID-19, that the virus travels “[b]etween people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet),” and asking employees who are “impacted by COVID-19” to “contact [their] immediate supervisor to request to be placed on sick or annual leave, leave without pay, or other earned leave.” 65. On March 11, 2020, Defendants for the first time began to ask visitors to the jail whether they had visited countries with high rates of infection in the preceding 14 days and whether they felt ill.49 The form specifically asked about China, Iran, South Korea, Italy, and Japan, but did not ask about travel to other countries or domestic travel, even though other countries and
45 President Donald J. Trump, Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak, March 13, 2020. 46 CTRS. DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, Interim Guidance for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (March 15, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/largeevents/mass-gatherings-ready-for-covid-19.html. 47 D.C. Mayor’s Order 2020-048, § I(C). 48 D.C. Mayor’s Order 2020-053. 49 See Exhibit B, Department of Corrections Visitor Questionnaire.
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 16 of 37
states had greater numbers of confirmed cases or higher rates of infection than one of the listed countries.50
66. Around March 11, 2020, Defendants represented in public statements that they began to broadcast regular announcements over the Jail’s loudspeaker reminding residents to wash their hands.
67. Facility residents state that they have rarely or never heard such announcements, and visitors who spent as long as five hours inside of the facility on days after March 11 did not hear any announcements. Residents who did hear sporadic announcements report that they did not see staff washing their hands in response to the announcement and that no hand soap or towels were provided to residents so that they could wash their hands in response to the announcement.
68. On March 13, 2020, Defendants’ staff began to take entrants’ temperatures with non-contact, infrared thermometers.
69. These thermometers are either broken or mis-used by Defendants’ staff. One visitor was permitted in after a temperature reading 93 degrees — a temperature that signals severe and near-fatal hypothermia. Another visitor was admitted after the thermometer displayed an error message and never registered a temperature reading.
70. On at least one occasion after implementing their screening protocols, Defendants’ staff forgot to screen several visitors to CTF until after they had entered that facility and were on units where residents live.
71. On March 14, 2020, Defendants halted social visits, but legal and mental health visits continued, and caseworkers were still cycling in and out of the facility.
50 Id.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 17 of 37
72. While Defendants implemented screening protocols for visitors and staff, Defendants did not implement screening protocols for new residents coming into the jail. Defendants’ staff state that as of March 25, 2020, “[i]nmates coming into the Jail are not screened for symptoms of COVID-19.”51
73. Around this time, Defendants provided a single bar of soap to most residents at CDF. Prior to that distribution, new entrants to the jail had not been provided with free hygiene packets at entry and had been told since March 3, 2020 that the jail was out of soap and had none to provide. Residents without access to the Jail’s commissary due to lack of funds, status, or new entry to the facility, therefore had no soap for at least a week during the escalation of COVID-19 in the District.
74. Defendants have not provided additional soap free of charge since the first distribution of the single bar of soap, nor did Defendants inform residents when they will receive more soap. Consequently, some residents have already run out of their single allotted bar, while others are not using the single bar because they do not know when the next bar will come.
75. Defendants also have not provided access to hand sanitizer, have denied residents’ requests to use hand sanitizer, and have removed hand sanitizer that was previously available to residents and made it so that only staff could use hand sanitizer.
76. Defendants did not provide staff and residents adequate cleaning supplies, free of charge and in the proper concentration, to prevent transmission of the virus from surfaces in housing units or other parts of common space in the facilities. The units are cleaned primarily by DOC residents, whose work is not inspected by staff. The people cleaning the units are not
51 Labor Committee Letter at 3. 17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 18 of 37
provided with masks, gloves, or other equipment that would allow them to protect themselves from germs while conducting a thorough cleaning.
77. Nor have Defendants provided residents and staff with cleaning supplies to clean their own cells, ensuring that residents who share a cell will quickly transmit illness to each other. Residents are instructed to clean their own cells with water and their own soap, and officers have no access to cleaning materials or clean rags to provide residents to wipe down surfaces within their cells. They are then required to use the same bath towels and washrags to clean and dry their own hands and bodies when they wash their hands or bathe. On at least one unit, a closet full of cleaning supplies and clean rags is present, but residents are told they will be punished if they attempt to access or use those supplies to clean the unit, their own cells, or their hands and bodies.
78. Defendants do not regularly disinfect surfaces in Defendants’ facilities. In at least one instance, a unit ran out of the watered-down cleaning solution residents use to clean common areas, and were told to use just water. In another unit, Defendants took away all cleaning materials that contained bleach.
79. Defendants also did not make soap or hygiene supplies available in common areas, recreational areas, or food preparation areas. Defendants have provided neither paper towels nor other means to dry hands after washing them, meaning that residents who do wash their hands must reuse the same bath towels repeatedly, or wipe their hands on their jail-issued uniforms, which are laundered infrequently and are exposed to surfaces that could be contaminated.
80. On March 19, 2020, the DOC announced that it had quarantined 65 residents whom it believed had contact with a law enforcement officer who had tested positive for COVID-19.52
52 Kyley Schultz, 65 Inmates in Self-Quarantine, 1 Tested Positive for Coronavirus at DC Jail, WUSA9, March 19, 2020.
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 19 of 37
81. This was a “quarantine” in name only and was ineffective to prevent the spread of the virus. Defendants’ staff report that “[t]hese inmates were not ‘quarantined’ in any meaningful manner. They were housed two to a cell, and the corrections officers on the unit were not provided with any [personal protective equipment] or other means for protection against infections.”53
82. Further, this “quarantine” policy is ineffective at preventing the spread of COVID19 among residents and staff. Residents perceive quarantine as punitive because the conditions of the quarantine are even worse than conditions of punitive solitary confinement, as residents in quarantine cannot access recreation or other programming opportunities. Residents are thus deterred from self-reporting COVID-19 symptoms. Residents also worry that quarantining will interrupt their programming, which is part of DOC’s “good time credit” calculation and can influence residents’ release.
83. Defendants had in their custody residents who complained of cough, fatigue, and shortness of breath — some of the most common early symptoms of COVID-19. Nevertheless, Defendants did not test any residents, even those who presented with symptoms consistent with COVID-19, until around March 20, 2020.
84. Many residents have exhibited symptoms of COVID-19 and have not received a test for the virus. For instance, on March 20, 2020, a resident at CTF with a cough, chest pains, fever, and chills, was seen by medical staff, but was denied a COVID-19 test. The resident was returned to his unit, risking his own health and possibly infecting additional residents of his unit.
85. Defendants have also failed to provide DOC staff with sufficient personal protective equipment, nor have Defendants’ staff used what little equipment they may have. Defendants’ staff members regularly work with bare hands and do not wear gloves or masks. Staff
53 Labor Committee Letter at 3-4.
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 20 of 37
members and jail residents who prepare food, clean and pass out food trays, and clean dining areas are not provided with masks or gloves. Residents report that they receive trays that appear not to have been cleaned between uses, showing remnants of food and dirt from the previous user.
86. Defendants’ staff state that “[t]he corrections officers assigned to housing units have no masks, insufficient gloves, no gowns, no disinfectants, and no comprehensive cleaning occurs on a regular basis in these units.”54 DOC staff also report that “Corrections Officers receiving and discharging inmates have no [personal protective equipment],” even though those officers “must have direct contact with these inmates.”55
87. Defendants also have failed to provide sufficiently prompt access to responsive medical treatment. Many residents wait days after submitting requests to see medical personnel, even when they complain of having difficulty breathing — a common symptom of COVID-19.
88. Defendants have not implemented the required social distancing policies, and in fact, have encouraged actions that run directly counter to social distancing protocols. Residents of Defendants’ facilities are constantly in close contact with each other and with staff, have limited agency to relocate or increase their personal space, and have no control over the movements of others with whom they are required to congregate on a daily basis. They are required to remain in the areas where Defendants order them to be, and are punished if they move without permission, even if they are moving in an attempt to self-quarantine or move away from a person displaying symptoms of illness.
89. Unless special circumstances apply, cells are shared by more than one resident. Those cells are enclosed rooms where social distancing is impossible. The cell’s toilet is within a
54 Labor Committee Letter at 3. 55 Id.
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 21 of 37
few feet of the bed and other areas of the cell. The cell doors are closed and locked during periods when people are required to be in their cells, preventing air circulation.
90. Residents regularly congregate, and interact freely, in the unit common spaces — often the only place that they can go when they are not locked in their cells. Even residents who voluntarily seek to avoid close contact with others are forced to break social distancing rules in order to obtain food, seek medical care, attend professional visitation, and engage in daily population counts and other activities required by Defendants.
91. On March 25, 2020, Defendants encouraged legal visits to take place in person. 92. Legal visiting rooms are small and unventilated. In order to obtain the necessary privacy to maintain privilege, the door must remain closed throughout the visit. In order to consult about case-related matters, counsel and a client often pass papers back and forth, view a small laptop screen at the same time, or use the same writing utensil. Legal visiting rooms are not cleaned or sanitized between attorney visitors or between residents when an attorney visits more than one person on the same day. 93. When counsel and professional visitors initially inquired about the availability of secure phone or video visitation, all such requests were turned down. The only way for counsel and a client to speak, other than in person, was via a telephone call that is monitored by Defendants’ staff throughout the call. When asked to provide privacy for a legal call, one DOC staff member told a client that they were not permitted, under Defendants’ regulations, to leave a resident alone in an office with a phone, even to talk to counsel. Some limited arrangements have been provided in the last few days. 94. As of March 24, 2020, residents were still required to engage in programming in groups of 30, where they sat for hours, less than one foot apart. Residents who choose not to go
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 22 of 37
to programs can be punished for failing to attend, or can lose credit that allows them to seek early
release from incarceration. Defendants are, for example, providing additional good time credits
only to residents who engage in programming.
95. Defendants have also made social distancing impossible by continuing to require
“[c]ase workers [to] meet with inmates in small offices with no [personal protective equipment] or other distancing measures.”56
96. Compared to other correctional facilities, Defendants acted unreasonably slowly,
and have still not implemented an adequate response to the pandemic.
97. By way of example, in Washington State, the Department of Corrections
(“WADOC”) contacted all staff members on February 20, 2020 and provided information about
COVID-19. On March 3, 2020, WADOC staff began to track all “staff call ins due to flu like symptoms” to understand whether any staff might have COVID-19.57
98. On March 3, 2020 — before any positive COVID-19 test in the state — Indiana’s
Department of Corrections issued a “Preparedness and Response Plan” that:
• Required facilities to “obtain and distribute hand sanitizer throughout the institution and make it available to staff and offenders”;
• Required facilities to clean “high touch surfaces” on “a more frequent schedule”;
• Required facilities to “arrange for the immediate evaluation and treatment of any offender with symptoms”;
• Required visitors to be “questioned about illness prior to entering the facility” and required facilities to deny entrance to anyone with “observed current symptoms.”58
56 Labor Committee Letter at 3. 57 WASHINGTON STATE DEP’T OF CORRECTIONS, SIGNIFICANT EVENTS TIMELINE 13 (2020), available at https://www.doc.wa.gov/news/2020/docs/daily-situation-report.pdf. 58 INDIANA DEP’T OF CORRECTION, PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE PLAN 5-8 (2020), available at https://www.in.gov/idoc/files/IDOC%20Pandemic%20Response%20Plan%203-32020.pdf#response%20plan
22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 23 of 37
d. Conditions in Department of Corrections facilities are so poor, and the procedures in place so inadequate, that the spread of virus will be rapid.
99. As of March 30, 2020, there are 1,620 people in DOC custody in the CDF or CTF.59 100. On March 19, 2020, the DOC announced that it had quarantined 65 residents whom it believed had contact with a law enforcement officer who had tested positive for COVID-19.60 101. On March 25, 2020, after performing four total tests on detained people, the DOC confirmed that a resident of CTF had tested positive for COVID-19.61 102. As of March 26, 2020, the DOC has publicly stated that it “has quarantined 36 inmates.”62 103. As of March 26, 2020, the DOC claimed to have tested four residents for the virus, that one test was positive, two tests were negative, and one test result is pending.63 104. On March 27, 2020, the DOC confirmed that a second resident of CTF had tested positive for COVID-19.64 105. The next day, the DOC announced that two more residents tested positive. 106. On March 29, 2020, the DOC announced its fifth positive case of COVID-19.
59 The precise number of residents at the CDF and CTF fluctuates daily and even hourly. This number is based on the latest information available to undersigned counsel. 60 Kyley Schultz, 65 Inmates in Self-Quarantine, 1 Tested Positive for Coronavirus at DC Jail, WUSA9, March 19, 2020. 61 Keith L. Alexander, After D.C. Jail Confirms First Inmate With COVID-19, Officials Isolate 36 Other Inmates (“First Positive Test”), WASH. POST, March 26, 2020. 62 Id. 63 Id. 64 Keith L. Alexander, Second D.C. Jail Inmate Tests Positive for Coronavirus (“Second Positive Test”), WASH. POST, March 28, 2020.
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 24 of 37
107. Defendants claim that they do not know how the first resident came in contact with the virus.65
108. Defendants state that the first resident “has been jailed since July 29 [2019].”66 109. Defendants state that “the [first] two inmates [who tested positive] were not in the same unit.”67 110. Because the first resident to test positive has been incarcerated since before the COVID-19 outbreak began, it is certain that the resident contracted COVID-19 while he was in Defendants’ custody. 111. According to Defendants, the first resident who tested positive “complained of being sick” and was then placed in isolation on or about March 20, 2020.68 112. Because the virus can be transmitted before symptoms develop, it is highly likely that the five residents who have tested positive have already transmitted the virus to other residents, staff members, visitors, or contractors. 113. It is also highly likely that whoever infected the first resident to test positive who has already tested positive has infected other residents at CTF. 114. Department of Corrections facilities feature many of the characteristics, and operate by many policies, that will lead to rapid spread of COVID-19. 115. A February 2019 report by the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor found that Defendants were “repeatedly cited by [the Department of Health] for violations of industry standards related to environmental conditions, including water penetration through the walls from
65 Alexander, First Positive Test, supra note 61. 66 Id. 67 Alexander, Second Positive Test, supra note 62. 68 Alexander, First Positive Test, supra note 61.
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 25 of 37
a leaking roof, mold growth on walls, damaged shower stalls and temperatures outside of allowable standards.”69 The Department of Health has also “cited both DOC and the food service provider Aramark for repeated violations of District regulations related to public health and food service.”70
116. Ventilation in Defendants’ facilities is poor.71 117. Between FY 2014 and FY 2018, Defendants sought $62.4 million for facility improvements and received only $15.7 million.72 118. COVID-19 will continue to spread to Defendants’ facilities because numerous people in the District of Columbia law enforcement community, who interact with Plaintiffs and proposed class members, have already tested positive for COVID-19. 119. On March 18, 2020, a Deputy United States Marshal working in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia testified positive for COVID-19.73 120. The Deputy Marshal who tested positive worked in Courtroom C-10 cellblock of the D.C. Superior Court (the high-volume courtroom where dozens of arraignments and presentments occur daily) and thus interacted with people who are now in Defendants’ custody.74 121. On March 23, 2020, two court security officers in D.C. Superior Court tested positive for COVID-19.75
69 OFFICE OF THE D.C. AUDITOR, POOR CONDITIONS PERSIST AT AGING D.C. JAIL; NEW FACILITY NEEDED TO MITIGATE RISKS i (2019). 70 Id. at 7. 71 Id. at 9. 72 Id. at i. 73 See Dana Hedgpeth & Justin Jouvenal, D.C. Superior Court to Cut Back Operations, WASH. POST, March 18, 2020. 74 Id. 75 Keith Alexander, Two D.C. Court Security Officers Test Positive, WASH. POST, March 23, 2020.
25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 26 of 37
122. As of March 27, 2020, at least three Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) officers have tested positive for COVID-19.76
123. MPD officers lack the personal protective gear that would decrease the risk that they will spread the disease.77
124. COVID-19 will spread rapidly in Defendants’ facilities because of the belated and inadequate policies discussed above and the failures to take other policies that are recommended and required by the CDC and other experts.
e. Incarcerated people are, by definition, at elevated risk for death or serious injury if they contract COVID-19.
125. Like residents of nursing homes, residents of prisons and jails face greater risk of serious injury or death if they become infected with COVID-19.
126. Public health officials writing in The Lancet explain the characteristics that increase mortality rates among incarcerated people who become infected:
Prisons are epicentres for infectious diseases because of the higher background prevalence of infection, the higher levels of risk factors for infection, the unavoidable close contact in often overcrowded, poorly ventilated, and unsanitary facilities, and the poor access to healthcare services relative to that in community settings.78 127. Incarcerated people in America have poorer health than the general population. The Department of Justice estimates that “half of state and federal prisoners and local jail inmates
76 Metro. Police Dep’t, Third MPD Member Tests Positive for COVID-19 (March 26, 2020), https://mpdc.dc.gov/release/third-mpd-member-tests-positive-covid-19. 77 Simone Weichselbaum, D.C. Cops Balance Bravado and Caution During COVID-19 Pandemic, MARSHALL PROJECT, March 18, 2020 78 Kinner et al., Prisons and Custodial Settings Are Part of a Comprehensive Response to COVID-19 p.1, LANCET.
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 27 of 37
reported ever having a chronic condition,” and “[t]wenty-one percent of prisoners . . . reported ever having an infection disease.”79
128. Individuals incarcerated in Defendants’ facilities also have poorer health than the general population.
129. Plaintiffs and proposed class members are also at heightened risk because they lack access to quality medical care equipped to handle a disease outbreak.
130. Plaintiffs and proposed class members regularly wait days to receive any medical care, even when they complain of difficulty breathing.
131. Plaintiffs and proposed class members are not given masks or gloves even after they exhibit symptoms of COVID-19, including chronic coughing. Defendants’ staff do not have masks to provide to sick residents, or do not provide them if they are made available to staff.
132. Several residents have requested masks after observing other residents in their unit coughing, sneezing, and exhibiting other signs of COVID-19, but those requests were denied.
f. Rapid and systemic downsizing of the number of people in Defendants’ custody is necessary to protect the community.
133. Downsizing the population in Defendants’ custody is the only strategy to ensure the reasonable health and safety of Plaintiffs and proposed class members.
134. On March 17, 2020, the New York City Board of Correction called on New York City to “immediately remove from jail all people at higher risk from COVID-19 infection.”80
79 U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011-12 p. 1 (2016). 80 Press Release, N.Y.C. Bd. of Corr., New York City Board of Correction Calls for City to Begin Releasing People from Jail as Part of Public Health Response to COVID-19 (March. 17, 2020).
27

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 28 of 37
135. Dr. Marc Stern, a correctional health expert, declares that “[t]houghtful downsizing [of the jail population] should be implemented in tandem with aggressive, responsive prevention measures that are developed and guided by public health and medical experts.”81
136. Dr. Stern, reviewing the specific conditions in Defendants’ facilities, and in light of “the four confirmed cases of COVID-19 inside of DOC facilities,” specifically recommends that “downsizing the inmate population as much as possible will reduce the risk of contraction and transmission of COVID-19—and the attendant risks of serious harm and death—within DOC facilities.”82
137. Dr. Robert Greifinger, another correctional health expert, declares that “even with the best-laid plans to address the spread of COVID-19 in detention facilities, the release of individuals is a key part of a risk mitigation strategy.” Dr. Greifinger goes on to say that in his opinion, “the public health recommendation is to release high-risk people from detention, given the heightened risks to their health and safety, especially given the lack of a viable vaccine for prevention or effective treatment at this stage.”83
138. Defendants have the authority to downsize the population of the CDF and CTF via the COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020, which allows the Department of Corrections “to award additional credits beyond the limits described . . . to effectuate the immediate release of persons sentenced for misdemeanors[.]” 67 D.C. Reg. 3106 (March 20, 2020).
g. In addition to downsizing, proper hygiene and other procedures must be implemented to ensure the safety of Plaintiffs and proposed class members.
81 Stern Decl. ¶ 12. 82 Stern Decl. ¶ 11. 83 Decl. of Robert Greifinger ¶ 13, Docket No. 4, Dawson v. Asher, No. 20-cv-409 (MAT) (W.D. Wash., March 16, 2020).
28

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 29 of 37
139. Proper access to free and effective hygiene supplies and precautionary measures is necessary to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and ensure the health and safety of Plaintiffs and proposed class members.
140. Immediate testing of all residents who require testing — where that requirement is based not on Defendants’ subjective and inadequate criteria, but rather on guidance from knowledgeable medical professionals and public health organizations — is necessary to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and ensure the health and safety of Plaintiffs and proposed class members.
141. This testing must include all residents, including asymptomatic residents, who have been in contact with positive COVID-19 cases.
142. Effective screening protocols of visitors and staff is necessary to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and ensure the health and safety of Plaintiffs and proposed class members.
143. Non-punitive quarantine, with full access to phones, mail, video visitation, commissary, recreation, and other privileges, for all individuals believed to be exposed to COVID19 is necessary to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and ensure the health and safety of Plaintiffs and proposed class members. Only by ensuring that quarantine does not pose a danger to individuals’ rights and their mental and physical health can Defendants’ incentivize residents to promptly and fully disclose their symptoms and avoid spreading infection.
144. Free and effective liquid hand soap, hand sanitizer, sanitizing cleaning solution, paper towels or rags, and frequently laundered and replaced personal towels and clothing, are necessary to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and ensure the health and safety of Plaintiffs and proposed class members.
29

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 30 of 37
145. Regular cleaning of common areas and high-touch surfaces using effective disinfectants is necessary to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and ensure the health and safety of Plaintiffs and proposed class members.
146. Requiring staff members to wear gloves and masks and to replace gloves between close contacts with residents is necessary to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and ensure the health and safety of Plaintiffs and proposed class members.
147. Authorizing regular, in-person monitoring of Defendants’ facilities by an independent expert on correctional health is necessary to ensure that the DOC implements practices proven to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and to ensure the health and safety of Plaintiffs and proposed class members.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 148. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs bring this action as a class consisting of all persons confined or to be confined in the D.C. Department of Corrections (“DOC”) Central Detention Facility or Correctional Treatment Facility, including as subclasses: (i) persons confined pre-trial, and (ii) persons confined pursuant to a judgment of conviction. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the class definition or establish sub-classes as appropriate if discovery or further investigation reveals the class should be expanded or otherwise modified. 149. Numerosity: The class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. Based upon information and belief, the size of the class is approximately 1,600 people and is therefore so numerous that joinder is inherently impracticable for that reason alone. Joinder is also inherently impracticable for other, independent reasons. The class includes unnamed, future class members who cannot by definition be joined. Further, proposed class members are highly unlikely to file
30

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 31 of 37
individual suits on their own, as all are incarcerated and many are indigent, and thus have limited access to their retained or court-appointed counsel due to Defendants’ policies, are currently incarcerated, fear retaliation from filing suits against Defendants, and lack access and financial resources to obtain qualified counsel to bring such suits.
150. Commonality: The claims of the class share common issues of fact and law, including but not limited to whether Defendants’ policies regarding health and hygiene as relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic — policies that systemically affect all proposed class members — violate the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The resolution of this question will drive the outcome of the litigation.
151. Typicality: The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of those of the class as a whole, because each Plaintiff is currently in Defendants’ custody and Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same policies and procedures (or lack thereof) that provide the basis for all proposed class members’ claims.
152. Adequacy: Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives who meet all of the requirements of Rule 23(a)(4). They have no conflicts of interest in this case with other class members. They will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class, and each understands the responsibilities of a representative. Counsel for Plaintiffs will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class and include attorneys with extensive experience with the factual and legal issues involved in representing jail and prison inmates, in asserting constitutional rights, and/or in pursuing class actions.
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FIFTH AMENDMENT
31

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 32 of 37
153. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees pretrial detainees the right to be free from punitive conditions of confinement.
154. Defendants are violating Plaintiffs’ and proposed class members’ Fifth Amendment rights because “the challenged governmental action is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective or that it is excessive in relation to that purpose.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473–74 (2015).
155. Defendants are also violating Plaintiffs and proposed class members’ Fifth Amendment rights because they “recklessly failed to act with reasonable care to mitigate the risk that the condition posed to the pretrial detainee even though the defendant-official knew, or should have known, that the condition posed an excessive risk to health or safety.” Darnell, 849 F.3d at 35.
156. Defendants have recklessly failed to act with reasonable care to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 to Plaintiffs and proposed class members.
157. Defendants knew of, or should have known, about the risks of COVID-19 to Plaintiffs and proposed class members.
158. Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference towards Plaintiffs and proposed class members by failing to safeguard their health and safety adequately.
159. Defendants have exposed Plaintiffs and proposed class members to a substantial — indeed grave — risk of serious harm, including death.
160. Defendants knew of and disregarded the substantial risk to Plaintiffs and proposed class members’ health or safety.
32

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 33 of 37
161. Defendants have subjected Plaintiffs and proposed class members to conditions of confinement that increase their risk of contracting COVID-19, for which there is no known vaccine, treatment, or cure.
162. Defendants continued detention of Plaintiffs and proposed class members fails to protect them adequately from the risks of contracting COVID-19.
163. As a result of Defendants’ unconstitutional actions, Plaintiffs and the proposed class are suffering irreparable injury.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF EIGHTH AMENDMENT
164. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects Plaintiffs and proposed class members from cruel and unusual punishment.
165. To amount to the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment (1) jail or prison conditions must pose “an unreasonable risk of serious damage” to a prisoner’s health (an objective test) and (2) prison officials must have acted with deliberate indifference to the risk posed (a subjective test). Helling, 509 U.S. at 33–35.
166. Plaintiffs and proposed class members are subject to a risk of harm that today’s society does not tolerate.
167. Society does not tolerate the risk of exposure to COVID-19 to which Defendants’ policies and procedures (or lack thereof) have subjected Plaintiffs and proposed class members.
168. Indeed, the District of Columbia has warned against the dangers of the very behaviors in which Plaintiffs and proposed class members are required daily to engage as a direct result of Defendants’ policies and procedures (or lack thereof).
169. Plaintiffs and proposed class members suffer a substantial risk of serious harm to their health and safety due to the presence of, and spread of, COVID-19.
33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 34 of 37
170. Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the risks posed to Plaintiffs and proposed class members by COVID-19.
171. Defendants knew of, and know of, the risks that COVID-19 poses to Plaintiffs and proposed class members.
172. The risk of COVID-19 was, and is, obvious to Defendants. 173. Defendants’ response to COVID-19 has not been reasonable. 174. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs and proposed class members are suffering irreparable injury.
RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and proposed class members respectfully request that the Court: A. Certify the proposed class and subclasses; B. Enter a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction and/or writs of habeas corpus requiring Defendants to: 1. Immediately take all actions within their power to reduce the inmate population of the
D.C. Jail and CTF including, but not limited to, releasing as many people as possible through the COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020, which allows the Department of Corrections “to award additional credits beyond the limits described . . . to effectuate the immediate release of persons sentenced for misdemeanors[.]” 67 D.C. Reg. 3106 (March 20, 2020); 2. Appoint an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 to make recommendations to the Court regarding how many and which class members to order released so as to ensure that the number of prisoners remaining at the CDF and CTF can be housed
34

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 35 of 37
consistently with CDC guidance on best practices to prevent the spread of COVID-19, including the requirement that prisoners be able to maintain six feet of space between them and further order that such recommendations take into account CDC guidance concerning health factors that put individuals at elevated risk of death from COVID19; 3. Ensure that each inmate receives, free of charge, an individual supply of hand soap, sufficient to allow frequent hand washing; paper towels; toilet paper; running water; and facial tissue; 4. Provide no-touch trash receptacles for tissue and paper towel disposal; 5. Ensure that all inmates, when not in cells with access to hand soap and running water, have access to hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol; 6. Provide access to daily showers for each inmate and daily access to clean laundry, including clean personal towels and washrags after each shower; 7. Require that all DOC staff wear personal protective equipment, including masks and gloves when interacting with visitors and residents or when touching surfaces in common areas; 8. Provide an anonymous mechanism for residents to report staff who violate these guidelines so that appropriate corrective action can be taken to ensure staff compliance. 9. Take each inmate’s temperature daily (with a functioning and properly operated thermometer) to identify potential COVID-19 infections; 10. Assess (through questioning) each inmate daily to identify potential COVID-19 infections; 11. Conduct immediate testing for anyone displaying known symptoms of COVID-19;
35

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 36 of 37
12. Immediately provide masks for any individual displaying or reporting COVID-19 symptoms until they can be evaluated by a qualified medical professional or placed in non-punitive quarantine;
13. Frequently communicate to inmates to provide information about COVID-19, reducing the risk of transmission, and any changes in policies or practices;
14. Provide inmates with an adequate supply of disinfectant hand wipes or disinfectant products effective against the virus that causes COVID-19 (at the manufacturer’s recommended concentration), to clean their cells and other surfaces;
15. Clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces with disinfectant products effective against the virus that causes COVID-19 (at the manufacturer’s recommended concentration), as well as surfaces in common areas, every two hours during waking hours, and at least once during the night;
16. Ensure that individuals identified as having COVID-19 or having been exposed to COVID-19 are properly quarantined in a non-punitive setting, with continued access to showers, recreation, mental health services, reading materials, commissary, phone and video visitation with loved ones, communication with counsel, and personal property;
17. Respond to all emergency (as defined by the medical community) requests for medical attention within an hour;
18. Provide access to unmonitored, confidential legal calls and video visits with counsel to reduce the need for defense teams to enter into the facility and meet with clients in dangerously close quarters;
36

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 37 of 37

19. Facilitate video conferencing and telephonic conferencing, when requested, as an alternative to in-person court appearances; and
20. Appoint an independent monitor with medical expertise to ensure compliance with these conditions, and provide the monitor with unfettered access to medical units, confidential communication with detained individuals in and out of quarantine, and surveillance video of public areas of the facilities; and
C. Award such further relief as this Court deems appropriate.

DATED: March 30, 2020 Washington, D.C.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Steven Marcus Steven Marcus (D.C. Bar # 1630882) Jonathan Anderson (D.C. Bar # 475306) Jenna Cobb (D.C. Bar # 979506) Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel. 202-824-2524 Fax 202-824-2525 smarcus@pdsdc.org
/s/ Scott Michelman Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar # 1006945) Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar # 235960) Michael Perloff (D.C. Bar # 1601047) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. 202-457-0800 smichelman@acludc.org

37

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 19
DECLARATION OF DR. MARC STERN, MD MPH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION
On this 29th day of March, 2020, I hereby declare: 1. My name is Marc Stern. I am a board certified internist specializing in correctional health care. I have managed health care operations and practiced health care in multiple correctional settings. Most recently, I served as the Assistant Secretary of Health Care for the Washington State Department of Corrections. In terms of educational background, I received a Bachelor of Science degree from State University of New York (Albany) in 1975, a medical degree from State University of New York (Buffalo) in 1982, and a Master of Public Health from Indiana University in 1992. I am an Affiliate Assistant Professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health. 2. On a regular basis, I investigate, evaluate, and monitor the adequacy of health care delivery systems in correctional institutions on behalf of a variety of parties including federal courts. My prior experience includes working with the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice; and state departments of corrections and county jails. 3. Through 2013, I taught the National Commission on Correctional Health Care’s (NCCHC) correctional health care standards semi-annually to correctional health care administrators at NCCHC’s national conferences. I authored a week-long curriculum commissioned by the National Institute of Corrections of the U.S. Department of Justice to train jail and prison wardens and health care administrators in the principles and practice of operating safe and effective correctional health care operations, and served as the principal instructor for this course. 4. In the past four years alone, I have been qualified as an expert in several
1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 19
jurisdictions on correctional health care systems and conditions of confinement. My full curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
5. I am not receiving payment in exchange for providing this affidavit to the D.C. Public Defender Services regarding appropriate correctional healthcare measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. In light of the emergency conditions occurring in jails and prisons across the country, I am providing my services pro bono.
6. Due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic affecting the nation and world, I have familiarized myself with the virus from a clinical perspective, including its causes and conditions, its transmission – especially in crowded and unsanitary conditions – and its ability to quickly spread through correctional facilities.
7. In the context of a pandemic like the one we currently face, public health and public safety interests are closely intertwined. When and if correctional staffing challenges arise due to the need for staff to quarantine, seek treatment, or care for dependents, managing internal safety in carceral settings becomes even more challenging. Understaffing in the correctional setting is dangerous for staff as well as incarcerated people, and the stress and fear of the current crisis only serve to increase those risks.
8. I have reviewed the March 25, 2020, letter sent from the union to the D.C. DOC, spelling out in the public health dangers at the D.C. DOC. If accurate, such conditions heighten the urgency of addressing these problems.
9. For example, if true, the grievance’s allegations that correctional officers responsible for receiving and overseeing inmates do not any, or sufficient, personal protective equipment (PPE) for use when indicated,1 and that officers are not required to participate in social distancing during shift changes, raise serious concerns that those officers may contract and transmit COVID-19 to their co-workers, families, and inmates in the facility. Accordingly, reducing the number of inmates with whom those
1 Grievance at 3.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 19
correctional officers must interact will reduce the risk that those correctional officers will contract COVID-19 or transmit it to others in the community.
10. I have also reviewed the declarations of four inmates detained in DOC facilities. As with the union’s grievance letter, the inmates’ allegations, if true, heighten the urgency of taking immediate and aggressive action. For example, the housing of multiple inmates within a single cell and lack of adequate cleaning supplies increases the probability that COVID-19 is already spreading throughout the facilities. Accordingly, housing only one inmate per cell and either providing sufficient cleaning supplies or reducing the amount of space requiring thorough cleaning will decrease the virus’s ability to spread within DOC facilities.
11. In light of the conditions described in the documents that I have reviewed, the four confirmed cases of COVID-19 inside of DOC facilities, and the apparent resource-shortages facing the DOC, I am even more firmly convinced that downsizing the inmate population as much as possible will reduce the risk of contraction and transmission of COVID-19—and the attendant risks of serious harm and death—within DOC facilities and the communities around them.
12. Thoughtful downsizing should be implemented in tandem with aggressive, responsive prevention measures that are developed and guided by public health and medical experts.
13. Institutional settings such as jails, prisons, shelters, and inpatient treatment programs are congregate environments where people live, eat, and sleep closely together. In these environments, infections like COVID-19 can spread more rapidly. Downsizing jail populations serves two critical public health aims: (1) targeting residents who are at elevated risk of suffering from severe symptoms of COVID-19; and (2) allowing those who remain incarcerated to better maintain social distancing and avoid other risks associated with forced communal living. Because vulnerable populations are at the highest risk of severe complications from COVID-19, and because when they develop severe complications they will be transported to community hospitals—thereby using scarce community
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 19
resources (ER beds, general hospital beds, ICU beds)—avoiding disease in this population is a critical contribution to public health overall.
14. Downsizing jail populations by releasing high risk individuals and others the court system deems eligible for release will help to “flatten the curve” overall—both within the jail setting and without. Early reporting on the impacts of COVID-19, based in part on preliminary data emerging from China, seemed to indicate that the virus’ impact would remain relatively mild for younger people. Recent data released by the CDC suggests that this initial narrative is incorrect, and that adults aged 2044 also face a risk of experiencing severe health outcomes as a result of contracting the disease. The CDC released data based on the reported cases in the United States between February 12 and March 16, 2020. This data showed the thirty-eight percent (38%) of the hospitalizations from coronavirus occurred in patients under 55 years old.2 French health officials have released statements saying that half of intensive care admission in that country involve individuals under 65. In the Netherlands, half of intensive care admissions were for people under the age of 50.3
15. While the highest risk of death remains among the elderly, it is becoming clear that younger individuals are not protected from severe complications requiring hospitalization and placement in intensive care, using valuable community resources that are expected to become more scarce.
16. At the same time criminal justice authorities work to downsize jail populations, it is critical that the D.C. Department of Corrections, the D.C. Department of Behavioral Health, and any other public agency responsible for maintaining congregate living conditions of detained individuals in the D.C. system immediately undertake the following prevention and planning measures:
2 Severe Outcomes Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) — United States, February 12–March 16, 2020, available at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm?s_cid=mm6912e2_w 3 https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/19/younger-adults-are-large-percentagecoronavirus-hospitalizations-united-states-according-new-cdc-data/
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 5 of 19
a. Immediate testing. Patients who require testing, based on public health recommendations and the opinion of a qualified medical professional, should be tested for COVID-19.
b. Immediate Screening. Correctional authorities must be required to screen each employee or other person entering the facility every day to according to current CDC or local health department guidelines A record should be made of each screening.
c. Quarantine. The jail must establish non-punitive quarantine for all individuals believed to have been exposed to COVID-19, but are not yet symptomatic, and nonpunitive isolation for those believed to be infected with COVID-19 and potentially infectious. Any individual who must interact with those potentially or likely infected with COVID-19 must utilize protective equipment as directed by public health authorities. In short, every possible effort must be made to separate infected or potentially infected individuals from the rest of the incarcerated population. Individuals requiring continued quarantine, isolation, or health care after release from incarceration should be transferred from the institution to the appropriate outside venue.
d. Institutional Hygiene. The jail must be required to provide adequate sanitation of high use/high touch areas and cells in accordance with CDC or local health authority guidelines. i. This includes a prompt way to dispose of tissues used by incarcerated individuals as well as staff.
e. Personal Hygiene. The jail must be required to provide hand soap, disposable paper towels, and access to water to allow residents to wash their hands on a regular basis, free of charge and ensure replacement products are available as needed. Correctional staff should be allowed to carry hand sanitizer with alcohol on their person, and residents should be allowed to use hand sanitizer with alcohol when they 5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 6 of 19
are in locations or activities where hand washing is not available. i. Inmates should be permitted access to cleaning supplies so they may clean their
individual cells. This will both keep cells cleaner, and also stem panic amongst the incarcerated population. f. Access to treatment. It is critical that inmates have rapid access to responsive medical treatment. Those with a cough should be provided masks as soon as they inform staff of this symptom or staff notice this symptom. 17. The measures I propose above are baseline steps to help slow the spread of COVID-19 in all facilities. However, each correctional facility has its own unique combination of physical structure and layout, operations, policies, logistics, inmate characteristics, and staffing factors that determine what additional measures may be necessary to minimize the spread of COVID-19. Only a public health expert who is able to review a particular facility firsthand can account for all of those factors and provide a meaningful and facility-specific opinion about what additional measures are necessary to reduce the risk of transmission. 18. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on March 29, 2020.
Marc Stern, MD MPH
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 7 of 19
EXHIBIT A
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 8 of 19

MARC F. STERN, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.P.

March, 2020

marcstern@live.com +1 (360) 701–6520

SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE

CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE CONSULTANT

2009 – PRESENT

Consultant in the design, management, and operation of health services in a correctional setting to assist in evaluating, monitoring, or providing evidence-based, cost-effective care consistent with constitutional mandates of quality.

Current activities include: • COVID-19 Medical Advisor, National Sheriffs Association (2020 - )
• Advisor to various jails in Washington State on patient safety, health systems, and related health care and custody staff activities and operations, and RFP and contract generation (2014 - )
• Consultant to the US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section. Providing investigative support and expert medical services pursuant to complaints regarding care delivered in any US jail, prison, or detention facility. (2010 - ) (no current open cases)
• Physician prescriber/trainer for administration of naloxone by law enforcement officers for the Olympia, Tumwater, Lacey, Yelm, and Evergreen College Police Departments (2017 - )
• Consultant to the Civil Rights Enforcement Section, Office of the Attorney General of California, under SB 29, to review the healthcare-related conditions of confinement of detainees confined by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in California facilities (2017 - )
• Rule 706 Expert to the Court, US District Court for the District of Arizona, in the matter of Parsons v. Ryan (2018 - )

Previous activities include: • Consultant to Human Rights Watch to evaluate medical care of immigrants in Homeland Security detention (2016 -
2018)
• Consultant to Broward County Sheriff to help develop and evaluate responses to a request for proposals (2017 2018)
• Member of monitoring team (medical expert) pursuant to Consent Agreement between US Department of Justice and Miami-Dade County (Unites States of America v Miami-Dade County, et al.) regarding, entre outre, unconstitutional medical care. (2013 - 2016)
• Jointly appointed Consultant to the parties in Flynn v Walker (formerly Flynn v Doyle), a class action lawsuit before the US Federal District Court (Eastern District of Wisconsin) regarding Eighth Amendment violations of the health care provided to women at the Taycheedah Correctional Institute. Responsible for monitoring compliance with the medical component of the settlement. (2010 - 2015)
• Consultant on “Drug-related Death after Prison Release,” a research grant continuing work with Dr. Ingrid Binswanger, University of Colorado, Denver, examining the causes of, and methods of reducing deaths after release from prison to the community. National Institutes of Health Grant R21 DA031041-01. (2011 - 2016)
• Consultant to the US Department of Homeland Security, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Providing investigative support and expert medical services pursuant to complaints regarding care received by immigration detainees in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2009 - 2014)
• Special Master for the US Federal District Court (District of Idaho) in Balla v Idaho State Board of Correction, et al., a class action lawsuit alleging Eighth Amendment violations in provision of health care at the Idaho State Correctional Institution. (2011 - 2012)
• Facilitator/Consultant to the US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, providing assistance and input for the development of the first National Survey of Prisoner Health. (2010-2011 )
• Project lead and primary author of National Institute of Corrections’ project entitled “Correctional Health Care Executive Curriculum Development,” in collaboration with National Commission on Correctional Health Care. NIC commissioned this curriculum for its use to train executive leaders from jails and prisons across the nation to better manage the health care missions of their facilities. Cooperative Agreement 11AD11GK18, US Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. (2011 - 2015 )

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 9 of 19

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 2

• Co-teacher, with Jaye Anno, Ph.D., for the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, of the Commission’s standing course, An In-Depth Look at NCCHC’s 2008 Standards for Health Services in Prisons and Jails taught at its national meetings. (2010 - 2013)
• Contributor to 2014 Editions of Standards for Health Services in Jails and Standards for Health Services in Prisons, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (2013)
• Consultant to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation court-appointed Receiver for medical operations. Projects included: o Assessing the Receiver’s progress in completing its goal of bringing medical care delivered in the Department to a constitutionally mandated level. (2009) o Providing physician leadership to the Telemedicine Program Manager tasked with improving and expanding the statewide use of telemedicine. (2009)
• Conceived, co-designed, led, and instructed in American College of Correctional Physicians and National Commission on Correctional Health Care’s Medical Directors Boot Camp (now called Leadership Institute), a national training program for new (Track “101”) and more experienced (Track “201”) prison and jail medical directors. (2009 - 2012)
• Participated as a member of a nine-person Delphi expert consensus panel convened by Rand Corporation to create a set of correctional health care quality standards. (2009)
• Convened a coalition of jails, Federally Qualified Health Centers, and community mental health centers in ten counties in Washington State to apply for a federal grant to create an electronic network among the participants that will share prescription information for the correctional population as they move among these three venues. (2009 2010)
• Participated as a clinical expert in comprehensive assessment of Michigan Department of Corrections as part of a team from the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (2007)
• Provided consultation to Correctional Medical Services, Inc., St. Louis (now Corizon), on issues related to development of an electronic health record. (2001)
• Reviewed cases of possible professional misconduct for the Office of Professional Medical Conduct of the New York State Department of Health. (1999 – 2001)
• Advised Deputy Commissioner, Indiana State Board of Health, on developing plan to reduce morbidity from chronic diseases using available databases. (1992)
• Provided consultation to Division of General Medicine, University of Nevada at Reno, to help develop a new clinical practice site combining a faculty practice and a supervised resident clinic. (1991)

OLYMPIA BUPRENORPHINE CLINIC, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON

2019 - PRESENT

Volunteer practitioner at a low-barrier clinic to providing Medication Assisted Treatment (buprenorphine) to opioid dependent individuals wishing to begin treatment, until they can transition to a long-term treatment provider

OLYMPIA FREE CLINIC, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON

2017 - PRESENT

Volunteer practitioner providing episodic care at a neighborhood clinic which provides free care to individuals without health insurance until they can find a permanent medical home

OLYMPIA UNION GOSPEL MISSION CLINIC, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON

2009 – 2014

Volunteer practitioner providing primary care at a neighborhood clinic which provides free care to individuals without health insurance until they can find a permanent medical home; my own patient panel within the practice focuses on individuals recently released jail and prison.

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

2002 – 2008

Assistant Secretary for Health Services/Health Services Director, 2005 – 2008 Associate Deputy Secretary for Health Care, 2002 – 2005

Responsible for the medical, mental health, chemical dependency (transiently), and dental care of 15,000 offenders in total confinement. Oversaw an annual operating budget of $110 million and 700 health care staff.

• As the first incumbent ever in this position, ushered the health services division from an operation of 12 staff in headquarters, providing only consultative services to the Department, to an operation with direct authority and

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 10 of 19

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 3

responsibility for all departmental health care staff and budget. As part of new organizational structure, created and filled statewide positions of Directors of Nursing, Medicine, Dental, Behavioral Health, Mental Health, Psychiatry, Pharmacy, Operations, and Utilization Management.
• Significantly changed the culture of the practice of correctional health care and the morale of staff by a variety of structural and functional changes, including: ensuring that high ethical standards and excellence in clinical practice were of primordial importance during hiring of professional and supervisory staff; supporting disciplining or career counseling of existing staff where appropriate; implementing an organizational structure such that patient care decisions were under the final direct authority of a clinician and were designed to ensure that patient needs were met, while respecting and operating within the confines of a custodial system.
• Improved quality of care by centralizing and standardizing health care operations, including: authoring a new Offender Health Plan defining patient benefits based on the Eighth Amendment, case law, and evidence-based medicine; implementing a novel system of utilization management in medical, dental, and mental health, using the medical staffs as real-time peer reviewers; developing a pharmacy procedures manual and creating a Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee; achieving initial American Correctional Association accreditation for 13 facilities (all with almost perfect scores on first audit); migrating the eight individual pharmacy databases to a single central database.
• Blunted the growth in health care spending without compromising quality of care by a number of interventions, including: better coordination and centralization of contracting with external vendors, including new statewide contracts for hospitalization, laboratory, drug purchasing, radiology, physician recruitment, and agency nursing; implementing a statewide formulary; issuing quarterly operational reports at the state and facility levels.
• Piloted the following projects: direct issuance of over-the-counter medications on demand through inmates stores (commissary), obviating the need for a practitioner visit and prescription; computerized practitioner order entry (CPOE); pill splitting; ER telemedicine.
• Oversaw the health services team that participated variously in pre-design, design, or build phases of five capital projects to build complete new health units.

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

2001 – 2002

Regional Medical Director, Northeast Region, 2001 – 2002

Responsible for clinical oversight of medical services for 14,000 offenders in 14 prisons, including one (already) under court monitoring.

• Oversaw contract with vendor to manage 60-bed regional infirmary and hospice.

• Coordinated activities among the Regional Medical Unit outpatient clinic, the Albany Medical College, and the 13 feeder prisons to provide most of the specialty care for the region.

• Worked with contracting specialists and Emergency Departments to improve access and decrease medical out-trips by increasing the proportion of scheduled and emergency services provided by telemedicine.

• Provided training, advice, and counseling to practitioners and facility health administrators in the region to improve the quality of care delivered.

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. (now CORIZON)

2000 – 2001

Regional Medical Director, New York Region, 2000 – 2001

Responsible for clinical management of managed care contract with New York State Department of Correctional Services to provide utilization management services for the northeast and northern regions of New York State and supervision of the 60-bed regional infirmary and hospice.

• Migrated the utilization approval function from one of an anonymous rule-based “black box” to a collaborative evidence-based decision making process between the vendor and front-line clinicians.

MERCY INTERNAL MEDICINE, ALBANY, NEW YORK Neighborhood three-physician internal medicine group practice. Primary Care Physician, 1999 – 2000 (6 months) Provided direct primary care to a panel of community patients during a period of staff shortage.

1999 – 2000

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 11 of 19

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 4

ALBANY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ALBANY, NEW YORK

1998 – 1999

Acting Facility Medical Director, 1998 – 1999

Directed the medical staff of an 800 bed jail and provided direct patient care following the sudden loss of the Medical Director, pending hiring of a permanent replacement. Coordinated care of jail patients in local hospitals. Provided consultation to the Superintendent on improvements to operation and staffing of medical unit and need for privatization.

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, ALBANY, NY

1992 – 1998

Assistant Chief, Medical Service, 1995 – 1998 Chief, Section of General Internal Medicine and Emergency Services, 1992 – 1998
Responsible for operation of the general internal medicine clinics and the Emergency Department.
• Designed and implemented an organizational and physical plant makeover of the general medicine ambulatory care clinic from an episodic-care driven model with practitioners functioning independently supported by minimal nursing involvement, to a continuity-of-care model with integrated physician/mid-level practitioner/registered nurse/licensed practice nurse/practice manager teams.
• Led the design and opening of a new Emergency Department.
• As the VA Section Chief of Albany Medical College’s Division of General Internal Medicine, coordinated academic activities of the Division at the VA, including oversight of, and direct teaching in, ambulatory care and inpatient internal medicine rotations for medical students, residents, and fellows. Incorporated medical residents as part of the general internal medicine clinics. Awarded $786,000 Veterans Administration grant (“PRIME I”) over four years for development and operation of educational programs for medicine residents and students in allied health professions (management, pharmacy, social work, physician extenders) wishing to study primary care delivery.

ERIE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, BUFFALO, NY

1988 – 1990

Director of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Services, 1989 – 1990 Staff Physician, STD Clinic, 1988 – 1989 Staff Physician, Lackawanna Community Health Center, 1988 – 1990
Provided leadership and patient care services in the evaluation and treatment of STDs. Successfully reorganized the county’s STD services which were suffering from mismanagement and were under public scrutiny. Provided direct patient care services in primary care clinic for underserved neighborhood.

UNION OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTER, BUFFALO, NY Staff Physician, 1988 – 1990 Provided direct patient care for the evaluation of occupationally-related health disorders.

1988 – 1990

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, BUFFALO, NY

1985 – 1990

Chief Outpatient Medical Section and Primary Care Clinic, 1986 – 1988 VA Section Head, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Buffalo, 1986 – 1988
• Developed and implemented a major restructuring of the general medicine ambulatory care clinic to reduce fragmentation of care by introduction of a continuity-of-care model with a physician/nurse team approach.

Medical Director, Anticoagulation Clinic 1986 – 1990 Staff Physician, Emergency Department, 1985 – 1986

FACULTY APPOINTMENTS
2007 – present Affiliate Assistant Professor, Department of Health Services, School of Public Health, University of Washington
1999 – present Clinical Professor, Fellowship in Applied Public Health (previously Volunteer Faculty, Preventive Medicine Residency), University at Albany School of Public Health
1996 – 2002 Volunteer Faculty, Office of the Dean of Students, University at Albany 1992 – 2002 Associate Clinical/Associate/Assistant Professor of Medicine, Albany Medical College

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 12 of 19

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 5

1993 – 1997 1990 – 1992 1985 – 1990 1982 – 1985

Clinical Associate Faculty, Graduate Program in Nursing, Sage Graduate School Instructor of Medicine, Indiana University Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Buffalo Clinical Assistant Instructor of Medicine, University of Buffalo

2016 – present 2016 – present 2016 – 2017 2013 – present 2013 – 2016
2013 – present 2011 – 2012 2007 – present 2004 – 2006
2004 2003 – present
2001 – present 1999 – present
1999
1997 – 1998 1996 – 2002 1996 – 2002 1995 – 1998 1995
1994 – 1998
1993 1993
1988 – 1989
1987 – 1990 1987 – 1989
1987 – 1988 1987 1986 – 1988 1986 – 1988
1979 – 1980 1973 – 1975

OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Chair, Education Committee, Academic Consortium on Criminal Justice Health Washington State Institutional Review Board (“Prisoner Advocate” member) Mortality Reduction Workgroup, American Jail Association Conference Planning Committee – Medical/Mental Health Track, American Jail Association “Health in Prisons” course, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University/International Committee of the Red Cross Institutional Review Board, University of Washington (“Prisoner Advocate” member), Education Committee, National Commission on Correctional Health Care National Advisory Committee, COCHS (Community–Oriented Correctional Health Services) Fellow’s Advisory Committee, University of Washington Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar
Program External Expert Panel to the Surgeon General on the “Call to Action on Correctional Health Care” Faculty Instructor, Critical Appraisal of the Literature Course, Family Practice Residency Program,
Providence St. Peter Hospital, Olympia, Washington Chair/Co-Chair, Education Committee, American College of Correctional Physicians Critical Appraisal of the Literature Course, Preventive Medicine Residency Program, New York State
Department of Health/University at Albany School of Public Health Co–Chairperson, Education Subcommittee, Workshop Submission Review Committee, Annual
Meeting, Society of General Internal Medicine Northeast US Representative, National Association of VA Ambulatory Managers Faculty Mentor, Journal Club, Internal Medicine Residency Program, Albany Medical College Faculty Advisor and Medical Control, 5 Quad Volunteer Ambulance Service, University at Albany Preceptor, MBA Internship, Union College Quality Assurance/Patient Satisfaction Subcommittee, VA National Curriculum Development
Committee for Implementation of Primary Care Practices, Veterans Administration Residency Advisory Committee, Preventive Medicine Residency, New York State Department of
Health/School of Public Health, University at Albany Chairperson, Dean's Task Force on Primary Care, Albany Medical College Task Group to develop curriculum for Comprehensive Care Case Study Course for Years 1 through 4,
Albany Medical College Teaching Effectiveness Program for New Housestaff, Graduate Medical Dental Education Consortium
of Buffalo Human Studies Review Committee, School of Allied Health Professions, University of Buffalo Chairman, Subcommittee on Hospital Management Issues and Member, Subcommittee on
Teaching of Ad Hoc Committee to Plan Incoming Residents Training Week, Graduate Medical Dental Education Consortium of Buffalo Dean's Ad Hoc Committee to Reorganize "Introduction to Clinical Medicine" Course Preceptor, Nurse Practitioner Training Program, School of Nursing, University of Buffalo Course Coordinator, Simulation Models Section of Physical Diagnosis Course, University of Buffalo Chairman, Service Chiefs' Continuity of Care Task Force, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Buffalo, New York Laboratory Teaching Assistant in Gross Anatomy, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium Instructor and Instructor Trainer of First Aid, American National Red Cross

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 13 of 19

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 6

1972 – 1975 1972 – 1975

Chief of Service or Assistant Chief of Operations, 5 Quad Volunteer Ambulance Service, University at Albany.
Emergency Medical Technician Instructor and Course Coordinator, New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services

2019 – present 2015 – present 2015 – present
2011 – present 2010 – present 2010 – present 2001 – present 2001 – 2004 1996
1990 – 1992

REVIEWER/EDITOR Criminal Justice Review (reviewer) PLOS ONE (reviewer) Founding Editorial Board Member and Reviewer, Journal for Evidence-based Practice in Correctional Health, Center for Correctional Health Networks, University of Connecticut American Journal of Public Health (reviewer) International Advisory Board Member and Reviewer, International Journal of Prison Health Langeloth Foundation (grant reviewer) Reviewer and Editorial Board Member (2009 – present), Journal of Correctional Health Care Journal of General Internal Medicine (reviewer) Abstract Committee, Health Services Research Subcommittee, Annual Meeting, Society of General Internal Medicine (reviewer) Medical Care (reviewer)

EDUCATION
University at Albany, College of Arts and Sciences, Albany; B.S., 1975 (Biology) University at Albany, School of Education, Albany; AMST (Albany Math and Science Teachers) Teacher Education
Program, 1975 Université Libre de Bruxelles, Faculté de Medecine, Brussels, Belgium; Candidature en Sciences Medicales, 1980 University at Buffalo, School of Medicine, Buffalo; M.D., 1982 University at Buffalo Affiliated Hospitals, Buffalo; Residency in Internal Medicine, 1985 Regenstrief Institute of Indiana University, and Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Administration Medical Center; VA/NIH
Fellowship in Primary Care Medicine and Health Services Research, 1992 Indiana University, School of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Bloomington; M.P.H., 1992 New York Academy of Medicine, New York; Mini-fellowship Teaching Evidence-Based Medicine, 1999

CERTIFICATION
Provisional Teaching Certification for Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Grades 7–12, New York State Department of Education (expired), 1975
Diplomate, National Board of Medical Examiners, 1983 Diplomate, American Board of Internal Medicine, 1985 Fellow, American College of Physicians, 1991 License: Washington (#MD00041843, active); New York (#158327, inactive); Indiana (#01038490, inactive) “X” Waiver (buprenorphine), Department of Health & Human Services, 2018

2019 – present 2005 – 2016 2004 – 2006
2000 – present

MEMBERSHIPS Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs American Correctional Association/Washington Correctional Association American College of Correctional Physicians (Member, Board of Directors, Chair Education Committee) American College of Correctional Physicians

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 14 of 19

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 7

RECOGNITION B. Jaye Anno Award for Excellence in Communication, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. 2019 Award of Appreciation, Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. 2018 Armond Start Award of Excellence, American College of Correctional Physicians. 2010 (First) Annual Preventive Medicine Faculty Excellence Award, New York State Preventive Medicine Residency Program, University at Albany School of Public Health/New York State Department of Health. 2010 Excellence in Education Award for excellence in clinical teaching, Family Practice Residency Program, Providence St. Peter Hospital, Olympia, Washington. 2004 Special Recognition for High Quality Workshop Presentation at Annual Meeting, Society of General Internal Medicine. 1996 Letter of Commendation, House Staff Teaching, University of Buffalo. 1986
WORKSHOPS, SEMINARS, PRESENTATIONS, INVITED LECTURES
It’s the 21st Century – Time to Bid Farewell to “Sick Call” and “Chronic Care Clinic”. Annual Conference, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 2019
HIV and Ethics – Navigating Medical Ethical Dilemmas in Corrections. Keynote Speech, 14th Annual HIV Care in the Correctional Setting. AIDS Education and Training Program (AETC) Mountain West, Olympia, Washington. 2019
Honing Nursing Skills to Keep Patients Safe in Jail. Orange County Jail Special Training Session (including San Bernardino and San Diego Jail Staffs), Theo Lacy Jail, Orange, California. 2019
What Would You Do? Navigating Medical Ethical Dilemmas. Leadership Training Academy, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. San Diego, California. 2019
Preventing Jail Deaths. Jail Death Review and Investigations: Best Practices Training Program, American Jail Association, Arlington, Virginia. 2018
How to Investigate Jail Deaths. Jail Death Review and Investigations: Best Practices Training Program, American Jail Association, Arlington, Virginia. 2018
Executive Manager Program in Correctional Health. 4-day training for custody/health care teams from jails and prisons on designing safe and efficient health care systems. National Institute for Corrections Training Facility, Aurora, Colorado, and other venues in Washington State. Periodically. 2014 – present
Medical Ethics in Corrections. Criminal Justice 441 – Professionalism and Ethical Issues in Criminal Justice. University of Washington, Tacoma. Recurring seminar. 2012 – present
Medical Aspects of Deaths in ICE Custody. Briefing for U.S. Senate staffers, Human Rights Watch. Washington, D.C. 2018
Jails’ Role in Managing the Opioid Epidemic. Panelist. Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs Annual Conference. Spokane, Washington. 2018
Contract Prisons and Contract Health Care: What Do We Know? Behind Bars: Ethics and Human Rights in U.S. Prisons Conference. Center for Bioethics – Harvard Medical School/Human Rights Program – Harvard Law School. Boston, Massachusetts. 2017
Health Care Workers in Prisons. (With Dr. J. Wesley Boyd) Behind Bars: Ethics and Human Rights in U.S. Prisons Conference. Center for Bioethics – Harvard Medical School/Human Rights Program – Harvard Law School. Boston, Massachusetts. 2017
Prisons, Jails and Medical Ethics: Rubber, Meet Road. Grand Rounds. Touro Medical College. New York, New York. 2017
Jail Medical Doesn’t Have to Keep You Up at Night – National Standards, Risks, and Remedies. Washington Association of Counties. SeaTac, Washington. 2017
Prison and Jail Health Care: What do you need to know? Grand Rounds. Providence/St. Peters Medical Center. Olympia, Washington. 2017
Prison Health Leadership Conference. 2-Day workshop. International Corrections and Prisons Association/African Correctional Services Association/Namibian Corrections Service. Omaruru, Namibia. 2016; 2018

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 15 of 19

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 8

What Would YOU Do? Navigating Medical Ethical Dilemmas. Spring Conference. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Nashville, Tennessee. 2016
Improving Patient Safety. Spring Provider Meeting. Oregon Department of Corrections. Salem, Oregon 2016
A View from the Inside: The Challenges and Opportunities Conducting Cardiovascular Research in Jails and Prisons. Workshop on Cardiovascular Diseases in the Inmate and Released Prison Population. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Bethesda, Maryland. 2016
Why it Matters: Advocacy and Policies to Support Health Communities after Incarceration. At the Nexus of Correctional Health and Public Health: Policies and Practice session. Panelist. American Public Health Association Annual Meeting. Chicago, Illinois. 2015
Hot Topics in Correctional Health Care. Presented with Dr. Donald Kern. American Jail Association Annual Meeting. Charlotte, North Carolina. 2015
Turning Sick Call Upside Down. Annual Conference. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Dallas, Texas, 2015.
Diagnostic Maneuvers You May Have Missed in Nursing School. Annual Conference. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Dallas, Texas. 2015
The Challenges of Hunger Strikes: What Should We Do? What Shouldn’t We Do? Annual Conference. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Dallas, Texas. 2015
Practical and Ethical Approaches to Managing Hunger Strikes. Annual Practitioners’ Conference. Washington Department of Corrections. Tacoma, Washington. 2015
Contracting for Health Services: Should I, and if so, how? American Jail Association Annual Meeting. Dallas, Texas. 2014
Hunger Strikes: What should the Society of Correctional Physician’s position be? With Allen S, May J, Ritter S. American College of Correctional Physicians (Formerly Society of Correctional Physicians) Annual Meeting. Nashville, Tennessee. 2013
Addressing Conflict between Medical and Security: an Ethics Perspective. International Corrections and Prison Association Annual Meeting. Colorado Springs, Colorado. 2013
Patient Safety and ‘Right Using’ Nurses. Keynote address. Annual Conference. American Correctional Health Services Association. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2013
Patient Safety: Overuse, underuse, and misuse…of nurses. Keynote address. Essentials of Correctional Health Care conference. Salt Lake City, Utah. 2012
The ethics of providing healthcare to prisoners-An International Perspective. Global Health Seminar Series. Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 2012
Recovery, Not Recidivism: Strategies for Helping People Who are Incarcerated. Panelist. NAMI Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington, 2012
Ethics and HIV Workshop. HIV/AIDS Care in the Correctional Setting Conference, Northwest AIDS Education and Training Center. Salem, Oregon. 2011
Ethics and HIV Workshop. HIV/AIDS Care in the Correctional Setting Conference, Northwest AIDS Education and Training Center. Spokane, Washington. 2011
Patient Safety: Raising the Bar in Correctional Health Care. With Dr. Sharen Barboza. National Commission on Correctional Health Care Mid-Year Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee. 2010
Patient Safety: Raising the Bar in Correctional Health Care. American Correctional Health Services Association, Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon. 2010
Achieving Quality Care in a Tough Economy. National Commission on Correctional Health Care Mid-Year Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, 2010 (Co-presented with Rick Morse and Helena Kim, PharmD.)
Involuntary Psychotropic Administration: The Harper Solution. With Dr. Bruce Gage. American Correctional Health Services Association, Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon. 2010
Evidence Based Decision Making for Non-Clinical Correctional Administrators. American Correctional Association 139th Congress, Nashville, Tennessee. 2009
Death Penalty Debate. Panelist. Seattle University School of Law, Seattle, Washington. 2009

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 16 of 19

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 9

The Patient Handoff – From Custody to the Community. Washington Free Clinic Association, Annual Meeting, Olympia, Washington. Lacey, Washington. 2009
Balancing Patient Advocacy with Fiscal Restraint and Patient Litigation. National Commission on Correctional Health Care and American College of Correctional Physicians “Medical Directors Boot Camp,” Seattle, Washington. 2009
Staff Management. National Commission on Correctional Health Care and American College of Correctional Physicians “Medical Directors Boot Camp,” Seattle, Washington. 2009
Management Dilemmas in Corrections: Boots and Bottom Bunks. Annual Meeting, American College of Correctional Physicians, Chicago, Illinois. 2008
Public Health and Correctional Health Care. Masters Program in community–based population focused management – Populations at risk, Washington State University, Spokane, Washington. 2008
Managing the Geriatric Population. Panelist. State Medical Directors’ Meeting, American Corrections Association, Alexandria, Virginia. 2007
I Want to do my own Skin Biopsies. Annual Meeting, American College of Correctional Physicians, New Orleans, Louisiana. 2005
Corrections Quick Topics. Annual Meeting, American College of Correctional Physicians. Austin, Texas. 2003
Evidence Based Medicine in Correctional Health Care. Annual Meeting, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Austin, Texas. 2003
Evidence Based Medicine. Excellence at Work Conference, Empire State Advantage. Albany, New York. 2002
Evidence Based Medicine, Outcomes Research, and Health Care Organizations. National Clinical Advisory Group, Integrail, Inc., Albany, New York. 2002
Evidence Based Medicine. With Dr. LK Hohmann. The Empire State Advantage, Annual Excellence at Work Conference: Leading and Managing for Organizational Excellence, Albany, New York. 2002
Taking the Mystery out of Evidence Based Medicine: Providing Useful Answers for Clinicians and Patients. Breakfast Series, Institute for the Advancement of Health Care Management, School of Business, University at Albany, Albany, New York. 2001
Diagnosis and Management of Male Erectile Dysfunction – A Goal–Oriented Approach. Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, San Francisco, California. 1999
Study Design and Critical Appraisal of the Literature. Graduate Medical Education Lecture Series for all housestaff, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York. 1999 Male Impotence: Its Diagnosis and Treatment in the Era of Sildenafil. 4th Annual CME Day, Alumni Association of the Albany–Hudson Valley Physician Assistant Program, Albany, New York. 1998
Models For Measuring Physician Productivity. Panelist. National Association of VA Ambulatory Managers National Meeting, Memphis, Tennessee. 1997
Introduction to Male Erectile Dysfunction and the Role of Sildenafil in Treatment. Northeast Regional Meeting Pfizer Sales Representatives, Manchester Center, Vermont. 1997
Male Erectile Dysfunction. Topics in Urology, A Seminar for Primary Healthcare Providers, Bassett Healthcare, Cooperstown, New York. 1997
Evaluation and Treatment of the Patient with Impotence: A Practical Primer for General Internists. Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, Washington D.C. 1996
Impotence: An Update. Department of Medicine Grand Rounds, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York. 1996
Diabetes for the EMT First–Responder. Five Quad Volunteer Ambulance, University at Albany. Albany, New York. 1996
Impotence: An Approach for Internists. Medicine Grand Rounds, St. Mary's Hospital, Rochester, New York. 1994
Male Impotence. Common Problems in Primary Care Precourse. American College of Physicians National Meeting, Miami, Florida. 1994
Patient Motivation: A Key to Success. Tuberculosis and HIV: A Time for Teamwork. AIDS Program, Bureau of Tuberculosis Control – New York State Department of Health and Albany Medical College, Albany, New York. 1994

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 17 of 19

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 10

Recognizing and Treating Impotence. Department of Medicine Grand Rounds, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York. 1992
Medical Decision Making: A Primer on Decision Analysis. Faculty Research Seminar, Department of Family Practice, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1992
Effective Presentation of Public Health Data. Bureau of Communicable Diseases, Indiana State Board of Health, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1991
Impotence: An Approach for Internists. Housestaff Conference, Department of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1991
Using Electronic Databases to Search the Medical Literature. NIH/VA Fellows Program, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1991
Study Designs Used in Epidemiology. Ambulatory Care Block Rotation. Department of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1991
Effective Use of Slides in a Short Scientific Presentation. Housestaff Conference, Department of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1991
Impotence: A Rational and Practical Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment for the General Internist. Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, Washington D.C. 1991
Nirvana and Audio–Visual Aids. With Dr. RM Lubitz. Society of General Internal Medicine, Midwest Regional Meeting, Chicago. 1991
New Perspectives in the Management of Hypercholesterolemia. Medical Staff, West Seneca Developmental Center, West Seneca, New York. 1989
Effective Use of Audio–Visual Aids. Nurse Educators, American Diabetes Association, Western New York Chapter, Buffalo, New York. 1989
Management of Diabetics in the Custodial Care Setting. Medical Staff, West Seneca Developmental Center, West Seneca, New York, 1989
Effective Use of Audio–Visuals in Diabetes Peer and Patient Education. American Association of Diabetic Educators, Western New York Chapter, Buffalo, New York. 1989
Pathophysiology, Diagnosis and Care of Diabetes. Nurse Practitioner Training Program, School of Nursing, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. 1989
Techniques of Large Group Presentations to Medical Audiences – Use of Audio–Visuals. New Housestaff Training Program, Graduate Medical Dental Education Consortium of Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. 1988

PUBLICATIONS/ABSTRACTS
Borschmann, R, Tibble, H, Spittal, MJ, … Stern, MF, Viner, KM, Wang, N, Willoughby, M, Zhao, B, and Kinner, SA. The Mortality After Release from Incarceration Consortium (MARIC): Protocolfor a multi-national, individual participant data meta-analysis. Int. J of Population Data Science 2019 5(1):6
Binswanger IA, Maruschak LM, Mueller SR, Stern MF, Kinner SA. Principles to Guide National Data Collection on the Health of Persons in the Criminal Justice System. Public Health Reports 2019 134(1):34S-45S
Stern M. Hunger Strike: The Inside Medicine Scoop. American Jails 2018 32(4):17-21
Grande L, Stern M. Providing Medication to Treat Opioid Use Disorder in Washington State Jails. Study conducted for Washington State Department of Social and Health Services under Contract 1731-18409. 2018.
Stern MF, Newlin N. Epicenter of the Epidemic: Opioids and Jails. American Jails 2018 32(2):16-18
Stern MF. A nurse is a nurse is a nurse…NOT! Guest Editorial, American Jails 2018 32(2):4,68
Wang EA, Redmond N, Dennison Himmelfarb CR, Pettit B, Stern M, Chen J, Shero S, Iturriaga E, Sorlie P, Diez Roux AV. Cardiovascular Disease in Incarcerated Populations. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2017 69(24):2967-76
Mitchell A, Reichberg T, Randall J, Aziz-Bose R, Ferguson W, Stern M. Criminal Justice Health Digital Curriculum. Poster, Annual Academic and Health Policy Conference on Correctional Health, Atlanta, Georgia, March, 2017

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 18 of 19

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 11

Stern MF. Patient Safety (White Paper). Guidelines, Management Tools, White Papers, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. http://www.ncchc.org/filebin/Resources/Patient-Safety-2016.pdf. June, 2016
Binswanger IA, Stern MF, Yamashita TE, Mueller SR, Baggett TP, Blatchford PJ. Clinical risk factors for death after release from prison in Washington State: a nested case control study. Addiction 2015 Oct 17
Stern MF. Op-Ed on Lethal Injections. The Guardian 2014 Aug 6
Stern MF. American College of Correctional Physicians Calls for Caution Placing Mentally Ill in Segregation: An Important Band-Aid. Guest Editorial. Journal of Correctional Health Care 2014 Apr; 20(2):92-94
Binswanger I, Blatchford PJ, Mueller SR, Stern MF. Mortality After Prison Release: Opioid Overdose and Other Causes of Death, Risk Factors, and Time Trends From 1999 to 2009. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013 Nov; 159(9):592-600
Williams B, Stern MF, Mellow J, Safer M, Greifinger RB. Aging in Correctional Custody: Setting a policy agenda for older prisoner health care. American Journal of Public Health 2012 Aug; 102(8):1475-1481
Binswanger I, Blatchford PJ, Yamashita TE, Stern MF. Drug-Related Risk Factors for Death after Release from Prison: A Nested Case Control Study. Oral Presentation, University of Massachusetts 4th Annual Academic and Health Policy Conference on Correctional Healthcare, Boston, Massachusetts, March, 2011
Binswanger I, Blatchford PJ, Forsyth S, Stern MF, Kinner SA. Death Related to Infectious Disease in Ex-Prisoners: An International Comparative Study. Oral Presentation, University of Massachusetts 4th Annual Academic and Health Policy Conference on Correctional Healthcare, Boston, Massachusetts, March, 2011
Binswanger I, Lindsay R, Stern MF, Blatchford P. Risk Factors for All-Cause, Overdose and Early Deaths after Release from Prison in Washington State Drug and Alcohol Dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence Aug 1 2011;117(1):1-6
Stern MF, Greifinger RB, Mellow J. Patient Safety: Moving the Bar in Prison Health Care Standards. American Journal of Public Health November 2010;100(11):2103-2110
Strick LB, Saucerman G, Schlatter C, Newsom L, Stern MF. Implementation of Opt-Out HIV testing in the Washington State Department of Corrections. Poster Presentation, National Commission on Correctional Health Care Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, October, 2009
Binswanger IA, Blatchford P, Stern MF. Risk Factors for Death After Release from Prison. Society for General Internal Medicine 32nd Annual Meeting; Miami: Journal of General Internal Medicine; April 2009. p. S164-S95
Stern MF. Force Feeding for Hunger Strikes – One More Step. CorrDocs Winter 2009;12(1):2
Binswanger I, Stern MF, Deyo RA, Heagerty PJ, Cheadle A, Elmore JG, Koepsell TD. Release from Prison – A High Risk of Death for Former Inmates. New England Journal of Medicine 2007 Jan 11;356(2):157–165
Stern MF, Hilliard T, Kelm C, Anderson E. Epidemiology of Hepatitis C Infection in the Washington State Department of Corrections. Poster Presentation, CDC/NIH ad hoc Conference on Management of Hepatitis C in Prisons, San Antonio, Texas, January, 2003
Phelps KR, Stern M, Slingerland A, Heravi M, Strogatz DS, Haqqie SS. Metabolic and skeletal effects of low and high doses of calcium acetate in patients with preterminal chronic renal failure. Am J Nephrol 2002 Sep–Dec;22(5–6):445–54
Goldberg L, Stern MF, Posner DS. Comparative Epidemiology of Erectile Dysfunction in Gay Men. Oral Presentation, International Society for Impotence Research Meeting, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, August 1998. Int J Impot Res. 1998;10(S3):S41 [also presented as oral abstract Annual Meeting, Society for the Study of Impotence, Boston, Massachusetts, October, 1999. Int J Impot Res. 1999;10(S1):S65]
Stern MF. Erectile Dysfunction in Older Men. Topics in Geriatric Rehab 12(4):40–52, 1997. [republished in Geriatric Patient Education Resource Manual, Supplement. Aspen Reference Group, Eds. Aspen Publishers, Inc., 1998]
Stern MF, Wulfert E, Barada J, Mulchahy JJ, Korenman SG. An Outcomes–Oriented Approach to the Primary Care Evaluation and Management of Erectile Dysfunction. J Clin Outcomes Management 5(2):36–56, 1998
Fihn SD, Callahan CM, Martin D, et al.; for the National Consortium of Anticoagulation Clinics.* The Risk for and Severity of Bleeding Complications in Elderly Patients Treated with Warfarin. Ann Int Med. 1996;124:970–979
Fihn SD, McDonell M, Martin D, et al.; for the Warfarin Optimized Outpatient Follow–up Study Group.* Risk Factors for Complications of Chronic Anticoagulation. Ann Int Med. 1993;118:511–520. (*While involved in the original proposal development and project execution, I was no longer part of the group at the time of this publication)
Stern MF, Dittus RS, Birkhead G, Huber R, Schwartz J, Morse D. Cost–Effectiveness of Hepatitis B Immunization Strategies for High Risk People. Oral Presentation, Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, Washington, D.C., May 1992. Clin Res 1992

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 19 of 19

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 12

Fihn SD, McDonell MB, Vermes D, Martin D, Kent DL, Henikoff JG, and the Warfarin Outpatient Follow–up Study Group. Optimal Scheduling of Patients Taking Warfarin. A Multicenter Randomized Trial. Oral Presentation, Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, Washington, D.C., May 1992. Clin Res 1992
Fihn SD, McDonnell MB, Vermes D, Kent DL, Henikoff JG, and the Warfarin Anticoagulation Study Group. Risk Factors for Complications During Chronic Anticoagulation. Poster Presentation, Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, Seattle, May 1991
Pristach CA, Donoghue GD, Sarkin R, Wargula C, Doerr R, Opila D, Stern M, Single G. A Multidisciplinary Program to Improve the Teaching Skills of Incoming Housestaff. Acad Med. 1991;66(3):172–174
Stern MF. Diagnosing Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhea Infections. (letter) J Gen Intern Med. 1991;6:183
Stern MF, Fitzgerald JF, Dittus RS, Tierney WM, Overhage JM. Office Visits and Outcomes of Care: Does Frequency Matter? Poster Presentation, Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting, Seattle, May 1991. Clin Res 1991;39:610A
Stern MF. Cobalamin Deficiency and Red Blood Cell Volume Distribution Width. (letter) Arch Intern Med. 1990;150:910
Stern M, Steinbach B. Hypodermic Needle Embolization to the Heart. NY State J Med. 1990;90(7):368–371
Stern MF, Birkhead G, Huber R, Schwartz J, Morse D. Feasibility of Hepatitis B Immunization in an STD Clinic. Oral Presentation, American Public Health Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta, November 1990

EXPERT TESTIMONY Pajas v. County of Monterey, et al. US District Court for the Northern District of California, 2019 (trial) Dockery, et al. v. Hall et al. US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Northern Division, 2018 (trial) Benton v. Correct Care Solutions, et al. US District Court for the District of Maryland, 2018 (deposition) Pajas v. County of Monterey, et al. US District Court Northern District of California, 2018 (deposition) Walter v. Correctional Healthcare Companies, et al. US District Court, District of Colorado, 2017 (deposition) Winkler v. Madison County, Kentucky, et al. US District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division at Lexington, 2016 (deposition) US v. Miami-Dade County, et al. US District Court, Southern District of Florida, periodically 2014 - 2016

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 4

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12; DC 3/15) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
_______D_i_s_triDctisotfriCctoolufm__b_ia_______

Edwards Banks, D'Angelo Phillips, Keon Jackson,

)

and Eric Smith

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)
v.

)

) )

Civil Action No.

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity

)

as Director of the DOC and LENNARD JOHNSON, in

)

his official capacity as Warden

)

)

Defendant(s)

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address) Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia 441 4th Street NW, 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Steven Marcus
Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Ave, NW Washington, DC 20004

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

ANGELA D. CAESAR, CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 4

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12; DC 3/15) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
_______D_i_s_triDctisotfriCctoolufm__b_ia_______

Edwards Banks, D'Angelo Phillips, Keon Jackson,

)

and Eric Smith

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)
v.

)

) )

Civil Action No.

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity

)

as Director of the DOC and LENNARD JOHNSON, in

)

his official capacity as Warden

)

)

Defendant(s)

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address) QUINCY BOOTH 2000 14th Street NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20009

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Steven Marcus
Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Ave, NW Washington, DC 20004

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

ANGELA D. CAESAR, CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-4 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 1-4 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 2

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.
QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

No. 1:20-cv-849

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Local Rule 23.1, Plaintiffs move the

Court to certify this case as a class action and to appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel.

Defendants’ counsel has not yet been assigned and therefore cannot be asked about Defendants’

position on this motion. Plaintiffs assume the motion will be opposed.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs file this class action to challenge Defendants’ reckless and deliberately indifferent

treatment of the people in their custody and care at the D.C. Central Detention Facility and the

D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility (together, the “D.C. Jail” or the “Jail”), when confronted

with the life-threatening COVID-19 pandemic. As alleged in the complaint and demonstrated in

Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction,

Defendants are utterly failing to take measures necessary to prevent the Jail from becoming a death

trap for those confined there.

Plaintiffs’ proposed class consists of all persons confined or to be confined in the D.C.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 15
Department of Corrections (“DOC”) Central Detention Facility or Correctional Treatment Facility, including as subclasses: (i) persons confined pre-trial, and (ii) persons confined pursuant to a judgment of conviction. That class (along with each of its subclasses) satisfies all of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). First, the class members are numerous, consisting of more than 1,600 inmates and detainees, making joiner impracticable. Second, the class members share common questions of fact, as they are all subject to the same life-threatening conditions and practices. They also share common questions of law, including whether the Defendants’ conduct violates their rights under the Fifth or Eighth Amendments. Third, the class representatives are subject to the same conditions as all class members and therefore assert claims typical of those asserted by the class. Fourth, the class representatives and their experienced counsel will fairly and adequately protect class interests and will vigorously prosecute the action on behalf of the class.
Certification of Plaintiffs’ proposed class—and provisional certification, in conjunction with emergency relief—is warranted under both Rule 23(b)(1), because separate actions by class members would risk creating inconsistent outcomes and incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants, and under Rule 23(b)(2), because Defendants are acting in the same matter with respect to the class, such that a declaration and injunction with respect to the whole class is appropriate.
Class members’ claims are not dependent on the facts regarding their underlying (alleged or adjudicated) criminal conduct or on any other individualized determinations. The central question is whether Defendants’ actions and inactions fall below minimum constitutional standards. More than 1,600 inmates and detainees at the Jail are being or will be subjected to the consequences of those actions and inactions, and are or will be exposed to similar harms as a result.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 15
This Court should therefore certify the proposed class and appoint class counsel. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The relevant facts are set out in Plaintiffs’ complaint and in their application for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction and declarations in support thereof. Very briefly, COVID-19 poses a substantial threat to the health and the very lives of millions of Americans. Because it is highly infectious, “social distancing” and energetic sanitation practices are essential to preventing its exponential spread. Because people confined at the Jail are kept in close quarters with many others, and because sanitation practices at the Jail are inadequate to the point of uselessness, the Jail is a virtual petri dish for contagion. And the mortality rate for infected individuals is significant, perhaps as high as 3.4%. Absent immediate injunctive relief, being confined at the Jail will result in severe illness, permanent medical consequences, and even death for a significant number of class members.
LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 sets out the requirements for certification of a class action. See Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613–14 (1997); J.D. v. Azar, 925 F.3d 1291, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2019). First, Plaintiffs must satisfy the four Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 349 (2011) (“Rule 23(a) ensures that the named plaintiffs are appropriate representatives of the class whose claims they wish to litigate.”). Second, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the case meets the requirements of one of Rule 23(b)’s subsections. Rule 23(b)(1) requires a showing that “prosecuting separate actions by . . . individual class members would create a risk of . . . varying adjudications . . . that would establish incompatible standards of conduct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2); see Amchem, 521 U.S. at 614. Alternatively, Rule 23(b)(2) requires a showing that “the party
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 15
opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2); see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 564 U.S. at 360.
ARGUMENT Class actions regarding the treatment of individuals confined in District of Columbia correctional institutions are nothing new to this Court. See, e.g., Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (Lorton Central facility); John Doe v. District of Columbia, No. 79–1726, 1987 WL 13350 (D.D.C. June 30, 1987) (Lorton Maximum Security Institution); Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 717 F. Supp. 854 (D.D.C. 1989) (Occoquan facilities); Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F.2d 521 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (pretrial detainees at D.C. Jail); Inmates, D. C. Jail v. Jackson, 416 F. Supp. 119 (D.D.C. 1976) (post-trial inmates at D.C. Jail); Bynum v. District of Columbia, 214 F.R.D. 27 (D.D.C. 2003) (over-incarceration at D.C. Jail). This case equally qualifies for class action treatment, and requires certification and relief even more urgently. I. The Proposed Class Satisfies the Rule 23(a) Requirements. A. The Proposed Class Satisfies the Numerosity Requirement. The proposed class satisfies the requirement that a class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). This requirement “imposes no absolute limitations” and is determined on a case-by-case basis. Radosti v. Envision EMI, LLC, 717 F. Supp. 2d 37, 51 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Gen. Tele. Co. of the Nw., Inc. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 330 (1980)); see also Disability Rights Council of Greater Wash. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 239 F.R.D. 9, 25 (D.D.C. 2006) (“There is no specific threshold that must be surpassed in order to satisfy the numerosity requirement; rather, each decision turns on the particularized circumstances of the case.”). However, this Court has “generally found that the numerosity requirement is
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 5 of 15
satisfied . . . where a proposed class has at least forty members.” Radosti, 717 F. Supp. 2d at 51 (citing cases); In re APA Assessment Fee Litig., 311 F.R.D. 8, 14 (D.D.C. 2015). “[A] plaintiff need not provide the exact number of potential class members in order to satisfy this requirement,” Bynum v. District of Columbia, 214 F.R.D. 27, 32–33, “[s]o long as there is a reasonable basis for the estimate provided.” Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Ret. Plan, 189 F.R.D. 174, 176 (D.D.C. 1999).
“Demonstrating impracticability of joinder does not mandate that joinder of all parties be impossible—only that the difficulty or inconvenience of joining all members of the class make[s] use of the class action appropriate.” DL v. District of Columbia, 302 F.R.D. 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted), aff’d, 860 F.3d 713 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Factors relevant to impracticability include the “financial resources of class members, the ability of claimants to institute individual suits, and requests for prospective injunctive relief which would involve future class members.” Id. (quoting Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931, 936 (2d Cir. 1993)).
Here, the proposed plaintiff class satisfies the numerosity requirement because it will comprise approximately 1,600 inmates and detainees, with hundreds in each subclass. See D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Daily Population Report for March 21st Through March 27th 2020 (March 27, 2020), available at https://doc.dc.gov/node/307122. \ Thus, there is more than a “reasonable basis” for estimating that the proposed class will be approximately forty times larger than the general benchmark of forty people.
Joinder is also impractical for other reasons. First, the class seeks relief for future class members. Joinder is inherently impracticable where “the class seeks prospective relief for future class members, whose identities are currently unknown and who are therefore impossible to join.” DL, 302 F.R.D. at 11. And, of course, the putative class members are incarcerated, making it
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 6 of 15
extremely difficult for them to institute individual suits. See, e.g., D.C. Code § 12-302 (“Disability of Plaintiff”) (tolling statutes of limitations for incarcerated individuals on the ground that imprisonment is a disability to filing a lawsuit). The overwhelming majority of putative class members are also indigent, which raises another barrier to individual suits. See Colo. CrossDisability Coal. v. Taco Bell Corp., 184 F.R.D. 354, 359 (D. Colo. 1999) (finding joinder impracticable where many class members could not afford to bring individual actions); Jackson v. Foley, 156 F.R.D. 538, 54142 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (finding joinder impracticable where the majority of class members came from low-income households, greatly decreasing their ability to bring individual lawsuits). Furthermore, lawyers practicing social distancing and other measures to stay safe from COVID-19 has made it even more difficult—if not entirely impossible—for many of the proposed class members to secure legal representation to pursue individual suits.
Accordingly, the proposed class satisfies the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1). B. The Proposed Class Satisfies the Commonality Requirement.
Rule 23(a)(2), which requires that there be “questions of law or fact common to the class,” is likewise satisfied. The key to commonality is that class members’ claims “must depend upon a common contention . . . of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). “Even a single common question” will support a commonality finding, id. at 359 (alterations omitted), so long as its resolution will “generate common answers for the entire class,” Thorpe v. District of Columbia, 303 F.R.D. 120, 146-47 (D.D.C. 2014).
Commonality is satisfied where there is a single or “uniform policy or practice that affects all class members.” DL v. District of Columbia, 713 F.3d 120, 128 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “[F]actual
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 7 of 15
variations among the class members will not defeat the commonality requirement, so long as a single aspect or feature of the claim is common to all proposed class members.” Bynum, 214 F.R.D. at 33. Thus, in Bynum, Judge Lamberth explained that a proposed class challenging over-detention at the Jail satisfied the commonality requirement because “despite the fact that some of the plaintiffs might have been detained past their release date for a longer time period than other plaintiffs, there are questions of law and fact that are common to the class.” Id. at 34.
The same is true here. Proposed class members have, at least, the following key factual issues in common:
• Whether Defendants knew, or should have known, about the risks of COVID-19 to members of the proposed class;
• Whether Defendants have exposed, and are continuing to expose, members of the proposed class to a grave risk of serious harm, including death;
• Whether Defendants have denied members of the proposed class the ability to practice socially distancing;
• Whether Defendants have denied members of the proposed class the ability to engage in adequate personal sanitary practices.
In addition, the following legal questions are common to all proposed class members: • Whether Defendants have recklessly failed to act with reasonable care to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 to members of the proposed class; • Whether Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference towards members of the proposed class by failing adequately to safeguard their health and safety in the face of a known serious danger.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 8 of 15
The Jail’s practices with respect to COVID-19 affect all class members; they do not arise out of circumstances unique to each member. Those practices will also result in “common harms,” DL, 860 F.3d at 724. And all class members seek the same declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court’s determination of the legality of Defendants’ actions and inactions on one or more of the grounds alleged by class members will resolve all class members’ claims “in one stroke.” WalMart, 564 U.S. at 350.
Accordingly, the proposed class satisfies the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2). C. The Proposed Class Satisfies the Typicality Requirement. Plaintiffs’ claims are also “typical of the claims . . . of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). “The typicality requirement is satisfied ‘if each class member's claim arises from the same course of events that led to the claims of the representative parties and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant’s liability.’” Radosti, 717 F. Supp. 2d at 52 (quoting In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., 202 F.R.D. 12, 27 (D.D.C. 2001)). The typicality and commonality requirements “often overlap because both serve as guideposts” in determining “whether a class action is practical and whether the representative plaintiffs’ claims are sufficiently interrelated with the class claims to protect absent class members.” R.I.L-R v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 181 (D.D.C. 2015) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The typicality requirement “has been liberally construed.” Bynum, 214 F.R.D. at 34. As with commonality, “[t]ypicality is not destroyed merely by ‘factual variations.’” Wagner v. Taylor, 836 F.2d 578, 591 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “Rather, if the named plaintiffs’ claims are based on the same legal theory as the claims of the other class members, it will suffice to show that the named plaintiffs’ injuries arise from the same course of conduct that gives rise to the other class members’ claims.” Bynum, 214 F.R.D. at 35; see also
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 9 of 15
Richardson v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 2d 181, 196 (D.D.C. 2013) (“[C]ourts have found the typicality requirement satisfied when class representatives suffered injuries in the same general fashion as absent class members.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The named Plaintiffs claims are typical of the proposed class claims. As explained above, their claims arise from the same response—or non-response—to the COVID-19 pandemic by Defendants that provides the basis for all class members’ claims. They therefore “arise from the same course of conduct that gives rise to the other class members’ claims,” Bynum, 214 F.R.D. at 35, and are based on the same legal theories as all class members’ claims. Moreover, the injuries that Plaintiffs have suffered, will continue to suffer, and may suffer—namely, exposure to a deadly virus and potential serious illness, permanent disability, and death—arise from this same course of conduct and are typical of the injuries of the class as a whole. Notwithstanding any individual differences that may exist between the Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed class, Plaintiffs’ claims “are sufficiently interrelated with the class claims to protect absent class members.” R.I.L-R, 80 F. Supp. 3d at 181.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims satisfy the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3). D. The Proposed Class Satisfies the Adequacy Requirement. The class representatives also “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). To establish adequacy, “(1) the named representative must not have antagonistic or competing interests with the unnamed members of the class, and (2) the representative must appear able to vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel.” Twelve John Does, 117 F.3d at 575 (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Regional Med. Programs, Inc. v. Mathews, 551 F.2d 340, 345 (D.C. Cir. 1976)).
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 10 of 15
Plaintiffs satisfy both criteria. First, Plaintiffs’ interests are not antagonistic to those of the class. Plaintiffs and class members are suffering the same harms. They assert the same legal claims, seek the same litigation outcomes, and would benefit from the same declaratory and injunctive relief. Moreover, Plaintiffs are not seeking monetary relief, so no financial conflict can arise between the claims of Plaintiffs and those of other class members. Thus, there is no conflict between Plaintiffs and unnamed class members.
Second, Plaintiffs’ counsel are competent to represent the class and are prepared to vigorously defend the interests of the class as a whole. They have extensive experience litigating cases involving criminal defendants and inmates, and in litigating civil rights class actions. See Exh. A, Declaration of Jonathan W. Anderson; Exh. B, Declaration of Arthur B. Spitzer.
Accordingly, the proposed class satisfies the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(4). II. Class Certification is Appropriate Under Rule 23(b)(1), Rule 23(b)(2), or Both.
In addition to satisfying the four criteria of Rule 23(a), the proposed class must also fall into one of the three categories outlined in Rule 23(b). This class action qualifies for certification under either Rule 23(b)(1) or Rule 23(b)(2). See Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 361-62 (“Classes certified under (b)(1) and (b)(2) share the most traditional justifications for class treatment—that individual adjudications would be impossible or unworkable, as in a (b)(1) class, or that the relief sought must perforce affect the entire class at once, as in a (b)(2) class.”) (footnote omitted).
Rule 23(b)(1) permits class certification where “prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class . . . .” Certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) “is appropriate when the class seeks injunctive or declaratory relief to change an alleged ongoing course of conduct that is either
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 11 of 15
legal or illegal as to all members of the class.” Adair v. England, 209 F.R.D. 5, 12 (D.D.C. 2002) (citing 5 Moore’s Fed. Practice § 23.41[4] (3d ed. 2000)).
Plaintiffs easily satisfy this standard. If each of approximately 1,600 individual class members were to bring separate suits making the allegations made in the complaint in this case, the adjudication of these actions would risk creating inconsistent decisions that would establish varying standards to which Defendants would have to adhere. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief that is applicable to all class members, and certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1) is therefore appropriate.
Additionally, Rule 23(b)(2) permits class certification where “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” The Supreme Court has explained that
The key to the (b)(2) class is the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted—the notion that the conduct is such that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as to none of them. In other words, Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class. Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 360 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Courts in this District have interpreted Rule 23(b)(2) to impose two requirements: “(1) the defendant’s action or refusal to act must be generally applicable to the class, and (2) plaintiff must seek final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief on behalf of the class.” Steele v. United States, 159 F. Supp. 3d 73, 81 (D.D.C. 2016) (quotations and citations omitted); Bynum, 214 F.R.D. at 37; R.I.L.-R, 80 F. Supp. 3d at 182. To satisfy Rule 23(b)(2), “it is enough to show that a defendant has acted in a consistent manner toward members of the class so that his actions may be viewed as part of a pattern of activity.” Bynum, 214 F.R.D. at 37 (internal citation omitted).
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 12 of 15
Those requirements are easily satisfied. As already explained, Defendants’ challenged practices are not tailored to individual inmates or detainees, but apply to the Jail population as a whole. They apply to all class members simply by virtue of their status as persons held at the Jail, without regard to the individual circumstances of their underlying criminal cases or any other differences among them. For the same reason, all class members seek the same declaratory and injunctive relief. Certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1) is therefore also appropriate.
To the extent differences between the constitutional standards applicable to pre-trial and post-conviction detainees could be relevant—although plaintiffs do not think they are—the proposed subclasses would address that issue. As discussed in Plaintiffs’ memorandum in support of their application for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, pre-trial detainees are protected by the Fifth Amendment, while post-conviction detainees are protected by the Eighth Amendment. Because Defendants’ conduct here falls below the standard set by each Amendment, certification of a single class would be appropriate. But because there is a theoretical possibility that the different legal standards could lead to different determinations, subclasses of pre-trial and post-conviction detainees would also be appropriate. Differing legal standards have been recognized as a basis for subclasses, although generally in cases in which class members seek monetary relief. See, e.g., In re TD Bank, N.A. Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litig., 325 F.R.D. 136, 174 (D.S.C. 2018) (creating subclasses “to address variations in the applicable law”); In re Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc., 172 F.R.D. 271, 287 (S.D. Ohio 1997) (creating subclasses of class members from states that do not require present physical injury to recover for medical monitoring and from states that do require present physical injury in order to recover for medical monitoring). Each such subclass would satisfy all of Rule 23’s requirements, for the same reasons, explained above, that the main class does.
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 13 of 15
III. The Court Should Designate Plaintiffs’ Counsel as Class Counsel. Upon certifying the class, the Court must also appoint class counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(1)(B); 23(g). Rule 23(g) requires the Court to consider the following four factors: (i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. Id. at 23(g)(1)(A)(i)–(iv). The Court may also consider “any other matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Id. at 23(g)(1)(B).
Plaintiffs’ counsel satisfy all four criteria. Counsel from the D.C. Public Defender Service and the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia jointly represent Plaintiffs. Counsel from both organizations are experienced federal litigators, some of whom have specific expertise in representing criminal defendants and incarcerated persons, and some of whom have specific experience in class action litigation. See declarations of Jonathan W. Anderson and Arthur B. Spitzer
As reflected in the complaint and preliminary injunction papers filed in this matter, Plaintiffs’ counsel have already devoted substantial time investigating the factual and legal issues in this case, and will continue to do so throughout the pendency of the litigation. See, e.g., Encinas v. J.J. Drywall Corp., 265 F.R.D. 3, 9 (D.D.C. 2010) (“The plaintiffs have shown that they will adequately represent the class. . . . Counsel have already committed substantial time and resources to identifying and investigating potential claims in the action.”).
Accordingly, the Court should appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel in this case. IV. Alternatively, the Court Should Provisionally Certify the Class.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 14 of 15
The early stage of this litigation should not deter the Court from certifying the Plaintiff class, because the propriety of class treatment here is apparent. No consideration of the merits is required, because, “[a]s the Supreme Court has long held, courts may not examine whether ‘plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits’ in order to determine whether class certification is appropriate.” In re Veneman, 309 F.3d 789, 794 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974)).
Nevertheless, should the Court not be prepared to certify the class at this time, it should certify the class provisionally, subject to later reconsideration or amendment. Courts in this district have done so many times. See, e.g., Kirwa v. U.S Dep’t of Defense, 285 F. Supp. 3d 21, 44 (D.D.C. 2017) (granting provisional class certification in context of granting preliminary injunction); R.I.LR v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 181 (D.D.C. 2015) (same); Chang v. United States, 217 F.R.D. 262, 274 (D.D.C. 2003) (granting provisional class certification before defendants had filed their opposition to certification); Bame v. Dillard, No. 05-cv-1833, 2008 WL 2168393 at *9 (D.D.C. May 22, 2008) (provisionally certifying class “without prejudice to Defendant’s renewed objections after the close of discovery”); Kifafi, 189 F.R.D. at 178 (granting provisional class certification and noting that Rule 23(c)(1) “provid[es] that class certification may be granted provisionally and subsequently altered or amended”).
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: (1) certify the proposed class, consisting of all persons confined or to be confined in D.C. Department of Corrections (“DOC”) correctional facilities, including as subclasses: (i) persons confined pre-trial, and (ii) persons confined pursuant to a judgment of conviction; and
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 15 of 15

(2) appoint undersigned counsel to represent the class.

DATED: March 30, 2020 Washington, D.C.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Steven Marcus Steven Marcus (D.C. Bar # 1630882) Jonathan Anderson (D.C. Bar # 475306) Jenna Cobb (D.C. Bar # 979506) Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel. 202-824-2524 Fax 202-824-2525 smarcus@pdsdc.org
/s/ Scott Michelman Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar # 1006945) Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar # 235960) Michael Perloff (D.C. Bar # 1601047) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. 202-457-0800 smichelman@acludc.org

15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.
QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

No. 1:20-cv-849

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN W. ANDERSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION I, Jonathan W. Anderson, declare as follows: 1. I am a member of the bar of this Court and one of the attorneys for the Plaintiffs in this matter. 2. I have been employed as the Chief of the Special Litigation Division of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS) since 2017, before which I served as a Supervising Attorney in the Appellate Division for approximately three years, and a Staff Attorney in the Appellate Division and the Trial Division for approximately thirteen years. During that time I have supervised and/or served as lead counsel in Habeas Corpus cases in this Court, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, and the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, supervised appeals in the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, supervised and served as lead counsel in criminal and postconviction cases in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and supervised and/or served as lead counsel in criminal trials and post-conviction proceedings in the District of Columbia

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 2
Superior Court. 3. One of my co-counsel in this action is Jenna Cobb, who has been a Staff Attorney in
the Special Litigation Division of PDS since 2014. Ms. Cobb has been lead counsel in a Habeas Corpus case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in this Court, is lead counsel in an appeal pending before the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, and has been lead counsel in numerous post-conviction cases in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
4. Another of my co-counsel in this action is Steven Marcus, who has been a Staff Attorney in the Special Litigation Division of PDS since 2018. Mr. Marcus is lead counsel in a class-action case pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 500 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this Court, a Habeas Corpus case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Western District of Louisiana, and numerous post-conviction cases in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
5. I believe that Mr. Marcus, Ms. Cobb, and I, together with our experienced co-counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class proposed to be certified in this case.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Washington, D.C. on March 29, 2020.
Jonathan W. Anderson
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.
QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

No. 1:20-cv-849

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF ARTHUR B. SPITZER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION I, Arthur B. Spitzer, declare as follows: 1. I am a member of the bar of this Court and one of the attorneys for the Plaintiffs in this matter. 2. I have been employed as the Legal Director (since 2018, the Co-Legal Director) of the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia (previously the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area) for 40 years as of Wednesday, and during that time I have been counsel in hundreds of lawsuits filed in this Court. Among them have been numerous class action lawsuits, including Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (class action for damages on behalf of 1,200 falsely accused demonstrators); Smith v. Montgomery County, 573 F. Supp. 604 (D. Md. 1983), appeal dismissed, 740 F.2d 963 (4th Cir. 1984) (class action for damages on behalf of thousands of arrestees unlawfully strip-searched at detention center); Green v. Dist. of Columbia, 134 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 1991) (class action for injunctive relief regarding health care, legal materials and educational opportunities for

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 3
prisoners); LaShawn A. v. Barry, 990 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (still-open class action for injunctive relief on behalf of children in D.C. foster care); Lampkin v. District of Columbia, 27 F.3d 605 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (class action to obtain school transportation for homeless children); Barry v. Little, 669 A.2d 115 (D.C. 1995) (class action challenging cutoff of welfare benefits); Carr v. District of Columbia, 587 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (class action for damages arising out of mass arrest); Wood v. Moss, 572 U.S. 744 (2014) (class action for damages arising out of breakup of peaceful demonstration); J.D. v. Azar, 925 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (class action on behalf of unaccompanied minor immigrants denied access to abortions); Almaqrami v. Pompeo, 933 F.3d 774 (D.C. Cir 2019) (suit on behalf of Diversity Visa lottery winners blocked by Executive Order from obtaining immigration visas) (class certification motion pending on remand).
3. One of my co-counsel in this action is Scott Michelman, who has been at the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia since 2016 and is now its Co-Legal Director. From 2011 to 2016, he was a Staff Attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group, where class actions under Rule 23 was one of his major practice areas. He have represented class plaintiffs in a number of class action proceedings in the federal courts of appeals and at the U.S. Supreme Court, including victories as counsel of record in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) (holding that predominance inquiry could be satisfied by representative proof in wage-and-hour class action and that plaintiff class had been properly certified), and as lead counsel in Roach v. T. L. Cannon Corp., 778 F. 3d 401 (2d Cir. 2015) (holding that individualized damages determinations alone cannot preclude class certification under the predominance inquiry and vacating the denial of class certification). He is also one of plaintiffs’ counsel in J.D. v. Azar, and Almaqrami v. Pompeo, supra.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 3 4. I believe that Mr. Michelman and I, together with our experienced co-counsel at the D.C. Public Defender Service, will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class proposed to be certified in this case. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Washington, D.C. on March 30, 2020.
/s/ Arthur B. Spitzer Arthur B. Spitzer
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 3-3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

[PROPOSED] CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a plaintiff class herein, it appearing to

the Court that all the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 have been satisfied, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion is granted. It is further

ORDERED that this case is certified as a class action on behalf of all persons confined or

to be confined in the D.C. Department of Corrections (“DOC”) Central Detention Facility or

Correctional Treatment Facility. It is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ counsel, from the District of Columbia Public Defender Service

and the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, are hereby appointed as

counsel for the Plaintiff Class.

Dated: April __, 2020

______________________________ United States District Judge

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs-Petitioners
v. QUINCY BOOTH, in their official capacity No. 1:20-cv-849 as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,
Defendants-Respondents.
MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Rule 65.1, Plaintiffs hereby move for the issuance of a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants (along with their respective successors in office, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and anyone acting in concert with them) from continuing to violate the Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs and all members of the class they seek to represent by failing to take necessary measures to protect them against infection with the COVID-19 virus and the likely resulting serious illness or death. Specifically, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to take all actions within their power to reduce the inmate population of the D.C. Jail and CTF including, but not limited to, releasing as many people as possible through the COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020 and immediately appoint an expert to make recommendations to the Court regarding how many and which class members to order released so as to ensure that the number of prisoners remaining at the CDF and CTF can be housed consistently with CDC guidance on best practices to prevent the spread of COVID-19, including the

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 3

requirement that prisoners be able to maintain six feet of space between them and further order that such recommendations take into account CDC guidance concerning health factors that put individuals at elevated risk of death from COVID-19. Plaintiffs also request that the Court immediately require Defendants adopt policies and procedures detailed in the Memorandum of Law, and appoint an independent monitor with medical expertise and who would have unfettered access to medical units, confidential communication with inmates, and access to surveillance video of public areas of the facilities, to ensure compliance with these conditions.
This motion is based on the memorandum of points and authorities, declarations, and other evidence submitted herewith, and such oral arguments and evidence as may be presented at a hearing on the motion. The grounds for this motion are that Defendants’ actions and inactions are violating, and unless enjoined, will continue to violate, Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if the Defendants are not enjoined; that Defendants will not be injured if a preliminary injunction issues; and that the public interest favors the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

DATED: March 30, 2020 Washington, D.C.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Steven Marcus Steven Marcus (D.C. Bar # 1630882) Jonathan Anderson (D.C. Bar # 475306) Jenna Cobb (D.C. Bar # 979506) Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel. 202-824-2524 Fax 202-824-2525 smarcus@pdsdc.org

2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 3 /s/ Scott Michelman Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar # 1006945) Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar # 235960) Michael Perloff (D.C. Bar # 1601047) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. 202-457-0800 smichelman@acludc.org
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners

v.
QUINCY BOOTH, in their official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

No. 1:20-cv-849

Defendants-Respondents.

PLAINTIFFS AND PROPOSED CLASS MEMBERS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PRELIMINARY STATEMENT “These are extraordinary times.”1 COVID-19 poses an unprecedented threat to a group of
District of Columbia residents in the custody of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (“DOC”). The DOC has already announced five positive cases, four of which are from different units in its facilities. The risk of rapid and pervasive infection is high. Indeed, the virus already appears to be spreading exponentially, from one positive test on March 25, to two positive tests on March 27, to four positive tests on March 28, and a fifth positive case on March 29.
The speed and breadth of this problem for incarcerated people is stark. At the peak of the outbreak in Wuhan, China — the province where COVID-19 originated — over half of all reported

1 This is how Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson began his opinion ordering the release of a man detained in a California jail. Matter of Extradition of Toledo Manrique, No. 19-MJ-71055 (TSH), 2020 WL 1307109, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020).

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 40

COVID-19 cases were incarcerated people. On Rikers Island, the rate of infection among incarcerated people is over seven times the rate of infection in New York City generally, and 25 times higher than the rate in Wuhan, China.2 This crisis recalls the 1918 flu pandemic, in which a cluster of infections at San Quentin Prison in California became “one of the primary foci” of a worldwide epidemic that killed between 20 million and 100 million people. See Niyi Awofeso, Prisons Show Prophylaxis for Close Contacts May Indeed Help in Next Flu Pandemic, 329 BMJ 173, 173 (2004); GINA KOLATA, FLU: THE STORY OF THE GREAT INFLUENZA PANDEMIC OF 1918 AND THE SEARCH FOR THE VIRUS THAT CAUSED IT 5 (2011).
The risk of mass contagion in the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”) — DOC’s two interconnected jails — facilities is high, and the effects of the outbreak will be devastating. Many cases can result in horrible pain, fevers, diarrhea, and difficulty breathing. More serious cases will require hospitalization, and severe cases can cause death or permanent lung and heart conditions. Among adults with preexisting medical conditions like high blood pressure, asthma, and diabetes — features that disproportionately characterize incarcerated people — the hospitalization and death rates are greatly elevated.
With over 1,600 vulnerable residents in its care and months to prepare for this coming catastrophe, the Department of Corrections has proven that it will not, and cannot, ensure the reasonable health and safety of its residents. The evidence in the record includes:
• Declarations from residents in DOC facilities who detail the days-long delays before they can receive medical care, the lack of soap, hand sanitizer, and disinfectant, the policies that require large groups of residents to congregate in close proximity, the lack of testing of residents showing

2

These numbers likely underestimate the infection rate on Rikers Island, as they do not

include the number of people contracted COVID-19 on Rikers Island but who have already been

released. The rates of infection rely on publicly released data collected by the Legal Aid Society.

See LEGAL AID SOCIETY, Analysis of COVID-19 Infection Rate in NYC Jails (last visited March

30, 2020, 11:00 AM), https://legalaidnyc.org/covid-19-infection-tracking-in-nyc-jails/.

2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 40
symptoms, and the lack of personal protective equipment for staff and residents;
• Declarations from attorneys and investigators of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (“PDS”), who witnessed first-hand the DOC’s failures to implement effective visitor and staff screening procedures, all but ensuring the virus’s introduction to DOC facilities; and
• Expert declarations from Dr. Jaimie Meyer, Assistant Professor of Medicine at Yale School of Medicine and former Infectious Disease physician for York Correctional Institution in Connecticut, and Dr. Marc Stern, an internist who most recently served as the Assistant Secretary of Health Care for the Washington State Department of Corrections. Drs. Meyer and Stern explain that the virus will spread rapidly in the DOC; that the DOC’s response has been, and is, entirely lacking; and that downsizing the incarcerated population is the best solution to ensure the safety of residents, staff, and the community.
This evidence, damning on its own, is all the more troubling because it is confirmed by reports from DOC staff. DOC staff themselves report that, even as of March 25, 2020, DOC staff have “no masks, insufficient gloves, no gowns, no disinfectants, and no comprehensive cleaning occurs on a regular basis.” See Ex. 1, Decl. of Dr. Jaimie Meyer (“Meyer Decl.”), Attch. C, Labor Committee Letter, at 3. They go on to identify the failure of the DOC to screen even new residents coming into the jail for COVID-19 and the failure of the DOC to provide social distancing between residents. Id. at 3–4.
The cumulative result of DOC’s failings is, in the professional judgment of Dr. Meyer, that the DOC is “dangerously under-equipped and ill-prepared to prevent and manage a COVID-19 outbreak, which would result in severe harm to detained individuals, jail and prison staff, and the broader community.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28. In reaching that conclusion, Dr. Meyer reviewed the District of Columbia’s own audits and evaluations of CDF and CTF, as well as the declarations from residents and PDS staff detailing the conditions in those facilities in the last few weeks. She identified the following problem areas: cleaning and disinfecting practices; hygiene; personal
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 40
protective equipment; screening of inmates, staff, and visitors; social distancing; management of the disease in the facility; sufficiency of isolation spaces; and medical care for other health conditions. Id. ¶ 28(a)-(d). In sum, Dr. Meyer concluded that the evidence in the record “make[s] it clear that conditions in the DC jails during this pandemic are dangerous.” Id. ¶ 33.
These are indeed extraordinary times. But in the face of “true urgency,” id. ¶ 31, and institutional failures such as those documented here, courts have taken a leading role. Across the country, state and federal court judges have issued orders that have resulted in the immediate release of incarcerated people, reducing the risk to the safety and health of those people and the community. On March 22, 2020, for instance, the New Jersey Supreme Court put in place a procedure for the release of 1,000 men and women serving sentences in New Jersey jails. See In the Matter of the Request to Commute or Suspend County Jail Sentences, Case No. 84230 (N.J. Mar. 22, 2020).
Plaintiffs and proposed class members are the over 1,600 residents of the D.C. Jail, which consists of two interconnected detention facilities: the CDF and the CTF. Defendants are the Director of the DOC and the warden of the Jail.
Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction directing Defendants to take all actions within their power to reduce the inmate population of CDF and CTF and appointing an expert to effectuate the rapid downsizing of those facilities, consistent with CDC guidance. Plaintiffs also ask the Court to require Defendants to immediately implement new procedures that will bring the DOC in compliance with expert guidance and to appoint an independent monitor to ensure such compliance. For the reasons that follow, the Court should enter that order.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 5 of 40
FACTUAL BACKGROUND I. COVID-19 poses a grave risk of serious injury or death to anyone who is infected.
As the Court well knows, COVID-19 is a coronavirus that has caused a worldwide global pandemic. There is no vaccine and no cure for COVID-19, a highly infectious and sometimes fatal disease. The World Health Organization (“WHO”) estimates that as of March 29, 2020, there are 638,146 confirmed cases, 30,105 confirmed deaths, and 203 countries, areas, or territories with confirmed cases. Docket No. 1 (“Compl.”), at ¶ 20. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) estimates that as of March 29, 2020, there are 122,653 confirmed cases and 2112 confirmed deaths in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Id. ¶ 21. Due to the highly contagious nature of COVID-19, data and statistical modeling show that absent intervention, COVID-19 will continue to grow exponentially. Id. ¶ 23.
People in all age brackets are at risk of serious injury and death from COVID-19. Reviewing data collected by the CDC, Dr. Marc Stern — an expert on correctional health care and a board-certified internist — explains:
Early reporting on the impacts of COVID-19, based in part on preliminary data emerging from China, seemed to indicate that the virus’ impact would remain relatively mild for younger people. Recent data released by the CDC suggests that this initial narrative is incorrect, and that adults aged 20-44 also face a risk of experiencing severe health outcomes as a result of contracting the disease. See Ex. 2, Decl. of Dr. Marc Stern (“Stern Decl.”) at ¶ 14. Nearly 40 percent of people requiring hospitalization due to COVID-19 were between the ages of 20 to 54. Id. For people who contract COVID-19, the symptoms can be extremely severe. Dr. Meyer writes that “[s]erious illness occurs in up to 16% of cases, including death.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 23. COVID-19 can cause intense pain, and recent research suggests that, in addition to the shortterm risk of death posed by COVID-19, contracting the virus can lead to other serious long-term
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 6 of 40
medical conditions, including cardiovascular disease. Compl. ¶ 27. One respiratory physician explained that the lungs “become filled with inflammatory material” and “are unable to get enough oxygen to the bloodstream.” Id. ¶ 25.
The available data from the CDC to date shows that, in total, 20.7 to 31.4 percent of people who tested positive for COVID-19 require hospitalization, 4.9 to 11.5 percent require admission to the ICU, and 1.8 to 3.4 percent die. Compl. ¶ 29. By way of comparison, the WHO estimates that the COVID-19 mortality rate is between three and four percent, while the mortality rate of seasonal influenza is well below 0.1 percent. Id. ¶ 30. Unlike the flu, however, there is no vaccine or cure for COVID-19. Id. ¶ 32.
II. Jails and prisons are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 and pose a public health risk to the broader community.
Correctional facilities are environments that enable and facilitate the spread of COVID-19. Dr. Marc Stern, an expert on correctional health care systems and a board-certified internist, has studied COVID-19 and “its transmission—especially in crowded and unsanitary conditions—and its ability to quickly spread through correctional facilities.” See Ex. 2, Stern Decl. at ¶ 6. Because people — staff, residents, contractors, attorneys, community members, and others — constantly cycle in and out of correctional facilities, there is an ever-present risk that new carriers will bring the virus into the facility. For example, in Jining, China, 207 people in a correctional facility contracted COVID-19 because a prison guard contracted it outside of the facility and then came to work, not knowing he was infected. Compl. ¶ 35. Even if correctional institutions screen outsiders, including staff and visitors, for symptoms of COVID-19, that will not stop the introduction of COVID-19 from the outside, as Dr. Meyer explains, because “people can transmit the virus before they start to show symptoms or for weeks after their symptoms resolve.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 22.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 7 of 40
Correctional facilities also are highly susceptible to rapid person-to-person transmission of the virus because cramped conditions place residents and staff in close proximity. Meyer Decl. ¶ 10. “Institutional settings such as jails, prisons, shelters, and inpatient treatment programs are congregate environments where people live, eat, and sleep closely together. In these environments, infections like COVID-19 can spread more rapidly.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 10. For example, in New York City, the first case of COVID-19 infection in a jail detainee was diagnosed on March 18, 2020. Within two days, thirty-eight cases had been diagnosed at the Rikers Island Correctional Complex. The current rate of infection in New York City jails is 3.00 percent. Compl. ¶ 42. This is seven times higher than the rate of infection in New York City generally (0.2 percent), over four times higher than the rate of infection in Lombardy, Italy (0.3 percent), and over ten times higher than the rate of infection in Wuhan, China (0.1 percent). Id.
The crisis at Rikers Island mirrors what has happened in prisons worldwide. Approximately one month into the pandemic in the province of Hubei, China, where the COVID19 outbreak started, over half of reported COVID-19 cases were from jails. Id. ¶ 43. In South Korea, which has enacted radical and effective public health measures to slow and stop the spread of the virus, “the single largest COVID-19 outbreak and mortality cluster was from the Daenam Prison Hospital, where 101 inmates were infected and seven died.” Id. ¶ 44.
Because incarcerated populations are so vulnerable to this disease, jurisdictions around the world and in the United States have taken bold actions to save lives for inmates and for the community. Germany released “1,000 prisoners who are close to the end of their sentences”; Canada released “1,000 inmates in the state of Ontario”; and Iran “temporarily release[d] 85,000 prisoners, with 10,000 of them being granted pardons.” Id. ¶ 5. Closer to home, the New Jersey Supreme Court announced that it would release “as many as 1,000 people from its jails,” In the
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 8 of 40
Matter of the Request to Commute or Suspend County Jail Sentences, Case No. 84230 (N.J. March 22, 2020). New York City is doing the same. Compl. ¶ 5. This effort to depopulate facilities like prisons and jails that are breeding grounds for the virus is not just limited to the East Coast. It is an urgent nationwide effort. Cuyahoga County, Ohio, released around 600 people from the county jail in a matter of days; Washington County, Oregon, released more than 120 people from the local jail; Alameda County, California, released 314 people from its jail; the Iowa Department of Corrections began to release 700 people from state prisons; Mercer County, Pennsylvania, released 60 of 308 people in its jail. Id.
III. The Department of Corrections has failed to take even basic precautions that would mitigate the spread and risk of COVID-19.
On February 28, 2020, Mayor Bowser called to activate the District’s Emergency Operations Center to coordinate responses to COVID-19, requiring Defendants to “remind their staff and constituencies” of “basic infection practices,” including to “[w]ash hands with soap and water” or an “alcohol-based hand sanitizer,” to “[a]void close contact with people who are sick,” and to “[c]lean and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces.” D.C. Mayor’s Order 2020035, § 10(a). The Executive Order specifically requires that “[a]ll relevant District agencies shall review their copy of the District Response Plan to evaluate the potential impacts of COVID-19 on emergency roles and responsibilities and take necessary steps to ensure continued performance.” Id. § 3(a).
Declarations from Plaintiffs, attorneys who have visited Defendants’ facilities, and medical professionals demonstrate Defendants’ failure to properly respond to this life-threatening pandemic. To adequately respond to COVID-19, correctional facilities must implement two measures: “thoughtful downsizing of the incarcerated population” along with “aggressive,
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 9 of 40
responsive prevention measures that are developed and guided by public health and medical experts.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 12. To date, Defendants have done neither.
A. Defendants have failed to significantly decrease the population of their facilities. Dr. Stern emphasizes the import of decreasing the jail population, stating that it “serves two critical public health aims: (1) targeting residents who are elevated risk of suffering from severe symptoms of COVID-19; and (2) allowing those who remain incarcerated to better maintain social distancing and avoid other risks associated with forced communal living.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 13. Although defendants have had the opportunity to begin reducing the jail population, they have not done so. Downsizing jail populations . . . will help to ‘flatten the curve’ overall—both within the jail setting and without.” Id. ¶ 13. Yet nearly a hundred people serving sentences for misdemeanors remain in the D.C. Jail, despite emergency legislation authorizing Defendants to release them immediately. See 67 D.C. Reg. 3093, COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020 (March 20, 2020). Defendants’ failure to deploy the tools available to them illustrates their disregard for the health and safety of Plaintiffs and their fellow class members. B. Defendants have maintained dangerous, unsanitary conditions. “The jail must be required to provide hand soap, disposable paper towels, and access to water to allow residents to wash their hands on a regular basis, free of charge and ensure replacement products are available as needed . . . . residents should be allowed to use hand sanitizer with alcohol when they are in locations or activities where hand washing is not available.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 16(e) (emphasis in original). Occasionally, a staff member makes an announcement for residents to “wash their hands.” Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 6(a). But Plaintiffs “have no hand sanitizer” and very little soap has been provided. Ex. 4, Banks Decl. ¶ 8.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 10 of 40
Even after making repeated requests for soap, residents have not been provided the soap necessary to engage in regular, let alone frequent, handwashing. See Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 6(d). While some residents were issued “a single bar of soap a couple of weeks ago,” Ex. 4, Banks Decl. ¶ 8, others were not provided their bar of soap until March 21, 2020, Ex. 5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 8. Because soap was not being supplied, “some residents were using shampoo to wash their hands in lieu of anything else; others had nothing with which to wash their hands.” Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 6(a). On one unit, soap dispensers that had recently been installed were removed and residents were “informed that the soap was not for them, but only for staff.” Id. ¶ 6(b). At times, Plaintiffs have been deprived of access to their cell for several hours at a time, rendering them unable to wash their hands. Ex. 5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 9. Even residents who previously had access to hand sanitizer while outside of their cells no longer do, as “CTF officials took the dispenser off the wall and placed it behind glass so that only officers could use hand sanitizer.” Ex. 5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 11; see also Ex. 6, Eric Smith Decl. ¶ 7.
To mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in the CTF and CDF, Defendants “must be required to provide adequate sanitation of high use/high touch areas and cells in accordance with CDC or local health authority guidelines.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 16(d); see also Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 13 (“High-touch surfaces . . . should also be cleaned and disinfected regularly with bleach to prevent virus spread . . . .”). But Defendants have failed to maintain even the most basic levels of sanitation. At CDF, other “inmates come in and sweep the unit,” but “jail staff is not doing anything additional to clean [the] unit.” Ex. 7, Phillips Decl. ¶ 7. Individual cells are not cleaned and they “do not wipe down surfaces with disinfectant.” Ex. 4, Banks Decl. ¶ 9. Though residents are responsible for cleaning their own cells, “disinfectant was not provided or available.” Ex. 8, Pond Decl. ¶ 6(a); Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶(a); Ex. 9, Cyphers Decl. ¶ 6(a). Communal showers have
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 11 of 40
not been cleaned regularly; in the past month, showers have been cleaned only “once or twice.” Ex. 5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 13.
The limited cleaning supplies that are available in Defendants’ facilities are ineffective at best and potentially counterproductive at worst. Cleaning solutions are “watered down,” and mops, when available, are old, “molding and stinking up the unit.” Ex. 5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 12. Some residents were given only Windex to clean. Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 6(a). One attorney visited CDF just yesterday and observed “a cleaning cart” where the only cleaning supply on the cart was “a bottle with a ‘Windex’ brand label on it.” Ex. 16, Sylvia Smith Decl. ¶ 4(f). Dr. Meyer specifically cautions that “Windex . . . contains 4% isopropyl alcohol, as compared to the 70% alcohol-containing products or bleach needed to disinfect, per CDC recommendations,” and, in fact, “since Windex contains 28% ammonia, it could actually be harmful if mixed with bleach because the reaction generates chlorine gas that irritates the respiratory tract, eyes, and skin.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(a)(ii). While this level of sanitation is inadequate at any time, it is potentially life-threatening during a viral pandemic.
The lack of “personal protective equipment” (or “PPE”) for staff and residents compounds the problem. Dr. Meyer explains: “The lack of personal protective equipment (“PPE”) for both D.C. DOC staff and inmates, as described in the declarations of inmates and attorneys, will result in an increased risk of COVID-19 infection.” Id. ¶ 28(a)(iii). DOC correctional officers “do not wear masks or gloves regularly.” Ex. 4, Banks Decl. ¶ 10; see also Ex. 8, Pond Decl. ¶ 5(c). In one instance, a correctional officer, who had been “eating dinner with his bare hands” immediately patted Plaintiff Banks down “with hands that had just been in or near his mouth.” Ex. 4, Banks Decl. ¶ 4. More alarmingly, when Plaintiff Banks went to receive his daily medication, a nurse, who is responsible for distributing medicine to approximately forty people, placed a cup of
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 12 of 40
medication to Plaintiff’s mouth. “Even though the nurse’s hands get very close to, and sometimes even touch, [his] mouth, the nurse does not replace gloves between patients.” Ex. 4, Banks Decl. ¶ 5. During the pandemic, inmates have been given a shared cooler of juice and “[a]ll day long inmates dip their cups into the top of the juice cooler to get ice out of it.” Ex. 6, Eric Smith Decl. ¶ 6. To the extent that there are regulations and procedures for Defendants’ staff to follow, either they permit the kinds of unsanitary, contagion-enabling practices described above, or there is insufficient enforcement of whatever procedures are in place. Either way, the actions of Defendants’ staff promise that the infection will pass from one resident to the next.
C. Plaintiffs in Defendants’ custody are not properly quarantined after potential exposure to COVID-19.
Defendants “must establish non-punitive quarantine for all individuals believed to have been exposed to COVID-19, but are not yet symptomatic, and non-punitive isolation for those believed to be infected with COVID-19 and potentially infectious.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 16(c). “In short, every possible effort must be made to separate infected or potentially infected individuals from the rest of the incarcerated population.” Id. But individuals who have been quarantined under suspicion of being infected with the coronavirus were only “gone for about a week” before being “back on the unit.” Ex. 7, Phillips Decl. ¶ 6; Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 6(c). Plaintiff Phillips, who was present in the courthouse the same week as the Deputy Marshal who tested positive for COVID-19, was never placed in a quarantine unit. Ex. 7, Phillips Decl. ¶ 5. Plaintiff Eric Smith, whose unit is next to a quarantine unit, describes the ventilation as “very poor” and “not sealed off” from his own unit. Ex. 6, Eric Smith Decl. ¶ 3. Shockingly, the units share a remote control, which has been brought back and forth between the units while some residents have been quarantined. Id. ¶ 4.
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 13 of 40
D. Defendants’ failure to implement proper screening protocol heightens the risk that Plaintiffs will be repeatedly exposed to COVID-19.
It is “critical” that “[c]orrectional authorities must be required to screen each employee or other person entering the facility every day according to current CDC or local health department guidelines.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 16(b); see also Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(b) (“It is . . . imperative that people entering closed confinement settings like prisons are properly screened to ensure that they do not bring the virus into the facility.”). Although Defendants tout a policy of screening every individual who enters into their facilities, the reality has been far different. Up through March 11, 2020 — four days after the District of Columbia saw its first confirmed case of COVID19 — no screening took place. See Ex. 8, Pond Decl. ¶ 5(a); Ex. 10, Wong Decl. ¶ 5(a); Ex. 9, Cyphers Decl. ¶ 5(a); Ex. 11, Resetarits Decl. ¶ 4. Once implemented, screening initially consisted only of filling out a three-question form, with visitors self-reporting whether they “had recently had a fever, dry cough or shortness of breath”; “had recently travelled to China, South Korea, or Italy,” or “had recently been in contact with a person exhibiting those symptoms or who had travelled to those countries.” Ex. 8, Pond Decl. ¶ 5(a); see also Compl. Ex. B, Questionnaire. In the days that followed, a nurse was often, but not always, stationed at the entrance of Defendants’ facilities to take the temperature of visitors and staff. When a staff member complained because the nurse was not wearing gloves, the nurse commented that “taking temperatures was only a ‘cosmetic’ step anyway and that the jail was doing it only to make visitors feel safer.” Ex. 12, Johnson Decl. ¶ 5(a) (emphasis in original).
On March 16, 2020 — after the screening measures were purportedly in full effect — several visitors were in CTF when “an announcement over the CTF loudspeaker asking everyone who had entered the CTF that morning to come back to security for coronavirus screening.” Ex.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 14 of 40
5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 8. By that time, it was too late, as anyone who had entered the facility who should have been prohibited from entering already came in contact with residents.
E. Plaintiffs are unable to take proper “social distancing” measures to protect themselves from infection.
Despite the CDC guidance regarding social distancing practices, DOC residents are forced to remain in close contact with large groups of people. Id. ¶ 5. “Residents [are] not being prevented from, or even advised against, eating or spending time in large groups, and crowds of people [have] been congregating together.” Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 6(d). Visitors have observed staff members failing to practice social distancing. Ex. 8, Pond Decl. ¶ 5(b-d). Defendants’ staff confirm this problem, raising several complaints to DOC leadership about the lack of effort to permit social distancing among staff. See, e.g., Ex. 1, Meyer Decl., Attch. C, Labor Committee Letter, at 3 (criticizing Defendants, inter alia, for failing to provide necessary equipment and for continuing to require residents and staff to gather in groups and in close proximity). These and other of Defendants’ actions have left Plaintiffs to believe that Defendants are not “taking coronavirus seriously.” Ex. 5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 2. In fact, when Plaintiff Jackson expressed concern about “not gathering in groups larger than 10 and staying six feet apart,” DOC staff accused him of “hyping this up” and instructed him to “stop watching the news.” Id. at ¶ 5. Plaintiff Jackson was not “hyping this up;” as Dr. Meyer declares: “The lack of ability to practice social distancing in the CDF and CTF is also concerning and will the increase rate of spread of the virus.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(c).
F. Plaintiffs do not have immediate access to health care. Dr. Stern is clear: “It is critical that inmates have rapid access to responsive medical treatment.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 16(f). Yet, Plaintiffs have had difficulty accessing prompt medical care during the pandemic. Several PDS attorneys and intern investigators have reported residents
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 15 of 40
experiencing symptoms including coughs, chest pains, chills, fevers, and body aches. See Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 5; Ex. 13, Kuenzle Decl. ¶ 4(a). One PDS attorney observed first-hand that her client had “a deep, guttural cough” and had to interrupt their “conversation several times to cough extensively.” Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 6(b). Residents themselves declare that “it takes days before you get a visit with anyone from the medical unit.” Ex. 7, Phillips Decl. ¶ 4; see also Ex. 6, Eric Smith Decl. ¶ 5 (“It takes days before anyone can get medical staff to come see them, even if you say you are having trouble breathing.”); Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶(d) (describing a client who was waiting “several nights before” anyone from medical responded to his “request for an asthma pump”). This was particularly concerning for Dr. Meyer, who writes that “[t]he failure of these facilities to adequately manage single individuals in need of emergency care is a strong sign that they will be seriously ill-equipped and under-prepared when a number of people will need urgent care simultaneously, as would occur during a COVID-19 epidemic.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(d)(ii).
Defendants are also ill-equipped to offer the type of medical treatment that will be needed during an outbreak. Dr. Meyer reviewed reports of Defendants’ facilities and concluded that they will be grossly insufficient when the outbreak expands: “The 2019 D.C. Auditor report suggests there is a single medical isolation space in CTF with negative pressure capacity, located in the Medical 82 unit. The same report notes that, at the time of the audit, the remainder of the 40 beds were nearly entirely filled (at 73% capacity), which would leave few beds available for COVID19 patients. To say this is unacceptable is an understatement.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(d)(i). In other words, Defendants’ residents are at “significantly higher risk of harm” because there are insufficient health care resources to treat the widespread outbreak that conditions at the D.C. Jail facilities.
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 16 of 40
The evidence in the record also shows that Defendants are not conducting sufficient testing to contain the outbreak. Testing is “crucial in identifying and managing widespread outbreaks of infectious diseases.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 17; see also Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 16(a) (“Patients who require testing, based on public health recommendations and the opinion of a qualified medical professional, should be tested for COVID-19.”). But Defendants are not testing even those people who exhibit symptoms of COVID-19. One defense attorney, Rachel Cicurel, observed that her client had “a deep, guttural cough” and had to interrupt their “conversation several times to cough extensively.” Ex. 3, Cicurel Decl. ¶ 6(b). Her client — like the other residents identified in declarations and in Defendants’ staffs’ own observations — had not been tested for COVID-19, despite displaying symptoms of COVID-19. Id.
Defendants’ actions have led Plaintiffs to believe that Defendants are not “taking coronavirus seriously.” Ex. 5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 4. It is not only Plaintiffs and who stand in fear due to Defendants’ inaction. Correctional officers have rung the alarm on Defendants’ failed response to the pandemic. On March 20, 2020, the Labor Committee for DOC unanimously voted “no confidence” in the jail’s leadership for “guaranteeing and accelerating the rampant spread of COVID-19.” See Compl. ¶ 6. A subsequent letter of March 25, 2020, sent to Director Booth on behalf of the Labor Committee detailed Defendants’ continued deficiencies. See Ex. 1, Meyer Decl, Attch. C, Labor Committee Letter. According to the letter, prior attempts to bring these issues to Defendant Booth’s attention had gone ignored. Id. at 2.
Some of the Labor Committee’s chief grievances mirror those of Plaintiffs: • “The corrections officers assigned to housing units have no masks,
insufficient gloves, no disinfectants, and no comprehensive cleaning occurs on a regular basis in these units.”
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 17 of 40

• “Inmates are not required to engage in any of the behaviors which the Mayor recommends for the general population, such as ‘social distancing,’ repeated hand-washing, and health monitoring.”

• “Inmates [who were thought to be exposed to a Deputy Marshal who had tested positive] were not ‘quarantined’ in any meaningful manner. They were housed two to a cell, and the corrections officers on the unit were not provided with any [personal protective equipment] or other means for protection against infections.”

• Id. at 3–4.

“Corrections Officers enter the Jail three shifts a day. There is no distancing at entrances, no distancing at roll calls, no attempt to obtain or record health concerns of each officer.”

Further highlighting the issues at Defendants’ facilities, the officers’ requests include

“regular disinfection of the CDF and CTF,” “establish[ing] a quarantine unit,” “[personal

protective equipment] for officers,” and a “COVID-19 protocol” to include social distancing at

DOC facilities and official reporting of symptoms affecting residents and inmates. Id. at 4.

The March 25, 2020 letter did not spur the DOC into action. Four days later, after the DOC

failed to take necessary steps to address the pandemic, the Labor Committee put out a press release,

announcing that “DOC is not following the ‘Guidance on Management of COVID-19 at

Correctional and Detention Facility.’” Ex. 1, Attch C, Labor Committee Press Release, at 2. The

Committee again reiterated the basic procedures that are not being followed:

• “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), recommended by CDC is not present at the Jail for corrections officers or is in short supply and hoarded by supervisors under lock and key.”

• “Cleaning and disinfection of the Housing Units is inadequately performed by inmates, and the Department of Health has not conducted inspections of the Housing Units to our knowledge.”

• “Testing is inadequate at the D.C. Jail. . . . No testing is available for corrections officers.”

17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 18 of 40
Id. The Committee stated that “approximately 25%” of corrections officers working at CTF are quarantined.” Id. “Soon,” the Committee warned, “the Jail will have no corrections officers.” Id.
ARGUMENT To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish (1) “that he is likely to succeed on the merits,” (2) “that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” (3) “that the balance of equities tips in his favor,” and (4) “that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Courts in this Circuit have traditionally applied these factors on a “sliding scale,” where a stronger showing on some factors can compensate for a weaker showing on others. See, e.g., Davenport v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 166 F.3d 356, 360 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The Circuit has suggested, but not decided, that an independent showing of likelihood of success is required. See Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392-93 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (citing Winter, 555 U.S. at 20-22). Under either approach, Plaintiff makes the necessary showing here. Standards for issuing a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are “the same” and can therefore be analyzed together. Singh v. Carter, 168 F. Supp. 3d 216, 223 (D.D.C. 2016). A. Plaintiffs and proposed class members are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. Plaintiffs and proposed class members are substantially likely to prevail. Defendants’ myriad failures to protect the health and safety of Plaintiffs and proposed class members constitute deliberate indifference to their wellbeing in violation of the Fifth Amendment (for pre-trial detainees) and in violation of the Eighth Amendment (for post-conviction detainees). Moreover, the record evidence — in the form of sworn affidavits from residents in Defendants’ custody and from attorneys and investigators from PDS who have witnessed first-hand the conditions of Defendants’ facilities, and two expert declarations from infectious disease and corrections
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 19 of 40
specialists — amply demonstrates the breadth and scope of Defendants’ unconstitutional actions and inactions. Notably, the evidence concerning conditions at CDF and CTF that residents and PDS staff supply is confirmed by assertions by Defendants’ own staff, who corroborate these other accounts.
1. Plaintiffs and proposed class members are likely to prevail on the merits of their Eighth Amendment claim.
“A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society.” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 510–11 (2011). To amount to the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment: (1) prison conditions must pose “an unreasonable risk of serious damage” to a prisoner’s health (an objective test), and (2) prison officials must have acted with deliberate indifference to the risk posed (a subjective test). Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33–35 (1993). Both prongs are met here.
a. The conditions at the District of Columbia jail, coupled with the risks posed by COVID-19, pose a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff and proposed class members’ health.
To prevail on the first prong of the Eighth Amendment analysis, Plaintiffs must show a “substantial risk of serious harm” to their health or safety. Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584, 594 (5th Cir. 2015). At bottom, the Supreme Court has explained, this prong requires Plaintiffs to show that “the risk of which [they] complain[] is not one that today’s society chooses to tolerate.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 36. Plaintiffs, who are prohibited by Defendants from taking nearly all of the precautions that “today’s society” mandates to mitigate risk of exposure to COVID-19, have made that showing here.
First, the risk to Plaintiffs and proposed class members is substantial. Notably, Plaintiffs do not need to show that they are currently infected or suffering “serious health problems” to show
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 20 of 40
that they face a “substantial risk” of serious harm. Helling, 509 U.S. at 34. The Supreme Court squarely rejected that proposition in Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, concluding that “[w]e have great difficulty agreeing that prison authorities may not be deliberately indifferent to an inmate's current health problems but may ignore a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering the next week or month or year.” Id. at 33. The Court went on: “Nor can we hold that prison officials may be deliberately indifferent to the exposure of inmates to a serious, communicable disease on the ground that the complaining inmate shows no serious current symptoms.” Id.
Ample record evidence, expert reports, and persuasive decisions from other circuits demonstrate that people in correctional institutions face a substantial risk of contracting COVID19. Most significantly, according to Defendants, there are already five confirmed cases of COVID19 in their facilities. For the reasons explained above, these five cases are undoubtedly harbingers of even greater infection. The first resident to test positive for COVID-19 had been in Defendants’ custody since July 2019, ensuring that he contracted the virus while he was in Defendants’ care and suggesting that he was infected by an outsider (a staff member or visitor) who likely infected others. The second resident to test positive did not live in the same housing unit as the first resident, all but guaranteeing that he contracted COVID-19 from a separate source. It is also troubling that the virus appears to be spreading rapidly, from one positive test on March 25 to five positive tests by March 29 — mirroring the rapid spread of the virus in correctional facilities that has been documented worldwide.
Dr. Stern’s and Dr. Meyer’s expert declarations also support Plaintiffs’ claim that their risk of contracting COVID-19 is substantial. In his expert report, Dr. Stern explains that “infections like COVID-19 can spread more rapidly” in correctional institutions where “people live, eat, and
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 21 of 40
sleep closely together.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 13. Likewise, Dr. Meyer explains that “[t]he risk posed by infectious diseases in jails and prisons is significantly higher than in the community, both in terms of risk of transmission, exposure, and harm to individuals who become infected.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 7. Dr. Meyer cites the “[r]educed prevention opportunities” that lead to the “rapid spread of infectious diseases,” including:
• the lack of ability to practice social distancing (the “best initial strategy” to combat infection), because residents “must share bathrooms, showers, and other common areas”;
• the lack of “adequate opportunities to exercise necessary hygiene measures, such as frequent handwashing or use of alcohol-based sanitizers when handwashing is unavailable”;
• the lack of adequate cleaning of “[h]igh-touch surfaces,” which must be “cleaned and disinfected regularly with bleach to prevent virus spread”;
• the lack of a “containment strategy” that calls for “people who are ill with symptoms to be isolated and . . . caregivers [who] have access to personal protective equipment, including gloves, masks, gowns, and eye shields”;
• the lack of “negative pressure rooms” for treatment of infected persons to ensure that the virus is not transmitted “through droplets to others”;
• the lack of “access to testing equipment, laboratories, and medications,” which are “crucial in identifying and managing widespread outbreaks of infectious diseases”; and
• the lack of sufficient ventilation, which “promotes highly efficient spread of diseases through droplets.”
Id. ¶¶ 8–17. Critically, after reviewing the evidence in the record, including the Office of the District of
Columbia Auditor’s 2019 report, the District of Columbia Corrections Information Council 2019 report, and declarations from residents in Defendants’ custody, Dr. Meyer concluded that CDF and CTF are “dangerously under-equipped and ill-prepared to prevent and manage a COVID-19
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 22 of 40
outbreak, which would result in severe harm to detained individuals, jail and prison staff, and the broader community.” Id. at ¶ 28.
Dr. Meyer’s conclusion that Defendants are “dangerously under-equipped and illprepared” is made plain in the declarations of residents in Defendants’ custody. They describe first-hand plainly dangerous conditions, including requiring residents to attend “group sessions” of “around 30 people” sitting in close proximity and passing pens and papers around for hours a day, Ex. 5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 7; the passing back-and-forth of a remote control between the so-called “quarantine” unit and another housing unit; the removal of hand sanitizer that was previously available to residents, id. ¶ 2; the providing a single “big cooler of juice” into which residents “dip their cups into the top of the juice cooler to get ice out,” Ex. 6, Eric Smith Decl. ¶ 6; the days-long delays to receive medical attention, Ex. 7, Phillips Decl. ¶ 4, even if you “say you are having trouble breathing,” Ex. 6, Eric Smith Decl. ¶ 5; and the lack of disinfectant for commonly touched surfaces, Ex. 4, Banks Decl. ¶ 9.
Dr. Meyer’s specific concerns about the lack of screening procedures to protect residents from infected visitors and staff are also revealed in declarations of PDS attorneys and staff who have themselves been through the screenings. Those declarations reveal that there was no visitor screening of any kind until March 11, 2020, Ex. 10, Wong Decl. ¶ 5(a); that the screening procedure implemented on that day asked only about travel to limited international countries, Ex. 8, Pond Decl. ¶ 5(b); that when temperature screenings were implemented on March 13, 2020, they utilized broken thermometers that generated a reading of 93 degrees (which is two degrees below the threshold for hypothermia), Ex. 14, Naini Decl. ¶ 5(c); and that staff who interact with visitors coming and going from CDF and CTF do not wear personal protective equipment, see, e.g., Ex. 12, Johnson Decl. ¶ 5(a); Ex. 15, Murphy Decl. ¶ 5(b).
22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 23 of 40
Reports from Defendants’ own staff echo the very same conditions identified by residents and PDS staff. Defendants’ officers report, consistent with the declarations of residents and PDS staff, that their officers “have no masks, insufficient gloves, no gowns, no disinfectants, and [that] no comprehensive cleaning occurs on a regular basis in [housing] units.” Ex. 1, Attch. C, Labor Committee Letter, at 3. Defendants’ officers also expose the inability to practice social distancing at CTF and CDF, both for residents and staff. Id. These officers also cast grave doubt on Defendants’ so-called “quarantine” policy, under which residents are “housed two to a cell” on a unit with staff who “were not provided with any PPE or other means for protection against infections.” Id. at 4.
On the basis of much thinner records — and, in many cases, before positive COVID-19 tests in the respective facilities — other district courts have granted TROs recognizing the rapid spread of COVID-19 and requiring the immediate release of detained people. Central District of California Judge Hatter granted a TRO on March 27, 2020, explaining that:
As the Court writes this order, the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the United States has already exceeded the number of confirmed cases in every other country on this planet. Indeed, all of the experts and political leaders agree that the number of confirmed cases in the United States will only increase in the days and weeks ahead. The number of cases in the United States has yet to peak. Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause at 10, Docket No. 32, Castillo v. Barr, No. 20-cv-605 (TJH) (C.D. Cal. March 27, 2020). Just a day earlier, on March 26, 2020, Southern District of New York Judge Torres recognized that “[t]he spread of COVID-19 is measured in a matter of a single day — not weeks, months, or years” and granted a TRO requiring the immediate release of ten people. See Basank v. Decker, No. 20-cv-2518 (AT), 2020 WL 1481503, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. March 26, 2020). On March 23, 2020, a panel of Ninth Circuit judges granted emergency relief and ordered a detained person released “[i]n light of the rapidly escalating public
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 24 of 40
health crisis.” Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 18-71460, Doc. No. 53 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2020) (unpublished).
At least one judge in this District has already granted a motion for emergency release from Defendants’ custody in light of the risks of COVID-19. On March 26, 2020, Judge Moss granted an emergency motion to be released from Defendants’ custody pending sentencing, recognizing that “[a]ll responsible government agencies have advised of the risk of transmission posed by large gatherings,” and expressing concern that residence at CDF and CTF requires being “housed in a unit with dozens of other detainees and inmates.” Order at 1–2, United States v. Harris, Docket No. 35, No. 19-cr-356 (RDM) (D.D.C. March 26, 2020). Prophetically, the Court observed that “[t]he risk of the spread of the virus in the jail is palpable, and the risk of overburdening the jail’s healthcare resources, and the healthcare resources of the surrounding community is real.” Id. at 2; see also Minute Order, United States v. Jaffee, 19-cr-88 (RDM) (D.D.C. March 26, 2020) (same).
In sum, the record evidence shows that Plaintiffs and proposed class members face a “substantial risk” of contracting COVID-19. Plaintiffs need not show, or even allege, that “the likely harm would occur immediately” or that the possible infection would “affect all of those exposed.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 33 (citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 682 (1978)). Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of showing their “substantial” or “significant” risk of contracting COVID-19.
Plaintiffs also must show that they suffer a substantial risk of “serious harm.” Put differently, the Supreme Court explained, this Court should ask “whether society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 36.
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 25 of 40
To conclude that COVID-19 poses a risk of serious harm, the Court need look no further than the drastic way that society has been reshaped in a matter of months solely in response to the pandemic. Schools are closed. Travel is restricted. Even this Court’s own operations have been dramatically changed by the “pandemic,” in Chief Judge Howell’s words, “reflecting the seriousness of the need to combat the community spread of the virus.” In re: Court Operations in Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic, Standing Order No. 20-9 (BAH), at 1–2.
The record before the Court also confirms what is now obvious to the world: COVID-19 poses a risk of serious harm. Dr. Stern explains that this severe risk extends not only to the elderly, but to “younger individuals” who “are not protected from severe complications requiring hospitalization and placement in intensive care.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 12. The available data from the CDC bears this out, showing that of Americans generally who tested positive for COVID-19, nearly a third require hospitalization, many others require admission to the ICU, and between 1.8 and 3.4 percent of people die. See Compl. ¶ 29. From a clinical and public health perspective, COVID-19 poses a risk of serious harm to anyone who contracts it.
Moreover, applying the Supreme Court’s reference to whether “society considers the risk . . . to be so grave” to COVID-19 likewise results in the inexorable conclusion that it poses a serious risk of harm. The declarations of emergency from nearly every level of government is strong evidence COVID-19 is a risk that society considers to be grave. In declaring a national emergency on March 13, 2020, President Trump proclaimed that “[t]he spread of COVID-19 within our Nation’s communities threatens to strain our Nation’s healthcare systems.” Compl. ¶ 59. Mayor Bowser’s Declaration of Public Health Emergency includes the finding that COVID-
25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 26 of 40
19 “poses a significant risk of substantial future harm to a large number of people in the District of Columbia.” Mayor’s Order 2020-046, § I(C) (March 11, 2020).
For these and other reasons, courts roundly agree that COVID-19 poses a risk of serious harm. The Court in Basank, 2020 WL 1481503, pointed to “[a] number of courts in this district and elsewhere [that] have recognized the threat that COVID-19 poses to individuals held in jails and other detention facilities.” Id. at *3 (citing United States v. Stephens, No. 15-cr-95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1295155, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020); United States v. Garlock, No. 18-cr-418 (VC), 2020 WL 1439980, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2020)). The New Jersey Supreme Court, in approving an order resulting in the release of around 1,000 people from New Jersey jails, described “the profound risk posed to people in correctional facilities arising from the spread of COVID19.” In the Matter of the Request to Commute or Suspend County Jail Sentences, Case No. 84230 (N.J. March 22, 2020).
These conclusions are even more pronounced when considered in connection with Dr. Meyer’s conclusion that compared to “the population in the community,” individuals in Defendants’ custody are “at a significantly higher risk of harm if they do become infected.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 34. Dr. Meyer cites specific features of Defendants’ facilities that will increase the risk of serious harm to Plaintiffs and proposed class members who contract COVID19. For example, Dr. Meyer relies on the “day-long delays to see medical staff” as a factor that will “increase the risk of infection-related morbidity and mortality,” as well as the fact that the Department of Health does not conduct “compliance checks [which are] essential to determining whether medical care is adequate.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(d). Dr. Meyer also identifies the “[l]imited bed space,” both in Defendants’ facilities themselves or in area hospitals, that increases the risk of “preventable complications and possibly death.” Id. ¶ 28(d)(i).
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 27 of 40
Finally, this Court also need look no further than the consensus among federal courts that exposure to tuberculosis — a less severe disease, at least in terms of mortality rate3 — is a “serious harm” for Eighth Amendment purposes. See, e.g., Jeffries v. Block, 940 F. Supp. 1509, 1514 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (citing the determination of the California Legislature that “tuberculosis is a serious contagious disease, which presents a serious risk to inmate health”); cf. Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1285 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (concluding, under the slightly different deliberate indifference to “serious medical needs” test, that gallstones were “easily” in the “category of serious medical needs,” a point conceded by the District of Columbia).
Taken together, the evidence in the record, and evidence of which the Court can and should take judicial notice, supports the conclusion that COVID-19 is a serious harm. To recap: Plaintiffs and proposed class members are likely to succeed on the merits of the first prong, or the “objective” prong, of the Eighth Amendment, by having shown that (1) they are at substantial risk of contracting COVID-19; and (2) contracting COVID-19 would cause them serious harm.
b. The Department of Corrections has acted with deliberate indifference to this risk.
To succeed on the second prong of the Eighth Amendment test, Plaintiffs and proposed class members must show that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to the risk posed. See Helling, 509 U.S. at 33–35. Plaintiffs may do so by showing that the identified risk was “longstanding, pervasive, well-documented, or expressly noted by prison officials in the past.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994). Plaintiffs must show both that (1) the defendant
3 Studies suggest “a TB-related mortality rate of 2.1% [in the United States], which was comparable to studies in Canada.” Chou-Han Lin, Tuberculosis Mortality: Patient Characteristics and Causes, 14 BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES (2014).
27

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 28 of 40
“knows of” the identified risk, and (2) the defendant “disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Both prongs are satisfied here.
There is overwhelming evidence, much of it from Defendants themselves, that they “knew of a substantial risk” posed by COVID-19. For one, Defendants’ boss — Mayor Bowser — announced as much on March 11, 2020, declaring that COVID-19 “poses a significant risk of substantial future harm to a large number of people in the District of Columbia.” Mayor’s Order 2020-046, § I(C) (March 11, 2020). The next day, the DOC announced that it was “continu[ing] to monitor COVID-19 in our community and follow[ing] guidance from DC Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” See D.C. Corrs. Info. Council, Statements from the BOP and the DOC Concerning the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-2019) (March 12, 2020), https://cic.dc.gov/release/statements-bop-and-doc-concerning-coronavirus-2019-covid-2019. Of course, that guidance repeatedly emphasized policies and procedures that Defendants steadfastly refused to take. Compare, e.g., CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR BUSINESSES AND EMPLOYERS TO PLAN AND RESPOND TO CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) (March 21, 2020) (calling on employers to minimize employees’ contact with workers, customers and visitors, and to increase ventilation rates), with Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(c) (describing the frequent and close-proximity contact between residents and staff and the poor ventilation in the facilities).
Defendants have also demonstrated that they were aware of particular deficiencies in their facilities that would increase the risk and severity of a COVID-19 outbreak in its premises. In responding to the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor’s report on their facilities, Defendants admitted in 2019 that “[t]he current HVAC system has significant design problems that inhibit proper airflow.” Id. Regarding the lack of Department of Health (“DOH”) compliance checks on
28

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 29 of 40
Defendants’ medical facilities, Defendants “recognize[d]” the Auditor’s recommendation that the medical unit should receive DOH inspections. Id.
Moreover, Defendants were also put on notice by their own staff of the myriad shortcomings of their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 20, 2020, the union of Defendants’ corrections officers unanimously voted “no confidence” in the jail’s leadership, highlighting the lack of personal protective equipment and medical professionals trained in COVID-19 response. See Compl. ¶ 6. And, as of March 25, 2020, Defendants were made acutely aware (if they were not already) of additional, specific shortcomings of their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was on that date that they received a detailed list of inadequacies from their own staff. See Ex. 1, Attch. C, Labor Committee Letter at 3–4.
Defendants are not spared liability by claiming that they are not aware of the risk of COVID-19 to specific individual residents. (Such a claim would be factually dubious, as for the reasons discussed above, all residents in Defendants’ care are at serious risk of harm if they contract COVID-19.) The Supreme Court held in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) that it “does not matter,” under the deliberate indifference prong, “whether a prisoner faces an excessive risk of attack for reasons personal to him or because all prisoners in his situation face such a risk.” Id. at 843. For that proposition, the Supreme Court relied upon Helling’s observation “that the Eighth Amendment requires a remedy for exposure of inmates to ‘infectious maladies’ such as hepatitis and venereal disease ‘even though the possible infection might not affect all of those exposed.’” Id. at 844 (quoting Helling, 509 U.S. at 33).
Plaintiffs and proposed class members are also likely to prevail in showing that Defendants have disregarded and continue to disregard the excessive risk to their health or safety. Dr. Meyer explains that the policies adopted by Defendants “lead [her] to conclude, in [her] professional
29

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 30 of 40
judgment, that the residents, visitors, and employees of these facilities are at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28. Dr. Meyer also concludes given “the state of limited medical care for residents at these facilities, any resident of [CDF and CTF] who contracts COVID-19 faces a serious and substantial risk of death from COVID-19.” Id.
The very failures of Defendants in this case have been found to constitute deliberate indifference in like cases. For instance, in Feliciano v. Gonzales, 13 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D.P.R. 1998), the Court found that the defendant’s “inability . . . to properly isolate cases of active tuberculosis,” the “insufficient medical dormitory beds,” the failure to “fully screen incoming inmates,” and the failure to “provide for a sick call system that ensures access to care and that is capable of effectively handling emergencies” constituted deliberate indifference. Id. at 208–09. In other cases, the defendant’s inability to “adequately quarantine or remove inmates and support staff known to have active tuberculosis” was found to constitute deliberate indifference. See Shimon v. Dep’t of Corr. Servs. for N.Y., No. 93-cv-3144 (DC), 1996 WL 15688, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 1996). And in Joy v. Healthcare CMS, 534 F. Supp. 2d 482 (D. Del. 2008), the Court found that the plaintiffs stated a claim under the Eighth Amendment where the warden “was aware that inmates were not thoroughly screened for disease before going into general population and that Correctional Medical Services does not have a policy in place to examine inmates before placing them into general population.” Id. at 485. As discussed above, the record is replete with Defendants’ deficient performance in all of these categories, including their failed quarantine policy, rampant medical delays, and ineffective screening procedures.
Defendants’ deliberate indifference can also be shown by reference to their failure to follow accepted medical standards. The Court in Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 110 F. Supp. 3d 929 (N.D. Cal. 2015) explained that “known noncompliance with generally accepted guidelines for
30

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 31 of 40
inmate health strongly indicates deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. at 943. Here, Dr. Meyer explains that Defendants are out of compliance in nearly every relevant category, including cleaning and disinfecting practices, hygiene policies, provisions of personal protective equipment, screening policies, social distancing requirements, and medical treatment facilities and protocols. Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(a)-(d).
In the context of COVID-19, courts have granted the relief requested here — immediate release — finding deliberate indifference on similar records. For instance, in Coronel v. Decker, 20-cv-2472 (AJN), 2020 WL 1487274 (S.D.N.Y. March 27, 2020), Judge Nathan pointed to “a series of problems” identified by the petitioner in his facility, including the failure to keep accurate and sufficient medical records and inadequate screening and testing procedures, in finding that the respondent was deliberately indifferent. Id. at *5. In Basank v. Decker, 2020 WL 1481503, the Court rejected the measures taken by the jail in that case, including “screening detainees upon intake for risk factors, isolating detainees who report symptoms, . . . providing soap and hand sanitizer to inmates, and increasing the frequency and intensity of cleaning jail facilities.” Id. at *5. Regarding those policies, the Court held that they “are patently insufficient to protect Petitioners,” because the jail “could not represent that the detention facilities were in a position to allow inmates to remain six feet apart from one another, as recommended by the CDC.” Id. Notably, even the policies and procedures that were found to be insufficient by the Basank court are even above and beyond what Defendants here are providing. Far from providing hand sanitizer to residents, Defendants actively removed it; instead of isolating detainees who report symptoms, Defendants placed “quarantined” inmates two-to-a-cell with no ventilation separation from nonquarantined inmates.
31

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 32 of 40
The record evidence thus shows that Defendants knew, and know, of the risk of COVID19, but that they have recklessly disregarded that risk. They have done so by failing to follow established guidelines for preventing the spread and severity of COVID-19 and by adopting policies, and failing to adopt others, that would mitigate the risk and harm of the virus. Plaintiffs and proposed class members are therefore likely to succeed on the deliberate indifference prong of the Eighth Amendment.
2. Plaintiffs and proposed class members are likely to prevail on the merits of their Fifth Amendment claim.
Plaintiffs and proposed class members who are detained pretrial have due process protections against punishment under the Fifth Amendment. Pretrial detainees are presumed innocent, and they are thus “entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322 (1982); see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979) (“Due process requires that a pretrial detainee not be punished.”). “While a convicted prisoner is entitled to protection only against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, a pretrial detainee, not yet found guilty of any crime, may not be subjected to punishment of any description.” Hardy v. District of Columbia, 601 F. Supp. 2d 182, 188 (D.D.C. 2009) (cleaned up).
Because pretrial detainees are entitled to protections “at least as great as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner,” City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983), conditions that would violate the Eighth Amendment are more than enough to also violate pretrial detainees’ Fifth Amendment rights. Hardy, 601 F. Supp. 2d at 189.
The Fifth Amendment and Eighth Amendment analysis differs in that under the former, a plaintiff can prevail in showing that the defendant “knew, or should have known, that the
32

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 33 of 40
[challenged] condition posed an excessive risk to health or safety,” Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 35 (2d Cir. 2017), while under the latter, a plaintiff must show that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to the risk posed, Helling, 509 U.S. at 33–35. In other words, the Eighth Amendment calls for a subjective analysis of the defendant’s intent, while the Fifth Amendment requires only an objective analysis of whether the defendant should have known of the risks of harm. In any event, as discussed above, Plaintiffs and proposed class members face no hurdle in establishing that Defendants knew of the risk of COVID-19 and that they recklessly disregarded that risk. By meeting their burden under the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiffs and proposed class members have, by definition, met their burden under the Fifth Amendment.
B. Plaintiff and proposed class members will suffer irreparable harm. Immediate injunctive relief is necessary because the danger here — vulnerable people in
inadequate and ill-equipped facilities condemned to severe illness and potential death — is the quintessential irreparable harm. COVID-19 is a serious, and possibly fatal, disease, that is rapidly spreading throughout Defendants’ facilities. As it did on Rikers Island, in Cook County, Chicago, in other prisons, on cruise ships, and in nursing homes, COVID-19 is infecting exponentially more residents day by day. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiff and proposed class members will suffer irreparable harm.
With the exponential growth of infection rates and a confirmed case of COVID-19 already having emerged in Defendants’ facilities, time is of the essence for Plaintiffs and proposed class members. To constitute irreparable harm, “the injury must be both certain and great; it must be actual and not theoretical,” and it must be imminent. Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). Far from speculative, an outbreak is now a certainty — five individuals detained in
33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 34 of 40
Defendants’ custody have already tested positive for COVID-19. The first, a 20-year-old male, has been detained at CTF since July of 2019, and Defendants claim to be unaware of how he contracted it. It is certain that this resident contracted COVID-19 while in Defendants’ custody, almost certainly transmitted from a visitor or staff member entering the jail from the community. Other residents were exposed to the virus, and the disease will continue to spread. Just two days later, Defendants announced that a second resident, a 44-year-old male tested positive; that man lived on a different housing unit as the first positive resident and had been housed with a cellmate. Less than 24 hours later, Defendants announced that two more residents had tested positive, and the following day the DOC announced that a fifth inmate had tested positive. Given the contagious nature of the disease and the conditions at Defendants’ facilities, absent a temporary restraining order, Plaintiffs and proposed class members face serious illness, long-term health issues, and possible death from a virus with no known cure and no vaccine. This establishes the irreparable harm necessary to justify injunctive relief.
Facing requests for preliminary injunctive relief, “courts often find a showing of irreparable harm where the movant’s health is in imminent danger.” Al-Joudi v. Bush, 406 F. Supp. 2d 13, 20 (D.D.C. 2005) (finding irreparable harm where “the threat of death or serious physical deterioration [was] real and imminent.”). The Court must not wait until each individual is infected with COVID-19 — by then it will be too late to prevent the irreparable harm Plaintiffs and proposed class members face. See id. (“It goes without saying that this Court need not wait to issue injunctive relief until a [plaintiff] has died.”). Even the failure to test for a disease has been sufficient to support a finding of irreparable harm. See Boone v. Brown, No. 05-cv-750 (AET), 2005 WL 2006997, at *14 (D.N.J. Aug. 22, 2005) (allegation of refusal to provide adequate testing for highly contagious infectious disease sufficient to demonstrate irreparable harm); Austin v. Pa.
34

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 35 of 40
Dep’t of Corr., No. 90-cv-7497 (JED), 1992 WL 277511, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 1992) (granting preliminary injunction for prison to develop testing and protocol for tuberculosis).
Courts have expressed no hesitation in finding that risk of contracting COVID-19 constitutes irreparable harm where plaintiffs are housed in facilities with a confirmed case of COVID-19. In Basank, 2020 WL 1481503, the Court observed that because “[e]ach of the jails where a Petitioner is being housed has reported confirmed cases of COVID-19,” the “risk that Petitioners will face a severe, and quite possibly fatal, infection if they remain in . . . detention constitutes irreparable harm warranting a TRO.” Id. at *4. There are already five confirmed cases of COVID-19 among the population in Defendants’ custody, with more sure to come.
C. The balance of equities tips in Plaintiffs and proposed class members’ favor and the public interest supports granting the injunction. Where, as here, plaintiffs demonstrate that their constitutional rights have been violated, it
follows that granting injunctive relief is in the public interest. “It is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Simms v. District of Columbia, 827 F. Supp. 2d 90, 105 (D.D.C. 2012). That interest alone is sufficient to weigh in favor of injunctive relief.
Here, however, the public has an additional independent and overwhelming interest in preliminary relief that would require Defendants to take action to minimize the spread of COVID19. It is well established that “public health” is a “significant public interest.” See Grand River Enters. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 425 F.3d 158, 169 (2d Cir. 2005).
Public health officials and medical professionals have concluded that the crucial step to minimize the spread of COVID-19 is to downsize jail populations. In Dr. Stern’s expert opinion, downsizing the population of the jail will “help to ‘flatten the curve’ overall—both within the jail setting and without.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 14. That is because, given the churn of people —
35

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 36 of 40
residents, staff, visitors — through Defendants’ facilities, the outbreak of COVID-19 in the jail will be impossible to confine to the DOC facilities. Compounding the problem, Dr. Stern explains, is that “vulnerable populations are at the highest risk of severe complications from COVID-19, and . . . when they develop severe complications they will be transported to community hospitals — thereby using scarce community resources (ER beds, general hospital beds, ICU beds).” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 13. Thus, “avoid[ing] disease in this population is a critical contribution to public health overall.” Id. For those reasons, the Basank Court explained, “public health and safety are served best by rapidly decreasing the number of individuals detained in confined, unsafe conditions.” 2020 WL 1481503, at *6; see also In the Matter of the Request to Commute or Suspend County Jail Sentences, Case No. 84230 (N. J. Mar. 22, 2020) (holding that “reduction of county jail populations, under appropriate conditions, is in the public interest to mitigate risks imposed by COVID-19” due to “the profound risk posed to people in correctional facilities arising from the spread of COVID-19”).
Similarly, the balance of the equities weighs heavily in plaintiffs’ favor. In evaluating this factor, the Court must “balance the competing claims of injury, which involves considering the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Shvartser v. Lekser, 308 F. Supp. 3d 260, 267 (D.D.C. 2018).
Here, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction will not “substantially injure other interested parties.” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, 454 F.3d at 297. To the contrary, given the nature of COVID-19, not issuing preliminary relief in this case would cause injury to parties beyond the plaintiffs, including the defendants, their staff and the public at large. As the Central District of California explained in granting a TRO:
The balance of the equities tip sharply in favor of the Petitioners. The Petitioners face[] irreparable harm to their constitutional rights and health. Indeed, there is no
36

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 37 of 40
harm to the Government when a court prevents the Government from engaging in unlawful practices. Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause at 10, Castillo, No. 20-cv-605. Here too, other than the relatively minimal administrative burden, there is no identifiable “harm” to Defendants. This burden is far outweighed by what is at stake to plaintiffs and the public if no TRO is issued. D. Release is the most effective remedy. Courts, public health experts, and corrections professionals agree: significantly downsizing populations in correctional institutions is the most important tool to combat the spread of COVID19 among residents, staff, and the greater community. Dr. Stern, the former Assistant Secretary of Health Care for the Washington State Department of Corrections puts it plainly: “Downsizing jail populations serves two critical public health aims: (1) targeting residents who are at elevated risk of suffering from severe symptoms of COVID-19 and (2) allowing those who remain incarcerated to better maintain social distancing and avoid other risks associated with forced communal living.” Ex. 2, Stern Decl. ¶ 13. After reviewing the particular outbreak in Defendants’ facilities and the specific conditions of CTF and CDF, Dr. Stern was “even more firmly convinced that downsizing the inmate population as much as possible will reduce the risk of contraction and transmission of COVID-19 — and the attendant risks of serious harm and death — within DOC facilities and the communities around them.” Id. ¶ 11. Dr. Meyer, who also reviewed the spread of COVID-19 in DOC facilities as well as the conditions and resources at CDF and CTF, comes to the same conclusion: “Reducing the size of the population in jails and prisons is crucially important to reducing the level of risk both for those within those facilities and for the community at large.” Ex. 1, Meyer Decl. ¶ 34. Dr. Meyer considered both the risks that Plaintiffs and proposed class members would contract COVID-19,
37

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 38 of 40
and the risk that they would suffer serious illness . . . and death” from the infection. Id. ¶ 33. Because of the “significantly higher risk” to Plaintiffs and proposed class members, Dr. Meyer writes that “from a public health perspective,” she is “strongly of the opinion that individuals who are already in those facilities should be evaluated for release.” Id. at ¶ 35.
Courts have ordered release in cases like this, on emergency bases, even without the mutually-confirming reports of residents, attorneys, and corrections officers. See Coronel, 2020 WL 1487274 (granting release of four petitioners with medical conditions that render them particularly vulnerable to severe illness or death if infected by COVID-19 from immigration detention); 2020 WL 1481503 (granting release of ten petitioners who “suffer[] from chronic medical conditions, and face[] an imminent risk of death or serious injury in immigration detention if exposed to COVID-19” from immigration detention); United States v. Stephens, 15-cr-95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1295155 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) (granting motion for reconsideration of defendant’s bail conditions and releasing him from jail to home confinement, recognizing inmates may be at heightened risk of contracting COVID-19); Mem. Decision & Order, Jovel v. Decker, Docket No. 27, 20-cv-308 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y. March 26, 2020) (granting emergency request for release of petitioner from immigration detention in light of the COVID-19 crisis); People ex rel. Stoughton on behalf of Little et al. v. Brann, Index No. 260154/2020 (Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty. March 25, 2020) (releasing 106 individuals held at Rikers Island jail on parole violations who are particularly vulnerable to illness or death if infected by COVID-19); People ex rel. Stoughton on behalf of Hogan et al. v. Brann, Index No. 51078/2020 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. March 27, 2020) (releasing 16 individuals held at Rikers Island jail on pre-trial detention who were particularly vulnerable to illness or death due to COVID-19); Xochihua-Jaimes, No. 18-71460 (ordering, sua sponte, that petitioner be immediately released from immigration detention “[i]n light of the
38

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 39 of 40
rapidly escalating public health crisis” related to COVID-19); Castillo, 20-cv-605 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020) (ordering that petitioners be released from immigration detention in light of COVID-19 and noting “the risk of infection in immigration detention facilities – and jails – is particularly high”); Mem. & Order, Jimenez v. Wolf, Docket No. 507, 18-cv-225 (D. Mass. Mar. 26, 2020) (ordering release of petitioner from immigration detention due to COVID-19 concerns); In re Request to Commute or Suspend County Jail Sentences, Docket No. 084230 (N.J. Mar. 22, 2020) (ordering, based on the dangers posed by COVID-19, release of any inmate in New Jersey serving a county jail sentence as a condition of probation or as a result of a municipal court conviction).
This Court should also be guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011). In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s order requiring a “population reduction of 38,000 to 46,000 persons” in California state prisons. Id. at 510. The Court spelled out the State’s obligation under the Eighth Amendment: “To incarcerate, society takes from prisoners the means to provide for their own needs. Prisoners are dependent on the State for food, clothing, and necessary medical care.” Id. at 510. “If government fails to fulfill this obligation, the courts have a responsibility to remedy the resulting Eighth Amendment violation.” Id. at 511. Defendants have failed in the months preceding this outbreak to take necessary precautions, and they are failing now that the outbreak is upon them to take sufficient steps to protect residents who depend on them for “food, clothing, and necessary medical care.” Id. at 510.
To vindicate Plaintiffs’ and proposed class members’ rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, this Court should order a swift reduction in the population in Defendants’ custody. In so doing, the Court would join the legion of other jurisdictions that have recognized what public health experts and correctional professionals like Dr. Stern and Dr. Meyer explain is the soundest
39

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 40 of 40

way to avoid a constitutional and community crisis: to rapidly and thoroughly downsize correctional institutions. This Court has the authority to do so. See Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“[I]n a conditions of confinement claim [brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241] . . . a court may simply order the prisoner released unless the unlawful conditions are rectified . . . .”). Given the irreparable harm posed by this pandemic to Plaintiffs and proposed class members, the strong public interest in public health, and the balance of the equities, the Court should issue the requested temporary restraining order.

DATED: March 30, 2020 Washington, D.C.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Steven Marcus Steven Marcus (D.C. Bar # 1630882) Jonathan Anderson (D.C. Bar # 475306) Jenna Cobb (D.C. Bar # 979506) Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel. 202-824-2524 Fax 202-824-2525 smarcus@pdsdc.org
/s/ Scott Michelman Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar # 1006945) Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar # 235960) Michael Perloff (D.C. Bar # 1601047) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. 202-457-0800 smichelman@acludc.org

40

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 260





(;+,%,7





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 260
'HFODUDWLRQRI'U-DLPLH0H\HU 
3XUVXDQWWR86&,KHUHE\GHFODUHDVIROORZV   , %DFNJURXQGDQG4XDOLILFDWLRQV
 ,DP'U-DLPLH0H\HUDQ$VVLVWDQW3URIHVVRURI0HGLFLQHDW<DOH6FKRRORI0HGLFLQH DQG$VVLVWDQW&OLQLFDO3URIHVVRURI1XUVLQJDW<DOH6FKRRORI1XUVLQJLQ1HZ+DYHQ &RQQHFWLFXW,DPERDUGFHUWLILHGLQ,QWHUQDO0HGLFLQH,QIHFWLRXV'LVHDVHVDQG $GGLFWLRQ 0HGLFLQH ,FRPSOHWHGP\UHVLGHQF\LQ,QWHUQDO0HGLFLQHDW1< 3UHVE\WHULDQ+RVSLWDODW &ROXPELD1HZ<RUNLQ,FRPSOHWHGDIHOORZVKLSLQ FOLQLFDO,QIHFWLRXV'LVHDVHVDW <DOH6FKRRORI0HGLFLQHLQDQGDIHOORZVKLSLQ ,QWHUGLVFLSOLQDU\+,93UHYHQWLRQDW WKH&HQWHUIRU,QWHUGLVFLSOLQDU\5HVHDUFKRQ$,'6 LQ,KROGD0DVWHURI6FLHQFHLQ %LRVWDWLVWLFVDQG(SLGHPLRORJ\IURP<DOH 6FKRRORI3XEOLF+HDOWK
  ,KDYHZRUNHGIRURYHUDGHFDGHRQLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVLQWKHFRQWH[WRIMDLOVDQG SULVRQV )URP,VHUYHGDVWKH,QIHFWLRXV'LVHDVHSK\VLFLDQIRU<RUN &RUUHFWLRQDO ,QVWLWXWLRQLQ1LDQWLF&RQQHFWLFXWZKLFKLVWKHRQO\VWDWHMDLODQGSULVRQ IRUZRPHQLQ &RQQHFWLFXW ,QWKDWFDSDFLW\,ZDVUHVSRQVLEOHIRUWKHPDQDJHPHQWRI +,9+HSDWLWLV& WXEHUFXORVLVDQGRWKHULQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVLQWKHIDFLOLW\ 6LQFHWKHQ ,KDYHPDLQWDLQHGD GHGLFDWHG+,9FOLQLFLQWKHFRPPXQLW\IRUSDWLHQWVUHWXUQLQJ KRPHIURPSULVRQDQGMDLO,Q,YROXQWHHUHGWRUXQPRQWKO\$,'6 DZDUHQHVVSURJUDPPLQJDW'DQEXU\)&,DQG)6/IHGHUDOSULVRQVIRUZRPHQLQ 'DQEXU\&RQQHFWLFXW )RURYHUDGHFDGH,KDYHEHHQFRQWLQXRXVO\IXQGHGE\WKH 1,+LQGXVWU\DQGIRXQGDWLRQVIRUFOLQLFDOUHVHDUFKRQ+,9SUHYHQWLRQDQGWUHDWPHQW IRUSHRSOHLQYROYHGLQ WKHFULPLQDOMXVWLFHV\VWHPLQFOXGLQJWKRVHLQFDUFHUDWHGLQ FORVHGVHWWLQJVMDLOVDQG SULVRQVDQGLQWKHFRPPXQLW\XQGHUVXSHUYLVLRQSUREDWLRQ DQGSDUROH ,KDYHVHUYHGDV DQH[SHUWFRQVXOWDQWRQLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVDQGZRPHQ¶V KHDOWKLQMDLOVDQGSULVRQVIRUWKH 812IILFHRQ'UXJVDQG&ULPHVWKH)HGHUDO%XUHDX RI3ULVRQVDQGRWKHUV,DOVRVHUYHG DVDQH[SHUWKHDOWKZLWQHVVIRUWKH86 &RPPLVVLRQRQ&LYLO5LJKWV6SHFLDO%ULHILQJRQ :RPHQLQ3ULVRQ
  ,KDYHZULWWHQDQGSXEOLVKHGH[WHQVLYHO\RQWKHWRSLFVRILQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVDPRQJ SHRSOHLQYROYHGLQWKHFULPLQDOMXVWLFHV\VWHPLQFOXGLQJERRNFKDSWHUVDQGDUWLFOHVLQ OHDGLQJSHHUUHYLHZHGMRXUQDOVLQFOXGLQJ/DQFHW+,9-$0$,QWHUQDO0HGLFLQH $PHULFDQ-RXUQDORI3XEOLF+HDOWK,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI'UXJ3ROLF\RQLVVXHVRI SUHYHQWLRQGLDJQRVLVDQGPDQDJHPHQWRI+,9+HSDWLWLV&DQGRWKHULQIHFWLRXV GLVHDVHV DPRQJSHRSOHLQYROYHGLQWKHFULPLQDOMXVWLFHV\VWHP
  0\&9LQFOXGHVDIXOOOLVWRIP\KRQRUVH[SHULHQFHDQGSXEOLFDWLRQVDQGLWLV DWWDFKHG DV([KLELW$
  ,DPEHLQJSDLGSHUKRXUIRUP\WLPHUHYLHZLQJPDWHULDOVDQGSUHSDULQJWKLVUHSRUW


Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 260
 ,KDYHQRWWHVWLILHGDVDQH[SHUWDWWULDORUE\GHSRVLWLRQLQWKHSDVWIRXU\HDUV 
 ,KDYHEHHQDVNHGE\WKH3XEOLF'HIHQGHU6HUYLFHIRUWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELDWRUHYLHZ DQGFRPPHQWRQPDWHULDOVLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKDFDVHWREHILOHGRQEHKDOIRIFHUWDLQ LQFDUFHUDWHGLQGLYLGXDOVZKRDUHDWDQLQFUHDVHGULVNRIFRQWUDFWLQJDQGGHYHORSLQJ FRPSOLFDWLRQVIURPH[SRVXUHWR&29,',ZDVVSHFLILFDOO\DVNHGWRFRPPHQWRQMDLO FRQGLWLRQVGXULQJDQGSUHSDUHGQHVVIRUWKH&29,'SDQGHPLF
  ,QDGGLWLRQWRP\NQRZOHGJHWUDLQLQJHGXFDWLRQDQGH[SHULHQFHLQWKHILHOGRISULVRQ KHDOWKFDUHDQGLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVDQGWKHUHVRXUFHVUHOLHGXSRQE\H[SHUWVLQLQIHFWLRXV GLVHDVHVDQGSULVRQKHDOWK,DOVRUHYLHZHGVSHFLILFDOO\WKH&HQWHUVIRU'LVHDVH&RQWURO DQG3UHYHQWLRQ&'&JXLGDQFHRQPDQDJHPHQWRI&29,'LQFRUUHFWLRQDOIDFLOLWLHV DYDLODEOHDWKWWSVZZZFGFJRYFRURQDYLUXVQFRYFRPPXQLW\FRUUHFWLRQ GHWHQWLRQJXLGDQFHFRUUHFWLRQDOGHWHQWLRQKWPOWKH%XUHDXRI3ULVRQV%23PRGLILHG RSHUDWLRQVSODQDYDLODEOHDWKWWSVZZZERSJRYFRURQDYLUXVFRYLGBVWDWXVMVSWKH 1DWLRQDO&RPPLVVLRQRQ&RUUHFWLRQDO+HDOWK&DUH1&&+&PDWHULDOVRQ&29,' DYDLODEOHDWKWWSVZZZQFFKFRUJ&29,'5HVRXUFHVDQGWKH:RUOG+HDOWK 2UJDQL]DWLRQLQWHULPJXLGDQFHRQ3UHSDUHGQHVVSUHYHQWLRQDQGFRQWURORI&29,'LQ SULVRQVDQGRWKHUSODFHVRIGHWHQWLRQDYDLODEOHDW KWWSZZZHXURZKRLQWBBGDWDDVVHWVSGIBILOH3UHSDUHGQHVVSUHYHQWLRQ DQGFRQWURORI&29,'LQSULVRQVSGI"XD  
,, +HLJKWHQHG5LVNRI(SLGHPLFVLQ-DLOVDQG3ULVRQV 
 7KHULVNSRVHGE\LQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVLQMDLOVDQGSULVRQVLVVLJQLILFDQWO\KLJKHUWKDQLQ WKHFRPPXQLW\ERWKLQWHUPVRIULVNRIWUDQVPLVVLRQH[SRVXUHDQGKDUPWRLQGLYLGXDOV ZKREHFRPHLQIHFWHG7KHUHDUHVHYHUDOUHDVRQVWKLVLVWKHFDVHDVGHOLQHDWHGIXUWKHU EHORZ 
*OREDOO\RXWEUHDNVRIFRQWDJLRXVGLVHDVHVDUHDOOWRRFRPPRQLQFORVHGGHWHQWLRQ VHWWLQJVDQGDUHPRUHFRPPRQWKDQLQWKHFRPPXQLW\DWODUJH 3ULVRQVDQGMDLOVDUH QRW LVRODWHGIURPFRPPXQLWLHV 6WDIIYLVLWRUVFRQWUDFWRUVDQGYHQGRUVSDVVEHWZHHQ FRPPXQLWLHVDQGIDFLOLWLHVDQGFDQEULQJLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVLQWRIDFLOLWLHV 0RUHRYHU UDSLGWXUQRYHURIMDLODQGSULVRQSRSXODWLRQVPHDQVWKDWSHRSOHRIWHQF\FOHEHWZHHQ IDFLOLWLHVDQGFRPPXQLWLHV 3HRSOHRIWHQQHHGWREHWUDQVSRUWHGWRDQGIURPIDFLOLWLHV WR DWWHQGFRXUWDQGPRYHEHWZHHQIDFLOLWLHV 3ULVRQKHDOWKLVSXEOLFKHDOWK 
5HGXFHGSUHYHQWLRQRSSRUWXQLWLHV&RQJUHJDWHVHWWLQJVVXFKDVMDLOVDQGSULVRQVDOORZ IRU UDSLGVSUHDGRILQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVWKDWDUHWUDQVPLWWHGSHUVRQWRSHUVRQHVSHFLDOO\ WKRVH SDVVHGE\GURSOHWVWKURXJKFRXJKLQJDQGVQHH]LQJ:KHQSHRSOHPXVWVKDUH GLQLQJKDOOV EDWKURRPVVKRZHUVDQGRWKHUFRPPRQDUHDVWKHRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRU WUDQVPLVVLRQDUH JUHDWHU:KHQLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVDUHWUDQVPLWWHGIURPSHUVRQWR SHUVRQE\GURSOHWVWKH EHVWLQLWLDOVWUDWHJ\LVWRSUDFWLFHVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ :KHQMDLOHG RULPSULVRQHGSHRSOH KDYHPXFKOHVVRIDQRSSRUWXQLW\WRSURWHFWWKHPVHOYHVE\VRFLDO GLVWDQFLQJWKDQWKH\ ZRXOGLQWKHFRPPXQLW\6SDFHVZLWKLQMDLOVDQGSULVRQVDUHRIWHQ DOVRSRRUO\YHQWLODWHG ZKLFKSURPRWHVKLJKO\HIILFLHQWVSUHDGRIGLVHDVHVWKURXJK

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 260
GURSOHWV3ODFLQJVRPHRQHLQ VXFKDVHWWLQJWKHUHIRUHGUDPDWLFDOO\UHGXFHVWKHLUDELOLW\ WRSURWHFWWKHPVHOYHVIURP EHLQJH[SRVHGWRDQGDFTXLULQJLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHV  'LVFLSOLQDU\VHJUHJDWLRQRUVROLWDU\FRQILQHPHQWIDFLOLWLHVLVQRWDQHIIHFWLYHGLVHDVH FRQWDLQPHQWVWUDWHJ\%H\RQGWKHNQRZQGHWULPHQWDOPHQWDOKHDOWKHIIHFWVRIVROLWDU\ FRQILQHPHQW LVRODWLRQRISHRSOHZKRDUHLOOLQVROLWDU\FRQILQHPHQWUHVXOWVLQ GHFUHDVHGPHGLFDO DWWHQWLRQDQGLQFUHDVHGULVNRIGHDWK ,VRODWLRQRISHRSOHZKRDUH LOOXVLQJVROLWDU\ FRQILQHPHQWDOVRLVDQLQHIIHFWLYHZD\WRSUHYHQWWUDQVPLVVLRQRIWKH YLUXVWKURXJK GURSOHWVWRRWKHUVEHFDXVHH[FHSWLQVSHFLDOL]HGQHJDWLYHSUHVVXUH URRPVUDUHO\LQ PHGLFDOXQLWVLIDYDLODEOHDWDOODLUFRQWLQXHVWRIORZRXWZDUGIURP URRPVWRWKHUHVWRI WKHIDFLOLW\ 5LVNRIH[SRVXUHLVWKXVLQFUHDVHGWRRWKHUSHRSOHLQ SULVRQDQGVWDII%HFDXVHLQFDUFHUDWHGSHRSOHPD\SHUFHLYHTXDUDQWLQHDVSXQLWLYHRU DVDOLYLQJDUUDQJHPHQWWKDWDOORZVIHZHUSULYLOHJHVWKDQWKHLUUHJXODUKRXVLQJ LQFDUFHUDWHGSHRSOHPD\EHGHWHUUHGIURPVHOIUHSRUWLQJV\PSWRPVWRPHGLFDOVWDII $VDUHVXOWWKH\PD\UHPDLQLQFRQJUHJDWHVHWWLQJVZKLOHLQIHFWHGSRWHQWLDOO\ WUDQVPLWWLQJLQIHFWLRQVWRRWKHUV  5HGXFHGSUHYHQWLRQRSSRUWXQLWLHV'XULQJDQLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHRXWEUHDNSHRSOHFDQ SURWHFWWKHPVHOYHVE\ZDVKLQJKDQGV-DLOVDQGSULVRQVGRQRWSURYLGHDGHTXDWH RSSRUWXQLWLHVWRH[HUFLVHQHFHVVDU\K\JLHQHPHDVXUHVVXFKDVIUHTXHQWKDQGZDVKLQJRU XVHRIDOFRKROEDVHGVDQLWL]HUVZKHQKDQGZDVKLQJLVXQDYDLODEOH-DLOVDQGSULVRQVDUH RIWHQXQGHUUHVRXUFHGDQGLOOHTXLSSHGZLWKVXIILFLHQWKDQGVRDSDQGDOFRKROEDVHG VDQLWL]HUVIRUSHRSOHGHWDLQHGLQDQGZRUNLQJLQWKHVHVHWWLQJV+LJKWRXFKVXUIDFHV GRRUNQREVOLJKWVZLWFKHVHWFVKRXOGDOVREHFOHDQHGDQGGLVLQIHFWHGUHJXODUO\ZLWK EOHDFKWRSUHYHQWYLUXVVSUHDGEXWWKLVLVRIWHQQRWGRQHLQMDLOVDQGSULVRQVEHFDXVHRID ODFNRIFOHDQLQJVXSSOLHVDQGODFNRISHRSOHDYDLODEOHWRSHUIRUPQHFHVVDU\FOHDQLQJ SURFHGXUHV  5HGXFHGSUHYHQWLRQRSSRUWXQLWLHV'XULQJDQLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHRXWEUHDNDFRQWDLQPHQW VWUDWHJ\UHTXLUHVSHRSOHZKRDUHLOOZLWKV\PSWRPVWREHLVRODWHGDQGWKDWFDUHJLYHUVKDYH DFFHVVWRSHUVRQDOSURWHFWLYHHTXLSPHQWLQFOXGLQJJORYHVPDVNVJRZQVDQGH\HVKLHOGV -DLOVDQGSULVRQVDUHRIWHQXQGHUUHVRXUFHGDQGLOOHTXLSSHGWRSURYLGHVXIILFLHQWSHUVRQDO SURWHFWLYHHTXLSPHQWIRUSHRSOHZKRDUHLQFDUFHUDWHGDQGFDUHJLYLQJVWDIILQFUHDVLQJWKH ULVNIRUHYHU\RQHLQWKHIDFLOLW\RIDZLGHVSUHDGRXWEUHDN  ,QFUHDVHGVXVFHSWLELOLW\3HRSOHLQFDUFHUDWHGLQMDLOVDQGSULVRQVDUHPRUHVXVFHSWLEOHWR DFTXLULQJDQGH[SHULHQFLQJFRPSOLFDWLRQVIURPLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHVWKDQWKHSRSXODWLRQ LQ WKHFRPPXQLW\7KLVLVEHFDXVHSHRSOHLQMDLOVDQGSULVRQVDUHPRUHOLNHO\WKDQ SHRSOHLQ WKHFRPPXQLW\WRKDYHFKURQLFXQGHUO\LQJKHDOWKFRQGLWLRQVLQFOXGLQJ GLDEHWHVKHDUW GLVHDVHFKURQLFOXQJGLVHDVHFKURQLFOLYHUGLVHDVHDQGORZHULPPXQH V\VWHPVIURP+,9  -DLOVDQGSULVRQVDUHRIWHQSRRUO\HTXLSSHGWRGLDJQRVHDQGPDQDJHLQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVH
 Active case finding for communicable diseases in prisons7KH/DQFHW KWWSVZZZWKHODQFHWFRPMRXUQDOVODQFHWDUWLFOH3,,6IXOOWH[W

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 5 of 260
RXWEUHDNV 6RPHMDLOVDQGSULVRQVODFNRQVLWHPHGLFDOIDFLOLWLHVRUKRXUPHGLFDO FDUH 7KHPHGLFDOIDFLOLWLHVDWMDLOVDQGSULVRQVDUHDOPRVWQHYHUVXIILFLHQWO\HTXLSSHG WRKDQGOH ODUJHRXWEUHDNVRILQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHV7RSUHYHQWWUDQVPLVVLRQRIGURSOHW ERUQHLQIHFWLRXV GLVHDVHVSHRSOHZKRDUHLQIHFWHGDQGLOOQHHGWREHLVRODWHGLQ VSHFLDOL]HGDLUERUQHQHJDWLYHSUHVVXUHURRPV 0RVWMDLOVDQGSULVRQVKDYHIHZQHJDWLYH SUHVVXUH URRPVLIDQ\DQGWKHVHPD\EHDOUHDG\LQXVHE\SHRSOHZLWKRWKHUFRQGLWLRQV LQFOXGLQJ WXEHUFXORVLVRULQIOXHQ]D 5HVRXUFHVZLOOEHFRPHH[KDXVWHGUDSLGO\DQG DQ\EHGV DYDLODEOHZLOOVRRQEHDWFDSDFLW\7KLVPDNHVERWKFRQWDLQLQJWKHLOOQHVVDQG FDULQJIRU WKRVHZKRKDYHEHFRPHLQIHFWHGPXFKPRUHGLIILFXOW  -DLOVDQGSULVRQVODFNDFFHVVWRYLWDOFRPPXQLW\UHVRXUFHVWRGLDJQRVHDQGPDQDJH LQIHFWLRXVGLVHDVHV-DLOVDQGSULVRQVGRQRWKDYHDFFHVVWRFRPPXQLW\KHDOWK UHVRXUFHV WKDWFDQEHFUXFLDOLQLGHQWLI\LQJDQGPDQDJLQJZLGHVSUHDGRXWEUHDNVRI LQIHFWLRXV GLVHDVHV 7KLVLQFOXGHVDFFHVVWRWHVWLQJHTXLSPHQWODERUDWRULHVDQG PHGLFDWLRQV  -DLOVDQGSULVRQVRIWHQQHHGWRUHO\RQRXWVLGHIDFLOLWLHVKRVSLWDOVHPHUJHQF\ GHSDUWPHQWVWRSURYLGHLQWHQVLYHPHGLFDOFDUHJLYHQWKDWWKHOHYHORIFDUHWKH\FDQ SURYLGHLQWKHIDFLOLW\LWVHOILVW\SLFDOO\UHODWLYHO\OLPLWHG'XULQJDQHSLGHPLFWKLV ZLOO QRWEHSRVVLEOHDVWKRVHRXWVLGHIDFLOLWLHVZLOOOLNHO\EHDWRURYHUFDSDFLW\ WKHPVHOYHV  +HDOWKVDIHW\$VDQRXWEUHDNVSUHDGVWKURXJKMDLOVSULVRQVDQGFRPPXQLWLHVPHGLFDO SHUVRQQHOEHFRPHVLFNDQGGRQRWVKRZXSWRZRUN$EVHQWHHLVPPHDQVWKDWIDFLOLWLHV FDQEHFRPHGDQJHURXVO\XQGHUVWDIIHGZLWKKHDOWKFDUHSURYLGHUV7KLVLQFUHDVHVD QXPEHU RIULVNVDQGFDQGUDPDWLFDOO\UHGXFHWKHOHYHORIFDUHSURYLGHG $VKHDOWK V\VWHPVLQVLGH IDFLOLWLHVDUHWD[HGSHRSOHZLWKFKURQLFXQGHUO\LQJSK\VLFDODQGPHQWDO KHDOWKFRQGLWLRQV DQGVHULRXVPHGLFDOQHHGVPD\QRWEHDEOHWRUHFHLYHWKHFDUHWKH\ QHHGIRUWKHVH FRQGLWLRQV $VVXSSO\FKDLQVEHFRPHGLVUXSWHGGXULQJDJOREDO SDQGHPLFWKHDYDLODELOLW\ RIPHGLFLQHVDQGIRRGPD\EHOLPLWHG  6DIHW\DQGVHFXULW\$VDQRXWEUHDNVSUHDGVWKURXJKMDLOVSULVRQVDQG FRPPXQLWLHV FRUUHFWLRQDORIILFHUVDQGRWKHUVHFXULW\SHUVRQQHOEHFRPHVLFNDQG GRQRWVKRZXSWRZRUN$EVHQWHHLVPSRVHVVXEVWDQWLDOVDIHW\DQGVHFXULW\ULVNWR ERWKWKHSHRSOHLQVLGHWKHIDFLOLWLHVDQGWKHSXEOLF  7KHVHULVNVKDYHDOOEHHQERUQHRXWGXULQJSDVWHSLGHPLFVRILQIOXHQ]DLQMDLOVDQG SULVRQV)RUH[DPSOHLQWKH&'&UHSRUWHGDQRXWEUHDNRILQIOXHQ]DLQIDFLOLWLHV LQ0DLQHUHVXOWLQJLQWZRLQPDWHGHDWKV 6XEVHTXHQW&'&LQYHVWLJDWLRQRI LQPDWHV DQGVWDIIPHPEHUVDFURVVWKHIDFLOLWLHVGLVFRYHUHGLQVXIILFLHQWVXSSOLHV RILQIOXHQ]D YDFFLQHDQGDQWLYLUDOGUXJVIRUWUHDWPHQWRISHRSOHZKRZHUHLOODQG SURSK\OD[LVIRU SHRSOHZKRZHUHH[SRVHG 'XULQJWKH+1VWUDLQIOXRXWEUHDNLQ
 Influenza Outbreaks at Two Correctional Facilities — Maine, March 2011&HQWHUVIRU'LVHDVH &RQWURODQG3UHYHQWLRQ KWWSVZZZFGFJRYPPZUSUHYLHZPPZUKWPOPPDKWP

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 6 of 260
KLJKQXNPQREZHUQRDIVFWDKVHHV³VZ(LQYHHQIOIXD´FLOLMWDLLHOVVRDQQG³TSXULDVURDQQVWLHQ[HS´HFURLHQQWLFQHXGHGDGWRLVDSFUFRHSSRWUQWLHRZQDLWQHWOD\N HV UHQGHULQJWKHTXDUDQWLQH LQFRPSOHWH7KHVHVFHQDULRVRFFXUUHGLQWKH³EHVWFDVH´RI LQIOXHQ]DDYLUDOLQIHFWLRQIRU ZKLFKWKHUHZDVDQHIIHFWLYHDQGDYDLODEOHYDFFLQHDQG DQWLYLUDOPHGLFDWLRQVXQOLNH &29,'IRUZKLFKWKHUHLVFXUUHQWO\QHLWKHU
 ,,, 3URILOHRI&29,'DVDQ,QIHFWLRXV'LVHDVH
 7KHQRYHOFRURQDYLUXVRIILFLDOO\NQRZQDV6$56&R9FDXVHVDGLVHDVHNQRZQDV &29,' 7KHYLUXVLVWKRXJKWWRSDVVIURPSHUVRQWRSHUVRQSULPDULO\WKURXJK UHVSLUDWRU\GURSOHWVE\FRXJKLQJRUVQHH]LQJEXWPD\DOVRVXUYLYHRQLQDQLPDWH VXUIDFHV 3HRSOHVHHPWREHPRVWDEOHWRWUDQVPLWWKHYLUXVWRRWKHUVZKHQWKH\DUH VLFNHVWEXWLWLVSRVVLEOHWKDWSHRSOHFDQWUDQVPLWWKHYLUXVEHIRUHWKH\VWDUWWRVKRZ V\PSWRPVRUIRUZHHNVDIWHUWKHLUV\PSWRPVUHVROYH ,Q&KLQDZKHUH&29,' RULJLQDWHGWKHDYHUDJHLQIHFWHGSHUVRQSDVVHGWKHYLUXVRQWRRWKHUSHRSOH WUDQVPLVVLRQRFFXUUHGDWDGLVWDQFHRIIHHW 1RWRQO\LVWKHYLUXVYHU\HIILFLHQWDW EHLQJWUDQVPLWWHGWKURXJKGURSOHWVHYHU\RQHLVDWULVNRILQIHFWLRQEHFDXVHRXULPPXQH V\VWHPVKDYHQHYHUEHHQH[SRVHGWRQRUGHYHORSHGSURWHFWLYHUHVSRQVHVDJDLQVWWKLV YLUXV $YDFFLQHLVFXUUHQWO\LQGHYHORSPHQWEXWZLOOOLNHO\QRWEHDYDLODEOHIRUDWOHDVW DQRWKHU\HDUWRWKH JHQHUDOSXEOLF $QWLYLUDOPHGLFDWLRQVDUHFXUUHQWO\LQWHVWLQJEXWQRW \HW)'$DSSURYHG VRRQO\DYDLODEOHIRUXVHLQFOLQLFDOWULDOV 3HRSOHLQSULVRQDQGMDLO ZLOOOLNHO\KDYHHYHQOHVVDFFHVVWRWKHVHQRYHOKHDOWKVWUDWHJLHVDVWKH\EHFRPH DYDLODEOH  0RVWSHRSOHZKREHFRPHLQIHFWHGZLWK&29,'ZLOOGHYHORSDPLOGXSSHU UWRHVSLUDWRRUI\FLDQVIHHVFWLLQRFQOXEGXLWQHJPGHHUDJWLKQJG6DHWUDLRIUXRVPLOO&QHKVLVQDDQVGXJGJHHDVWWKVLVVHPULRRXVVWFLOROQPHPVVRRQFDFPXURVQLQJXS SHRSOHZLWKXQGHUO\LQJFKURQLFKHDOWKFRQGLWLRQVOLNHKHDUWGLVHDVHOXQJGLVHDVHOLYHU GLVHDVHDQGGLDEHWHVDQGROGHUDJH 'HDWKLQ&29,'LQIHFWLRQLVXVXDOO\GXHWR SQHXPRQLDDQGVHSVLV 7KHHPHUJHQFHRI&29,'GXULQJLQIOXHQ]DVHDVRQPHDQV WKDW SHRSOHDUHDOVRDWULVNIURPVHULRXVLOOQHVVDQGGHDWKGXHWRLQIOXHQ]DHVSHFLDOO\
 'DYLG05HXWWHUSwine Flu Widespread in Prisons and Jails, but Deaths are Few3ULVRQ /HJDO1HZV)HEKWWSVZZZSULVRQOHJDOQHZVRUJQHZVIHEVZLQHIOX ZLGHVSUHDGLQSULVRQVDQGMDLOVEXWGHDWKVDUHIHZ 7KLVZKROHVHFWLRQGUDZVIURP%URRNV-*OREDO(SLGHPLRORJ\DQG3UHYHQWLRQRI&29,' &29,'6\PSRVLXP&RQIHUHQFHRQ5HWURYLUXVHVDQG2SSRUWXQLVWLF,QIHFWLRQV&52, YLUWXDO0DUFKCoronavirus (COVID-19)&HQWHUVIRU'LVHDVH&RQWURO KWWSVZZZFGFJRYFRURQDYLUXVQFRYLQGH[KWPO%UHQW*LEVRQCOVID-19 (Coronavirus): What You Need to Know in Corrections1DWLRQDO&RPPLVVLRQRQ&RUUHFWLRQDO +HDOWK&DUH)HEUXDU\KWWSVZZZQFFKFRUJEORJFRYLGFRURQDYLUXVZKDW\RX QHHGWRNQRZLQFRUUHFWLRQV ϱCoronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Summary&HQWHUVIRU'LVHDVH&RQWURODQG 3UHYHQWLRQ0DUFKKWWSVZZZFGFJRYFRURQDYLUXVQFRYVXPPDU\KWPO
ϲClinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. 7KH/DQFHWSXEOLVKHGRQOLQH0DUFK KWWSVZZZWKHODQFHWFRPMRXUQDOVODQFHWDUWLFOH3,,6IXOOWH[W

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 7 of 260
ZKHQ WKH\KDYHQRWUHFHLYHGWKHLQIOXHQ]DYDFFLQHRUWKHSQHXPRQLDYDFFLQH  7KHFDUHRISHRSOHZKRDUHLQIHFWHGZLWK&29,'GHSHQGVRQKRZVHULRXVO\WKH\DUH LOO3HRSOHZLWKPLOGV\PSWRPVPD\QRWUHTXLUHKRVSLWDOL]DWLRQEXWPD\FRQWLQXHWREH FORVHO\PRQLWRUHGDWKRPH 3HRSOHZLWKPRGHUDWHV\PSWRPVPD\UHTXLUH KRVSLWDOL]DWLRQ IRUVXSSRUWLYHFDUHLQFOXGLQJLQWUDYHQRXVIOXLGVDQGVXSSOHPHQWDO R[\JHQ 3HRSOHZLWK VHYHUHV\PSWRPVPD\UHTXLUHYHQWLODWLRQDQGLQWUDYHQRXV DQWLELRWLFV3XEOLFKHDOWK RIILFLDOVDQWLFLSDWHWKDWKRVSLWDOVHWWLQJVZLOOOLNHO\EH RYHUZKHOPHGDQGEH\RQGFDSDFLW\ WRSURYLGHWKLVW\SHRILQWHQVLYHFDUHDV&29,' EHFRPHVPRUHZLGHVSUHDGLQ FRPPXQLWLHV  &29,'SUHYHQWLRQVWUDWHJLHVLQFOXGHFRQWDLQPHQWDQGPLWLJDWLRQ &RQWDLQPHQW UHTXLUHVLQWHQVLYHKDQGZDVKLQJSUDFWLFHVGHFRQWDPLQDWLRQDQGDJJUHVVLYHFOHDQLQJRI VXUIDFHVDQGLGHQWLI\LQJDQGLVRODWLQJSHRSOHZKRDUHLOORUZKRKDYHKDGFRQWDFWZLWK SHRSOHZKRDUHLOOLQFOXGLQJWKHXVHRISHUVRQDOSURWHFWLYHHTXLSPHQW -DLOVDQGSULVRQV DUHWRWDOO\XQGHUUHVRXUFHGWRPHHWWKHGHPDQGIRUDQ\RIWKHVHVWUDWHJLHV $V LQIHFWLRXV GLVHDVHVVSUHDGLQWKHFRPPXQLW\SXEOLFKHDOWKGHPDQGVPLWLJDWLRQ VWUDWHJLHVZKLFK LQYROYHVVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJDQGFORVLQJRWKHUFRPPXQDOVSDFHV VFKRROVZRUNSODFHVHWF WRSURWHFWWKRVHPRVWYXOQHUDEOHWRGLVHDVH -DLOVDQG SULVRQVDUHXQDEOHWRDGHTXDWHO\ SURYLGHVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJRUPHHWPLWLJDWLRQ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVDVGHVFULEHGDERYH  7KHWLPHWRDFWLVQRZ 'DWDIURPRWKHUVHWWLQJVGHPRQVWUDWHZKDWKDSSHQVZKHQMDLOV DQGSULVRQVDUHXQSUHSDUHGIRU&29,' 7RGDWHIHZ VWDWHRUIHGHUDOSULVRQ V\VWHPVKDYHDGHTXDWHRUDQ\SDQGHPLFSUHSDUHGQHVVSODQVLQSODFH6\VWHPVDUHMXVW EHJLQQLQJWRVFUHHQDQGLVRODWHSHRSOHRQHQWU\DQGSHUKDSVSODFHYLVLWRUUHVWULFWLRQV EXWWKLVLVZKROO\LQDGHTXDWHZKHQVWDIIDQGYHQGRUVFDQVWLOOFRPHWRZRUNVLFNDQG SRWHQWLDOO\WUDQVPLWWKHYLUXVWRRWKHUV  ,9 5LVNRI&29,'LQWKH'&'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV¶³'&'2&´ &RUUHFWLRQDO7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLW\DQG&HQWUDO'HWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\³'&MDLOV´  ,QPDNLQJP\DVVHVVPHQWRIWKHGDQJHURI &29,'LQWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELDMDLOV, KDYHUHYLHZHGWKHIROORZLQJUHSRUWVDQGGHFODUDWLRQV
L 5HSRUWVSXEOLVKHGIROORZLQJORFDOJRYHUQPHQWLQVSHFWLRQVRIWKH'&MDLOV  'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD&RUUHFWLRQV,QIRUPDWLRQ&RXQFLO³'& 'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV,QVSHFWLRQ5HSRUW´SXEOLVKHG0D\   2IILFHRIWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD$XGLWRU³3RRU&RQGLWLRQV3HUVLVWDW $JLQJ'&-DLO1HZ)DFLOLW\1HHGHGWR0LWLJDWH5LVNV´SXEOLVKHG )HEUXDU\

ϳCoronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease&HQWHUVIRU'LVHDVH&RQWURODQG3UHYHQWLRQ 0DUFK KWWSVZZZFGFJRYFRURQDYLUXVQFRYKFSFOLQLFDOJXLGDQFH PDQDJHPHQW SDWLHQWVKWPO

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 8 of 260
 LL 5HSRUWUHVXOWLQJIURPDQRQSURILWDJHQF\LQVSHFWLRQRIWKH'&MDLOV
 :DVKLQJWRQ/DZ\HUV¶&RPPLWWHHIRU&LYLO5LJKWVDQG8UEDQ$IIDLUV ³'&3ULVRQHUV&RQGLWLRQVRI&RQILQHPHQWLQWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD´ SXEOLVKHG-XQH 
LLL 'HFODUDWLRQVIURPWKRVHOLYLQJDQGZRUNLQJZLWKLQWKH'&MDLOV  &7)LQPDWHV.HRQ-DFNVRQDQG(ULF6PLWK  &')LQPDWHV'¶$QJHOR3KLOOLSVDQG(GZDUG%DQNV  3XEOLF'HIHQGHU6HUYLFHVWDIIZKRHQWHUHGWKHMDLOIDFLOLWLHVWRPHHW ZLWKFOLHQWVDQGZKRKDYHFRQGXFWHGSKRQHLQWHUYLHZVZLWKFOLHQWV UHJDUGLQJFRQGLWLRQVZLWKLQWKHMDLOV  'LYLVLRQ&KLHI-RQDWKDQ$QGHUVRQ  6XSHUYLVLQJ$WWRUQH\-RVHSK:RQJ  6XSHUYLVLQJ$WWRUQH\,HVKDDK0XUSK\  6WDII$WWRUQH\'DQLHO3RQG  6WDII$WWRUQH\5DFKHO&LFXUHO  6WDII$WWRUQH\5RQDOG5HVHWDULWV  6WDII$WWRUQH\.DY\D1DLQL  ,QYHVWLJDWLYH,QWHUQ(LOHHQ-RKQVRQ  ,QYHVWLJDWLYH,QWHUQ.DWKHULQH.XHQ]OH  ,QYHVWLJDWLYH,QWHUQ6DPXHO&\SKHUV  0DUFK)UDWHUQDO2UGHURI3ROLFH'HSDUWPHQWRI &RUUHFWLRQV/DERU&RPPLWWHH/HWWHUWR4XLQF\/%RRWK 
%DVHGRQP\UHYLHZRIWKHVHPDWHULDOVP\H[SHULHQFHZRUNLQJRQSXEOLFKHDOWKLQMDLOV DQGSULVRQVDQGP\UHYLHZRIWKHUHOHYDQWOLWHUDWXUHLWLVP\SURIHVVLRQDOMXGJPHQW WKDW WKHVHIDFLOLWLHVDUHGDQJHURXVO\XQGHUHTXLSSHGDQGLOOSUHSDUHGWRSUHYHQWDQG PDQDJHD &29,'RXWEUHDNZKLFKZRXOGUHVXOWLQVHYHUHKDUPWRGHWDLQHG LQGLYLGXDOVMDLODQG SULVRQVWDIIDQGWKHEURDGHUFRPPXQLW\,QDGGLWLRQWKHSUDFWLFHV DQGUHVRXUFHVRI&')DQG&7)ZLWKUHJDUGWRVDQLWDWLRQDQGRWKHUSROLFLHVDVUHIOHFWHG LQWKHGHFODUDWLRQVRI&')DQG&7)LQPDWHVZKRKDYHUHVLGHGLQWKHVHIDFLOLWLHVLQ 0DUFKDQGWKHGHFODUDWLRQVRIWKH3'6DWWRUQH\VZKRKDYHYLVLWHGWKHVHIDFLOLWLHVLQ 0DUFKOHDGPHWRFRQFOXGHLQP\SURIHVVLRQDOMXGJPHQWWKDWWKHLQPDWHVYLVLWRUV DQGHPSOR\HHVRIWKHVHIDFLOLWLHVDUHDWLPPLQHQWULVNRIFRQWUDFWLQJ&29,')XUWKHU EDVHGRQWKHVHVDPHGHFODUDWLRQVLWLVP\SURIHVVLRQDOMXGJPHQWWKDWQRZWKDWWKHUHLVDW OHDVWRQHSRVLWLYHFDVHRI&29,'ZLWKLQWKH&')DQG&7)IDFLOLWLHVWKHFKDQFHVDUH H[WUHPHO\KLJKWKDWPRVWRUDOORIWKHRWKHULQPDWHVRIYLVLWRUVWRDQGHPSOR\HHVDWWKDW IDFLOLW\ZLOOFRQWUDFWLWDVZHOO)LQDOO\LWLVP\SURIHVVLRQDOMXGJPHQWWKDWEHFDXVHRIWKH KLJKOLNHOLKRRGWKDWLQPDWHVYLVLWRUVDQGHPSOR\HHVRI&')DQG&7)ZLOOFRQWUDFW &29,'FRPELQHGZLWKWKHVWDWHRIOLPLWHGPHGLFDOFDUHIRULQPDWHVDWWKHVH IDFLOLWLHVDQ\LQPDWHRIWKHVHIDFLOLWLHVZKRFRQWUDFWV&29,'IDFHVDVHULRXVDQG VXEVWDQWLDOULVNRIGHDWKIURP&29,'7KHUHDVRQVIRUWKLVFRQFOXVLRQDUHGHWDLOHG DV IROORZV
  ,QWKHEHORZVHFWLRQVXPPDULHVRI&'&JXLGDQFHDQGJHQHUDOFOLQLFUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 9 of 260
 D*HQHUDO3UHYHQWLRQ3UDFWLFHV 
L &OHDQLQJDQG'LVLQIHFWLQJ3UDFWLFHV%HFDXVHWKH6$56&R9YLUXVWKDW FDXVHV&29,'GLVHDVHFDQVXUYLYHRQLQDQLPDWHREMHFWVKLJKWRXFKVXUIDFHV LQFOXGLQJGRRUNQREVOLJKWVZLWFKHVFRXQWHUWRSVVKRXOGEHUHJXODUO\GLVLQIHFWHG ZLWKEOHDFK7KH&'&UHFRPPHQGVFOHDQLQJDQGGLVLQIHFWLQJVHYHUDOWLPHVSHU GD\VXUIDFHVWKDWDUHQRWRUGLQDULO\FOHDQHGGDLO\LQFOXGLQJGRRUNQREVOLJKW VZLWFKHVFRXQWHUWRSVVLQNKDQGOHVUHFUHDWLRQHTXLSPHQWWHOHSKRQHVNLRVNV$W OHDVWVHYHUDOWLPHVSHUGD\VWDIIVKRXOGFOHDQDQGGLVLQIHFWVKDUHGHTXLSPHQW LQFOXGLQJUDGLRVVHUYLFHZHDSRQVNH\VDQGKDQGFXIIV
 Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, CDF and CTF facilities were described, in a mix of government reports, audits and declarations, as being unsanitary and unhygienic with crumbling physical infrastructure. These conditions will contribute to the rapid spread of COVID-19 within the facility, in the absence of adequate cleaning and disinfecting protocols. Declarations from people incarcerated at CDF and CTF facilities reflect that inmates are provided with rare bottles of Windex to clear their cells, which contains 4% isopropyl alcohol, as compared to the 70% alcohol-containing products or bleach needed to disinfect, per CDC recommendations. In fact, since Windex contains 28% ammonia, it could actually be harmful if mixed with bleach because the reaction generates chlorine gas that irritates the respiratory tract, eyes, and skin.
 LL +\JLHQH3UHYHQWLRQRI&29,'UHTXLUHVWKDWSHRSOHKDYHDFFHVVWRVRDS SULYDWHVLQNVDQGFOHDQZDWHUIRUKDQGZDVKLQJRUDOFRKROEDVHGKDQGVDQLWL]HUV  Failure to provide CDF and CTF inmates with a consistent and free supply of hygienic products (including soap and hand sanitizer) will increase the rate at which COVID-19 spreads around these facilities, because hand washing is one of the most effective ways to prevent spread of the virus. Yet declarations from people currently incarcerated in these facilities reflect no access to alcohol-based sanitizers and completely inadequate provision of no-cost soap.  LLL 3HUVRQDOSURWHFWLYHHTXLSPHQW33(&'&UHFRPPHQGVWKDW³DOOVWDIIDQG LQFDUFHUDWHGGHWDLQHGSHUVRQVZKRZLOOKDYHFRQWDFWZLWKLQIHFWLRXVPDWHULDOVLQ WKHLUZRUNSODFHPHQWVKDYHEHHQWUDLQHGFRUUHFWO\WRGRQGRIIDQGGLVSRVHRI 33(´,QWKLVFDVH33(LQFOXGHVJRZQVJORYHVIDFHPDVNVUHVSLUDWRUVDQGH\H VKLHOGVRUJRJJOHV1UHVSLUDWRUVUHTXLUHVSHFLDOILWWHVWLQJDQGSHRSOHZLWK IDFLDOKDLUQHHGVSHFLDODFFRPPRGDWLRQVEHFDXVHWKH\FDQQRWDFKLHYHDWLJKW HQRXJKVHDOZLWK1UHVSLUDWRUV,QPDWHVLQYROYHGLQFOHDQLQJODXQGU\DQGPHDO VHUYLFHDOVRQHHGWREHWUDLQHGLQKRZWRGRQDQGGRIISHUVRQDOSURWHFWLYH HTXLSPHQW
 DUHIROORZHGE\DGLVFXVVLRQLQitalicsRIKRZWKHVHJXLGHOLQHVDSSO\WRWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD 'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 10 of 260

The lack of personal protective equipment (“PPE”) for both D.C. DOC staff and inmates, as described in the declarations of inmates and attorneys, will result in increased risk of COVID-19 infection. Even if PPE is accessible for CDF and CTF staff, it does not appear from PDS staff declarations that staff have been using PPE. This is also likely to increase the spread of the virus, as even asymptomatic people can transmit the virus. Of particular concern is the lack of PPE for staff who interact with the many visitors that cycle in and out of the facilities.

Inmates assigned to cleaning duties are also not provided appropriate PPE,

resulting in high risk of contracting COVID-19. The DOC Labor Committee

Letter reflects that Correctional Officers who requested PPE to extract inmates

who are possible COVID-19 infected and bring them to isolation or quarantine

were removed from duty. This is completely unacceptable and will undoubtedly

result in COVID-19 infections in the facility and harm to inmates and staff.

Absent from the documents I reviewed is any mention of planning for shortages

for PPE or training staff on how to use PPE. This is critical because, without

training, staff risk exposing themselves and inmates to COVID-19 infection when

donning and doffing equipment.



E6FUHHQLQJ&29,'LVDYLUXVWKDWVSUHDGVHDVLO\SULPDULO\IURPSHUVRQWR

SHUVRQWKURXJKUHVSLUDWRU\GURSOHWV,WLVWKHUHIRUHLPSHUDWLYHWKDWSHRSOHHQWHULQJ

FORVHGFRQILQHPHQWVHWWLQJVOLNHSULVRQVDUHSURSHUO\VFUHHQHGWRHQVXUHWKDWWKH\GR

QRWEULQJWKHYLUXVLQWRWKHIDFLOLW\5HVHDUFKVXJJHVWVWKDWSHRSOHZKRDUHLOOZLWK

&29,'DQGH[SHULHQFLQJV\PSWRPVDUHPRVWOLNHO\WRWUDQVPLWWKHYLUXVWRRWKHUV

7KHYLUXVFDQEHWUDQVPLWWHGYHU\HIILFLHQWO\IURPSHUVRQWRSHUVRQZLWKLQIHHW

SXWWLQJVWDIIDQGLQPDWHVDWULVNRIEHFRPLQJLQIHFWHGXQOHVVSURSHULQIHFWLRQ

SUHYHQWLRQDQGFRQWUROVWUDWHJLHVDUHLPSOHPHQWHG





L 6FUHHQLQJ,QPDWHV&XUUHQW&'&JXLGDQFHVXJJHVWVVFUHHQLQJVKRXOGFRQVLVWRI

WZRTXHVWLRQV³7RGD\RULQWKHSDVWKRXUVKDYH\RXKDGDQ\RIWKH

IROORZLQJV\PSWRPVIHYHUIHOWIHYHULVKKDGFKLOOVFRXJKGLIILFXOW\EUHDWKLQJ

,QWKHSDVWGD\VKDYH\RXKDGFRQWDFWZLWKDSHUVRQNQRZQWREHLQIHFWHGZLWK

&29,'"´



There is no description in any of the documents I reviewed, that inmates are being

screened for COVID-19 on intake. After completing screening, people without

symptoms or temperature but who have been exposed to COVID-19, should be

quarantined for 14 days to monitor for signs and symptoms of infection.

Declarations from inmates suggest quarantining after exposure is occurring but

for only 1 week. This premature release from quarantine will likely result in

people with COVID-19 infection entering the general population in the facility

and infecting others. Given that the average person with COVID-19 infection

transmits the disease to 2-3 others (in the best of circumstances in the community

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 11 of 260
where social distancing is possible), this will likely result in the disease spreading through the facility like wildfire.  LL 6FUHHQLQJ6WDII&'&UHFRPPHQGVYHUEDOO\VFUHHQLQJDOOVWDIIGDLO\RQHQWU\LQWR WKHIDFLOLW\IRU&29,'V\PSWRPVDQGFORVHFRQWDFWZLWKFDVHVDQG WHPSHUDWXUHFKHFNV
It is unclear from the documents I reviewed whether this is occurring, if at all. Per the DOC Labor Committee Letter, there has been no attempt to reassign staff who are at high-risk for COVID-19 themselves, putting staff at high risk of contracting the disease and transmitting to other staff and inmates residing inside the facility.
LLL 6FUHHQLQJ9LVLWRUV9HQGRUV&RQWUDFWRUV$FFRUGLQJWRWKH&'&YLVLWRUVDQG YROXQWHHUVVKRXOGDOVRFRPSOHWHYHUEDOVFUHHQLQJSURFHGXUHVDQGWHPSHUDWXUH FKHFNVRQHQWU\LQWRWKHIDFLOLW\
 The screening procedures described in the PDS staff declarations are insufficient to mitigate the risk that the virus will enter. Of particular concern is the lack of PPE for staff who interact with the many visitors that cycle in and out of the facilities delay; the inadequacy of the visitor screening program to identify asymptomatic carriers and the use of faulty equipment to recognize even symptomatic visitors will all but guarantee that someone infected with COVID-19 will enter the facilities. While some attempts have been clearly made to introduce a screening questionnaire, the questions used are outdated because they still focus on travel screening which has become a moot point in light of widespread community outbreaks, and thus do not align with CDC recommendations. The vast deficits in the screening process is especially important in DC jails, where medical care providers and contractors. If a medical care provider is infected with COVID-19, there is still the high likelihood that they will be able to enter the facility and can infect inmates with whom they have direct patient care contact.
 F6RFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ:KHQFRQWDLQPHQWVWUDWHJLHVEHFRPHRYHUZKHOPHGPLWLJDWLRQ VWUDWHJLHVUHTXLUHSHRSOHWRSUDFWLFHVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ&'&UHFRPPHQGVWKHIROORZLQJ VWUDWHJLHV0HDOVFDQEHVWDJJHUHGDQGVHDWLQJEHUHDUUDQJHGLQGLQLQJKDOOVDQG FRPPRQDUHDVOLNHZDLWLQJDUHDVWRHQDEOHVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJVXFKDVUHPRYLQJHYHU\ RWKHUVHDW$OWHUQDWLYHO\PHDOVFRXOGEHSURYLGHGLQKRXVLQJXQLWV0LWLJDWLRQ VWUDWHJLHVPXVWEHLQSODFHIRURWKHUKLJKO\FRQJUHJDWHVHWWLQJVVXFKDVUHFUHDWLRQ JURXSDFWLYLWLHVHGXFDWLRQDOFODVVHVYRFDWLRQDOWUDLQLQJDQGUHOLJLRXVVHUYLFHV  The lack of ability to practice social distancing in the CDF and CTF is also concerning and will the increase rate of spread of the virus. Continuing programming in groups of 30, as one inmate described in his declaration, will inevitably result in increased spread of the virus. The description by another inmate about inmates dipping their hands and cups into a communal cooler of juice also suggests that D.C. DOC is not enforcing even basic social distancing protocols. This is compounded by congregate housing units, in

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 12 of 260
which 40-50 men are sleeping in a single unit, many of whom have respiratory symptoms that are consistent with COVID-19 infection. CDF and CTF facilities are described, in a mix of government reports, audits and declarations as poorly ventilated with overwhelmingly communal shared spaces that are poorly ventilated. This scenario makes social distancing practices impossible, contributing to the rapid spread of COVID-19 once it enters a facility. The ventilation conditions described in the District of Columbia’s Auditor’s report is also concerning and will increase the rate of spread of the virus. The Department of Corrections’ response to the Auditor’s report includes D.C. DOC’s own conclusion that the “current HVAC system has significant design problems that inhibit proper airflow.” Because the virus can spread in an airborne state, ventilation is an important mitigator for the spread of the virus.  G0DQDJHPHQWRIWKHGLVHDVHLQWKHIDFLOLW\3HRSOHZKRKDYHEHHQGLDJQRVHGZLWK &29,'HLWKHUEHFDXVHWKH\H[KLELWFRQVLVWHQWV\PSWRPVRUEHFDXVHWKH\REWDLQHGD SRVLWLYHWHVWQHHGWREHPHGLFDOO\LVRODWHGWRSUHYHQWWKHYLUXVIURPEHLQJWUDQVPLWWHGWR RWKHUSHRSOHLQWKHIDFLOLW\SRSXODWLRQ,PSRUWDQWO\PHGLFDOLVRODWLRQGLIIHUVIURP GLVFLSOLQDU\VHJUHJDWLRQ,WVKRXOGEHXVHGDVDSXEOLFKHDOWKPHDVXUHWKDWDOVRDWWHQGVWR WKHPHGLFDOQHHGVRIWKHLQGLYLGXDOQRWXVHGWRGHSULYHWKHPRIDOOIUHHGRPRI PRYHPHQW,GHDOO\SHRSOHZLWK&29,'ZLOOEHPHGLFDOO\LVRODWHGQHDUPHGLFDOXQLWV ZKHUHWKH\FDQUHFHLYHFOLQLFDOFDUHDQGDWWHQWLRQ,QSHRSOHZKRDUHROGHU!DQGZLWK XQGHUO\LQJPHGLFDOFRQGLWLRQVWKHGLVHDVHFDQSURJUHVVH[WUHPHO\UDSLGO\VRPHGLFDO DWWHQWLRQLVFULWLFDO
The delays in access to care that already exist in normal circumstances will only become worse during an outbreak, making it especially difficult for the facilities to contain any infections and to treat those who are infected. The descriptions by inmates that there are day-long delays to see medical staff is highly concerning and will increase the risk of infection-related morbidity and mortality. The District of Columbia’s Auditor’s observation that the Department of Health does not conduct any inspections of the CTF is troubling, as regular compliance checks are essential to determining whether medical care is adequate.
L 6XIILFLHQF\RILVRODWLRQVSDFHV3ULVRQVDUHEXLOWWRFRQWDLQSHRSOHQRWGLVHDVHV *LYHQKRZ&29,'RXWEUHDNVKDYHRYHUZKHOPHGHYHQWKHPRVWVRSKLVWLFDWHG KRVSLWDOV\VWHPVQDWLRQZLGHLWLVXQOLNHO\WKDWWKH'&'2&ZLOOEHDGHTXDWHO\ HTXLSSHGRUVXSSRUWHGRQFHVRPHRQHLQWKHIDFLOLW\EHFRPHVLOOZLWK&29,' (YHQPLOGGLVHDVHUHTXLUHVFORVHPRQLWRULQJDQGWKDWFDUHJLYHUVDQGRUKHDOWKFDUH SHUVRQQHOKDYHSHUVRQDOSURWHFWLYHHTXLSPHQW33(LQFOXGLQJJORYHVJRZQV H\HVKLHOGVDQGPDVNVWKDWDUHQRWXVXDOO\DYDLODEOHLQWKH'&'2&RUDUH SRWHQWLDOO\LQOLPLWHGVXSSO\$LUERUQHLVRODWLRQURRPVDUHVSHFLDOO\HTXLSSHGZLWK QHJDWLYHSUHVVXUHWRDOORZDLUIORZIURPRXWVLGHWKHURRPWRLQVLGH7KHVH QHJDWLYHSUHVVXUHURRPVVKRXOGEHXVHGIRUSHRSOHZLWKGLDJQRVHGRUVXVSHFWHG &29,'ZKRKDYHPRUHVHYHUHGLVHDVHRUDUHDWKLJKULVNRIDHURVROL]LQJ GURSOHWVHJWKH\DUHFRXJKLQJIUHTXHQWO\


Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 13 of 260
$&29,'RXWEUHDNSRVHVSDUWLFXODUULVNWRSHRSOHZLWKXQGHUO\LQJFKURQLF KHDOWKFRQGLWLRQVLQFOXGLQJKHDUWGLVHDVHOXQJGLVHDVHOLYHUGLVHDVHSUHJQDQF\ GLDEHWHVDQGVXSSUHVVHGLPPXQHV\VWHPV7KH\KDYHKLJKHUULVNRIEHFRPLQJ LQIHFWHGZLWK&29,'LIH[SRVHGDQGKLJKHUULVNRIFRPSOLFDWLRQVDQGGHDWKLI LQIHFWHG3HRSOHDOVRQHHGFRQWLQXRXVDFFHVVWRWUHDWPHQWIRUWKHLURWKHU XQGHUO\LQJKHDOWKFRQGLWLRQVZKLFKDUHDWULVNGXULQJD&29,'SDQGHPLFLQ WKHFRQWH[WRIKHDOWKFDUHXQGHUVWDIILQJDQGUHGXFHGDFFHVVWRPHGLFDWLRQVLI VXSSO\FKDLQVDUHLQWHUUXSWHG
The 2019 D.C. Auditor report suggests there is a single medical isolation space in CTF with negative pressure capacity, located in the Medical 82 unit. The same report noted that, at the time of the audit, the remainder of the 40 beds were nearly entirely filled (at 73% capacity), which would leave few beds available for COVID-19 patients. To say this is unacceptable is an understatement. Given that, as of March 27, 2020 there are around 1600 individuals in D.C. DOC custody, that means approximately 1600 individuals would rely on that single isolation room if they became infected with COVID-19. Clearly demand would outpace need. Individuals who could not be isolated in single spaces could be isolated in cohorts, but only if testing were widely available in the facility, which does not appear to be the case. These issues will culminate in people with COVID-19 infection: 1) remaining in communal settings to easily transmit to everyone in their housing unit or 2) requiring transfer to area hospitals, which will likely also be limited in the context of a community-wide outbreak. Limited bed space may also mean that inmates and staff will be deterred from reporting their symptoms, potentially delaying medical attention and resulting in preventable complications and possibly death.  LL 0HGLFDOFDUHIRURWKHUKHDOWKFRQGLWLRQV)DLOXUHWRSURYLGHLQGLYLGXDOVZLWK FRQWLQXDWLRQRIWKHWUHDWPHQWWKH\ZHUHUHFHLYLQJLQWKHFRPPXQLW\RUHYHQMXVW LQWHUUXSWLRQRIWUHDWPHQWIRUFKURQLFXQGHUO\LQJKHDOWKFRQGLWLRQVZLOOUHVXOWLQ LQFUHDVHGULVNRIPRUELGLW\DQGPRUWDOLW\UHODWHGWRWKHVHFKURQLFFRQGLWLRQV )DLOXUHWRSURYLGHLQGLYLGXDOVDGHTXDWHPHGLFDOFDUHIRUWKHLUXQGHUO\LQJFKURQLF KHDOWKFRQGLWLRQVUHVXOWVLQLQFUHDVHGULVNRI&29,'LQIHFWLRQDQGLQFUHDVHG ULVNRILQIHFWLRQUHODWHGPRUELGLW\DQGPRUWDOLW\LIWKH\GREHFRPHLQIHFWHG 3HRSOHZLWKXQGHUO\LQJFKURQLFPHQWDOKHDOWKFRQGLWLRQVQHHGDGHTXDWHDFFHVVWR WUHDWPHQWIRUWKHVHFRQGLWLRQVWKURXJKRXWWKHLUSHULRGRIGHWHQWLRQ)DLOXUHWR SURYLGHDGHTXDWHPHQWDOKHDOWKFDUHDVPD\KDSSHQZKHQKHDOWKV\VWHPVLQMDLOV DQGSULVRQVDUHWD[HGE\&29,'RXWEUHDNVPD\UHVXOWLQSRRUKHDOWK RXWFRPHV0RUHRYHUPHQWDOKHDOWKFRQGLWLRQVPD\EHH[DFHUEDWHGE\WKHVWUHVV RILQFDUFHUDWLRQGXULQJWKH&29,'SDQGHPLFLQFOXGLQJLVRODWLRQDQGODFNRI YLVLWDWLRQ)RULQGLYLGXDOVLQWKHVHIDFLOLWLHVWKHH[SHULHQFHRIDQHSLGHPLFDQGWKH ODFNRIFDUHZKLOHHIIHFWLYHO\WUDSSHGFDQLWVHOIEHWUDXPDWL]LQJFRPSRXQGLQJWKH WUDXPDRILQFDUFHUDWLRQ  The commonplace neglect of, and delay in providing treatment to, individuals with acute pain and serious health needs under ordinary circumstances is also

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 14 of 260
strongly indicative that the facilities will be ill-equipped to identify, monitor, and
treat a COVID-19 epidemic. The failure of these facilities to adequately manage
single individuals in need of emergency care is a strong sign that they will be
seriously ill-equipped and under- prepared when a number of people will need
urgent care simultaneously, as would occur during a COVID-19 epidemic. The
statement by two inmates that it can take “days” to receive medical attention is
strong evidence that D.C. DOC is seriously ill-equipped and under-prepared, as
the COVID-19 outbreak will require D.C. DOC to provide medical attention to a
large number of people at once. 
7KHDERYHH[DPSOHVLOOXVWUDWHWKDWWKH'&'2&UHPDLQVXQSUHSDUHGWRDGGUHVVWKH FXUUHQW&29,'SDQGHPLF$VWKH&'&DFNQRZOHGJHVHYHQDSULVRQRSHUDWLQJ SUHFLVHO\XQGHULWVJXLGHOLQHVZRXOGEHDIDUPRUHGDQJHURXVHQYLURQPHQWWKDQWKH FRPPXQLW\JLYHQWKHPD\RU¶VGLUHFWLYHWRUHPDLQDWKRPHDQGEXVLQHVVDQGVFKRRO FORVXUHVLQSODFH 
'&'2&¶VLQDELOLW\WRDGHTXDWHO\FRQWDLQDQGWUHDW&29,'LVHVSHFLDOO\ FRQFHUQLQJIRUKLJKHUULVNLQGLYLGXDOVVXFKDVROGHUDGXOWVDQGSHRSOHZLWKFKURQLF LOOQHVVHVVXFKDVGLDEHWHVOLYHUGLVHDVHSUHJQDQF\KHDUWGLVHDVHDQGOXQJGLVHDVH 3HRSOHZLWKWKHVHSDUWLFXODUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDUHPRVWVXVFHSWLEOHWREHFRPLQJVHULRXVO\ LOORUHYHQG\LQJVKRXOGWKH\EHFRPHLQIHFWHGZLWK&29,' 
7KHUHLVWUXHXUJHQF\WRDFWRQWKHVHIDFWVQRZ'DWDIURPWKH86GXULQJRWKHULQIHFWLRXV GLVHDVHRXWEUHDNVHJLQIOXHQ]DDQGGDWDIURPRWKHUFRXQWULHVGXULQJ&29,'VKRZ WKDWZKHQSULVRQV\VWHPVDUHXQSUHSDUHGIRUSDQGHPLFVSHRSOHLQSULVRQH[SHULHQFH PXFKKLJKHUUDWHVRIPRUELGLW\DQGPRUWDOLW\WKDQHYHQDIIHFWHGFRPPXQLWLHV6XFK FULVHVZLWKLQSULVRQVHQGDQJHUFRPPXQLWLHVDVDZKROHE\LQFUHDVLQJWKHRYHUDOOQXPEHU RIFDVHVDQGLQFUHDVLQJSUHVVXUHRQKRVSLWDOV7KHUHLVQRFXUUHQWDSSURYHGYDFFLQHRU DQWLYLUDOPHGLFDWLRQWUHDWPHQWIRU&29,'VRSXEOLFKHDOWKSUHSDUHGQHVVLVWKHRQO\ WRROZHKDYH 
,QDGHTXDWHVFUHHQLQJDQGWHVWLQJSURFHGXUHVLQIDFLOLWLHVLQFOXGLQJIDLOLQJWRWHVW LQPDWHVZKRKDYHGHPRQVWUDWHGV\PSWRPVRI&29,'LQFUHDVHWKHZLGHVSUHDG &29,'WUDQVPLVVLRQ 
9 &RQFOXVLRQDQG5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV 
7KHGHFODUDWLRQVSURYLGHGE\SHRSOHFXUUHQWO\LQFDUFHUDWHGLQ&')DQG&7)DUH DODUPLQJDQGPDNHFOHDUWKDWFRQGLWLRQVLQWKH'&MDLOVGXULQJWKLVSDQGHPLFDUH GDQJHURXV,WLVP\SURIHVVLRQDOMXGJPHQWWKDWLQGLYLGXDOVSODFHGLQWKHVHMDLOVDUHDWD VLJQLILFDQWO\KLJKHUULVNRILQIHFWLRQZLWK&29,'DVFRPSDUHGWRWKHSRSXODWLRQLQ WKHFRPPXQLW\DQGWKDWWKH\DUHDWDVLJQLILFDQWO\KLJKHUULVNRIKDUPLIWKH\GREHFRPH LQIHFWHG7KHVHVLJQLILFDQWO\KLJKHUULVNVLQFOXGHDQHOHYDWHGULVNRIVHULRXVLOOQHVV SQHXPRQLDDQGVHSVLVDQGGHDWK'&MDLOVDUHLOOHTXLSSHGWRSUHYHQW&29,'IURP HQWHULQJLWVIDFLOLWLHVDQGZRHIXOO\XQSUHSDUHGWRSUHYHQWLWVVSUHDGZLWKLQWKHIDFLOLW\ 

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 15 of 260
5HGXFLQJWKHVL]HRIWKHSRSXODWLRQLQMDLOVDQGSULVRQVLVFUXFLDOO\LPSRUWDQWWR UHGXFLQJWKHOHYHORIULVNERWKIRUWKRVHZLWKLQWKRVHIDFLOLWLHVDQGIRUWKHFRPPXQLW\ DW ODUJH 
$VVXFKIURPDSXEOLFKHDOWKSHUVSHFWLYHLWLVP\VWURQJRSLQLRQWKDWLQGLYLGXDOVZKR FDQVDIHO\DQGDSSURSULDWHO\UHPDLQLQWKHFRPPXQLW\QRWEHSODFHGLQ'&MDLOVDWWKLV WLPH,DPDOVRVWURQJO\RIWKHRSLQLRQWKDWLQGLYLGXDOVZKRDUHDOUHDG\LQ WKRVH IDFLOLWLHVVKRXOGEHHYDOXDWHGIRUUHOHDVH 
7KLVLVHVSHFLDOO\LPSRUWDQWIRULQGLYLGXDOVZLWKSUHH[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQVHJKHDUW GLVHDVH FKURQLFOXQJGLVHDVHFKURQLFOLYHUGLVHDVHVXSSUHVVHGLPPXQHV\VWHP GLDEHWHVRU ZKRDUHRYHUWKHDJHRI1RQHWKHOHVVLWUHPDLQVWKHFDVHJLYHQWKH FRQGLWLRQVLQWKH'&MDLOVWKDWHYHU\RQHLQWKH&')DQG&7)LVULJKWQRZDWVHULRXV ULVNRIFRQWUDFWLQJ&29,'DQGLIWKDWRFFXUVRIG\LQJIURPLW 
,WLVP\SURIHVVLRQDORSLQLRQWKDWWKHVHVWHSVDUHERWKQHFHVVDU\DQGXUJHQW7KH KRUL]RQ RIULVNIRUUDSLGDQGVHYHUH&29,'VSUHDGLQWKHVHIDFLOLWLHVLVDPDWWHURI KRXUVQRWGD\V2QFHDFDVHRI&29,'LVLGHQWLILHGLQDIDFLOLW\LWLVRQO\DPDWWHU RIWLPHXQWLOWKHUHLVDZLGHVSUHDG RXWEUHDN,QWKHSDVWVHYHUDOGD\VILUVWRQHWKHQ WZRDQGQRZIRXULQPDWHVLQ'&'2&FXVWRG\KDYHWHVWHGSRVLWLYHIRU&29,' ZLWKPDQ\LQPDWHVUHSRUWHGO\LQTXDUDQWLQH0RUHFDVHVDUHVXUHWRIROORZEHFDXVHRI XQGHUUHVRXUFHGXQGHUVWDIIHGRUPLQLPDOO\LPSOHPHQWHGLQIHFWLRQSUHYHQWLRQDQG FRQWUROPHDVXUHV
 ,GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\WKDWWKHIRUHJRLQJLVWUXHDQGFRUUHFW   BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 'U-DLPLH0H\HU  0DUFK :LOWRQ&RQQHFWLFXW

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 16 of 260
(;+,%,7$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 17 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

CURRICULUM VITAE

ĂƚĞŽĨZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ͗ EĂŵĞ͗ ^ĐŚŽŽů͗

EŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬ͕ϮϬϭϵ :ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W zĂůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ

Education:
͕ĂƌƚŵŽƵƚŚŽůůĞŐĞŶƚŚƌŽƉŽůŽŐǇϮϬϬϬ D͕hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇŽĨŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϬϱ D^͕zĂůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚŝŽƐƚĂƚŝƐƚŝĐƐĂŶĚƉŝĚĞŵŝŽůŽŐǇϮϬϭϰ

Career/Academic Appointments:
ϮϬϬϱͲϮϬϬϴ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶĐǇ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕EzWƌĞƐďǇƚĞƌŝĂŶ,ŽƐƉŝƚĂůĂƚŽůƵŵďŝĂ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬ͕Ez ϮϬϬϴͲϮϬϭϭ &ĞůůŽǁƐŚŝƉ͕/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ͕zĂůĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕EĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ͕d ϮϬϬϴͲϮϬϭϮ ůŝŶŝĐĂů&ĞůůŽǁ͕/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ͕zĂůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕EĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ͕d ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϭϮ &ĞůůŽǁƐŚŝƉ͕/ŶƚĞƌĚŝƐĐŝƉůŝŶĂƌǇ,/sWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ͕ĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌ/ŶƚĞƌĚŝƐĐŝƉůŝŶĂƌǇZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽŶ
/^͕EĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ͕d ϮϬϭϮͲϮϬϭϰ /ŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŽƌ͕/^͕zĂůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕EĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ͕d ϮϬϭϰͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ƐƐŝƐƚĂŶƚWƌŽĨĞƐƐŽƌ͕/^͕zĂůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕EĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ͕d ϮϬϭϱͲϮϬϭϴ ƐƐŝƐƚĂŶƚůŝŶŝĐĂůWƌŽĨĞƐƐŽƌ͕EƵƌƐŝŶŐ͕zĂůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕EĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ͕d

Board Certification:
ŽĨ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕ϬϴͲϮϬϬϴ͕ϬϭͲϮϬϭϵ ŽĨ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ͕ϭϬͲϮϬϭϬ ŽĨWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝǀĞDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕ĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕ϬϭͲϮϬϭϴ

Professional Honors & Recognition:

International/National/Regional

ϮϬϭϴ

E/,ĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌ^ĐŝĞŶƚŝĨŝĐZĞǀŝĞǁ͕^ĞůĞĐƚĞĚĂƐĂƌůǇĂƌĞĞƌZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ

ϮϬϭϳ

ŽƌŝƐƵŬĞŚĂƌŝƚĂďůĞ&ŽƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ŽƌŝƐƵŬĞŚĂƌŝƚĂďůĞ&ŽƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶ^ĐŚŽůĂƌ

ϮϬϭϲ

ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŽůůĞŐĞŽĨWŚǇƐŝĐŝĂŶƐ͕&ĞůůŽǁ

ϮϬϭϲ

E/,,ĞĂůƚŚŝƐƉĂƌŝƚŝĞƐ͕>ŽĂŶZĞƉĂǇŵĞŶƚǁĂƌĚŽŵƉĞƚŝƚŝǀĞZĞŶĞǁĂů

ϮϬϭϲ

D͕ĂƌůǇĂƌĞĞƌtŽŵĞŶ&ĂĐƵůƚǇWƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ^ĞŵŝŶĂƌ

ϮϬϭϰ

E/,,ĞĂůƚŚŝƐƉĂƌŝƚŝĞƐ͕>ŽĂŶZĞƉĂǇŵĞŶƚWƌŽŐƌĂŵǁĂƌĚ

ϮϬϭϰ

E/͕tŽŵĞŶΘ^Ğǆͬ'ĞŶĚĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐ:ƵŶŝŽƌ/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌdƌĂǀĞůǁĂƌĚ

ϮϬϭϰ

/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůtŽŵĞŶΖƐͬŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚΘ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕dƌĂǀĞůǁĂƌĚ

ϮϬϭϰ

WĂƚƚĞƌƐŽŶdƌƵƐƚ͕ǁĂƌĚƐWƌŽŐƌĂŵŝŶůŝŶŝĐĂůZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ

ϮϬϭϯ

ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ͕dŚŽƌŶƚŽŶǁĂƌĚĨŽƌůŝŶŝĐĂůZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ

ϮϬϭϭ

ƌŝƐƚŽůDǇĞƌƐͲ^ƋƵŝďď͕sŝƌŽůŽŐǇ&ĞůůŽǁƐǁĂƌĚ

ϭ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 18 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

ϮϬϬϲ ϮϬϬϱ ϮϬϬϱ ϮϬϬϬ ϮϬϬϬ

EzŽůƵŵďŝĂWƌĞƐďǇƚĞƌŝĂŶ͕:ŽŚŶE͘>ŽĞď/ŶƚĞƌŶǁĂƌĚ American Medical Women’s Association, Medical Student Citation ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ^ƚĂƚĞDĞĚŝĐĂů^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ͕DĞĚŝĐĂů^ƚƵĚĞŶƚǁĂƌĚ ĂƌƚŵŽƵƚŚŽůůĞŐĞ͕,ĂŶŶĂŚƌŽĂƐĚĂůĞ^ĞŶŝŽƌǁĂƌĚ ĂƌƚŵŽƵƚŚŽůůĞŐĞ͕WĂůĂĞŽƉŝƚƵƐ^ĞŶŝŽƌ>ĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ/ŶĚƵĐƚĞĞ

Yale University

ϮϬϭϰ

Women’s Faculty Forum, Public Voices Thought Leadership Program Fellow

Grants/Clinical Trials History:

Current Grants ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗
W͘/͗͘ ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗ dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

ĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌ/ŶƚĞƌĚŝƐĐŝƉůŝŶĂƌǇZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽŶ/^;/ZͿ ϮϬϭϵͲϮϬWŝůŽƚWƌŽũĞĐƚǁĂƌĚƐ Optimizing PrEP’s Potential in NonͲůŝŶŝĐĂů^ĞƚƚŝŶŐƐ͗ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂWƌWĞĐŝƐŝŽŶŝĚĨŽƌtŽŵĞŶ^ĞĞŬŝŶŐŽŵĞƐƚŝĐsŝŽůĞŶĐĞ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ dŝĂƌĂtŝůůŝĞ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ Ϯй ΨϮϵ͕ϵϵϯ͘ϬϬ
ΨϮϵ͕ϵϵϯ͘ϬϬ ϳͬϭϭͬϮϬϭϵͲϳͬϭϬͬϮϬϮϬ

ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗
ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗ dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

^D,^ ,ϳϵd/ϬϴϬϱϲϭ ,E'͗ŽŵƉƌĞŚĞŶƐŝǀĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĂŶĚĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚEĞƚǁŽƌŬĨŽƌ 'ƌĞĂƚĞƌEĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ ϮϬй Ψϯϴϵ͕Ϭϱϰ͘ϬϬ
Ψϭ͕ϵϯϯ͕ϯϲϴ͘ϬϬ ϭϭͬϯϬͬϮϬϭϴͲϭϭͬϮϵͬϮϬϮϯ

ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗
ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗ dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ

'ŝůĞĂĚ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͘ /ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ^ƉŽŶƐŽƌĞĚǁĂƌĚ͕KͲh^ͲϮϳϲͲϭϯϲ ĞůŝǀĞƌŝŶŐ,/sWƌĞͲǆƉŽƐƵƌĞWƌŽƉŚǇůĂǆŝƐƚŽEĞƚǁŽƌŬƐŽĨ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞͲ/ŶǀŽůǀĞĚ tŽŵĞŶ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ ϴй Ψϴϭ͕ϭϱϭ͘ϬϬ

Ϯ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 19 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

ΨϯϬϲ͕ϭϵϵ͘ϬϬ ϲͬϭϵͬϮϬϭϴͲϭͬϯϭͬϮϬϮϬ

ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗ ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗ dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

E/ ZϮϭϬϰϮϳϬϮ WƌŝƐŽŶƐ͕ƌƵŐ/ŶũĞĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƚŚĞ,/sZŝƐŬŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ ϮϮй ΨϭϮϵ͕ϲϳϯ͘ϬϬ
Ψϯϱϴ͕Ϯϳϲ͘ϬϬ ϴͬϭͬϮϬϭϳͲϳͬϯϭͬϮϬϮϬ

ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗
ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗ dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

ŽƌŝƐƵŬĞŚĂƌŝƚĂďůĞ&ŽƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶ ůŝŶŝĐĂů^ĐŝĞŶƚŝƐƚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁĂƌĚ ĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐĂŶĚdĞƐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞĨĨĞĐƚŽĨĂWĂƚŝĞŶƚͲĞŶƚĞƌĞĚ,/sWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ ĞĐŝƐŝŽŶŝĚŽŶWƌWƵƉƚĂŬĞĨŽƌtŽŵĞŶǁŝƚŚ^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞhƐĞŝŶdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ ^ĞƚƚŝŶŐƐ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ Ϯϳй Ψϭϰϵ͕ϵϱϵ͘ϬϬ
Ψϰϵϯ͕ϵϲϱ͘ϬϬ ϳͬϭͬϮϬϭϳͲϲͬϯϬͬϮϬϮϬ

Past Grants ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗
ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗ dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

E/ <ϮϯϬϯϯϴϱϴ ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŶŐĂŶĚ/ŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐ,/sKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐŝŶŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇͲďĂƐĞĚtŽŵĞŶǁŚŽ /ŶƚĞƌĨĂĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ^ǇƐƚĞŵ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ ϳϱй Ψϭϰϵ͕ϱϬϵ͘ϬϬ
ΨϴϮϭ͕ϭϰϳ͘ϬϬ ϳͬϭͬϮϬϭϮͲϭϭͬϯϬͬϮϬϭϳ

ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗
ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗

ZŽďĞƌƚ>ĞĞƚΘůĂƌĂ'ƵƚŚƌŝĞWĂƚƚĞƌƐŽŶdƌƵƐƚ ZϭϮϮϮϱ͕ǁĂƌĚŝŶůŝŶŝĐĂůZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ ŝƐĞŶƚĂŶŐůŝŶŐƚŚĞĨĨĞĐƚŽĨ'ĞŶĚĞƌŽŶ,/sdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ KƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ ϭϬй Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ

ϯ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 20 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ

ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ

WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

ϭͬϯϭͬϮϬϭϰͲϭϬͬϯϭͬϮϬϭϱ

ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗
ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗ dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

ƌŝƐƚŽůͲDǇĞƌƐ^ƋƵŝďď ,/ssŝƌŽůŽŐǇ&ĞůůŽǁƐŚŝƉǁĂƌĚ ĨĨĞĐƚŽĨŶĞǁĞƌĂŶƚŝƌĞƚƌŽǀŝƌĂůƌĞŐŝŵĞŶƐŽŶ,/sďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐŝŶ,/sͲ ŝŶĨĞĐƚĞĚƉƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐ͗ĂϭϯǇĞĂƌƌĞƚƌŽƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ ϭϬй Ψϯϰ͕ϯϵϬ͘ϬϬ
Ψϯϰ͕ϯϵϬ͘ϬϬ ϭϮͬϭͬϮϬϭϭͲϭϭͬϯϬͬϮϬϭϮ

Pending Grants ŐĞŶĐǇ͗ /͘͘η͗ dŝƚůĞ͗
W͘/͗͘ ZŽůĞ͗ WĞƌĐĞŶƚĞĨĨŽƌƚ͗ ŝƌĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ͗ dŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͗

E/D, ZϬϭD,ϭϮϭϵϵϭ /ĚĞŶƚŝĨǇŝŶŐDŽĚŝĨŝĂďůĞZŝƐŬĂŶĚWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝǀĞWƌŽĐĞƐƐĞƐĂƚƚŚĞĂǇͲ>ĞǀĞůƚŚĂƚ WƌĞĚŝĐƚ,/sĂƌĞKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐĂŵŽŶŐtŽŵĞŶǆƉŽƐĞĚƚŽWĂƌƚŶĞƌsŝŽůĞŶĐĞ ^ƵůůŝǀĂŶ͕dĂŵŝ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŽƌ ϯϬй Ψϰϵϵ͕ϳϱϱ͘ϬϬ
Ψϰ͕ϭϰϴ͕ϴϮϯ͘ϬϬ ϭͬϭͬϮϬϮϬͲϭϮͬϯϭͬϮϬϮϰ

Invited Speaking Engagements, Presentations, Symposia & Workshops Not Affiliated With
Yale:
International/National ϮϬϭϵ͗ DKƵƚĨŝƚƚĞƌƐ͕tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ͕͘Η'ƌĂƐƐƌŽŽƚƐƉƉƌŽĂĐŚƚŽtĞĞĚŽƵƚ,/sĂŶĚ,sŝŶ^ƉĞĐŝĂů
KhWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐΗ ϮϬϭϵ͗ h^ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽŶŝvil Rights, Washington, DC. "An Analysis of Women’s Health, Personal
ŝŐŶŝƚǇĂŶĚ^ĞǆƵĂůďƵƐĞŝŶƚŚĞh^WƌŝƐŽŶ^ǇƐƚĞŵΗ ϮϬϭϴ͗ ŽůůĞŐĞŽĨWƌŽďůĞŵƐŽŶƌƵŐĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞ͕ŽůůĞŐĞŽĨWƌŽďůĞŵƐŽŶƌƵŐĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞ͕^ĂŶ
ŝĞŐŽ͕͘ΗZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽŶtŽŵĞŶǁŚŽhƐĞƌƵŐƐ͗<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚ/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ'ĂƉƐĂŶĚ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŐĞŶĚĂΗ ϮϬϭϴ͗ ůŝŶŝĐĂůĂƌĞKƉƚŝŽŶƐ͕tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ͕͘Η/ŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ,/sĂŶĚKƉŝŽŝĚƉŝĚĞŵŝĐƐΗ ϮϬϭϲ͗ ĂƌƚŵŽƵƚŚ'ĞŝƐĞů^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕,ĂŶŽǀĞƌ͕E,͘Η/ŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƐKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚǇ͗WƌŝƐŽŶĞƌ ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ,ĞĂůƚŚ/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐΗ ϮϬϭϬ͗ ZŚŽĚĞ/ƐůĂŶĚŚĂƉƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨEƵƌƐĞƐŝŶ/^ĂƌĞ͕WƌŽǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ͕Z/͘Η,/sĂŶĚ ĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶΗ

ϰ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 21 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

Regional ϮϬϭϴ͗ ůŝŶŝĐĂůŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐEĞƚǁŽƌŬ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬ͕Ez͘ΗWƌWǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐĂŵŽŶŐ^ƉĞĐŝĂůWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨ
tŽŵĞŶĂŶĚWĞŽƉůĞǁŚŽhƐĞƌƵŐƐΗ ϮϬϭϴ͗ &ƌĂŶŬ,͘EĞƚƚĞƌ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕YƵŝŶŶŝƉŝĂĐhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ͕,ĂŵĚĞŶ͕d͘Η,/sƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĨŽƌ
ũƵƐƚŝĐĞͲŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚǁŽŵĞŶΗ ϮϬϭϳ͗ ůŝŶŝĐĂůŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐEĞƚǁŽƌŬ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬ͕Ez͘ΗKƉƚŝŵŝǌŝŶŐƚŚĞ,/sĂƌĞŽŶƚŝŶƵƵŵĨŽƌWĞŽƉůĞǁŚŽ
ƵƐĞƌƵŐƐΗ ϮϬϭϲ͗ &ƌĂŶŬ,͘EĞƚƚĞƌ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͕YƵŝŶŶŝƉŝĂĐhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ͕,ĂŵĚĞŶ͕d͘ΗdŽƉŝĐƐŝŶ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐ
ŝƐĞĂƐĞƐΗ ϮϬϭϲ͗ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚĚǀĂŶĐĞĚWƌĂĐƚŝĐĞZĞŐŝƐƚĞƌĞĚEƵƌƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ͕tĞƚŚĞƌƐĨŝĞůĚ͕d͘ΗdƌĞŶĚƐŝŶ,/s
WƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ͗/ŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŝŽŵĞĚŝĐĂůĂŶĚĞŚĂǀŝŽƌĂůƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐΗ

Peer-Reviewed Presentations & Symposia Given at Meetings Not Affiliated With Yale:

International/National ϮϬϭϵ͗ WϴϭƐƚŶŶƵĂů^ĐŝĞŶƚŝĨŝĐDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕W͕^ĂŶŶƚŽŶŝŽ͕dy͘ΗWƵŶŝƚŝǀĞĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐƚŽƉƌĞŐŶĂŶƚ
ǁŽŵĞŶǁŝƚŚŽƉŝŽŝĚƵƐĞĚŝƐŽƌĚĞƌ͗/ŵƉĂĐƚŽŶŚĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞƵƚŝůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ͕ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐĂŶĚĞƚŚŝĐĂů ŝŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐΗ ϮϬϭϵ͗ ϭϰƚŚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶ,/sdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕/WĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ DŝĂŵŝ͕&>͘ΗĞĐŝƐŝŽŶͲDĂŬŝŶŐĂďŽƵƚ,/sWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŵŽŶŐtŽŵĞŶŝŶƌƵŐdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ͗/ƐWƌW ŽŶƚĞǆƚƵĂůůǇZĞůĞǀĂŶƚ͍Η ϮϬϭϵ͗ ϮϬϭϵE//ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů&ŽƌƵŵ͕E/͕^ĂŶŶƚŽŶŝŽ͕dy͘ΗŝƉŚĞŶŚǇĚƌĂŵŝŶĞ/ŶũĞĐƚŝŽŶŝŶ<ǇƌŐǇǌ WƌŝƐŽŶƐ͗YƵĂůŝƚĂƚŝǀĞ^ƚƵĚǇKĨ,ŝŐŚͲZŝƐŬĞŚĂǀŝŽƌtŝƚŚ/ŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ&Žƌ,ĂƌŵZĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶΗ ϮϬϭϵ͗ 11th International Women’s and Children’s Health and Gender (InWomen’s) Group, InWomen’s 'ƌŽƵƉ͕^ĂŶŶƚŽŶŝŽ͕dy͘ΗhŶŝƋƵĞůǇƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŵĞƚŚĂĚŽŶĞƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŝŶĂ women’s prison ŝŶ<ǇƌŐǇǌƐƚĂŶΗ ϮϬϭϵ͗ ,ĂƌŵZĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů͕WŽƌƚŽ͕WŽƌƚŽŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͕WŽƌƚƵŐĂů͘Η,ŽǁĚŽĞƐŵĞƚŚĂĚŽŶĞƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ travel? On the ‘becomingͲŵĞƚŚĂĚŽŶĞͲbody’ of Kyrgyzstan prisons" ϮϬϭϵ͗ WŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞWĞƌƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞƐŽŶĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕WŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞWĞƌƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞƐ ŽŶĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕WƌŽǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ͕Z/͘Η/ŵƉĂĐƚŽĨdƌĂƵŵĂĂŶĚ^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞďƵƐĞŽŶ,/s

ϮϬϭϵ͗ ϮϬϭϵ͗ ϮϬϭϵ͗ ϮϬϭϵ͗

PrEP Outcomes among Women in Criminal Justice Systems. Symposium: “Partner Violence: /ŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŽƌWƌĞĚŝĐƚŝǀĞŽĨ^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞhƐĞĂŶĚ,ĞĂůƚŚWƌŽďůĞŵƐĂŵŽŶŐtŽmen.”" ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇĨŽƌĐĂĚĞŵŝĐŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ;^DͿ͕tŽƌĐĞƐƚĞƌ͕D͘ΗĨĨĞĐƚƐŽĨĂDƵůƚŝƐŝƚĞ DĞĚŝĐĂů,ŽŵĞ/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶŽŶŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚhƐĞĂŵŽŶŐhŶƐƚĂďůǇ,ŽƵƐĞĚWĞŽƉůĞ ǁŝƚŚ,ƵŵĂŶ/ŵŵƵŶŽĚĞĨŝĐŝĞŶĐǇsŝƌƵƐΗ ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶZĞƚƌŽǀŝƌƵƐĞƐĂŶĚKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƐƚŝĐ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ;ZK/Ϳ͕/^͕^ĞĂƚƚůĞ͕t͘ΗZĞůĞĂƐĞĚƚŽ ŝĞ͗ůĞǀĂƚĞĚDŽƌƚĂůŝƚǇŝŶWĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚ,/sĂĨƚĞƌ/ŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚŝŽŶΗ ϭϮƚŚĐĂĚĞŵŝĐĂŶĚ,ĞĂůƚŚWŽůŝĐǇŽŶŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů,ĞĂůƚŚ͕ϭϮƚŚĐĂĚĞŵŝĐĂŶĚ ,ĞĂůƚŚWŽůŝĐǇŽŶŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů,ĞĂůƚŚ͕>ĂƐsĞŐĂƐ͕Es͘ΗWƌWůŝŐŝďŝůŝƚǇĂŶĚ,/sZŝƐŬ WĞƌĐĞƉƚŝŽŶĨŽƌtŽŵĞŶĂĐƌŽƐƐƚŚĞƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞŽŶƚŝŶƵƵŵŝŶŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚΗ ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞͲ/ŶǀŽůǀĞĚ&ĞŵĂůĞKƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƚŝŽŶƐ;:&KͿ͕ƚůĂŶƚĂ͕'͘ΗdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ Women’s Substance UƐĞŝƐŽƌĚĞƌƐĂŶĚ,/sWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƵƌŝŶŐĂŶĚ&ŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ/ŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚŝŽŶΗ

ϱ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 22 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

ϮϬϭϴ͗ ϮϬϭϴ͗ ϮϬϭϴ͗ ϮϬϭϴ͗
ϮϬϭϴ͗ ϮϬϭϴ͗ ϮϬϭϴ͗ ϮϬϭϳ͗ ϮϬϭϳ͗ ϮϬϭϳ͗ ϮϬϭϳ͗ ϮϬϭϳ͗ ϮϬϭϳ͗ ϮϬϭϲ͗ ϮϬϭϱ͗

ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ;W,ͿŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚ ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ;W,ͿŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕^ĂŶŝĞŐŽ͕͘ΗEĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ^ǇƌŝŶŐĞ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵ͗ ŵŽĚĞůŽĨŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞĚŚĂƌŵƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŚĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐΗ ϭϮƚŚEĂƚŝŽŶĂů,ĂƌŵZĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ϭϮƚŚEĂƚŝŽŶĂů,ĂƌŵZĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕EĞǁ KƌůĞĂŶƐ͕>͘Η^ĞƌǀŝĐĞŶĞĞĚƐĂŶĚĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽĐĂƌĞĂŵŽŶŐƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞEĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ^ǇƌŝŶŐĞ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐWƌŽŐƌĂŵΗ ϮϮŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů/^ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ϮϮŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů/^ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ŵƐƚĞƌĚĂŵ͕E,͕ EĞƚŚĞƌůĂŶĚƐ͘Η,/sƌŝƐŬƉĞƌĐĞƉƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƌŝƐŬƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐĂŵŽŶŐƉƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐŝŶ<ǇƌŐǇǌƐƚĂŶ͗ ĂƋƵĂůŝƚĂƚŝǀĞƐƚƵĚǇΗ ϮϮŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů/^ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ϮϮŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů/^ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ŵƐƚĞƌĚĂŵ͕E,͕ EĞƚŚĞƌůĂŶĚƐ͘ΗDĞƚŚĂĚŽŶĞDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞdŚĞƌĂƉǇhƉƚĂŬĞ͕ZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚ>ŝŶŬĂŐĞĨŽƌWĞŽƉůĞ ǁŚŽ/ŶũĞĐƚƌƵŐƐdƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶŝŶŐ&ƌŽŵWƌŝƐŽŶƚŽƚŚĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŝŶ<ǇƌŐǇǌƐƚĂŶ͗ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂ EĂƚŝŽŶĂůWƌŽŐƌĂŵΗ E//ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů&ŽƌƵŵ͕E/͕^ĂŶŝĞŐŽ͕͘Η,/sĂŶĚƌƵŐhƐĞĂŵŽŶŐtŽŵĞŶŝŶWƌŝƐŽŶŝŶ ǌĞƌďĂŝũĂŶ͕<ǇƌŐǇǌƐƚĂŶĂŶĚhŬƌĂŝŶĞΗ ϮϬϭϴŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶZĞƚƌŽǀŝƌƵƐĞƐĂŶĚKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƐƚŝĐ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ;ZK/Ϳ͕ZK/͕ŽƐƚŽŶ͕D͘Η&ƌŽŵ prison’s gate to death’s door: Survival ĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐŽĨƌĞůĞĂƐĞĚƉƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐǁŝƚŚ,/sΗ ϭϭƚŚĐĂĚĞŵŝĐĂŶĚ,ĞĂůƚŚWŽůŝĐǇŽŶŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů,ĞĂůƚŚ͕ĐĂĚĞŵŝĐŽŶƐŽƌƚŝƵŵ ŽŶƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ,ĞĂůƚŚ͕,ŽƵƐƚŽŶ͕dy͘ΗƐƐĞƐƐŝŶŐŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚsĂůŝĚŝƚǇŽĨƌŝŵŝŶŽŐĞŶŝĐĂŶĚ ,ĞĂůƚŚZŝƐŬ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐĂŵŽŶŐtŽŵĞŶŽŶWƌŽďĂƚŝŽŶŝŶŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚΗ /tĞĞŬ͗ŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐŽĨ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŽĨŵĞƌŝĐĂ͕/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ ŽĨŵĞƌŝĐĂ͕^ĂŶŝĞŐŽ͕͘ΗWƌĞĚŝĐƚŽƌƐŽĨ>ŝŶŬĂŐĞƚŽĂŶĚZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶŝŶ,/sĂƌĞ&ŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ZĞůĞĂƐĞĨƌŽŵŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ͕h^:ĂŝůƐĂŶĚWƌŝƐŽŶƐ;KƌĂůƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶͿΗ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů/^^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ;/^ͿDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů/^^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ͕WĂƌŝƐ͕2ůĞͲĚĞͲ&ƌĂŶĐĞ͕ &ƌĂŶĐĞ͘Η>ĂƚĞďƌĞĂŬĞƌ͗WƌĞĚŝĐƚŽƌƐŽĨ>ŝŶŬĂŐĞƚŽĂŶĚZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶŝŶ,/sĂƌĞ&ŽůůŽǁŝŶŐZĞůĞĂƐĞ ĨƌŽŵŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ͕h^:ĂŝůƐĂŶĚWƌŝƐŽŶƐΗ E//ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů&ŽƌƵŵ͕E/͕DŽŶƚƌĞĂů͕Y͕ĂŶĂĚĂ͘ΗDŝǆĞĚDĞƚŚŽĚƐǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ,/s ZŝƐŬĂŵŽŶŐtŽŵĞŶǁŝƚŚKƉŝŽŝĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞŝŶhŬƌĂŝŶĞΗ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůtŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů tŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕DŽŶƚƌĞĂů͕Y͕ĂŶĂĚĂ͘ΗƐƐĞƐƐŝŶŐ ZĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐƚŽĂŶĚůŝŐŝďŝůŝƚǇĨŽƌWƌWŝŶƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞͲ/ŶǀŽůǀĞĚtŽŵĞŶΗ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůtŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů tŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕DŽŶƚƌĞĂů͕Y͕ĂŶĂĚĂ͘ΗDŝǆĞĚ DĞƚŚŽĚƐǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ,/sZŝƐŬĂŵŽŶŐtŽŵĞŶǁŝƚŚKƉŝŽŝĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞŝŶhŬƌĂŝŶĞΗ ŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇĨŽƌƉƉůŝĞĚŶƚŚƌŽƉŽůŽŐǇ͕^ŽĐŝĞƚǇĨŽƌƉƉůŝĞĚŶƚŚƌŽƉŽůŽŐǇ͕ ^ĂŶƚĂ&Ğ͕ED͘ΗtŚĞƌĞƌƵďďĞƌƐŵĞĞƚƚŚĞƌŽĂĚ͗,/sƌŝƐŬƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨŽƌǁŽŵĞŶŽŶƉƌŽďĂƚŝŽŶ;KƌĂů ƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶͿΗ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůtŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů tŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕WĂůŵ^ƉƌŝŶŐƐ͕͘ΗŶǀĞŶƚͲůĞǀĞů ǆĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ^ƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůŽŶĚŽŵEĞŐŽƚŝĂƚŝŽŶ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐĂŵŽŶŐŽůůĞŐĞtŽŵĞŶΗ EĂƚŝŽŶĂů,/sWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕͕ƚůĂŶƚĂ͕'͘ΗĞǇŽŶĚƚŚĞ^ǇŶĚĞŵŝĐ͗ŽŶĚŽŵ EĞŐŽƚŝĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚhƐĞĂŵŽŶŐtŽŵĞŶǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐŝŶŐWĂƌƚŶĞƌsŝŽůĞŶĐĞ;KƌĂůƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶͿΗ

ϲ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 23 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

ϮϬϭϱ͗ ϮϬϭϱ͗ ϮϬϭϰ͗ ϮϬϭϰ͗ ϮϬϭϰ͗ ϮϬϭϯ͗ ϮϬϭϯ͗ ϮϬϭϮ͗ ϮϬϭϮ͗ ϮϬϭϮ͗ ϮϬϭϭ͗

/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů,ĂƌŵZĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů,ĂƌŵZĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ͕<ƵĂůĂ>ƵŵƉƵƌ͕ &ĞĚĞƌĂůdĞƌƌŝƚŽƌǇŽĨ<ƵĂůĂ>ƵŵƉƵƌ͕DĂůĂǇƐŝĂ͘ΗǀŝĚĞŶĐĞͲĂƐĞĚ/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐƚŽŶŚĂŶĐĞ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ͕dƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ͕ĂŶĚĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞŝŶƚŚĞŚƌŽŶŝĐ,ĞƉĂƚŝƚŝƐĂƌĞŽŶƚŝŶƵƵŵΗ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůtŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů tŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕WŚŽĞŶŝǆ͕͘ΗsŝŽůĞŶĐĞ͕^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞ hƐĞ͕ĂŶĚ^ĞǆƵĂůZŝƐŬĂŵŽŶŐŽůůĞŐĞtŽŵĞŶΗ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůtŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů tŽŵĞŶΖƐĂŶĚŚŝůĚƌĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉ͕^ĂŶ:ƵĂŶ͕^ĂŶ:ƵĂŶ͕WƵĞƌƚŽZŝĐŽ͘ Η'ĞŶĚĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐŝŶ,/sĂŶĚƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐΗ ŽůůĞŐĞŽŶWƌŽďůĞŵƐŝŶƌƵŐĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞ;WͿ͕ŽůůĞŐĞŽŶWƌŽďůĞŵƐŝŶƌƵŐĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞ ;WͿ͕^ĂŶ:ƵĂŶ͕^ĂŶ:ƵĂŶ͕WƵĞƌƚŽZŝĐŽ͘Η'ĞŶĚĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐŝŶ,/sĂŶĚƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ KƵƚĐŽŵĞƐΗ ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶZĞƚƌŽǀŝƌƵƐĞƐĂŶĚKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƐƚŝĐ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ;ZK/Ϳ͕ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶZĞƚƌŽǀŝƌƵƐĞƐ ĂŶĚKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƐƚŝĐ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ;ZK/Ϳ͕ŽƐƚŽŶ͕D͘Η>ŽŶŐŝƚƵĚŝŶĂůdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐŝŶ,/sͲ /ŶĨĞĐƚĞĚWƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐĂŶĚ/ŶĨůƵĞŶĐĞŽĨZĞͲ/ŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚŝŽŶΗ ,/s/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕,/s/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕ĞƚŚĞƐĚĂ͕D͘ΗtŽŵĞŶZĞůĞĂƐĞĚĨƌŽŵ:ĂŝůǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ^ƵďŽƉƚŝŵĂů,/s dƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽDĞŶ͗ZĞƐƵůƚƐĨƌŽŵĂDƵůƚŝͲĞŶƚĞƌ^ƚƵĚǇΗ ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶZĞƚƌŽǀŝƌƵƐĞƐĂŶĚKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƐƚŝĐ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ;ZK/Ϳ͕ŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶZĞƚƌŽǀŝƌƵƐĞƐ ĂŶĚKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƐƚŝĐ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ;ZK/Ϳ͕ƚůĂŶƚĂ͕'͘ΗtŽŵĞŶZĞůĞĂƐĞĚĨƌŽŵ:ĂŝůǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ ^ƵďŽƉƚŝŵĂů,/sdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽDĞŶ͗ZĞƐƵůƚƐĨƌŽŵĂDƵůƚŝͲĞŶƚĞƌ^ƚƵĚǇΗ /tĞĞŬ͗/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŽĨŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŽĨ ŵĞƌŝĐĂ͕^ĂŶŝĞŐŽ͕͘ΗŽƌƌĞůĂƚĞƐŽĨZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶŝŶ,/sĂƌĞĂĨƚĞƌZĞůĞĂƐĞĨƌŽŵ:Ăŝů͗ZĞƐƵůƚƐ ĨƌŽŵĂDƵůƚŝͲƐŝƚĞ^ƚƵĚǇΗ /tĞĞŬ͗/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŽĨŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŽĨ ŵĞƌŝĐĂ͕^ĂŶŝĞŐŽ͕͘Η&ƌĞƋƵĞŶƚŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚhƐĞĂŵŽŶŐZĞůĞĂƐĞĚWƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐǁŝƚŚ ,/s͗ŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ/ŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂEŽǀĞůDƵůƚŝŵŽƌďŝĚŝƚǇ/ŶĚĞǆΗ ϱƚŚĐĂĚĞŵŝĐĂŶĚ,ĞĂůƚŚWŽůŝĐǇŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů,ĞĂůƚŚ͕ϱƚŚĐĂĚĞŵŝĐĂŶĚ,ĞĂůƚŚ WŽůŝĐǇŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů,ĞĂůƚŚ͕ƚůĂŶƚĂ͕'͘ΗĨĨĞĐƚƐŽĨ/ŶƚŝŵĂƚĞWĂƌƚŶĞƌsŝŽůĞŶĐĞŽŶ ,/sĂŶĚ^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞďƵƐĞŝŶZĞůĞĂƐĞĚ:ĂŝůĞƚĂŝŶĞĞƐΗ /W,/sdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕/W͕DŝĂŵŝ͕&>͘ΗĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞƚŽ,/s ƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĐĂƌĞĂŵŽŶŐƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůǇŚŽŵĞůĞƐƐũĂŝůĚĞƚĂŝŶĞĞƐΗ

Regional ϮϬϭϵ͗ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ͕EĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶ͕d͘ΗWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌǇ&ŝŶĚŝŶŐƐĨƌŽŵĂEŽǀĞů
WƌWĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚĨŽƌtŽŵĞŶ/ŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ^ǇƐƚĞŵƐĂŶĚDĞŵďĞƌƐŽĨ ƚŚĞŝƌZŝƐŬEĞƚǁŽƌŬƐΗ ϮϬϭϳ͗ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶŶŶƵĂůŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚ ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ͕&ĂƌŵŝŶŐƚŽŶ͕d͘ΗdŚĞEĞǁ,ĂǀĞŶƐǇƌŝŶŐĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵΗ ϮϬϭϰ͗ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ͕ KƌĂŶŐĞ͕d͘Η>ŽŶŐŝƚƵĚŝŶĂůdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐŝŶ,/sͲ/ŶĨĞĐƚĞĚWƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐĂŶĚ/ŶĨůƵĞŶĐĞŽĨZĞͲ /ŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚŝŽŶΗ

ϳ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 24 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

ϮϬϭϯ͗ ϮϬϭϭ͗

ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ͕ KƌĂŶŐĞ͕d͘ΗtŽŵĞŶZĞůĞĂƐĞĚĨƌŽŵ:ĂŝůǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ^ƵďŽƉƚŝŵĂů,/sdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽDĞŶ͗ZĞƐƵůƚƐĨƌŽŵĂDƵůƚŝͲĞŶƚĞƌ^ƚƵĚǇΗ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŶŶƵĂůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ͕ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ͕ KƌĂŶŐĞ͕d͘ΗŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚhƐĞďǇZĞůĞĂƐĞĚWƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐǁŝƚŚ,/sΗ

Professional Service:
Peer Review Groups/Grant Study Sections ϮϬϭϵͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕E/͕E/,ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͗Z&ͲͲϭϵͲϬϮϱ͗,>/ŶŝƚŝĂƚŝǀĞ͗:ƵƐƚŝĐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ
KƉŝŽŝĚ/ŶŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶEĞƚǁŽƌŬ;:K/EͿůŝŶŝĐĂůZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĞŶƚĞƌƐ ϮϬϭϵͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕zĂůĞ&ZWŝůŽƚWƌŽũĞĐƚƐ ϮϬϭϴͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌ/ŶƚĞƌĚŝƐĐŝƉůŝŶĂƌǇZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽŶ/^;/ZͿ ϮϬϭϱͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇŽĨtŝƐĐŽŶƐŝŶͲDŝůǁĂƵŬĞĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ'ƌŽǁƚŚ/ŶŝƚŝĂƚŝǀĞ

Advisory Boards

ϮϬϭϳ

ĚǀŝƐŽƌ͕,/sWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŝŶŝƐͲ'ĞŶĚĞƌĞĚtŽŵĞŶ͕'ŝůĞĂĚ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͘

Journal Service
Editor/Associate Editor ϮϬϭϵͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚŝƚŽƌ͕:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨƚŚĞ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶŽĨWƌŽǀŝĚĞƌƐŽĨ/^ĂƌĞ
;:/WͿ͕^ĞĐƚŝŽŶĚŝƚŽƌ͗^ĞǆĂŶĚ'ĞŶĚĞƌ/ƐƐƵĞƐ

Reviewer ϮϬϭϵͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ

ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕:/^ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ^ĐŝĂŶĚůŝŶWƌĂĐƚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ĚĚŝĐƚŝǀĞĞŚĂǀZĞƉŽƌƚƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕/^ĂƌĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕^ŽĐŝĂů^ĐŝĞŶĐĞĂŶĚDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌWůƵƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞďƵƐĞdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚWŽůŝĐǇ Reviewer, Women’s Health Issues ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕zĂůĞ:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨŝŽůŽŐǇĂŶĚDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕/D^WƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽŶĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨƉŝĚĞŵŝŽůŽŐǇ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ŶŶĂůƐ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕DŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕D/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕DWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚ Reviewer, BMC Women’s Health

ϴ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 25 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W

ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ

ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ůŝŶŝĐĂů/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ƌŝƚŝĐĂůWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ƌƵŐĂŶĚůĐŽŚŽůĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ƌƵŐĂŶĚůĐŽŚŽůZĞǀŝĞǁ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ƉŝĚĞŵŝŽůŽŐŝĐZĞǀŝĞǁƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕ƵƌŽƐƵƌǀĞŝůůĂŶĐĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ;^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌKƉĞŶͿ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨƌƵŐWŽůŝĐǇ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨWƌŝƐŽŶĞƌ,ĞĂůƚŚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨ^dƐĂŶĚ/^ Reviewer, International Journal of Women’s Health ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕:D/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨ&ĂŵŝůǇsŝŽůĞŶĐĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨ'ĞŶĞƌĂů/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨ/ŵŵŝŐƌĂŶƚĂŶĚDŝŶŽƌŝƚǇ,ĞĂůƚŚ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů/^^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨWƐǇĐŚŽĂĐƚŝǀĞƌƵŐƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨhƌďĂŶ,ĞĂůƚŚ Reviewer, Journal of Women’s Health ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕KƉĞŶ&ŽƌƵŵ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕W>Ž^KE ZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕WƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚZĞƉŽƌƚƐ

Professional Service for Professional Organizations
AAMC Group on Women in Medicine and Science (GWIMS) ϮϬϭϲͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ DĞŵďĞƌ͕D'ƌŽƵƉŽŶtŽŵĞŶŝŶDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞĂŶĚ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞ;'t/D^Ϳ

American College of Physicians ϮϬϭϲͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ &ĞůůŽǁ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŽůůĞŐĞŽĨWŚǇƐŝĐŝĂŶƐ ϮϬϭϯͲϮϬϭϲ DĞŵďĞƌ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŽůůĞŐĞŽĨWŚǇƐŝĐŝĂŶƐ

American Medical Association ϮϬϬϱͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ DĞŵďĞƌ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶDĞĚŝĐĂůƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ

American Medical Women’s Association ϮϬϭϭͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ Member, American Medical Women’s Association

American Society of Addiction Medicine ϮϬϬϵͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ DĞŵďĞƌ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŽĨĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ

ϵ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 26 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W
Connecticut Infectious Disease Society ϮϬϭϭͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ DĞŵďĞƌ͕ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ
Infectious Disease Society of America ϮϬϬϴͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ DĞŵďĞƌ͕/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇŽĨŵĞƌŝĐĂ
InWomen’s Network, NIDA International Program ϮϬϭϯͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ Member, InWomen’s Network, NIDA International Program
New York State Medical Society ϮϬϬϱͲϮϬϬϴ DĞŵďĞƌ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬ^ƚĂƚĞDĞĚŝĐĂů^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ

Yale University Service University Committees ϮϬϭϲͲϮϬϭϴ Council Member, Leadership Council, Women’s Faculty Forum

Medical School Committees ϮϬϭϱͲϮϬϭϲ ŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞDĞŵďĞƌ͕h^,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞŽƵƌƐĞ͕zĂůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ ϮϬϭϰͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞDĞŵďĞƌ͕zĂůĞ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞdƌĂĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůZĞƐŝĚĞŶĐǇ/ŶƚĞƌŶ^ĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶ
ŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ

Public Service ϮϬϭϵͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϳͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϯͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϭϮͲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ϮϬϬϵͲϮϬϭϭ ϮϬϬϮ ϭϵϵϴͲϭϵϵϵ

&ĂĐƵůƚǇDĞŵďĞƌ͕zĂůĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇWƌŽŐƌĂŵŝŶĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ &ĂĐƵůƚǇDĞŵďĞƌ͕ƌƚŚƵƌ>ŝŵĂŶĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌWƵďůŝĐ/ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ>Ăǁ͕zĂůĞ>Ăǁ^ĐŚŽŽů DĞŶƚŽƌ͕tŽŵĞŶŝŶDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞĂƚzĂůĞDĞŶƚŽƌŝŶŐWƌŽŐƌĂŵ &ĂĐƵůƚǇDĞŵďĞƌ͕zĂůĞĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌ/ŶƚĞƌĚŝƐĐŝƉůŝŶĂƌǇZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽŶ/^ /ŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŽƌ͕WƌĞĐůŝŶŝĐĂůůĞƌŬƐŚŝƉdƵƚŽƌ͕zĂůĞ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ &ĞůůŽǁ͕^ŽƌŽƐKƉĞŶ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞ &ĞůůŽǁ͕ŽƐƚĂZŝĐĂŶ,ƵŵĂŶŝƚĂƌŝĂŶ&ŽƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶ

Bibliography:
Peer-Reviewed Original Research ϭ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕YŝƵ:͕ŚĞŶE͕>ĂƌŬŝŶ'>͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƵƐĞďǇƌĞůĞĂƐĞĚƉƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐ
ǁŝƚŚ,/s͗ĂŶŽďƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶĂůůŽŶŐŝƚƵĚŝŶĂůƐƚƵĚǇ͘WůŽ^KŶĞϮϬϭϮ͕ϳ͗ĞϰϮϰϭϲ͘ Ϯ͘ ŚĞŶE͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ŽůůŝŶŐĞƌZ͕WĂŐĞ<Z͘,/sƚĞƐƚŝŶŐďĞŚĂǀŝŽƌƐĂŵŽŶŐ>ĂƚŝŶŽƐŝŶĂůƚŝŵŽƌĞŝƚǇ͘
:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨ/ŵŵŝŐƌĂŶƚŶĚDŝŶŽƌŝƚǇ,ĞĂůƚŚͬĞŶƚĞƌ&ŽƌDŝŶŽƌŝƚǇWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚϮϬϭϮ͕ϭϰ͗ϱϰϬͲϱϭ͘ ϯ͘ ŚŝƚƐĂǌ͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕<ƌŝƐŚŶĂŶ͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͕DĂƌĐƵƐZ͕ĂůůĞƌE͕:ŽƌĚĂŶK͕>ŝŶĐŽůŶd͕&ůĂŶŝŐĂŶdW͕
WŽƌƚĞƌĨŝĞůĚ:͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞƵƐĞĚŝƐŽƌĚĞƌƐŽŶ,/sƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐĂŶĚ ĂŶƚŝƌĞƚƌŽǀŝƌĂůŵĞĚŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĂĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞĂŵŽŶŐ,/sͲŝŶĨĞĐƚĞĚƉĞƌƐŽŶƐĞŶƚĞƌŝŶŐũĂŝů͘/^ŶĚĞŚĂǀŝŽƌ ϮϬϭϯ͕ϭϳ^ƵƉƉůϮ͗^ϭϭϴͲϮϳ͘

ϭϬ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 27 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W
ϰ͘ ŚĞŶE͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ǀĞƌǇ<͕ƌĂŝŶĞ:͕&ůĂŶŝŐĂŶdW͕>ŝŶĐŽůŶd͕^ƉĂƵůĚŝŶŐ͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ ĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞƚŽ,/sƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĐĂƌĞĂŵŽŶŐƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůǇŚŽŵĞůĞƐƐũĂŝůĚĞƚĂŝŶĞĞƐ͘/^ŶĚ ĞŚĂǀŝŽƌϮϬϭϯ͕ϭϳ͗ϮϲϱϰͲϲϲ͘
ϱ͘ ůƚŚŽĨĨ>͕ĞůĞŶĞǀ͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕&Ƶ:͕ƌŽǁŶ^͕sĂŐĞŶĂƐW͕ǀĞƌǇ<͕ƌƵǌĂĚŽͲYƵŝŹŽŶĞƐ:͕ ^ƉĂƵůĚŝŶŐ͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ŽƌƌĞůĂƚĞƐŽĨƌĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶŝŶ,/sĐĂƌĞĂĨƚĞƌƌĞůĞĂƐĞĨƌŽŵũĂŝů͗ƌĞƐƵůƚƐĨƌŽŵĂ ŵƵůƚŝͲƐŝƚĞƐƚƵĚǇ͘/^ŶĚĞŚĂǀŝŽƌϮϬϭϯ͕ϭϳ^ƵƉƉůϮ͗^ϭϱϲͲϳϬ͘
ϲ͘ tŝůůŝĂŵƐd͕<ŝŵ^͕DĞǇĞƌ:͕^ƉĂƵůĚŝŶŐ͕dĞŝǆĞŝƌĂW͕ǀĞƌǇ͕DŽŽƌĞ<͕ůƚŝĐĞ&͕DƵƌƉŚǇͲ^ǁĂůůŽǁ͕ ^ŝŵŽŶ͕tŝĐŬĞƌƐŚĂŵ:͕KƵĞůůĞƚ>:͘'ĞŶĚĞƌĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐŝŶďĂƐĞůŝŶĞŚĞĂůƚŚ͕ŶĞĞĚƐĂƚƌĞůĞĂƐĞ͕ĂŶĚ ƉƌĞĚŝĐƚŽƌƐŽĨĐĂƌĞĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂŵŽŶŐ,/sͲƉŽƐŝƚŝǀĞĐůŝĞŶƚƐůĞĂǀŝŶŐũĂŝů͘/^ŶĚĞŚĂǀŝŽƌϮϬϭϯ͕ϭϳ ^ƵƉƉůϮ͗^ϭϵϱͲϮϬϮ͘
ϳ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕tŝĐŬĞƌƐŚĂŵ:͕&Ƶ::͕ƌŽǁŶ^͕^ƵůůŝǀĂŶdW͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘WĂƌƚŶĞƌǀŝŽůĞŶĐĞĂŶĚ ŚĞĂůƚŚĂŵŽŶŐ,/sͲŝŶĨĞĐƚĞĚũĂŝůĚĞƚĂŝŶĞĞƐ͘/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨWƌŝƐŽŶĞƌ,ĞĂůƚŚϮϬϭϯ͕ϵ͗ϭϮϰͲϰϭ͘
ϴ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕YŝƵ:͕ŚĞŶE͕>ĂƌŬŝŶ'>͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘&ƌĞƋƵĞŶƚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƵƐĞĂŵŽŶŐ ƌĞůĞĂƐĞĚƉƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐǁŝƚŚŚƵŵĂŶŝŵŵƵŶŽĚĞĨŝĐŝĞŶĐǇǀŝƌƵƐ͗ĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝǌĂƚŝŽŶŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂŶŽǀĞů ŵƵůƚŝŵŽƌďŝĚŝƚǇŝŶĚĞǆ͘ĐĂĚĞŵŝĐŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞ͗KĨĨŝĐŝĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨdŚĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇ&ŽƌĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϭϯ͕ϮϬ͗ϳϵͲϴϴ͘
ϵ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ĞƉĞĚĂ:͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͕tƵ:͕dƌĞƐƚŵĂŶZ>͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘,/sŝŶƉĞŽƉůĞƌĞŝŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚĞĚŝŶ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚƉƌŝƐŽŶƐĂŶĚũĂŝůƐ͗ĂŶŽďƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽŚŽƌƚƐƚƵĚǇ͘dŚĞ>ĂŶĐĞƚ͘,/sϮϬϭϰ͕ϭ͗ĞϳϳͲĞϴϰ͘
ϭϬ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ĞůĞŶĞǀ͕tŝĐŬĞƌƐŚĂŵ:͕tŝůůŝĂŵƐd͕dĞŝǆĞŝƌĂW͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘'ĞŶĚĞƌĚŝƐƉĂƌŝƚŝĞƐŝŶ,/s ƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƌĞůĞĂƐĞĨƌŽŵũĂŝů͗ƌĞƐƵůƚƐĨƌŽŵĂŵƵůƚŝĐĞŶƚĞƌƐƚƵĚǇ͘ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ:ŽƵƌŶĂů KĨWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚϮϬϭϰ͕ϭϬϰ͗ϰϯϰͲϰϭ͘
ϭϭ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ĞƉĞĚĂ:͕tƵ:͕dƌĞƐƚŵĂŶZ>͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͘KƉƚŝŵŝǌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŚƵŵĂŶ ŝŵŵƵŶŽĚĞĨŝĐŝĞŶĐǇǀŝƌƵƐƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĚƵƌŝŶŐŝŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͗ǀŝƌĂůƐƵƉƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŝƐŽŶŐĂƚĞ͘:D /ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϭϰ͕ϭϳϰ͗ϳϮϭͲϵ͘
ϭϮ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ĞƉĞĚĂ:͕dĂǆŵĂŶ&^͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘^ĞǆͲZĞůĂƚĞĚŝƐƉĂƌŝƚŝĞƐŝŶƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞĂŶĚ,/s dƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚKƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ͗ZĞƚƌŽƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞŽŚŽƌƚ^ƚƵĚǇŽĨ,/sͲ/ŶĨĞĐƚĞĚ/ŶŵĂƚĞƐ͘ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨ WƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚϮϬϭϱ͕ϭϬϱ͗ϭϵϬϭͲϭϬ͘
ϭϯ͘ ŽǇĚd͕^ŽŶŐ>͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƵƐĞĂŵŽŶŐ,/sͲŝŶĨĞĐƚĞĚƌĞůĞĂƐĞĚũĂŝů ĚĞƚĂŝŶĞĞƐ͘:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨhƌďĂŶ,ĞĂůƚŚ͗ƵůůĞƚŝŶKĨdŚĞEĞǁzŽƌŬĐĂĚĞŵǇKĨDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϭϱ͕ϵϮ͗ϭϬϴͲ ϯϱ͘
ϭϰ͘ ^ŚƌĞƐƚŚĂZ͕<ĂƌŬŝW͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͕,ƵĞĚŽͲDĞĚŝŶĂd͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕DĂĚĚĞŶ>͕ŽƉĞŶŚĂǀĞƌD͘ŽƌƌĞůĂƚĞƐŽĨ ǁŝůůŝŶŐŶĞƐƐƚŽŝŶŝƚŝĂƚĞƉƌĞͲĞǆƉŽƐƵƌĞƉƌŽƉŚǇůĂǆŝƐĂŶĚĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƉƌĂĐƚŝĐŝŶŐƐĂĨĞƌĚƌƵŐͲĂŶĚƐĞǆͲ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚďĞŚĂǀŝŽƌƐĂŵŽŶŐŚŝŐŚͲƌŝƐŬĚƌƵŐƵƐĞƌƐŽŶŵĞƚŚĂĚŽŶĞƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ͘ƌƵŐŶĚůĐŽŚŽů ĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞϮϬϭϳ͕ϭϳϯ͗ϭϬϳͲϭϭϲ͘
ϭϱ͘ WĞĂƐĂŶƚ͕^ƵůůŝǀĂŶdW͕tĞŝƐƐE,͕DĂƌƚŝŶĞǌ/͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘ĞǇŽŶĚƚŚĞƐǇŶĚĞŵŝĐ͗ĐŽŶĚŽŵŶĞŐŽƚŝĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚƵƐĞĂŵŽŶŐǁŽŵĞŶĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐŝŶŐƉĂƌƚŶĞƌǀŝŽůĞŶĐĞ͘/^ĂƌĞϮϬϭϳ͕Ϯϵ͗ϱϭϲͲϱϮϯ͘
ϭϲ͘ tŝĐŬĞƌƐŚĂŵ:͕'ŝďƐŽŶ͕ĂǌĂǌŝZ͕WŝůůĂŝs͕WĞĚĞƌƐĞŶ:͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ůͲĂƐƐĞůE͕DĂǇĞƌ<,͕ <ĂŵĂƌƵůǌĂŵĂŶ͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘WƌĞǀĂůĞŶĐĞŽĨ,ƵŵĂŶ/ŵŵƵŶŽĚĞĨŝĐŝĞŶĐǇsŝƌƵƐĂŶĚ^ĞǆƵĂůůǇ dƌĂŶƐŵŝƚƚĞĚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶƐŵŽŶŐŝƐŐĞŶĚĞƌĂŶĚdƌĂŶƐŐĞŶĚĞƌtŽŵĞŶ^ĞǆtŽƌŬĞƌƐŝŶ'ƌĞĂƚĞƌ<ƵĂůĂ >ƵŵƉƵƌ͕DĂůĂǇƐŝĂ͗ZĞƐƵůƚƐ&ƌŽŵĂZĞƐƉŽŶĚĞŶƚͲƌŝǀĞŶ^ĂŵƉůŝŶŐ^ƚƵĚǇ͘^ĞǆƵĂůůǇdƌĂŶƐŵŝƚƚĞĚ ŝƐĞĂƐĞƐϮϬϭϳ͕ϰϰ͗ϲϲϯͲϲϳϬ͘
ϭϳ͘ ,ŽĨĨ͕DĂƌĐƵƐZ͕ŽũŬŽD:͕DĂŬĂƌĞŶŬŽ/͕DĂǌŚŶĂǇĂ͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘dŚĞĞĨĨĞĐƚƐŽĨŽƉŝŽŝĚͲ ĂŐŽŶŝƐƚƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƐŽŶ,/sƌŝƐŬĂŶĚƐŽĐŝĂůƐƚĂďŝůŝƚǇ͗ŵŝǆĞĚŵĞƚŚŽĚƐƐƚƵĚǇŽĨǁŽŵĞŶǁŝƚŚŽƉŝŽŝĚ ƵƐĞĚŝƐŽƌĚĞƌŝŶhŬƌĂŝŶĞ͘:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨ^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞďƵƐĞdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚϮϬϭϳ͕ϴϯ͗ϯϲͲϰϰ͘
ϭϭ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 28 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W
ϭϴ͘ ZƵƚůĞĚŐĞZ͕DĂĚĚĞŶ>͕KŐďƵĂŐƵK͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘,/sZŝƐŬƉĞƌĐĞƉƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĞůŝŐŝďŝůŝƚǇĨŽƌƉƌĞͲĞǆƉŽƐƵƌĞ ƉƌŽƉŚǇůĂǆŝƐŝŶǁŽŵĞŶŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĐƌŝŵŝŶĂůũƵƐƚŝĐĞƐǇƐƚĞŵ͘/^ĂƌĞϮϬϭϴ͕ϯϬ͗ϭϮϴϮͲϭϮϴϵ͘
ϭϵ͘ WĞĂƐĂŶƚ͕^ƵůůŝǀĂŶdW͕ZŝƚĐŚǁŽŽĚd͕WĂƌƌĂ'Z͕tĞŝƐƐE,͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕DƵƌƉŚǇ:'͘tŽƌĚƐĐĂŶŚƵƌƚ͗ dŚĞĞĨĨĞĐƚƐŽĨƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůĂŶĚƉƐǇĐŚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƉĂƌƚŶĞƌǀŝŽůĞŶĐĞŽŶĐŽŶĚŽŵŶĞŐŽƚŝĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĐŽŶĚŽŵƵƐĞ ĂŵŽŶŐǇŽƵŶŐǁŽŵĞŶ͘tŽŵĞŶΘ,ĞĂůƚŚϮϬϭϴ͕ϱϴ͗ϰϴϯͲϰϵϳ͘
ϮϬ͘ >ŽĞůŝŐĞƌ<͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͕ĞƐĂŝDD͕ŝĂƌůĞŐůŝŽDD͕'ĂůůĂŐŚĞƌ͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘WƌĞĚŝĐƚŽƌƐŽĨůŝŶŬĂŐĞƚŽ,/s ĐĂƌĞĂŶĚǀŝƌĂůƐƵƉƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶĂĨƚĞƌƌĞůĞĂƐĞĨƌŽŵũĂŝůƐĂŶĚƉƌŝƐŽŶƐ͗ĂƌĞƚƌŽƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞĐŽŚŽƌƚƐƚƵĚǇ͘dŚĞ >ĂŶĐĞƚ͘,/sϮϬϭϴ͕ϱ͗ĞϵϲͲĞϭϬϲ͘
Ϯϭ͘ KĚŝŽ͕ĂƌƌŽůůD͕'ůĂƐƐ^͕ĂƵŵĂŶ͕dĂǆŵĂŶ&^͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚǀĂůŝĚŝƚǇŽĨ ĐƌŝŵŝŶĂůũƵƐƚŝĐĞĂŶĚĐůŝŶŝĐĂůĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƐĂŵŽŶŐǁŽŵĞŶŽŶƉƌŽďĂƚŝŽŶ͘,ĞĂůƚŚΘ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞϮϬϭϴ͕ϲ͗ϳ͘
ϮϮ͘ >ŽĞůŝŐĞƌ<͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͕ŝĂƌůĞŐůŝŽDD͕ZŝĐŚ<D͕ŚĂŶĚƌĂ<͕'ĂůůĂŐŚĞƌ͕ĞƐĂŝDD͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘ůůͲ ĐĂƵƐĞŵŽƌƚĂůŝƚǇĂŵŽŶŐƉĞŽƉůĞǁŝƚŚ,/sƌĞůĞĂƐĞĚĨƌŽŵĂŶŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞĚƐǇƐƚĞŵŽĨũĂŝůƐĂŶĚƉƌŝƐŽŶƐŝŶ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚ͕h^͕ϮϬϬϳͲϭϰ͗ĂƌĞƚƌŽƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞŽďƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽŚŽƌƚƐƚƵĚǇ͘dŚĞ>ĂŶĐĞƚ͘,/sϮϬϭϴ͕ ϱ͗ĞϲϭϳͲĞϲϮϴ͘
Ϯϯ͘ >ŽĞůŝŐĞƌ<͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ĞƐĂŝDD͕ŝĂƌůĞŐůŝŽDD͕'ĂůůĂŐŚĞƌ͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶŝŶ,/sĐĂƌĞ ĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞϯǇĞĂƌƐĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƌĞůĞĂƐĞĨƌŽŵŝŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͗ĐŽŚŽƌƚƐƚƵĚǇ͘W>Ž^DĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϭϴ͕ ϭϱ͗ĞϭϬϬϮϲϲϳ͘
Ϯϰ͘ ǌďĞů>͕tĞŐŵĂŶDW͕WŽůŽŶƐŬǇD͕ĂĐŚŝƌĞĚĚǇ͕DĞǇĞƌ:͕^ŚƵŵƐŬĂǇĂE͕<ƵƌŵĂŶĂůŝĞǀĂ͕ǀŽƌǇĂŬ ^͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ƌƵŐŝŶũĞĐƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚŝŶƉƌŝƐŽŶŝŶ<ǇƌŐǇǌƐƚĂŶ͗ĞůĞǀĂƚĞĚ,/sƌŝƐŬĂŶĚŝŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƐĐĂůŝŶŐ ƵƉŽƉŝŽŝĚĂŐŽŶŝƐƚƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƐ͘/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨWƌŝƐŽŶĞƌ,ĞĂůƚŚϮϬϭϴ͕ϭϰ͗ϭϳϱͲϭϴϳ͘
Ϯϱ͘ WĞĂƐĂŶƚ͕DŽŶƚĂŶĂƌŽ͕<ĞƌƐŚĂǁd^͕WĂƌƌĂ'Z͕tĞŝƐƐE,͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕DƵƌƉŚǇ:'͕ZŝƚĐŚǁŽŽĚd͕ ^ƵůůŝǀĂŶdW͘ŶĞǀĞŶƚͲůĞǀĞůĞǆĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůĐŽŶĚŽŵŶĞŐŽƚŝĂƚŝŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐĂŵŽŶŐǇŽƵŶŐ ǁŽŵĞŶ͘:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨ,ĞĂůƚŚWƐǇĐŚŽůŽŐǇϮϬϭϵ͕Ϯϰ͗ϴϵϴͲϵϬϴ͘
Ϯϲ͘ ZĂŶũŝƚz^͕ǌďĞů>͕<ƌŝƐŚŶĂŶ͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ,/sƌŝƐŬĂŶĚŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐŝŶĂ ŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůůǇƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞƐĂŵƉůĞŽĨŝŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚĞĚǁŽŵĞŶŝŶǌĞƌďĂŝũĂŶ͕<ǇƌŐǇǌƐƚĂŶ͕ĂŶĚhŬƌĂŝŶĞ͘ /^ĂƌĞϮϬϭϵ͕ϯϭ͗ϳϵϯͲϳϵϳ͘
Ϯϳ͘ ZŚŽĚĞƐd͕ǌďĞů>͕>ĂŶĐĂƐƚĞƌ<͕DĞǇĞƌ:͘dŚĞďĞĐŽŵŝŶŐͲŵĞƚŚĂĚŽŶĞͲďŽĚǇ͗ŽŶƚŚĞŽŶƚŽͲƉŽůŝƚŝĐƐŽĨ ŚĞĂůƚŚŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƚƌĂŶƐůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘^ŽĐŝŽůŽŐǇKĨ,ĞĂůƚŚΘ/ůůŶĞƐƐϮϬϭϵ͕ϰϭ͗ϭϲϭϴͲϭϲϯϲ͘
Ϯϴ͘ KůƐŽŶ͕sŝŶĐĞŶƚt͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕<ĞƌƐŚĂǁd͕^ŝŬŬĞŵĂ<:͕,ĞĐŬŵĂŶd'͕,ĂŶƐĞŶE͘ĞƉƌĞƐƐŝǀĞ ƐǇŵƉƚŽŵƐ͕ƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůƐǇŵƉƚŽŵƐ͕ĂŶĚŚĞĂůƚŚͲƌĞůĂƚĞĚƋƵĂůŝƚǇŽĨůŝĨĞĂŵŽŶŐŽůĚĞƌĂĚƵůƚƐǁŝƚŚ,/s͘ YƵĂůŝƚǇKĨ>ŝĨĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ͗Ŷ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨYƵĂůŝƚǇKĨ>ŝĨĞƐƉĞĐƚƐKĨdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ͕ĂƌĞ ŶĚZĞŚĂďŝůŝƚĂƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϵ͘
Chapters, Books, and Reviews Ϯϵ͘ ǌĂƌDD͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ƐǇƐƚĞŵĂƚŝĐƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨĂůĐŽŚŽůƵƐĞ
ĚŝƐŽƌĚĞƌƐŽŶ,/sƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ͕ĂĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞƚŽĂŶƚŝƌĞƚƌŽǀŝƌĂůƚŚĞƌĂƉǇĂŶĚŚĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞ ƵƚŝůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ͘ƌƵŐŶĚůĐŽŚŽůĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞϮϬϭϬ͕ϭϭϮ͗ϭϳϴͲϵϯ͘ ϯϬ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞĂďƵƐĞ͕ǀŝŽůĞŶĐĞ͕ĂŶĚ,/sŝŶǁŽŵĞŶ͗ĂůŝƚĞƌĂƚƵƌĞƌĞǀŝĞǁ ŽĨƚŚĞƐǇŶĚĞŵŝĐ͘:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨtŽŵĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚ;ϮϬϬϮͿϮϬϭϭ͕ϮϬ͗ϵϵϭͲϭϬϬϲ͘ ϯϭ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ŚĞŶE͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͘,/sdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŚĞƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ^ǇƐƚĞŵ͗ƌŝƚŝĐĂů<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞ ĂŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ'ĂƉƐ͘/^ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŶĚdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚϮϬϭϭ͕ϮϬϭϭ͗ϲϴϬϲϭϳ͘ ϯϮ͘ ^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͕^ƉĂƵůĚŝŶŐ͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘WƵďůŝĐŚĞĂůƚŚŝŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶĂů ĐĂƌĞĨŽƌ,/sͲŝŶĨĞĐƚĞĚƉƌŝƐŽŶĞƌƐ͗ĨŝǀĞĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂůĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐ͘ůŝŶŝĐĂů/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ͗ŶKĨĨŝĐŝĂů WƵďůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶKĨdŚĞ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇKĨŵĞƌŝĐĂϮϬϭϭ͕ϱϯ͗ϰϲϵͲϳϵ͘
ϭϮ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 29 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W
ϯϯ͘ ŚĞŶE͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͕^ƉƌŝŶŐĞƌ^͘ĚǀĂŶĐĞƐŝŶƚŚĞƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶŽĨŚĞƚĞƌŽƐĞǆƵĂůƚƌĂŶƐŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽĨ ,/sͬ/^ĂŵŽŶŐǁŽŵĞŶŝŶƚŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐ͘/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞZĞƉŽƌƚƐϮϬϭϭ͕ϯ͘
ϯϰ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:͕ůƚŝĐĞ&͘,/sŝŶ/ŶũĞĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚKƚŚĞƌƌƵŐhƐĞƌƐ͘^ŽŵĞƐŚ'ƵƉƚĂ͕ŚƵƐŚĂŶ<ƵŵĂƌ͕ĞĚƐ͘ ^ĞǆƵĂůůǇdƌĂŶƐŵŝƚƚĞĚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶƐϮŶĚĞĚ͘EĞǁĞůŚŝ͕/ŶĚŝĂ͗ůƐĞǀŝĞƌ͕ϮϬϭϮ͗ϭϬϲϭͲϴϬ͘/^EϵϳϴͲϴϭͲ ϯϭϮͲϮϴϬϵͲϴ͘
ϯϱ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕ůƚŚŽĨĨ>͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘KƉƚŝŵŝǌŝŶŐĐĂƌĞĨŽƌ,/sͲŝŶĨĞĐƚĞĚƉĞŽƉůĞǁŚŽƵƐĞĚƌƵŐƐ͗ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞͲ ďĂƐĞĚĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐƚŽŽǀĞƌĐŽŵŝŶŐŚĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞĚŝƐƉĂƌŝƚŝĞƐ͘ůŝŶŝĐĂů/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ͗ŶKĨĨŝĐŝĂů WƵďůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶKĨdŚĞ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇKĨŵĞƌŝĐĂϮϬϭϯ͕ϱϳ͗ϭϯϬϵͲϭϳ͘
ϯϲ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:͕ůƚŝĐĞ&͘ŚĂƉƚĞƌϰϳ͕dƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŽĨĚĚŝĐƚŝŽŶƐ͗dƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͘ZŽďĞƌƚ>͘ dƌĞƐƚŵĂŶ͕<ĞŶŶĞƚŚ>͘ƉƉĞůďĂƵŵ͕:ĞĨĨƌĞǇ>͘DĞƚǌŶĞƌ͕ĞĚƐ͘KǆĨŽƌĚdĞǆƚďŽŽŬŽĨŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů WƐǇĐŚŝĂƚƌǇ;tŝŶŶĞƌŽĨƚŚĞϮϬϭϲ'ƵƚƚŵĂĐŚĞƌǁĂƌĚͿ͘KǆĨŽƌĚhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇWƌĞƐƐϮϬϭϱ͘/^E ϵϳϴϬϭϵϵϯϲϬϱϳϰ͘
ϯϳ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕DŽŐŚŝŵŝz͕DĂƌĐƵƐZ͕>ŝŵ:<͕>ŝƚǁŝŶ,͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘ǀŝĚĞŶĐĞͲďĂƐĞĚŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐƚŽ ĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ͕ƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ͕ĂŶĚĂĚŚĞƌĞŶĐĞŝŶƚŚĞĐŚƌŽŶŝĐ,ĞƉĂƚŝƚŝƐĐĂƌĞĐŽŶƚŝŶƵƵŵ͘dŚĞ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůKŶƌƵŐWŽůŝĐǇϮϬϭϱ͕Ϯϲ͗ϵϮϮͲϯϱ͘
ϯϴ͘ DŽŚĂƌĞď͕dŝďĞƌŝŽW͕DĂŶĚŝŵŝŬĂ͕DƵƚŚƵůŝŶŐĂŵ͕DĞǇĞƌ:͘/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐŝŶhŶĚĞƌƐĞƌǀĞĚ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘KŶǇĞŵĂKŐďƵĂŐƵ͕'ĞƌĂůĚ&ƌŝĞĚůĂŶĚ͕DĞƌĐĞĚŝƚĂƐsŝůůĂŶƵĞǀĂ͕DĂƌũŽƌŝĞ'ŽůĚĞŶ͕ĞĚƐ͘ ƵƌƌĞŶƚŝĂŐŶŽƐŝƐĂŶĚdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚͲ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ͘DĐ'ƌĂǁͲ,ŝůůDĞĚŝĐĂůϮϬϭϲ͘
ϯϵ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕tŽŵĂĐŬ:͕'ŝďƐŽŶ͘ĞǇŽŶĚƚŚĞWĂƉ^ŵĞĂƌ͗'ĞŶĚĞƌͲƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝǀĞ,/sĂƌĞĨŽƌtŽŵĞŶ͘ dŚĞzĂůĞ:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨŝŽůŽŐǇŶĚDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϭϲ͕ϴϵ͗ϭϵϯͲϮϬϯ͘
ϰϬ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕DƵƚŚƵůŝŶŐĂŵ͕ůͲĂƐƐĞůE͕ůƚŝĐĞ&>͘>ĞǀĞƌĂŐŝŶŐƚŚĞh͘^͘ƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ^ǇƐƚĞŵƚŽ ĐĐĞƐƐtŽŵĞŶĨŽƌ,/s/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐ͘/^ŶĚĞŚĂǀŝŽƌϮϬϭϳ͕Ϯϭ͗ϯϱϮϳͲϯϱϰϴ͘
ϰϭ͘ ^ŚƌĞƐƚŚĂZ͕DĐŽǇͲZĞĚĚ͕DĞǇĞƌ:͘WƌĞͲǆƉŽƐƵƌĞWƌŽƉŚǇůĂǆŝƐ;WƌWͿĨŽƌWĞŽƉůĞtŚŽ/ŶũĞĐƚƌƵŐƐ ;Wt/Ϳ͘ƌŝĂŶŶĂEŽƌƚŽŶ͕Ě͘dŚĞKƉŝŽŝĚƉŝĚĞŵŝĐĂŶĚ/ŶĨĞĐƚŝŽƵƐŝƐĞĂƐĞƐ͘ůƐĞǀŝĞƌϮϬϭϵ͘
ϰϮ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͕/ƐĂĂĐƐ<͕ůͲ^ŚĂŚĂǁǇK͕ƵƌůĞǁ<͕tĞĐŚƐďĞƌŐt͘ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽŶǁŽŵĞŶǁŝƚŚƐƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞ ƵƐĞĚŝƐŽƌĚĞƌƐ͗ZĞǀŝĞǁŝŶŐƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐĂŶĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐĂƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĂŶĚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶƌŽĂĚŵĂƉ͘ƌƵŐ ŶĚůĐŽŚŽůĞƉĞŶĚĞŶĐĞϮϬϭϵ͕ϭϵϳ͗ϭϱϴͲϭϲϯ͘
Peer-Reviewed Educational Materials ϰϯ͘ dŚĞ&ŽƌƚƵŶĞ^ŽĐŝĞƚǇZĞĞŶƚƌǇĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚĞƚĂŝůŝŶŐ<ŝƚ͘EĞǁzŽƌŬŝƚǇĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ,ĞĂůƚŚ
ĂŶĚDĞŶƚĂů,ǇŐŝĞŶĞ͘KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϬϭϰ ϰϰ͘ hŶŝƚĞĚEĂƚŝŽŶƐKĨĨŝĐĞŽŶƌƵŐƐĂŶĚƌŝŵĞ͘sŝĞŶŶĂ͕ƵƐƚƌŝĂ
Invited Editorials and Commentaries ϰϱ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͘ĂƉƐƵůĞŽŵŵĞŶƚĂƌǇŽŶWǇƌĂĞƚĂů͕͘ƐĞǆƵĂůŵŝŶŽƌŝƚǇƐƚĂƚƵƐĂŶĚǀŝŽůĞŶĐĞĂŵŽŶŐ,/s
ŝŶĨĞĐƚĞĚĂŶĚĂƚͲƌŝƐŬǁŽŵĞŶ͘:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨ'ĞŶĞƌĂů/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϭϰ͕Ϯϵ͗ϭϭϲϰ͘ ϰϲ͘ ƌŝŶŬůĞǇͲZƵďŝŶƐƚĞŝŶ>͕ĂƵƌŝĂ͕dŽůŽƵͲ^ŚĂŵƐD͕ŚƌŝƐƚŽƉŽƵůŽƐ<͕ŚĂŶW͕ĞĐŬǁŝƚŚ'͕WĂƌŬĞƌ^͕
DĞǇĞƌ:͘dŚĞWĂƚŚƚŽ/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ,/sWƌĞͲĞǆƉŽƐƵƌĞWƌŽƉŚǇůĂǆŝƐĨŽƌWĞŽƉůĞ/ŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶ ƌŝŵŝŶĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ^ǇƐƚĞŵƐ͘ƵƌƌĞŶƚ,/sͬ/^ZĞƉŽƌƚƐϮϬϭϴ͕ϭϱ͗ϵϯͲϵϱ͘ ϰϳ͘ DĞǇĞƌ:W͘dŚĞ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĞĚ,ĂƌŵĨƵů,ĞĂůƚŚĨĨĞĐƚƐŽĨ/ŶĐĂƌĐĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌtŽŵĞŶ>ŝǀŝŶŐǁŝƚŚ,/s͘ :ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨtŽŵĞŶΖƐ,ĞĂůƚŚ;ϮϬϬϮͿϮϬϭϵ͕Ϯϴ͗ϭϬϭϳͲϭϬϭϴ͘
ϭϯ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 30 of 260
:ĂŝŵŝĞDĞǇĞƌ͕D͕D^͕&W
Case Reports, Technical Notes, Letters ϰϴ͘ WĂƵů:͘ƵůůŽƵƐƉĞŵƉŚŝŐŽŝĚŝŶĂƉĂƚŝĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƉƐŽƌŝĂƐŝƐĂŶĚƉŽƐƐŝďůĞĚƌƵŐƌĞĂĐƚŝŽŶ͗ĂĐĂƐĞƌĞƉŽƌƚ͘
ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϬϰ͕ϲϴ͗ϲϭϭͲϱ͘ ϰϵ͘ ,Žǁ:͕ǌĂƌDD͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘ƌĞEĞĐƚĂƌŝŶĞƐƚŽůĂŵĞ͍ĂƐĞZĞƉŽƌƚĂŶĚ>ŝƚĞƌĂƚƵƌĞZĞǀŝĞǁŽĨ
^ƉŽŶƚĂŶĞŽƵƐĂĐƚĞƌŝĂůWĞƌŝƚŽŶŝƚŝƐƵĞƚŽ>ŝƐƚĞƌŝĂŵŽŶŽĐǇƚŽŐĞŶĞƐ͘ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝĐƵƚDĞĚŝĐŝŶĞϮϬϭϱ͕ ϳϵ͗ϯϭͲϲ͘ ϱϬ͘ sĂǌƋƵĞǌ'ƵŝůůĂŵĞƚ>:͕DĂůŝŶŝƐD&͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘ŵĞƌŐŝŶŐƌŽůĞŽĨĐƚŝŶŽŵǇĐĞƐŵĞǇĞƌŝŝŶďƌĂŝŶ ĂďƐĐĞƐƐĞƐ͗ĐĂƐĞƌĞƉŽƌƚĂŶĚůŝƚĞƌĂƚƵƌĞƌĞǀŝĞǁ͘/ĂƐĞƐϮϬϭϳ͕ϭϬ͗ϮϲͲϮϵ͘ ϱϭ͘ ,ĂƌĂĚĂ<͕,ĞĂƚŽŶ,͕ŚĞŶ:͕sĂǌƋƵĞǌD͕DĞǇĞƌ:͘ŽƐƚĞƌǀĂĐĐŝŶĞͲĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚƉƌŝŵĂƌǇǀĂƌŝĐĞůůĂ ŝŶĨĞĐƚŝŽŶŝŶĂŶŝŵŵƵŶŽĐŽŵƉĞƚĞŶƚŚŽƐƚ͘D:ĂƐĞZĞƉŽƌƚƐϮϬϭϳ͕ϮϬϭϳ͘ ϱϮ͘ ĞƌŶĂƌĚŽZ͕^ƚƌĞŝƚĞƌ^͕dŝďĞƌŝŽW͕ZŽĚǁŝŶ͕DŽŚĂƌĞď͕KŐďƵĂŐƵK͕ŵƵ͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘ŶƐǁĞƌƚŽ ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϬϭϳWŚŽƚŽYƵŝǌ͘:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨůŝŶŝĐĂůDŝĐƌŽďŝŽůŽŐǇϮϬϭϳ͕ϱϱ͗ϯϱϲϴ͘ ϱϯ͘ ĞƌŶĂƌĚŽZ͕^ƚƌĞŝƚĞƌ^͕dŝďĞƌŝŽW͕ZŽĚǁŝŶ͕DŽŚĂƌĞď͕KŐďƵĂŐƵK͕ŵƵ͕DĞǇĞƌ:W͘WŚŽƚŽYƵŝǌ͗ WĞƌŝƉŚĞƌĂůůŽŽĚ^ŵĞĂƌŝŶĂhŐĂŶĚĂŶZĞĨƵŐĞĞ͘:ŽƵƌŶĂůKĨůŝŶŝĐĂůDŝĐƌŽďŝŽůŽŐǇϮϬϭϳ͕ϱϱ͗ϯϯϭϯͲ ϯϯϭϰ͘ Scholarship In Press ϱϰ͘ ,ŽĨĨ͕ĚĂŵƐ͕ĂƐŐƵƉƚĂ͕'ŽĚĚĂƌĚ͕^ŚĞƚŚ^͕DĞǇĞƌ:͘ZĞƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀĞ,ĞĂůƚŚ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞĂŶĚ ƵƚŽŶŽŵǇ͗ƐǇƐƚĞŵĂƚŝĐƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨƉƌĞŐŶĂŶĐǇƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐŝŶƚĞŶƚŝŽŶƐ͕ŶĞĞĚƐ͕ĂŶĚŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐĂŵŽŶŐ women involved in US criminal justice systems. J Women’s Health
ϭϰ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 31 of 260
                   
(;+,%,7%

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 32 of 260

  -0,&+$(/+$1121 '$1,(/6&52:/(<Á
3$571(56 
 $11.$7+5<162 7$/215+8567 (5,.+)$:&(77__ '$9,6&5$-7,.
$662&,$7(6


 +$1121/$:*5283//3 &2816(/256$1'$77251(<6$7/$:
7+675((71( :$6+,1*721'&
(670$5&+

7~) ZZZKDQQRQODZJURXSFRP
 0DUFK

 

:,//,$0&/$<721%$7&+(/25 2)&2816(/
   $/62$'0,77(',10$5</$1' $/62$'0,77(',19,5*,1,$ Á$/62$'0,77(',10$66$&+86(776 $/62$'0,77(',11(:-(56(< __$'0,77(',10$5</$1'21/< 81'(5683(59,6,212)-0,&+$(/ +$1121

9,$(/(&7521,&75$160,66,2121/<



4XLQF\/%RRWK

2IILFHRIWKH'LUHFWRU

'&'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV



,03/(0(17$7,212)0$<25¶625'(5621&29,'





:HSUHVHQWWKLVOHWWHURQEHKDOIRIWKHEDUJDLQLQJXQLWIRUDOO'&-DLOFRUUHFWLRQV

RIILFHUVWKH)UDWHUQDO2UGHURI3ROLFH'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV/DERU&RPPLWWHH



,1752'8&7,21





7RGD\WKH0D\RUDQQRXQFHGWKHQXPEHURISRVLWLYH&29,'LQIHFWHGSHUVRQVLQWKH

'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELDLQFUHDVHGE\QHZFDVHVWRDWRWDORI1RWDEO\RIWKHQHZFDVHV

DUHLQWKHLUVDUHLQWKHLUVDQGRQO\DUHRYHUWKHDJHRI7KH0D\RU¶VXSGDWHDOVR

UHSRUWVWKHIROORZLQJ



:LWKRQJRLQJFRPPXQLW\WUDQVPLVVLRQFRQWDFWWUDFLQJLVIRFXVHGRQSRVLWLYHFDVHV

DVVRFLDWHGZLWKFKLOGFDUHIDFLOLWLHVVFKRROVDQGXQLYHUVLWLHVKHDOWKFDUHIDFLOLWLHVVHQLRU

FDUHIDFLOLWLHVcorrectional and detention centersDQGIDFLOLWLHVVHUYLQJLQGLYLGXDOVZKR

DUHH[SHULHQFLQJKRPHOHVVQHVV*XLGDQFHZLOOEHSXEOLVKHGIRUKHDOWKFDUHSURYLGHUV

HPSOR\HUVDQGWKHSXEOLFWRSURYLGHLQIRUPDWLRQRQZKDWWRGRLI\RXKDYHEHHQ

GLDJQRVHGZLWKRUDUHDFRQWDFWRIVRPHRQHZKRKDV&29,'





2Q0DUFKRXURIILFHVHQWDQHPDLOWR'2&UHJDUGLQJWKHTXDUDQWLQHRILQPDWHV

ZKRFDPHLQFRQWDFWZLWKDQLQIHFWHG860DUVKDODWWKH&RXUWKRXVH$WWDFKPHQW$:H

UHFHLYHGQRUHVSRQVH





2QWKHVDPHGDWH0DUFKZHVHQWD³5HTXHVWIRU,QIRUPDWLRQRQ3RWHQWLDOO\

'DQJHURXV&RQGLWLRQVDWWKH'2&)DFLOLWLHV´WR'2&¶V*HQHUDO&RXQVHODQGWRLWV+5'LUHFWRU

$WWDFKPHQW%7KHQH[WPRUQLQJ'2&¶V*HQHUDO&RXQVHOUHVSRQGHG³'2&LVSUHSDULQJD

UHVSRQVHWR\RXULQTXLUHVDQGZLOOFRQWDFW\RXDVVRRQDVSRVVLEOH´:HKDYHUHFHLYHGQR

UHVSRQVH





2Q0DUFKWKH)23'2&/DERU&RPPLWWHHGHOLYHUHGWRWKH'2&OHDGHUVKLS

DQGSRVWHGWKURXJKRXWWKH'&-DLODQ$QQRXQFHPHQWUHJDUGLQJFULWLFDODFWLRQVWREHDGGUHVVHG

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 33 of 260

3DJHRI

0DUFK

%RRWK4XLQF\/



E\WKH/DERU&RPPLWWHHUHJDUGLQJ&29,'DVZHOODVWKHIDLOXUHWRSURVHFXWHDQLQPDWHIRU

WKHEUXWDOEHDWLQJRIDFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHU$WWDFKPHQW&





,QVWHDGRIFRPPXQLFDWLQJZLWKWKH8QLRQDVUHTXHVWHGRQ0DUFK\RXLVVXHGD

QRWLFHRQWKHVDPHGDWHRI0DUFKDQQRXQFHGDWHYHU\UROOFDOOIDOVHO\VWDWLQJ³,WKDVFRPHWR

WKHDJHQF\
VDWWHQWLRQWKDWHPSOR\HHVRIWKH'2&LQWHQGWRHQJDJHLQHLWKHUDZDONRXWDQGRU

SURWHVWRQWKHJURXQGVRIWKH'2&´5DWKHUWKDQFRPPXQLFDWLQJKRQHVWO\ZLWKWKH8QLRQRQ

WKHVHFULWLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRIZRUN\RXWKUHDWHQHGWKHFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVZLWKGLVFLSOLQH7KLV

DFWLRQZDVFOHDUO\LQUHWDOLDWLRQIRUWKH8QLRQSUHVHQWLQJOHJLWLPDWHFRQFHUQVDERXW\RXUIDLOXUH

WRLPSOHPHQWSURWHFWLRQVIRULQPDWHVDQGFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUV7KLVLVQRWRQO\DQXQIDLUODERU

SUDFWLFHDQGDSURKLELWHGSHUVRQQHOSUDFWLFHEXWDOVRDYLRODWLRQRIWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD

:KLVWOHEORZHU5HLQIRUFHPHQW$FWRI





,QWKHDIWHUQRRQRI\HVWHUGD\0DUFK\RXVXPPRQHGWKH)23'2&/DERU&RPPLWWHH

3UHVLGHQW&SO%HQMDPLQ2OXEDVXVLWR\RXURIILFHDWWKH5HHYHV&HQWHU:LWKRXWQRWLFHWR

+$1121/$:*5283\RXSXW'HSXW\0D\RU.HYLQ'RQDKXHDQG0D\RU%RZVHURQ\RXU

VSHDNHUSKRQH7KH0D\RUWKHQIDOVHO\ZDUQHG&SO2OXEDVXVLWKDWLWLVD³FULPH´IRU'&

FRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUV³WRZDONRXWRIWKH-DLO´<RXDVNHG&SO2OXEDVXVLZKDWWKH8QLRQZDQWV

DVLIRXUFRPPXQLFDWLRQVRYHUWKHSDVWGD\VZHUHQHYHUUHDG





$OVR\HVWHUGD\DIWHUQRRQ+$1121/$:*5283SDUWLFLSDWHGLQD1DWLRQDO

&RQIHUHQFH&DOOVSRQVRUHGE\WKH1DWLRQDO)UDWHUQDO2UGHURI3ROLFHRQ&29,'6SHDNHUV

RQWKHFDOOLQFOXGHGKLJKUDQNLQJH[SHUWVIURPWKH'HSDUWPHQWRI+RPHODQG6HFXULW\)(0$

DQGWKH:KLWH+RXVHDVZHOODV)236WDWH5HSUHVHQWDWLYHVIURPDOOVWDWHV7KHSXUSRVHRI

WKHFDOOLVWRLPSOHPHQWSURWRFROVIRUODZHQIRUFHPHQWRIILFHUVDQGFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUV

QDWLRQZLGH+LJKOLJKWVIURPWKHFDOODUHWKHIROORZLQJ





,QFUHDVLQJLQIHFWLRQVZLOOUHGXFHWKHQXPEHURIRIILFHUVRQGXW\





/RVVRIRIILFHUVRQGXW\ZLOOLQFUHDVHWKHZRUNORDGRQWKHXQLQIHFWHGRIILFHUV





7KHUHVXOWDQWODFNRIRIILFHUVZLOOOHDGWRDGGLWLRQDOFULPHDQGULVNLQWKHFRUUHFWLRQV



V\VWHP





33(HTXLSPHQWLVQRWEHLQJSURYLGHGWRRIILFHUVQDWLRQZLGH





%HFDXVH³VRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ´LVLPSRVVLEOHLQODZHQIRUFHPHQWWKHLQIHFWLRQUDWHDPRQJ



RIILFHUVZLOOEHKLJKHUWKDQWKHJHQHUDOSRSXODWLRQ





&RRUGLQDWLRQDQG&RPPXQLFDWLRQEHWZHHQDQGDPRQJSROLWLFDOOHDGHUVDQGRIILFHUVLVWKH



PRVWLPSRUWDQWFULWHULDWRPHHWWKLVFKDOOHQJH





6WDWHKHDOWKGHSDUWPHQWVZKLFKDUHLQFRQWURORIWKHGLVWULEXWLRQRI33(PXVWPDNHODZ



HQIRUFHPHQWDQGFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVDSULRULW\JURXSIRUUHFHLSWRI33(DQGHGXFDWLRQ



Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 34 of 260

3DJHRI

0DUFK

%RRWK4XLQF\/



&21',7,216$77+('&-$,/





7KH)23'2&/DERU&RPPLWWHHLWV6KRS6WHZDUGVDQGLWVPHPEHUVZDONWKHOLQHLQWKH

'&-DLO<RX'LUHFWRU%RRWKDUHPLOHVDZD\DWWKH5HHYHV&HQWHUDQG\RXU

DGPLQLVWUDWLYHVWDIIUHPDLQEHKLQGJODVVZDOOVDQGGRRUVLQWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHVHFWLRQRIWKH'&

-DLODOOLQVSOHQGLGLVRODWLRQIURPWKHLQPDWHSRSXODWLRQZLWKUHJXODUGLVLQIHFWLRQWHDPVLQ

JRZQVJORYHVDQGPDVNV+HUHLVWKHUHSRUWRIRXUPHPEHUVRQFRQGLWLRQVDWWKH-DLO



 7KHUHLVQR&RPPXQLFDWLRQDQG&RRUGLQDWLRQEHWZHHQ'2&OHDGHUVDQGWKH

)23'2&/DERU&RPPLWWHH/DERU0DQDJHPHQWPHHWLQJVDUHUHSHDWHGO\

FDQFHOOHGLQFOXGLQJRQHPHHWLQJVFKHGXOHGGXULQJWKLVFULWLFDOWLPHSHULRG



 ,QPDWHVFRPLQJLQWRWKH-DLODUHQRWVFUHHQHGIRUV\PSWRPVRI&29,'



 &RUUHFWLRQV2IILFHUVUHFHLYLQJDQGGLVFKDUJLQJLQPDWHVKDYHQR33(KRZHYHU

WKH\PXVWKDYHGLUHFWFRQWDFWZLWKWKHVHLQPDWHV



 ,QPDWHVFRQWLQXHWRPRYHZLWKLQWKH-DLO7KRVHLQPDWHVLQWKHIRXUUHVWULFWHG

KRXVLQJXQLWVPXVWEHHVFRUWHGE\KDQGE\FRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVZLWKRXWDQ\33(

,QPDWHVLQQRQUHVWULFWHGKRXVLQJXQLWVWUDYHODORQHWKURXJKWKH-DLODVUHTXLUHG

IRUDSSRLQWPHQWV$WODWHVWFRXQWWKHUHZHUHLQPDWHVLQWKH&HQWUDO

'HWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\DQGLQWKH&RUUHFWLRQDO7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLW\



 7KHFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVDVVLJQHGWRKRXVLQJXQLWVKDYHQRPDVNVLQVXIILFLHQW

JORYHVQRJRZQVQRGLVLQIHFWDQWVDQGQRFRPSUHKHQVLYHFOHDQLQJRFFXUVRQD

UHJXODUEDVLVLQWKHVHXQLWV,QHDFKXQLWRQHFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHULVUHTXLUHGWREH

RXWDPRQJWKHLQPDWHVDWDOOWLPHVZLWKRXWDQ\SURWHFWLRQ



 ,QPDWHVDUHQRWUHTXLUHGWRHQJDJHLQDQ\RIWKHEHKDYLRUVZKLFKWKH0D\RU

UHFRPPHQGVIRUWKHJHQHUDOSRSXODWLRQVXFKDV³VRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ´UHSHDWHG

KDQGZDVKLQJDQGKHDOWKPRQLWRULQJ



 &DVHZRUNHUVPXVWPHHWZLWKLQPDWHVLQVPDOORIILFHVZLWKQR33(RURWKHU

GLVWDQFLQJPHDVXUHV



 ,QPDWHVFRQWLQXHWRHQJDJHLQUHFUHDWLRQLQDFRPPRQ\DUGDOVRZLWKRXWVRFLDO

GLVWDQFLQJRURWKHUSURWHFWLRQVIURPWKHVSUHDGRI&29,'



 &RUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVHQWHUWKH-DLOWKUHHVKLIWVDGD\7KHUHLVQRGLVWDQFLQJDW

HQWUDQFHVQRGLVWDQFLQJDWUROOFDOOVQRDWWHPSWWRREWDLQRUUHFRUGKHDOWK

FRQFHUQVRIHDFKRIILFHU



 :KHQWKH'&-DLOZDVIRUFHGWRTXDUDQWLQHLQPDWHVZKRZHUHDWULVNWR

H[SRVXUHWR&29,'ZKHQWKH\ZHUHDWFRXUWDQ(57ZDVGHVLJQDWHGWR

UHPRYHWKHPIURPWKHJHQHUDOSRSXODWLRQWRD³TXDUDQWLQH´KRXVLQJXQLW7KH

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 35 of 260

3DJHRI

0DUFK

%RRWK4XLQF\/



(57PHPEHUVUHIXVHGWKHDVVLJQPHQWZLWKRXWSURYLVLRQRIJRZQVDQGRWKHU

DSSURSULDWH33(SURWHFWLRQ7KH\ZHUHRUGHUHGWRUHPRYHWKHLQPDWHVZLWKRQO\

PDVNVDQGJORYHV'XULQJWKHH[WUDFWLRQRQHRIWKHPHPEHUVZDVVSLWXSRQE\DQ

LQPDWH6JW$OH[DQGHUDQG6JW*UDKDPZHUHWKHQUHPRYHGIURPWKH(57WHDP

DQGDVVLJQHGWRDQRWKHUSRVWRXWVLGHWKH-DLO



 7KHVHLQPDWHVZHUHQRW³TXDUDQWLQHG´LQDQ\PHDQLQJIXOPDQQHU7KH\ZHUH

KRXVHGWZRWRDFHOODQGWKHFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVRQWKHXQLWZHUHQRWSURYLGHG

ZLWKDQ\33(RURWKHUPHDQVIRUSURWHFWLRQDJDLQVWLQIHFWLRQV



:+$7'2:(:$17"





%RWK\RXDQGWKH0D\RUDVNHG&SO2OXEDVXVL³:KDWGR\RXZDQW"´:KLOHWKLVFULVLV

VKRXOGQRWEHDWLPHRIOHJDOWHFKQLFDOLWLHVZHFKRRVHWRYLHZWKLVDVDZLOOLQJQHVVE\

PDQDJHPHQWWREDUJDLQRYHUWKHWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVRIHPSOR\PHQWRIRXURIILFHUV7KH

IROORZLQJLVDQHQXPHUDWLRQRIRXUUHTXHVWV7KLVOLVWDVZHDOONQRZLVVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHDVWKH

SDQGHPLFFKDQJHV



  $'DLO\0HHWLQJDPRQJWKH/DERU&RPPLWWHHLWV6KRS6WHZDUGVLWVFRXQVHODQG

 WKH'2&'LUHFWRU'HSXW\'LUHFWRUDQGLWVFRXQVHOWRGLVFXVVFRQGLWLRQVDQG

 UHVSRQVHVWR&29,'



  $&29,'3URWRFROIRURIILFHUVDQGLQPDWHVLQFOXGLQJWKHIROORZLQJ









5HVWULFWHGPRYHPHQWRILQPDWHV





'LVWDQFLQJDPRQJLQPDWHVLQPDWHVRIILFHUVRIILFHUVDQGRIILFHUVLQPDWHV





,QFLGHQW5HSRUWLQJRIRIILFHUVDQGLQPDWHV¶V\PSWRPVRILOOQHVV

  5HJXODU'LVLQIHFWLRQRIWKH&')DQG&7)

  3ULRULW\IRU33(IRURIILFHUV

  'LVFRQWLQXDWLRQRILQPDWHWUDQVSRUWIRUFRXUWDSSHDUDQFHV

  GD\4XDUDQWLQHIRUQHZLQPDWHV

  (VWDEOLVKDTXDUDQWLQHXQLW

  (VWDEOLVKDQRQVLWHWHVWLQJXQLWIRUWKRVHPHHWLQJ&'&WHVWFULWHULDLQFOXGLQJ  SHUVRQVOLYLQJLQWKHKRXVHKROGRIDFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHU 
  7UHDW&29,'DPRQJRIILFHUVDVGXW\FRQQHFWHG

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 36 of 260

3DJHRI

0DUFK

%RRWK4XLQF\/





,QDGGLWLRQZHUHTXLUHSURGXFWLRQRIDOOYLGHRWDSHDQGLQYHVWLJDWLYHUHSRUWVRIWKHDVVDXOW

RQ2IILFHU6XODLPRQ7$ELRODVRWKDWZHPD\LQYHVWLJDWHWKHDVVDXOWDQGSUHVHQWLWWRWKH86

$WWRUQH\¶V2IILFHIRUSURVHFXWLRQ&RUSRUDO$\RGHML)DODGH2IILFHU2OXPLGH3RSRROD2IILFHU

-RKQ/HZLV2IILFHU5DKVDUG5REHUWV2IILFHU$EGRX$ODJXLWRXQLDQG&RUSRUDO'DPLDQ%DUQHV

DQGDQ\RWKHUVXVSHQGHGRIILFHUVPXVWEHUHWXUQHGWRZRUNSHQGLQJ\RXULQYHVWLJDWLRQLQWRWKH

DVVDXOW



&21&/86,21





:HDJUHHZLWK0D\RU%RZVHU¶VVHQWLPHQWWKDWWKHVHDUHGLIILFXOWWLPHVDQGZHVKRXOGDOO

EHSXOOLQJRQWKHVDPHURSH+RZHYHUFRRSHUDWLRQLVDWZRZD\VWUHHW:HQRWHZLWKDJUHDW

GHDORIFRQFHUQWKDWDWWRGD\¶VQHZVFRQIHUHQFHWKH0D\RUVWDWHGWKDWFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVGRQRW

UHTXLUH33(EHFDXVHWKH\GRQRWSURYLGHPHGLFDOFDUH





7KH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELDFDQQRWWUHDWLWVFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVDVFKDWWHO$OUHDG\WKHOLIH

H[SHFWDQF\DPRQJFRUUHFWLRQVRIILFHUVQDWLRQZLGHLVDPRQJWKHORZHVWLQODZHQIRUFHPHQW





7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUFRXUWHVLHV















6LQFHUHO\



s/ J. Michael Hannon















-0LFKDHO+DQQRQ























Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 37 of 260
        
$77$&+0(17$



Case 1:20-cv-00849+D-CQQKRQK/DZD*oURcXSu0mDeLOn&tUL6WLF-D2O,QFFLGHilQeWdDWW0KH3'/3&0-/D2LO00DPUFKage38 of 260
-0LFKDHO+DQQRQMKDQQRQ#KDQQRQODZJURXSFRP!

&ULWLFDO,QFLGHQWDWWKH'&-DLO0DUFK
PHVVDJH

$QQ.DWKU\Q6RDNVR#KDQQRQODZJURXSFRP!

7KX0DUDW30

7R4XLQF\%RRWK#GFJRYOHQQDUGMRKQVRQ#GFJRY(ULF*ORYHU#GFJRY

SDXOHWWHMRKQVRQ#GFJRY

&FNHYLQGRQDKXH#GFJRYOLQGVH\PD[ZHOO#GFJRY-0LFKDHO+DQQRQ

MKDQQRQ#KDQQRQODZJURXSFRP!2OXEDVXVL%HQMDPLQ5'2&

EHQMDPLQROXEDVXVL#GFJRY!

*RRGDIWHUQRRQ 7RGD\0DUFKDWWKH6TXDG/HDGHU6JW-RVHSK$OH[DQGHUDQGWKH 7HDP/HDGHU6JW'RQDOG*UDKDPRIWKH'2&
V(PHUJHQF\5HVSRQVH7HDP(57 ZHUHFDOOHGLQDQGLQIRUPHGWKDWD860DUVKDODW'&6XSHULRU&RXUWWHVWHGSRVLWLYHIRU &29,'7KHWZR6HUJHDQWVZHUHKDQGHGDOLVWRILQPDWHVZKRSRVVLEO\FDPHLQ FRQWDFWZLWKWKH860DUVKDO7KH\ZHUHRUGHUHGWRH[WUDFWWKHLQPDWHVDQG TXDUDQWLQHWKHPLQDQHPSW\FHOOEORFN7KH\ZHUHRUGHUHGWRGRVRXVLQJRQO\IDFH PDVNVDQGJORYHV%RWK6HUJHDQWVUHTXHVWHGIXOOERG\FRYHUDJHIDFHVKLHOGFORWKLQJ FRYHUDJHHWFDVSHUVRQDOSURWHFWLYHHTXLSPHQW33(DQGZHUHUHIXVHG6JW $OH[DQGHUKDVSHUVRQDONQRZOHGJHWKDWWKHLWHPVUHTXHVWHGDUHLQWKH$JHQF\
V LQYHQWRU\%RWK6HUJHDQWVLQGLFDWHGWKH\ZHUHXQFRPIRUWDEOHSHUIRUPLQJWKHLQPDWH H[WUDFWLRQZLWKRXWSURSHU33(7KH'2&0DQDJHPHQWUHSUHVHQWDWLYH'HSXW\:DUGHQ IRU2SHUDWLRQV.DWKOHHQ-R/DQGHUNLQDJDLQUHIXVHGWRSURYLGHWKHHTXLSPHQWDQG DVNHGZKRRQWKH(57ZDVDOVRXQFRPIRUWDEOHFRQGXFWLQJWKHH[WUDFWLRQZLWKRQO\IDFH PDVNVDQGJORYHV(YHU\PHPEHURIWKH(57UHVSRQGHGSRVLWLYHO\7KH(57ZDV RUGHUHGWRFRQGXFWWKHH[WUDFWLRQDQ\ZD\$OOGLGDVWKH\ZHUHWROG$WWKHWLPHRIWKH H[WUDFWLRQDOOLQPDWHVZHUHKRXVHGLQJHQHUDOSRSXODWLRQZLWKRWKHULQPDWHV6JW $OH[DQGHUDVNHGLILQPDWHVZLWKZKRPWKHZHUHKRXVHGVKRXOGEHTXDUDQWLQHG PDQDJHPHQWWROGKLPRQO\WKHLQPDWHVZHUHWREHPRYHGLQWRWKHHPSW\FHOOEORFN 7KRVHFHOOPDWHVDUHVWLOOLQJHQHUDOSRSXODWLRQ'XULQJWKHH[WUDFWLRQDSSUR[LPDWHO\KDOI RIWKHLQPDWHVUHVLVWHGEHLQJPRYHG$OOEXWRQHPRYHGHYHQWXDOO\ZLWKRXWLQFLGHQW KRZHYHURQHLQPDWHVSLWLQWKHIDFHRIRQHRIWKH(57RIILFHUVZKRZDVRQO\SURWHFWHG E\WKHIDFHPDVN7KHDWULVNLQPDWHVDUHEHLQJKRXVHGWZRWRDFHOOLQ³TXDUDQWLQH´ LQDQLVRODWHGFHOOEORFN7KHRIILFHUZKRZDVVSLWRQ+DNHHP6PLWKKDVJRQHKRPH ,PPHGLDWHO\DIWHUWKHH[WUDFWLRQWKHWZR6HUJHDQWVZHUHUHDVVLJQHGWRDGLIIHUHQWXQLW FHQWUDOFHOOEORFNDQGGLIIHUHQWVKLIWQLJKWDQGWKHLUGHSDUWPHQWSKRQHVKDYHEHHQ WDNHQDZD\,QDGGLWLRQWKH\ZHUHUHPRYHGIURPWKH(577KH\ZHUHWROGE\0DMRU &DUORV%LYHQVWKDWWKLVZDVQRWDGLVFLSOLQDU\DFWLRQ 7KH'2&PDQDJHPHQWKDVFUHDWHGDQXQFRQVFLRQDEOHSXEOLFKHDOWKFULVLVDQGDOPRVW FHUWDLQO\JXDUDQWHHGDQGDFFHOHUDWHGWKHUDPSDQWVSUHDGRI&29,'ZLWKLQWKH'2& IDFLOLWLHVDQGWKHFRPPXQLWLHVLQZKLFKWKHVWDIIOLYH0V/DQGHUNLQGLUHFWO\SXWWKHOLYHV RIWKHRIILFHUVRQWKH(57LQLPPLQHQWGDQJHU6KHGLGVRZLWKRXWUHJDUGIRUWKHLU SHUVRQDOVDIHW\RUWKDWRIWKHLQPDWHSRSXODWLRQ,QDGGLWLRQWREHLQJFDOORXVDQG UHSUHKHQVLEOHKHUDFWLRQVDUHLQREYLRXVYLRODWLRQRIVHYHUDOSURYLVLRQVRIWKH&ROOHFWLYH %DUJDLQLQJ$JUHHPHQWDQGDUHDUJXDEO\LOOHJDO7KH$JHQF\LVIROORZLQJDEVROXWHO\QR DSSURSULDWHJXLGHOLQHVZLWKUHJDUGWRWKHVDIHKDQGOLQJDQGWUHDWPHQWRIWKHIURQWOLQH VWDIIRULQPDWHSRSXODWLRQ7KHDWULVNLQPDWHVDUHKRXVHGWZRWRDFHOOLQ ³TXDUDQWLQH´VWDWXV7KH\ZHUHH[WUDFWHGIURPFHOOEORFNVZKHUHWKH\ZHUHKRXVHGPRUH WKDQRQHWRDFHOODQGUHTXLUHGWRSDUWLFLSDWHLQUHFUHDWLRQDQGRWKHUJURXSDFWLYLWLHV$OO RIWKLVLVLQYLRODWLRQRIWKH0D\RU¶V2UGHU3URKLELWLRQRQ0DVV*DWKHULQJV 'XULQJ3XEOLF+HDOWK(PHUJHQF\&RURQDYLUXV&29,',QDGGLWLRQZKHQDVNHGE\ WKH(57RIILFHUVLIWKHLQPDWHVZLWKZKRPWKHDWULVNLQPDWHVZHUHKRXVHGRULJLQDOO\ DOVRVKRXOGEHTXDUDQWLQHG'2&PDQDJHPHQWUHIXVHG0DQDJHPHQW¶VUHVSRQVHZDV WKDWLIWKH\ZHUHQRWRQWKHOLVWWKH\ZHUHWREHOHIWLQWKHLUXQLW
KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 



Case 1:20-cv-00849+D-CQQKRQK/DZD*oURcXSu0mDeLOn&tUL6WLF-D2O,QFFLGHilQeWdDWW0KH3'/3&0-/D2LO00DPUFKage39 of 260

$VLIWKLVSXEOLFKHDOWKFULVLVFUHDWHGE\0V/DQGHUNLQZDVQRWHQRXJK'2&

PDQDJHPHQWFOHDUO\UHWDOLDWHGDJDLQVW6JWV$OH[DQGHUDQG*UDKDPIRUWKHLUUHTXHVWIRU

33($WWKHWLPHRIWKHRUGHUUHDVVLJQLQJWKHPWKH\ZHUHWROGLWZDVQRWDGLVFLSOLQDU\

DFWLRQ0DQDJHPHQWFDQFDOOLWZKDWHYHUWKH\FKRRVHKRZHYHULWLVFOHDUO\

UHWDOLDWRU\7KH'2&RUGHUHGVWDIILQWRDOLIHWKUHDWHQLQJVLWXDWLRQZLWKRXWWKHSURSHU

HTXLSPHQWDQGUHWDOLDWHGDJDLQVWWKHPIRUDVNLQJIRUWKHSURSHU33(7KH33(

UHTXHVWHGZDVQRWXQUHDVRQDEOHLWZDVH[DFWO\ZKDWLVEHLQJUHFRPPHQGHGWKURXJKRXW

WKHLQGXVWU\DQGWKHQDWLRQIRUKDQGOLQJRILQIHFWLRXVLQGLYLGXDOV7KHUHLVDEVROXWHO\QR

MXVWLILFDWLRQIRUQRWSURYLGLQJWKLVHTXLSPHQWHVSHFLDOO\XSRQUHTXHVWDQGLQOLJKWRIWKH

IDFWWKDWLWZDVRQKDQG7KLVWUHDWPHQWZLOOQRWEHWROHUDWHG

,LQGLFDWHGLQP\HPDLO5HTXHVWIRU,QIRUPDWLRQVHQWHDUOLHUWRGD\WR(ULF*ORYHUDQG 3DXOHWWH-RKQVRQWKDWWKH8QLRQ¶VSULRULW\ZDVWRSURWHFWWKHKHDOWKDQGVDIHW\RIWKH VWDII:HZLOOWDNHLPPHGLDWHDQGGHFLVLYHDFWLRQWRGRVRLQWKHIDFHRIWKHGHOLEHUDWH DQGGDQJHURXVDFWLRQVWDNHQE\'2&PDQDJHPHQWWRGD\2QHVXFKDFWLRQLVWRILOHD JURXSJULHYDQFHIRUPXOWLSOHYLRODWLRQVRIWKH&ROOHFWLYH%DUJDLQLQJ$JUHHPHQW$ GHWDLOHGHPDLOZLOOIROORZZLWKWKHH[DFWSURYLVLRQVWKDWKDYHEHHQYLRODWHG3OHDVH FRQVLGHUWKLVRIILFLDOQRWLFH

95

$QQ.DWKU\Q6R



Ǧ 
ǡ
WK6WUHHW1(
:DVKLQJWRQ'& ǡ ȋʹͲʹȌʹ͵ʹǦ͵͹ͲͶǡ 

dŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂŽŶĐ ŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐĞͲŵĂŝůŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚŽŶůǇĨŽƌƚŚĞƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůĂŶĚĐŽŶĮĚĞŶĂůƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶ ƚ;ƐͿŶĂŵĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͘dŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ ŵĂǇďĞĂŶĂ ŽƌŶĞǇͲĐůŝĞŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶĂŶĚĂƐƐƵĐŚŝƐ WZ/s/>'EKE&/Ed/>͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƌŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ ƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕ǇŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďǇŶŽĮĞĚƚŚĂƚǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐ ĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĂŶǇƌĞǀŝĞǁ͕ĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂŽŶ͕ĚŝƐ ƚƌŝďƵŽŶ͕ŽƌĐ ŽƉǇŝŶŐŽĨ ƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůǇƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŶŽĨ ǇƵƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇďǇĞͲŵĂŝůĂŶĚĚĞůĞƚĞƚŚĞ ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͘
dŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂŽŶĐ ŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐĞͲŵĂŝůŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚŽŶůǇĨŽƌƚŚĞƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůĂŶĚĐŽŶĮĚĞŶĂůƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶ ƚ;ƐͿŶĂŵĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͘dŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ ŵĂǇďĞĂŶĂ ŽƌŶĞǇͲĐůŝĞŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶĂŶĚĂƐƐƵĐŚŝƐ WZ/s/>'EKE&/Ed/>͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƌŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ ƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕ǇŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďǇŶŽĮĞĚƚŚĂƚǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐ ĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĂŶǇƌĞǀŝĞǁ͕ĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂŽŶ͕ĚŝƐ ƚƌŝďƵŽŶ͕ŽƌĐ ŽƉǇŝŶŐŽĨ ƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůǇƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŶŽĨ ǇƵƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇďǇĞͲŵĂŝůĂŶĚĚĞůĞƚĞƚŚĞ ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͘

KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 40 of 260
        
$77$&+0(17%



Case +1D:Q2Q0RQ-c/vDZ-0*0UR8X4S90-DCLOK)KZG5DHToXcHVuWmIRUe,QnIRtUP6D-W2LRQRFQi3leRWdHQ0WLD3OO\/3'0DQ/J2H0URXVP&aRQgGeLWLR4QV1DWoWKfH2'620&)DFLOLWLHV
-0LFKDHO+DQQRQMKDQQRQ#KDQQRQODZJURXSFRP!

)ZG5HTXHVWIRU,QIRUPDWLRQRQ3RWHQWLDOO\'DQJHURXV &RQGLWLRQVDWWKH'2&)DFLOLWLHV
PHVVDJH

$QQ.DWKU\Q6RDNVR#KDQQRQODZJURXSFRP!

0RQ0DUDW30

7R-0LFKDHO+DQQRQMKDQQRQ#KDQQRQODZJURXSFRP!

+HUHLVKLVUHVSRQVHWRP\ILUVWHPDLO,KDYHKHDUGQRWKLQJDERXWWKHVHFRQG

)RUZDUGHGPHVVDJH )URP*ORYHU(ULF'2&HULFJORYHU#GFJRY! 'DWH)UL0DUDW$0 6XEMHFW5(5HTXHVWIRU,QIRUPDWLRQRQ3RWHQWLDOO\'DQJHURXV&RQGLWLRQVDWWKH'2& )DFLOLWLHV 7R$QQ.DWKU\Q6RDNVR#KDQQRQODZJURXSFRP!-RKQVRQ3DXOHWWH'2& SDXOHWWHMRKQVRQ#GFJRY! &F2OXEDVXVL%HQMDPLQ5'2&EHQMDPLQROXEDVXVL#GFJRY!

0V6R  7KDQN\RXIRUFRQWDFWLQJWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV'2&LVSUHSDULQJDUHVSRQVH WR\RXULQTXLUHVDQGZLOOFRQWDFW\RXDVVRRQDVSRVVLEOH  5HJDUGV  (ULF6*ORYHU *HQHUDO&RXQVHO 'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD 'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV WK6WUHHW1: 6HYHQWK)ORRU
KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 



Case +1D:Q2Q0RQ-c/vDZ-0*0UR8X4S90-DCLOK)KZG5DHToXcHVuWmIRUe,QnIRtUP6D-W2LRQRFQi3leRWdHQ0WLD3OO\/3'0DQ/J2H0URXVP&aRQgGeLWLR4QV2DWoWKfH2'620&)DFLOLWLHV

:DVKLQJWRQ'&

3KRQH

2IILFH&HOO

)D[

&RQILGHQWLDOLW\1RWLFH7KLVPHVVDJHLVEHLQJVHQWE\RURQEHKDOIRIDODZ\HU,WLVLQWHQGHGH[FOXVLYHO\IRU WKHLQGLYLGXDORUHQWLW\WRZKLFKLWLVDGGUHVVHG7KLVFRPPXQLFDWLRQPD\FRQWDLQLQIRUPDWLRQWKDWLV SURSULHWDU\SULYLOHJHGRUFRQILGHQWLDORURWKHUZLVHOHJDOO\H[HPSWIURPGLVFORVXUH,I\RXDUHQRWWKHQDPHG DGGUHVVHH\RXDUHQRWDXWKRUL]HGWRUHDGSULQWUHWDLQFRS\RUGLVVHPLQDWHWKLVPHVVDJHRUDQ\SDUWRILW ,I\RXKDYHUHFHLYHGWKLVPHVVDJHLQHUURUSOHDVHQRWLI\WKHVHQGHULPPHGLDWHO\E\HPDLODQGGHOHWHDOO FRSLHVRIWKHPHVVDJH

0HWDGDWD7KLVHPDLOWUDQVPLVVLRQDQGDQ\DFFRPSDQ\LQJPDWHULDOPD\FRQWDLQHPEHGGHGPHWDGDWD$Q\ LQFOXGHGPHWDGDWDLVFRQILGHQWLDORUSULYLOHJHGLQIRUPDWLRQDQGLVQRWLQWHQGHGWREHYLHZHGE\DQRQFOLHQW UHFLSLHQW

&ƌŽŵ͗ŶŶͲ<ĂƚŚƌǇŶ^Ž΀ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗DNVR#KDQQRQODZJURXSFRP΁ ^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂǇ͕DĂƌĐŚϭϵ͕ϮϬϮϬϭϭ͗ϬϬD dŽ͗'ůŽǀĞƌ͕ƌŝĐ;KͿфHULFJORYHU#GFJRYх͖:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ͕WĂƵůĞ Ğ;KͿфSDXOHWWHMRKQVRQ#GFJRYх Đ͗KůƵďĂƐƵƐŝ͕ĞŶũĂŵŝŶZ͘;KͿфEHQMDPLQROXEDVXVL#GFJRYх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂ ŽŶŽŶWŽƚĞŶ ĂůůǇĂŶŐĞƌŽƵƐŽŶĚŝ ŽŶƐĂƚƚŚĞK&ĂĐŝůŝ ĞƐ

hd/KE͗dŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůŽƌŝŐŝŶĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵŽƵƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ͘ŽŶŽƚĐůŝĐŬŽŶůŝŶŬƐŽƌŽƉĞŶĂ ĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐƵŶůĞƐƐǇŽƵ ƌĞĐŽŐŶŝǌĞƚŚĞƐĞŶĚĞƌĂŶĚŬŶŽǁƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŽŶƚĞŶƚŝƐƐĂĨĞ͘/ĨǇŽƵďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůŝƐƐƵƐƉŝĐŝŽƵƐ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƚŽ SKLVKLQJ#GFJRYĨŽƌĂĚĚŝ ŽŶĂůĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐďǇKdK^ĞĐƵƌŝƚǇKƉĞƌĂ ŽŶƐĞŶƚĞƌ;^KͿ͘
 *RRGPRUQLQJ

KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 



Case +1D:Q2Q0RQ-c/vDZ-0*0UR8X4S90-DCLOK)KZG5DHToXcHVuWmIRUe,QnIRtUP6D-W2LRQRFQi3leRWdHQ0WLD3OO\/3'0DQ/J2H0URXVP&aRQgGeLWLR4QV3DWoWKfH2'620&)DFLOLWLHV

,QOLJKWRIWKHHYHUFKDQJLQJODQGVFDSHZLWKUHVSHFWWRWKHSDQGHPLFZHZRXOGOLNHWR

HQVXUHWKDWWKH$JHQF\LVGRLQJHYHU\WKLQJLWFDQWRNHHSWKHVWDIIUHVLGHQWVDQGYLVLWRUV

DVVDIHDVSRVVLEOHIURP&29,'6ZLIWHIIHFWLYHDFWLRQLVFULWLFDODVWKHQXPEHUVRI

VXVSHFWHGDQGFRQILUPHGFDVHVULVHH[SRQHQWLDOO\7KLVLVHVSHFLDOO\WUXHIRU'2&VWDII

PHPEHUVZKRKDYHUHJXODUFRQWDFWZLWKWKHLQPDWHSRSXODWLRQ7KH\PXVWEH

SURWHFWHG



7KH'2&KDVSXEOLFL]HGDQXPEHURIPHDVXUHVLWKDVRUZLOOEHWDNLQJ3OHDVHFRQILUP WKHIROORZLQJ'2&HIIRUWV



x+DYHDOOLQSHUVRQYLVLWVSURJUDPPLQJDQGYROXQWHHUDFWLYLWLHVDWDOO$JHQF\ IDFLOLWLHVLQIDFWEHHQVXVSHQGHG"

x+DYH'2&RIILFLDOVHVWDEOLVKHG,QFLGHQW&RPPDQG7HDP":KRLVRQWKDW WHDP"$UHDQ\PHPEHUVRIWKH8QLRQRQWKDWWHDP"

x,VWKH0HGLFDO6WDIIPHHWLQJZLWKHDFKKRXVLQJXQLWDQGRIILFHUUROOFDOO" 3OHDVHSURYLGHGHWDLOVDVWRWLPHSODFHDQGIUHTXHQF\RIWKHPHHWLQJVWKDWWKH 0HGLFDO6WDIILVKROGLQJ

x:KDWLVWKH$JHQF\
VVWUDWHJLFFRPPXQLFDWLRQVSODQZLWKUHJDUGWR&29,' DQGKRZKDVLWEHHQFRPPXQLFDWHGWRWKHVWDII",VLWXSGDWHGDQG FRPPXQLFDWHGUHJXODUO\DVWKLVVLWXDWLRQHYROYHV"7KHODVWXSGDWHRQWKH'2& ZHESDJHLVGDWHG0DUFK

x:KDWGRHVHQKDQFHGFOHDQLQJHIIRUWVPHDQ"+DYHWKRVH³HQKDQFHG FOHDQLQJHIIRUWV´EHHQLPSOHPHQWHGHVSHFLDOO\ZLWKLQFRPPRQDUHDV"+RZ RIWHQLVWKLVOHYHORIFOHDQLQJEHLQJGRQH"

x7KH$JHQF\SURPLVHGWRRUGHUDGGLWLRQDOFOHDQLQJDQGVDQLWDWLRQVXSSOLHV LQFOXGLQJSURWHFWLYHJORYHVPDVNVDQGFORWKLQJIRUVWDII1RLQIRUPDWLRQZDV SURYLGHGDERXWGLVSHQVLQJWKHVHLWHPV+DYHWKHVHLWHPVEHHQUHFHLYHGDQG GLVWULEXWHG"$UHWKHUHDQ\VXSSOLHV\RXQHHGWKDW\RXGRQRWKDYH"+DYH VDQLWL]LQJZLSHVEHHQSURYLGHGE\WKH$JHQF\",VWKHVWDIISHUPLWWHGWREULQJ SHUVRQDOVDQLWDWLRQPDWHULDORWKHUWKDQZLSHV"$UHLQPDWHVEHLQJSURYLGHG VDIHW\PDWHULDOVWKDWWKHVWDIILVQRW"

x:DVWKHUHDWZRKRXUFOHDQLQJRIWKHHQWLUHIDFLOLW\"+RZPDQ\WLPHVKDV WKLVKDSSHQHG",VWKLVRFFXUULQJGDLO\UHJXODUO\"

x3OHDVHGHVFULEHWKH$JHQF\
VHIIRUWVLQSDUWQHULQJDQGRUVKDULQJ LQIRUPDWLRQZLWKFULPLQDOMXVWLFHSDUWQHUV"

KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 



Case +1D:Q2Q0RQ-c/vDZ-0*0UR8X4S90-DCLOK)KZG5DHToXcHVuWmIRUe,QnIRtUP6D-W2LRQRFQi3leRWdHQ0WLD3OO\/3'0DQ/J2H0URXVP&aRQgGeLWLR4QV4DWoWKfH2'620&)DFLOLWLHV
x$UHGDLO\XSGDWHVFRQWLQXLQJWREHVHQWYLDHPDLOVWRWKHVWDIIUHJDUGLQJ &29,'"&DQ\RXSOHDVHPDNHWKRVHDYDLODEOH"



0RVWQRWDEOHLQWKH$JHQF\¶VSXEOLFUHVSRQVHWR&29,'LVWKDWWKHUHLVQRWKLQJWKDW DGGUHVVHVWKHSURFHGXUHVIRUWKHVFUHHQLQJTXDUDQWLQHDQGRUWUHDWPHQWRIVWDII LQPDWHVDQGRUDQ\RQHZKRFRPHVLQWRFRQWDFWZLWKHLWKHURUERWK&DQ\RXSURYLGH GHWDLOHGLQIRUPDWLRQDVWRZKDWWKRVHSURFHGXUHVDUH"6SHFLILFDOO\



x+DYHWKH'2&HPSOR\HHVRIILFHUVDQGPHGLFDOVWDIIEHHQSURYLGHG DSSURSULDWHSURWHFWLYHGHYLFHVPDWHULDOWUDLQLQJ"$UHVWDIIPHPEHUV NQRZOHGJHDEOHRQDQGDGHTXDWHO\HTXLSSHGWRSUHYHQWWUDQVPLVVLRQPLQLPL]H VSUHDGDQGSURWHFWWKHPVHOYHVDQGWKHLQPDWHSRSXODWLRQIURPFRQWDFWLQJ &29,'"

x,VWKH'2&ZRUNLQJLQFORVHFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKH'&'HSDUWPHQWRI+HDOWK" :KDWPHGLFDOVXSSRUWGRHVWKH$JHQF\KDYHVSHFLILFDOO\IRUWKHYLUXV"

x$UHDOOLQFRPLQJLQPDWHVVWDIIDQGRWKHULQGLYLGXDOVZLWKDFFHVVWRWKH'2& IDFLOLWLHVTXHVWLRQHGDVWRWKHLUOHYHORIULVN"

x:KDWLVWKHSURFHGXUHIRUSURFHVVLQJDOOQHZLQPDWHVWRWKHIDFLOLWLHV"

x:KDWLVWKHSURFHGXUHIRUDVVHVVLQJWKHULVNWRH[LVWLQJLQPDWHV"

x:KDWWHVWLQJLVEHLQJRIIHUHGWRFRQILUPDGLDJQRVLVRI&29,'"

x:KDWSURFHGXUHVDUHLQSODFHLIDQLQPDWHLVV\PSWRPDWLF"

x:KDWSURFHGXUHVDUHLQSODFHLIDQLQPDWHWHVWVSRVLWLYH"

x:KDWSURFHGXUHVDUHLQSODFHIRUTXDUDQWLQHV"

x$UHWKHUHDQ\RIWKHIROORZLQJ

x$V\PSWRPDWLFLQPDWHVFXUUHQWO\KRXVHGDWDQ\RIWKHIDFLOLWLHVZKRDUHDW KLJKULVNIRUFRQWUDFWLQJ&29,'"

x6\PSWRPDWLFLQPDWHVFXUUHQWO\KRXVHGDWDQ\RIWKHIDFLOLWLHV",IVRZKDW DFWLRQVDUHEHLQJWDNHQZLWKUHJDUGWRWKRVHLQGLYLGXDOV"

x,QPDWHVFXUUHQWO\KRXVHGDWDQ\RIWKHIDFLOLWLHVZKRKDYHWHVWHGSRVLWLYHIRU &29,'"

x:KDWLVEHLQJGRQHWRWUDFNDQ\LQPDWHVYLVLWRUVVWDIIRURWKHULQGLYLGXDOV ZLWKDFFHVVWRDQ\RIWKHIDFLOLWLHVZKRKDYHEHHQDWDQ\'2&IDFLOLW\ZLWKLQWKH
KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 



Case +1D:Q2Q0RQ-c/vDZ-0*0UR8X4S90-DCLOK)KZG5DHToXcHVuWmIRUe,QnIRtUP6D-W2LRQRFQi3leRWdHQ0WLD3OO\/3'0DQ/J2H0URXVP&aRQgGeLWLR4QV5DWoWKfH2'620&)DFLOLWLHV
SDVWWZRZHHNVLQFOXGLQJDQ\LQGLYLGXDOVZKRZHUHKHOGDQGUHOHDVHGRU WUDQVIHUUHG"

x:KDWLVWKHLPSDFWRIWKH$JHQF\¶VUHVSRQVHWRWKH0D\RU
V2UGHU 3URKLELWLRQRQ0DVV*DWKHULQJV'XULQJ3XEOLF+HDOWK(PHUJHQF\ &RURQDYLUXV&29,'"



2IDPRVWFULWLFDOQDWXUHLWKDVFRPHWRRXUDWWHQWLRQWKDWWKHUHPD\EHRQHRU PRUHLQPDWHVFXUUHQWO\KRXVHGZLWKLQ'2&IDFLOLWLHVZKRDUHHLWKHUV\PSWRPDWLF DQGRUWHVWHGSRVLWLYHIRU&29,'3OHDVHFRQILUPLIWKH$JHQF\LVDZDUHRIDQ\RQH KRXVHGDWRUZLWKDFFHVVWRDQ\RIWKHLUIDFLOLWLHVZKRHLWKHULVV\PSWRPDWLFRUKDVWHVWHG SRVLWLYHIRU&29,'DQGLIVRZKDWDFWLRQVKDYHEHHQWDNHQDQGZLOOEHWDNHQLQ UHVSRQVH,VWKH$JHQF\IROORZLQJWKH&'&¶V*XLGHOLQHIRU,VRODWLRQ3UHFDXWLRQV 3UHYHQWLQJ7UDQVPLVVLRQRI,QIHFWLRXV$JHQWVLQ+HDOWKFDUH6HWWLQJVRUVLPLODU JXLGHOLQHV"3OHDVHSURYLGHWKH8QLRQ
V([HFXWLYH0DQDJHPHQWZLWK\RXUGHWDLOHG HPHUJHQF\DFWLRQSODQ



:LWKRXWTXHVWLRQWKLVSDQGHPLFLVDKHDOWKDQGVDIHW\FULVLV7KH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD KDVEHHQLQWKHIRUHIURQWRIDSURDFWLYHUHVSRQVHDQGWKDWPXVWH[WHQGWRWKH'2&7KH HQWLUH'2&SRSXODWLRQLVDWKLJKHUULVNWKDQWKHJHQHUDOSXEOLFDQGHYHU\SUHFDXWLRQDQG VDIHW\PHDVXUHPXVWEHWDNHQ,WLVWKH8QLRQ¶VSULRULW\WRSURWHFWWKHVWDIIDQGLWZLOO WDNHDFWLRQVQHFHVVDU\WRGRVR


,ORRNIRUZDUGWRKHDULQJIURP\RX 7KDQN\RX 95 $QQ   

Ǧ 
ǡ WK6WUHHW1( :DVKLQJWRQ'& ǡ ȋʹͲʹȌʹ͵ʹǦ͵͹ͲͶǡ 

KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 



Case +1D:Q2Q0RQ-c/vDZ-0*0UR8X4S90-DCLOK)KZG5DHToXcHVuWmIRUe,QnIRtUP6D-W2LRQRFQi3leRWdHQ0WLD3OO\/3'0DQ/J2H0URXVP&aRQgGeLWLR4QV6DWoWKfH2'620&)DFLOLWLHV

dŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂŽŶĐ ŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐĞͲŵĂŝůŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚŽŶůǇĨŽƌƚŚĞƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůĂŶĚĐŽŶĮĚĞŶĂůƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶ ƚ;ƐͿŶĂŵĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͘dŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ ŵĂǇďĞĂŶĂ ŽƌŶĞǇͲĐůŝĞŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶĂŶĚĂƐƐƵĐŚŝƐ WZ/s/>'EKE&/Ed/>͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƌŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ ƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕ǇŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďǇŶŽĮĞĚƚŚĂƚǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐ ĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĂŶǇƌĞǀŝĞǁ͕ĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂŽŶ͕ĚŝƐ ƚƌŝďƵŽŶ͕ŽƌĐ ŽƉǇŝŶŐŽĨ ƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůǇƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŶŽĨ ǇƵƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇďǇĞͲŵĂŝůĂŶĚĚĞůĞƚĞƚŚĞ ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͘
dŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂŽŶĐ ŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐĞͲŵĂŝůŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚŽŶůǇĨŽƌƚŚĞƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůĂŶĚĐŽŶĮĚĞŶĂůƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶ ƚ;ƐͿŶĂŵĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͘dŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ ŵĂǇďĞĂŶĂ ŽƌŶĞǇͲĐůŝĞŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶĂŶĚĂƐƐƵĐŚŝƐ WZ/s/>'EKE&/Ed/>͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƌŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ ƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕ǇŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďǇŶŽĮĞĚƚŚĂƚǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐ ĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĂŶǇƌĞǀŝĞǁ͕ĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂŽŶ͕ĚŝƐ ƚƌŝďƵŽŶ͕ŽƌĐ ŽƉǇŝŶŐŽĨ ƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůǇƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŶŽĨ ǇƵƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇďǇĞͲŵĂŝůĂŶĚĚĞůĞƚĞƚŚĞ ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͘
)RUWKHODWHVWLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKH'LVWULFW*RYHUQPHQW¶VUHVSRQVHWR&29,' &RURQDYLUXVSOHDVHYLVLWFRURQDYLUXVGFJRY

Ǧ 
ǡ WK6WUHHW1( :DVKLQJWRQ'& ǡ ȋʹͲʹȌʹ͵ʹǦ͵͹ͲͶǡ 
dŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂŽŶĐ ŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐĞͲŵĂŝůŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚŽŶůǇĨŽƌƚŚĞƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůĂŶĚĐŽŶĮĚĞŶĂůƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶ ƚ;ƐͿŶĂŵĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͘dŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ ŵĂǇďĞĂŶĂ ŽƌŶĞǇͲĐůŝĞŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶĂŶĚĂƐƐƵĐŚŝƐ WZ/s/>'EKE&/Ed/>͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƌŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ ƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕ǇŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďǇŶŽĮĞĚƚŚĂƚǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐ ĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĂŶǇƌĞǀŝĞǁ͕ĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂŽŶ͕ĚŝƐ ƚƌŝďƵŽŶ͕ŽƌĐ ŽƉǇŝŶŐŽĨ ƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůǇƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŶŽĨ ǇƵƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇďǇĞͲŵĂŝůĂŶĚĚĞůĞƚĞƚŚĞ ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͘
dŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂŽŶĐ ŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐĞͲŵĂŝůŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚŽŶůǇĨŽƌƚŚĞƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůĂŶĚĐŽŶĮĚĞŶĂůƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶ ƚ;ƐͿŶĂŵĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͘dŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ
KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 



Case +1D:Q2Q0RQ-c/vDZ-0*0UR8X4S90-DCLOK)KZG5DHToXcHVuWmIRUe,QnIRtUP6D-W2LRQRFQi3leRWdHQ0WLD3OO\/3'0DQ/J2H0URXVP&aRQgGeLWLR4QV7DWoWKfH2'620&)DFLOLWLHV

ŵĂǇďĞĂŶĂ ŽƌŶĞǇͲĐůŝĞŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶĂŶĚĂƐƐƵĐŚŝƐ WZ/s/>'EKE&/Ed/>͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƌŽĨƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ

ƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͕ǇŽƵĂƌĞŚĞƌĞďǇŶŽĮĞĚƚŚĂƚǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐ ĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĂŶǇƌĞǀŝĞǁ͕ĚŝƐƐĞŵŝŶĂŽŶ͕ĚŝƐ ƚƌŝďƵŽŶ͕ŽƌĐ ŽƉǇŝŶŐŽĨ

ƚŚŝƐŵĞƐƐĂŐĞŝƐƐƚƌŝĐƚůǇƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚĞĚ͘/ĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂŽŶŝŶĞƌƌŽƌ ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞŶŽĨ ǇƵƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇďǇĞͲŵĂŝůĂŶĚĚĞůĞƚĞƚŚĞ

ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ͘

KWWSVPDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"LN DIIGD YLHZ SW VHDUFK DOO SHUPWKLG WKUHDGI$&PVJI$« 

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 48 of 260
        
$77$&+0(17&

 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 49 of 260

&ƌĂƚĞƌŶĂůKƌĚĞƌŽĨWŽůŝĐĞ
ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ>ĂďŽƌŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ ϳϭϭϰd,^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕EŽƌƚŚǁĞƐƚ tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ͕ϮϬϬϬϭ 
$11281&(0(1772'2&)230(0%(56 0$5&+ 
7KHVHDUHJUDYHWLPHVDWWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV'2& 7KHUHLVQRTXHVWLRQWKDWGLUHWKUHDWVIDFHRXUZRUNIRUFH7KH([HFXWLYH%RDUGRIWKH )UDWHUQDO2UGHURI3ROLFH'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV/DERU&RPPLWWHH¶V)23'2&/& LVFRPPLWWHGWRVXSSRUWLQJDQGSURWHFWLQJWKH8QLRQ¶VPHPEHUVKLSDQGLVGRLQJDOOWKDW LWFDQWRGRVR:HDOONQRZZHIDFHVHULRXVWKUHDWVERWKLQVLGHDQGRXWVLGHRIWKH '2&IDFLOLWLHV7KHUHLVQRTXHVWLRQWKDWHDFKRQHRIXVSXWVRXUOLYHVDQGRXU OLYHOLKRRGVRQWKHOLQHHYHU\WLPHZHUHSRUWWRZRUNDQGPDQRXUSRVWRUWDNHRXUVHDWDW RXUGHVN
We know your health and safety is at risk every day, and we want you to know it is our TOP priority to tackle the critical issues we all face with speed and effectiveness!!
,QNHHSLQJZLWKRXUSULRULWLHVWKLVVHUYHVDVRIILFLDOQRWLFHRIWKUHHFUXFLDODFWLRQVWKH )23'2&/&¶V([HFXWLYH%RDUGLVWDNLQJWRSURWHFWWKHPHPEHUVKLS
&29,'²'2&KDVQRWSURYLGHGLWVHPSOR\HHVDYDOLGDFWLRQSODQLQUHVSRQVHWR &29,':HKHDUPRUHHYHU\GD\DERXWWKHYLUXV\HWWKH'2&KDVGRQHYHU\OLWWOH WRVXSSRUWWKHIURQWOLQHRIILFHUVDQGVWDIIDJDLQVW&29,'7KH'2&¶VSXEOLFZHEVLWH DERXW&29,'KDVQRWEHHQXSGDWHGVLQFHDWOHDVW0DUFK2XUDWWRUQH\V VHQWD5HTXHVWIRU,QIRUPDWLRQRQ0DUFKDVNLQJLIWKH'2&KDGGRQHZKDWLW SURPLVHGWRSURWHFWRXUPHPEHUVDQGZKDWIXWXUHVWHSVZRXOGEHWDNHQ1RDQVZHU KDVEHHQUHFHLYHGDVRI0DUFK'2&PDQDJHPHQWKDVFDQFHOHGRXU ODERUPDQDJHPHQWPHHWLQJVDWWKLVFULWLFDOWLPH2XUDWWRUQH\VDOVRPDGHWKH'2& DZDUHRIVHYHUDOYLRODWLRQVWKH\FRPPLWWHGLQWKH³TXDUDQWLQH´RUGHU'2&0DQDJHPHQW LVVXHGDQGKDGH[HFXWHGRQ0DUFK7KLVDFWLRQOHGWRD³1R&RQILGHQFH´YRWH E\WKH%RDUG7KH'2&LVXSDJDLQVWLWVGHDGOLQHWRUHVSRQGWRWKDWOHWWHU:HFRQWLQXH WRZRUNRQJHWWLQJWKDWLQIRUPDWLRQWRKROG'2&0DQDJHPHQWDFFRXQWDEOH
2IILFHU$VVDXOW²2QHRIRXURIILFHUVZDVYLFLRXVO\DVVDXOWHGRQ0DUFKE\DQ LQPDWH'2&0DQDJHPHQW¶VUHVSRQVHWRWKLVZDVWRLVVXHGLVFLSOLQDU\DFWLRQDJDLQVW WZRIHOORZRIILFHUVZKRUHVSRQGHGDVWKH\VKRXOGKDYHWRVDYHWKHOLIHRIWKHDVVDXOWHG RIILFHU'XHWR'2&0DQDJHPHQW¶VLQFRPSHWHQWSUHVHQWDWLRQRIWKHFDVHWRWKH86 $WWRUQH\¶V2IILFHQRFKDUJHVZHUHPDGHDJDLQVWWKHLQPDWHIRUWKHXQSURYRNHGDWWDFN RQRXURIILFHU



 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 50 of 260

:HKDYHLQVWUXFWHGWKH+$1121/$:*5283WRLQYHVWLJDWHWKHLQFLGHQWDQGZHDUH FRQILGHQWWKH\ZLOOGRVRIXOO\:HDQWLFLSDWHWKDWDVDUHVXOWRIWKHLUHIIRUWV+$1121 /$:*5283ZLOOUHSUHVHQWWKHFDVHWRWKH86$WWRUQH\¶V2IILFHIRUSURSHU SURVHFXWLRQRIWKHLQPDWH0U-0LFKDHO+DQQRQLVDIRUPHU$VVLVWDQW8QLWHG6WDWHV $WWRUQH\
:HDUHDOVRFRQWHVWLQJWKHUHPRYDORIWKHRIILFHUVZKRFDPHWRWKHDLGRIRXUFROOHDJXH
1DWLRQDO)23²:HDUHZRUNLQJZLWKWKH'&/RGJH/HDGHUVKLSDQG1DWLRQDO )UDWHUQDO2UGHURI3ROLFH)23RUJDQL]DWLRQWRDGYRFDWHRQ<285EHKDOI:HKDYH PDGHWKHPDZDUHRIWKHIDLOXUHRIWKH'2&0DQDJHPHQWWHDPWR
x HQVXUHWKDWSURSHUSURWRFROVDUHIROORZHGZLWKERWKVWDIILQPDWHVDQGYLVLWRUV DWDOO'2&IDFLOLWLHV
x ZRUNZLWKWKH8QLRQRQVROXWLRQVDVWKH&29,'VLWXDWLRQHYROYHVDQG x SURYLGHDVDIHZRUNLQJHQYLURQPHQWDQG x RIIHUWKHSURSHUHTXLSPHQWWRHQVXUHWKDWWKHVWDIILQPDWHVDQGYLVLWRUVDUH
SURWHFWHG  :HH[SHFWWRSUHVHQWWRWKH'2&RXURZQVHWRISURWRFROVEDVHGRQQDWLRQDOVWDQGDUGV EHLQJIROORZHGE\RWKHUFRUUHFWLRQDOLQVWLWXWLRQV,IWKRVHSURWRFROVDUHQRWDGRSWHGRXU PHPEHUVFDQQRWZRUNVDIHO\DWWKH'&-DLO  :HDUHSUHSDUHGWRWDNHHYHU\DFWLRQQHFHVVDU\WRSURWHFW\RXDQG\RXUIDPLO\:HDUH SUHSDUHGWRHVFDODWHWKHVHLVVXHVDVIDUDVWKH\QHHGWRJRWRREWDLQWKHDWWHQWLRQRIRXU FLWL]HQVWKH0D\RUDQGWKHFRXUWVLIQHFHVVDU\     


Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 51 of 260
                   
(;+,%,7&

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 52 of 260

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail; New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

A report by the Ofﬁce of the District of Columbia Auditor

February 25, 2019

A report by the Ofﬁce of the District of Columbia Auditor

Audit Team
Ed Pound, Audit Supervisor Matthew Separa, Auditor-in-Charge
Candace McCrae, Analyst James Wright, Analyst
Lawrence Perry, Deputy Auditor and Audit Supervisor
Kathleen Patterson, District of Columbia Auditor www.dcauditor.org

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 53 of 260

Executive Summary

What ODCA Found
The Department of Corrections (DOC) operates two correctional facilities in Southeast D.C. The Central Detention Facility (CDF), which opened in 1976 and is referred to as the D.C. Jail, houses male inmates. The Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) houses female inmates and serves as the medical facility for all inmates.
ODCA conducted site observations at the D.C. Jail and CTF, examined Department of Health (DOH) inspection reports of the D.C. Jail, reviewed DOC’s mental health services and reviewed budget requests and documents. Findings include the following:
Ŷ DOC was repeatedly cited by DOH for violations of industry standards related to environmental conditions, including water penetration through the walls from a leaking roof, mold growth on walls, damaged shower stalls and temperatures outside of allowable standards.
Ŷ Aramark, DOC’s food service provider, was cited by DOH for repeated violations of District regulations related to public health and food service such as unsanitary conditions in food preparation areas.
Ŷ During our scope, FY 2014 through FY 2018, DOH conducted the required three inspections per year in only two years. DOH acknowledged this, noted three inspections were completed in 2017 and 2018, and stated that “The issues contributing to fewer inspections in prior years have been resolved.”
Ŷ The Mayor and Council did not appropriate the full amounts in capital funding DOC requested to make necessary facility improvements. For example, in agency submissions for FY 2014 through FY 2018, DOC sought 1-year capital allocations totaling $62.4 million, or an average of $12.5 million each year. The Mayor and Council approved a total of $15.7 million, or an average in one-year allocations of $3.1 million.

Why ODCA Did This Audit
1. To assist DOC in conjunction with any pending construction of a new correctional facility by identifying areas for improvement in facilities, programs, and policies that can be incorporated over time: and
2. To assess the adequacy of DOC’s existing policies and facilities to provide high quality mental health treatment programs consistent with best practices identiﬁed by the American Correctional Association and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care.
What ODCA Recommends
Ŷ DOC should take all steps necessary, including requesting additional funding if necessary, to achieve and maintain full compliance with all ACA and APHA requirements.
Ŷ The District should move forward with a new D.C. Jail.
Ŷ DOH should continue to comply with D.C. Code 7-731(a-1)(1) and conduct three inspections per year of the D.C. Jail to help ensure that environmental conditions meet required standards.
Ŷ DOC should conduct regular documented monitoring of Aramark’s compliance with all requirements of its contract and District food safety laws and regulations and sanction the contractor appropriately if necessary.
Ŷ The Mayor and Council should provide a capital budget for DOC that considers the risk of failure to address health and safety hazards identiﬁed by the DOH including the risk to the safety of inmates and staff and the risk of additional litigation.
For more information: 202-727-3660.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 54 of 260
Contents:
Background ………………………………………………… 1 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ……………… 6 Audit Results………………………………………………… 7 Auditor Concerns ………………………………………… 16 Conclusion …………………………………………………… 17 Agency Comments………………………………………… 18 ODCA’s Response to Agency Comments ………… 31 Summary of Report Recommendations…………… 32

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 55 of 260

Background
The mission of the Department of Corrections (DOC) is to provide a safe, secure, orderly, and humane environment for the conﬁnement of pretrial detainees and sentenced inmates, while affording those in custody meaningful rehabilitative opportunities for successful community reintegration.
DOC has ﬁve strategic objectives: Ŷ Upgrade its workforce to better serve the District’s public safety needs. Ŷ Foster an environment that promotes safety for inmates, staff, visitors and the community at large. Ŷ Improve inmate education, job skill levels, and facilitate successful community reintegration. Ŷ Maintain and improve inmate physical and mental health to support successful community re-entry. Ŷ Create and maintain a highly efﬁcient, transparent and responsive District government.
DOC had an approved Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 operating budget of $146,923,266 and 1,162 full-time employees. DOC operates two correctional facilities on its campus in Southeast D.C. that house inmates: The Central Detention Facility (CDF) commonly referred to as the D.C. Jail, and the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) which serves as the medical facility for all inmates. DOC also has had contracts with three private and independently operated halfway houses: Extended House, Fairview, and Hope Village. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the Superior Court of D.C. may place eligible pretrial offenders and sentenced misdemeanants in halfway houses as an alternative to incarceration. The scope of this report focuses primarily on the D.C. Jail and CTF operations.
The D.C. Jail and the CTF
The D.C. Jail, which opened in 1976, is in Southeast D.C., and houses only male inmates. Women are housed at the neighboring CTF. As of June 2018, the average daily population at the D.C. Jail was 1,346. Most inmates housed at the D.C. Jail are awaiting adjudication of cases or are serving a sentence for misdemeanor offenses. Some sentenced felons are housed in the D.C. Jail prior to being transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.1 According to DOC, it offers many programs to inmates, including HIV/AIDS prevention; education and intervention services; individual and group counseling services, literacy education and religious services.
As of June 2018, the nearby CTF, which opened in 1992, had an average daily population of 692. In addition to female inmates, the CTF houses minimum to medium custody male inmates and inmates requiring medical accommodation in the disabled and inﬁrmary units. Prior to October 1, 2018 and the passage of D.C. Law 21-238, the Comprehensive Youth Justice Amendment Act of 2016, the CTF housed a small number of juveniles charged as adults in a separate unit who are now housed at the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services. Between 1997 and 2017 control of the CTF was managed by a private corrections company, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), as part of a saleleaseback proposed and approved when the District was in severe ﬁnancial distress. The District received an infusion of cash from CCA, then paid the corporation back until February 2017 when control of the property reverted to the District. Medical services for inmates housed at both the CTF and the D.C. Jail are provided at the CTF through a contract between the DOC and Unity Health Care, Inc. According to the contract, Unity Healthcare Care, Inc. is to provide a comprehensive medical, mental health, pharmacy, and dental health services program for D.C. inmates.

1. The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Pub.L. 105-33, enacted by Congress, paved the way for major changes to the District’s criminal justice system. One major change was the closure of Lorton Correctional Complex, which housed inmates convicted of D.C. Code felonies. These inmates were transferred to the federal Bureau of Prisons.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

1

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 56 of 260

The ﬁgures below provide a demographic breakdown at the D.C. Jail and CTF, based upon the average daily population of 1,346 at the D.C. Jail and 692 at the CTF.2

Figure 1: Inmate Population by Gender
Women
6.3%
Men
93.7%

Figure 2: Inmate Population by Race3

Other
5%

White
3%

Hispanic
5%

African American
87%

Figure 3: Inmate Population by Religious Afﬁliation4

Other Faiths/Beliefs
7.4%

Did Not Declair
5.1%

Other Major Religions
11.4%
Atheist/Denies
14.1%

Christian Faith
36.6%
Muslim
25.5%

Figure 4: Age Distribution of Inmates

Over 61

51-60

41-50

34-40

21-30

Under 21

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2. Source: DC Department of Corrections Facts and Figures, June 2018
3. Per the DOC June 2018 report, “the category other includes Native American and those who have declared their race as Other or not declared a race. Blacks are overrepresented compared to the population which is 47.7% Black.Whites, Hispanics and Asians are under- represented compared to the DC population which is 44.6% White, 10.9% Hispanic, 4.1% Asian and 0.8% Other.”
4. Per the DOC June 2018 report, “all data is self-reported by inmates in DOC custody between October 1, 2016, and June 30, 2018.The category “Other Major Religions” includes other faiths such as Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and Rastafarian which occur infrequently among inmates.”

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

2

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 57 of 260

A troubled past
For 30 years the D.C. Jail had a history of severe overcrowding, unsafe facilities, and unsanitary conditions. Two lawsuits were ﬁled in 1971 and 1975, Campbell v. McGruder and Inmates of D.C. Jail v. Jackson, respectively, both of which alleged unconstitutional conditions at the D.C. Jail and are the oldest District prison reform cases. These cases were consolidated in a class action lawsuit5 and challenged the totality of the conditions at the D.C. Jail. Ultimately, the U.S. District Court found that conditions violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. After years of District noncompliance with Court orders with regard to medical and mental health care services, the Court appointed a Receiver for medical care at the D.C. Jail in 1995. This receivership was terminated on September 18, 2000.
The U.S. District Court terminated the underlying cases in March 2003, after 32 years of court oversight of the D.C. Jail. The termination came in the wake of the Prison Litigation Reform Act6 approved by Congress in 1996 which placed restrictions on the ability of prisoners to ﬁle lawsuits based on the conditions of conﬁnement. The District government’s ﬁnal documents ﬁled in the cases included this paragraph from the District of Columbia’s Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Terminate in 2003:
Inmates at the D.C. Jail are not systematically subjected to inhumane conditions of conﬁnement, and defendants are not deliberately indifferent to their health and safety, both of which are required to ﬁnd a constitutional violation. To the contrary, defendants have committed approximately $30 million toward a capitol [sic] improvement program at the Jail, which is designed to remedy historic deﬁciencies and refurbish the HVAC, cold and hot water, plumbing and electrical systems. Moreover, in collaboration with plaintiffs and the Special Ofﬁcer, defendants have developed and are implementing an environmental program designed to protect the health and safety of inmates and staff at the Jail, including a computerized inspection system to report, monitor, track and abate maintenance problems.
The federal law’s higher bar and the commitment by the District to spend signiﬁcant capital funds to improve conditions at the D.C. Jail were likely factors in the Court’s decision to terminate the judicial oversight. According to a DOC press release at the time, “a number of signiﬁcant improvements, initiated as a part of a six-year, $30 million capital improvement plan, were major contributing factors to ﬁnally ending court intervention in the daily operations of the facility.”
Nevertheless, at the same time, a continuation of overcrowding at the D.C. Jail prompted signiﬁcant local legislative reforms known as the Jail Improvement Amendment Act of 2003.7 The Committee Report states that the Act was needed to improve “what are currently unsafe, unhealthy, overcrowded and inhumane conditions at the District of Columbia Central Detention Facility (“Jail”) through inspections, monitoring, and reporting; initiate immediate changes in operating protocols including a classiﬁcation system and housing plan; institute a population ceiling at the Jail; and the requirement that the facility obtain accreditation by a national professional correctional organization. These speciﬁc improvements are designed to result in a safer institution.”8
A decade later, a rash of suicides led to the formation of a suicide prevention task force within the D.C. Jail in 2013. An October 14, 2013 Suicide Prevention Task Force Report identiﬁed the following four areas for improvement with respect to suicide prevention at DOC: (1) increasing the ability to identify high-risk inmates, (2) creating more suicide-

5. See Campbell v. McGruder (Case No. CA 1462-71) and Inmates of D.C. Jail v. Jackson Case No. 1:75-cv-01688-WBB), U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
6. See Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
7. See B15-31 (Law 15-62), Effective January 30, 2004.
8. See Committee on the Judiciary, Committee Report, Bill 15-31, “District of Columbia Jail Improvement Act of 2003”, May 22,2003

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

3

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 58 of 260

resistant jail practices, (3) improving housing unit determination processes, and (4) strengthening DOC’s culture of suicide prevention and on Aug. 9, 2017, DOC promulgated a new Suicide Prevention and Intervention Policy.9
In 2015 a report by the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs described conditions within the D.C. Jail and the CTF: “The D.C. Jail’s physical condition is alarming. Inspection reports by the D.C. Department of Health (DOH) have identiﬁed numerous violations of established correctional and public health standards, as well as structural and mechanical problems that are serious to extremely serious.”10
Plans for a new D.C. Jail
Planning for the construction of a new jail has been discussed by prior mayoral administrations prompting numerous media articles. In a memorandum dated December 21, 2010, DOC requested $420 million in capital funding allotments for the six-year period of 2012 through 2017 for a project entitled, “New facility- per DC General and Mass Ave Proposed Master Plan.” The project description/scope/justiﬁcation stated that:
“The purpose of this project is to perform capital improvements and facility condition assessment to ensure DOC facilities remain in good condition, to support the cost-effective delivery of programs and services. Among the capital improvements required are roof replacements, window renovation/replacements, interior renovations, electrical, HVAC (heating and air-conditioning system) replacements. In addition, this project can be used for priority building improvement projects that arise that may not have been planned for as part of the condition assessment. Even with excellent planning there is often a need to address critical infrastructure needs.”
Under former Mayor Vincent Gray, the District’s Public Safety Master Plan (completed in 2015) recommended that the city build a criminal justice center at Blue Plains or Hill East.11 The Bowser Administration’s Ofﬁce of Public-Private Partnerships’ (OP3) has had a new corrections center under consideration. According to the post on the OP3 website, last updated October 2, 2017:
“The Department of Corrections will seek the design, build, ﬁnance, and maintenance (DBFM) of a new corrections center that consolidates existing Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) and Central Detention Facility (CDF) located at 1901 D Street, SE. The new facility must be able to accommodate the current inmate population, with the ﬂexibility to efﬁciently adjust for future populations during the lifetime of the facility. This secure environment must include various support services and inmate treatment-related programs and activities (e.g., counseling, substance abuse treatment, education, job training, recreation, religion, work assignments, health and dental care, food service and laundry, among others). The new facility could be located on the existing site or another property owned by the District government or a third party, but continuous availability during the transition between facilities is critical. The DOC’s administrative ofﬁces, which are currently housed in the Reeves Center located at 2000 14th Street, NW, could also be consolidated into the new facility for more efﬁcient operations to house approximately 80 staff in 20,000 square feet. Additionally, the District is considering the potential to house more inmates currently housed in out-of-state facilities managed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.”12 The website also indicates that the DOC and the Department of General Services (DGS) will be the agencies involved and community engagement will be conducted, and feedback will be incorporated into the project requirements before OP3 begins procurement.

9. See District of Columbia Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure, Subject: Suicide Prevention and Intervention, Number: 6080.2G (effective date August 9, 2017).Policy Number 6080.2G which was reviewed August 9, 2018 supersedes Policy Number 6080. 2F (effective date March 10, 2010).
10. See Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs report, “D.C. Prisoners:Conditions of Conﬁnement in the District of Columbia”, June 11,2015
11. http://www.dlrgroup.com/work/district-of-columbia-public-safety-facilities-master-plan/
12. Ofﬁce of Public-Private Partnerships’ website https://op3.dc.gov/node/1195540

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

4

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 59 of 260
In an August 14, 2018, interview, Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice Kevin Donahue said the planning for a new jail was placed on “pause,” and indicated that $100,000 has been budgeted to conduct a study within ﬁscal year 2019 that looks at the needs for a new facility, including how many people it will be designed to house, programming space, and so on. He acknowledged the earliest that construction could start would be 2025, and it could take four to ﬁve years to ﬁnish. In October 2018 the Ofﬁce of Victim Services and Justice Grants issued a Request for Applications, for a grant award of up to $150,000 to engage an organization to build stakeholder engagement and solicit feedback related to the design and construction of a new correctional facility in the District of Columbia.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

5

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 60 of 260
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Objectives
Because of the ongoing challenges at DOC facilities and consistent with its mission to improve the effectiveness, efﬁciency, and accountability of the District government, the Ofﬁce of the D.C. Auditor (ODCA) initiated this discretionary audit of conditions of conﬁnement at the D.C. Jail. The audit focused on environmental conditions, incident reporting and tracking, and compliance with American Correctional Association, American Public Health Association, and National Commission on Correctional Health Care standards. The audit also reviewed the adequacy of jail inspections conducted by the Department of Health, and issues relating to planning for a new jail.
Speciﬁcally, the objectives of the audit were to: Ŷ Assist DOC in conjunction with any pending construction of a new correctional facility by identifying areas for improvement in facilities, programs, and policies that can be incorporated over time. Ŷ Assess the adequacy of DOC’s existing policies and facilities to provide high quality mental health treatment programs consistent with best practices identiﬁed by the American Correctional Association and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care.
Scope
The scope of this report focused on Fiscal Years 2014 through 2018, but we also reviewed data as far back as Fiscal Year 2007 for historical purposes and context.
Methodology
To complete this review, we conducted site observations at the D.C. Jail and CTF and interviewed relevant employees. We reviewed D.C. Code provisions as well as standards established by the American Correctional Association, American Public Health Association, and National Commission on Correctional Health Care. We examined Department of Health (DOH) inspection reports of the D.C. Jail for calendar years 2007 through the present, as well as related documentation, including DOC’s ofﬁcial responses to these inspections. Regarding incidents at the D.C. Jail, we reviewed DOC’s incident tracking system and related incidents within the scope of our review. Lastly, ODCA reviewed DOC’s mental health services, provided by Unity Health Care Corrections, for compliance with requirements issued by the American Correctional Association and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC).
This report was drafted, reviewed, and approved in accordance with the standards outlined in ODCA’s Policy and Procedure Manual.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

6

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 61 of 260
Audit Results
DOH has cited DOC for repeated and uncorrected violations of industry standards related to environmental conditions, including room temperatures, sanitary conditions, pests, broken ﬁxtures, and inadequate lighting, among other issues. DOH also has cited both DOC and the food service provider Aramark13 for repeated violations of District regulations related to public health and food service.
As the federal court terminated its oversight of the D.C. Jail, which had included regular inspections, The Council of the District of Columbia (The Council) enacted the District of Columbia Jail Improvement Amendment Act of 200314 and required DOH to conduct inspections three times per year. For its inspections, the department’s Health Regulation and Licensing Administration Health Care Facilities Division uses a standardized form at the D.C. Jail to document compliance with environmental standards as deﬁned by the American Public Health Association (APHA) and the American Correctional Association (ACA). In each inspection, DOH examined 39 APHA standards and 24 ACA standards.
In March 2018, DOH found that DOC was out of compliance with 7 of 24 ACA standards (29%) and 6 of 39 APHA standards (15%). The DOH inspections found that DOC was not in compliance with standards designed to ensure that:
Ŷ Indoor heating, ventilation and air conditioning control systems were maintained within acceptable ranges.15 Ŷ Cellblocks and common areas were maintained in a clean and sanitary manner and in good repair. Ŷ Clothing or bedding in disrepair is replaced or repaired, and that clothing bedding, mattresses, and pillows
must be cleaned and sanitized before being reissued to a new user. Ŷ Light levels in inmate cells/rooms were adequate in personal grooming areas and writing surfaces and that
lighting throughout the facility was sufﬁcient for the tasks performed. Ŷ Inmates had access to operable showers with temperature controlled hot and cold running water. Unfortunately, these issues are not new. In the health inspections between 2014 and March of 2018, DOH repeatedly cited DOC for the same or very similar issues of noncompliance in the reports. Some examples of repeated deﬁciencies cited include a leaking roof and subsequent water penetration through walls; unhealthy levels of dust; unsanitary conditions in food preparation areas; broken plumbing ﬁxtures, especially inmate showers; large numbers of broken ﬂuorescent lights in cells; and temperatures outside of allowable standard of at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit during the coldest months. Evidence suggests an increase in citations as the facility ages. For example, DOH cited DOC for 222 blown ﬂuorescent tubes in inmate cells in March of 2018, an increase from just 28 cited in May of 2016.

13. DOC contracts with Aramark Correctional Services LLC to provide to operate and manage DOC’s inmate food service programs at the Jail and CTF. Aramark is also to provide meals for purchase by staff in the Ofﬁcer’s Dining Room (ODR) at the Jail.
14. B15-31; Law 15-62.Effective January 30, 2004.
15. ACA standards require that: (1) the ventilation system supplies at least 15 cubic feet per minute of circulated air per occupant with a minimum of ﬁve cubic feet per minute of outside air.Toilet rooms and cells with toilets have no less than four air changes per hour unless state or local codes require a qualiﬁed independent source and are checked less than once per accreditation cycle. (2) Temperature and humidity are mechanically raised or lowered to acceptable comfort levels.(3) In hot and dry climates, exterior window shields, shutters, or awnings must be provided to exclude solar radiation. (4) in hot humid climates when the facility does not have mechanical chilled-air systems, adequate windows and wall openings should be provided and the location must provide cross-ventilation.Gyms and swimming pools require special temperature, humidity, and ventilation control. (5) The building design, insulation, and exterior surface and color minimize heat absorption.(6) Clothes, towels, sheets, draperies, posters, and other objects should not interfere with airﬂow in or out of living areas. (7) The control system should maintain an indoor air temperature of at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit during the coldest months.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

7

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 62 of 260

ODCA accompanied a DOH health inspector during the September 2017 inspection of the D.C. Jail which encompassed ﬁve days. That on-site inspection revealed several signiﬁcant deﬁciencies, including food preparation and handling issues, cleanliness issues in the cell blocks, including the shower areas, and safety issues. At an elevator bank, the inspector pointed out that wires and conduits that penetrated through the walls and ceilings had not been properly sealed with caulk. According to the inspector, if there was a ﬁre, smoke could move through the walls and affect other areas of the building.

DOH citations that have reoccurred: Ŷ Leaking damage or inoperable plumbing ﬁxtures from
2014 through 2018 Ŷ Leaking roof from 2014 through 2018 Ŷ Peeling paint on metal desks, door frames, tables and
bed frames from 2014 through 2018 Ŷ Water penetration through walls from 2014 through 2018 Ŷ Damaged janitor’s closets from 2014 through 2016 Ŷ Damaged Formica tables from 2014 through 2018 Ŷ Damaged showers stalls from 2014 through 2018 Ŷ Bent seats/no seats from 2014 through 2018

In addition to the review of ACA and APHA standards, ODCA also examined DOH’s inspections of DOC’s culinary operations. DOC contracts with Aramark Correctional Services LLC to operate and manage DOC’s inmate food service programs at the D.C. Jail and the CTF. Aramark is also the vendor selected to provide meals for purchase by staff in the Ofﬁcer’s Dining Room at the D.C. Jail.

ODCA found that DOH has cited both DOC and Aramark, for violations of Title 25-A of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR), which governs food operations. Speciﬁcally, DOC and Aramark have, according to several reports:
Ŷ Failed to keep food and non-food contact surfaces clean and sanitized. Ŷ Received, stored, held, and/or served food at improper temperatures. Ŷ Failed to keep kitchen equipment in good repair. Ŷ Failed to control pests in the culinary area.
Notwithstanding these citations by DOH, the D.C. Jail has been accredited by the ACA since 200916. To maintain its accreditation, DOC adheres to the ACA’s “Expected Practices.’’ For speciﬁc standards, DOC must meet 100% compliance and for other standards, DOC must meet 90% compliance to maintain accreditation. Reaccreditation occurs every three years with the D.C. Jail’s last accreditation in 2015 and paperwork ﬁled for accreditation in 2018.17 As part of its 2015 accreditation, ACA told DOC that it had found the condition of the D.C. Jail to be in notably good repair for its age (emphasis added.)

Although DOC has received ACA accreditation for the jail, some issues raised by DOH continue to reoccur without being successfully addressed. DOC has not consistently taken the steps necessary to correct the all of the issues identiﬁed by DOH’s health inspectors.

In some cases, DOC does not respond to citations as needing corrective action. In some cases, DOC states that for ACA accreditation purposes, compliance is not possible due to the age of the structure and the limited resources DOC has on hand. In those instances when DOC agrees there is a problem, but the agency cannot correct the citation and

16. The Jail Improvement Amendment Act of 2003 required DOC to obtain ACA accreditation within four years of enactment.See B15-31; Law 15-62 §5(e).Effective January 30, 2004.
17. According to the 2015 ACA Accreditation report, dated January 25, 2016 the CTF has not yet been accredited since the facility has been under the management of DOC.The report indicates that the CTF initial accreditation will occur in 2018.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

8

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 63 of 260

issues the same response, sometimes word for word, in its corrective action plans each time the violation is cited. Although DOC ofﬁcials indicated that they have sufﬁcient budget to meet their maintenance improvement needs, DOH’s repeated ﬁndings of faulty or broken equipment and a decaying physical plant strongly suggest that additional investment may be needed.
Ensuring that DOC substantially complies with standards and regulations is necessary for the health of inmates and correctional ofﬁcers. While there has been talk of a new jail, no real planning is in evidence and it is likely that a new facility will not be built for many years. It seems likely that the jail will serve as the principal incarceration facility in the District for years to come. The record of DOH’s repeated ﬁndings over the last 11 years presents a liability risk to DOC and the District by presenting an opportunity for further lawsuits alleging a violation of inmate constitutional rights.
Recommendations: 1. DOC should take all steps necessary, including requesting additional funding if necessary, to achieve and maintain full compliance with all ACA and APHA requirements.
2. DOC should conduct regular documented monitoring of Aramark’s compliance with all requirements of its contract and District food safety laws and regulations and sanction the contractor appropriately if necessary.
3. The District should move forward with a new D.C. Jail.
4. When considering a new correctional facility, DOC should analyze DOH violations to ensure that the design of the new facility minimizes the challenges of complying with standards and regulations that DOH frequently cited as having been violated.
In past budget cycles DOC has requested but successive mayors have not proposed nor has the Council appropriated capital funding for DOC to fully address the agency’s capital budget needs as indicated in the repeated DOH ﬁndings on conditions of conﬁnement, putting at risk the health and safety of inmates and staff, adding to the risk of litigation, and leading to incorrect information in the District’s CIP.
In the 2003 District of Columbia Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Terminate in the pending cases18, the District government stated its commitment to approximately $30 million toward capital improvements “designed to remedy historic deﬁciencies and refurbish the HVAC, cold and hot water, plumbing and electrical systems.” In the intervening years the department has expended a total of $74.5 million in capital improvements (FY2004 through FY2018) of which $10.3 million has been spent on AMO-CR104C-HVAC. The description of the “AMO-CR104-HVAC Replacement for CDF” project, in DOC capital budget request documents is as follows.
“The heating, ventilation and air-conditioning system at the Central Detention Facility has been in disrepair for years. Additionally, the water supply to the facility has been extremely problematic. The main booster pumps are at the end of their useful life and no ﬁlters, softeners or strainers are installed on the system. All work that was part of the original contract has been completed. However, for the system to perform in accordance with the design parameters and deliver the requisite amount of air in the cellblocks, additional ﬁne tuning is necessary; four large rooftop duct ﬁttings need to be replaced, transitions from the large rooftop units need to be modiﬁed and ﬁnal air and water balancing needs to be done for the system to work properly. Chiller, steam station and associated piping overhaul is also included.”19
DOC has submitted capital budget requests that reﬂect the need to fund critical capital projects. It is clear from DOC budget requests over the last ﬁve completed budget cycles that the agency has sought signiﬁcant capital funding

18. See Campbell v. McGruder (Case No. CA 1462-71) and Inmates of D.C. Jail v. Jackson Case No. 1:75-cv-01688-WBB), U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
19. DOC’s FY 2015-20 Enhancements Budget Submission dated November 13, 2013.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

9

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 64 of 260

that is has not received in the annual budget process. In agency submissions for FY2014 through FY2018, DOC sought 1-year capital allocations totaling $62.4 million, or an average of $12.5 million each year. The Mayor and Council approved a total of $15.7 million, or an average in one-year allocations of $3.1 million. In the CIP six-year funding requests for those ﬁve budget cycles, DOC sought a total of $329.4 million or an average of $65.9 million over the sixyear cycle, but the CIP as proposed only allocated $31.3 million, or an average for the six-year cycle of just $6.3 million.

To be sure, in the District of Columbia the CIP budget is an imprecise spending plan at best. The ODCA audit reports on school modernization have made clear that simply being included in a capital budget plan does not indicate accuracy in the amount that will eventually be spent. But it is also the case in all the school spending audits to date, the capital expenditures have consistently gone over the original budget and not under. In allocating well under what was requested in order to maintain DOC facilities. the executive and legislative branches of the District government have risked a failure to meet real needs as reﬂected in the DOH inspection reports.

The DOH inspection reports have repeatedly found deﬁciencies within several areas of the D.C. Jail’s infrastructure, including leaks in the roof and water penetration throughout the walls, HVAC issues (temperatures too hot or too cold), and nonfunctioning equipment, including showers, toilets, lights, etc.

DOC has recognized these issues and submitted capital budget requests since 2010 that include projects that would speciﬁcally address some of DOH’s concerns. For instance, DOC identiﬁed the need for general renovations to the D.C. Jail, justifying the project by saying “the CDF is almost a 40 years (sic) old structure continuously used 24/7, 365 days a year that faces extreme wear and tear. Upkeep and maintenance of the CDF is critical to the mission of the agency because it is required to safely house over 2,000 inmates and provide operational support, while complying with applicable standards and regulations.” DOC has similarly stated the need for signiﬁcant projects related to HVAC replacement and roof refurbishment.

In an interview in August 2018 Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice Kevin Donahue sought to minimize the obvious discrepancies between what DOC requested and what the Mayor and Council approved in DOC’s capital budget. He explained that agency leaders are encouraged to “blue sky” their requests as if funding were no object, and that capital allocations are then pared down in an interative process. He said that the yearly allocations are more serious endeavors than the 6-year requests and reﬂect more closely what an agency actually needs.

Figure 5 below presents the capital budget request (in millions) since 2014 and the approved budgets.

Figure 5: DOC Capital Budget Requests (In Millions)

Fiscal Year

Years Covered

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2014-2019 2015-2020 2016-2021 2017-2022 2018-2023 Totals

DOC Year 1 Request
$15.3 $5.9 $4.8 $16.4 $20.0 $62.4

Year 1 Approved Per Budget Book
$11.2 $1.5 $1.0
$0 $2.0 $15.7

DOC 6-Year Total
Request $62.7 $39.6 $26.7 $78.8 $121.6
$329.4

6-Year Approved Per Budget Book
$14.5 $4.5 $2.3 $5.0 $5.0 $31.3

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

10

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 65 of 260

In DOC’s FY 2018 capital budget request, the agency sought $21,974,188 for general renovations to the D.C. Jail, $12,000,000 for HVAC replacement, and $1,000,000 for roof refurbishment over the six-year period from FY 2018 through FY 2023. A signiﬁcant portion of DOC’s requested capital funding that year came in the ﬁnal three years of the capital plan (FY 2021-2023), in which DOC requested a total of $70,574,188 across all projects (including those above). In the ﬁnal year (FY 2023) alone, DOC requested $44,750,000 in capital funds, anticipating a need to replace boiler units at the CTF and the D.C. Jail.
The FY 2018 and FY 2019 CIPs proposed by the Mayor did not include any capital funding for DOC beyond ﬁscal year 2020. The FY 2018 capital plan provided DOC with $2 million in FY 2018, $2 million in FY 2019, and $1 million in FY 2020, but nothing in FYs 2021 through FY 2023.
In addition to the risk of harm and legal liability, the lack of support for recognized maintenance and repair needs expressed by the agency may be failing to meet CIP regulations. The purposes of the District’s CIP are as follows (emphasis added):
“The CIP is used as the basis for formulating the District’s annual capital budget. The Council and Congress adopt the budget as part of the District’s overall six-year CIP. Inclusion of a project in a congressionally adopted capital budget and the approval of requisite ﬁnancing gives the District the authority to spend funds for each project. The remaining ﬁve years of the program show the ofﬁcial plan for making improvements to District-owned facilities in future years.”20
“The text of the CIP is an important planning and management resource…The CIP is ﬂexible, allowing project expenditure plans to be amended from one year to the next in order to reﬂect actual expenditures and revised expenditure plans. However, consistent with rigorous strategic planning, substantial changes in the program are discouraged.”21 The CIP is updated each year by adding a planning year and reﬂecting any necessary changes in projected expenditure schedules, proposed projects and District priorities.
“Under the program, projects should complement the planning of other District agencies and must constitute a coordinated, long-term program to improve and effectively use the capital facilities and agency infrastructure.”22
There are several effects that result from not accurately portraying DOC’s capital needs in the six-year CIP:
Ŷ The plan distorts the true capital needs of the District, and other projects may need to be cut down the line to make room for emergency capital needs. Using DOC as an example, in this case, the agency will need some level of capital funding in FY 2021 through FY 2024.
Ŷ The public is not informed regarding the true level of capital investment needed at DOC to correct the deﬁciencies found by DOH and to adequately maintain the existing equipment and facilities at a suitable level.
While ofﬁcials within the Executive Ofﬁce of the Mayor (EOM) are aware of DOC’s capital needs, the administration, like its immediate predecessors, has not made accurate projections for the agency’s expected need for continued capital funding in future years in the CIP. EOM ofﬁcials acknowledged that they expect the D.C. Jail will need signiﬁcant capital investments in future years and that there is a need for better long-term planning. EOM ofﬁcials further explained that the CIP is supposed to be a six-year plan, but in reality, is being used—as evidenced by DOC in this case—to make short term decisions about where money needs to be spent. EOM ofﬁcials expressed concern that if DOC does have additional immediate needs in the near future capital funding will have to be pulled from other sources to address the need because EOM already allocated capital funding for the next six years.

20. See FY 2019 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Congressional Submission, Volume 5- FY2019 to FY2024, page 5-2. 21. See FY 2019 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Congressional Submission, Volume 5- FY2019 to FY2024, page 5-15. 22. See FY 2019 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Congressional Submission, Volume 5- FY2019 to FY2024, page 5-23.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

11

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 66 of 260

Recommendations: 5. The Mayor and Council should provide a capital budget for DOC that considers the risk of failure to address health
and safety hazards identiﬁed by the DOH including the risk to the safety of inmates and staff and the risk of additional litigation.

6. EOM should, working with the other members of the District’s Capital Budget Team, develop policies and procedures for the capital budgeting process that ensure the plan accurately reﬂects the known capital needs of agencies, including DOC, over the entire six-year capital budgeting period.

The Department of Health did not regularly conduct three inspections of the D.C. Jail each year as required by the D.C. Code.

D.C. Code states that, “[t]he Department of Health shall conduct a minimum of 3 inspections per year of the environmental conditions at the Central Detention Facility. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “environmental conditions” shall include temperature control, ventilation, and sanitation.” The Code requires that the Department of Health submit the report of each inspection to the Council and the Mayor within 30 days of the inspection.23

In a review of health inspections of the D.C. Jail between 2014 and 2018 we found that DOH conducted the required three inspections in only two of the ﬁve years. DOH acknowledges that it had not conducted the required inspections in prior years and by email July 12, 2018, indicated that the three inspections were conducted in 2017, and would be in 2018. “The issues contributing to fewer inspections in prior years have been resolved,” DOH said. The agency recounted the email text in responding to our draft report and stated that the requirement was met in 2017 and 2018. Figure 6 on the following page presents an analysis of the number of inspections conducted per year. Health inspections conducted by DOH between 2007 and 2013 are included for historical purposes.

Figure 6: DOH Inspections of the D.C. Jail

Calendar Year

Number of DOH Inspections

Compliancy with Required # of Inspections

2007

3

Yes

2008

2

No

2009

2

No

2010

3

Yes

2011

1

No

2012

3

Yes

2013

2

No

2014

2

No

2015

2

No

2016

2

No

2017

3

Yes

2018

3

Yes

Source: Department of Health Inspection Reports

23. See § 7-731 (a-1).

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

12

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 67 of 260

DOH ofﬁcials cited several reasons why the agency did not conduct the correct number of inspections required under D.C. Code in previous years:
Ŷ DOH was tasked with conducting the inspections but was not provided adequate funding to cover the costs of the inspections.
Ŷ During some years, a contractor was conducting inspections and there were contracting delays. Ŷ DOH waited for the Department of Corrections to respond to the prior inspection before scheduling the next
inspection. Ŷ DOH must coordinate the inspections with the Department of Corrections as the surveyor must be
accompanied on the inspections of the correctional facility.
The inspections are designed to ensure the health and well-being of correctional ofﬁcers and inmates. If the inspections are not occurring as regularly scheduled, there is a potential risk to the health and safety of ofﬁcers and inmates.
Recommendation: 7. DOH should continue to comply with D.C. Code 7-731(a-1)(1) and conduct three inspections per year of the D.C. Jail
to help ensure that environmental conditions meet required standards.
DOC’s health services contractor, Unity Health Care Corrections, complies with basic industry accreditation requirements for mental health screenings and suicide prevention, but DOC and Unity should update and clarify some internal written policies and procedures to ensure screenings remain consistent with accreditation requirements.
In reviewing Unity and DOC health care policies, ODCA examined accreditation requirements of the American Correctional Association (ACA) and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC).
Both ACA and NCCHC require that the mental health intake screenings contain certain components, including information on whether an inmate has ever had a history of seizures or head trauma, as well as information on an inmate’s orientation to time and space and overall appearance.
ODCA’s review of DOC’s Ofﬁce of Health Administration (OHSA) shows that DOC is capturing all medical information required by ACA and NCCHC. However, OHSA is relying on requirements and information contained within its initial medical assessment to fulﬁll ACA and NCCHC requirements that are supposed to be part of the initial mental health assessment.
ODCA reviewed three policies and practices, speciﬁcally:
Ŷ Intake mental health screening Ŷ Comprehensive mental health screening Ŷ Suicide prevention
While ODCA observed that the procedures followed by DOC and Unity covered all the elements required by ACA and NCCHC, both DOC and Unity’s mental health policies do not explicitly contain some of the ACA and NCCHC requirements with respect to intake mental health screenings of inmates. For instance, both ACA and NCCHC require that the mental health intake screenings contain components, including information on whether an inmate has ever had a history of seizures or head trauma, as well as information on an inmate’s orientation to time and space. These

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

13

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 68 of 260

items are not contained within DOC’s mental health screening requirements because they are practiced as part of DOC’s intake medical screenings, conducted and recorded at intake immediately before the mental health screening and thus not repeated.
ODCA also reviewed accreditation documents provided by DOC demonstrating that NCCHC considered the components of the intake medical screenings to fulﬁll some of the mental health screening components during the most recent accreditation process. This demonstrates that DOC is not at risk of losing its accreditation simply because its mental health exam policies do not repeat those items.
DOC and Unity have not speciﬁcally written their policies and procedures to match them against ACA and NCCHC requirements. Unity’s contract requires that Unity comply with ACA and NCCHC requirements but does not state how the contractor should do so (for instance, by maintaining policies and procedures that are consistent with those requirements).
Because DOC and Unity’s policies for intake mental health examinations do not explicitly address all aspects of the ACA and NCCHC requirements, there is a risk that if the current intake medical exam process changes, DOC may no longer be in compliance with these ACA and NCCHC requirements in performing its intake mental health screenings.
Recommendation: 8. DOC should update their mental health intake screening policies and procedures to ensure they fully meet ACA
and NCCHC accreditation requirements without having to rely on questions and procedures administered as part of the intake medical exam, ensure that the agency’s health services contractor’s (currently Unity) policies and procedures mirror those of DOC and are in full compliance with ACA and NCCHC accreditation requirements and see that OHSA’s and contractors written policies remain consistent with the standards.
DOC’s Ofﬁce of Heath Administration regular audits of Unity represent good internal control and monitoring practices that reduce the likelihood of noncompliance and the risk of negative outcomes.
OHSA is a division within the DOC and is overseen by DOC’s Deputy Director of Administration. Its primary responsibility is to oversee the effective implementation of the Agency’s medical service contract with its current vendor, Unity Health Care, Incorporated (Unity). Since 2006, Unity has provided medical, dental, and mental health services to DOC’s male, female, and juvenile population. In addition to assuring compliance with the contract, OHSA oversees the vendor’s compliance with NCCHC and ACA standards to help assure re-accreditation every three years.
As previously stated, the CTF was not inspected as part of the 2015 ACA accreditation.24 We understand from DOC’s comments on our draft report that the ACA accreditation received in January 2019 included the CTF. We found, that OHSA had in place a system of audits to monitor Unity’s performance in quality measures established by NCCHC, the ACA, Unity’s contract, and District and federal laws and regulations. OHSA is scheduled to conduct 162 audits annually across 64 performance measures. Most of these audits are conducted two to three times per year, and DOC has developed a risk assessment process to determine how frequently audits should occur.
The audits themselves typically consist of reviewing a sample of electronic medical records of patients who have used speciﬁc programs and determining whether the records contain the required information or whether the patient has received the service indicated. DOC’s OHSA compares the performance on these audits with the established performance benchmarks and issues corrective action plans if compliance is not met. OHSA then conducts a re-audit 60 days later to determine whether the Corrective Action Plan has been met.

24. According to the 2015 ACA Accreditation report, dated January 25, 2016 the CTF has not yet been accredited since the facility has been under the management of DOC.The report indicates that the CTF initial accreditation will occur in 2018.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

14

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 69 of 260
OHSA’s performance was measured against the United States Government Accountability Ofﬁce (GAO) Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government which state: “Management establishes activities to monitor performance measures and indicators. These may include comparisons and assessments relating to different sets of data to one another so that analyses of the relationships can be made, and appropriate actions taken. Management designs controls aimed at validating the propriety and integrity of both entity and individual performance measures and indicators.”25
Additionally, GAO’s principles for monitoring state, in part: “Corrective actions are a necessary complement to control activities to achieve objectives. Management should establish and operate monitoring activities to monitor the internal control system and evaluate the results. Management should remediate identiﬁed internal control deﬁciencies on a timely basis.”26
Moreover, ODCA reviewed DOC’s auditing practices in the context of DOC’s policies, which state: “DOC will audit Contractors [sic] provision of quality health care consistent with ACA, NCCHC, Federal and District regulatory standards, as noted in the ‘DOC Performance Improvement Tool. DOC may utilize this tool to conduct independent and/or joint audits with Contractor.”27
In summary, the practices employed by OHSA provide reasonable assurance that Unity is complying with established performance benchmarks and that OHSA is taking appropriate steps to address issues requiring corrective action. It is important to note that the scope of ODCA’s assessment was narrow. ODCA did not assess whether mental health services provided to inmates are adequate. ODCA assessed DOC’s compliance with the ACA and NCCHC requirements related to three items—the intake mental health assessment, the comprehensive mental health assessment, and suicide prevention policies. ODCA concluded that DOC’s audits of Unity reduce the risk that the contractor will not comply with contractual or accreditation requirements. OHSA should continue its monitoring of Unity’s service performance, including annual evaluations of risk to determine audit frequency as well as issuing and following up on corrective action plans when necessary to ensure services provided to inmates meet all established benchmarks.

25. United States Government Accountability Ofﬁce, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, September 2014, Page 47. 26. United States Government Accountability Ofﬁce, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, September 2014, Page 64. 27. See Contract CW37196, dated October 1, 2015, section C.5.30.10

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

15

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 70 of 260
Auditor’s Concerns
D.C. Code does not require the agency to inspect the Correctional Treatment Facility.
Currently the Department of Health does not conduct inspections at the Correctional Treatment Facility because the D.C. Code does not require such inspections. Regular inspections should be conducted to ensure the health and wellbeing of correctional ofﬁcers and inmates. If inspections are not occurring there is a potential risk to the health and safety of ofﬁcers and inmates.
Although ODCA could not conclusively determine why the law does not require CTF inspections by DOH, one potential reason is that prior to January 30, 2017, the treatment facility was managed by a private, for proﬁt company— the Corrections Corporation of America and the CTF was not a part of the federal court oversight. During receivership, the U.S. District Court required inspections and the provision in the Jail Improvement Amendment Act of 2003 may have been written to to ensure the monitoring requirements during court oversight were maintained.
Recommendation: 9. DOC and the Council should review this inspection requirement and make necessary adjustments to the Code in
the best interest of inmates housed at the CTF.
Video Visitation Policy
In 2012, DOC began video visitation at the D.C. Jail after in- person visitation was terminated. Currently, this is the primary way inmates communicate with their visitors. In-person visitations for inmates, however, were reinstated in 2015 at the CTF and the D.C. Jail for those with good behavior. DOC ofﬁcials stated that video visitation has resulted in more communication between inmates and their families and fewer cancellations of visits.
However, as a new technology, the long-term effects of video visitation are not well understood. There is some research that suggests it may lead to a breakdown in an inmate’s communication with family and a higher likelihood of recidivism down the line.28 Other research suggests this is not the case.
Recommendation: 10. DOC should closely study the effects of its video visitation systems and consider including sufﬁcient space in the
plans for the new jail for both in-person and video visitations for

28. See:Prison Visitation Policies:A Fifty State Survey, Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz, and Aaron Litman. Yale Law & Policy Review, Volume 321, Issue 1, Article 5. https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1654&context=ylpr

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

16

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 71 of 260
Conclusion
The D.C. Jail is an aging and deteriorating 40-year-old facility that must be operational 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. While age is a contributing factor, the conditions within the D.C. Jail could worsen if DOC is not able to address health and environmental citations issued by DOH. We found that DOC made requests for capital funds over and above what was provided by the Mayor and Council to address facility improvements. The Mayor and the DC Council must work in concert to appropriate sufﬁcient capital for DOC to make necessary repairs to the facility. Not doing so would put the health and safety of inmates and DOC staff at risk and increase the risk of lawsuits against the District.
One of the goals of this audit was to identify areas for improvement in facilities and policies that could assist with planning for the construction of a new jail. By reviewing DOH’s inspection reports, ODCA found that DOC was repeatedly cited by DOH for violations of industry standards related to environmental conditions. Some of the citations that were repeated throughout the scope of this audit included water penetration through the walls due to a leaking roof, mold growth on walls, damaged shower stalls, temperatures outside of allowable standards and other issues clearly associated with an aging facility. Aramark, DOC’s food service provider, was cited by DOH for repeated violations of District regulations related to public health and food service such as unsanitary conditions in food preparation areas.
The persistence and seriousness of facility citations clearly point to the need for a new jail. According to Kevin Donahue, the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice, the earliest construction of a new facility could begin is 2025 and would likely take four to ﬁve years to complete the project. Further delay heightens the risks associated with the age and deterioration of the facility.
We are pleased to note that DOC accepted four of the six recommendations directed to them in our report.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

17

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 72 of 260
Agency Comments
On December 21, 2018, we sent a draft copy of this report to the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Department of Health (DOH) for review and written comment. DOC responded with comments on January 30, 2019, and DOH responded with comments on January 18, 2019. The comments are appended in full to this report.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

18

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 73 of 260
*29(510(172)7+(',675,&72)&2/80%,$ '(3$570(172)&255(&7,216

 2IILFHRIWKH'LUHFWRU 
D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS’ RESPONSE TO THE AUDIT OF D.C. JAIL CONDITIONS BY THE OFFICE OF THE D.C. AUDITOR

I. The District’s Demonstrated Performance in Achieving Established Standards Regarding Conditions of Confinement at the D.C. Jail
dŚĞKĨĨŝĐĞŽĨƚŚĞ͘͘ƵĚŝƚŽƌ;KͿŐŽĞƐďĂĐŬĚĞĐĂĚĞƐƚŽƐĞƚƚŚĞƐƚĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞƵĚŝƚŽĨƚŚĞ͘͘:Ăŝů͕ďƵƚ ĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞŽƌƌĞĐŽŐŶŝǌĞƚŚĂƚĂůŽŶŐůŽŽŬͲďĂĐŬŝŶĨĂĐƚĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞƐƚŚĞƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐƚŚĞ͘͘ ŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚŚĂƐŵĂĚĞĂŶĚƚŚĞĨƵůůĂŶĚƌĞƉĞĂƚĞĚƌĞĐŽŐŶŝƚŝŽŶŝƚŚĂƐƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚĂƐďĞŝŶŐĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚǁŝƚŚ ŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘tŚŝůĞƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŽĨŽůƵŵďŝĂ:ĂŝůǁĂƐƵŶĚĞƌŽƵƌƚƐƵƉĞƌǀŝƐŝŽŶĂŶĚ ƌĞĐĞŝǀĞƌƐŚŝƉŝŶƚŚĞĚŝƐƚĂŶƚƉĂƐƚ͕ĂĨƚĞƌǇĞĂƌƐŽĨĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞĚĚĞĚŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƚŽƐǇƐƚĞŵŝĐƌĞĨŽƌŵďǇŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ŽĨĨŝĐŝĂůƐ͕ƚŚĂƚĐŽƵƌƚŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚǁĂƐƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚĞĚϭϲǇĞĂƌƐĂŐŽŝŶϮϬϬϯ͘dŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŽƵƌƚ ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŽĨĐŽŶĨŝŶĞŵĞŶƚŵĞƚĐŽŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶĂůƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂŶĚŶŽůŽŶŐĞƌƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ũƵĚŝĐŝĂůŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚ͕ĂƐƚĂƚƵƐƚŚĂƚĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƐƚŽĚĂƚĞ͘
/ŶϮϬϬϯ͕ƚŚĞ͘͘ŽƵŶĐŝůƉĂƐƐĞĚƚŚĞ:Ăŝů/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚĐƚŽĨϮϬϬϯ;>ĂǁϭϱͲϲϮͿ͕ǁŚŝĐŚ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚƌĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ͘/ƚĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ ;KͿŝŶŝƚŝĂƚĞŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƐŝŶŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐƉƌŽƚŽĐŽůƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂĐůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐǇƐƚĞŵĂŶĚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ƉůĂŶ͖ŝŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞĂƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĐĞŝůŝŶŐĂƚƚŚĞ:Ăŝů͖ĂŶĚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇŽďƚĂŝŶĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶďǇĂ ŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƚŝŽŶŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂƐĂĨĞƌŝŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ͘KĐŽŵƉůŝĞĚǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐǁŝƚŚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐŝŶĐůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƉƌŽƚŽĐŽůƐ͘/ƚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚĂŶĚŚĂƐĂĚŚĞƌĞĚ ƚŽƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶůĞǀĞůƐďĞůŽǁƚŚĞĐĂƉŽĨϮ͕ϭϲϰƉƌŽŵƵůŐĂƚĞĚďǇKŝŶDZϮϴͲϱϯϮ͘dŚŝƐĐĂƉǁĂƐďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶƚŚĞƌĂƚĞĚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇĂƐĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚďǇŝŶĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚĞǆƉĞƌƚĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂŶƚƐWƵůŝƚǌĞƌͬŽŐĂƌĚ ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐ͘ŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚ͘͘ŽĚĞΑϮϰͲϮϭϭ͘ϬϮ;ďͿ;ϮͿ͕KƐƵďŵŝƚƐYƵĂƌƚĞƌůǇ:Ăŝů/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚĐƚ ƌĞƉŽƌƚƐƚŽƚŚĞ͘͘ŽƵŶĐŝů͕ĂƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďǇƚŚĞĐƚ͕ƌĞůĂƚŝŶŐƚŽůŝǀŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƚŚĞĞŶƚƌĂůĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶ &ĂĐŝůŝƚǇ;&Ϳ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐŝŶŵĂƚĞŐƌŝĞǀĂŶĐĞƐ͕ŝŶĂƌǇƐƚĂůƌĞƉŽƌƚ;ĂtŝŶĚŽǁƐͲďĂƐĞĚƚŽŽůƚŚĂƚĂůůŽǁƐ ĂŐŐƌĞŐĂƚĞƌĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐŽĨĚĂƚĂĨƌŽŵĚŝǀĞƌƐĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐͿ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕KƉƌŽĚƵĐĞƐĂŶĚƐƵďŵŝƚƐƚŽƚŚĞ͘͘ ŽƵŶĐŝůĂŵŽŶƚŚůǇƌĞƉŽƌƚŽŶƚŚĞWƌŝŽƌŝƚǇKŶĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůƉƌŽďůĞŵƐĂŶĚƚŚĞƚŝŵĞƚŽƌĞƉĂŝƌ͕ĂŵŽŶƚŚůǇ ƌĞƉŽƌƚŽĨƚŚĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů^ĂĨĞƚǇKĨĨŝĐĞ͕ĂŵŽŶƚŚůǇƌĞƉŽƌƚŽŶƚĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚǀĞŶƚŝůĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚ ĂŵŽŶƚŚůǇƌĞƉŽƌƚŽŶƚŚĞũĂŝůƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞǁĂŝƚŝŶŐĨŽƌƚƌĂŶƐĨĞƌƚŽƚŚĞ &ĞĚĞƌĂůƵƌĞĂƵŽĨWƌŝƐŽŶƐĂŶĚƚŚĞĂǀĞƌĂŐĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨĚĂǇƐƚŚĂƚŝŶŵĂƚĞƐǁĂŝƚĞĚĨŽƌƚƌĂŶƐĨĞƌ͘
dŚĞĐƚĂůƐŽƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚKƚŽĂĐŚŝĞǀĞŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ;ͿĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ǁŚŝĐŚ͕ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŚĂƌĚǁŽƌŬ͕ĐŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞĚĞĚŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕ǁĞĚŝĚ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕K

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

19

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 74 of 260

ĂůƐŽĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĚEĂƚŝŽŶĂůŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů,ĞĂůƚŚĂƌĞ;E,ͿĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘ĂŶĚE, ĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐĂƌĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚƚŚĞŐŽůĚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐŝŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚŵĞĚŝĐĂůͬŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚ ĐĂƌĞƌĞƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞůǇ͘/ŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽďĞĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚďǇ͕ƚŚĞ͘͘:ĂŝůŚĂƐƚŽďĞŽŶĞŚƵŶĚƌĞĚƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ ĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚǁŝƚŚĂůů͞ŵĂŶĚĂƚŽƌǇƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͕͟ĂŶĚŶŝŶĞƚǇƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚǁŝƚŚĂůů͞ŶŽŶͲŵĂŶĚĂƚŽƌǇ ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘͟/ŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶE,ĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚĞ͘͘:ĂŝůŚĂƐƚŽďĞŽŶĞŚƵŶĚƌĞĚ ƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚǁŝƚŚĂůů͞ĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂů͟E,ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂŶĚĞŝŐŚƚǇͲĨŝǀĞƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚǁŝƚŚĂůů ͞ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ͟E,ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘dŚĞ͘͘:ĂŝůĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĚŝŶŝƚŝĂůĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶŝŶƵŐƵƐƚϮϬϬϵ͕ ƌĞĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶŝŶ:ĂŶƵĂƌǇϮϬϭϱĂŶĚǁĂƐƌĞĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚĂŐĂŝŶŽŶ:ĂŶƵĂƌǇϭϮ͕ϮϬϭϵ͘͘͘:ĂŝůDĞĚŝĐĂůĂŶĚ DĞŶƚĂů,ĞĂůƚŚ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐǁĞƌĞŝŶŝƚŝĂůůǇĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚďǇE,ŝŶKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϬϬϭ͕ĂŶĚŵŽƐƚƌĞĐĞŶƚůǇŝŶƉƌŝů ϮϬϭϴ͘DŽƌĞŽǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞ͘͘:ĂŝůǁĂƐŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůǇĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĞĚĂƐŝŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞWƌŝƐŽŶZĂƉĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ Đƚ;WZͿŽŶĞĐĞŵďĞƌϵ͕ϮϬϭϰ͕ĂŶĚŵŽƐƚƌĞĐĞŶƚůǇŽŶEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϰ͕ϮϬϭϳ͘dŚĞŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů dƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇ;d&ͿǁĂƐĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚďǇǁŚŝůĞƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ ŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŵĞƌŝĐĂ;ͿĨƌŽŵϭϵϵϳƵŶƚŝůϮϬϭϲĂŶĚƌĞĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚƵŶĚĞƌKŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŽŶ :ĂŶƵĂƌǇϭϮ͕ϮϬϭϵ͘d&DĞĚŝĐĂůĂŶĚDĞŶƚĂů,ĞĂůƚŚ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐǁĞƌĞĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞEĂƚŝŽŶĂůŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ŽŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů,ĞĂůƚŚĂƌĞ;E,Ϳ͕ƚŚĞŝŶŝƚŝĂůĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶŝŶKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϬϬϰ͕ĂŶĚŵŽƐƚƌĞĐĞŶƚůǇŝŶ ƉƌŝůϮϬϭϴ͘dŚĞd&ŝƐĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĞĚĂƐĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞWƌŝƐŽŶZĂƉĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶĐƚĂƐŽĨ:ƵůǇϮϵ͕ϮϬϭϲ͘
dŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ,ĞĂůƚŚ;,ĞĂůƚŚͿĐŽŶĚƵĐƚƐŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞ͘͘:Ăŝů͕ĂƐƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚ ƚŚĞƵĚŝƚŽƌ͛ƐƌĞƉŽƌƚ͕ƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͛Ɛ,ĞĂůƚŚZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ>ŝĐĞŶƐŝŶŐĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ,ĞĂůƚŚ ĂƌĞ&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ;,&ͿƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŝǌĞĚĨŽƌŵƚŽĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂƐĚĞĨŝŶĞĚďǇƚŚĞŵĞƌŝĐĂŶWƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂůƚŚƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ;W,ͿĂŶĚƚŚĞŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ;Ϳ͘/ŶĐŽŶĚƵĐƚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕,ĞĂůƚŚĂƉƉůŝĞƐƚŚĞW,ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĨŽƌĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů ĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ĂůƚŚŽƵŐŚ͘͘KĨĨŝĐŝĂůŽĚĞΑϳͲϳϯϭ;ĂͲϭͿĚŽĞƐŶŽƚƐĞƚŽƵƚǁŚĂƚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ;ƐͿƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĂƉƉůŝĞĚ ǁŚĞŶĐŽŶĚƵĐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͘ĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞW,ŝƐŶŽƚĂŶĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚŝŶŐĂŐĞŶĐǇ͕ŝƚŝƐW,͛ƐƉŽůŝĐǇƚŚĂƚ ĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚE,ĂƐŝƚŝƐƚŚĞŐŽůĚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŝŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů ŚĞĂůƚŚ͘ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞW,͕ƚŚĞE,ŚĂƐĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐƚŚĂƚĂůŝŐŶǁŝƚŚW, ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͖ƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ĂĐŚŝĞǀŝŶŐE,ĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶŝƐĂĐŚŝĞǀŝŶŐƐƵďƐƚĂŶƚŝĂůĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚ W,ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘ƐŵĞŶƚŝŽŶĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ƚŚĞ͘͘:ĂŝůǁĂƐĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚďǇE,ŝŶKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϬϬϭĂŶĚ ƌĞĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚŝŶƉƌŝůϮϬϭϴ͘dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ƚŚĞ:ĂŝůŝƐŝŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚW,^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐƉĞƌƚŚĞW,͘
&ŽƌŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶĂĚĞĐĂĚĞ͕ƚŚĞKǁĂƐǁĞůůďĞůŽǁƚŚĞŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůĂǀĞƌĂŐĞĨŽƌƐƵŝĐŝĚĞƐŝŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů ĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞƌĞǁĂƐĂƐƵĚĚĞŶŽĐĐƵƌƌĞŶĐĞŽĨĂĐůƵƐƚĞƌŽĨƐƵŝĐŝĚĞƐŝŶϮϬϭϯ͕ƉƌŽŵƉƚŝŶŐƚŚĞ ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƚŽŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇďƌŝŶŐŝŶĞǆƉĞƌƚĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂŶƚ>ŝŶĚƐĂǇD͘,ĂǇĞƐĂŶĚĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĂ^ƵŝĐŝĚĞWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ dĂƐŬ&ŽƌĐĞƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŐŝŶ͗;ϭͿŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐƚŚĞĂďŝůŝƚǇƚŽŝĚĞŶƚŝĨǇŚŝŐŚͲƌŝƐŬŝŶŵĂƚĞƐ͕;ϮͿĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐŵŽƌĞƐƵŝĐŝĚĞͲ ƌĞƐŝƐƚĂŶƚũĂŝůƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ͕;ϯͿŝŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚ;ϰͿƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚĞŶŝŶŐK͛Ɛ ĐƵůƚƵƌĞŽĨƐƵŝĐŝĚĞƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂƐƌĞĨůĞĐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĂŐĞŶĐǇ͛ƐŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚKWŽůŝĐǇϲϬϴϬ͘Ϯ'͕^ƵŝĐŝĚĞ WƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ͘ϭͿ/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞdĂƐŬ&ŽƌĐĞ͕ƚŚĞKƌĞŐƵůĂƌůǇƚƌĂŝŶƐŽƵƌƐƚĂĨĨŝŶƚŚĞ ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨďĞŚĂǀŝŽƌƐƚŚĂƚŵĂǇŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞĂƌŝƐŬŽĨƐƵŝĐŝĚĞ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƉƌŽƚŽĐŽůƐĨŽƌƐƵŝĐŝĚĞ ƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ͘dŚŝƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽĂĐůƵƐƚĞƌŽĨƐƵŝĐŝĚĞƐĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞƐƚŚĞĂŐĞŶĐǇ͛Ɛ ĐŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĂďŝůŝƚǇƚŽŝĚĞŶƚŝĨǇĂŶĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐĨŽƌŝŶŵĂƚĞƐĂĨĞƚǇ ĂŶĚǁĞůůͲďĞŝŶŐ͘
II. Official Action to Ensure that the Maintenance and Repair of the D.C. Jail Meet Industry and Constitutional Standards for Conditions of Confinement
dŚĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ͘͘ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ;KͿŝƐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂƐĂĨĞ͕ƐĞĐƵƌĞ͕ŽƌĚĞƌůǇ͕ĂŶĚ ŚƵŵĂŶĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŽŶĨŝŶĞŵĞŶƚŽĨƉƌĞƚƌŝĂůĚĞƚĂŝŶĞĞƐĂŶĚƐĞŶƚĞŶĐĞĚŝŶŵĂƚĞƐ͕ǁŚŝůĞĂĨĨŽƌĚŝŶŐ

ϭŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬĚŽĐ͘ĚĐ͘ŐŽǀͬƉƵďůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͬƐƵŝĐŝĚĞͲƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶͲĂŶĚͲŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

20

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 75 of 260

ƚŚŽƐĞŝŶĐƵƐƚŽĚǇŵĞĂŶŝŶŐĨƵůƌĞŚĂ ŝůŝƚĂƚŝǀĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĨŽƌƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇƌĞŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘ŝŝ Ɛ ŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝƐĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƚĞĚƌĞƉĞĂƚĞĚůǇƚŽƐƚĂĨĨ͕ĂŶĚŝƐĐĂƌƌŝĞĚŽƵƚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŶƵŵĞƌŽƵƐ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ ϮͿ/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĂŶĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚƉƌŽŵŽƚĞƐƐĂĨĞƚǇĨŽƌŝŶŵĂƚĞƐ͕ƐƚĂĨĨ͕ǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐĂŶĚ ƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĂƚůĂƌŐĞ͕ƚŚĞKĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂƌĞĂƉůĂĐĞŚĞƌĞ ǁĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐĂŶĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƚŽ ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŝŶŵĂƚĞĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚũŽďƐ ŝůůůĞǀĞůƐ͕ĂŶĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚĂƚĞƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇƌĞŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘K ĂůƐŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐŝŶŵĂƚĞƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůĂŶĚŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŝ ƚǇ,ĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞ͕ĂƉƌĞŵŝĞƌĞĂŶĚ ƌĞƐƉĞĐƚĞĚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŚĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƌ͕ƚŚĂƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĚĂŝůǇĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƐŝĐ ĐĂůů͕ϮϰͬϳƵƌŐĞŶƚĐĂƌĞ͕ŝŶͲ ŚŽƵƐĞĂŶĚŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůƚǇĐĂƌĞ͕ĨƵůůƉŚĂƌŵĂĐĞƵƚŝĐĂůƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂŶĚŚŽƐƉŝƚĂůƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ĚĞŶƚĂůĐĂƌĞ͕ĂŶĚ ,/sͬ ^ƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘DĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƉƐǇĐŚŝĂƚƌŝĐĂŶĚƉƐǇĐŚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůĐĂƌĞ͕ĐůŝŶŝĐĂů ƐŽĐŝĂůŽ ƌĞ ƌƐ͕ŐƌŽƵƉƚŚĞƌĂƉǇĂŶĚŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůĐŽƵŶƐĞůŝŶŐ͕ƐƵ ƐƚĂŶĐĞĂ ƵƐĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͕ĂŶŶ ƚĞŶƐŝǀĞDĞŶƚĂů ,ĞĂůƚŚ ŝƚ͕ĂŶĚĂĞƉ ŽŶ ĞŶƚĂů,ĞĂůƚŚŝ ƚ KƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐŚŝ ĐŚŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ĂĚƵůƚĂƐŝ ĐĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ ͕ĐŽůůĞŐĞĐŽƵƌƐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚǀŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĂůƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͕ĂƐĞ ůůĂƐũŽďƌĞĂĚŝŶĞƐƐƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ dŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĂůƐŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƌĞůŝŐŝŽƵƐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐĂŶĚĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌŝŶŵĂƚĞƌĞůŝŐŝŽƵƐĞů ŝĞĨƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ƌĞůŝŐŝŽƵƐĚŝĞƚƐ͕ĐůŽƚŚŝŶŐĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌŝƚĞŵƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞŽĨĨĂŝƚŚĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚŝ ƚŚƚŚĞ ƐĂĨĞƚǇĂŶĚƐĞĐƵƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͘Ŷ ŵĂƚĞƐŚĂǀĞƌĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ͕ŽƵƚŽĨĐĞůůĂĐƚŝǀŝƚǇ͕ƚĞůĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ͕ůŝ ƌĂƌǇĐĂƌƚ ƌĞĂĚŝŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͕ĐŽŵŵŝƐƐĂƌǇ͕ƐŽĐŝĂůǀŝƐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ϮϰͬϳůĞŐĂůǀŝƐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƚĞůĞƉŚŽŶĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ;ƐŽĐŝĂůĂŶĚůĞŐĂů ĐĂůůƐͿ͕ŵĂŝůƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ;ƌĞŐƵůĂƌĂŶĚůĞŐĂůͿ͕ĐĂƐĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ůĂ ůŝďƌĂƌǇƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ŐƌŽŽŵŝŶŐ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚŝŶŵĂƚĞƐŵĂǇŐƌŝĞǀĞĂŶǇĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐŽƌĐŽŵƉůĂŝŶƚƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞŶ ŵĂƚĞƌŝ ĞǀĂŶĐĞWƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐ ;ŵĞĚŝĐĂůĂŶĚƌĞŐƵůĂƌͿ ĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚŝŶŐŽƵƌĐŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚƚŽƌĞŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞ:Ăŝů͛ƐƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ ůĂƌŐĞƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͕ƚŚĞK͛ƐŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚŝŶĐŽůůĞŐĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐĂŶĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨǀŽƚŝŶŐ ǇŝŶŵĂƚĞƐ ĂƌĞƌĞĐŽŐŶŝǌĞĚŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůůǇĂƐƉĂƚŚͲďƌĞĂŝ ŶŐĂŶĚƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐŝǀĞ͘
ůůŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ŚĞƌĞƚŚĞƌĞǁĂƐĂŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞĚĂŝůǇƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŽĨϭϭϳϯƚŽ ϭϯ ĨƌŽŵϮϬϭϱƚŽϮϬϭϴ͘ŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞŽĨƚĞ ůǀĞƚŚŽƵƐĂŶĚ;ϭϮ͕ϬϬϬͿŝŶŵĂƚĞƐĐŽŵĞƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞ.C JĂŝů ĂŶŶƵĂůůǇ͕ƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌĂƌŽďƵƐƚƉƌĞǀĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞƉůĂŶĨŽƌƚŚĞƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůƉůĂŶƚĂŶĚĂ ƉƌŝŽƌŝƚǇƚƌŝĂŐŝŶŐƐǇƐƚĞŵĨŽƌŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞƌĞƉĂŝƌƐ Ğ ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂĐƚŝǀŝƚǇǀŽůƵŵĞ͕ŚŝŐŚƚƵƌŶŽǀĞƌ͕ĂŶĚ Ϯϰ ϳŽĐĐƵƉĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ͘͘:ĂŝůƚƌĂŶƐůĂƚĞƐƚŽĂĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇŚŽ ƐĞƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůƉůĂŶƚŝƐƵŶĚĞƌĐŽŶƐƚĂŶƚƵƐĂŐĞĂŶĚ ƐƚƌĂŝŶĂƐƌĞĨůĞĐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƌĞŽĐĐƵƌƌĞŶĐĞŽĨĨĂƵůƚǇƉůƵŵďŝŶŐĨŝƚ ƵƌĞƐĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞĂŶĚƌĞƉĂŝƌƐ Śŝ ĐŚ͕ŽŶĐĞĨŝǆĞĚ͕ƌĞŽĐĐƵƌĞůƐĞ ŚĞƌĞŝŶƚŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͘dŚĞ͘͘ ĂŝůŚĂƐĂůĂƌŐĞĂŶĚĐŽŵƉůĞ ƉůƵŵďŝŶŐ ƐǇƐƚĞŵƚŚĂƚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐĂůůĂƐƉĞĐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŵŵŽŶĂƌĞĂƐŽĨƚŚĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐ͕ƐƵĐŚ ĂƐƐŚŽĞ ƌƐ͕ĂƐĞ ůůĂƐŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůůǇƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐϭϯ ĐĞůůƐ͕ĞĂĐŚŝ ƚŚŝƚƐŽŶ ƐŝŶ ĂŶĚƚŽŝůĞƚ͘dŚŝƐĞ ƚĞŶƐŝǀĞ ĨŽŽƚĂŐĞŽĨƉůƵŵďŝŶŐĂŶĚůĂƌŐĞŶƵŵĞ ƌŽĨĨŝƚƵƌ ĞƐŝƐƌĞĨůĞĐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƌƚŝŽŶĂƚĞƌĂƚŝŽŽĨƉůƵŵďŝŶŐ ƌĞƉĂŝƌƐĐŝƚĞĚŝŶ,ĞĂůƚŚŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƚŚĞĨĂĐƚƚŚĂƚƐŝŵŝůĂƌƉƌŽďůĞŵƐƌĞŽĐĐƵƌŝŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚĐĞůůƐĂĨƚĞƌ ƌĞƉĂŝƌ ƐƐƵĐŚ͕ƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƉůƵŵďŝŶŐĨŝƚ ƵƌĞƐŶĞĞĚŝŶŐƌĞƉĂŝƌĚŽĞƐŶŽƚƌĞĨůĞĐƚĂĨĂŝůƵƌĞƚŽƌĞƉĂŝƌƚŚĞŵ ŝŶĂƚŝŵĞůǇŵĂŶŶĞƌ͕Ƶ ƚƌĂƚŚĞƌƚŚĂƚĂŶŽƚŚĞƌŶĞĞĚŽĐĐƵƌƌĞĚŝŶĂŶŽƚŚĞƌĐĞůůŝŶƚŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͕ƌĞƵ ŝƌŝŶŐ ĐŽŶƐƚĂŶƚŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞĂŶĚƵƉĞ ĞƉĂŶĚƌĞŽĐĐƵƌƌŝŶŐŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞĐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘
EŽƚĂů Ǉ͕ŝĨƚŚĞƉůƵŵďŝŶŐŝŶĂĐĞůůŝƐŶŽƚŽƉĞƌĂ ůĞ͕ŽƌŝĨƚŚĞƌŽŽĨůĞĂƐ ŝŶƚŽĂĐĞůů͕ƚŚĞĐĞůůŝƐŶŽƚŽĐĐƵƉŝĞĚǇ  ĂŶŝŶŵĂƚĞƵŶƚŝůĨŝǆĞĚ͖ƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ŝŶŵĂƚĞƐĂƌĞŶŽƚƐƵ ũĞĐƚĞĚƚŽĂŶǇĚĞƉƌŝǀĂƚŝŽŶƐŽƌŚĂƌŵŚŝ ůĞĨŝǆƚƵƌĞƐ ĂƌĞŝŶŽƉĞƌĂů ĞŽƌƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂůĞĂ ͘
ƚƚŚĞ͘͘Ăŝ ů͕ŵŽƐƚŽĨƚŚĞ ϴŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐŚĂǀĞϴƐŚŽǁĞƌƐ͕ƚŽƚĂůŝŶŐϭϯϮƐŚŽǁĞƌƐ͕ƐŝŵŝůĂƌůǇƌĞĨůĞĐƚŝŶŐĂ ƉƌŽƉŽƌƚŝŽŶĂůŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨŶĞĞĚĞĚƐŚŽĞ ƌƌĞƉĂŝƌƐĂƚĂŶǇŐŝǀĞŶƚŝŵĞ Ğƌ ĞĨŽƌĞ͕ŽŶĞĂĐŚƵŶŝƚ͕ŝĨĂƐŚŽĞ ƌ ĨŝƚƵƌ ĞƌĞƵ ŝƌĞƐƌĞƉĂŝƌ͕ŝŶŵĂƚĞƐŚĂǀĞƵƉƚŽϳŽƚŚĞƌƐŚŽĞ ƌƐƚŽƵƐĞ͕ƚŚƵƐŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌŶĞĞĚƐ ^ŚŽĞ ƌ ƌĞƉĂŝƌƐĂƌĞŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝǌĞĚ ǇŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚƌĞƉĂŝƌƐĂƌĞƚĂƌŐĞƚĞĚĨŽƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶŝ ƚŚŝŶ ϮϰͲŚŽƵƌƐ;ĂĐƚƵĂůĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶƚŝŵĞŽĨĐŽƵƌƐĞĚĞƉĞŶĚƐƵƉŽŶƚŚĞĐŽŵƉůĞŝ ƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƌĞƉĂŝƌͿ. TherĞĂƌĞƐŽŵĞ

ϮŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬĚŽĐĚ ĐŽǀ ͬƉĂŐĞŽ ĐͲƉƌŽŐƌĂŵͲƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐ

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

21

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 76 of 260

ƐŚŽǁĞĂĞĂ ƐƚŚĂƚƐƵĞ ŽŵĂŶƵŵďĞ ŽƐƚ Ƶ ƚƵĂů ĂŶĚ ĞŚĂŶ ŝĂů Ğŝ ŝ ĞŶŝ ĞƐ͕ƐƵŚ ĂƐŽƌŝ ŝŶĂů ƉůƵŵďŝŶŐƐ ƐƚĞ ƐƚŚĂƚĂĞ Ğ ƉĞŝ ĞŶŝ ŶŐĞŶ ͲŽĨͲůŝĞ Ăŝ ůƵĞƐ 
dŚĞƵƌ ĞŶƚ HVAƐǇƐƚĞŵŚĂƐƐŝŐŶŝŝ ĂŶ ƚĚĞƐŝŐŶƉ ŽďůĞŵƐƚŚĂƚŝŶŚŝďŝƚƉŽ ƉĞ Ăŝƌů ŽǁĂŶĚƚĞŵƉĞĂ ƚƵĞ Ž Ŷƚ ŽůƐ͘/ŶůŝŐŚƚŽƚ ŚĞ,sŝƐƐƵĞƐĞ ƉĞŝ ĞŶĞŝ ŶƚŚĞƐƵ ŵĞ ŽϮ Ϭϭϲ͕Kŝŝ ŶŽ ŶƵ Ŷƚŝ ŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ ͘͘ ĞƉĂ ƚŵĞŶƚŽ ŶĞĂ ů ServŝĐĞƐ;'^Ϳ͕Ž ŵƉůĞƚĞĚĂŶĞĞĚƐĂƐƐĞƐƐ ĞŶƚĂŶ  ĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚ ƐƚƵĚǇƚŽ ĞƉů ĂĞ ĂŶĚͬŽƌƵƉŐĂĚ ĞƚŚĞĞ ŝƐƚŝŶŐ HVAĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚĂŶ ĂƐƐŽŝ ĂƚĞ ŵĞŚĂŶ ŝĂů Ɛ ƐƚĞŵƐ Ă Ğ ƐƵůƚ  Ɖŝ Ž ƚŽƚŚĞƐƵŵŵĞ Ž ϮϬϭϳƚƚ ŚĞ KŝŶƐƚĂůůĞƚ ǁŽŶĞǁǁĂƚĞ Śŝ ůůĞƐ ĂŶĚ ĞƉůĂ ĞƚŚĞ ƌŽŽƚ ŽƉůĂŐ ĞĂŝƌ ƐƵƉƉůǇĚƵƚƐ ͘KǁĂƐĂ ůĞƚŽ Ğŝ ŶƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŽ ŵŽǀŝŶŐƚŚĞƐǇƐƚĞŵƌ ŽŵĂŵĂŶƵĂůŽ Ŷƚ ŽůƚŽ ĞĂůͲ ƚŝŵĞŝ ŐŝƚŝǌĞ ŽŶƚ Žů͘ Kŝŝ ŶŽ ŶƵ Ŷƚŝ ŽŶǁŝƚŚ'^͕ĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƐƚŽǁŽ ƚŽǁĂƐ ,sŝŵƉŽ ǀĞŵĞŶƚƐƚŽ ŝŶĞĂƐĞ ƚŚĞů ŽǁŽ ĂŝƌƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞĂŝ ůŝƚ ͘DŽĞ ŽǀĞဠ KŵŽŶŝƚŽƐŝ ŶĚŽŽƌƚĞ ƉĞ ĂƚƵ ĞƐĚĂŝůǇĂŶĚ  ǁŚĞŶƚĞŵƉĞĂƚƵ ĞƐ ĂĞ ĂƉƉŽ ĂŚ ŝŶ ĂŶƵŶĂĞ ƉƚĂů ĞĂŶ Ğ KŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĞ ƐƚĂĂƵ ƐƚƐƚŚĞ ƚĞŵƉĞĂƚƵĞ WĞ ƚŚĞĞƚƚ Ğ WƌĂƚŝ ĐĞ>&ͲϭͲϮϬ͕ƚŚĞƚĞŵƉĞĂƚƵ ĞĂƚKĂŝ ůŝƚŝĞƐŝƐĂŝ ƐĞŽ ƌ ůŽǁĞĞƚ ŽĂĞĞ ƉƚĂů ĞĐŽŵŽ ƚ ůĞ ĞůƐ͕ƚŚƵƐƚŚĞĂǀĞĂ ĞĚĂŝůǇƚĞŵƉĞĂƚƵ ĞŝŶƚŚĞ:ĂŝůŝƐǁŝƚŚŝŶŶŽƌŵĂů ĂŶ ŐĞƐ͘  WĞ ƉĞ ƚĞ ĚWĂĐ ƚŝĞ ϰͲ>&ͲϰͲϬϮƚƚ ŚĞĨŽŽĚƉ ĞƉĂĂƚŝ ŽŶĂ ĞĂŝŶů ƵĚĞƐƐƉĂĐĞĂŶĚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ Ž Ž ŽĚƉ ĞƉĂ ĂƚŝŽŶĂƐĞ ŽŶƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŝǌĞ ƚǇƉĞŽĨ ŽŽĚƉĞƉ ĂĂƚŝ ŽŶ͕ĂŶĚ ĞƚŚŽĚƐŽ ŵĞĂůƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ĞĞ Ă ĞƐĂŶŝƚĂ Ǉ͕ƚĞŵƉĞ ĂƚƵ ĞͲŽ ŶƚŽ ůůĞĂ ĞĂƐ Ž ƌ ŽŽĚƐƚŽĂŐ e. WĞĞů ǇŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐĂŶ Ăŝ ůǇ ŝŶƐƉĞƚŝ ŽŶƐĂĞ Ž ŶĚƵƚ Ğ ƚŽĞŶƐƵĞ ƚŚĂƚů ĞĂŶůŝŶĞƐƐĂŶĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĂĞ ŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞŝ ŶƚŚĞŝ ƚŚĞŶ  ƵůŝŶĂϿ ƐƚĂ ŚĂƐĂŶĂƐƐŝŐŶĞĞ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůŽŝŝ ĐĞ ĂŶĚĞŶǀŝŽŶ ŵĞŶƚĂůĞƚĂŝ ůƐŽŶĞĂŚ ƐŚŝĨƚ ^ŽŵĞ ŝŶŵĂƚĞƐĞǀĞŶƉĂƚŝ ŝ ƉĂƚĞŝŶƵů ŝŶĂϿ ƚĂŝ ŶŝŶŐůĞĂ ŝŶŐƚŽŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůůǇͲƌĞ ŽŐŶŝǌĞĞ ƌƚŝŝ Ăƚŝ ŽŶĂŶ  ŽďͲ ĞĂ ŝŶĞƐƐƵƉŽŶƚŚĞŝƌ ĞůĞĂƐĞ 
ŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚDĂŶĚĂƚŽƌǇƉƉ Ğƚ Ğ Ă ƚŝ ĐĞϰͲ>&ͲϰͲϭϭ͕ƚŚĞ ĞŝƐ ŽƵ ŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ǇĂŶ ŝŶĚĞƉĞŶ ĞŶƚƐŽƵĞĞ ͕͘͘ ĞĂůƚŚƚ ŚĂƚĨŽŽ ƐĞǀ ŝĞ Ă ŝ ůŝƚŝĞƐĂŶĚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚŵĞĞƚĞƐƚĂ ůŝƐŚĞ  ŐŽǀĞŶ ŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚƐĂĞƚ  ŽĚĞƐt ŚĞŶƚŚĞ ĞĂ ĞĂŶǇ Ğŝ ŝ ĞŶŝ ĞƐ ĐŽĞĞ ƚŝ ǀĞĂƚŝ ŽŶŝƐƚĂĞ Ŷ ŝŵŵĞŝ ĂƚĞůǇ͘Ăů ƚŚƵƚŝůŝǌĞƐƚŚĞĨŽŽĚƐĞƚŝ ŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ HCFŝŶƐƉĞ ƚŝŽŶƌĞƉŽƌƚƚŽŝŶƐƉĞƚ ƚŚĞĐƵůŝŶĂϿ ĂĞĂ ĂŶĚŽĨĨŝĐĞƌƐ͛ĚŝŶŝŶŐƌŽŽŵ͘ůůďƌŽŬĞŶĞƵ ŝƉŵĞŶƚŝƐĞ ƉĂŝƌĞ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ϴŚŽƵƐဢ Ğ ŽŶůǇĞĞĞ ƉƚŝŽŶŝƐ ǁŚĞŶĞƵ ŝƉŵĞŶƚƉĂƚ ƐĂĞ ƵŶĂ ĂŝůĂ ůĞĂŶ ƚŚĞŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĞ ǀĞŶ Ž ŵƵƐƚĞ ůǇŽŶƚŚĞŵĂŶƵĂƚƵĞ ƚŽ ƐƵƉƉůǇŶĞǁƉĂ ƚƐ͘
KŚĂƐĂǀĞ ŵŝŶĂŶ ƉĞƐƚ ŽŶƚ ŽůƉůĂŶƚŚĂƚŝŶů ƵĚĞƐŵŽŶƚŚůǇŝŶƐƉĞƚŝ ŽŶƐϿ Ă ƵĂůŝŝ Ğ ƉĞƐŽ ŶĂŶ  ƵƚŝůŝǌĞƐƚŚĞĨŽŽĚƐĞƚŝ ŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ ŝŶƐƉĞƚ ŝŽŶĞ ƉŽƚ ĂƐĂŵĞĂƐƵ ĞƚŽŝŶƐƉĞƚ ƚŚĞ ƵůŝŶĂϿ ĂĞĂ ĂŶ  ŽĨĨŝĐĞƌƐ͛ĚŝŶŝŶŐƌŽŽŵ͘KŚĂƐĂŶĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĚĞƚĂŝůĚĞĚŝĂƚĞ ĚĞ ů ƵƐŝǀĞůǇƚŽƚŚĞƵů ŝŶĂϿ ƚĞĂ ŽŶ ĞĂŚƐŚŝ ƚဠ ĚĂŝůǇ. ThiƐƚĞĂŵŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƐ ůĞĂŶůŝŶĞƐƐĂŶĚƐĂŶŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘ƐĂŶĂ ĚĞů ĞǀĞůŽƉ ŽƚĞƚŝ ŽŶ͕K ŚĂƐŚĂ ĂĐŽŶƚĂƚ ǁŝƚŚĂƉĞƐƚ ŽŶƚ Žů ŽŵƉĂŶǇ ŽƐ ĞǀĞĂů ǇĞĂ s. InƚŚĞƉĂƐƚ ǁŚĞŶĂƉĞƐƚĐŽŶƚ Žů Ž ŵƉĂŶǇŚĂƐďĞĞŶƵŶĂ ůĞƚŽŽďƚĂŝŶƐĂƚŝƐĂƚ ŽƌǇĞ ƐƵůƚƐ ƚŚĞĂĞŶ ĐǇŚĂƐƚĞ ŵŝŶĂƚĞƚŚĂƚ Ž ŶƚĂ ƚ ĂŶ  ŝŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞĚĂŶĞǁŽŶĞǁŝƚŚĂŝ ĨĞĞŶƚ Ž ŵƉĂŶǇǁŝƚŚĂ ǀŽĂď ůĞĞƐƵů ƚƐ͘
/ŶϮϬϭϳ͕ŝŶĞ ƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽŝƐƐƵĞƐŝ ƚĞŝ ŶƚŚĞĂů ƚŚƌĞƉŽƚ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽŽ ŽĚƐĞǀ ŝĐĞƚƚ ŚĞKƵŶĚĞ ƚŽŽŬĂ ƐĞ ĞĂů ǁĞĞŬƐ͛ůŽŶŐĞ ŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶŽƚ ŚĞŽ ŽĚƐĞǀ ŝĞ Ă ĞĂƚŚĂƚŝŶů ƵĚĞ ƚŚĞ ĞƉůĂĞ ŵĞŶƚŽĨ Ă Ž ĞƵ ŝƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƚŚĞŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂŶĞǁƉĞƐƚĐŽŶƚŽ ůǀĞŶ Žƌ͕ǁŚŝŚ ŚĂƐ ŝĞůĚĞƉŽ ƐŝƚŝǀĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐ 
/Ŷ Ϭϭϴ͕ƚŚĞK ŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶŽŶ Ğǁ ŽŽŝ ŶŐ͘ǀĞŶǁŝƚŚĂŶĞǁŽ Žf, hŽǁĞǀĞဠ ůĞĂƐ ĂŶ ĂŶ  Ž Žccur͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚŽƐĞĨƌŽŵƐŽƵĞƐ ŽƚŚĞ ƚŚĂŶƚŚĞŽ ŽĨ͘/Ŷ Ϭϭϵ͕ƚŚĞKŝƐǁŽŝŝ ŶŐǁŝƚŚ '^ƚŽ Ž ŶƚŝŶƵĞƐƚƵƚƵ Ăů ĞƉĂŝƐ ƚŽĂ Ğ ƐƐǁĂƚĞƌƉĞŶĞƚĂ ƚŝŽŶŝŶƚŽƚŚĞĂŝ ůŝƚǇϿ ǁĂǇŽƚ ŚĞĂĞĞ ĂŶ  ǁŝŶ ŽǁƐ͘Ŷ ƚĞŝ Žƌ ŽŽĨůĞĂ ƐĂĞ ƌĞƉĂŝĞĚ ŝŶĂƚŝŵĞůǇ ĂŶŶĞဠ ďƵƚŚĂ ĞĞ ŽĐƵƌ ĞĚ ŝŶĚŝĨĨĞĞŶƚ ĂĞĂƐ Ž ƚŚĞĂŝ ůŝƚǇƵ ĞƚŽƚŚĞĂ ĞŽƚ ŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ĚĞƐƉŝƚĞŽŶŐŽŝŶŐŝ ůŝŐĞŶƚ ĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶ Ğ͘/ŶĞŶĞĂů ͕

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

22

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 77 of 260

ƐƵƉĞƌĂŶŶƵĂƚĞĚƵ ŝůĚŝŶŐƐƐƌŝ ŶŐŵŽƌĞƌŽŽĨůĞĂ ƐƚŚĂŶŶĞ Ƶ ŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͖ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ ƌĞƉĂŝƌƐĂƌĞŵĂĚĞŝŝ ĐŬůǇ͕ ĂŶĚĂŶ ĞĨĨĞĐƚƐŽĨƚƚ ĞƌŽŶƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐƚƌ Đƚƌ ĞĂŶĚƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ͕ƐĐŚ ĂƐƚŚĞŝŶĨƌĞ ƵĞŶƚ ŽĐĐƌƌ ĞŶĐĞŽĨŵŽůĚ͕ĂƌĞŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚĂŶĚĂ ĂƚĞĚŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇ͘
III. Certified Accredited Medical and Mental Health Care Meet Correctional Standards of Excellence
KDĞĚŝĐĂůĂŶĚ ĞŶƚĂů ĞĂůƚŚ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂƌĞŽ ƚŚĂŶĚ ,ĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚ͘ ŽƚŚĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚŝŶŐĂŐĞŶĐŝĞƐ ƌĞ ŝƌĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚŝŶƚĂĞ ƐĐƌĞĞŶŝŶŐƐĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĐĞƌƚĂŝŶĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŽŶ Ğƚ ŚĞƌĂŶŝŶŵĂƚĞŚĂƐĞǀĞƌŚĂĚĂŚŝƐƚŽƌ ŽĨƐĞŝǌƵƌĞƐŽƌŚĞĂĚƚƌĂ ŵĂĂƐ  ĞůůĂƐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŽŶĂŶ ŝŶŵĂƚĞ͛ƐŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŝŵĞĂŶĚƐƉĂĐĞĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂůůĂƉƉĞĂƌĂŶĐĞ͘dŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŝƐĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚϿ ƚŚĞ ŵĞĚŝĐĂůŝŶƚĂĞ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇƌŝ ŽƌƚŽƚŚĞŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚŝŶƚĂĞ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĂŶĚŝƐƌĞĐŽƌĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ ƉĂƚŝĞŶƚĐŚĂƌƚĨŽƌŵĞĚŝĐĂůĂŶĚŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚ͛ƐƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĂŶĚƵƐĞ͘ĞĐĂƐ ĞŽĨƚŚŝƐƚƚ ŚĞƐĂŵĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ŝƐŶŽƚƐŽůŝĐŝƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚŝŶƚĂŬĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐƚŚĂƚŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇĨŽůůŽǁŵĞĚŝĐĂůŝŶƚĂŬĞ͛ƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐ ĂŶĚĚŽĐŵ ĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘ŝ ůĞƚŚĞ ĚŝƚƐĞ Đů ĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚƉƌŽďůĞŵƐĐŽƵůĚĂƌŝƐĞŝŶƚŚĞŚǇƉŽƚŚĞƚŝĐĂůƐŝƚĂƚŝ ŽŶ ĞƌĞ ŝŶƚŚĞŵĞĚŝĐĂůŝŶƚĂĞ ƐĐƌĞĞŶŝŶŐĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƐĐŚ ĂƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽŝƐƉƵƌĞůǇƐĞĐů ĂƚŝǀĞĂŶĚŶ ůŝŬĞůǇƚŽ ŽĐĐƵƌŐŝǀĞŶK͛ƐĐůŽƐĞŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚŽĨŚĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ĂƐŶŽƚĞĚ ƚŚĞ ĚŝƚŽƌ͕ĂŶĚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞĨĂĐƚ ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĂĐƚŝ ĐĞŚĂƐĞ ĞŶƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚĂŶĚŵĞĞƚƐE ĂŶĚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘EŽƚĞǁŽƌƚŚǇŝƐƚŚĂƚK Ă ƚŽŵĂƚŝĐĂůůǇƐĐƌĞĞŶƐĂůůŝŶŵĂƚĞƐĂƚŝŶƚĂ ĞĨŽƌǀŽůƵŶƚĂƌ ,/sƚĞƐƚŝŶŐƐƐĞƌǀŝŶŐĂƐŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞůĂƌŐĞƐƚ ƐĐƌĞĞŶĞƌƐŝŶƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ĂŶĚƌŽ ǀŝĚĞƐ/ sͬ ƐŵĞĚŝĐĂůƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĂƐ ĞůůĂƐ sͬ ƐĐŽƵŶƐĞůŝŶŐĂŶĚ ĞĚ ĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘
IV. Budgeting for a New Jail
dŚĞDĂ Žƌ ĞƵ ƚǇ Ă ŽƌĨŽƌWƵďůŝĐ^ĂĨĞƚǇĂŶĚƵ ƐƚŝĐĞ ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌŽĨKĂŶĚƚŚĞ͘͘ŽƵŶĐŝůĂůůŚĂǀĞ ĂĐŶŽ ǁůĞĚŐĞĚƚŚĂƚĂŶĞ ĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚ ŝƐĚĞƐŝƌĂďůĞ͘ƐƚŚĞƵĚŝƚŽƌ͛ƐƌĞƉŽƌƚŶŽƚĞĚ͕ƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ŝƐůŽŽŝ ŶŐĂƚĂůůŽƉƚŝŽŶƐŽĨŚŽǁƚŽĨŶ ĚĂŶĞ :Ăŝů͕ŝŶĐů ĚŝŶŐƚŚĞŽ ƐƐŝďŝůŝƚǇŽĨĂ ƵďůŝĐWƌŝǀĂƚĞ WĂƌƚŶĞƌƐŚŝƉ;Wϯ Ɛ ĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞ&z ϬϭϵƵ ĚŐĞƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌ ŽĐĞƐƐŝŝ ƚ ĂƐĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚƚŚĂƚĂWϯ ƉƌŽĞĐ ƚƐƐ ŶŽƚƚŚĞŵŽƐƚ ƌ ĚĞŶƚĐŽƵƌƐĞŽĨĂĐƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĞĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŝŶƐƚĞĂĚĐŚŽƐĞƚŽĨƵŶĚĂƐƚĚ Ǉ ƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĚŽĐ ŵĞŶƚƚŚĞŶĞĞĚƐĨŽƌĂŶĞ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇŝŝ ŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ͗ŚŽǁŵĂŶǇĞ ŽƉůĞŝƚǁŝůůĞĚĞƐŝ ŐŶĞĚƚŽŚŽƵƐĞ͕ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐƐĂĐ Ğ ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŶĚĐĂ ĂĐŝƚ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ ŝŶKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϬϭϴ͕ƚŚĞ KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ Đƚŝŵƌ ǀŝĐĞƐĂŶĚƵ ƐƚŝĐĞĂŶ ƚƐ;Ks^:'ͿŝƐƐƵĞĚĂ ĞƵ ĞƐƚĨŽƌ ƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨ ŽƌĂŐƌĂŶƚĂ ĂƌĚ ŽĨ ƚŽΨϭϱϬ͕ϬϬϬƚŽĞŶŐĂŐĞĂŶŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƚŝŽŶƚŽďƵŝůĚƐƚĂĞ ŚŽůĚĞƌĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐŽůŝĐŝƚĨĞĞĚ ĂĐ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƚƌĐƚŝ ŽŶŽĨĂŶĞ ĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚ ŝŶƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŽĨŽůƵŵďŝĂ͘  ƚƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚŝŵĞƚƚ ŚĞ ĂǇŽƌŵĂĚĞŝƚĂĨŶ ĚŝŶŐƌŝ ŽƌŝƚǇƚŽŝŶǀĞƐƚŝŶŝŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐĂŶĚƉ ŐƌĂĚŝŶŐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ Ɛ ƐƚĞŵƐĂƚƚŚĞŝ ůͲďŽƚŚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƌĞŐ ůĂƌŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞĂŶĚŝŶƌĞƐ ŽŶƐĞƚŽŵŽƌĞĂĐ ƚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚ ŶĞĞĚƐ Ͳŝŝ ůĞƚŚĞĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŝŝ ƚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞƐů ƚƐŽĨƚŚĞƐƚĚ ǇŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉĂƌŽ ƉĞƌďƵĚŐĞƚĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞ ĨŽƌƚŚĞĂ ŝƚĂů ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚWůĂŶ;W Ϳ͘/ŶƚŚĞ WƐ ŵŝƚƚĞĚŝŶ ϮϬϭϵƚƚ ŚĞ ĂǇŽƌ͛ƐďƵĚŐĞƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ Ψϭϯ͘ ŵŝůůŝŽŶĨŽƌŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞĐƌ ƌĞŶƚĨŝƐĐĂůǇĞĂƌĂŶĚ ϲŵŝůůŝŽŶĨŽƌĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐŝŶ FY 2ϬϮϬ͘dŚĞ ϮϬϭϵʹ&zϮϬϮϬĨŶ ĚƐĂƌĞĨŽƌŐĞŶĞƌĂůƌĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶƐŽŽ ǁĞƌƐ ƐƚĞŵƉ ŐƌĂĚĞƐ Ğ ƚĞƌŝŽƌ ƐƚƌĐƚƌ ĂůĨŝŶŝƐŚŝŶŐĂŶĚ s ƌĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚǁŽƌ ĂƚƚŚĞ&͘  Ğ ĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŝƐĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŽĨŶ ĚŝŶŐŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞŶĞĞĚƐĂƚƚŚĞŝ ůǁŚŝůĞƚŚĞƐƚĚ ǇŝƐŽĐĐƌ ŝŶŐ ĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞ ŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌĂŶĞ ĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇĂƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚ ŝƚŚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚ ƌƌ ĞƚƵƌŶŝŶŐĐŝƚŝǌĞŶƐ ĂŶĚĐƌŝŵŝŶĂůƐƚŝ ĐĞƌĞĨŽƌŵĞ ƉĞƌƚƐ͛ŝŶƉƵƚ͘ƐĂƌĞƐů ƚ ƚŚĞŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞŶĞĞĚƐĨŽƌKǁŝůůďĞĚŝƐĐƐƐĞĚ ĂŶĚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚĨŽƌĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĨ ŶĚƐŝŶ ϬϮϬĂŶĚĞ ǇŽŶĚĂƐ ŝƐĚŽŶĞĨŽƌĂůůŵƵŶŝĐŝĂ ůĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂƐĂƌ ƚ ŽĨƚŚĞĂŶŶƵĂů ƵĚŐĞƚƌ ŽĐĞƐƐ͘&ƌŽŵϮϬϬϬʹϮϬϮϬKŚĂƐĞĞŶĂ ƌĚĞĚ ĂƚŽƚĂůŽĨΨϭ͘͘ ϯŵŝůůŝŽŶĨŽƌ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚ ŝŵƉƌŽǀŵĞŶƚƐŝŶŽ ƚŚƚŚĞKĂŶĚ'^Ƶ ĚŐĞƚƐ͘

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

23

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 78 of 260
 dŚĞĚĞƐŝƌĞƚŽďƵŝůĚĂŶĞǁũĂŝůŚĂƐďĞĞŶƌĞĨůĞĐƚĞĚďǇKŝŶƚŚĞŝƌŝŶŝƚŝĂůďƵĚŐĞƚƐƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͘ŐĞŶĐŝĞƐĂƌĞ ĞĐŽƵƌĂŐĞĚƚŽƐƵďŵŝƚĂŶǇĂŶĚĂůůŝĚĞĂƐ͕ƌĞŐĂƌĚůĞƐƐŽĨĨŝƐĐĂůĐŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶƚƐ͕ƐŽƚŚĞĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŚĂƐĂĨƵůů ǀŝĞǁŽĨĂůůŝĚĞĂƐƚŽŝŵƉƌŽǀĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐĂŶĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͘ŐĞŶĐŝĞƐĂƌĞŐŝǀĞŶƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌǇŶƵŵďĞƌƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞŶ ƚŚĞǇŵĂŬĞĐůĞĂƌǁŚĂƚŝƐĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůǇŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽĨƵůĨŝůůƚŚĞŝƌƐƚĂƚƵƚŽƌǇĚƵƚŝĞƐĂŶĚŵĞĞƚƉƌŝŽƌŝƚǇŐŽĂůƐ͘ ĞǇ ƚŚĞŶĞŶŐĂŐĞŝŶĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƌŽƵŶĚƐŽĨĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞKĨĨŝĐĞŽĨƵĚ ŐĞƚĂŶĚ ĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƐĞŶŝŽƌŽĨĨŝĐĂůƐǁŚŽŵƵƐƚďĂůĂŶĐĞƚŚĞŶĞĞĚƐĂŶĚŶĞǁƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐĂĐƌŽƐƐ ŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚĂŐĂŝŶƐƚĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͘ƐƚŚĞĞƉƵƚǇDĂǇŽƌĞ ƉůĂŝŶĞĚŝŶŚŝƐŝŶƚĞƌǀŝĞǁǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ ƵĚŝƚŽƌ͕ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐĨƌŽŵĂŐĞŶĐŝĞƐĐĂŶƐŽŵĞƚŝŵĞƐďĞƚǁŽƚŽƚŚƌĞĞƚŝŵĞƐƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞǇǁŽƵůĚ ƵůƚŝŵĂƚĞůǇƌĞĐĞŝǀĞ͘/ĨĂůůŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐǁĞƌĞĨƵůůĨŝůůĞĚ͕ƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞĂďůĞƚŽƐƵďŵŝƚĂ ďĂůĂŶĐĞĚďƵĚŐĞƚĂŶĚĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůƉůĂŶ͕ĂƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďǇůĂǁ͘  Ğ DĂǇŽƌƚƌĂŶƐŵŝƚƐŚĞƌďƵĚŐĞƚƚŽƚŚĞ͘͘ŽƵŶĐŝů͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝŶƚƵƌŶĚĞĐŝĚĞƐǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐĂŶĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ ƚŽĨƵŶĚ͕ŚĂǀŝŶŐƚŚĞďĞŶĞĨŝƚŽĨŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƐ͕ďƵĚŐĞƚŚĞĂƌŝŶŐƐǁŝƚŚŝƌĞĐƚŽƌƐ͕ĞƉƵƚǇ ĂǇŽƌƐ͕ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞŝƚǇĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŽƌ͕ŶƵŵĞƌŽƵƐƌĞƉŽƌƚƐ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĂůůƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŝŶƉƵƚƚŚĞǇƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĐĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞƐ ĂŶĚůĞŐŝƐůĂƚŽƌƐ͘ ŽŐĞƚŚĞƌ͕ƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝůĂŶĚDĂǇŽƌĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚƚŚĂƚĨƵŶĚŝŶŐĨŽƌŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ͕ƌĂƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶ ĂŶĞǁĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͕ǁĂƐƉƌĞĨĞƌĂďůĞĂƚƚŚŝƐƚŝŵĞĂŶĚůĞŐĂůůǇƐŽƵŶĚ͘ ŶŽƌĞƐƉĞĐƚƐŚŽƵůĚĂŶŝŶŝƚŝĂů͕ŝŶƚĞƌŶĂů͕ ͞ďůƵĞƐŬǇ͟ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌĚĞůŝďĞƌĂƚŝǀĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶďĞĞƋƵĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĂĨŝŶĂůĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚĂŶĞǁ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇŝƐŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůǇŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƚƚŚĞŚĞĂůƚŚŽĨŝŶŵĂƚĞƐŽƌƌĞƐƉĞĐƚƚŚĞŝƌůĞŐĂůƌŝŐŚƚƐ͘ 
V. District Responses to ODCA Recommendations
Recommendations:
1. KƐŚŽƵůĚƚĂŬĞĂůůƐƚĞƉƐŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶŐĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĨƵŶĚŝŶŐŝĨŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ͕ƚŽ ĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĨƵůůĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚĂůůĂŶĚ ,ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ Response: KĂĐĐĞƉƚƐƚŚŝƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚǁŝůůĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽƚĂŬĞƚŚĞƐƚĞƉƐ ŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚĂŶĚ ,ĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘
2. KƐŚŽƵůĚĐŽŶĚƵĐƚƌĞŐƵůĂƌĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞĚŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐŽĨƌĂŵĂƌŬ͛ƐĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚĂůů ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨŝƚƐĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚĂŶĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚĨŽŽĚƐĂĨĞƚǇůĂǁƐĂŶĚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƐĂŶĐƚŝŽŶƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞůǇŝĨŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ͘ Response: KĂĐĐĞƉƚƐƚŚŝƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚǁŝůůĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĞĨŽŽĚ ǀĞŶĚŽƌ͛ƐĚĂŝůǇĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚĂŶĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚĨŽŽĚƐĂĨĞƚǇůĂǁƐĂŶĚ ƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘
3. ĞŶ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐĂŶĞǁĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͕KƐŚŽƵůĚĂŶĂůǇ K ǀŝŽůĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽĨƚŚĞŶĞǁĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇŵŝŶŝŵŝǌĞƐƚŚĞĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐŽĨĐŽŵƉůǇŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂŶĚ ƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŚĂƚKĨƌ ĞƋƵĞŶƚůǇĐŝƚĞƐĂƐŚĂǀŝŶŐďĞĞŶǀŝŽůĂƚĞĚ͘ Response͗KĂĐĐĞƉƚƐƚŚŝƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚǁŝůůĂŶĂůǇǌĞƉĂƐƚĂů ƚŚĐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ ĨŽƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŝŶƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽĨĂŶĞǁĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͘ 
4. Ğ DĂǇŽƌĂŶĚŽƵŶĐŝůƐŚŽƵůĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĐĂƉŝƚĂůďƵĚŐĞƚĨŽƌKƚŚĂƚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƐƚŚĞƌŝƐŬŽĨĨĂŝůƵƌĞ ƚŽĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŚĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚƐĂĨĞƚǇŚĂ ĂƌĚƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚďǇƚŚĞK ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƌŝƐŬƚŽƚŚĞƐĂĨĞƚǇŽĨ ŝŶŵĂƚĞƐĂŶĚƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚƚŚĞƌŝƐŬŽĨĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůůŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ͘ Response: ĞĞ DĂǇŽƌĂŶĚŽƵŶĐŝůĂůǁĂǇƐĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƌŝƐŬƐǁŚĞŶďƵŝůĚŝŶŐďŽƚŚĐĂƉŝƚĂůĂŶĚ ŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐďƵĚŐĞƚƐ͕ĂŶĚǁŝůůĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽĚŽƐŽ͘

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

24

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 79 of 260
5. KDƐŚŽƵůĚ͕ǁŽƌŬŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŽƚŚĞƌŵĞŵďĞƌƐŽĨƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐĂƉŝƚĂůƵĚŐĞƚdĞĂŵ͕ĚĞǀĞůŽƉ ƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐĂŶĚƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĐĂƉŝƚĂůďƵĚŐĞƚŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐƚŚĂƚĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĞƉůĂŶĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞůǇ ƌĞů ĞĐƚƐƚŚĞŬŶŽǁŶĐĂƉŝƚĂůŶĞĞĚƐŽĂĞŶ ĐŝĞƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ K͕ŽǀĞƌƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞƐŝǆͲǇĞĂƌĐĂƉŝƚĂů ďƵĚŐĞƚŝŶŐƉĞƌŝŽĚ͘ Response: Ğ ĐĂƉŝƚĂůďƵĚŐĞƚŝƐƉƌŽĞĐ ƚĞĚĂƐĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞůǇĂƐƉŽƐƐŝďůĞŽǀĞƌƚŚĞƐŝ ǇĞĂƌ ĐĂƉŝƚĂůďƵĚŐĞƚƉĞƌŝŽĚďĂƐ ĞĚŽŶĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞŝŶ ŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĂ ĂŝŶƐƚĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͘ ĐŚǇ ĞĂƌƚ ŚĞĐĂƉŝƚĂůďƵĚŐĞƚŝƐƌĞǀŝƐŝƚĞĚƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚŶĞǁŝŶ ŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞ ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶŽĨŽƵƌĂƐƐĞƚƐĐĂŶďĞĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚĂŶĚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚ. FƵŶĚŝŶŐŝƐƚŚĞŶĂůůŽĐĂƚĞĚďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕Ğ ŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚƚŚĞƚŝŵĞŝƚƚĂŬĞƐƚŽƌĞƉĂŝƌĂŶĚͬŽƌ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŶĞǁĂƐƐĞƚƐ 
6. ƐŚ ŽƵůĚĐŽŵƉůǇǁŝƚŚ͘ ŽĚĞΑϳͲϳϯϭ;ĂͲϭͿ;ϭͿĂŶĚĐŽŶĚƵĐƚƚŚƌĞĞŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐƉĞƌǇĞĂƌŽƚ ŚĞ ͘͘:ĂŝůƚŽŚĞůƉĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŵĞĞƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘ Response: KĂĐĐĞƉƚƐƚŚŝƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚǁŝůůĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽĐŽŵƉůǇǁŝƚŚ ,ĞĂůƚŚŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƐĂƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚĂŶĚƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚďǇƚŚĞĂĞŶ ĐǇ͘ 
7. Ɛ ŚŽƵůĚƵƉĚĂƚĞƚŚĞŝƌŵĞŶƚĂůŚĞĂůƚŚŝŶƚĂŬĞƐĐƌĞĞŶŝŶŐƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐĂŶĚƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĞǇ ĨƵůůǇŵĞĞƚ ACAĂŶĚ NCC,ĂĐĐƌĞĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐǁŝƚŚŽƵƚŚĂǀŝŶŐƚŽƌĞůǇŽŶƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚ ƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚĞƌĞĚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽƚ ŚĞŝŶƚĂŬĞŵĞĚŝĐĂůĞ Ăŵ͕ĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĂŐĞŶĐǇ͛ƐŚĞĂůƚŚ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌ͛Ɛ;ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇhŶŝƚǇͿƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐĂŶĚƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐŵŝƌƌŽƌƚŚŽƐĞŽ KĂŶĚ ĂƌĞŝŶ Ƶ ůůĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚ ĂŶĚ NCC,ĂĐĐƌĞ ĚŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚƐĞĞƚŚĂƚK,^͛ƐĂŶĚ ĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐ͛ǁƌŝƚƚĞŶƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐƌĞŵĂŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘ Response:KĂĐĐĞƉƚƐƚŚŝƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚǁĞŚĂǀĞĐŽŶĨĞƌƌĞĚǁŝƚŚhŶŝƚǇ ,ĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞƌĞĂ ƌĚŝŶŐŝt. WĞĂƌĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŽĨƵƉĚĂƚŝŶŐƚŚŽƐĞƌĞƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞ ƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐĂŶĚƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐƚŽƌĞů ĞĐƚƚŚĞŶŽƚĞĚƌĞǀŝƐŝŽŶƐ  Ğ ƉĞĐƚƐƚŽŚĂǀĞƚŚĞƐĞ ƵƉĚĂƚĞƐŽ ƌŵĂůůǇĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚďǇƉƌŝů ͕ Ϭϭϵ͘ 
8. ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ŽƵŶĐŝůƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞǀŝĞǁƚŚŝƐŝŶƐƉĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚŵĂŬĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ ĂĚƵ ƐƚŵĞŶƚƐƚŽƚŚĞŽĚĞŝŶƚŚĞďĞƐƚŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚŽĨŝŶŵĂƚĞƐŚŽƵƐĞĚĂƚƚŚĞCTF.  Response͗KƌĞĐŽŐŶŝǌĞƐƚŚŝƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĚĞĨĞƌƐƚŚŝƐƚŽƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝů͛Ɛ ůĞ ŝƐůĂƚŝǀĞƉŽǁĞƌƐ 
9. Ɛ ŚŽƵůĚĐůŽƐĞůǇƐƚƵĚǇƚŚĞĞĞ ĐƚƐŽŝ ƚƐǀŝĚĞŽǀŝƐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐǇƐƚĞŵƐĂŶĚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ƐƵ ŝ ĐŝĞŶƚƐƉĂĐĞŝŶƚŚĞƉůĂŶƐŽ ƌƚŚĞŶĞǁĂŝ ůŽ ƌďŽƚŚŝŶͲƉĞƌƐŽŶĂŶĚǀŝĚĞŽǀŝƐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ ŽƌĂůů ŝŶŵĂƚĞƐĚĞƉĞŶ ĚŝŶŐŽŶǁŚŝĐŚŽ ƌŵŽ ǀŝƐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶĂ ŵŝůŝĞƐƉƌĞĞ ƌ  Response:KŚĂƐƚĂŬĞŶƚŚŝƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƵŶĚĞƌĂĚǀŝƐĞŵĞŶƚ 
  :ĂŶƵĂƌǇϯϬ͕ϮϬϭϵ

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

25

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 80 of 260

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

26

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 81 of 260

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

27

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 82 of 260

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

28

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 83 of 260

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

29

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 84 of 260

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

30

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 85 of 260
ODCA’s Response to Agency Comments
We thank the Department of Corrections, the Department of Health, the Executive Ofﬁce of the Mayor and the Ofﬁce of the Chief Financial Ofﬁcer for their cooperation and assistance during our audit. We are pleased that DOC and DOH concurred with most of our recommendations. We will follow-up with the agencies on the implementation status of these recommendations as part of our annual recommendation compliance monitoring process.
Based on the items discussed during the exit conference and comments received from the agencies, we made changes to the report where applicable. Most important, we made explicit our recommendation that the District should move forward with building a new jail to address the risks identiﬁed in the audit. With regard to the Department of Health, we revised our description of the inspection reports completed during the scope of the audit to acknowledge the completion of the three required inspections in 2018.
At the request of the Department of Corrections we added information from an interview with Deputy Mayor Kevin Donahue pertaining to the initial capital funding requests made as a part of annual budget deliberations.
We also note the extensive description provided in the DOC comments on the improvements made in the operations of the D.C. Jail in the years following the enactment of the Jail Improvement Act of 2003. Although the government’s compliance with the terms of the legislation are in many respects outside the scope of this audit, we acknowledge that there have been improvements in the conditions of conﬁnement from the severe overcrowding of the facility that occurred prior to the enactment of the law.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

31

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 86 of 260

Summary of Report Recommendations

Most of the recommendations in this report can be implemented without any additional costs to the agencies, have the potential to generate revenue and/or cost savings to the District, and/or help to advance or support the mission and/or the strategic objectives of the Department of Corrections (DOC), the Department of Health (DOH), as well as the Mayor and the Council.

Recommendation

Is There a Cost to the Agency to Implement?

Potential to Generate Revenue or Savings for the District?

Speciﬁc Agency or District-Wide Goal Advanced by Recommendation

1. DOC should take all steps

Yes

No

DOC’s Mission Statement: The mission of the

necessary, including requesting

Department of Corrections (DOC) is to provide a

additional funding if necessary,

safe, secure, orderly, and humane environment

to achieve and maintain full

for the conﬁnement of pretrial detainees and

compliance with all ACA and APHA

sentenced inmates, while affording those in

requirements.

custody meaningful rehabilitative opportunities

for successful community re-integration.

DOC’s Strategic Objective #2: Foster Environment That Promotes Safety for Inmates, Staff, Visitors and the Community at Large.

2. DOC should conduct regular documented monitoring of Aramark’s compliance with all requirements of its contract and District food safety laws and regulations and sanction the contractor appropriately if necessary.

Yes, if this

No

requires an

additional

FTE.

DOC’s Mission Statement: The mission of the Department of Corrections (DOC) is to provide a safe, secure, orderly, and humane environment for the conﬁnement of pretrial detainees and sentenced inmates, while affording those in custody meaningful rehabilitative opportunities for successful community re-integration.
DOC’s Strategic Objective #2: Foster Environment That Promotes Safety for Inmates, Staff, Visitors and the Community at Large.

3. The District should move forward Yes

Yes

DOC’s Mission Statement: The mission of the

with a new D.C. Jail.

Department of Corrections (DOC) is to provide a

safe, secure, orderly, and humane environment

for the conﬁnement of pretrial detainees and

sentenced inmates, while affording those in

custody meaningful rehabilitative opportunities

for successful community re-integration.

DOC’s Strategic Objective #2: Foster Environment That Promotes Safety for Inmates, Staff, Visitors and the Community at Large.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

32

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 87 of 260

Recommendation
4. When considering a new correctional facility, DOC should analyze DOH violations to ensure that the design of the new facility minimizes the challenges of complying with standards and regulations that DOH frequently cites as having been violated.
5. The Mayor and Council should provide a capital budget for DOC that considers the risk of failure to address health and safety hazards identiﬁed by the DOH including the risk to the safety of inmates and staff and the risk of additional litigation.
6. EOM should, working with the other members of the District’s Capital Budget Team, develop policies and procedures for the capital budgeting process that ensure the plan accurately reﬂects the known capital needs of agencies, including DOC, over the entire six-year capital budgeting period.
7. DOH should continue to comply with D.C. Code 7-731(a-1)(1) and conduct three inspections per year of the D.C. Jail to help ensure that environmental conditions meet required standards.

Is There a Cost to the Agency to Implement?

Potential to Generate Revenue or Savings for the District?

Speciﬁc Agency or District-Wide Goal Advanced by Recommendation

Yes

Yes –

DOC’s Mission Statement: The mission of the

reducing

Department of Corrections (DOC) is to provide a

health

safe, secure, orderly, and humane environment

violations

for the conﬁnement of pretrial detainees and

reduces the sentenced inmates, while affording those in

chance of a custody meaningful rehabilitative opportunities

lawsuit and for successful community re-integration.

a potential settlement.

DOC’s Strategic Objective #2: Foster Environment That Promotes Safety for Inmates,

Staff, Visitors and the Community at Large.

Yes

Yes –

N/A

reducing

risks

reduces the

chances of

a lawsuit

and a

potential

settlement.

No

No

N/A

No

No

DOH’s mission to promote health, wellness and

equity, across the District, and protect the safety

of residents, visitors and those doing business

in our nation’s Capital. DOH’s responsibilities

include identifying health risks; educating the

public; preventing and controlling diseases,

injuries and exposure to environmental hazards;

promoting effective community collaborations;

and optimizing equitable access to community

resources.29

29. Information about the Department of Health and a list of their responsibilities can be found here: https://dchealth.dc.gov/page/about-dc-health

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

33

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 88 of 260

Recommendation
8. DOC should update their mental health intake screening policies and procedures to ensure they fully meet ACA and NCCHC accreditation requirements without having to rely on questions and procedures administered as part of the intake medical exam, ensure that the agency’s health services contractor’s (currently Unity) policies and procedures mirror those of DOC and are in full compliance with ACA and NCCHC accreditation requirements and see that OHSA’s and contractors written policies remain consistent with the standards.
9. DOC and the Council should review this inspection requirement and make necessary adjustments to the Code in the best interest of inmates housed at the CTF.
10. DOC should closely study the effects of its video visitation systems and consider including sufﬁcient space in the plans for the new jail for both in-person and video visitations for all inmates, depending on which form of visitation families prefer.

Is There a Cost to the Agency to Implement?

Potential to Generate Revenue or Savings for the District?

Speciﬁc Agency or District-Wide Goal Advanced by Recommendation

No

No

DOC’s Mission Statement: The mission of the

Department of Corrections (DOC) is to provide a

safe, secure, orderly, and humane environment

for the conﬁnement of pretrial detainees and

sentenced inmates, while affording those in

custody meaningful rehabilitative opportunities

for successful community re-integration.

DOC’s Strategic Objective #2: Foster

Environment That Promotes Safety for Inmates,

Staff, Visitors and the Community at Large.

No

No

DOC’s Mission Statement: The mission of the

Department of Corrections (DOC) is to provide a

safe, secure, orderly, and humane environment

for the conﬁnement of pretrial detainees and

sentenced inmates, while affording those in

custody meaningful rehabilitative opportunities

for successful community re-integration.

DOC’s Strategic Objective #2: Foster

Environment That Promotes Safety for Inmates,

Staff, Visitors and the Community at Large.

Yes

No

DOC’s Mission Statement: The mission of the

Department of Corrections (DOC) is to provide a

safe, secure, orderly, and humane environment

for the conﬁnement of pretrial detainees and

sentenced inmates, while affording those in

custody meaningful rehabilitative opportunities

for successful community re-integration.

DOC’s Strategic Objective #2: Foster

Environment That Promotes Safety for Inmates,

Staff, Visitors and the Community at Large.

Poor Conditions Persist at Aging D.C. Jail;

34

New Facility Needed to Mitigate Risks

February 28, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 89 of 260
About ODCA
The mission of the Ofﬁce of the District of Columbia Auditor (ODCA) is to support the Council of the District of Columbia by making sound recommendations that improve the effectiveness, efﬁciency, and accountability of the District government. To fulﬁll our mission, we conduct performance audits, non-audit reviews, and revenue certiﬁcations. The residents of the District of Columbia are one of our primary customers and we strive to keep the residents of the District of Columbia informed on how their government is operating and how their tax money is being spent. Ofﬁce of the District of Columbia Auditor 717 14th Street N.W. Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Call us: 202-727-3600 Email us: odca.mail@dc.gov Tweet us: https://twitter.com/ODCA_DC Visit us: www.dcauditor.org
Information presented here is the intellectual property of the Ofﬁce of the District of Columbia Auditor and is copyright protected. We invite the sharing of this report, but ask that you credit ODCA with authorship when
any information, ﬁndings, or recommendations are used. Thank you.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 90 of 260
www.dcauditor.org

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 91 of 260
                   
(;+,%,7'

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 92 of 260
District of Columbia Corrections Information Council
District of Columbia
Department of Corrections
2018 Inspection Report

Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF)

Central Detention Facility (CDF)

May 21, 2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 93 of 260
District of Columbia Corrections Information Council
Charles Thornton, Board Chair Katharine A. Huffman, Board Member Calvin Woodland Jr., Board Member Nkechi Taifa, Board Member Charlie Whitaker, Board Member
About the District of Columbia Corrections Information Council The District of Columbia Corrections Information Council (CIC) is an independent oversight body mandated by the United States Congress and the Council of the District of Columbia to inspect, monitor, and report on the conditions of confinement in correctional facilities where residents from the District of Columbia are incarcerated. This includes facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC), and private contractors. The CIC reports its observations and recommendations to the District of Columbia Representative in the United States Congress, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Council of the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice, the Director of the BOP, the Director of the DOC, and the community. Although the CIC does not handle individual complaints or provide legal representation or advice, individuals are still encouraged to contact the CIC. Reports, concerns, and general information from incarcerated DC residents and the public are very important to the CIC, and they greatly inform our inspection schedule, recommendations, and reports. However, unless expressly permitted by the individuals or required by law, names and identifying information of residents, corrections staff not in leadership, and members of the general public will be kept anonymous and confidential.
DC Corrections Information Council 441 4th Street, NW Suite 270N Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 478-9211 Email: dccic@dc.gov Website: https://cic.dc.gov/
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 94 of 260
Executive Summary

Correctional Treatment Facility Profile

Dates of Inspection: September 20, 2018 Location: SE, Washington, DC Security Level: Minimum, Medium

Rated Capacity: 1,400 10/01/18 Population: 685 Resident-to-Staff Ratio: 2.37:1

Central Detention Facility Profile

Dates of Inspection: September 26, 2018 Location: SE, Washington, DC Security Level: Minimum, Medium, Maximum

Rated Capacity: 2,164 10/01/18 Population: 1,348 Resident-to-Staff Ratio: 2.37:1

DOC Population Profile (September 2018, Fiscal Year Totals)

Women Daily Average Population: 155 (CTF) Modal Age Range: 31-40 Average Length of Stay: 44 days

Men Daily Average Population: 1,849 (CDF/CTF) Modal Age Range: 21-30 Average Length of Stay: 79 days

Key Findings
The CIC highlights the following programs and facility practices:
ƒ The DOC made notable efforts to expand educational offerings to those in custody, particularly within the CTF facility, developing a model college and career readiness department.
ƒ All of the juvenile offenders charged as adults who were in DOC custody were transferred to New Beginnings prior to October 1, 2018.
ƒ The CIC received numerous reports that case managers were not regularly available on units at CDF.
ƒ During the fiscal year there were reported incidents of possible miscalculations in custody scores and subsequent security level classifications that prompted the CIC to look into the DOC classification process.
ƒ The CIC received complaints from at least 11 DOC residents regarding their medical care. ƒ In FY 2018 the DOC revised its policies on medical assisted treatment (MAT). It now
continues suboxone treatments for individuals who were receiving treatment in the community, and identifies individuals to begin MAT while in custody. ƒ There is little to no programming outside of the GED unit for individuals who are housed at
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 95 of 260
the CDF, particularly those who are maximum security residents. ƒ Residents on the administrative housing unit raised concerns about the informal disciplinary
process on that unit. ƒ The CIC received numerous reports throughout FY 2018 about conditions on the
government witness unit regarding the lack of programming, extended investigations, and concerns about daily life. ƒ From September to October 2018, the CIC received concerns from residents on the Special Management Unit (SMU) of CTF, regarding changes in recreation practices on the unit. ƒ The CIC received frequent resident concerns regarding deficiencies in the DOC grievance process, mainly that residents seldom receive any response to grievances that they submit. ƒ The CIC received numerous comments from residents that they did not receive documentation of disciplinary incidents. ƒ The CIC received complaints about access to religious programs and services as well as religious diet trays, ongoing throughout the fiscal year. ƒ Throughout the fiscal year the CIC received numerous reports about recreation – including comments about not having outdoor recreation or opportunities for recreation in general. ƒ The DOC has two employees that are trained to provide ADA services to residents who are referred for services, via the DOC medical department. ƒ Many residents reported to the CIC that their personal property was never returned after they transferred units. ƒ Throughout the fiscal year, individuals in both the CTF and CDF reported concerns about the physical conditions of the facilities.
Recommendations
Based on the inspection of the CTF and CDF, the CIC makes the following recommendations:
ƒ The DOC should expand educational and vocational programming options generally to those housed at the CDF with a focus on safe and innovative provision of services and programming to maximum security residents, restrictive housing residents, and residents with a classification status other than general population.
ƒ The DOC should ensure that case managers are in fact available on every unit on a daily basis; offer office hours or easily scheduled appointments; and effectively assist residents with their needs.
ƒ The DOC should ensure that case managers are accurately distinguishing between types of convictions and the offense severity points that are assigned to each conviction. The DOC should assess data systems to verify that case managers are accurately interpreting other documents assessed in calculating the custody score. The DOC should provide training to address common errors.
ƒ The DOC should clearly communicate medical decisions and care updates to residents and ensure all appropriate follow-up care is scheduled and completed in a timely manner.
ƒ The DOC should ensure that unit officers are allowing residents to access approved medical accommodations.
ƒ Mental health staff should ensure that daily evaluations of psychiatric status, cell amenities, and life activities are fully completed and documented every day.
ƒ The DOC should ensure that restrictions are only being placed on residents after documentation of a legitimate violation of DOC policy and a fair hearing.
ƒ The DOC should ensure that there is a clear policy that applies to decisions made regarding
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 96 of 260 individuals with a special handling status, and should clearly communicate the restrictions, reasons for them, and process for having the restrictions lifted. ƒ The DOC should ensure that residents are always provided with documentation stating why they are under investigation. ƒ The DOC should work to provide residents on the government witness unit with adequate programming opportunities and recreation time. ƒ The DOC should ensure that the government witness unit operates in a sanitary and safe manner, including the delivery of cleaning supplies and the proper sealing, labeling, and handling of meals. ƒ The DOC should ensure that correctional staff is appropriately equipped with schedules for resident’s detail assignments in order to preserve safety while ensuring that residents can report for their duties. ƒ The DOC should provide residents timely answers to all filed grievances in a manner that comports with its stated policies and procedures. ƒ The DOC should provide residents with documentation of all filed disciplinary actions that are formally charged or result in sanctions. ƒ DOC staff should ensure that the process for reviewing and approving religious diet requests is timely and efficient. ƒ DOC staff should ensure that all individuals have access to adequate recreation time and opportunities. ƒ DOC staff should clearly communicate the process for transferring property when a resident transfers units, document and inform the resident of any property that has been confiscated and will not be returned, and communicate to residents a clear process for addressing missing property complaints. ƒ The DOC should ensure that the physical premises of both the CDF and CTF are clean and safe at all times.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 97 of 260
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Correctional Treatment Facility Profile ..................................................................................................... 3 Central Detention Facility Profile............................................................................................................... 3 DOC Population Profile (September 2018, Fiscal Year Totals) ............................................................ 3 Key Findings.................................................................................................................................................. 3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Facility Overviews ............................................................................................................................................. 7
CTF Inspection Summary ........................................................................................................................... 7 CDF Inspection Summary......................................................................................................................... 10 DOC Operational Findings ........................................................................................................................... 13 I. Educational Programming .......................................................................................................... 13 II. Title 16 Transfer of Juvenile Offenders Charged as Adults................................................... 14 III. Case Management......................................................................................................................... 14 IV. Classification.................................................................................................................................. 15 V. Medical Concerns ......................................................................................................................... 16 VI. New Policies for Opioid MAT ................................................................................................... 16 VII. Safe Cells and Suicide Watch and Precaution .......................................................................... 17 VIII. Maximum Security Programming .............................................................................................. 18 IX. CDF Administrative Housing / Special Management Unit ................................................... 19 X. Special Handling ........................................................................................................................... 19 XI. Government Witness Unit .......................................................................................................... 20 XII. CTF Special Management Unit .................................................................................................. 21 XIII. Grievances ..................................................................................................................................... 22 XIV. Disciplinary Process ..................................................................................................................... 23 XV. Religious Programming and Meals............................................................................................. 23 XVI. Recreation ...................................................................................................................................... 24 XVII. ADA Specialists ............................................................................................................................ 24 XVIII. Property.......................................................................................................................................... 25 XIX. Facility Physical Conditions ........................................................................................................ 25 XX. Additional Concerns .................................................................................................................... 26 APPENDIX A: Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 27 APPENDIX B: DOC Response................................................................................................................... 30
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 98 of 260
Introduction
The DC Department of Corrections (hereinafter, DOC) operates two jail facilities: the Correctional Treatment Center (hereinafter, CTF), and the Central Detention Facility also known as the DC Jail (hereinafter, CDF). The facilities are adjacent to one another and are located in Southeast Washington, D.C.
The CTF complex typically houses residents who are minimum or medium security, including female and juvenile1 DC residents, as well as male residents who have specialized confinement needs. The CDF houses male residents, a majority of whom are held pending adjudication of a criminal case or are sentenced to a period of incarceration following conviction for a misdemeanor offense.2 Other CDF residents include those held on United States Parole Commission (USPC) warrants, those awaiting transfer to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and those held due to a writ or hold typically awaiting transfer to another jurisdiction.
Throughout the 2018 fiscal year, CIC staff met with residents housed at the CTF and CDF in order to interview them about conditions and experiences in custody. The CIC conducted its onsite inspection of the CTF on September 20, 2018, and the CDF on September 26, 2018. Following the inspection of facility grounds, the CIC submitted a document request to DOC staff on October 9, 2018. For a complete explanation of the report methodology, see Appendix A: Methodology.

Facility Overviews

As part of the DOC inspection, the CIC toured areas of both the CTF and CDF, including units about which the CIC received resident concerns; units or programs that the CIC had experienced change since the FY2017 CIC inspection; or that the DOC choose to include in the 2018 inspection. For a complete list of the units that the CIC requested to visit and the units that the DOC included as part of the tour, see Appendix A: Methodology. The names of the units toured, information about the population and staff on each unit, as well as a brief description of daily life on each unit can be found in the chart below.
CTF Inspection Summary

Medical 96 Unit Capacity: 36
Population September 20: 36
Unit Population: Residents who require close, but not constant, monitoring. Typically houses individuals in need of ambulatory accommodations.
Unit Staff: Corrections officers; case management rotation;3 nurses

Medical 96 houses residents with ongoing medical needs. The unit does not have medical staff on the unit at all times; however, there is regular medication delivery and medical staff is available on call and during rounds. Dialysis occurs on the unit Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. The cells on this unit have hospital-type beds with wheels and safety rails. Residents on this unit have recreation for one hour per day in an area on the unit, and staff said that they are able to have outdoor recreation, weather permitting. Residents are also able to leave the unit to go to education, programs, barbering, and more. Staff explained that higher security residents have access to programming on the unit, although

1 See DOC Operational Highlights (II) for more information about the transfer of juvenile offenders from CTF to New Beginnings. 2 See id. 3 “Case management rotation” refers to case management staff being available on units at the CTF and CDF, but on a rotating basis. The CIC received resident reports throughout the 2018 fiscal year saying that case managers are not available on their units daily, with the exception of specific units. While many residents reported that case managers are infrequently available on the unit and the same case managers are not always staffing their units, during the 2018 CIC tour of the CTF and CDF, DOC staff said that case managers are available on each unit every day. See DOC Operational Highlights (III) for more information about case management.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 99 of 260

complete rounds 3x/day; physical therapy; and medical staff (on call 24/7). Medical 82 Unit Capacity: 40 Population September 20: 29 Unit Population: Male and female residents with acute medical needs. Unit Staff: Corrections officers; case manager rotation; two or more nurses at all times; and medical provider on call.
Women’s Mental Health Unit Unit Capacity: 50 (Single cells; two safe cells) Population September 20: 34 Unit Population: Women who have acute mental health needs, a special housing status, or women completing the intake process. Unit Staff: Corrections officers; case manager; 24 hour nurse (Monday-Friday); medical staff (on call on weekends); and mental health clinician (9:00am-5:00pm).

most higher security residents are housed on Medical 82.
Medical 82 houses residents with acute medical needs. There are various cell layouts on the unit, including 25 single cells, three dorm cells (fitting up to four people), two female cells (one single, one dorm), three safe cells (two in operation), and one isolation cell (for residents with tuberculosis or other contagious diseases). Staff explained that dorm cells are used for intake before residents are classified but have a medical need, or general population security level residents can be housed in dorm cells if needed. Staff explained that medical status is taken into account in deciding whether a resident can be in a cell with others. Pregnant residents are housed on Medical 82 at eight months into their pregnancy, or sometimes at six months if there are specific issues. Residents are not free to leave their cells and walk around the unit because the residents are different genders and security levels. There are four stall showers, and a television room on the unit. Residents do not go to outdoor or off-unit recreation due to the level of their medical needs.
Staff explained that when women come into the facility and report that they are taking psychotropic medication, DOC staff coordinates with DC Department of Behavioral Health (DBH) to obtain records of prescriptions, or – if the woman was formerly in DOC custody – look within DOC records for verification of prescriptions. Staff also explained that the DOC pharmacy is typically able to give individuals at least a generic version of their medication, but medication can be delayed if the facility pharmacy does not have the required medication. Women on the mental health unit meet with liaisons from the DBH when they are going through intake and are cross-matched for DBH services. If they are not already linked to DBH services, DBH liaisons will determine what their needs are so that they can be linked to community service providers. When women are approaching release from DOC custody, DBH liaisons are also able to schedule appointments for them prior to their release. In terms of daily life, women are out of their cells between 9:00am and 3:00pm for programming, therapy, treatment team meetings, group counseling, recreation on and off unit, and a therapeutic arts program (offered on Thursdays). Residents who are taking medication meet with a psychiatrist every 30 days. Once every week women have a treatment team meeting: the treatment team determines if women are stable on their medication, and can be transferred to a general population unit.

Young Men Emerging Unit (YME)

Unit Capacity: 25

The Young Men Emerging Unit (YME) opened on June 30, 2018. The

Population September 20: 23
Unit Population: Men 18-25 years old who have been screened into the program, based on mentor and staff interviews and evaluations, as well as a clear record of behavioral conduct.
Unit Staff: Corrections officers; case manager; program analyst; and mental health specialist (9:00am-5:00pm).

ideology behind the unit, as well as its structure, is based on science regarding the developing mind, and the average age at which the brain reaches maturity – typically at about 25 years old. The YME unit was created to positively influence young men and create a sense of community and partnership. Staff and residents described to the CIC that the goal is to create a community within the unit, and also with the larger DC area, with the idea that if one feels connected to a community, they will also contribute to that community. The unit consists of young residents as well as six older mentors. The mentors on the unit are men who were incarcerated between the ages of 18-25, who provide guidance for the younger men on the unit. At the time of the CIC inspection, all six mentors on the unit were enrolled in college programs. Daily life on

8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 100 of 260

Work Readiness Unit Unit Capacity: 25
Population September 20: 20
Unit Population: Minimum and medium security men within four to six weeks of release (either sentenced misdemeanants or individuals coming back from the BOP), who are DC residents, do not have pending charges or warrants, do not have any Class I disciplinary infractions, and who are otherwise screened into the program.
Unit Staff: Corrections officers, group facilitator, case manager, work force development specialist (employee of Department of Employment Services (DOES), and Information Technology instructor.

the unit consists of a room inspection, community conversation, group session, lunch, educational programs, Street Law, and recreation. Community providers instruct different groups and programs on the unit. Programs include yoga, meditation, substance abuse groups, entrepreneurship, industrial banking, information sessions with MORCA, life skills, and parenting. Additionally, residents on the unit are able to earn spending money based on completion of special assignments and positive behavior. This money goes into YME bank accounts and can be spent on commissary or privileges such as use of a Bluetooth radio, air hockey, X-Box, etc.
The Work Readiness programs consists of two components – the first takes place while participants are in DOC custody and spans five weeks, and the second takes place post release, so that participants can continue the program in the community, where there is subsidized participation for up to eight months. The goal of work readiness is for participants to be employed upon release, or shortly after. The unit moved from CDF to CTF in 2017, and opened in the CTF in October 2017.
In each of the five weeks of the program, the daily instruction has a different topical focus – including resume creation, mock interviews, answering questions about criminal records, attitude sessions, etc. There is also computer instruction in the evenings. Other programs that take place on the unit are yoga, substance abuse sessions with the Hope Foundation, informational sessions with representatives from the Department of Health (DOH), computer basics, and Inside Out.
While in the five-week CTF component, participants meet weekly with a work force development specialist, who assesses their work skills, any additional needs such as mental health, and resources that they may require during the community component. The specialist then creates recommendations for the community component, including but not limited to, additional education, GED attainment, additional training, subsidized work, and involvement in an entrepreneurship program. The work force development specialist also helps participants create resumes and forwards those resumes to prospective employers.

The day after each participant is released from DOC custody, the work force development specialist meets with them in the community to assist with the transition either into work or educational programs. Typical job placements post-release include: the Department of Health and Mary’s Center, as well as positions in the fields of construction, entrepreneurship, food service, and IT.

Finally, the case manager on the unit assists participants with finding housing and clothing, and working through other barriers to employment. DOC staff explained that one such barrier can be the conditions of supervised release, and that while DOC case management does attempt to work with the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) prior to release in order to arrange a plan that will help participants meet supervision requirements, it can still be difficult for participants to work and meet supervision requirements – particularly requirements that are scheduled during work hours.
General Population Housing Unit

9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 101 of 260

Unit Capacity: 43
Population September 20: 42
Unit Population: Individuals involved in college programs (Georgetown, Ashland, UDC, and Howard).
Unit Staff: Corrections officers and case manager rotation.

Staff explained that this particular unit was in the process of becoming a programming unit, meaning that all or most of the male residents on the unit are supposed to be enrolled in an educational program. These educational programs include college courses through Ashland University, Georgetown University, Howard University, or the University of the District of Columbia. Individuals enrolled in Ashland University courses are instructed through tablets; the majority of residents enrolled in Ashland are housed on this unit so that the tablets can be kept in one secure area, but also remain accessible for use. See DOC Operational Highlights (I) for more information about educational programming.

CDF Inspection Summary

Intake Reception Center (IRC) N/A

The Intake Reception Center (IRC) is the filter for processing people who are coming into DOC custody or returning to the CDF or CTF, and tracking those who are leaving the facility – for court, transfer, or release. The intake reception center has separate admission areas for males and females, where people are searched, exchange clothes, store clothing and property, shower with delousing shampoo, are photographed and fingerprinted, and receive an identifying wristband. Incoming individuals also receive a “wing card,” which tracks completion of the remaining steps of the intake process. In a common area (male and female), individuals wait to complete the intake process, which includes a series of intake questions; measuring of vitals; TB, HIV, and syphilis tests; an assessment of medical needs and medication; a mental health screening; completion of an emergency contact form; and completion of a Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) questionnaire.

The mental health screening consists of 20 questions, and if those questions indicate a need for a full evaluation, a mental health clinician is able to complete a full evaluation later that day. Staff explained that certain people are flagged for full evaluations, including those who are incarcerated for the first time, have high-profile cases, have previously documented mental health needs, or are at risk of suicide. There are separate holding cells in the reception center for individuals who need to be kept away from the general population until they receive a full evaluation.

Transition Center Unit Capacity: 140
Population September 26: 121
Unit Population: Residents who are going through the process of intake.
Unit Staff: Corrections officers and case manager rotation.

Residents then go to the transition center, a specialized housing unit, or the CTF. Residents leaving the facility for release or transfer also exit through the IRC. Individuals being released receive a DC ID, library card, a 30-day supply of medication if HIV positive, and for general medications a three-day supply plus a prescription for a 30-day refill. Individuals being transferred to BOP custody receive a seven-day supply of their medication.
Following the IRC process, unless otherwise specified, male residents in the CDF go to the Transition Center where they wait to be classified (in terms of security level and permanent housing unit), have orientation, and complete an interest list of programs in which they would like to be involved while in custody. Orientation is offered on every Wednesday. Residents receive information about case management, accessing phones, visits, etc., and learn about different programs that are offered. Each individual fills out an “interest list” indicating the programs/services in which they would like to participate, in the event that they meet the

10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 102 of 260

custody and other criteria for those programs. The programs for which each person is eligible will depend on their security level; the facility in which they are housed; and other factors, such as eligibility for a Pell Grant, which is a prerequisite for taking college courses through Ashland University. Classification is typically completed within 72 hours (not counting weekends, holidays, or days that a resident spends at court).

Acute Mental Health Unit

Unit Capacity: 80

The Acute Mental Health Unit (Acute Unit) is split into two sides: the

Population September 26: 37
Unit Population: People who are a threat to themselves, or do not take their medication and those who medical staff has determined need to be on suicide watch or precaution.
Unit Staff: Corrections officers, case manager, clinician (MondayFriday, 8:00am-5:00pm hours); Psychologist (Monday-Sunday, evening hours); a psychiatric nurse (24/7), and nurse on call (24/7).

intake side and the general population side. When residents experiencing a mental health crisis first arrive on the unit they are housed on the intake side, typically for two weeks to one month. On the intake side, individuals are out of cell for two hours every day. The cell lights on the intake side also remain on 24/7, so that the officers are able to see into the cells at all times. The lights can only be dimmed if ordered by a mental health professional. Individuals are assessed daily, and depending on their progress, they can be stepped down to the general population side. On the general population side individuals are out of cell for five hours per day, have more opportunities to interact with other residents on the unit, can participate in yoga or art, and the lights in their cells are turned off at night. Nurses walk the unit every two hours, and officers make rounds every 15 minutes. There are six suicide safe cells on the unit (See Operational Highlights (VII) for more information on safe cells). If

a resident is stable and on their medication after being on the intake and

then general population side of the Acute Unit, they can either be

stepped down to the Mental Health Step-Down Unit, or sent back to

general population.

Mental Health Step-Down Unit (MHSDU)

Unit Capacity: 25

The Mental Health Step Down Unit (MHSDU) incorporates a nine-week

Population September 26: 4
Unit Population: Minimum and medium custody residents with mental health needs.
Unit Staff: Corrections officers, case manager, and mental health staff.

program, where participants progress through three program levels. If needed, people may stay on the unit for more than nine weeks. Residents are able to progress through the levels by attending and participating in weekly group sessions. With each level of progression comes increased “unstructured” time, as well as increased access to commissary. Groups offered on the unit include Men’s Group (led by a DBH liaison), art therapy, anger management (led by a clinician three times per week), narcotics anonymous, trauma management, and yoga. Individuals on the

unit are able to request to meet individually for therapy. All residents on

the unit meet with a clinician once a month for medication adjustments.

In addition to on-unit programming, those who are able may walk to

other units in the facility in order to participate in programs that are off-

unit, and go to outdoor recreation when it is offered. During

“unstructured” time, residents can play games, watch TV, read, exercise,

etc. Residents are able to move off the unit and back to a general

population, programming, or other status unit if they are stable and

compliant in taking their medications.

GED Unit

Unit Capacity: 150

The GED unit is a programming unit designed to house residents

Population September 26: 47 (16 Ashland)
Unit Population: Medium or maximum custody residents who are also GED students, GED tutors, or those enrolled in college courses students.

studying for the GED – in English or Spanish – and in 2018 expanded to include individuals taking college courses. Additionally, a number of ABE and vocational courses are offered. The unit schedule includes morning and afternoon academic periods and afternoon and evening groups. The GED test is offered the last full week of every month. When individuals pass the GED, they are often able to stay on the unit and continue their education by enrolling in college courses. Currently, for college courses, qualifying residents (qualification depends on Pell Grant

11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 103 of 260

Unit Staff: Corrections officers, case manager, volunteer Spanish GED instructor, and seven to eight academic volunteers.

eligibility) are able to take courses through Ashland University. Ashland offers courses through tablet software, and the tablets are available to residents on the GED unit daily from 8:00am – 11:00pm. In addition to course information, the tablets allow residents to have access to Khan Academy, TED talks, and radio programs. See Operational Highlights (I) for more information about educational programming.

Administrative Housing Unit / Special Management Unit

Unit Capacity: 40 (single cells)
Population September 26: 23
Unit Population: Maximum security residents who need to be segregated, have high profile cases, require total separation, are on administrative segregation, have a history of staff assault, are on disciplinary segregation, or have special handling status.

The administrative housing/special management unit is the highest security unit in the CDF. There is limited movement and programming available to residents on the unit. Regular movement outside of cells includes recreation time, which is two hours long. In the two-hour time period, residents have recreation by themselves in a recreation cage, can take a shower, and use the phone to make social calls. Residents on the unit are escorted within and outside of the unit in full restraints: leg irons, handcuff box, and belly chains.

Unit Staff: Five Corrections officers per shift and case manager rotation.

Restrictive Housing Unit Unit Capacity: 72
Population September 26: 43
Unit Population: Residents with a history of sexual misconduct, protective custody residents who have separations, those on administrative segregation, and those on disciplinary segregation.
Unit Staff: Corrections staff (five officers on shift during the day, three overnight) and case manager rotation.

The restrictive housing unit is broken into quadrants by tier, each housing residents with a specific status, including one tier for people with separations, one for administrative segregation, and one that acts as the sexual misconduct unit. Residents on this unit have limited movement, which typically includes only two hours for recreation. In the two-hour time period, residents can have recreation with another resident, take a shower, and use the phone for social calls. There are limited programs on the unit, and when the CIC asked unit officers about programming opportunities on the unit, one responded “there are no programs.” Residents are, however, supposed to have access to the law library and mobile library, and in particular instances they are referred to counseling with a social worker. There is a classroom on the unit for students entitled to education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). While staff said that they would not necessarily describe the space as a classroom, there are four desks available for students to meet with DCPS teachers. Staff said that a DCPS teacher goes to the unit daily to meet with students, but it is a different teacher every day.

12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 104 of 260
DOC Operational Findings
The following section highlights aspects of DOC operations, which may be department-wide or specific to the CTF or CDF. These findings relate to the daily operations and functions of the facility, with particular focus on the perception of residents and the treatment they receive. The information in this section was primarily gathered during interviews with residents throughout the 2018 fiscal year, discussions with DOC executive staff, discussions with facility staff during the tour, as well as information sent to the CIC from the DOC as part of an information request. The CIC interviewed roughly 40 individuals during the fiscal year. Their comments and concerns are noted in the following sections:
I. Educational Programming
The DOC made notable efforts to expand educational offerings to those in custody, particularly within the CTF facility, developing a model college and career readiness department.
In 2017, the DOC began to revamp its educational programming in an effort to increase the number and types of educational programs that are available to residents. The revitalized department, now known as the Department of College and Career Readiness, offers courses in the areas of Career and Technical Education (CTE), academic education, post-secondary education, cognitive intervention courses, master classes, work readiness, and legislative theatre. See the list of courses offered in each area below:
Career and Technical Education (CTE)
ƒ Network Cabling Copper-Based Systems ƒ Applied Systems Integration: Grounding and Bonding Copper Connectivity Systems ƒ Network Cabling Fiber Optic Systems ƒ Introduction to Telecommunications Technologies ƒ Introduction to Home Entertainment Audio/Video Systems ƒ Guest Services Professional ƒ Connecting to Business ƒ Reentry Ventures Entrepreneur Course ƒ Graphic Design/Journalism ƒ Commercial Cleaning ƒ Digital Literacy
Academic Courses
ƒ Literacy Courses – Levels I, II, III ƒ *('3UHSDUDWRU\ ƒ (QJOLVKDVD6HFRQG/DQJXDJH(6//LWHUDF\DQG*('3UHSDUDWRU\ ƒ ,QGLYLGXDOL]HG*('3UHSDUDWRU\&RXUVHVVXSSRUWHGE\WKH3HWH\*UHHQH3URJUDP? ƒ Free Minds Book Club
Post-Secondary Courses
ƒ For-credit courses leading to an Associate’s or Bachelor’s degree are offered by Ashland University ƒ Georgetown University Martin Tankleff Prison Scholars Program – for-credit college courses that
lead to a Liberal Arts Associate’s Degree and ultimately a Bachelor’s Degree ƒ College level courses that do not result in college credit are offered by Georgetown University ƒ Music Production and the Carceral Soundscape (Georgetown University) ƒ Georgetown University Street Law
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 105 of 260
ƒ Howard University – college-level courses that do not result in college credit through the Inside Out Prison Exchange Program
Cognitive Intervention
ƒ Thinking for a Change
The courses offered are widely available to qualifying residents4 – both female and male – at the CTF, but only selectively available to those at the CDF, which also houses the GED unit. From those who are able to participate, the CIC has heard overwhelmingly positive feedback about the quality and value of the educational opportunities. Throughout FY 2018, the CIC had the opportunity to attend a number of graduation ceremonies that the DOC arranged in order to congratulate participants for their accomplishments, while creating a space for peers to praise and encourage each other – in addition to receiving support from family members, who are also invited to the graduation ceremonies.
Additionally, the CIC received feedback from individuals at the CDF, particularly those in maximum security general housing population units and restrictive housing (or status) units, expressing their desire to participate in educational programming. There are still very limited options for programming at the CDF, leaving those DOC residents who are higher security and in DOC custody for the longest durations of time with virtually no educational opportunities, outside of the GED unit.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should expand educational and vocational programming options generally to those housed at the CDF with a focus on safe and innovative provision of services and programming to maximum security residents, and residents with a classification status other than general population.
II. Title 16 Transfer of Juvenile Offenders Charged as Adults
All of the juvenile offenders charged as adults who were in DOC custody were transferred to New Beginnings prior to October 1, 2018.
Pursuant to the Comprehensive Youth Justice Amendment Act of 2016, DC juveniles charged as adults were to move from the CTF adult facility to New Beginnings, which is operated by the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS), by October 1, 2018. Prior to the transfers of the juveniles, DOC staff along with staff from DYRS, held meet and greets with family members of the individuals, as well as town halls, Q&A sessions, and transition conferences. During the CIC’s 2018 inspection, the DOC reported that the first individuals were transferred from CTF to New Beginnings on the weekend of September 15, 2018. On the second day of the inspection, September 26, 2018, the DOC reported that all the transfers would be completed that day.
III. Case Management
The CIC received numerous reports throughout the fiscal year, the majority of which came from those housed in the CDF, that case managers were not regularly available on their units. During FY 2018, the CIC received at least seven complaints about lack of regular access to case managers. Multiple individuals explained that there was a shortage of case managers (a concern that was heard
4 Most courses have a number of requirements that individuals must meet in order to enroll in the program. Example requirements include CASAS scores, literacy retirements (GED programs), GED/high school diploma (post-secondary courses), minimum stay to finish course work, and no Class1 or II disciplinary violations.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 106 of 260
particularly from individuals on maximum security general population and status units at the CDF), so case managers had multiple units assigned to them. As a result, many units went for weeks at a time without being visited by a case manager. Additionally, when a case manager did go to the unit, it was typically for a short amount of time and only to meet with a few select individuals on the unit. According to some reports, case managers would go to the unit during a count when residents must remain in their cells, or they would simply log in and out of the log book without actually meeting with anyone.
When DOC staff was asked to address the shortage of case managers, they said that every unit has case manager, there is always a backup case manager, and case managers are available Monday-Friday on their assigned unit(s). Staff clarified that some case managers have multiple units in their purview. The staff vacancy list that the DOC sent to the CIC as part of the 2018 information request shows that as of September 20, 2018, there were nine vacant case management positions.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should ensure that case managers are in fact available on every unit on a daily basis; offer office hours or easily scheduled appointments; and effectively assist residents with their needs.
IV. Classification
During the fiscal year there were reported incidents of possible miscalculations in custody scores and subsequent security level classifications that prompted the CIC to look into the DOC classification process.
The DOC system of classifying residents gives each resident a total custody score that corresponds to a specific security level. This score is based a number of factors that, at a basic level, account for the individual’s current offense, prior convictions, institutional history, drug/alcohol history, age, education, and employment prior to arrest. Within each of these categories, individuals are given a number of points, corresponding to the level of severity or the degree of positive adjustment in that category. These points are added to create the total custody score. A custody score that is above 12 points corresponds to maximum custody; 5-11 points corresponds to medium; four points with additional restrictions corresponds to medium; and four points without additional restrictions corresponds to minimum.
Multiple residents in FY 2018, who felt that their total custody scores had been miscalculated from anywhere between four and six additional points, contacted the CIC. For example, if the original charge of a felony was erroneously counted, instead of the ultimate conviction for a lower misdemeanor offense, then that error would result in a higher sub-score. Even in situations where the correction of a presumed mistake would not necessarily lead to a lower classification score, it is still in a resident’s best interest to assure accuracy and achieve the lowest possible point score, because the DOC warden has the discretion to make a custody override based on the particular circumstances of the individual.
When the CIC contacted executive staff at the DOC about particular cases and the classification process in general, the DOC was responsive. Staff reviewed the cases and met with CIC staff to provide information about the classification process.
During the 2018 inspection, the CIC asked for further clarification about the classification process, and whether residents may have their total custody scores reevaluated if they believe an error exists within their score calculation. DOC staff explained that case managers complete the initial classification form using the Prism system to conduct a case search. Staff said that each case should show the conviction, rather than the original charge. While each resident is to be reclassified 90 days after coming into DC custody, residents can ask their case managers to reassess their classifications. However, residents who do not have regular access to their case manager cannot reasonably request such a reclassification.
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 107 of 260
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should ensure that case managers are accurately distinguishing between types of convictions and the offense severity points that are assigned to each conviction. The DOC should assess data systems to verify that case managers are accurately interpreting other documents assessed in calculating the custody score. The DOC should provide training to address common errors.
V. Medical Concerns
Throughout the fiscal year, the CIC received complaints from at least 11 DOC residents regarding their medical care.
Multiple residents expressed the feeling that their medical needs were not seriously evaluated, and that the predominating determination of their medical care was based on DOC administration recommendations, not medical staff recommendations. Residents said they were told that they would receive a reference to either meet with a specialist or receive outside care, but they did not receive this additional treatment in a timely manner, and were not given clear updates about the status of their appointments or next steps. Also, there were reports of unit officers failing to accommodate the physical needs of residents which had been approved by medical staff, such as the use of canes, access to bottom bunks, and dietary requirements.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should clearly communicate medical decisions and care updates to residents and ensure all appropriate follow-up care is scheduled and completed in a timely manner.
ƒ The DOC should ensure that unit officers are allowing residents to access approved medical accommodations.
VI. New Policies for Opioid MAT
In FY 2018 the DOC revised its policies on medical assisted treatment (MAT). It now continues suboxone treatments for individuals who were receiving treatment in the community, and identifies individuals to begin MAT while in custody. DOC medical staff described FY 2018 changes to the practice of providing medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid dependence. In January 2018, the DOC began a new initiative whereby individuals may commence suboxone treatment while in custody. Previously, all residents, except for pregnant females (who were able to continue on methadone or suboxone treatments), were tapered off of treatment after intake. The determination of whether to provide this treatment to a particular individual rests on multiple factors, including personal history, withdrawal symptoms, etc. As of September 26, 2018, the DOC had initiated treatment for 30 people.
While the policy has not changed as to pregnant women, the DOC now maintains treatment for people who are already receiving suboxone. However, if a non-pregnant person was receiving methadone treatments in the community prior to their entry into DOC custody, they will be tapered off of those treatments. Additionally, the DOC does not initiate treatment for individuals who are going to the BOP, because the BOP will not continue it. If an individual receiving suboxone treatment prior to entering the DOC is going to the BOP, the individual will be tapered off of treatment.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 108 of 260
VII. Safe Cells and Suicide Watch and Precaution
The CIC received concerns from incarcerated individuals and attorneys about the conditions of safe cells. The CIC spoke to DOC staff to gain clarification on the 2017 DOC policy on Suicide Prevention.
Safe cells are cells designed to be suicide resistant. They have specific amenities, such as plastic beds, for individuals whom the DOC medical team places on suicide watch or precaution. In the CDF, there are safe cells on the medical unit and acute mental health unit. Additionally, the administrative housing unit contains suicide-resistant cells, which means that there are no points from which someone could hang himself while inside of the cell. In the CTF, there are safe cells on the Medical 82 unit and the women’s mental health unit.
Individuals may be held in a safe cell either when they are on suicide watch or precaution. Suicide watch consists of 24-hour observation of the individual, while suicide precaution involves frequent, staggered spot checks of the individual being evaluated. According to DOC staff, individuals on both suicide watch and precaution are assessed daily by a psychiatrist. Individuals on suicide watch, who are evaluated by a psychologist, may be stepped down to suicide precaution for at least 24 hours; however, the amount of time one spends on watch or precaution is a decision that is always made by a psychiatrist. One individual with whom the CIC spoke said that they had been living in a safe cell for four months, and DOC staff confirmed this time period.
According to DOC policy,5 safe cells are equipped with certain amenities, and individuals on suicide watch or precaution have restricted access to the usual conveniences available to residents. Such amenities and conveniences include running water in cells, safe mattresses and blankets, dim lighting, use of phones, access to legal visits, access to personal property, etc.6 DOC staff explained that there is a presumption that residents on suicide watch or precaution can have running water in their cells, unless the individual has a history of drowning attempts or using the water to destroy their cell.
DOC staff explained its policy that each individual on suicide watch or precaution may have access to the listed amenities and conveniences, and that access is to be evaluated by a psychiatrist every day. Restrictions for amenities and conveniences must be signed by the psychiatrist, and posted on the outside of the door to each resident’s cell.
Throughout FY 2018, the CIC had the opportunity to speak with individuals who had been placed on suicide watch or precaution for varying periods of time. They described the daily evaluations by mental health staff as sporadic, and lasting for durations of less than one minute. They also described the evaluations as comprised of simple questions, such as “are you ok?”, and “are you suicidal?” One individual with whom the CIC spoke detailed his amenity and convenience restrictions, which DOC policy states are discretionary. They included the following: no phone, no recreation, no visits, no eating utensils, no curtains over the window, no socks, and no shoes; additionally, he was allowed a mattress and blankets, a smock, continuous bright lights in his cell, showers every three days, and access to running water in cell. His access to running water depended on which corrections officers were on duty, because the officers control the water. Some would turn the water in his cell on and some would not.
During the September 26, 2018 inspection of the CDF, the CIC observed safe cells on the acute mental health unit. Two of the cells that were in use had signed lists stating relevant restrictions, which were signed and individually dated for September 21, 2018 and September 23, 2018. It appeared as though DOC mental health staff were not in compliance with the departmental policy requiring a daily review of
5 See D.C. DEP’T OF CORR., SUICIDE PREVENTION AND PRECAUTION 6080.2G 5 (2017), available at https://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/PP%206080.2G%20Suicide%20Prevention%20 and%20Intervention%208-9-2017.pdf. 6 See id. at 21-22.
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 109 of 260
restrictions; however, it is possible that those individuals were evaluated, regardless of the lack of updates to their lists.
As part of the CIC request for information, the DOC provided data that there were four resident deaths in FY 2018, two of which were medical in nature, and two of which were suicides by hanging. There were additionally 112 documented suicide attempts, the majority of which were attempted by tied sheet, swallowed pills, or swallowed batteries.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ Mental health staff should ensure that daily evaluations of psychiatric status, cell amenities, and life activities are fully completed and documented every day.
VIII. Maximum Security Programming
There is little to no programming outside of the GED unit for individuals who are housed at the CDF, particularly those who are maximum security residents. The CIC received comments from at least five individuals about the about the lack of programming options at CDF, particularly on maximum security general population units and restrictive housing units. Throughout FY 2018, residents on maximum security and restrictive housing units continually expressed that they are unable to participate in programs. Some were also on units where the radios were removed around October 2017, and not returned. One resident noted the impact of not having programming, saying that most issues between inmates occur on the maximum units because people are bored and have nothing to do, nothing to work for, and no privileges to maintain. He explained that the DOC classification system and levels “weren’t built for longterm inmates,” and that there are no benefits to staying out of trouble once you are at maximum security, because there is essentially no way to move down custody levels. Some maximum security residents reported that they participate in counseling with DOC staff. DOC staff explained that a DOC employed counselor provides long-term counseling to residents mostly in restrictive housing units. The counselor works with residents on a variety of issues, including anger management. There is also an informal DOC project called the CARE team, which consists of social workers and licensed therapists who work with residents, particularly on restrictive housing units, to identify ongoing needs and connect individuals with mentors when possible. The project is in the early stages, and selections for participation in the program are based on the individual therapy list. DOC staff stated that it is more difficult to have programs at CDF, as compared to CTF, due to the layout of CDF. However, they explained that they try to be creative and still offer CDF residents programs by moving them to empty housing units for programming. Staff also said, when possible, they bring CDF residents over to CTF for job fairs and other events, and they can participate before CTF residents participate.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should work to provide meaningful programming opportunities for residents at CDF, particularly for maximum security units and restrictive housing units.
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 110 of 260
IX. CDF Administrative Housing / Special Management Unit
The CIC spoke with a number of people residing on the administrative housing unit, who raised concerns about its informal disciplinary process.
During FY 2018, at least four residents contacted the CIC about conditions on the administrative housing unit. All reported no consistent case management services on the unit for months. Additionally, others reported instances where they were subject to restrictions that did not result from a disciplinary hearing.
One individual explained that after failing to get out of the shower when told to do so, he was sprayed with a chemical agent, and restrictions were imposed. The CIC viewed the memorandum stating the restrictions, which was posted outside of his cell. It appears verbatim below:
“The below steps are to be made in regards to (resident) and his out of cell movement: Effective immediately: 1. A supervisor will be present for all movement of (resident) until he is behind a secured door. 2. A cell door, officer doors, shower doors, closets and housing unit doors are to remain in the closed and locked position at all times. When opening any of these doors, they should be immediately closed upon inmate and/or staff entry or exit. 3. At the completion of the strip search each time inmate (resident) comes out of the cell, the hand wand will be used to scan him once on the tier. 4. A cell search is to be completed once inmate (resident) is secured for any out of cell activity. Any items such as bowls, cups, or anything that can be used to store substances is to be removed from his cell and documented as nuisance contraband and discarded. 5. All (resident’s) activities will be conducted on shift #2, to include education, showers, recreation, case management, and medical when possible. 6. All (resident’s) out of cell activity will be conducted in handcuffs and waist chain restraints, with the exception of a shower. 7. These steps are to remain in effect until further notice.”
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should ensure that restrictions are only being placed on residents after documentation of a legitimate violation of DOC policy and a fair hearing.
X. Special Handling
Special handling status is a high security status that places individualized, additional restrictions on particular residents.
The special handling status is a security status that places specific restrictions on inmates who the DOC determines require security restrictions in addition to their residency inside of the restrictive housing unit. They may leave their cells for recreation, legal visits, medical emergencies, and other specialized needs. There are very few people with a special handling status, and all are housed in CDF on the administrative housing unit.
Special handling requires that any time a resident is moved out of cell, there must be at least one lieutenant present to escort them, and no other residents can be out of cell on the unit tiers. When a special handling resident leaves their unit, they are typically escorted by four officers. Staff was unable to provide a general explanation of the decision-making process for categorizing an individual as special handling; however, every decision made about a resident on special handling must be approved by the warden. Individuals with whom the CIC spoke stated that their interactions with the warden are few and infrequent. One resident estimated that he saw the warden two times across the span of one year.
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 111 of 260
According to DOC policy, there is to be a written memorandum designating each individual’s specific restrictions. During the September inspection, DOC staff explained that the restrictions are determined on an individual basis. One resident explained that he knew that there was a memorandum detailing his restrictions because he could hear officers reference it; however, he never saw or received a copy of the memorandum.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should ensure that there is a clear policy governing individuals with a special handling status; DOC should clearly communicate to such individuals any restrictions, the reasons for them, and the process for having the restrictions lifted.
XI. Government Witness Unit
The CIC received reports throughout FY 2018 about the government witness unit regarding the lack of programming, extended investigations, and daily conditions.
During FY 2018, the CIC spoke with seven individuals housed on the government witness unit. Ɣ Programming – The general policy of the DOC is to keep government witness residents separate from general population residents in order to preserve the identity and safety of government witnesses. As a result, government witnesses spend most of their time in the unit, because the facility common areas need to be clear of other residents in order for the government witnesses to access them. This also prevents government witnesses from participating in programming with the general population residents.
Government witnesses commented on the lack of programs that are offered on their unit. Programs offered include life skills, commercial cleaning, industrial banking, and a drug program, as well as opportunities to rent books from the mobile library and participate in on-unit chapel. However, residents are not allowed to participate in life skills if they already participate in commercial cleaning, and vice versa. It was also reported that no programs are offered for the Spanish speakers, and the programs offered in English are not translated.
During an interview with the CIC, one individual communicated that unit residents would like to have access to GED classes; barbershop and cosmetology classes; parenting classes; abusive relationship classes; foreign language classes, particularly for Spanish speakers; and business classes.
Ɣ Investigations – Residents reported that they have been under investigations that last for over 90 days and suspend their social visits during that time. All of the residents subjected to these investigations reported that they never received any documentation regarding the investigation or its reason; they were only made aware of the suspended visits when families called to schedule inperson visits and were informed that the residents’ visits were suspended.
During FY 2018, the CIC contacted the case manager on the unit seeking insight regarding the origin and scope of the investigations, and subsequent restrictions; however, the case manager was unaware of the source and reasons for the investigations.
During the September 2018 inspection, the CIC asked executive staff whether the investigations were internal to the DOC or coming from an outside agency. The CIC also inquired about residents’ lack of notice and documentation regarding the investigations. In response, DOC staff members explained that they were not aware of any internal or outside investigations that are unaccompanied by documentation and suspend social visits for government witness unit residents.
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 112 of 260
According to staff, a resident only has visits suspended if he receives a disciplinary violation with loss of visits as part of the sanction, or if he is sent to the Secure Management Unit. If the suspension is due to a disciplinary violation, residents are informed by the Adjustment board and receive documentation of the process.
Ɣ Recreation – Residents reported that they do not have recreation regularly throughout the week. They reported that they have recreation once or twice a week, and sometimes not at all.
Ɣ Unit – Residents reported that the unit is not provided with adequate cleaning products, supplies, or tools. Residents have to ask officers to call and request that supplies, including toilet paper, be delivered. Residents have also said that they have requested remotes for the televisions on the unit. When they do not receive remotes, they change the channel with a broom or mop handle.
Ɣ Detail – Residents reported that some corrections officers say that there are too many people working detail. Reportedly, some officers do not want to let the people working detail out of their cells at the designated times for their shifts.
Ɣ Visits – The CIC received reports about visitors being turned away for various reasons, such as wearing a work uniform or smelling like marijuana.
Ɣ Mail – Residents reported incidents where they have not received mail that was sent to them. Also, family members have reported not receiving mail sent to them by residents.
Ɣ Food – Residents explained that they do not always eat food that is delivered to the unit, because there is a history of food tampering by individuals working the kitchen, who know that particular trays will be delivered to the government witness unit. Most said that residents on the unit never drink from juice or milk jugs; they only drink beverages delivered in sealed single servings, because some past jug deliveries contained urine.
Ɣ Staff – Residents reported insults and profanity from staff due to their status as government witnesses.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should ensure that residents are always provided with documentation stating why they are under investigation and the basis of the investigation.
ƒ The DOC should work to provide residents on the government witness unit with access to adequate programming opportunities and recreation time.
ƒ The DOC should ensure that the government witness unit operates in a sanitary and safe manner, including the delivery of cleaning supplies and the proper sealing, labeling, and handling of meals.
ƒ The DOC should ensure that correctional staff is appropriately equipped with schedules for resident’s detail assignments in order to preserve safety while ensuring that residents can report for their duties.
XII. CTF Special Management Unit
From September to October 2018, the CIC received concerns from residents on the Special Management Unit (SMU) of CTF, regarding changes in recreation practices on the unit.
At least five residents of SMU contacted the CIC to discuss the change in recreation practices on the unit, which caused difficulty in communicating with family members. In mid-September the recreation time changed from starting at 8:00am and lasting until 12:00pm, to starting at 5:00am and lasting until 9:00pm.
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 113 of 260
Recreation is the only time that the phones are available for residents to make social calls. Each resident on the SMU is allowed to have recreation for two hours within the recreation time (i.e. a two-hour time slot between the hours of 5:00am and 9:00pm). Despite the extended hours, after the change, those with recreation at 5:00am could not reach their families because they were unlikely to be awake at that time. There were also reports that recreation no longer occurs on the weekends.
In September 2018, the CIC reached out to the DOC about these issues. The DOC responded that it would look into the unit issues, particularly the availability of recreation on the weekends.
XIII. Grievances
The CIC received resident concerns regarding deficiencies in the DOC grievance process, mainly that residents seldom receive any response to grievances that they submit.
Throughout FY 2018, the CIC received complaints from residents explaining that the DOC grievance process is inadequate. During interviews with individuals, at least nine individuals raised concerns about grievances. The most frequent concern is that residents do not receive responses to their written and submitted grievances.
As part of the information request made by the CIC to DOC, the DOC provided documentation about informal and formal grievances in FY 2018. Informal grievances are complaints communicated to the unit case manager. Formal grievances are complaints filed with the grievance coordinator.
x Informal Grievances: There were 810 informal grievance complaints filed in FY 2018, 727 of which were resolved in less than 30 days.
x Formal Grievances: There were 144 formal grievance complaints filed in FY 2018, 140 of which were resolved in less than 30 days.

Formal Grievances - Most Common Issues

Ϯϱ

Ϯϭ

ϮϬ

ϮϬ

ϭϱ

ϭϮ

ϭϭ

ϭϬ

ϭϬ

ϱ

Ϭ

mail

improper staff quality of health access to health food service

action

care

care

During the 2018 inspection, the CIC asked DOC for clarification on the recently changed grievance process. Staff explained that residents can still ask their case managers to resolve an issue, but communication with a case manager is not part of the formal process. Instead, all grievances are now delivered to the grievance coordinator, who then sends the complaints to the corresponding department. Following an inquiry, the relevant department sends a response to the coordinator, and then the coordinator sends the grievance back to the resident.

22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 114 of 260
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should provide residents timely answers to all filed grievances in a manner that comports with its stated policies and procedures.
XIV. Disciplinary Process
The CIC received numerous comments from residents that they did not receive documentation of disciplinary incidents.
Throughout FY 2018, multiple DOC residents raised concerns regarding the lack of documentation for disciplinary incidents that resulted in sanctions. For example, one individual described being placed on a seven-day cell restriction, which prohibited showers, recreation, and any property in his cell. The individual reported that they requested written documentation on the fourth day of the seven-day restriction period, and were released from restricted status on the following day, but no explanation of why the restriction was issued or removed was ever provided.
In response to the CIC’s request, DOC provided information about disciplinary actions in FY 2018. In total there were 1,402 violations, 1,387 of which were sanctioned. During the fiscal year, there was one “not guilty” finding during the disciplinary hearing process.

Most Common Disciplinary Violations

ϰϬϬ ϯϰϭ ϯϱϬ

ϯϬϬ

ϮϱϬ

ϮϮϳ

ϮϬϬ ϭϱϬ ϭϬϬ

ϭϰϳ ϭϮϮ

ϵϳ

ϴϰ

ϴϬ

ϴϬ

ϱϬ

Ϭ

CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should provide residents with documentation of all filed disciplinary actions that are formally charged or result in sanctions.
XV. Religious Programming and Meals
The CIC received complaints about access to religious programs and services as well as religious diet trays, ongoing throughout the fiscal year. During FY 2018, the CIC received reports regarding residents’ inability to access religious services and accommodations, such as prayer observance. Five individuals reported times when they were not allowed to come out of their cells to pray or when officers failed to take them to the chapel area to participate in religious services or programming.
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 115 of 260
Additionally, at least five individuals reported issues with accessing their religious meals. Some residents experienced weeks to months of delays in the process of being approved to receive a religious diet tray. Once individuals were approved for the diet, some reported that religious diet trays were not always brought to the units. Also, there are ongoing concerns about certain food items not being sealed or labeled. In particular, persons observing a kosher diet are not able to distinguish if the food is in fact kosher because it is not labeled.
In November 2018, the CIC received reports that the DOC had recently begun providing a Halal diet for Muslim individuals who had previously been given kosher trays. The Halal diet consists of one hot meal per day and lower quality than the kosher diet, which has two hot meals per day. Similar to the kosher trays, not all items are sealed or labeled, so residents are unable to determine if the items do in fact meet Halal standards.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ DOC staff should ensure that all residents have the opportunity to regularly attend religious services and programs in a manner that comports with its stated policies and procedures.
ƒ DOC staff should ensure that the process for reviewing and approving religious diet requests is timely and efficient.
ƒ DOC staff should ensure the proper sealing and labeling of specialized dietary trays in order to assure quality control.
XVI. Recreation
Throughout FY 2018, the CIC received reports about recreation, including no outdoor recreation or opportunities for indoor recreation.
The CIC received reports from residents on particular units that they do not have opportunities for indoor recreation, and other comments that the majority of residents do not have regular opportunities for outdoor recreation.
At the CTF, residents on the medical units and government witness reported issues with access to indoor recreation. Additionally, residents in one discrete CTF unit have weekly outdoor recreation, whereas other housing units in CTF reported that they have not received any outdoor recreation for at least the past 5-7 months. At least five individuals from CDF expressed that they do not have meaningful opportunities for recreation, both indoor and outdoor.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ DOC staff should ensure that all individuals have regular access to indoor recreation, and adequate access to outdoor recreation time that comports with stated policies and procedures.
XVII. ADA Specialists
The DOC has two employees that are trained to provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) services to residents who are referred by the DOC medical department.
There are two DOC employees who have specialty training for providing services to residents under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). According to DOC staff, residents can be referred by the medical department to receive ADA services. If they are referred for services, one of the two trained DOC employees are able to meet with them according to individual service needs. The amount of time an individual spends with a specialist is dependent on the requirements of their services. At the time of the inspection, there were reportedly three residents who were utilizing ADA services.
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 116 of 260
XVIII. Property
Many residents reported to the CIC that their personal property was never returned to them by DOC after they transferred units.
Throughout FY 2018, the CIC received at least five complaints regarding lost property. Many of the reports involved residents who had to transfer units, whose their property was never delivered from the old unit to the new unit; or, residents who never received their property after temporary property restrictions were lifted.
During the 2018 inspection, the CIC asked DOC staff about the process for property transfer and retention while a resident transfers units or is subject to a property restriction. Staff explained that property is supposed to be sent with residents as they transfer units. DOC staff further explained the process for residents who go from general population to a status housing unit, and have their property restricted. Upon entry to a restrictive housing unit, a resident is placed in the holding cell at the entrance of the unit and strip-searched. Their personal property is also reduced to the limit allowed on the unit. Any property that is over the limit is sent to storage, and residents are supposed to receive it within 24 hours of release back to general population. Staff suggested that residents who spoke to the CIC about lost property and were transferred to a secure housing unit may have had property confiscated as part of an investigation by the DOC Office of Investigative Services (OIS). However, that possibility assumes there was an incident preceding their transfer that would have necessitated OIS involvement.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ Whenever a resident transfers units, DOC staff should clearly document a resident’s property, and explain the process for moving, holding, storing, and returning property.
ƒ DOC staff should clearly document property that has been confiscated and will not be returned. ƒ DOC staff should communicate to residents a clear resolution process if the resident has missing
property.
XIX. Facility Physical Conditions
Throughout the fiscal year, individuals in both the CTF and CDF reported concerns about the physical conditions of the facilities.
During interviews throughout FY 2018, at least six individuals raised concerns about the physical conditions of the CTF and CDF. The concerns are listed below:
ƒ Temperature concerns: There is no circulation of air in the summer and freezing conditions in the winter since heat does not reach individual cells.
ƒ Flooding and sewage on bottom tier of a unit: The DOC responded to this concern during the year and commenced maintenance on a number of units.
ƒ Mold in units, closets, and showers: Residents informed the CIC that mold was painted over in preparation for inspections.
ƒ Cleaning supplies: Residents are not provided sufficient cleaning supplies. ƒ Rusty cage bearings: Cage bearings are not secure.
CIC Recommendations
ƒ The DOC should ensure that the physical premises of both the CDF and CTF are clean and safe at all times.
25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 117 of 260 XX. Additional Concerns
The following list of resident comments includes the areas in which additional issues were raised to the CIC throughout FY 2018:
ƒ Assaults by staff ƒ Unprofessional staff conduct ƒ Staff retaliation following a grievance or other report ƒ Reported inmate on inmate conflict (including physical altercations and stabbings) ƒ Issues with good time credits ƒ Not enough detail jobs for women ƒ Law librarian requests unanswered and little assistance
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 118 of 260
Appendix A: Methodology
27

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 119 of 260
CIC FY 2018 DOC Inspection: Methodology
In accordance with D.C. Code § 24-101.01(d)(1)(2019), the Corrections Information Council (CIC) sent a request to tour the Department of Corrections (DOC) facilities, the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF), and the Central Detention Facility (CDF). The CIC conducted an onsite inspection of the CTF on September 20, 2018, and an onsite inspection of the CDF on September 26, 2018. The CIC representatives on the inspection include Board Chair Charles Thornton; Program Analysts Laura de las Casas, Rebekah Joab, Nicole Ukaegbu, and Chrisiant Bracken; Communications Specialist Mabel Tejada, and interns Samantha Kramer and Justin Penik.
On each respective day, the onsite inspection processes included opening sessions with DOC executive staff, tours of the facility grounds, and closing remarks with the DOC executive staff.
The inspection request itinerary included a tour of select units and program areas, which were the locality of comments, both positive and negative, made by DC residents throughout the fiscal year. The units toured, along with those that the CIC requested to visit, but was unable, are listed below:
CTF ƒ Medical 96 ƒ Medical 82 ƒ Women’s Mental Health Unit ƒ Young Men Emerging Unit (YME) ƒ Work Readiness Unit ƒ General Population Housing Unit
Areas that the CIC requested to tour but was not able to: ƒ Government Witness Unit ƒ Special Management Unit
CDF
ƒ Intake Reception Center (IRC) ƒ Transition Center ƒ Acute Mental Health Unit ƒ Mental Health Step-Down Unit (MHSDU) ƒ GED Unit ƒ Administrative Housing Unit / Special Management Unit ƒ Restrictive Housing Unit
Areas that the CIC requested to tour but was not able to: ƒ Maximum security general population housing unit
Prior to the onsite inspection, the CIC communicated with residents at the CTF and CDF about conditions. During those interviews the CIC met with residents to discuss their concerns and ongoing issues. The concerns and remarks made by residents throughout FY 2018 informed the
28

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 120 of 260
areas that the CIC toured during the 2018 inspection, and were also included as resident feedback in the body of the report. The CIC met with more than 40 individuals in the fiscal year. On October 9, 2018, the CIC sent the DOC a request for documents, including:
ƒ Roster of residents including commitment date, race, age, facility, classification, projected release date, and inmate status
ƒ Breakdown of facility units ƒ List of staff vacancies as of September 20, 2018 ƒ Summary of FY 2018 disciplinary actions and sanctions ƒ Summary of FY 2018 Informal Grievance Logs ƒ Summary of FY 2018 Formal Grievance Logs ƒ List of community partners for programming ƒ Complete list and explanation of courses offered through the department of College and
Career Readiness ƒ Data on restrictive housing population in FY 2018 ƒ Inmate deaths in FY 2018 ƒ Inmate suicide attempts in FY 2018 ƒ Summary of FY 2018 significant incidents ƒ Summary of FY 2018 use of force incidents ƒ Information on food services and commissary The CIC provided the DOC with a draft version of this report for review of factual information and an opportunity to respond to any information contained in the report. The DOC response can be found as an attachment.
29

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 121 of 260
Appendix B: DOC Response
30

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 122 of 260
                   
(;+,%,7(

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 123 of 260
D.C. Prisoners: Conditions of Confinement in the District of Columbia June 11, 2015
A report of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs 11 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 www.washlaw.org

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 124 of 260

D.C. PRISONERS: CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS


PAGE(S)

Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 2
I. District Department of Corrections Facilities and Populations ............. 4
A. Facilities ........................................................................................................ 5 B. Policies Affecting Prisoner Population ......................................................... 7 C. Demographics and Budget...........................................................................11
II. Recurring Issues and Problems Involving the D.C. Jail and CTF......... 12
A. Crumbling physical infrastructure.............................................................. 13 B. Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Practices at the D.C. Jail ..............20 C. Issues Confronting Youth ........................................................................... 25
III. Costs of Confinement & Contracted Services ............................................ 33
A. The CTF & Corrections Corporation of America ........................................33 B. Unity Health Care ....................................................................................... 45 C. Halfway Houses ..........................................................................................46
IV. Looking Forward ............................................................................................... 47
A. Recommendation 1: Close the D.C. Jail and the CTF and construct a new, safer, more effective facility.............................................................48
B. Recommendation 2: Expand the Secure Residential Treatment Program ....................................................................................................... 48
C. Recommendation 3: Correct deficiencies in suicide prevention and youth confinement ......................................................................................48
D. Recommendation 4: Conduct a review of training ...................................49 E. Recommendation 5: Revise current policies restricting “Good Time
Credits” ........................................................................................................ 49 F. Recommendation 6: Return management of the CTF to District
control .........................................................................................................49 G. Recommendation 7: Increase public access to records ............................. 51
Appendix A - Demographics & Budget
Appendix B - D.C. Department of Corrections Response

L

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 125 of 260

PREFACE
The appalling conditions of confinement in D.C. prison facilities, especially in light of their disproportionate impact on African-Americans, are a key criminal justice and civil rights issue in Washington DC. This is the third in a series of reports focusing on criminal justice reform and civil rights issues by the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.
We want to express our appreciation for the invaluable assistance in researching and writing this report provided by a team of lawyers from Covington & Burling LLP: Kevin Glandon, Shelton Abramson, Brandon Myers, and Alan Pemberton, who were the principal authors of this report, as well as paralegals Kimberly Bickham and Eric Barros.
All these reports are dedicated to Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer, the distinguished jurist, who inspired the creation of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee in 1968 while a partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. Judge Oberdorfer served on the Committee’s Board of Trustees until his elevation to the bench in 1977. Throughout his long career, Judge Oberdorfer, who died in February of 2013, spoke eloquently in support of civil rights and criminal justice reform. In his memory, the Louis F. Oberdorfer Fund has been established to support the Committee’s ongoing work on criminal justice reform and civil rights advocacy. We are pleased to note that one of the significant contributors to this report was Elliot Mincberg, who is serving as the Louis Oberdorfer Senior Counsel on the Washington Lawyers’ Committee staff. A stipend to support his work is provided by the Oberdorfer Memorial Fund.
The Washington Lawyers’ Committee would also like to acknowledge with particular gratitude the service of the following retired and senior Federal and District of Columbia Judges who composed the Advisory Committee assisting with this study:
John M. Ferren, Senior Judge, District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Rufus G. King III, Senior Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia
James Robertson, Retired Judge, United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Ricardo M. Urbina, Retired Judge, United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Patricia M. Wald, Retired Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Roderic V.O. Boggs, Executive Director

June 11, 2015

Deborah M. Golden, Director, DC Prisoners’ Rights Project

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 126 of 260

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



On average, the daily population of D.C. Department of Corrections (DCDOC)

facilities exceeds 2,000 prisoners. About three-quarters of these individuals are

detained at the Central Detention Facility, a nearly forty-year-old facility commonly

referred to as the “D.C. Jail.” Just under one quarter are detained at the privately-run

Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF). The rest are located at one of the District’s three

halfway houses.

This report examines the conditions of confinement at the D.C. Jail and the CTF and discusses several recurring and serious problems that require the prompt attention of the DCDOC and District policymakers.

x The D.C. Jail’s physical condition is alarming. Inspection reports by the D.C. Department of Health (DOH) have identified numerous violations of established correctional and public health standards, as well as structural and mechanical problems that are “serious to extremely serious.” Some of the problems noted in recent inspections appear to be a matter of poor housekeeping and sanitation practices — e.g., an “active infestation of vermin/pests throughout the facility.” Others indicate more fundamental degradation of the D.C. Jail’s physical infrastructure. Inspectors found “openings in the wall” of several cells, “damaged concrete in several of the cell blocks,” “water penetration through the walls,” mold growth, and a leaking roof. In addition, inspectors have noted that “most of the plumbing fixtures were in different stages of disrepair.”

x Suicide prevention practices in the D.C. Jail are “in need of immediate corrective action.” An expert report (the “Hayes Report”) arrived at this conclusion in 2013 after being commissioned to examine the D.C. Jail conditions and policies following a ten-month period during which four prisoners in the D.C. Jail committed suicide. The Hayes Report found that the D.C. Jail did not have enough suicide-resistant cells, and that prisoners under observation were subject to “overly restrictive and seemingly punitive” precautionary measures. The Hayes Report also criticized the infrequency of monitoring, which demonstrated “complete unconcern for inmate safety.” In response to the Hayes Report, the DCDOC formed a Suicide Prevention Task Force, which took steps to correct some of the issues noted in the report. However, the Task Force has not published anything in more than one year, so it is difficult to assess whether all of the required remedial measures have been implemented.

x Facilities for youth are inadequate and programming is insufficient. A report conducted by an outside correctional consulting group (the “Ridley Report”) identified significant problems with the conditions of confinement for youth housed at the CTF and found that boys at the CTF “have needs far greater than the services currently provided.” The Ridley Report highlighted the

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 127 of 260

inadequacies of the juvenile facilities at the CTF, the excessive imposition of segregation and isolation, and the insufficient programming for boys held there. The report also notes that many boys may only visit with family members through video visitation, which can interfere with maintaining critical family bonds. The DCDOC reports that it has “worked diligently to implement the Ridley recommendations,” but we recommend further actions, including reducing the use of isolation and segregation among youth prisoners, further increasing and improving youth programing, and expanding access to in-person visitation for all youths.
x The District should not renew its contract with CCA, the for-profit corporation running the CTF. Since 1997, the CTF has been operated under contract by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). It appears that the District’s compensation to CCA was 31% higher than CCA’s reported average, at least as of 2014. During that year, CCA reported an operating margin of 29.7%. CCA’s contract is set to expire in 2017 and issues related to CCA operation of prisons around the country since the beginning of the contract indicate that it would not be in the District’s interests to continue to contract out the operation of the CTF.
x The Secure Residential Treatment Program needs expansion. The Secure Residential Treatment Program, operated out of the CTF by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency and the U.S. Parole Commission, offers a helpful alternative to incarceration for those suffering from addiction, but is unavailable to women and to many men due to the location of the facility and its limited size.
x “Good time credit” policies deny early release based on arbitrary distinctions. District policies regarding the availability of “good time credit” for academic, vocational, and rehabilitation achievement contain arbitrary restrictions with respect to certain offenses. Federal policy governs good time credits for inmates who will be transferred to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.
x Correctional officers may not have been provided sufficient training. A theme running throughout prior reports is that some of the District’s correctional officers have not been provided modern, effective training.
x Public records regarding the D.C. Jail and the CTF are difficult to obtain. The process for obtaining public records regarding the District’s correctional system is complex, time-consuming, occasionally befuddling, and sometimes fruitless.
We conclude by offering seven proposed recommendations to address recurring issues outlined in the report. They would not solve all the issues facing the District’s correctional system, but we believe they would be important and tangible improvements.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 128 of 260

Although we detail multiple areas of concern, it should be said at the outset that this report is not intended to find fault with any particular person, organization, or institution. Corrections officers face dangerous, even life-threatening, conditions on a regular basis. The job is stressful and can be thankless. Administrative staff who help run the Department of Corrections and its facilities and programs are often faced with competing safety, budgetary, time, practical, political, and legal pressures. None of this is to say that the District cannot make improvements in every area of concern. We can. But assigning blame is less productive than collaborating to advance practical, effective solutions. 

, DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FACILITIES AND POPULATIONS



Individuals in the DCDOC system are generally subject to confinement at either

of two facilities within the District, the D.C. Jail and the CTF,1 or at one of the District’s

three contracted halfway houses. Prisoners convicted of a felony are transferred to a

Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facility and may become eligible for parole.

In FY14, the average daily population for all DCDOC facilities combined was 2,041.2 Approximately three quarters (1,474) of those individuals were detained at the D.C. Jail. Twenty-four percent (489) of those in DCDOC custody were located at CTF, and the rest were in one of the contract halfway houses in the District.3 While most youth charged with crimes in the District are held at Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) facilities, an average of sixteen boys were located at CTF (the only DCDOC facility that houses youth) in FY14.4 Pursuant to the Revitalization Act of 1997, individuals convicted of felonies in D.C. are transferred to the custody of the BOP.

 1 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2013 Performance Accountability Report, 1.
2 See D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DC Department of Corrections Facts and Figures, http://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/DC%20Departmen t%20of%20Corrections%20Facts%20and%20Figures%20October%202014.pdf
3 See id.
4 This number represents juveniles that the District tried as adults. See id.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 129 of 260

A. Facilities
1. D.C. Jail
The DCDOC operates the D.C. Jail.5 The D.C. Jail’s population comprises solely adult men who: (1) are awaiting trial or a parole revocation decision and are subject to pre-trial detention, (2) have been convicted of a misdemeanor, or (3) have been convicted of a felony and are awaiting a transfer to a BOP facility.6 The D.C. Jail houses all three categories (Low, Medium, and High) of the DCDOC’s Inmate Classification System (ICS), which is used to categorize prisoners for housing purposes based on “a number of factors that include the nature of their current criminal charges, prior criminal history and prior incarceration history.”7
We appreciate the willingness of the DCDOC to allow us to tour the D.C. Jail in February 2015. The D.C. Jail cell blocks include eighteen housing units, one of which is currently being used as an inmate receiving center. Each housing unit has eighty cells which, pursuant to current practices, hold up to two individuals each. The facility has of late been housing fewer District prisoners than the capacity of the D.C. Jail would allow. The tour was brief, we did not tour the entire facility, and we did not bring experts or otherwise attempt to audit the facility or assess shortcomings addressed in environmental inspection reports discussed in section III(A). Nonetheless, the tour was informative. The D.C. Jail is an aging facility and is visibly suffering from wear and tear.
2. Correctional Treatment Facility
Unlike the D.C. Jail, the CTF is operated for the District by a contractor, the Corrections Corporation of America (traded as CXW on the New York Stock Exchange), pursuant to a 20-year contract that runs through January 30, 2017.8 The CTF population comprises primarily adult men and women who: (1) are awaiting trial or a parole revocation hearing and are subject to pre-trial detention, (2) have been convicted of a misdemeanor, or (3) have been convicted of a felony and are awaiting a transfer to a BOP facility.9 The CTF also houses youth of both sexes and some U.S. Marshals Service
 5 Located at 1901 D Street, SE, Washington, DC 20003; see also D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2013 Performance Accountability Report, 1.
6 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Frequently Asked Questions, http://doc.dc.gov/page/doc-frequentlyasked-questions.
7 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Frequently Asked Questions, http://doc.dc.gov/page/doc-frequentlyasked-questions.
8 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America (effective Jan. 30, 1997, as modified); D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Frequently Asked Questions, http://doc.dc.gov/page/doc-frequently-asked-questions.
9 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Frequently Asked Questions, http://doc.dc.gov/page/doc-frequentlyasked-questions.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 130 of 260

prisoners, and is permitted to house up to 200 sentenced BOP prisoners.10 Unlike the D.C. Jail, the CTF only houses prisoners with a “Low” or “Medium” ICS category.11 The CTF’s operating capacity is between 1,400 and 1,500.12
3. Halfway Houses
Until recently, the DCDOC contracted with four separate, contractor-owned and operated halfway houses in the District, which are “often used as alternatives to incarceration”:13 (1) Efforts From Ex-Convicts; (2) Extended House, Inc.; (3) Fairview; and (4) Hope Village.14 The District no longer contracts with Efforts From ExConvicts.15 Data from the first week in February 2015 indicate that the Fairview housed about ten women, Extended House held about twenty-six men, and Hope Village housed about thirty men.16 These figures are lower than the average daily populations for FY 2014, which were as follows: Efforts From Ex-Convicts (15 individuals), Fairview (24), Extended House (40), and Hope Village (43).17
 10 Id.; D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Official Population Counts by Facility (Feb. 6, 2015), http://doc.dc.gov/node/307122; Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, Modification 10. As of January 1, 2003, the District permitted the CCA to fill empty beds at the CTF with prisoners from other jurisdictions, with the District receiving a per diem for any such prisoners. Id. Modification 3. As of November 4, 2008, the District’s contract with the CCA was expressly modified to permit the CCA to house USMS prisoners at the CTF. Id. Modification 9.
11 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Frequently Asked Questions, http://doc.dc.gov/page/doc-frequentlyasked-questions.
12 The District reports that the operating capacity is 1,400; CCA filings cite a 1,500 figure. Compare D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Official Population Counts by Facility (Feb. 6, 2015), http://doc.dc.gov/node/307122, with Corrections Corporation of America, Annual Report (Form 10-K), 14, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000119312514072723/d664216d10k.htm.
13 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2015 Performance Plan, 1, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC15.pdf.
14 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2013 Performance Accountability Report, 1, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC_FY13PAR.pdf
15 See D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Keeping the Promises: FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, C-37, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _1_web.pdf; D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2015 Performance Plan, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC15.pdf.
16 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Official Population Counts by Facility (Feb. 6, 2015), http://doc.dc.gov/node/307122.
17 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DC Department of Corrections Facts & Figures October 2014, http://doc.dc.gov/node/344892.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 131 of 260

B. Policies Affecting Prisoner Population
1. U.S. Bureau of Prisons
Unlike each of America’s fifty states, management of the District of Columbia is vested in a Mayor and City Council, but subject to control and oversight by the United States Congress.18 One result of this control is that, pursuant to a federal law,19 sentenced felons in the District have been required to be transferred to the BOP.20 Before the enactment of the National Capital and Self-Government Act of 1997 (the “Revitalization Act”), many of those prisoners had been housed at the Lorton Correctional Complex21 in Virginia; by December 31, 2001, the District had ceased operations at Lorton.22
Almost sixty percent of the District’s prisoner population are accused or convicted of felonies: Within that population, nearly fifty percent of all District prisoners are standing trial on a felony charge and 10% have been convicted and are awaiting transfer to the BOP.23 As a result, the District’s prisoner population is highly transitory: Those awaiting trial for felonies will generally be released after the trial if acquitted or sent to the BOP if convicted, and misdemeanants will not be confined for more than one year.
2. Reason for Incarceration
The majority of individuals in DCDOC custody are either awaiting trial or awaiting transfer to a BOP facility. Forty-eight percent have a felony legal matter pending, and another 10% have been sentenced to felony time (presumably awaiting transfer to a BOP facility). Seven percent have a misdemeanor legal matter pending and are held pre-trial. Only 11% of DCDOC prisoners are sentenced misdemeanants— individuals, not awaiting a transfer, who are serving imposed sentences in a DCDOC
 18 The Constitution grants legislative authority over the District to Congress. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17.
19 National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 712.
20 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Correctional Facilities, http://doc.dc.gov/page/correctional-facilities.
21 The conditions at Lorton were examined through a series of interviews with staff and prisoners in a 1990 article authored by Professor Robert Blecker of New York Law School. See Robert Blecker, Haven or Hell? Inside Lorton Central Prison: Experiences of Punishment Justified, 42 Stan. L. Rev. 1149 (1990).
22 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., About DOC, http://doc.dc.gov/page/about-doc.
23 See infra D.C. Dep’t of Corr., D.C. Department of Corrections’ PREA, Safety and Security Report 2014, http://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/DOCPREASafetyan dSecurityReport2014.pdf.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 132 of 260

facility.24 The remaining 24% of the prisoners are incarcerated for violation of parole, being held pursuant to a writ or hold, or for “other” reasons.
Of the male DCDOC prisoners, about 19% are classified as “Federal Inmates,” i.e., prisoners accused of violating federal law who are temporarily held in a DCDOC facility. Sixteen percent of the men being held for a D.C. Code offense are incarcerated for assault or domestic violence, 13.6% are in for a parole violation, and 9.4% are incarcerated for a burglary/robbery/carjacking. The remaining prisoners are incarcerated for various offenses including property crimes (8.2%), drug offenses (6.6%), weapons possession (6.4%), and homicide (4%). Approximately 32% of male DCDOC prisoners are incarcerated for “violent” or “dangerous” crimes (“dangerous crimes” includes possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance).
The top two reasons for incarceration of female DCDOC prisoners are (1) assault/domestic violence and (2) parole violations, with each of the two categories accounting for 20% of the DCDOC female population. Of female DCDOC prisoners, 13.7% are federal inmates. Other reasons for incarceration include property crimes (7.9%), failure to appear in court25 (6.5%), and white collar crimes26 (5.8%). Twenty-six percent of female prisoners are incarcerated for violent or dangerous offenses.
3. Length of Stay and “Good Time” Credits
The average length of stay in a DCDOC facility is 179 days for male prisoners, and 94 days for female prisoners. Under District law, prisoners27 may earn “Good Time Credits” for completion of academic and vocational programs or rehabilitation programs; for “exceptionally meritorious service”; or “performing duties of outstanding importance in connection with institutional operations”; and for “demonstrat[ing] successful participation in one or more rehabilitation programs, work details, or special projects.28
One credit is equal to one full day of reduction in a sentence. Prisoners earn one credit for completing a “program, detail, or project” that lasts twenty days or less, two credits for completing a program that lasts between twenty and twenty-six days; and  24 See id.
25 “Failure to appear” generally refers to an individual’s failure to appear before any court or judicial officer when ordered to do so. See, e.g., D.C. Code §23-1327.
26 “White collar crime” generally refers to financially-motivated, nonviolent crime that is often committed by government and business professionals. See, e.g., DC Code §22-3225.02 (Insurance fraud).
27 The District’s good time credit laws apply only to pretrial and subsequently sentenced misdemeanants. Inmates charged with felonies and sentenced to more than one year of incarceration will be transferred to BOP custody and can only earn good time credits in accordance with federal law and BOP policies.
28 D.C. Code §§ 24-221.01 to 24-221.01c.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 133 of 260

three credits if a program lasts twenty-six days or more.29 There are a few limitations on the use of this policy. First, only prisoners serving sentences for misdemeanors are eligible (however, credits can begin to accrue pre-sentencing while the individual is incarcerated).30 Second, credits may not reduce a prisoner’s sentence by more than 15% if the conviction was for a crime of violence, and credits may not reduce the minimum sentence at all for a specified list of crimes, including certain crimes under the Controlled Substances Act.31 There are limitations on how many credits a prisoner may earn per month.32
4. Parole/Supervised Release
When a D.C. Code offender33 has served his or her minimum felony sentence, s/he may be eligible for parole.34 In addition to the standard parole system, the District also provides for medical parole for permanently incapacitated or terminally ill prisoners, and for geriatric release for prisoners at least sixty-five years old who have a chronic illness.35
The U.S. Parole Commission is vested with the authority to grant or deny parole to D.C. Code felony offenders and to revoke parole and supervised release for those under its supervision.36 Before August 5, 1998, the D.C. Board of Parole was responsible for making parole decisions, but its authority was transferred by the Revitalization Act.37
Even though D.C. Code felony offenders are transferred into the federal BOP system, the Commission applies District (rather than federal) guidelines and procedures to all D.C. Code offenders.38 However, the Commission has the authority to amend the
 29 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Program Statement 4341.1, § 10(b) (Aug. 17, 2012) (Good Time Credits).
30 See id. § 10(a)-(b).
31 Id. § 13(a)-(b).
32 Id. § 13(d).
33 By “D.C. Code offender,” we refer to an individual who has violated a section of the D.C. criminal code, as opposed to a District resident who violated a federal law.
34 D.C. Code § 24-404(a).
35 See id. §§ 24-464, 24-465.
36 See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, FAQs, http://www.justice.gov/uspc/frequently-askedquestions#q46.
37 See id. The D.C. Board of Parole retained the authority to revoke parole until August 5, 2000, when that authority was also transferred to the Commission and the Board was abolished. Id.; D.C. Code § 24-131(a)(1).
38 See Parole FAQs. Specifically, D.C. Code offenders are addressed in Subpart C of the Commission’s manual, which is available at http://www.justice.gov/uspc/documents/uspcmanual111507.pdf.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 134 of 260

rules, and it did so in 2000, potentially requiring prisoners to serve time beyond when they become eligible for parole until they are deemed “suitable” for parole.39 The Commission’s guidelines have been subject to challenge. For example, a class action filed by D.C. Code offenders challenges the application of the Commission’s rules, arguing that the Commission’s rules unconstitutionally apply retroactively to extend the length of time before prisoners will receive parole.40
While D.C. Code offenders are on parole, they are subject to supervision by an independent federal agency, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA).41 CSOSA also supervises pre-trial defendants who have been released to the community.
5. Secure Residential Treatment Program
The Secure Residential Treatment Program (SRTP) is a residential substance abuse treatment program for individuals who have violated the terms of their parole or supervised release and who have addiction needs.42 The benefit of the SRTP is that the participants receive substance abuse counseling and earn street-time credit, meaning that they are still considered to be on supervised release for purposes of calculating the length of their supervised release. The SRTP started as “a joint collaboration of CSOSA, the DC Government, the United States Parole Commission, and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)” to address the needs of “chronic substance abusing, and criminally-involved DC Code offenders” and “increase their chances of successful community reintegration.”43 According to the DCDOC, the SRTP is currently operated by CSOSA and the U.S. Parole Commission, which control eligibility requirements and the content of the program.44
 39 Id.; Daniel v. Fulwood, 766 F.3d 57, 59 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 12, 2014).
40 See Daniel v. Fulwood, 766 F.3d 57; see also Spencer Hsu, U.S. appeals court revives parole challenge by D.C. inmates imprisoned since 1985, The Washington Post, Sept. 12, 2014,http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/us-appeals-court-revives-parole-challengeby-dc-inmates-imprisoned-since-1985/2014/09/12/5c4a78ce-3a97-11e4-bdfbde4104544a37_story.html.
41 Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, Mission and Goals, http://www.csosa.gov/about/mission.aspx.
42 See Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, FAQs: Supervision Programs and Initiatives (“Describe CSOSA’s planned participation in the [SRTP]”), http://www.csosa.gov/about/faqs/programs.aspx#faq19.
43 Id.
44 D.C. Department of Corrections Response to Washington Lawyers’ Committee White Paper, May 5, 2015 (hereinafter “DCDOC Response”). A draft of this report was shared with the DCDOC and, on May 5, the DCDOC provided its comments. This draft incorporates DCDOC comments, along with analysis of those comments. The DCDOC Response is included as Appendix B to this report.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 135 of 260

Participants in the SRTP are housed for up to 180 days in a special thirty-two-bed unit at the CTF. The SRTP is administered by Phoenix House, a third-party contractor.45
The SRTP makes a significant difference in the lives of many of its participants and can help reduce the rate of recidivism.46 But currently, the number of individuals who could benefit from the program far exceeds the SRTP’s capacity. The SRTP is available only to men, and its limited capacity means that many individuals who might benefit from the program are unable to participate.
Those who are unable to participate in the program are held in custody and can wait months to begin participating in the program. During that time, the individuals who are held for a violation of their supervised release but who are unable to participate in the SRTP do not receive street time credit. Also, because the SRTP is operated out of the CTF, it is not available to individuals with a “High” ICS rating. As a result, individuals with a High ICS rating are put in custody at the D.C. Jail instead of being able to participate in the SRTP and will likely have their parole or supervised release revoked. They may apply for a waiver, but those waivers can take months, if they are ever granted at all.47
C. Demographics and Budget
As District leadership and community stakeholders confront the challenges presented by the conditions of confinement in the District, it is vital to consider two additional aspects of the correctional system: The system’s disproportionate impact on certain populations, and its cost. In addition to the discussion in this section,
 45 See Phoenix House, Secure Residential Treatment Program, http://www.phoenixhouse.org/locations/metro-dc/secure-residential-treatment-program/.
46 See generally Press Release, Norton Announces the Secure Residential Treatment Program for Non-Violent Offenders Will Continue, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, http://norton.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/norton-announces-the-secureresidential-treatment-program-for-non.
47 The SRTP is distinct from the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, which is available to male and female inmates in DCDOC custody. See D.C. Department of Corrections, Substance Abuse Treatment at DOC, http://doc.dc.gov/page/substance-abusetreatment-doc. According to the DCDOC, inmates may volunteer to participate in the RSAT, join via referral or self-report, or enroll if they “have violated the terms of their probation and otherwise meet the requirements of the program.” See DCDOC Response. The RSAT is generally a 30- to 120-day program that includes services on relapse prevention, as well as “workshops on domestic violence, parenting, fatherhood, life skills, arts, behavior modification, vocational education and health education.” Id.; D.C. Department of Corrections, Substance Abuse Treatment at DOC, http://doc.dc.gov/page/substance-abuse-treatment-doc. This curriculum has been “licensed by Addiction Prevention and Recovery Administration (APRA), the regulating body for policy for substance abuse, prevention, treatment, and recovery services.” DCDOC Response. Individuals who successfully complete the RSAT program are reinstated to supervision and are generally placed in a 30- to 60-day aftercare program.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 136 of 260

demographics and cost issues are addressed in more detail in the appendix to this report.

The District’s prisoner population is

Slightly less than half (49.5%) of the District’s
total population, but 91% of the District’s prisoner population,
is Black.

disproportionately Black and male as compared to the District’s total population. Slightly less than half (49.5%) of the District’s total population, but 91% of the District’s prisoner population, is Black. By contrast, 43.4% of the District’s total population, but only a small fraction (3%) of the District’s prisoner population,

is White. And, while 92% of the DCDOC population is male, only 47% of the District’s total population is male. 48 When it comes to youth, the racial and gender disparities are

And, while 92% of the DCDOC population is male,
only 47% of the District’s total population is male.

even starker.

Since 2007, the District’s prisoner population has declined significantly, and may well decline further as a result of District policies relating to the decriminalization of marijuana. A report studying the District’s high incarceration rate identified a lack of affordable housing, high rates of homelessness, education deficiencies, lack of access to mental health and substance abuse treatment, and high unemployment as relevant factors.49

,, RECURRING ISSUES AND PROBLEMS INVOLVING THE D.C. JAIL AND CTF

Despite the tremendous investments that the D.C. government has made in its prison system, discussed in more detail in the Appendix, the D.C. Jail and CTF continue to face significant problems. As the following sections explain:

x The D.C. Jail’s physical infrastructure appears to be crumbling and multiple inspections have revealed unsanitary conditions and non-compliance with basic standards established by national correctional authorities;

48 United States Census Bureau, State & County QuickFacts, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html.
49 Justice Policy Institute, A Capitol Concern: The Disproportionate Impact of the Justice System on Low-Income Communities in D.C., http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/10-07_EXS_CapitolConcern_AC-PS-RD-DC.pdf.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 137 of 260

x An independent expert found that the suicide prevention program employed at the D.C. Jail has significant shortcomings despite the fact that four prisoners recently committed suicide in the span of less than one year; and
x The CTF is not adequately providing for the needs of juveniles who are incarcerated there.
x For nearly twenty years, the CTF has been operated under contract by CCA. Continued problems at the CTF, the fact that the District’s compensation to CCA appears to be 34% higher than CCA’s reported average, at least as of 2013, and CCA’s operational track record around the country since the beginning of the contract all strongly indicate that it would not be in the District’s interests to continue to contract out CTF operations when the CCA contract expires in 2017.
A. Crumbling physical infrastructure
1. Recent reports
The District’s jail facilities are not new. The CTF was opened in 1992 and has now been in operation for over twenty years.50 The D.C. Jail was opened in 1976 and has been in operation for nearly forty years.51 Based on discussions with DCDOC staff, as well as testimony provided to the D.C. Council by DCDOC officials, maintenance and upkeep for the D.C. Jail will continue to consume resources and may require expensive upgrades.
Inspection reports prepared by the D.C. Department of Health (DOH) paint a troubling picture of the physical condition of the D.C. Jail. The two most recent inspection reports that are available account for a September 2013 to October 2013 inspection period (the “Fall 2013 Inspection”) and a February 2014 to March 2014 inspection period (the “Spring 2014 Inspection”).52 A cover letter from the DOH to the Director of the DCDOC accompanies each of the inspection reports and explains that:
This inspection identified areas of non-compliance with environmental requirements as defined by the American Correctional Association Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities and the American Public Health Association Standards for Health Services Correctional Institutions.53
 50 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Correctional Facilities, http://doc.dc.gov/page/correctional-facilities.
51 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Correctional Facilities, http://doc.dc.gov/page/correctional-facilities.
52 Although additional inspections likely occurred since March 2015, prior requests to obtain access to any associated reports through the FOIA process were unsuccessful.
53 Letter from Joxel Garcia, Director, D.C. Department of Health, to Thomas Faust, Director, D.C. Department of Corrections (May 20, 2014); Letter from Joxel Garcia, Acting Director, D.C. FRQWLQXHG«

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 138 of 260

The inspection reports themselves raise grave concerns. Although some of the problems could conceivably be addressed through improvements in housekeeping and sanitation or maintenance practices, others speak to larger problems with the physical infrastructure of the D.C. Jail and indicate that the facility itself—which opened nearly forty years ago—may require significant renovations or need to be replaced.

In both the Fall 2013 Inspection and the Spring 2014 Inspection, the inspector found that “the cell blocks and several common areas were not maintained in a clean and sanitary manner and in good repair.”54 In the reports accompanying each inspection, the inspector provided a list of more than 100 problems to support this conclusion.55 Problems that pertain to sanitation failures and a lack of routine maintenance and that could possibly be corrected through significant improvements in housekeeping practices include, for example:

“There is an active infestation of vermin/pests
throughout the facility”

x “There is an active infestation of vermin/pests throughout the facility;”56

x There were numerous sanitation issues in the kitchen, such as unsanitary equipment and improper temperature control for refrigerated foods;57

x “The showers throughout the housing units were not sanitarily maintained and in good working order;”58

Department of Health, to Thomas Faust, Director, D.C. Department of Corrections (Dec. 4, 2013).
54 See generally Ralph Spencer, Central Detention Facility Inspection Report, February 18 to March 21, 2014 (Mar. 21, 2014) (hereinafter “Spring 2014 Inspection Report”); Ralph Spencer, Central Detention Facility Re-Inspection Report, February 18 to March 21, 2014 (Mar. 21, 2014) (hereinafter “Spring 2014 Re-Inspection Report”); Ralph Spencer, Central Detention Facility Inspection Report, September 17 to October 11, 2013 (Oct. 18, 2013) (hereinafter “Fall 2013 Inspection Report”); Ralph Spencer, Central Detention Facility Re-Inspection Report, September 17 to October 11, 2013 (Oct. 18, 2013) (hereinafter “Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report”).
55 See Spring 2014 Re-Inspection Report, 2 - 6; Spring 2014 Inspection Report, 2 - 6; Fall 2013 Inspection Report, 2 - 6; Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report, 2 - 7.
56 Memorandum from Ralph Spencer, Safety and Environmental Health Specialist, to Senior Deputy Director, Health Regulation and Licensing Administration, 6 (Feb. 18, 2014 to Mar. 21, 2014) (hereinafter “Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum”); Memorandum from Ralph Spencer, Safety and Environmental Health Specialist, to Feseha Woldu, Senior Deputy Director, Health Regulation and Licensing Administration (Sept. 17, 2013 to Oct. 11, 2013) (hereinafter “Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum”)
57 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 6; Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 4 - 5.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 139 of 260

x Numerous parts of the medical facility were deemed “dirty” or “damaged” and there was “a sewer odor” in some of the rooms;59 and

x “[T]he lighting was not functioning properly” in many of the cell blocks.60

By contrast, other problems cited in the

Department of Health:

reports could be remedied only through significant renovations to the facility or by

“structural and mechanical deficiencies were more prominent than
environmental deficiencies”

replacing the D.C. Jail entirely. Indeed, the Department of Health noted in its Fall 2013 Inspection that “structural and mechanical deficiencies were more prominent than environmental deficiencies,”61 and many of those

issues remained uncorrected during the Spring

2014 Inspection.62 Structural or mechanical deficiencies observed during the

inspections, included, for example:

x “There were openings in the wall” of several cells63 and “damaged concrete in several of the cell blocks;”64

x “Most of the plumbing fixtures were in different stages of disrepair;65

x The roof was leaking;66

x There was “water penetration through the walls;”67

58 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 7; Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 6.
59 Fall 2013 Inspection Report, 4 - 5; Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report, 4 - 5; see also Spring 2014 Inspection Report, 4 - 6; Spring 2014 Re-Inspection Report, 4 - 5.
60 Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report, 11; see also Spring 2014 Inspection Report, 11 (“There were several blown fluorescent tubes throughout the cell blocks and in the stairwells.”).
61 Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 2.
62 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 2.
63 Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report, 8; Fall 2013 Inspection Report, 2; see also Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 9 (identifying “Openings in the wall” as a general maintenance concern).
64 Spring 2014 Re-Inspection Report, 2; Spring 2014 Inspection Report, 2; Fall 2013 ReInspection Report, 8; Fall 2013 Inspection Report, 2.
65 Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report, 4, 12.
66 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 2; Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 2.
67 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 2; Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 2.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 140 of 260
x Mold was growing on many of the walls;68 x There was “concrete separating at the corners in the gym;”69 x The floors, walls, and ceilings in many rooms were “damaged;”70 x Floor tiles in many of the rooms were missing or damaged;71 x There were rusted areas in the ceiling and the wall;72 x There were damaged and rusted windows and “damaged and missing caulk from
around the window in several of the cell blocks;”73 x There was “peeling paint on the walls throughout the facility;”74 and x There was damage to the “concrete walkway around the exterior premises.”75
The DOH emphasized the seriousness of the water leakage in particular, which it blamed for mold growth and described as “a health and safety issue which can have serious effects.”76

 68 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 2; Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 2.
69 Spring 2014 Inspection Report, 2; Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report, 2.
70 See generally Spring 2014 Inspection Report; Spring 2014 Re-Inspection Report; Fall 2013 Inspection Report; Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report.
71 See generally Spring 2014 Inspection Report; Spring 2014 Re-Inspection Report; Fall 2013 Inspection Report; Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report.
72 Spring 2014 Inspection Report, 12; Spring 2014 Re-Inspection Report, 12; Fall 2013 Inspection Report, 12; Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report, 12.
73 Spring 2014 Inspection Report, 3; Fall 2013 Re-Inspection Report, 2.
74 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 8; Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 7.
75 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 2; Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 2.
76 Fall 2013 Spencer Memorandum, 3; see also 2014 Spencer Memorandum, 10.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 141 of 260

2. Persistent problems

A review of reports from ten recent inspections indicates that many issues have

not been adequately addressed after being noted in prior reports.77 For example, in the

report accompanying the Spring 2014

Inspection, the inspector noted that “[s]everal of

the structural and mechanical deficiencies observed in previous inspections . . . remained outstanding.”78 These issues include: “leaking roof, water penetration through the walls, mold growth on the walls,” and “leaking damaged and

The Department of Health described these problems as
“serious to extremely serious”

or inoperable plumbing fixtures.”79 In past

reports, the Department of Health described

these problems as “serious to extremely serious” and explained that some of these

problems “can have a negative impact on the health and safety of the inmates and staff if

they are not addressed in a timely manner.”80

However, despite the seriousness of these and other concerns, many of the same problems persisted—and in some cases deteriorated—between reports.81 Thus, while it is helpful that the DOH inspects the D.C. Jail on a regular basis, it is not clear that these reports are being translated into actions that significantly improve the condition of the facility.

It is standard for periodic inspections to consist of an initial inspection and a follow-up inspection to determine compliance with corrective action plans submitted by

77 The ten inspections were conducted in February 2014 - March 2014; September 2013 October 2013; April 2013 - May 2013; November 2012; May 2012 - June 2012; January 2012 February 2012; May 2011; May 2010 - June 2010; June 2009; January 2009.
78 Spring 2014 Spencer Memorandum, p. 2.
79 Id.
80 See, e.g., Memorandum from Milton Anderson and Ralph Spencer to Feseha Woldu, Senior Deputy Director, Health Regulation and Licensing Administration, 6 (May 18, 2010 to June 2, 2010); Memorandum from Milton Anderson and Ralph Spencer to Feseha Woldu, Senior Deputy Director, Health Regulation and Licensing Administration, 18 (June 8, 2009 to June 19, 2009); Memorandum from Milton Anderson and Ralph Spencer to Feseha Woldu, Senior Deputy Director, Health Regulation and Licensing Administration, 17 (Jan. 12, 2009 to Jan. 30, 2009).
81 See, e.g., Memorandum from Milton Anderson and Ralph Spencer to Feseha Woldu, Senior Deputy Director, Health Regulation and Licensing Administration, 6 (May 18, 2010 to June 2, 2010); Memorandum from Milton Anderson and Ralph Spencer to Feseha Woldu, Senior Deputy Director, Health Regulation and Licensing Administration, 18 (June 8, 2009 to June 19, 2009); Memorandum from Milton Anderson and Ralph Spencer to Feseha Woldu, Senior Deputy Director, Health Regulation and Licensing Administration, 17 (Jan. 12, 2009 to Jan. 30, 2009).

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 142 of 260

the facility based on the initial inspection. The DCDOC states that it is “committed to performing preventative and day to day maintenance of the CDF and CTF facilities in order to provide a clean and safe environment,” and, typically, the DCDOC will have addressed or fixed at least some of the problems identified in the initial inspection by the time the follow-up inspection occurs. The DCDOC did not dispute the findings from these past reports, but noted that DOH had recently cited “noticeable improvements in the facility,” and observed that “areas that were in need of repair and in poor condition during the initial inspection have improved significantly.”82 Further, the DCDOC maintained that 87% of the items identified in a March 2015 inspection have already been “abated.”83 Nonetheless, as DCDOC acknowledged, some of the issues noted in DOH inspection reports are, “due to the age and deterioration of the physical structure,” “outside of DOC’s control.”84
During our tour of the D.C. Jail, we did not attempt to re-evaluate the facility or verify the findings of the environmental inspection reports. Nonetheless, we did observe that, although many parts of the facility were painted and appeared to be maintained, in other areas of the facility, paint was peeling or scratched, metal frames and hinges were rusted, the ceiling was stained and missing ceiling tiles, and piping insulation was frayed or damaged. We observed flies in the culinary area, though not to such an extent that we would term it an “infestation.” We also learned that mice posed an occasional problem in dry storage. We did not observe any mice during the tour.
The DCDOC acknowledged that it has not been able to fix certain shortcomings
“due to the age and deterioration of the physical structure.”
3. Addressing these structural deficiencies
These DOH reports underscore the urgent need for improvements to the D.C. Jail. Many of these issues may not be easily remedied. Indeed, the DCDOC acknowledged that it has not been able to fix certain shortcomings “due to the age and deterioration of the physical structure.”85 But if District prisoners are to be housed in a facility that is clean, sanitary, and up to the minimum standards that have been established by national correctional authorities, then they must be addressed. A full examination of the potential remedies—including physical plant issues such as the replacement of aging facilities with one or more new, modern facilities—is necessary. The status quo is unacceptable.
82 DCDOC Response.
83 Id.
84 Id.
85 DCDOC Response.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 143 of 260

4. Additional Concerns
In a recent hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, Director Thomas Faust suggested that the D.C. Jail’s lack of program space makes it difficult to provide significant programming.86 Director Faust also stated that the facility is well-worn and that it will continue to need significant repairs.
During our tour, we discussed a number of structural issues at the facility that appear to pose current risks and may require costly improvements.
First, the D.C. Jail has four electrical generators, three of which are as old as the D.C. Jail itself, and a fourth that was transferred from the Lorton facility and was likely not new when that facility closed in 2001. Although the generators are reportedly all functioning and able to provide emergency back-up power, the current generator system is unable to provide enough power to meet all of the facility’s electricity needs. In particular, the system would not be able to support full operation of the air chillers on a hot day. There is no indication of a security risk, but the result could be an inability to maintain reasonable temperatures in the facility. Additionally, due to the age of the generators, parts are increasingly unavailable on the market, driving up the cost of maintenance and repair.
Second, the air handlers that control air flow and help balance temperatures in the cells were moved nearly two decades ago in an effort to increase efficiency. Unfortunately, it appears that there were fairly severe problems in the implementation of the system redesign and the current system has not been able to maintain consistent temperatures in the cellblocks. Moreover, the air handlers are reportedly nearing the end of their useful life and replacement and attendant redesign of the structure may cost millions.
Third, the D.C. Jail relies on the D.C. General steam plant for steam, which is used for heating. When the steam plant goes offline, as it has in the past, the D.C. Jail does not have an alternate source of steam for heat and has no control over the repair of that facility. This lack of a contingency is concerning, particularly if a failure results in an inability to adequately heat the facility in winter.
Fourth, the D.C. Jail contains a number of structural flaws that limit its utility and cost-effectiveness. For example, during the tour, DCDOC staff noted that one of the elevators was designed to skip a floor in the facility. Staff were uncertain as to the original intent behind the design, but the feature is apparently no longer necessary. Nevertheless, staff must contend with an elevator that does not stop at all floors. Additionally, the 1970s facility was not designed with energy efficiency in mind, a concept that would be expected to save costs in a modern facility.
 86 D.C. City Council, Public Hearing, Committee on the Judiciary (Feb. 19, 2015), http://208.58.1.36:8080/DCC/February2015/02_19_15_Judici.mp4 (video) (testimony of Director Faust).

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 144 of 260

Fifth, although the cell blocks we toured contained common areas, the D.C. Jail appeared to have limited space available for programming.
B. Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Practices at the D.C. Jail

Between November 2012 and August 2013, four
prisoners at the D.C. Jail committed suicide, bringing the suicide
rate to three times the national average.

Prisoners at the D.C. Jail receive on-site mental health services from the D.C. Department of Mental Health,87 and clinicians from Unity Health Care, an outside vendor that provides a range of health care services to prisoners in DCDOC facilities.88 In recent years, prisoner suicides at the D.C. Jail have highlighted potential shortcomings in this mental health system.89

Between November 2012 and August 2013, four

prisoners at the D.C. Jail committed suicide, bringing the suicide rate to three times the

national average.90 At the time, the DCDOC’s contract with Unity Health Care provided

for certain suicide-prevention measures, including safe cells, a suicide intake protocol,

and periodic suicide screening.91

In the midst of the dramatic increase in suicides at the D.C. Jail, the DCDOC engaged an outside consultant in mid-2013 to draft a report on suicide prevention practices within the D.C. Jail.92 The DCDOC also formed a Suicide Prevention Task Force (the “Task Force”), whose membership includes representatives of the Department of Corrections, Unity Health Care, the Department of Mental Health, and the Corrections Corporation of America.93 The Task Force took steps to correct some of

87 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Mental Health Services at DOC, http://doc.dc.gov/page/mental-healthservices-doc. Mental health services may also be provided by “community service agencies.” See id.
88 See Lindsay M. Hayes, Report on Suicide Prevention Practices within the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections’ Central Detention Facility (Sept. 13, 2013) (hereinafter “Hayes Report”).
89 Aaron C. Davis, Report: Rash of suicides at D.C. Jail points to deep problem with inmates’ mental health care, The Washington Post, Nov. 7, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/report-rash-of-suicides-at-dc-jail-points-todeep-problem-with-inmates-mental-health-care/2013/11/07/caecf39c-47e5-11e3-b6f83782ff6cb769_story.html.
90 Id.
91 D.C. Contract, DCFL-2006-D-6001 & Modifications (Unity Health Care, Inc.), Contract §§ C.3.2.3, C.3.12; id. at Modification 8, §§ C.3.2.4, C.3.12.7.
92 See generally Hayes Report.
93 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Office of Health Administrations, Suicide Prevention Task Force Report (Oct. 14, 2013) (hereinafter “Task Force Report”).

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 145 of 260

the issues noted in the Hayes Report, but,94 after an initial report in October 2013, the Task Force has not published anything further in more than a year. Nevertheless, Director Faust characterized the Task Force as “very active” in a recent hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety.95
1. Hayes Report
The DCDOC engaged Lindsey Hayes, an expert in the area of suicide prevention in correctional facilities, to assess the policies and practices at the D.C. Jail and to issue a report summarizing his findings (the “Hayes Report”).96 The Hayes Report found that, while the DCDOC and Unity Health Care had policies that “more than adequately cover the required components of a suicide prevention program . . . the suicide prevention practices for many of these required components [were] lacking in varying degrees and in need of immediate corrective action.”97 The D.C. Jail was particularly lacking in the following areas:
x Lack of Suicide-Resistant Cells. Hayes found that the D.C. Jail included an inadequate number of suicide-resistant cells.98 Such cells do not include protrusions that could serve as an anchoring device for a prisoner trying to commit suicide by hanging. At the time of the assessment, the D.C. Jail included only nine suicide-resistant cells, but “there were more than nine (9) inmates on observation status each day.”99 As a result, several prisoners who were under observation for potentially suicidal behavior were housed in non-suicide resistant cells that contained “dangerous anchoring devices.”100 In response, the Hayes Report “strongly recommended that DOC officials embark upon an inspection program to ensure that prisoners on suicide precautions are housed in ‘suicideresistant’ cells.”101
x Punitive Conditions. Hayes found that the “precautions” taken with respect to prisoners who were possibly suicidal were “overly restrictive and seemingly punitive.”102 When prisoners were designated for “behavioral observation,” they
 94 See id.
95 D.C. City Council, Public Hearing, Committee on the Judiciary (Feb. 19, 2015), http://208.58.1.36:8080/DCC/February2015/02_19_15_Judici.mp4 (video) (testimony of Director Faust).
96 See generally Hayes Report.
97 Id. at 6.
98 See id. at 23.
99 Id.
100 Id.
101 Id. at 26.
102 Id. at 24.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 146 of 260

were isolated and “stripped of all clothing and possessions, and given only a paper gown without undergarments.”103 While under behavioral observation, prisoners were permitted to leave their cells only for showers and legal visits, and were prohibited from using the telephone or having family visits.104 Hayes noted that many of these measures were counterproductive: “Confining a suicidal inmate to their cell for 24 hours a day only enhances isolation and is antitherapeutic.”105 The “seemingly punitive” conditions also decreased the chances that prisoners would honestly report suicidal ideations.106 According to Hayes, it was “obvious” that the punitive measures were premised on “a misguided belief that most inmates who threaten suicide and/or engage in self-injurious behavior are simply manipulative” and that the overly “restrictive and punitive aspects of Behavioral Observation [are meant] to deter such behavior.”107
x Insufficient Supervision of Potentially Suicidal Prisoners. Hayes was most critical of the DCDOC’s use of a monitoring protocol called “behavioral observation” for suicidal prisoners instead of “Suicide Watch” or “Suicide Prevention.” Hayes found it “incredibl[e]” that, “there were not any inmates on either Suicide Watch or Suicide Prevention status” during the three-day on-site assessment.108 This is significant because while prisoners who are on Suicide Watch or Suicide Prevention would be monitored continuously or once every fifteen minutes, respectively, prisoners placed on “behavioral observation” were monitored only once every 30 to 60 minutes.109 Hayes even suggested that this irregular monitoring of suicidal prisoners showed “complete unconcern for inmate safety,”110 and that it was “obvious” that behavioral observation was being used to by-pass more regular monitoring. 111 The Hayes Report cites one case of a prisoner who had attempted suicide on several occasions in the previous two months but was nevertheless placed on behavioral observation where he might be monitored only once every sixty minutes.112
x Inadequate Training. Hayes found that “correctional officers that are assigned to the mental health unit do not receive any specialized mental health and/or
 103 Id. at 23.
104 Id. at 24.
105 Id.
106 Id.
107 Id. at 33.
108 Id. at 31.
109 Id. at 30, 32.
110 Id. at 33.
111 Id.
112 Id. at 34 - 35.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 147 of 260

suicide prevention training.”113 The suicide prevention training program for all employees was “a 39-slide PowerPoint presentation . . . encompassing only one hour of instruction.”114 Overall, the report concluded that “the number of hours devoted to both pre-service and annual suicide prevention training for correctional, medical, and mental health staff is inadequate, and the content of the training curricula is in need of improvement.”115
2. Suicide Prevention Task Force
In response to the increase in prisoner suicides, the DCDOC formed the Suicide Prevention Task Force to review “custodial practices related to medical and mental health issues in DOC facilities.”116 On October 14, 2013, the Task Force published a report summarizing a recent meeting and other steps taken by the Task Force to date.117 In the report, the Task Force noted that, as of the date of the report, the suicide rate for the DCDOC as a whole, when accounting for the average daily population of its facilities, was “more than 3 times the average” of local jails nationwide.118
The report also described positive steps that the Task Force had taken to address some of the concerns outlined in the Hayes Report. For example, the following Task Force recommendations were implemented:
x Increase the frequency of “Segregation and Intake unit checks” to at least once every fifteen minutes.119
x Ensure that “NO ONE is placed in a single cell unless there’s an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.”120
x Include a dedicated booking supervisor at intake to “monitor all high-risk inmates . . . to determine if an expedited referral to a mental health clinician is warranted.”121
x Implement a new “Razor plan” that prohibits prisoners from accessing razors.122  113 Id. at 9.
114 Id.
115 Id. at 10.
116 See Task Force Report, 2.
117 See generally id.
118 Id. at 4.
119 Id. at 6.
120 Id.
121 Id. at 5.
122 Id. at 6.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 148 of 260

x Institute a more robust four-hour suicide prevention training curriculum.123
In its report, the Task Force also described a set of “long-term suicide prevention strategies undergoing consideration.”124 For example, in order to improve suicideresistance in prisoner cells, the “DOC’s Facilities team” worked on and had “nearly completed a ‘suicide-resistant’ cell prototype.”125
Although the Task Force report signaled some improvements in the DCDOC’s suicide prevention program, more work needed to be done beyond what was described in the October 2013 report. The DCDOC has reported that, as of May 2015, it has taken the following additional steps to improve its suicide prevention practices.
x The DCDOC reports that, as of October 2014, “all 40 designated cells have been completed and retrofitted as follows: to decrease ligature points, handles have been removed from toilets and desks, vents are covered with anti-ligature grade mesh, pick-proof, penal-grade caulking has been used in the cells, and doors have been replaced to allow for 2 clear panels that provide enhanced vision into and out of the cells.”126
x As of May 2015, the DCDOC “provides suicide-resistant smocks and blankets.”127 In addition, “more time out of cells and the provision of more family visits and telephone access is under review.”128
x The DCDOC reports that it “immediately discontinued “Behavior Management” status…upon receipt of the Hayes Report.” As of May 2015, the DCDOC reports that there are “two categories of observation: Suicide Watch for inmates thought to be actively suicidal and Suicide Precaution for inmates who are at risk of suicide, but less acutely compared to inmates on Suicide Watch.”129 The DCDOC states that “Inmates on Suicide Watch are placed in a safe cell on 3rd floor medical and are provided one-to-one constant monitoring by a healthcare professional,” whereas “Inmates on Suicide Precaution are monitored by officers every fifteen (15) minutes in staggered intervals.”130
 123 Id.
124 Id. at 7.
125 Id. at 8.
126 DCDOC Response.
127 Id.
128 Id.
129 Id.
130 Id.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 149 of 260

x The DCDOC also reports that “Suicide Prevention training has been significantly enhanced.”131 As of May 2015, “[a[ll correctional officers, other DOC staff and healthcare vendor staff must undergo four (4) hours annually of Suicide Prevention training.”132 The DCDOC also stated that it “brought in national expert Dr. Dean Aufderheide to conduct a full day of training on self-injurious behavior issues which involved inmates with mental health issues as well as those exhibiting ‘bad behavior.’”133 That training was attended by “[c]orrectional officers on the mental health and segregation units, as well as mental health staff.”134

The DCDOC reports that the recommendations of the Hayes Report “have been implemented.” However, the WLC was unable to verify that this is the case. Based on the information provided, none of these improvements make clear how prisoners who were isolated for exhibiting suicidal behavior would be treated in a manner that is less restrictive or punitive than before. Hayes had noted that these seemingly punitive conditions were based on false assumptions and that they were actually counterproductive. Moreover, it is not clear that the 40 designated safe cells are being made available to inmates in all cases where there may be a need. For example, although a new inmate processing center currently under construction at the D.C. Jail contains a suicide-resistant cell, or safe cell, the existing inmate processing center (a converted housing unit) does not. It also is not clear whether a best-practices standard has been applied to confirm that safe cells are in fact adequately suicide-resistant. On our tour, a cell at the D.C. Jail deemed to be a safe cell appeared to be little different from a regular cell and included potentially dangerous fixtures, such as bunk beds.

Even though the D.C. Jail’s recent District inmate population is well below operating capacity, the DCDOC has a practice of double-celling, or holding two people in a single cell, for the general population. This practice was described as a suicide prevention measure. Individuals in the mental health unit, however, are generally housed one to a cell.
C. Issues Confronting Youth

Significant problems with the conditions of confinement for youth who are housed at the CTF were identified in a 2013 report prepared by a criminal justice consulting firm (the “Ridley

“Juveniles at CTF have needs far greater than the services
currently provided.”

131 Id. 132 Id. 133 Id. 134 Id.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 150 of 260

Report”).135 The DCDOC operates the Incarcerated Juvenile Program at CTF, which includes youth who “have been charged in the court system as adults and are awaiting trial or currently serving their sentence.”136 According to the Ridley Report, approximately one girl and seventy boys are processed through CTF each year, and approximately 26% of these youth have mental health issues.137 At the time of the onsite assessments by the Ridley Group, the CTF was housing twenty-five youth, all but one of whom were boys.

The Ridley Report found that “juveniles at CTF have needs far greater than the services currently provided.”138 The report highlights the inadequacies of the facilities at the CTF, the excessive imposition of segregation and isolation, and the insufficient programming for juveniles. The report also notes that boys may only visit with family members through video visitation, which can interfere with maintaining critical family bonds. As the following analysis suggests, many of these problems are exacerbated by the fact that the DCDOC is housing an average of twenty-five youth at a facility that also houses hundreds of adults.139
1. Inadequate Facility

The Ridley Report concluded that the youth’s “Unit Space is inadequate for the

population served.”140 Units for youth should include “sufficient space for adequate

physical exercise; provision of regular, special, and vocational education; and

therapeutic programming.”141 However, the Ridley Report found that at the CTF, the

on-site “school is cramped and the unit does not have dedicated programming or

recreation space.”142 Some of

The on-site “school is cramped and the

the issues appear to arise from

unit does not have dedicated

the fact that the small number

programming or recreation space.”

of youth must be separated

from the adult prisoner

135 Walter B. Ridley, Francis Mendez, and Ghia Ridley Pearson, The District of Columbia Department of Corrections Correctional Treatment Facility Juvenile Unit Assessment (2013). Mr. Ridley is a former Director of the DCDOC.
136 Id. at 6.
137 Id.
138 Id. at 47.
139 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DOC Official Population Counts by Facility, http://doc.dc.gov/node/307122; D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Quarterly Population Statistics October 2014, http://doc.dc.gov/node/344902.
140 Walter B. Ridley, Francis Mendez, and Ghia Ridley Pearson, The District of Columbia Department of Corrections Correctional Treatment Facility Juvenile Unit Assessment (2013), 9.
141 Id. at 13.
142 Id. at 9.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 151 of 260

population by both sight and sound. For example, the juveniles are permitted to use the gym and outdoor recreation facilities only when the adults are not using those facilities. The Ridley Report recommended that the DCDOC “explore whether there are unused spaces in the complex that can be used for recreation activities and or to move the unit to a larger space.”143
2. Use of Segregation
The Ridley Report, which was released in 2013, suggests that the use of isolation and segregation for youth at CTF is excessive. Generally, youth in D.C. are not supposed to be subject to isolation for more than five days, and a hearing of the housing board is required to extend the isolation of a juvenile beyond five days.144 However, the Ridley Group found that in some cases “segregation had been extended multiple times,” causing the “juveniles to remain in segregation for longer periods of time.”145 Indeed, “a few juveniles reported being placed in segregation for 2 months with 1 hour of recreation daily.”146 In response, the Ridley Report recommended that DOC adopt a
[W]ritten policy which reflects clearly the process and procedure which ensures (a) juveniles are returned to the general population within the mandated five days of segregation/the duration of the segregation is as short as possible to address the risk to the other juveniles or (b) clear guidelines are defined and followed for segregation extensions.147
In addition, the report recommended that “segregation should be revoked as soon as it is considered no longer reasonable and necessary for the purpose for which it was implemented.”148 In March 2014, Daniel Okonkwo, the Executive Director of D.C. Lawyers for Youth testified before the D.C. City Council Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, asserting that, as of that time, the DCDOC had “still not established and published” a written policy “that defines the procedure and requirements for imposing solitary confinement.”149 As a result, it appeared “that there [still] is no upper limit to how long a youth can be held in solitary.”150  143 Id. at 13.
144 Id. at 36.
145 Id. at 37.
146 Id. at 15
147 Id. at 37.
148 Id.
149 Testimony of R. Daniel Okonkwo, Executive Director, Committee on Public Safety & the Judiciary, Performance Oversight Hearing on the Department of Corrections (Mar. 19, 2014),http://www.dcly.org/cpsj_doc_2014#_ftn2.
150 Id.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 152 of 260

Excessive use of solitary confinement is troubling because of the effect that it can

have on juveniles’ development. A joint report by the American Civil Liberties Union

and Human Rights Watch found that “solitary confinement of young people often

seriously harms their mental and

physical health, as well as their

development,” and called for the practice “Solitary confinement of young

to be abolished.151 Clinical studies of the use of solitary confinement have “shown

people often seriously harms their mental and physical health,

that adult prisoners generally exhibit a

as well as their development”

variety of negative physiological and

psychological reactions to conditions of

solitary confinement,”152 and the “American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry has concluded that, due to their ‘developmental vulnerability,’ adolescents

are in particular danger of adverse reactions to prolonged isolation and solitary

confinement.”153

While the inadequate facilities and excessive use of isolation are significant problems in their own right, the Ridley Report suggested that they may be linked. Inadequate space might require corrections staff to use isolation and segregation on youth more frequently than they would if they were housed in a more appropriate facility: “Based on the fact that all juveniles are housed on one unit, at CTF, it is difficult to separate them without the use of segregation.”154

The DCDOC has provided information on the use of administrative segregation subsequent to the release of the Ridley Report. The following chart provided by DCDOC shows the number of juveniles who were segregated over the past year (either because they were “awaiting a disciplinary hearing or placed in administrative segregation”):

151 Human Rights Watch and American Civil Liberties Union, Growing Up Locked Down: Youth in Solitary Confinement in Jails and Prisons Across the United States, https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/us1012webwcover.pdf.
152 American Civil Liberties Union, Alone and Afraid, https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Alone%20and%20Afraid%20COMPLETE%20FINAL.pdf.
153 Id. (internal citations omitted).
154 Ridley Report, 37.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 153 of 260

Further, the DCDOC provided the following information about how, as of May 2015, it uses isolation and segregation with juveniles.
x Juveniles in administrative segregation are “housed in a separate cell on the lower tier within the juvenile unit.”155
x According to the DCDOC, those juveniles are able to “attend school through DCPS and have access to legal services, programming, counseling services, and meaningful contact with the other juvenile inmates.”156
x In addition, “[i]f a juvenile is placed in administrative segregation . . . officers are required to do a visual security check of the juvenile every fifteen (15) minutes,” and the “juvenile receives individual recreation for two (2) hours per day.”157
As of May 2015, the DCDOC reports that, over the past year, “the average stay in segregation” is “approximately two (2) days.”158 The DCDOC states that “[j]uveniles will not be placed in segregation for longer than five (5) days unless extenuating circumstances exist.”159 It is unclear what these extenuating circumstances are or how frequently they are deemed to exist.
3. Insufficient Programming and Staffing
Insufficient programming for youth is a significant problem. According to the Ridley Report, “programming at the Juvenile Unit is insufficient and needs to be  155 Id.
156 Id.
157 Id.
158 Id.
159 Id.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 154 of 260

expanded.”160 The lack of programming left youth “without structured activity for the majority of the weekend.” Feedback from youth cited in the Ridley Report indicated that there “is too much down time with nothing structured to do.”161 In addition, youth who completed their GED or high school diploma did not have any academic programming provided and were instead “assigned to detail duty for extended periods of time.”162 With regard to re-entry programming, the Ridley Report recommended that CTF “incorporate evidence-based reentry planning as early as possibly for all juveniles from the moment they are admitted.”163 Such programming can be critical for helping to ensure that problems do not carry over into adulthood and that the youth are best equipped to succeed when they re-enter their communities. While the Ridley Group acknowledged that the DCDOC had “significantly expanded programming” in recent months, it stated that “there is still an opportunity to increase programming even further.”164 According to the DCDOC, it has further expanded the juvenile program since the Ridley Report.165 For example, the DCDOC expanded an after-school program so that it now operates Monday through Friday.166
The Ridley Report also raised concerns with the staffing of the juvenile unit for youth prisoners, finding that many of the corrections officers lacked proper training. In response, the Ridley Group recommended that “Personnel on all shifts should be trained to work with juveniles.”167 As a recent report by D.C. Lawyers for Youth and Youth Justice acknowledged, staffing issues were at least partially attributable to the fact that a small number of boys and girls are housed at an otherwise adult facility: “Given that youth are such a small fraction of CTF’s population, it is perhaps unsurprising that CTF does not have a separate position description for hiring corrections officers to the Juvenile Unit and that the Unit sometimes utilizes relief staff who normally work with adults.”168 The DCDOC reports that, “[a]s of September 2014, all correctional officer recruits are trained in Positive Youth Development (PYD), as well as the operational and disciplinary procedures of the Juvenile Unit.”169 The DCDOC states that its PYD training “emphasizes building skills and assets in youth in addition to preventing
 160 Ridley Report, 11.
161 Id.
162 Id. at 12.
163 Id. at 21.
164 Id. at 11.
165 DCDOC Response.
166 Id.
167 Ridley Report, 14.
168 Campaign for Youth Justice and D.C. Lawyers for Youth, Capital City Correction: Reforming D.C.’s Use of Adult Incarceration Against Youth, 18, http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/pdf/Capital_City_Correction.pdf.
169 DCDOC Response.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 155 of 260

negative outcomes.”170 For existing correctional staff, this PYD training will be “phased into” annual training.171

4. Shortcomings of Video Visitation

Contrary to the American Bar

Not surprisingly, boys said that the video visitations “make it
hard for [them] to communicate with their family members.”

Association’s Standards for Treatment of Prisoners, youth housed at the CTF are generally restricted to video visitation in lieu of in-person visitation. Although there may be benefits to the selective

implementation of video visitation, the

ABA has taken the position that video

visitation should not be used as a replacement for in-person visitation.172 However, it

appears that, for youth at the CTF, video visitation has replaced in-person visitation,

even though CTF offers in-person visits to adults. The use of video visitation is

particularly problematic for youth because “[a] key part of working with juveniles is

being able to engage the families and help to strengthen the relationship between the

juveniles and their parent/guardian.”173 Moreover, according to a report by the

Campaign for Youth Justice and D.C. Lawyers for Youth, the “visitation monitors are

located in a common space, so youth have no privacy while speaking with their family

members.”174 Not surprisingly, boys said that the video visitations “make it hard for

[them] to communicate with their family members.”175

In its Standards for Treatment of Prisoners, the American Bar Association states that video visitation should not be used as a replacement for in-person visitation.176 And while video visitation is sometimes cited as a means to reduce the introduction of contraband into a prison, a recent study in Texas found that, after a county replaced in-

170 Id.
171 Id.
172 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Treatment of Prisoners, http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_standards/Trea tment_of_Prisoners.authcheckdam.pdf.
173 Ridley Report, 45.
174 Campaign for Youth Justice and D.C. Lawyers for Youth, Capital City Correction: Reforming D.C.’s Use of Adult Incarceration Against Youth, 18, http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/pdf/Capital_City_Correction.pdf.
175 Ridley Report, 15.
176 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Treatment of Prisoners, http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_standards/Trea tment_of_Prisoners.authcheckdam.pdf.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 156 of 260

person visitation with video visitation, there was an increase in contraband and disciplinary infractions.177
The DCDOC began providing some limited in-person visitation for minors in March 2014, but it appears that this has been made available to fewer than 50% of youths.178 While applauding this development, the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety has requested “that the Department consider providing in-person visits to all juveniles, given the unique nature of their confinement.”179 The DCDOC reports that, as of May 2015, “juveniles who have reached the Gold Tier in the Juvenile Unit are given contact visitation with their parent or guardian once per month.”180 Whether a youth is eligible for Gold Tier is “based on several factors such as behavior, program
The DCDOC reports that, as of May 2015, “juveniles who have reached the Gold Tier in the
Juvenile Unit are given contact visitation with their parent or guardian once per month.”
participation, and educational factors.”181 As of May 5, 2015, the DCDOC reported that eight juveniles had attained “Gold Tier” status, and that two more were expected by May 7, 2015.182 In addition, youth inmates “are given contact visits during the holiday season in December.”183
The use of video visitation is not confined to youth at the CTF. Since 2012, inperson visitation for prisoners at the D.C. jail has been limited to visits with lawyers or with clergy, or with others in exceptional circumstances. By all indications, the availability of video visitation is not, in itself, a concern. Indeed, it appears to provide additional opportunities for adult prisoners at the D.C. Jail to communicate with family and friends. However, video visitation should not come at the cost of heavy restrictions on in-person visitation.
177 Texas Criminal Justice Coalition & Grassroots Leadership, Video Visitation: How Private Companies Push for Visits by Video and Families Pay the Price, http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Video%20Visitation%20%28web% 29.pdf.
178 Report and Recommendations of the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety on the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget for Agencies Under Its Purview, May 14, 2014, http://dccouncil.us/files/performance_oversight/Committee_on_the_Judiciary_and_Public_ Safety.pdf.
179 Id.
180 DCDOC Response.
181 Id.
182 Id.
183 Id.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 157 of 260

,,, COSTS OF CONFINEMENT & CONTRACTED SERVICES
Over the past decade, the DCDOC’s budget has averaged $141.7 million. As discussed in more detail in the Appendix, a significant percentage of the Department of Corrections budget is devoted to payment for contractual services, including the DCDOC’s contracts with CCA, with the private halfway houses, and for prisoner health care.
A. The CTF & Corrections Corporation of America
Since January 30, 1997, the District has been paying CCA both a management fee to operate the CTF and a lease payment for the CTF facility. The management fee has varied over time pursuant to a twenty-year contract, which is set to expire in 2017, but appears to have been $14.4 million for 2014.184 When the District entered into the operations contract with CCA, the District and CCA also entered into an agreement to sell the CTF facility to CCA for $52 million.185 The CCA was required to make initial improvements to the facility and, over the duration of the operations contract, the District agreed to pay $2.8 million each year (and a lesser amount in the final year of the contract, 2017) in lease payments in addition to paying any real estate taxes imposed on CCA as a result of ownership of the CTF.186 At the end of the operations contract, ownership of the CTF will revert to the District.187

 184 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America (effective Jan. 30, 1997, as modified). We were able to review a copy of the operations contract and fourteen modifications, as well as the lease agreement. We were initially unable to obtain other contract documents such as the lease agreement or any modifications after modification number nine. The DCDOC referred our request for contract documents to the Office of Contracting and Procurement (OCP), which initially failed to provide any documents. Under the District’s freedom of information law, we appealed that non-response to the Mayor’s office. After over nine weeks and a series of followup communications with the Mayor’s General Counsel Office, and the Mayor’s Office of Legal Counsel, OCP ultimately provided documents. It should not be so difficult to obtain public documents.
185 Lease Agreement by and between Corrections Corporation of America as Lessor and The District of Columbia as Lessee; Stephanie Mencimer, Let’s Make a Deal, Wash. City Paper (May 9, 1997), http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/12631/lets-make-a-deal.
186 See id.
187 See id.; Corrections Corporation of America, 2009 Letter to Shareholders.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 158 of 260

1. The Contract
The term of CCA’s contract with the District is significantly longer than what CCA describes as its typical contract duration, which is typically for a term of “up to five years,” with additional renewals at the option of the government.188
The District pays CCA in a number of ways. As drafted, CCA’s contract provided that the District’s primary expense associated with CCA operation of the CTF is based on a per-prisoner daily rate that is increased by 3% annually. In 1997, the first year of the contract, the District was required to pay CCA $70.40 per prisoner per day.189 Due to contract modifications, the base rate (before annual increases are figured in) has been adjusted several times. For example, during a period in 2003, the per diem rate was dropped as low as $51.40 as part of a settlement of claims the District “may have had against [CCA] related to the Management Contract and [CCA’s] alleged non-compliance, known and documented by the Department of Corrections (DOC) as of January 1, 2003.”190 Assuming standard annual increases since the last contractual modification of the per diem, the per diem rate the District is obligated to pay in 2015 is $85.95 per prisoner per day.191 Based on a calculated 2014 per diem rate of $83.45, and an average adult prisoner population at the CTF during 2014 of 473, the 2014 management fee would have been roughly $14.4 million.
By way of comparison, CCA reported that, nationally, its revenue per “compensated man-day” in calendar year 2014 was $63.54, an increase over the 2013 figure of $60.57.192 Assuming that CCA’s SEC filings reported an average rate, a degree of variation between the per diem rates of various jurisdictions due to different economic conditions and different regulatory regimes is to be expected.
Whether such variation fully explains the rates in the District’s contract, which were approximately 31% higher in 2014 than the average, is unclear.193 However, labor costs may play a role in explaining the variation. CCA often markets its services as
 188 Corrections Corporation of America, Annual Report (Form 10-K), 28, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000119312514072723/d664216d10k.htm.
189 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, ¶ 7.1.
190 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, Modification 4.
191 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, ¶ 7.1.2; Modification 6 (setting a per diem rate of $62.09 as of February 1, 2004, to be adjusted annually thereafter).
192 Corrections Corporation of America, Annual Report (Form 10-K), 56 (Feb. 25, 2015) http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000119312515061839/d853180d10k.htm.
193 This assumes a 2014 per diem rate of $83.45, which was calculated based on annual increases since Modification 6 in 2004.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 159 of 260

leading to cost-savings, in part based on savings in expenses for labor. In states where it can operate without unions, its employee pay floor may be set by the minimum wage. By contrast, the District’s contract with CCA provides that CCA must recognize the right of employees to unionize194 and District contracts are subject to the federal Service Contract Act, which sets wage floors for various occupation codes (e.g., “Accounting Clerk II,” “Pharmacy Technician,” etc.) that, depending on the type of service, may be significantly higher than the federal minimum wage.195 According to the most recent U.S. Department of Labor wage determination, the hourly wage for the occupation of “Corrections Officer” is $22.80, not including fringe benefits.196 By way of comparison, the District’s minimum wage as of the date of this report was $9.50 per hour, and the “Living Wage” for 2015 that the District requires its major contractors to pay is $13.80 per hour.197
Nonetheless, one of the DCDOC’s plans for FY13 was to seek to re-negotiate the CTF per-diem rates, though this initiative was “discontinued due to a change in priorities” and has not been proposed in the department’s FY14 or FY15 plans.198
In addition to regular payments based on the per diem rate, the District has paid CCA lump sum amounts on multiple occasions over the years. For example, a September 2005 contract modification included an additional payment of $960,000 in connection with a dispute between the District and CCA over a Department of Labor wage determination applicable to correctional officers, and $26 million in FY06 for prisoner bed space and a lease payment.199

 194 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, ¶5.2.4
195 See 41 U.S.C. §§ 6702-6703.
196 U.S. Dep’t of Labor, WD 05-2103 (Rev. -14), http://www.wdol.gov/wdol/scafiles/std/052103.txt.
197 See D.C. Dep’t of Employment Servs., Wage and Hour Compliance, http://does.dc.gov/service/wage-and-hour-compliance; D.C. Dep’t of Employment Servs., Living Wage Act of 2006 Fact Sheet, http://does.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/does/page_content/attachments/Living%20Wa ge%20Act%20Fact%20Sheet%202015.pdf.
198 See D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2013 Performance Accountability Report, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC_FY13PAR.pdf ; D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2014 Performance Plan, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC14.pdf; D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2015 Performance Plan, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC15.pdf.
199 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, Modifications 7-8.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 160 of 260
For calendar year 2014, CCA reported that its operating margin was 29.7%, slightly up from the 29.4% margin it achieved in 2013.200
One cost to the District is for a building and equipment lease between the District and CCA for the CTF. CCA reports that it expects to receive a minimum of $2.8 million each year in rental income for 2014-2016 and an additional $694,000 in 2017, the last year of its current contract.201
CCA has been involved in lawsuits and investigations over the years, including an agreement to pay the State of Idaho $1 million as a result of “contractual disputes related to staffing at the Idaho Correction Center.”202 CCA is also being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in connection with its actions at the Idaho facility, which has reportedly been referred to by prisoners as “Gladiator School.”203 The FBI is investigating whether CCA violated federal law prohibiting fraud following CCA’s apparent acknowledgment that it violated its contract with the state by understaffing the facility “by thousands of hours” and that CCA’s employees “falsified reports to cover up the vacancies.”204
CCA has acknowledged that, “[t]he operation of correctional and detention facilities by private entities has not achieved complete acceptance by either governments or the public,” that “[t]he movement toward privatization of correctional and detention facilities has also encountered resistance from certain groups,” and that “negative publicity about an escape, riot or other disturbance or perceived poor operational performance, contract compliance, or other conditions at a privately managed facility may result in adverse publicity to [CCA] and the private corrections industry in general,” any of which may “make it more difficult for [CCA] to renew or maintain existing contracts or to obtain new contracts.”205

 200 Corrections Corporation of America, Annual Report (Form 10-K), 56, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000119312515061839/d853180d10k.htm.
201 Corrections Corporation of America, Annual Report (Form 10-K), F-20, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000119312514072723/d664216d10k.htm
202 Corrections Corporation of America, Annual Report (Form 10-Q), 18, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000119312514300102/d755063d10q.htm,
203 See id.; Rebecca Boone, APNewsBreak: FBI investigates prison company, Associated Press, March 7, 2014, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/apnewsbreak-fbi-investigates-prison-companycca.
204 Rebecca Boone, APNewsBreak: FBI investigates prison company, Associated Press, March 7, 2014, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/apnewsbreak-fbi-investigates-prison-company-cca.
205 Corrections Corporation of America, Annual Report (Form 10-K), 27-28, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000119312514072723/d664216d10k.htm.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 161 of 260
2. Profile of CCA and its relationship with the District
CCA, founded in 1983, is a publicly traded real estate investment trust, and is the oldest and largest private prison company in America.206 Because CCA’s contract is set to expire in 2017, it is appropriate to consider events involving CCA that have occurred since 1997, when the contract was signed. The DCDOC itself apparently planned to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of continuing a privatized model for the CTF or returning management to the District in FY12 and FY13, but this initiative was at first delayed due to “an incredible backlog of critical DOC procurements at [the Office of Contracting and Procurement],” and ultimately “discontinued due to a change in priorities.”207
CCA “owns or controls 52 correctional and detention facilities and manages 13 additional facilities owned by [its] government partners, with a total design capacity of approximately 86,500 beds in 20 states and the District of Columbia.”208 In 2013, CCA reported revenue of approximately $1.69 billion.209

Source: “See CCA’s Nationwide System of Correctional Centers,” CCA.com, http://www.cca.com/locations.
 206 See Matt Stroud, The Private Prison Racket, POLITICO Magazine, Feb. 24, 2014, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/private-prison-racket103893.html#.VCXP12ddV8E.
207 See D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2013 Performance Accountability Report, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC_FY13PAR.pdf ; D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2012 Performance Accountability Report, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC_FY12PAR.pdf ; D.C. Dep’t of Corr. FY 2012 Performance Plan, http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DOC12.pdf.
208 Corrections Corporation of America, CCA Announces 2014 First Quarter Financial Results, News Release, May 7, 2014, http://ir.correctionscorp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=117983&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=1928425&highlight=.
209 Corrections Corporation of America Revenue & Earnings Per Share (EPS), NASDAQ, http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/cxw/revenue-eps.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 162 of 260

In 1997, CCA contracted with the District to “operate, maintain and manage the

CTF” for a term of 20 years.210 In the event that CCA fails to comply with the provisions

in its contract, federal or state and local requirements and laws, the District may

terminate its contract with CCA after allowing a 30 day cure period.211 However, “if any

action, or failure to act, by [CCA] results in any risk

to the safety or welfare of the prisoners assigned to In 1997, CCA contracted

the CTF, the staff of the CTF or the general public,

with the District to

the District may immediately initiate the action it “operate, maintain and

deems appropriate to eliminate or reduce such risk, including assumption of the operation of the

manage the CTF” for a term of 20 years.

CTF.”212

CCA, along with other private prison companies, has been the subject of much criticism. Joshua Miller, a labor economist with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, asserted that the private corrections model was “structurally flawed” because “[t]he profit motive drastically changes the mission of corrections from public safety and rehabilitation to making a quick buck.”213 Public criticisms of CCA generally fall into two categories: (1) Allegations that CCA provides substandard services resulting in harm to both prisoners and prisoners, and (2) Allegations that CCA supports policy measures that have the effect of keeping more people in prison and for longer periods of time.
a) Allegations of substandard services

The first criticism stems, in part, from a number of instances where CCA

employees reportedly exhibited misconduct. For example, in 2006, a former CCA

corrections officer admitted to “putting human waste in an inmate’s drinking jug” after

the company was sued by four prisoners alleging that they were forced to eat food

contaminated with urine and feces.214 Reportedly, “[o]ne of many instances of prisoner

sexual abuse” occurred in a Texas

In Idaho, the state’s largest prison was given the nickname “Gladiator School”
because of its violent reputation.

CCA facility where a CCA employee “was found guilty of sexually abusing at least eight female immigrant detainees while

210 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America (1997).
211 Id. at 9.1-9.3.
212 Id. at 9.3
213 Grassroots Leadership, The Dirty Thirty: Nothing to Celebrate About 30 Years of Corrections Corporation of America, 4, http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/GRL_Dirty_Thirty_formatted_for _web.pdf.
214 Kelli Kennedy, Human Waste Put in Food, Ex-inmates Claim, Associated Press, Mar. 12, 2006, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-119683145.html/.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 163 of 260
transporting them in a van alone.”215 In 2007, a Justice Department survey of local jails showed that a CCA facility in New Mexico had “the highest rate of sexual victimization (13.4 percent), more than four times the national average,” and “the highest rate of staffon-inmate sexual victimization – 7 percent, as compared with a national average of around 2 percent.”216 Additionally, CCA facilities have seen numerous escapes, mistaken releases, and riots.217 In Idaho, the state’s largest prison was given the nickname “Gladiator School” because of its violent reputation, allegedly caused by understaffing.218 After multiple lawsuits and an Associated Press investigation revealing that records had been falsified in order to meet minimum staffing requirements, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced that it was investigating CCA “and looking at whether various federal fraud statutes were violated and possibly other federal statutes connected with the fraud.”219
At the District’s CTF, there have been a series of instances where CCA corrections officers and guards allegedly accepted bribes to smuggle contraband (including cash, electronic items, cigarettes, and drugs) to prisoners. In 2002, four guards were indicted on charges that they smuggled drugs, pagers and cash to prisoners in exchange for bribes.220 In 2010, another CCA correctional officer pled guilty to bribery for accepting

 215 Grassroots Leadership, The Dirty Thirty: Nothing to Celebrate About 30 Years of Corrections Corporation of America, 5, http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/GRL_Dirty_Thirty_formatted_for _web.pdf.
216 James Ridgeway, Ex-Con Shareholder Goes After World’s Biggest Prison Corporation, Mother Jones, May 10, 2012, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/ex-con-alexfriedmann-cca-private-prison-rape.
217 Grassroots Leadership, The Dirty Thirty: Nothing to Celebrate About 30 Years of Corrections Corporation of America, 5-9, http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/GRL_Dirty_Thirty_formatted_for _web.pdf.
218 Rebecca Boone, FBI investigates prison company, Associated Press, Mar. 7, 2014, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fbi-takes-investigation-idaho-gladiator-schoolarticle-1.1714357.
219 Id.
220 Grassroots Leadership, The Dirty Thirty: Nothing to Celebrate About 30 Years of Corrections Corporation of America, 5, http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/GRL_Dirty_Thirty_formatted_for _web.pdf.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 164 of 260

money to smuggle an iPod and cigarettes to prisoners.221 More recently, in April 2014, two CCA corrections officers were arrested and charged on similar bribery charges.222
Also, in 2010, two former CTF prisoners sued the District of Columbia and CCA for civil rights violations alleging that CCA employees “preyed on them sexually and banished them to solitary lockdown when they complained.”223 One of the female prisoners alleged that a CCA officer paid her “sugar daddy,” who was on the outside, and then demanded sex from the prisoner.
b) CCA lobbying efforts and political contributions
In its Annual Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, CCA includes the following which it classifies as a “forward-looking statement”:
Our ability to secure new contracts to develop and manage correctional and detention facilities depends on many factors outside our control. Our growth is generally dependent upon our ability to obtain new contracts to develop and manage new correctional and detention facilities. This possible growth depends on a number of factors we cannot control, including crime rates and sentencing patterns in various jurisdictions, governmental budgetary constraints, and governmental and public acceptance of privatization. The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Immigration reform laws are currently a focus for legislators and politicians at the federal, state, and local level. Legislation has also been proposed in numerous jurisdictions that could lower minimum sentences for some non-violent crimes and make more inmates eligible for early release based on good behavior. Also, sentencing alternatives under consideration could  221 Dep’t of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office District of Columbia, Former Correctional Officer Sentenced in Bribery Case, News Release, http://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/news/2010/jul/10171.pdf.
222 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Corrections Officer Arrested on Federal Bribery Charge, Press Release, http://www.fbi.gov/washingtondc/press-releases/2014/corrections-officerarrested-on-federal-bribery-charge; Keith L. Alexander, Second guard at D.C. jail charged with bribery in smuggling contraband, The Washington Post, Apr. 30, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/second-guard-at-dc-jail-charged-with-briberyin-smuggling-contraband/2014/04/30/260e88e4-d0ad-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html.
223 Tim Hull, Women Call Private Prison Guards Predators, Courthouse News Service, Feb. 23, 2010, http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/23/24939.htm.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 165 of 260

put some offenders on probation with electronic monitoring who would otherwise be incarcerated. Similarly, reductions in crime rates or resources dedicated to prevent and enforce crime could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities. Our policy prohibits us from engaging in lobbying or advocacy efforts that would influence enforcement efforts, parole standards, criminal laws, and sentencing policies.224
Except for the last sentence, the above statement, or one substantially similar to it, appears on every CCA annual SEC filing for the last ten years. However, not until FY11 does the final sentence, setting forth CCA’s position as to lobbying with regard to criminal justice policy, appear.
Consistent with this timing (perhaps coincidentally), in 2011 CCA ended its membership with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), of which CCA had been a corporate member for over twenty years.225 ALEC, by its own description, is a nonprofit organization that “works to advance limited government, free markets and federalism at the state level” through the partnership of private entities, the general public, and state legislators.226 While CCA was a member of ALEC, it served on ALEC’s Criminal Justice task force (later called the Public Safety & Elections task force) that developed model legislation227 for what has been called “some of the toughest sentencing laws on the books today[:] . . . mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenders, ‘three strikes’ laws, and ‘truth in sentencing’ laws.”228
The so-called “truth in sentencing” (TIS) laws refer to practices “designed to reduce the apparent disparity between court-imposed sentences and the time offenders actually serve in prison.”229 Such policies are particularly relevant to D.C., where  224 Corrections Corporation of America, Annual Report (Form 10-K), 29, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000119312514072723/d664216d10k.htm#t x664216_1a.
225 Bog Ortega, Arizona prison businesses are big political contributors, Sept. 4, 2011, http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/09/04/20110904arizona-prison-businesspolitics.html.
226 American Legislative Exchange Council, “About ALEC,” http://www.alec.org/about-alec/.
227 Additionally, through ALEC, the CCA was reportedly able to review and give its approval for draft legislation that would later become Arizona’s controversial SB 1070. The CCA’s interest in such legislation would likely be heightened given that CCA “is the nation’s largest detainer of immigrants.” See Harvey Silverglate and Kyle Smeallie, Freedom watch: Jailhouse bloc, The Phoenix, Dec. 9, 2008, http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/73092-Freedom-watch-Jailhousebloc/?page=3.
228 Mike Elk and Bob Sloan, The Hidden History of ALEC and Prison Labor, The Nation, Aug. 1, 2011, http://www.thenation.com/article/162478/hidden-history-alec-and-prison-labor#.
229 Katherine J. Rosich and Kamala Mallik Kane, Truth in Sentencing and State Sentencing Practices, NIJ Journal No. 252, http://nij.gov/journals/252/Pages/sentencing.aspx.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 166 of 260

statutes limit prisoners’ use of good time credits and eligibility for parole. ALEC’s Criminal Justice Task Force reportedly drafted a model TIS bill—CCA was a member of the task force at the time.230 In 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which, among other things, offered federal grant money for states and the District of Columbia to “expand their prison capacity if they imposed TIS requirements on violent offenders.” In order to qualify for this grant funding, states and the District of Columbia were required to “have or pass laws requiring serious violent offenders to serve at least 85 percent of their imposed sentences in prison.”231 That same year, the District of Columbia enacted the Omnibus Criminal Justice Reform Amendment Act of 1994, D.C. Law 10-151 which, among other things, prevented good time credits from reducing the minimum sentence of someone convicted of a crime of violence by more than 15%, and prevented persons convicted of violent offenses from being paroled prior to serving 85% of the minimum sentence imposed.232

Additionally, numerous reports have indicated that CCA has lobbied for policies

affecting criminal statutes and sentencing. In 2008, The Phoenix reported that CCA

“spent more than $2.7 million from 2006 through September 2008 on lobbying for

stricter laws.”233 The Associated Press reported that in CCA spent about half a million

dollars in the first half of

2010 “lobbying federal officials.” Targets of CCA’s lobbying efforts included Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Marshals Service and U.S.

In its self-published Political Activity Report, CCA reported that it and its consultant lobbyists spent approximately
$2.7 million “in fees and other expenditures related to lobbying on behalf of
CCA at the Federal, state and local levels.”

Immigration & Customs

Enforcement.234 The chart below details the amount of money CCA has spent on federal

lobbying efforts each year from 1998 until 2014.

230 Karen Olsson, Ghostwriting the Law, Mother Jones, September/October 2002 Issue, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2002/09/ghostwriting-law.
231 Katherine J. Rosich and Kamala Mallik Kane, Truth in Sentencing and State Sentencing Practices, NIJ Journal No. 252, http://nij.gov/journals/252/Pages/sentencing.aspx.
232 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, National Institute of Corrections Information Center, State Legislative Actions on Truth in Sentencing: A Review of Law and Legislation in the Context of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34, http://static.nicic.gov/Library/012259.pdf.
233 Harvey Silverglate and Kyle Smeallie, Freedom watch: Jailhouse bloc, The Phoenix, Dec. 9, 2008, http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/73092-Freedom-watch-Jailhouse-bloc/?page=3.
234 Corrections Corp. spent $240,000 on 2Q lobbying, Associated Press, Sept. 1, 2010, http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HVBLM80.htm.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 167 of 260

Source: “Client Profile: Summary, 2013,” OpenSecrets.org, https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000021940&year=2013.

However, as the above chart only involves expenditures on the federal level, it does not tell the whole story. Most of CCA’s lobbying expenditures occur on the state and local level. In its self-published Political Activity Report, CCA reported that it and its consultant lobbyists spent approximately $2.7 million “in fees and other expenditures related to lobbying on behalf of CCA at the Federal, state and local levels.” Of that sum, $1.1 million was attributable to lobbying on the federal level, and $1.6 million was attributable to state and local activities.235

CCA has invested significant

CCA has spent over $7 million in its lobbying efforts to prevent private prisons from being subjected to the
same public disclosure requirements as public prisons.

resources in lobbying against several incarnations of the Private Prison Information Act (PPIA)—an act that has been introduced in Congress multiple times over the course of several years and which would

essentially subject private prisons to

the requirements of the Freedom of

Information Act. CCA spent $1.84 million lobbying against the PPIA of 2007, $1.48

million lobbying against the PPIA of 2009, and $3.85 million lobbying against the PPIA

of 2011.236 Thus, since 2007, CCA has spent over $7 million in its lobbying efforts to

prevent private prisons from being subjected to the same public disclosure requirements

235 See Corrections Corporation of America, CCA Political Activity and Lobbying Report 2013, 6, http://ir.correctionscorp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=117983&p=irol-politicalcontributions_pf.
236 OpenSecrets, Corrections Corporation of America, Bills Lobbied, 2007, https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientbills.php?id=D000021940&year=2007.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 168 of 260

as public prisons. We note, however, that in recent years, CCA’s lobbying disclosures have consistently included the following disclaimer:
CCA DOES NOT LOBBY FOR OR AGAINST ANY POLICIES OR LEGISLATION THAT WOULD DETERMINE THE BASIS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL’S INCARCERATION OR DETENTION.237
It is not clear whether this statement is intended to cover lobbying efforts by any other organization to which CCA may provide financial support. For example, due to disclosure rules for certain entities, such as 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, whether CCA supports other organizations that in turn have expressed views regarding legislation may not be publicly available information.
Over the years, CCA has also made substantial political contributions on both the federal and state levels. In 2013, CCA and its political action committee CCA PAC, contributed a total of $875,350—including contributions to (i) federal candidates, parties and committees; (ii) state/local candidates, parties, and committees; and (iii) 527 organizations (“political organizations” under 26 U.S.C. § 527).238 With regard to District political elections, CCA has made contributions to the campaigns of several candidates running for City Council and Mayor, with such contributions occurring in 2002, 2006, 2008, and 2009, and totaling $4,500.239 A CCA subsidiary, CCA of Tennessee, LLC, actually exceeded the CCA’s contribution rate by contributing over $7,000 in District races in the last five years, 240 and another $5,000 to a mayoral inaugural committee.241 None of these figures include direct contributions to candidates by the officers or employees of the CCA or a CCA subsidiary.  237 See, e.g., Corrections Corporation of America Lobbying Report 2013, Q2 (4/1-6/30), http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=1699C3FE-3358-4854A8D5-BAE4143E294A&filingTypeID=60.
238 See Corrections Corporation of America, CCA Political Activity and Lobbying Report 2013.
239 District of Columbia Office of Campaign Finance, Contribution & Expenditure Search, http://www.ocf.dc.gov/dsearch/searchresultcon.asp?mf1=&ml1=&ms1=&mc1=corrections%20c orp&mo1=N&xa=&sa=&ea=&ca=N&sc=&mf3=&ml3=&ms3=&mc3=&mf4=&ml4=&ms4=&mo 4=N&d1=0&m1=0&y1=0&d2=0&m2=0&y2=0&d3=0&m3=0&y3=0&mo5=N&sc5=&sr=6&ob1 =agyname&ob2=&ob3=&type=pcc&searchtype=org.
240 District of Columbia Office of Campaign Finance, Contribution & Expenditure Search, http://www.ocf.dc.gov/dsearch/searchresultcon.asp?mf1=&ml1=&ms1=&mc1=cca%20of%20te nnessee&mo1=N&xa=&sa=&ea=&ca=N&sc=&mf3=&ml3=&ms3=&mc3=&mf4=&ml4=&ms4= &mo4=N&d1=0&m1=0&y1=0&d2=0&m2=0&y2=0&d3=0&m3=0&y3=0&mo5=N&sc5=&sr=6 &ob1=agyname&ob2=&ob3=&type=pcc&searchtype=org.
241 District of Columbia Office of Campaign Finance, Contribution & Expenditure Search, http://www.ocf.dc.gov/dsearch/searchresultcon.asp?mf1=&ml1=&ms1=&mc1=cca%20of%20te nnessee&mo1=N&xa=&sa=&ea=&ca=N&sc=&mf3=&ml3=&ms3=&mc3=&mf4=&ml4=&ms4= &mo4=N&d1=0&m1=0&y1=0&d2=0&m2=0&y2=0&d3=0&m3=0&y3=0&mo5=N&sc5=&sr=6 &ob1=agyname&ob2=&ob3=&type=pcc&searchtype=org.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 169 of 260

B. Unity Health Care
Between July 19, 2006, and September 30, 2013, the District paid approximately $185 million for health care services for District prisoners, or about $26 million per year.242 The contract with Unity is based on a fixed-price model, in which the cost is not dependent upon the prisoner population or number of individuals treated.243
The prisoner population at the D.C. Jail and the CTF “is highly transient and exhibits a wide array of serious health problems, including tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, and mental illness.”244 Prisoners are provided with medical care through a contract with Unity Health Care, Inc. (Unity).245
Unity has been providing medical care services to District prisoners since 2006.246 This arrangement represented a change for CTF prisoners. Originally, the contract between the District and CCA contemplated that CCA would provide medical services to prisoners, and that CCA would be responsible for a range of both outpatient and inpatient costs. 247 Six years into the contractual arrangement, in January 2003, the District and CCA modified their contract to begin transferring responsibility for the provision of medical care back to the District. During the transition, the District initially agreed to pay CCA for the subcontracted services of the Center for Correctional Health and Policy Studies, Inc. while it negotiated its own contract with a medical provider without CCA as an intermediary.248 That same contract modification included a reduction in CCA’s compensation “as full and final settlement of any and all claims the District may have against the Operator related to the Management Contract and Operator’s alleged non-compliance.”249 In April 2003, the District took over
 242 D.C. Contract, DCFL-2006-D-6001 & Modifications (Unity Health Care, Inc.). Based on the contract documents, the annual cost did not consistently increase each year over the life of the contract; the contract cost for FY13 (Oct. 1, 2012, through Sept. 30, 2013) was $23.6 million.
243 See D.C.-Unity Health Care, Inc. Contract, ¶ B.2 (2006); Letter from Mayor Vincent Gray to The Honorable Phil Mendelson, Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia (Sept. 24, 2013), http://dcclims1.dccouncil.us/images/00001/20130925162240.pdf.
244 D.C.-Unity Health Care, Inc. Contract, ¶ C.2 (2006).
245 DOC, FAQs, http://doc.dc.gov/page/doc-frequently-asked-questions
246 Unity Health Care, Inc., About Unity Health Care / Our History, http://www.unityhealthcare.org/AboutHistory.html.
247 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, ¶ 5.4.5.
248 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, Modification 3, at 3.
249 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, Modification 3, at 4.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 170 of 260

responsibility for providing both medical services and all food services to CTF prisoners.250
The District has been developing a new contract model for health care services that moves away from a fixed price model to a mixed compensation model that would account for volume of services rendered.251 Initially, then Mayor Gray transmitted a proposed contract for services with Corizon Health, Inc.252 However, concerns were raised about the firm,253 and Mayor Gray withdrew the contract from consideration by the Council.254 Mayor Bowser asked the Council to revisit the proposal and, on April 14, 2015, the D.C. Council voted against awarding the contract to Corizon.255 While the District continues procurement of a new long-term contract, it appears that Unity continues to provide health care pursuant to short-term extensions of its contract.
C. Halfway Houses
As noted, until recently, the DCDOC contracted with four separate, privatelyowned and operated halfway houses in the District: Efforts From Ex-Convicts; Extended House, Inc.; Fairview; and Hope Village.256 The District no longer contracts
 250 Operations and Management Agreement by and between The District of Columbia and Corrections Corporation of America, Modification 4.
251 See Letter of Mayor Vincent Gray to The Honorable Phil Mendelson, Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia (Dec. 8, 2014), http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/33020/CA200548-Introduction.pdf.
252 See id. D.C. Office of Contracting and Procurement, Determination and Findings for a Sole Source Extension of Contract (Contract CW2669, Unity Health Care, Inc.) (unsigned), http://app.ocp.dc.gov/intent_award/D_F/DF_SS_UnityHealth_DOC_022515.pdf (proposing a payment of $5.9 million for services rendered during a three-month period between April 1, 2015, and June 30, 2015).
253 See, e.g., Human Rights Defense Center, Letter, Contract with Corizon for Medical Care at D.C. Jail (Dec. 13, 2014), https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/Letter%20to%20DC%20councilmember s%202014%20Chairman.pdf.
254 See Mike DeBonis, Gray halts D.C. Council vote on controversial pick for jail contract, Wash. Post (Dec. 16, 2014), http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/gray-halts-dccouncil-vote-on-controversial-pick-for-jail-contract/2014/12/16/93e9057e-855c-11e4-9534f79a23c40e6c_story.html.
255 Abigail Hauslohner, D.C. Council rejects Corizon Health contract after lobbying battle, Wash. Post (Apr. 14, 2015), http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-councilrejects-corizon-health-contract-after-lobbying-battle/2015/04/14/b784c8e2-e222-11e4-81ea0649268f729e_story.html.
256 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., FY 2013 Performance Accountability Report, at 1 (Jan. 2014).

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 171 of 260

with Efforts From Ex-Convicts.257 Each of the other three halfway houses received a contract with a maximum value of $990,000 for a one-year period ending on August 13, 2015.258 The halfway houses serve as an alternative to incarceration for individuals awaiting trial and for sentenced misdemeanants. The goal of halfway houses is to provide a number of important services designed to help residents with educational, professional, and interpersonal skills, as well as providing support for residents’ mental and physical health and wellbeing.259
Unfortunately, reports of inadequate services and safety concerns point to a need for a review of the capabilities and performance of the District’s contract facilities. For example, an op ed by a Washington Post editor reported in 2013 that, of the approximately 2,000 offenders “return[ed] to the District each year after their release from incarceration, . . . half are re-arrested within three years,” a statistic that casts doubt on whether the halfway houses are indeed “helping ex-offenders adjust” to life outside.260
,9 LOOKING FORWARD
Based on our review of the conditions of confinement for District prisoners, we believe a number of steps are urgently needed to address deficiencies ranging from physical infrastructure to training, availability of programming, and oversight. Due to the nature of the problems and the measures needed to resolve them, it is apparent that efforts to move forward should be carried forward by the Mayor and City Council. We believe these proposed steps are consistent with the DCDOC’s expressed “commit[ment] to improving operations and achieving the status of a benchmark correctional agency.”261 For each of these following recommendations, we strongly encourage active, good-faith collaboration by all stakeholders. Effective solutions will require input from advocates, lawyers, corrections and law enforcement personnel, and politicians. The goal of this report is not to dictate specific solutions, but to continue the Washington Lawyers’ Committee’s efforts to address criminal justice issues writ large, and to begin a series of much needed conversations about the District’s approaches to confinement.  257 See D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Keeping the Promises: FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, C-37, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _1_web.pdf.
258 See D.C. Contracts CW 30866 (Extended House), CW 30868 (Hope Village), and CW30870 (Fairview - Reynolds & Associates); see also D.C. Office of Contracting & Procurement, Contract Awards Notification Report, http://app.ocp.dc.gov/RUI/information/award/search.asp.
259 D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Correctional Facilities, http://doc.dc.gov/page/correctional-facilities.
260 Justin Moyer, To some, D.C. halfway house is more like ‘Hopeless Village’, The Washington Post, Aug. 29, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2013/08/29/cd282a86-f4c111e2-9434-60440856fadf_story.html.
261 DCDOC Response.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 172 of 260

A. Recommendation 1: Close the D.C. Jail and the CTF and construct a new, safer, more effective facility
This report identifies serious recurring and structural problems at the D.C. Jail and the CTF. The D.C. Jail is suffering from degraded infrastructure, as evidenced by recurring plumbing problems and holes in the walls, and insufficient protections for those under observation due to suicide risk. Although we have less information about the condition of the CTF’s physical infrastructure, problems associated with the juvenile unit, including space and difficulty providing in-person visitation, and with the Secure Residential Treatment Program, indicate that the CTF is not well-designed for the specialized populations it contains.
Rather than invest considerable resources in a significant overhaul of both the D.C. Jail and the CTF, the District should be proactive and design a new facility or facilities designed to meet modern correctional facility standards, with the flexibility to handle the District’s prisoner populations, and which will be easier to maintain.
Additionally, the trends in the District’s prisoner population, as well as changes to the District’s drug policy, necessitate a reevaluation of the District’s true correctional needs. A new facility could be designed to address the prisoner population the District expects to have, and provide for the different prisoner populations, including men and women, those awaiting trial, those post-conviction awaiting transfer to the BOP, parole violators, juveniles of both sexes, individuals within each population who have special physical or mental health needs (including suicide monitoring), and individuals of all ages and gender who could benefit from substance abuse programming such as the SRTP.
B. Recommendation 2: Expand the Secure Residential Treatment Program
The SRTP should be expanded. First, women should be able to participate. In addition, CSOSA and the U.S. Parole Commission should ensure that more than thirtytwo beds are dedicated to the SRTP and make the program available for individuals with a “high” ICS rating.
C. Recommendation 3: Correct deficiencies in suicide prevention and youth confinement
Significant work has already been undertaken by the DCDOC to assess the conditions of, and identify problems in the DCDOC’s juvenile unit and mental health and suicide programs through the Hayes Report and Ridley Report. Although the DCDOC takes the position that it has addressed the issues outlined in the Hayes Report, more work should still be done. The DCDOC should invite independent third party assessment, such as a review by Hayes, as to whether the issues identified in the Hayes Report have been fully addressed, culminating in a published report. The DCDOC also notes that it has “worked diligently to implement the Ridley recommendations,”

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 173 of 260

including by creating a “Juvenile Administrative Housing and Hearing policy,” that has been in place since June 2013.262 In order to address issues raised by the Ridley Report, the DCDOC should consider, among other things, reducing the use of isolation and segregation among youth prisoners, further increasing and improving youth programing, and expanding access to in-person visitation for all youths.
D. Recommendation 4: Conduct a review of training
In both the Hayes Report and the Ridley Report, one of the common themes was inadequacy of training of correctional officers tasked with specialized functions related to mental health or the juvenile unit. The DCDOC maintains that the “review of training for correctional officers tasked with specialized functions such as juvenile custody and suicide prevention . . . has been addressed . . . and is ongoing.”263
We recommend continuing to ensure that adequate training is provided, as described in both reports, but we also believe it would be useful to take a step back and evaluate training across the correctional system in a comprehensive fashion. We propose that the District retain an independent consultant with extensive experience in the corrections field to conduct a review of all training programs needed for correctional officers (and any others, including contract staff) who work at the D.C. Jail, the CTF, and the halfway houses, to ensure that the right people are receiving the right training, and that the training they receive is sufficiently thorough and reflects modern correctional practices.
E. Recommendation 5: Revise current policies restricting “Good Time Credits”
As discussed above, DCDOC prisoners are eligible to earn “good time credits” and reduce their sentences for successfully completing academic, vocational, and rehabilitation programs and for performing duties of “outstanding importance” or reflecting “exceptionally meritorious service.” Other DCDOC policies, however, arbitrarily restrict the earning of such credits with respect to drug or violent offenses. These restrictive policies should be carefully reviewed and revised so that the important penological tool of good time credits is available for the benefit of prisoners and the system alike to the maximum extent possible.
F. Recommendation 6: Return management of the CTF to District control
When the District’s contract with CCA expires, the District should return management of the CTF to District control. The benefits of continuing to contract with a private corrections corporation are doubtful, and there are a number of disadvantages.
 262 DCDOC Response.
263 Id.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 174 of 260

Private corrections companies such as CCA tout a number of purported benefits as rationales for contracting out correctional services, including taxpayer savings, rehabilitation and reentry services, quality of operations, flexibility, security, and economic benefits to the local community.264
However, prisoners’ rights advocates have argued that these benefits are questionable and that the companies themselves have had numerous safety and quality issues. For example, a paper issued by The Sentencing Project pointed out the “promise of meaningful savings is . . . specious at best,” citing reviews by the then General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Bureau of Justice Assistance.265 Others have argued that the CCA has used cost-cutting measures such as “operating on routinely low and dangerous staff-to-prisoner ratios.”266 This concern was also raised by a ten-year veteran CCA employee who provided testimony at a City Council oversight hearing that “corners are being cut,” and “the facility is being operated understaffed to avoid paying overtime to . . . employees.”267 The witness also testified that “the company has been grossly negligent in their management of time.”268 The witness recalled that, on Mother’s Day (May 13, 2012), ten units were being manned by five officers, there was no emergency response team on site, the radios and telephones were faulty, and, as a result, they were “in a death trap.”269 The witness also listed various examples of understaffing.270 Additionally, the witness noted that the prisoners had been notified by memo of a facility-wide shakedown, potentially allowing prisoners to dispose of
 264 Corrections Corporation of America, Value and Benefits of Partnership Corrections, http://www.cca.com/partner-with-cca/value-benefits; Corrections Corporation of America, Value of Partnering with CCA, http://www.cca.com/partner-with-cca/valuebenefits/partnership-value; Corrections Corporation of America, Answers for Our Communities, http://www.cca.com/partner-with-cca/value-benefits/community-benefits.
265 The Sentencing Project, Prison Privatization and the Use of Incarceration, http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_prisonprivatization.pdf.
266 Grassroots Leadership, The Dirty Thirty: Nothing to Celebrate About 30 Years of Corrections Corporation of America, 3, http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/GRL_Dirty_Thirty_formatted_for _web.pdf.
267 D.C. City Council, Public Hearing, Committee on the Judiciary (Sept. 20, 2012), http://dccarchive.oct.dc.gov/services/on_demand_video/on_demand_September_2012_week _3.shtm (video) (testimony of Ms. Dana Bushrod); see also D.C. City Council, Cmte. on the Judiciary, Public Oversight Hearing on Corrections Corporation of America’s Management of the District’s Correctional Treatment Facility: Witness List, http://dccouncil.us/files/user_uploads/event_testimony/sept20_judiciary_corrections_witnes slist.pdf.
268 Id.
269 Id.
270 Id.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 175 of 260

contraband and, according to the witness, potentially avoiding reporting of negative incidents.271
Additionally, in a recent hearing, witness testimony indicated that CCA may not be adequately informing prisoners at the CTF of the availability of good time credits.272 If this is accurate, it is concerning in part because CCA would be paid more if an prisoner resided in the facility for a longer period of time.
There are also downsides to utilizing a private contractor, especially with respect to accountability. Unlike government agencies (including the D.C. Department of Corrections), private corporations are generally not subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) laws. Consequently, it is difficult to obtain internal documentation that would allow for effective oversight of the District’s corrections system without engaging in expensive civil litigation. The District-CCA contract provides that a limited set of reports and audits of CCA’s operations ought to be in the possession of at least one of the District’s departments and therefore subject to FOIA. But these documents can be difficult to obtain, particularly when department FOIA officials fail to comprehensively respond to requests and point the finger at other agencies, as the authors of this report experienced. Anecdotally, and notwithstanding difficulties in obtaining certain information from the Department of Corrections, the authors of this report found it easier to identify facts and data regarding the D.C. Jail than the CTF.
G. Recommendation 7: Increase public access to records
One of the most challenging aspects of public oversight is unearthing the facts. Former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas once said, “sunlight is the best disinfectant,” meaning that government and freedom of information laws service the public good because more information available to more people will lead to less waste, more justice, and better government. To that aim, under the District of Columbia Freedom of Information Act, public bodies of the D.C. government must disclose public records to any person upon request (unless the record is covered by a statutory exemption).273 The “basic purpose” of this Act was “to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.”274
Unfortunately, in our efforts to gather information for this report, we encountered barriers that impede public access to corrections information. First, although the District has in place the Freedom of Information Act, its implementation is far from perfect. We submitted FOIA requests to four District agencies. All but one  271 Id.
272 See D.C. City Council, Cmte. on the Judiciary, Agency Performance Oversight Hearings on Fiscal Year 2014-2015 (Feb. 19, 2015), http://dccouncil.us/events/committee-on-the-judiciarypoh1.
273 See D.C. Code § 2-534.
274 District of Columbia v. Fraternal Order of Police, 75 A.3d 259, 265 (D.C. 2013).

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 176 of 260

exceeded the fifteen-day statutorily mandated time limit on responding to requests. On one occasion, an agency seemed to wholly ignore our request, prompting us to appeal the request to the Mayor’s Office. As a result of the appeal, and following further dialogue, the requested documents were released—more than four months after the statutory deadline. On another occasion, a public information officer asserted that we had contacted the wrong agency in our effort to obtain a report, despite the fact that D.C. law required that agency to conduct such reports. Many other requests did not result in any substantive response at all.
Although some of the individuals we spoke with during this process tried to be helpful, it is our impression that all public information officers could benefit from significant improvements in their ability to identify records within their agencies. Specifically, (i) public information officers should be made aware of the scope of work the agency performs as well as documents created by other agencies or persons that the agency is likely to possess; (ii) standard operating procedures for agencies responding to a FOIA request should require the agency to make reasonable efforts to identify records responsive to requests before asserting they do not exist (on more than one occasion, public information officers responding to our request denied possession or knowledge of reports we requested, even though a cursory internet search could have revealed that such reports were produced by the agency in the past); (iii) if an agency makes documents available on its website, it should identify where those documents are located with specificity; (iv) agencies should implement measures to increase agency accountability in their responses to FOIA requests and to ensure that public information officers have an accurate understanding of the scope of disclosure requirements and of the limitations on FOIA exemptions,275 and (v) agency FOIA performance should be assessed for the purpose of determining whether individual agency FOIA units require additional staffing, training, or oversight. Public information officers should not be permitted to ignore requests, flout deadlines without explanation.
Second, notwithstanding our difficulties obtaining certain information from District agencies, it was even harder to identify anyone who would admit to possessing information regarding CCA’s operation of the CTF. All of our efforts to obtain the reports and audits authorized by the DC-CCA Contract were unsuccessful. And, while the D.C. Department of Health provided us with its inspection reports of the D.C. Jail
 275 Agencies currently submit annual reports providing basic information regarding the number of requests received, the amount of time spent processing FOIA requests, and similar information. See, e.g., D.C. Office of the Sec’y, Annual Reports, http://os.dc.gov/page/annualreports. In general, it appears that FOIA oversight currently focuses on quantification of FOIA data; it is less clear that oversight adequately assesses whether FOIA requests are accurately processed. For example, an analysis of the 2012 FOIA reports found that one-third of FOIA requests were subject to delays and, when requesters chose to appeal agency determinations, agency actions were found incorrect “nearly half the time.” See D.C. Open Government Coalition, DC FOIA delays, denials, attorney fee awards jump in 2012, http://www.dcogc.org/content/dc-foia-delays-denials-attorney-fee-awards-jump-2012 (last visited Feb. 10, 2015).

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 177 of 260
upon request, the agency specifically indicated that it was not authorized to inspect the CTF.276 This points to a larger issue associated with private operation of a large prison facility. CCA itself has resisted efforts to be subjected to sunshine laws, spending millions of dollars over several years to opposed federal legislation alone.
In light of the problems facing those who seek public access to corrections information, we recommend a review of the District’s freedom of information laws and practices, to ensure that the laws are functioning as they should, and that staff have the information and resources to respond accurately, helpfully, and promptly to all requests. The need for improvement is especially compelling where it involves the District’s oversight of a private prison.

 276 We remain uncertain about the accuracy of this assertion. A 2004 Report by the Government Accountability Office mentions “health and safety inspection reports for the Jail and the CTF that were prepared from January 2002 through April 2004 by the District’s Department of Health.” See District of Columbia Jail: Management Challenges Exist in Improving Facility Conditions.” GAO-04-742, http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/243835.html.

'&35,621(56&21',7,2162)&21),1(0(17





Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 178 of 260

Appendix A
Demographics & Budget
Deficiencies in the conditions of confinement in the District disproportionately impact the District’s Black men. We cannot fully understand and correct deficiencies in the correctional system without understanding these realities. Likewise, an understanding of the District’s budget for corrections is important, because the high cost1 of confinement should be a call to action for those unhappy with the status quo.
, DEMOGRAPHICS
A. Racial Disparities
The District’s prisoner population is disproportionately Black and male as compared to the District’s total population. Slightly less than half (49.5%) of the District’s total population, but 91% of the District’s prisoner population, is Black. By contrast, 43.4% of the District’s total population, but only a small fraction (3%) of the District’s prisoner population, is White. And, while 92% of DCDOC prisoners are male, only 47% of District residents are male.2

Prisoners

%ODFN 

(in the District)
(by Ethnicity)

+LVSDQLF
2WKHU :KLWH   

%ODFN +LVSDQLF :KLWH 2WKHU

%ODFN 
+LVSDQLF 

Population

(of the District)
(by Ethnicity)

:KLWH 
$VLDQ 

%ODFN :KLWH $VLDQ +LVSDQLF

1 Although this Appendix primarily focuses on the monetary costs to the District (and taxpayers) of confining and providing health care to District prisoners, there are numerous other costs associated with confinement, such as the economic cost to individuals and to society of lost productivity both due to confinement and due to difficulty obtaining employment following release, and the economic and non-economic costs to the families of prisoners, to name a few.
2 United States Census Bureau, State & County QuickFacts, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html.

$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 179 of 260
The significance of this disparity is highlighted when considering the history of vast racial disparities in arrest rates for marijuana possession in D.C. In 2010, the District had the highest overall marijuana possession arrest rate in the nation with 846 marijuana possession arrests per 100,000 residents.3 Ninety-one percent of individuals arrested were Black, causing D.C. to also have one of the largest racial disparities in its arrest rates for marijuana possession.4 Thus, District law enforcement officers arrested one White person for marijuana possession for every eight Black people they arrested for marijuana possession.5 Between 2009 and 2011, more than eight out of ten adult residents arrested for marijuana possession were Black.6 Marijuana use, however, is roughly equal among Blacks and Whites.7 Although the District’s legalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana for at-home use (discussed elsewhere in this Report) is sure to affect the arrest rates, racial disparities in arrest and conviction rates are certainly not unique to marijuana-related offenses.8 We remain concerned that the existence of such a marked disparity in marijuana arrest rates, like the overrepresentation of Blacks in DCDOC custody, is a symptom of a larger problem with regard to the impact of the criminal justice system on minorities, and particularly Black men.
B. Gender Disparities
DCDOC’s prisoner population is also predominantly male; in FY14, men represented approximately 92% of those in DCDOC custody. All of the prisoners in the D.C. Jail are male (it only houses male prisoners), and 70% of CTF prisoners are male, as are 80% of those in halfway houses in the District.9 This percentage is somewhat
 3 See American Civil Liberties Union, The War on Marijuana in Black and White: Billions of Dollars Wasted on Racially Biased Arrests, 18, https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/1114413-mjreport-rfs-rel1.pdf.
4 See id. at 18.
5 See id. at 18–19.
6 See Washington Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Racial Disparities in Arrests in the District of Columbia, 2009-2011, http://www.washlaw.org/pdf/wlc_report_racial_disparities.pdf.
7 See id. at 21.
8 See Washington Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Racial Disparities in Arrests in the District of Columbia, 2009-2011, at 8, 20, 23, http://www.washlaw.org/pdf/wlc_report_racial_disparities.pdf (reporting that in 2011, black arrestees in D.C. accounted for nearly 70 percent of the Metropolitan Police Department’s traffic arrests, 76 percent of the disorderly conduct arrests, and 87.5 percent of the simple assault arrests).
9 See D.C. Dep’t of Corr., “DC Department of Corrections Facts and Figures,” http://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/DC%20Departmen t%20of%20Corrections%20Facts%20and%20Figures%20October%202014.pdf.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 180 of 260
higher than the percentage of the national average daily prison population that is male (86%).10
This gender disparity is even more drastic when it comes to youth. While youth incarcerated in the juvenile system are generally held in a DYRS or contract facility, youth tried as adults may be placed at the CTF. An assessment from 2013 reports that only one girl per year is processed through CTF, compared to seventy boys per year.11 The prosecution of girls as adults is not only infrequent, but it also appears to be a fairly recent phenomenon.12 When in 2006, a sixteen-year-old girl was accused of stabbing a man to death, the Washington Post reported that this was “the first time in recent memory in the District that a girl was charged as an adult with murder.”13 In contrast, in FY12, girls represented 12% of youth committed to DYRS.14
C. Trends
1. History of Disputes Regarding D.C. Jail Population Size.
Over the course of multiple decades, the District had been the subject of lawsuits alleging that the number of prisoners in the D.C. Jail was unsafe and that overcrowding
 10 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail Inmates at Midyear 2013 - Statistical Tables, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/jim13st.pdf. 11 The Ridley Group & Associates, LLC, The District of Columbia Department of Corrections Correctional Treatment Facility Juvenile Unit Assessment, http://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/release_content/attachments/DOC%20CTF %20JUV%20ASSESSMENT%20REPORT.pdf. The Campaign for Youth Justice (CFYJ) cited different, but similarly dramatic figures: CFYJ reported that, between 2007 and 2012, 528 boys and 13 girls were processed through the CTF. Campaign for Youth Justice, Capital City Correction: Reforming DC’s Use of Adult Incarceration Against Youth, 12 (May 2014), http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/pdf/Capital_City_Correction.pdf. 12 It is unclear how much of this disparity is due to prosecutorial discretion as opposed to fewer female juveniles being arrested for higher level violent crimes. A juvenile who is charged with certain D.C. Code violations, like murder or burglary, will be eligible for “direct filing,” meaning the prosecutor may try the juvenile as an adult from the start without having to seek permission from a court. See D.C. Code § 16-203(3). Nevertheless, prosecutors retain sole discretion in deciding whether to direct file an eligible juvenile. Prosecutors may also petition the court to “transfer” a juvenile’s case from the D.C. Superior Court Family Division (i.e. juvenile court) to the criminal division (to be tried as an adult). 13 Henri E. Cauvin, Jail Options Few for Young Female Suspects, The Washington Post, Sept. 14, 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091301937.html. 14 Dep’t of Youth Rehab. Servs., “Youth Population Snapshot,” http://dyrs.dc.gov/page/youthsnapshot.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 181 of 260
and other conditions there amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.15 In 1985, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia capped the population at 1,674. The District never fully complied with this order, nor with a consent decree issued after another prisoner suit, and the District successfully moved to lift this cap in March of 2002 after the enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Soon thereafter, the D.C. Jail population reportedly skyrocketed and two prisoners were stabbed to death, while another prisoner was stabbed but survived, in unrelated incidents within the facility.16 City Council member Kathy Patterson said she believed these incidents were related to jail overcrowding—at the time, the D.C. Jail population exceeded 2,400.17
The Jail Improvement Act of 2003 required the Mayor to establish a maximum number of prisoners at the D.C. Jail based on recommendations from an independent consultant. A study commissioned by the Mayor determined that the D.C. Jail population should remain between 1,958 and 2,164 at any given time. Nevertheless, the D.C. Jail’s population often exceeded 2,16418 and the District was sued again in June 2005. In response, the District initially asserted that it should not be bound by these recommendations. In 2007, D.C. Superior Court Judge Melvin Wright, who presided over the suit, disagreed, stating that the District “does not have the right to choose which laws it will obey” and considered a contempt finding against the Mayor. 19 A week later, the District agreed to cap the number of D.C. Jail prisoners at 2,164 except in “exigent circumstances.”20
 15 See, e.g., Beale v. District of Columbia, No. 1:04-CV-0959 (D.D.C.); Anderson v. Fenty, No. 2005 CA 005030 B (D.C. Super. Ct.); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 824 F.2d 1049 (D.C. Cir. 1987). 16 Michael Rigby, Officials Agree To Cap Population at D.C. Jail, Prison Legal News, Feb. 15, 2009, https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2009/feb/15/officials-agree-to-cap-populationat-dc-jail/. 17 See Second D.C. inmate stabbed to death in jail, The Washington Times, Dec. 17, 2002, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/dec/17/20021217-110323-2832r/. 18 Serge F. Kovaleski, D.C. Jail Conditions Unchanged Despite Law, The Washington Post, Apr. 24, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A122592005Apr23.html?nav=rss_topnews. 19 Robert E. Pierre, D.C. Judge Pressures City on Jail Population, The Washington Post, Oct. 6, 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502268.html. 20 David Nakamura, D.C. Agrees to Abide by 2004 Limit On Inmates, The Washington Post, Oct. 11, 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101001743.html; D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Correctional Facilities, http://doc.dc.gov/page/correctional-facilities.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 182 of 260
2. From Highest in the Nation to Downward Trend
The District had a higher incarceration rate in 2007 than any state in the country.21 The District saw a 48% growth of its prisoner population from 1982 to 2007.22 In 2007, across the nation as a whole about 1 in every 100 adults was confined behind bars; in the District, the figure was 1 in 50.23 The Justice Policy Institute asserted that these high numbers were largely due to problems particularly affecting low income communities in the District: A report studying the District’s high incarceration rate identified a lack of affordable housing, high rates of homelessness, education deficiencies, lack of access to mental health and substance abuse treatment, and high unemployment as relevant factors.24
Whether or not these factors cause higher incarceration rates in the District,25 there is no doubt that one or more of these factors impact many District prisoners. Only about 30% of male DCDOC prisoners reported having a high school diploma, and 3.5% report having a college degree. Additionally, census data show a disproportionate number of prisoners reside in the Southeast quadrant of the city. As the Justice Policy Institute reports, the Southeast quadrant of the city primarily consists of Black residents who also “have the lowest median income of the city as well as the highest unemployment rates.” Meanwhile, as shown below, very few members of DCDOC’s prisoner population come from the Northwest quadrant of the city. By contrast, the Northwest quadrant is home to the two wards with “the highest median household income and lowest percentage of people of color in the entire District.”26
 21 The PEW Center On the States, One In 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections, at 43, http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2009/03/02/PSPP_1in31_report_FINAL_WEB_3 2609.pdf. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 Justice Policy Institute, A Capitol Concern: The Disproportionate Impact of the Justice System on Low-Income Communities in D.C., http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/10-07_EXS_CapitolConcern_AC-PS-RD-DC.pdf. 25 This question is beyond the scope of this report. 26 Id.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 183 of 260
Source: D.C. Dep’t of Corrs., “DC Department of Corrections Facts and Figures” (Oct. 8, 2014), http://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/DC%20Department%20of%
20Corrections%20Facts%20and%20Figures%20October%202014.pdf.
There has recently been a downward trend in the District’s overall prisoner population—the average daily population for DCDOC facilities in 2009 was 3,089; in 2013, it was 2,289; it was 2,041 in 2014; and there has been a drop of over 700 prisoners from January 2011 through June 2014.27 This trend is also reflected in decreasing intake numbers over the last five years: Intake was 17,903 in 2009, 17,047 in 2011, and 12,334 in 2013. And, whereas the number of intakes exceeded number of releases by seventy-six in 2009, releases exceeded intakes by 642 in 2013.28 In contrast, however, the overall population of D.C. residents has increased from 572,059 residents in 2000 to  27 See D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Demographics and Statistics, http://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/Demographics%20 and%20Statistics%20June%202014.pdf. 28 See D.C. Dep’t of Corr., DC Department of Corrections Facts and Figures, http://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/DC%20Departmen t%20of%20Corrections%20Facts%20and%20Figures%20October%202014.pdf.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 184 of 260
601,723 residents in 2010 to 646,449 residents in 2013 to an estimated 658,893 residents in 2014.29
Drug policy, such as the recent legislation legalization of use and possession of small amounts of marijuana, is also likely to impact prisoner population size. Legislation related to this initiative began in July 2014, when the District enacted the Marijuana Possession Decriminalization Amendment Act which decriminalized the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. Thus, under D.C. law, possession or transfer without exchange of money of a small amount of marijuana became a civil violation (with a $25 fine) instead of an arrestable offense30 and violators were not subject to jail time.31 The effects of this change may already be apparent: The percent of men being held in the DCDOC system for drug offenses dropped from 2013, 8.4% in FY13 to 6.6% in FY14.
On February 26, the District passed a ballot initiative legalizing the possession of up to two ounces of marijuana, and permitting individuals to grow up to three marijuana plants in the home.32 The ballot initiative garnered 70% of the vote.33
Efforts toward marijuana legalization in the District have not gone unchallenged. As noted, the District is subject to congressional control and, in late 2014, the U.S. Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that included a provision prohibiting the use of federal or local funds in the Act to “enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution” of
 29 See United States Census Bureau, “State & County QuickFacts, District of Columbia,” http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html. 30 See D.C. Metropolitan Police, Marijuana Possession Decriminalization Amendment Act of 2014, Special Order Number SO-14-04, July 17, 2014, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1219510-metropolitan-police-department-specialorder-on.html. 31 See Mike DeBonis and Peter Hermann, Decriminalization arrives, and D.C. police prepare for sea change in marijuana laws, The Washington Post, July 17, 2014,http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/decriminalization-arrives-and-dcpolice-prepare-for-sea-change-in-marijuana-laws/2014/07/16/0f21a2b8-0c82-11e4-b8e5d0de80767fc2_story.html. 32 Mike Coneen, Recreational marijuana use, possession now legal in D.C., WJLA, Feb. 26, 2015, http://www.wjla.com/articles/2015/02/recreational-marijuana-now-legal-in-d-c-111817.html. 33 Aaron Davis, D.C. voters overwhelmingly support legalizing marijuana, joining Colo., Wash., Washington Post, Nov. 4, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dcvoters-titling-heavily-toward-legalizing-marijuana-likely-joining-colowash/2014/11/04/116e83f8-60fe-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 185 of 260
certain substances, including marijuana.34 Additionally, the day before the initiative went into effect, two Members of Congress wrote a letter to the Mayor of the District stating, in relevant part, that if the Mayor were to “decide to move forward . . . with the legalization of marijuana . . . [the Mayor would] be doing so in knowing and willful violation of the law.”35 In an interview, one Congressman suggested that officials who continued with the legalization efforts would face prison time.36 Although District officials were not deterred from moving forward with legalization, it appears that they have (at least for the time being) refrained from pressing forward with efforts to legalize the sale of marijuana, notwithstanding prior discussions of passing legislation to create a “legitimate cannabis industry” in the District.37 However, the City Council has advanced a bill that, if enacted, would limit employers’ ability to require job applicants to undergo drug testing as part of the hiring process.38
 34 Alex Rogers, Congress Approves Trillion-Dollar Spending Bill, Time, Dec. 14, 2014, http://time.com/3632125/congress-spending-bill/; Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-235, 113th Cong. § 809 (2014). 35 Jonathan Topaz, Muriel Bowser: D.C. won’t back down in Chaffetz pot showdown, POLITICO, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/jason-chaffetz-and-dc-in-pot-showdown115495.html; http://www.scribd.com/doc/256910143/Letter-to-d-c-Mayor-Muriel-BowserRegarding. 36 Mike DeBonis, Bowser: Legal pot possession to take effect at midnight in the District, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/house-republicans-warndc-mayor-not-to-legalize-pot/2015/02/25/2f784a10-bcb0-11e4-bdfa-b8e8f594e6ee_story.html. 37 See Aaron Davis, D.C. Council backs down on marijuana hearing after attorney general warning, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-councilwarned-not-to-move-forward-on-marijuana-legalization/2015/02/09/2c1593aa-b067-11e4827f-93f454140e2b_story.html; Mike DeBonis, Legal marijuana could be $130 million a year business in D.C., study finds, The Washington Post, Oct. 30, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/legal-marijuana-could-be-a-130-million-ayear-business-in-dc-officials-find/2014/10/30/d6f80a52-603d-11e4-9f3a7e28799e0549_story.html?wprss=rss_local. 38 Aaron Davis, Bill to limit marijuana screening by D.C. employers advances in council, The Washington Post, Mar. 4, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/bill-to-limitmarijuana-screening-by-dc-employers-advancing-in-council/2015/03/04/72569e0c-c28e-11e49ec2-b418f57a4a99_story.html.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 186 of 260
,, THE DISTRICT’S BUDGET: COSTS OF CONFINEMENT
A. D.C. Department of Corrections Budget
Over the past decade, the DCDOC’s budget has averaged $141.7 million, with peak funding39 in FY08. The Department’s FY15 request for $151.6 million would bring the Department’s budget within $2 million of the FY08 level.
When considering the District’s budgeting and priorities, one should note that the District has less control over its budget than do states over their budgets. The District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act of 1973 (also known as the “Home Rule” Act) is a federal law that devolves certain decision making responsibilities to the District, including a degree of authority to help determine the District’s budget.40 To simplify, once the City Council adopts the Mayor’s budget, which is effectively a request to Congress for approval of local budget priorities as well as any federal funding, the Mayor sends the budget to the President, who transmits it to the House and the Senate for review.41 Congress is not required to follow the District’s budget when it approves the District’s use of its own revenue or when it appropriates funding in the bill it sends to the President for signature. As a consequence, District funding remains subject to the oversight of a political body that is not accountable to residents of the District, an arrangement that can and has led to disputes over funding and puts the District at risk when Congress cannot pass legislation, such as those discussed previously relating to legislation regarding possession of marijuana.42
The District’s annual budget figures are divided into “actual,” “approved,” and “requested” figures. Actual figures are dollars actually spent, as determined by an audit; “approved” figures are amounts approved to be spent; and requested amounts denote spending that the District has proposed, but which has not yet been approved.43
 39 This report considers budgets for FY05 through the FY15 request. 40 See District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-198, 87 Stat. 777 (Dec. 24, 1973); see also D.C. Code §§ 1-201.1, et seq. 41 See D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Keeping the Promises: FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, 1-16 - 1-17, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _1_web.pdf. 42 See, e.g., Erik Wasson, DC cannot declare budget freedom from Congress, GAO says, The Hill, Jan. 30, 2014, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/197019-dc-cannot-declare-budgetfreedom-from-congress-gao-says. 43 See DC Fiscal Policy Institute, A Citizen’s Guide to the DC Budget, 8-9, http://www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/3-26-13-Citizens-Budget-Guide.pdf.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 187 of 260
The DCDOC’s approved budget for FY14 was $140.3 million.44 The FY14 approved budget represented an increase of 7% over the FY13 actual budget ($131.1 million).45 For FY15, the Department has proposed a budget of $151.6 million, which represents an increase of approximately 8% over FY14 approved levels.46
Figure 147 indicates the Department’s budget for fiscal years 2005 through 2015.48 As the data indicate, during the covered period (FY05-FY15), the Department  44 D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Keeping the Promises: FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, C-37, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _2_web.pdf.
45 D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Keeping the Promises: FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, C-37, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _2_web.pdf.
46 D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Keeping the Promises: FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, C-37, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _2_web.pdf.
47 Figure 1 was calculated using information made available by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. See D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Keeping the Promises: FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _2_web.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2014 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _2_Final.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Seizing Our Future: FY 2013 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_fy2013_volu me_2_chapters_part_1.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, One City Rising to the Challenge: FY 2012 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_volume_2_a gency_chapters_part_i_web.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Maximizing Efficiency: FY 2011 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/2011_Volume_1Executive_Summary_Web.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Meeting the Challenge: FY 2010 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_volume_2_a gency_chapters_part_i_web_1.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2009 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_agency_budg et_chapters_part_1_of_2.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Moving Forward: FY 2008 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_volume_2a_ web2.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2007 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2007 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_dc_budget_v FRQWLQXHG«
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 188 of 260
received peak funding in FY08 ($153.4 million). The FY12 budget was the lowest the Department had seen since FY05.
Figure 1
D.C. Department of Corrections Budget
(in thousands of dollars)
ΨϭϲϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ΨϭϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ΨϭϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ΨϭϯϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ΨϭϮϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ΨϭϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ΨϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬ &zϬϱ &zϬϲ &zϬϳ &zϬϴ &zϬϵ &zϭϬ &zϭϭ &zϭϮ &zϭϯ &zϭϰ;Ϳ &zϭϱ;ZͿ
 olume_3d.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2008 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2008 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_volume_3_w eb.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2009 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2009 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_operating_ap pendices_part_2_of_4.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2010 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2010 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/volume_4__operating_appendices_-_part_i_web.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2011 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2011 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/2011_Volume_4Operating_Appendices-Part_I_Web.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2012 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2012 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_volume_4_o perating_appendices_part_i_web_r.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2013 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2013 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/ocfo_fy2013_volu me_4_appendices_part_1_0.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2014 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2014 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _4_Final.pdf; D.C. Chief Financial Officer, FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Safety and Justice 2015 Operational Appendices, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _5_web.pdf.
48 Figures for FY05 through FY13 are actual budget figures, while FY14 is the approved budget and FY15 is the Department’s request.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 189 of 260

The DCDOC’s budget can be further divided to into “Personal Services,” (PS) (Figure 249) which is essentially labor expenses, and “Nonpersonal Services,” (NPS) (Figure 350) which is a catch-all category for other expenses, generally including operational costs including supplies, equipment, and contractual services.

Figure 2

Figure 3

Personal Services (PS)
(in thousands of dollars)
ϵϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϴϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϴϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϳϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϲϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϲϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϱϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϰϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ

Nonpersonal Services (NPS) (in thousands of dollars)
ϵϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϴϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϴϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϳϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϲϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϲϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϱϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϰϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ

&zϬϱ &zϬϲ &zϬϳ &zϬϴ &zϬϵ &zϭϬ &zϭϭ &zϭϮ &zϭϯ &zϭϰ;Ϳ &zϭϱ;ZͿ &zϬϱ &zϬϲ &zϬϳ &zϬϴ &zϬϵ &zϭϬ &zϭϭ &zϭϮ &zϭϯ &zϭϰ;Ϳ &zϭϱ;ZͿ

A review of notices of intent to award sole source contracts issued by the Office of Contracting and Procurement51 provide some insight into the cost of various contractual services:52
x Inmate Telephone, Inc. provides prisoner telephone services for the DCDOC, including labor, equipment, and materials. A proposed extension of a contract for services provided through September 30, 2015, indicates that services would be provided at no cost to the District. Presumably, the company pays for these costs through revenue generated by system use.53
 49 See supra n.47.  50 See supra n.47. 51 See D.C. Office of Contracting and Procurement, Notice of Intent to Award Sole Source Contracts, http://app.ocp.dc.gov/intent_award/intent_award_opic.asp. 52 It is not clear precisely which budget category encompasses these expenditures, though it is not unreasonable to expect that they would be categorized as contractual services. 53 D.C. Office of Contracting and Procurement, Determinations and Findings for Sole Source Extension of Contract (Contract CW12929, Inmate Telephone Inc.) (unsigned), http://app.ocp.dc.gov/intent_award/D_F/DF_Sole_Source_Inmate_Telephone.pdf.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 190 of 260
x Centric GRP LLC/Keefe Supply Company provides commissary services. A proposed extension of a contract for services would pay the company about $631,000 for the seven-month period from January 1, 2015, through July 31, 2015.54
x Virginia Correctional Enterprises provides off-site laundry services for the D.C. Jail. A proposed extension of a contract for services would pay the company $200,000 for the nine-month period from January 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015.55
x Johnson Control provides maintenance services for the D.C. Jail air, heat, power, and ventilation systems. A proposed extension of a contract for services would pay the company about $70,000 from the date of the award through September 30, 2015.56
x URS Federal Technical Services, Inc./EG&G Technical Services, Inc. provide warehouse management and logistics services, including management of supply operations at the D.C. Jail. A proposed contract for services would pay URS about $694,000 for services between October 1, 2014, and September 30, 2015.57
B. Private Contracts: CCA, Unity Health Care, Halfway Houses
One NPS component, “Contractual Services - Other” (Figure 458) accounted for between 75% and 86% of all NPS expenses for FY05 through FY15, and for between 36% and 48% of the entire budget. The contractual services component appears to include the Department’s contracts with CCA, with the private halfway houses, and for prisoner medical services.
Because the “Contractual Services - Other” category accounts for such a significant percentage of the total NPS budget, it is useful to examine the NPS budget
 54 D.C. Office of Contracting and Procurement, Determination and Findings for Sole Source Extension of Contract (Contract CW18182, Centric GRP/Keefe Supply Company) (unsigned), http://app.ocp.dc.gov/intent_award/D_F/DF_CW18182_R1.pdf. 55 D.C. Office of Contracting and Procurement, Determination and Findings for Sole Source Extension of Contract (Contract CW17235, Virginia Correctional Enterprises) (unsigned), http://app.ocp.dc.gov/intent_award/D_F/DF_CW17235_R1.pdf. 56 D.C. Office of Contracting and Procurement, Determination and Findings for Sole Source Extension of Contract (Johnsons Control) (unsigned), http://app.ocp.dc.gov/intent_award/D_F/DF_Johnson_Control_R1.pdf. 57 D.C. Office of Contracting and Procurement, Determination and Findings for Sole Source Extension of Contract (Contract CW12688, URS) (unsigned), http://app.ocp.dc.gov/intent_award/D_F/DF_CW12688%208_26_14R.pdf. 58 See supra n.47.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 191 of 260

without the contractual services category (Figure 559). As Figure 5 demonstrates, the NPS budget sans the “Contractual Services - Other” category has been subject to a fair degree of year-to-year fluctuation. The figures also reveal comparatively higher expenses in FY10 and FY11. In both fiscal years—and only those fiscal years—the second largest expense category after contractual services was “Expense Not Budgeted Others,” which accounted for $10.6 million in expenses in FY10 and $8.6 million in FY11. It is not clear precisely what accounts for the variations in this budget category. For FY15, this budget category includes $6.5 million for supplies and materials, such as books, writing materials, and other goods purchased for prisoner use and consumption; $2.7 million for equipment; $60,000 for telecommunications.60 For FY15, this budget category also includes $2.8 million for land and building rental, which may represent the District’s lease payment to CCA for the CTF facility, as discussed below.61

Figure 4

Figure 5

NPS: Contractual Services - Other
(in thousands of dollars) ϵϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ϴϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ϳϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ϲϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ

NPS Minus Contractual Services - Other
(in thousands of dollars) ϮϮ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϴ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϲ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϮ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬ

&zϬϱ &zϬϲ &zϬϳ &zϬϴ &zϬϵ &zϭϬ &zϭϭ &zϭϮ &zϭϯ &zϭϰ;Ϳ &zϭϱ;ZͿ &zϬϱ &zϬϲ &zϬϳ &zϬϴ &zϬϵ &zϭϬ &zϭϭ &zϭϮ &zϭϯ &zϭϰ;Ϳ &zϭϱ;ZͿ

A significant percentage of the Department of Corrections’ budget is devoted to paying for contracts with private entities, including CCA and private halfway houses.

 59 See supra n.47. 60 See D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Keeping the Promises: FY 2015 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, C-37 to C-39, http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume _2_web.pdf. 61 See id.
$

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK D$ocSumSeHnQt 6G-2L[Fil%ed 03/30/20 Page 192 of 260
*29(510(172)7+(',675,&72)&2/80%,$ '(3$570(172)&255(&7,216
 
'&'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQV5HVSRQVH WR
:DVKLQJWRQ/DZ\HUV¶&RPPLWWHH:KLWH3DSHU
  7KH:DVKLQJWRQ/DZ\HUV¶&RPPLWWHHFRPPLVVLRQHG&RYLQJWRQDQG%XUOLQJWRSUHSDUHDZKLWH SDSHUUHJDUGLQJFRQGLWLRQVRIFRQILQHPHQWDWWKH'&-DLODQG&7)WRLQFOXGHSK\VLFDO LQIUDVWUXFWXUHPHQWDOKHDOWKVXLFLGHSUHYHQWLRQGUXJWUHDWPHQWSUDFWLFHVMXYHQLOHXQLW GHPRJUDSKLFVEXGJHWFRVWVDQGFRQWUDFWLQJ7KH'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQVSURYLGHVWKH IROORZLQJFRPPHQWVLQUHVSRQVHWRWKLVUHSRUW  &')DQG&7))DFLOLWLHV 
x '2&LVFRPPLWWHGWRSHUIRUPLQJSUHYHQWDWLYHDQGGD\WRGD\PDLQWHQDQFHRIWKH&') DQG&7)IDFLOLWLHVLQRUGHUWRSURYLGHDFOHDQDQGVDIHHQYLURQPHQWIRUVWDIIDQGLQPDWHV
x '2+QRWHGLQLWVH[LWLQWHUYLHZZLWK'2&VWDIIRQ0DUFKWKDWWKHUHKDGEHHQ QRWLFHDEOHLPSURYHPHQWVLQWKHIDFLOLW\DQGDUHDVWKDWZHUHLQQHHGRIUHSDLUDQGLQSRRU FRQGLWLRQGXULQJWKHLQLWLDOLQVSHFWLRQKDYHLPSURYHGVLJQLILFDQWO\
x ,QWKHPRVWUHFHQW0DUFK'2+LQVSHFWLRQRIWKHLGHQWLILHGLWHPVKDYHDOUHDG\ EHHQDEDWHGWRGDWHWKHUHPDLQLQJLWHPVDUHHLWKHUFXUUHQWO\EHLQJFRUUHFWHGRUGXHWRWKH DJHDQGGHWHULRUDWLRQRIWKHSK\VLFDOVWUXFWXUHDUHRXWVLGHRI'2&¶VFRQWURO
 -XYHQLOH3URJUDPV 
x 6LQFHWKHLVVXDQFHRIWKH5LGOH\5HSRUW'&'2&KDVVLJQLILFDQWO\H[SDQGHGWKHMXYHQLOH SURJUDP o 7KHDIWHUVFKRROSURJUDPKDVEHHQH[SDQGHGDQGQRZUXQVIURP0RQGD\)ULGD\ 7KLVSURJUDPIRFXVHVRQUHLQIRUFLQJWKHGD\¶VOHVVRQVWHDFKLQJJRRGFLWL]HQVKLS DQGSURVRFLDOGHYHORSPHQW o 7KHUHLVDGDLO\EDUEHULQJSURJUDPIRUWKHPDOHMXYHQLOHV o 7KHUHLVDFRPSUHKHQVLYH9LFWLP,PSDFW7UDLQLQJSURJUDPWKDWFRPELQHVLQWHQVLYH UHFRYHU\VXSSRUWPHQWRULQJDQGDQJHUPDQDJHPHQWVHUYLFHVDQGZRUNIRUFH GHYHORSPHQWVNLOOV o 2WKHUZHHNO\SURJUDPVLQFOXGH/LIH6NLOOVZRUNVKRSV)UHH0LQGV%RRN&OXE $GMXVWLQJ2XU$WWLWXGHVDQGVXEVWDQFHDEXVHHGXFDWLRQ
x 7KH-XYHQLOH8QLWSURJUDPPDQDJHULVFXUUHQWO\LQWKHSURFHVVRIQHJRWLDWLQJDFDUHHUDQG WHFKQLFDOWUDLQLQJIRUZHHNHQGSURJUDPPLQJ
x $VRI6HSWHPEHUDOOFRUUHFWLRQDORIILFHUUHFUXLWVDUHWUDLQHGLQ3RVLWLYH<RXWK 'HYHORSPHQW3<'DVZHOODVWKHRSHUDWLRQDODQGGLVFLSOLQDU\SURFHGXUHVRIWKH
WK6WUHHW1:WK)ORRU:DVKLQJWRQ'&3KRQH

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 193 of 260

-XYHQLOH8QLW7KLVWUDLQLQJLVEHLQJSKDVHGLQWRWKHDQQXDOLQVHUYLFHWUDLQLQJIRUDOO

FRUUHFWLRQDOVWDII

x 3<'HPSKDVL]HVEXLOGLQJVNLOOVDQGDVVHWVLQ\RXWKLQDGGLWLRQWRSUHYHQWLQJQHJDWLYH

RXWFRPHV



-XYHQLOH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH6HJUHJDWLRQ



7KH'2&GRHVQRWXVHH[FHVVLYHLVRODWLRQDQGVHJUHJDWLRQZLWKWKHMXYHQLOHSRSXODWLRQ7KH

QXPEHURIMXYHQLOHVVHJUHJDWHGHLWKHUDZDLWLQJDGLVFLSOLQDU\KHDULQJRUSODFHGLQDGPLQLVWUDWLYH

VHJUHJDWLRQRYHUWKHSDVW\HDUDUHDVIROORZVZLWKWKHDYHUDJHVWD\LQVHJUHJDWLRQEHLQJ

DSSUR[LPDWHO\WZRGD\V



0RQWK

1XPEHURIMXYHQLOHV

0D\

6L[

-XQH -XO\ $XJXVW 6HSWHPEHU

=HUR 7KUHH 7KUHH 7ZR

2FWREHU

6L[

1RYHPEHU

7ZR

'HFHPEHU

=HUR

-DQXDU\

=HUR

)HEUXDU\

=HUR

0DUFK $SULO 0D\


)LYH 7ZR =HUR

x 7KH'2&KDVKDG-XYHQLOH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH+RXVLQJDQG+HDULQJ3URFHGXUHVLQSODFH

VLQFH-XQH

x $Q\MXYHQLOHSODFHGLQDGPLQLVWUDWLYHVHJUHJDWLRQLVKRXVHGLQDVHSDUDWHFHOORQWKH

ORZHUWLHUZLWKLQWKHMXYHQLOHXQLW

o 7KHVHMXYHQLOHVDWWHQGVFKRROWKURXJK'&36DQGKDYHDFFHVVWROHJDOVHUYLFHV SURJUDPPLQJFRXQVHOLQJVHUYLFHVDQGPHDQLQJIXOFRQWDFWZLWKWKHRWKHUMXYHQLOH

LQPDWHV

x ,IDMXYHQLOHLVSODFHGLQDGPLQLVWUDWLYHVHJUHJDWLRQWKHIROORZLQJRFFXUV

o 2IILFHUVDUHUHTXLUHGWRGRDYLVXDOVHFXULW\FKHFNRIWKHMXYHQLOHHYHU\ILIWHHQ

PLQXWHV

o 7KHMXYHQLOHUHFHLYHVLQGLYLGXDOUHFUHDWLRQIRUWZRKRXUVSHUGD\ o -XYHQLOHVZLOOQRWEHSODFHGLQVHJUHJDWLRQIRUORQJHUWKDQILYHGD\VXQOHVV

H[WHQXDWLQJFLUFXPVWDQFHVH[LVW



9LVLWDWLRQIRU-XYHQLOHV



x ,QDGGLWLRQWRYLGHRYLVLWDWLRQMXYHQLOHVZKRKDYHUHDFKHGWKH*ROG7LHULQWKH-XYHQLOH

8QLWDUHJLYHQFRQWDFWYLVLWDWLRQZLWKWKHLUSDUHQWRUJXDUGLDQRQFHSHUPRQWK(OLJLELOLW\

IRUWKH*ROG7LHULVEDVHGRQVHYHUDOIDFWRUVVXFKDVEHKDYLRUSURJUDPSDUWLFLSDWLRQDQG

HGXFDWLRQDOIDFWRUV

x 7KHUHDUHFXUUHQWO\HLJKWMXYHQLOHVRQWKH*ROG7LHUZLWKWZRPRUHH[SHFWHGE\

0D\

x -XYHQLOHLQPDWHVDUHJLYHQFRQWDFWYLVLWVGXULQJWKHKROLGD\VHDVRQLQ'HFHPEHU







Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 194 of 260
6XLFLGH3UHYHQWLRQ  7KH'2&WKURXJKDSURDFWLYHLQLWLDWLYHUHTXHVWHGWKDWFRQVXOWDQW/LQGVD\+D\HVLQGHSHQGHQWO\ DVVHVVFXUUHQWSUDFWLFHVDQGSURYLGHDQ\DSSURSULDWHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVUHODWLQJWRVXLFLGH SUHYHQWLRQSROLFLHVDQGSURFHGXUHVZLWKLQ'2&+LVUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVKDYHEHHQLPSOHPHQWHG 
x $VRI2FWREHUDOOGHVLJQDWHGFHOOVKDYHEHHQFRPSOHWHGDQGUHWURILWWHGDV IROORZVWRGHFUHDVHOLJDWXUHSRLQWVKDQGOHVKDYHEHHQUHPRYHGIURPWRLOHWVDQGGHVNV YHQWVDUHFRYHUHGZLWKDQWLOLJDWXUHJUDGHPHVKSLFNSURRISHQDOJUDGHFDXONLQJKDV EHHQXVHGLQWKHFHOOVDQGGRRUVKDYHEHHQUHSODFHGWRDOORZIRUFOHDUSDQHOVWKDW SURYLGHHQKDQFHGYLVLRQLQWRDQGRXWRIWKHFHOOV
x ,QUHVSRQVHWRWKH+D\HV5HSRUWUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVUHODWLQJWRVXLFLGHSUHFDXWLRQVWKH '2&SURYLGHVVXLFLGHUHVLVWDQWVPRFNVDQGEODQNHWVPRUHWLPHRXWRIFHOOVDQGWKH SURYLVLRQRIPRUHIDPLO\YLVLWVDQGWHOHSKRQHDFFHVVLVXQGHUUHYLHZ
x ³%HKDYLRU0DQDJHPHQW´VWDWXVZDVLPPHGLDWHO\GLVFRQWLQXHGXSRQUHFHLSWRIWKH+D\HV 5HSRUW7KHUHDUHQRZWZRFDWHJRULHVRIREVHUYDWLRQ6XLFLGH:DWFKIRULQPDWHVWKRXJKW WREHDFWLYHO\VXLFLGDODQG6XLFLGH3UHFDXWLRQIRULQPDWHVZKRDUHDWULVNRIVXLFLGHEXW OHVVDFXWHO\FRPSDUHGWRLQPDWHVRQ6XLFLGH:DWFK,QPDWHVRQ6XLFLGH:DWFKDUHSODFHG LQDVDIHFHOORQUGIORRUPHGLFDODQGDUHSURYLGHGRQHWRRQHFRQVWDQWPRQLWRULQJE\D KHDOWKFDUHSURIHVVLRQDO,QPDWHVRQ6XLFLGH3UHFDXWLRQDUHPRQLWRUHGE\RIILFHUVHYHU\ ILIWHHQPLQXWHVLQVWDJJHUHGLQWHUYDOV
x 6XLFLGH3UHYHQWLRQWUDLQLQJKDVEHHQVLJQLILFDQWO\HQKDQFHG$OOFRUUHFWLRQDORIILFHUV RWKHU'2&VWDIIDQGKHDOWKFDUHYHQGRUVWDIIPXVWXQGHUJRIRXUKRXUVDQQXDOO\RI 6XLFLGH3UHYHQWLRQWUDLQLQJ$GGLWLRQDOO\'2&EURXJKWLQQDWLRQDOH[SHUW'U'HDQ $XIGHUKHLGHWRFRQGXFWDIXOOGD\RIWUDLQLQJRQVHOILQMXULRXVEHKDYLRULVVXHVZKLFK LQYROYHGLQPDWHVZLWKPHQWDOKHDOWKLVVXHVDVZHOODVWKRVHH[KLELWLQJ³EDGEHKDYLRU´ &RUUHFWLRQDORIILFHUVRQWKHPHQWDOKHDOWKDQGVHJUHJDWLRQXQLWVDVZHOODVPHQWDOKHDOWK VWDIISDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKLVWUDLQLQJ
x '2&LVLQWKHSURFHVVRIGHYHORSLQJD0HQWDO+HDOWK6WHS'RZQ8QLWZKLFKVHHNVWR WUDQVLWLRQVWDELOL]HGLQPDWHVRQWKH&ULVLV,QWHUYHQWLRQ8QLWWRDGLIIHUHQWZLQJRIWKH VDPHDUHDZKLFKZRXOGLQYROYHHQKDQFHGSURJUDPPLQJDVZHOODVGRXEOHEXQNLQJDVD ZD\WRKHOSWKHPIXOO\WUDQVLWLRQWRJHQHUDOSRSXODWLRQDVWKHLUIXQFWLRQDOLW\LPSURYHV
  6XEVWDQFH$EXVH7UHDWPHQW3URJUDPV 
x 7KH6HFXUH5HVLGHQWLDO7UHDWPHQW3URJUDP6573LVDMRLQWSURJUDPRI&626$DQGWKH 863DUROH&RPPLVVLRQWKDWLVORFDWHGLQWKH&7)(OLJLELOLW\UHTXLUHPHQWVDQGWKH FRQWHQWRIWKHSURJUDPDUHFRQWUROOHGE\WKRVHDJHQFLHV
x 7KH'2&RIIHUVD5HVLGHQWLDO6XEVWDQFH$EXVH7UHDWPHQW56$7SURJUDPWRERWKPDOH DQGIHPDOHLQPDWHV7KH56$7FXUULFXOXPLVOLFHQVHGE\$GGLFWLRQ3UHYHQWLRQDQG 5HFRYHU\$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ$35$WKHUHJXODWLQJERG\IRUSROLF\IRUVXEVWDQFHDEXVH SUHYHQWLRQWUHDWPHQWDQGUHFRYHU\VHUYLFHV o 56$7LVDGD\SURJUDPWKDWLQFOXGHVVHUYLFHVVXFKDVUHODSVHSUHYHQWLRQ SDUHQWLQJFODVVHVDQGOLIHVNLOOV o 7KHSURJUDPLVRSHQWRYROXQWHHUVDQGDOVRDFFHSWVUHIHUUDOVDQGVHOIUHSRUWV o ,QPDWHVZKRKDYHYLRODWHGWKHWHUPVRIWKHLUSUREDWLRQDQGRWKHUZLVHPHHWWKH UHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKHSURJUDPPD\DOVRHQUROO
 

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 195 of 260
 *RRG7LPH&UHGLWV
 x 7KH'2&DPHQGHGWKHJRRGWLPHFUHGLWVODZLQLQRUGHUWRH[SDQGWKHDSSOLFDWLRQ
RIJRRGWLPHFUHGLWVWRDOORZSUHWULDOGHWDLQHHVLQDGGLWLRQWRVHQWHQFHGPLVGHPHDQDQWV WRHDUQFUHGLWVIRUJRRGEHKDYLRUDQGIRUVXFFHVVIXOSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQDQH[SDQGHGOLVWRI SURJUDPVLQFOXGLQJUHKDELOLWDWLYHSURJUDPVZRUNGHWDLOVDQGVSHFLDOSURMHFWVZLWKRU ZLWKRXWFRPSOHWLRQRIWKHSURJUDP x 7KH'LVWULFW¶VJRRGWLPHFUHGLWODZVRQO\DSSO\WRSUHWULDODQGVXEVHTXHQWO\VHQWHQFHG PLVGHPHDQDQWV,QDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH1DWLRQDO&DSLWDO5HYLWDOL]DWLRQDQG6HOI *RYHUQPHQW,PSURYHPHQW$FWRI3XE/1R6WDWDQG'&&RGH LQPDWHVFKDUJHGZLWKIHORQLHVDQGVHQWHQFHGWRPRUHWKDQRQH\HDURI LQFDUFHUDWLRQDUH)HGHUDO%XUHDXRI3ULVRQVLQPDWHVDQGFDQRQO\HDUQJRRGWLPHFUHGLWV LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKIHGHUDOODZDQG)%23SROLFLHV  :/&5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV  $VH[SODLQHGDERYHWKH'2&KDVDOUHDG\WDNHQDFWLRQRQVHYHUDORIWKH5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV FRQWDLQHGLQWKH:/&5HSRUW,QUHJDUGWRVXLFLGHSUHYHQWLRQSUDFWLFHVPHQWLRQHGLQ 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQWKH'2&EURXJKWLQRQLWVRZQLQLWLDWLYHDQLQGHSHQGHQWFRQVXOWDQW /LQGVD\+D\HVPDGHWKHUHSRUWSXEOLFDQGKDVLPSOHPHQWHGWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVIURPKLV UHSRUW,QDVPXFKDV5HFRPPHQGDWLRQUHODWHVWRMXYHQLOHFRQILQHPHQWWKH'2&VLPLODUO\ FRPPLVVLRQHGWKH5LGOH\UHSRUWDQGSXEOLFL]HGLWDQGKDVZRUNHGGLOLJHQWO\WRLPSOHPHQWWKH 5LGOH\UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVLQFOXGLQJDFRPSUHKHQVLYH-XYHQLOH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH+RXVLQJDQG +HDULQJSROLF\WKDWLVFXUUHQWO\LQSODFH7KHUHYLHZRIWUDLQLQJIRUFRUUHFWLRQDORIILFHUVWDVNHG ZLWKVSHFLDOL]HGIXQFWLRQVVXFKDVMXYHQLOHFXVWRG\DQGVXLFLGHSUHYHQWLRQFRQWDLQHGLQ 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQKDVEHHQDGGUHVVHGDVH[SODLQHGDERYHDQGLVRQJRLQJ:KLOHPXFK SURJUHVVKDVEHHQPDGHWKH'2&UHPDLQVFRPPLWWHGWRLPSURYLQJRSHUDWLRQVDQGDFKLHYLQJWKH VWDWXVRIDEHQFKPDUNFRUUHFWLRQDODJHQF\          
 

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 196 of 260
EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 197 of 260
DECLARATION OF DR. MARC STERN, MD MPH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION
On this 29th day of March, 2020, I hereby declare: 1. My name is Marc Stern. I am a board certified internist specializing in correctional health care. I have managed health care operations and practiced health care in multiple correctional settings. Most recently, I served as the Assistant Secretary of Health Care for the Washington State Department of Corrections. In terms of educational background, I received a Bachelor of Science degree from State University of New York (Albany) in 1975, a medical degree from State University of New York (Buffalo) in 1982, and a Master of Public Health from Indiana University in 1992. I am an Affiliate Assistant Professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health. 2. On a regular basis, I investigate, evaluate, and monitor the adequacy of health care delivery systems in correctional institutions on behalf of a variety of parties including federal courts. My prior experience includes working with the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice; and state departments of corrections and county jails. 3. Through 2013, I taught the National Commission on Correctional Health Care’s (NCCHC) correctional health care standards semi-annually to correctional health care administrators at NCCHC’s national conferences. I authored a week-long curriculum commissioned by the National Institute of Corrections of the U.S. Department of Justice to train jail and prison wardens and health care administrators in the principles and practice of operating safe and effective correctional health care operations, and served as the principal instructor for this course. 4. In the past four years alone, I have been qualified as an expert in several
1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 198 of 260
jurisdictions on correctional health care systems and conditions of confinement. My full curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
5. I am not receiving payment in exchange for providing this affidavit to the D.C. Public Defender Services regarding appropriate correctional healthcare measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. In light of the emergency conditions occurring in jails and prisons across the country, I am providing my services pro bono.
6. Due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic affecting the nation and world, I have familiarized myself with the virus from a clinical perspective, including its causes and conditions, its transmission – especially in crowded and unsanitary conditions – and its ability to quickly spread through correctional facilities.
7. In the context of a pandemic like the one we currently face, public health and public safety interests are closely intertwined. When and if correctional staffing challenges arise due to the need for staff to quarantine, seek treatment, or care for dependents, managing internal safety in carceral settings becomes even more challenging. Understaffing in the correctional setting is dangerous for staff as well as incarcerated people, and the stress and fear of the current crisis only serve to increase those risks.
8. I have reviewed the March 25, 2020, letter sent from the union to the D.C. DOC, spelling out in the public health dangers at the D.C. DOC. If accurate, such conditions heighten the urgency of addressing these problems.
9. For example, if true, the grievance’s allegations that correctional officers responsible for receiving and overseeing inmates do not any, or sufficient, personal protective equipment (PPE) for use when indicated,1 and that officers are not required to participate in social distancing during shift changes, raise serious concerns that those officers may contract and transmit COVID-19 to their co-workers, families, and inmates in the facility. Accordingly, reducing the number of inmates with whom those
1 Grievance at 3.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 199 of 260
correctional officers must interact will reduce the risk that those correctional officers will contract COVID-19 or transmit it to others in the community.
10. I have also reviewed the declarations of four inmates detained in DOC facilities. As with the union’s grievance letter, the inmates’ allegations, if true, heighten the urgency of taking immediate and aggressive action. For example, the housing of multiple inmates within a single cell and lack of adequate cleaning supplies increases the probability that COVID-19 is already spreading throughout the facilities. Accordingly, housing only one inmate per cell and either providing sufficient cleaning supplies or reducing the amount of space requiring thorough cleaning will decrease the virus’s ability to spread within DOC facilities.
11. In light of the conditions described in the documents that I have reviewed, the four confirmed cases of COVID-19 inside of DOC facilities, and the apparent resource-shortages facing the DOC, I am even more firmly convinced that downsizing the inmate population as much as possible will reduce the risk of contraction and transmission of COVID-19—and the attendant risks of serious harm and death—within DOC facilities and the communities around them.
12. Thoughtful downsizing should be implemented in tandem with aggressive, responsive prevention measures that are developed and guided by public health and medical experts.
13. Institutional settings such as jails, prisons, shelters, and inpatient treatment programs are congregate environments where people live, eat, and sleep closely together. In these environments, infections like COVID-19 can spread more rapidly. Downsizing jail populations serves two critical public health aims: (1) targeting residents who are at elevated risk of suffering from severe symptoms of COVID-19; and (2) allowing those who remain incarcerated to better maintain social distancing and avoid other risks associated with forced communal living. Because vulnerable populations are at the highest risk of severe complications from COVID-19, and because when they develop severe complications they will be transported to community hospitals—thereby using scarce community
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 200 of 260
resources (ER beds, general hospital beds, ICU beds)—avoiding disease in this population is a critical contribution to public health overall.
14. Downsizing jail populations by releasing high risk individuals and others the court system deems eligible for release will help to “flatten the curve” overall—both within the jail setting and without. Early reporting on the impacts of COVID-19, based in part on preliminary data emerging from China, seemed to indicate that the virus’ impact would remain relatively mild for younger people. Recent data released by the CDC suggests that this initial narrative is incorrect, and that adults aged 2044 also face a risk of experiencing severe health outcomes as a result of contracting the disease. The CDC released data based on the reported cases in the United States between February 12 and March 16, 2020. This data showed the thirty-eight percent (38%) of the hospitalizations from coronavirus occurred in patients under 55 years old.2 French health officials have released statements saying that half of intensive care admission in that country involve individuals under 65. In the Netherlands, half of intensive care admissions were for people under the age of 50.3
15. While the highest risk of death remains among the elderly, it is becoming clear that younger individuals are not protected from severe complications requiring hospitalization and placement in intensive care, using valuable community resources that are expected to become more scarce.
16. At the same time criminal justice authorities work to downsize jail populations, it is critical that the D.C. Department of Corrections, the D.C. Department of Behavioral Health, and any other public agency responsible for maintaining congregate living conditions of detained individuals in the D.C. system immediately undertake the following prevention and planning measures:
2 Severe Outcomes Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) — United States, February 12–March 16, 2020, available at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm?s_cid=mm6912e2_w 3 https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/19/younger-adults-are-large-percentagecoronavirus-hospitalizations-united-states-according-new-cdc-data/
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 201 of 260
a. Immediate testing. Patients who require testing, based on public health recommendations and the opinion of a qualified medical professional, should be tested for COVID-19.
b. Immediate Screening. Correctional authorities must be required to screen each employee or other person entering the facility every day to according to current CDC or local health department guidelines A record should be made of each screening.
c. Quarantine. The jail must establish non-punitive quarantine for all individuals believed to have been exposed to COVID-19, but are not yet symptomatic, and nonpunitive isolation for those believed to be infected with COVID-19 and potentially infectious. Any individual who must interact with those potentially or likely infected with COVID-19 must utilize protective equipment as directed by public health authorities. In short, every possible effort must be made to separate infected or potentially infected individuals from the rest of the incarcerated population. Individuals requiring continued quarantine, isolation, or health care after release from incarceration should be transferred from the institution to the appropriate outside venue.
d. Institutional Hygiene. The jail must be required to provide adequate sanitation of high use/high touch areas and cells in accordance with CDC or local health authority guidelines. i. This includes a prompt way to dispose of tissues used by incarcerated individuals as well as staff.
e. Personal Hygiene. The jail must be required to provide hand soap, disposable paper towels, and access to water to allow residents to wash their hands on a regular basis, free of charge and ensure replacement products are available as needed. Correctional staff should be allowed to carry hand sanitizer with alcohol on their person, and residents should be allowed to use hand sanitizer with alcohol when they 5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 202 of 260
are in locations or activities where hand washing is not available. i. Inmates should be permitted access to cleaning supplies so they may clean their
individual cells. This will both keep cells cleaner, and also stem panic amongst the incarcerated population. f. Access to treatment. It is critical that inmates have rapid access to responsive medical treatment. Those with a cough should be provided masks as soon as they inform staff of this symptom or staff notice this symptom. 17. The measures I propose above are baseline steps to help slow the spread of COVID-19 in all facilities. However, each correctional facility has its own unique combination of physical structure and layout, operations, policies, logistics, inmate characteristics, and staffing factors that determine what additional measures may be necessary to minimize the spread of COVID-19. Only a public health expert who is able to review a particular facility firsthand can account for all of those factors and provide a meaningful and facility-specific opinion about what additional measures are necessary to reduce the risk of transmission. 18. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on March 29, 2020.
Marc Stern, MD MPH
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 203 of 260
EXHIBIT A
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 204 of 260

MARC F. STERN, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.P.

March, 2020

marcstern@live.com +1 (360) 701–6520

SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE

CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE CONSULTANT

2009 – PRESENT

Consultant in the design, management, and operation of health services in a correctional setting to assist in evaluating, monitoring, or providing evidence-based, cost-effective care consistent with constitutional mandates of quality.

Current activities include: x COVID-19 Medical Advisor, National Sheriffs Association (2020 - )
x Advisor to various jails in Washington State on patient safety, health systems, and related health care and custody staff activities and operations, and RFP and contract generation (2014 - )
x Consultant to the US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section. Providing investigative support and expert medical services pursuant to complaints regarding care delivered in any US jail, prison, or detention facility. (2010 - ) (no current open cases)
x Physician prescriber/trainer for administration of naloxone by law enforcement officers for the Olympia, Tumwater, Lacey, Yelm, and Evergreen College Police Departments (2017 - )
x Consultant to the Civil Rights Enforcement Section, Office of the Attorney General of California, under SB 29, to review the healthcare-related conditions of confinement of detainees confined by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in California facilities (2017 - )
x Rule 706 Expert to the Court, US District Court for the District of Arizona, in the matter of Parsons v. Ryan (2018 - )

Previous activities include: x Consultant to Human Rights Watch to evaluate medical care of immigrants in Homeland Security detention (2016 -
2018)
x Consultant to Broward County Sheriff to help develop and evaluate responses to a request for proposals (2017 2018)
x Member of monitoring team (medical expert) pursuant to Consent Agreement between US Department of Justice and Miami-Dade County (Unites States of America v Miami-Dade County, et al.) regarding, entre outre, unconstitutional medical care. (2013 - 2016)
x Jointly appointed Consultant to the parties in Flynn v Walker (formerly Flynn v Doyle), a class action lawsuit before the US Federal District Court (Eastern District of Wisconsin) regarding Eighth Amendment violations of the health care provided to women at the Taycheedah Correctional Institute. Responsible for monitoring compliance with the medical component of the settlement. (2010 - 2015)
x Consultant on “Drug-related Death after Prison Release,” a research grant continuing work with Dr. Ingrid Binswanger, University of Colorado, Denver, examining the causes of, and methods of reducing deaths after release from prison to the community. National Institutes of Health Grant R21 DA031041-01. (2011 - 2016)
x Consultant to the US Department of Homeland Security, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Providing investigative support and expert medical services pursuant to complaints regarding care received by immigration detainees in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2009 - 2014)
x Special Master for the US Federal District Court (District of Idaho) in Balla v Idaho State Board of Correction, et al., a class action lawsuit alleging Eighth Amendment violations in provision of health care at the Idaho State Correctional Institution. (2011 - 2012)
x Facilitator/Consultant to the US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, providing assistance and input for the development of the first National Survey of Prisoner Health. (2010-2011 )
x Project lead and primary author of National Institute of Corrections’ project entitled “Correctional Health Care Executive Curriculum Development,” in collaboration with National Commission on Correctional Health Care. NIC commissioned this curriculum for its use to train executive leaders from jails and prisons across the nation to better manage the health care missions of their facilities. Cooperative Agreement 11AD11GK18, US Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. (2011 - 2015 )

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 205 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 2

x Co-teacher, with Jaye Anno, Ph.D., for the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, of the Commission’s standing course, An In-Depth Look at NCCHC’s 2008 Standards for Health Services in Prisons and Jails taught at its national meetings. (2010 - 2013)
x Contributor to 2014 Editions of Standards for Health Services in Jails and Standards for Health Services in Prisons, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (2013)
x Consultant to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation court-appointed Receiver for medical operations. Projects included: o Assessing the Receiver’s progress in completing its goal of bringing medical care delivered in the Department to a constitutionally mandated level. (2009) o Providing physician leadership to the Telemedicine Program Manager tasked with improving and expanding the statewide use of telemedicine. (2009)
x Conceived, co-designed, led, and instructed in American College of Correctional Physicians and National Commission on Correctional Health Care’s Medical Directors Boot Camp (now called Leadership Institute), a national training program for new (Track “101”) and more experienced (Track “201”) prison and jail medical directors. (2009 - 2012)
x Participated as a member of a nine-person Delphi expert consensus panel convened by Rand Corporation to create a set of correctional health care quality standards. (2009)
x Convened a coalition of jails, Federally Qualified Health Centers, and community mental health centers in ten counties in Washington State to apply for a federal grant to create an electronic network among the participants that will share prescription information for the correctional population as they move among these three venues. (2009 2010)
x Participated as a clinical expert in comprehensive assessment of Michigan Department of Corrections as part of a team from the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (2007)
x Provided consultation to Correctional Medical Services, Inc., St. Louis (now Corizon), on issues related to development of an electronic health record. (2001)
x Reviewed cases of possible professional misconduct for the Office of Professional Medical Conduct of the New York State Department of Health. (1999 – 2001)
x Advised Deputy Commissioner, Indiana State Board of Health, on developing plan to reduce morbidity from chronic diseases using available databases. (1992)
x Provided consultation to Division of General Medicine, University of Nevada at Reno, to help develop a new clinical practice site combining a faculty practice and a supervised resident clinic. (1991)

OLYMPIA BUPRENORPHINE CLINIC, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON

2019 - PRESENT

Volunteer practitioner at a low-barrier clinic to providing Medication Assisted Treatment (buprenorphine) to opioid dependent individuals wishing to begin treatment, until they can transition to a long-term treatment provider

OLYMPIA FREE CLINIC, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON

2017 - PRESENT

Volunteer practitioner providing episodic care at a neighborhood clinic which provides free care to individuals without health insurance until they can find a permanent medical home

OLYMPIA UNION GOSPEL MISSION CLINIC, OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON

2009 – 2014

Volunteer practitioner providing primary care at a neighborhood clinic which provides free care to individuals without health insurance until they can find a permanent medical home; my own patient panel within the practice focuses on individuals recently released jail and prison.

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

2002 – 2008

Assistant Secretary for Health Services/Health Services Director, 2005 – 2008 Associate Deputy Secretary for Health Care, 2002 – 2005

Responsible for the medical, mental health, chemical dependency (transiently), and dental care of 15,000 offenders in total confinement. Oversaw an annual operating budget of $110 million and 700 health care staff.
x As the first incumbent ever in this position, ushered the health services division from an operation of 12 staff in headquarters, providing only consultative services to the Department, to an operation with direct authority and

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 206 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 3

responsibility for all departmental health care staff and budget. As part of new organizational structure, created and filled statewide positions of Directors of Nursing, Medicine, Dental, Behavioral Health, Mental Health, Psychiatry, Pharmacy, Operations, and Utilization Management.
x Significantly changed the culture of the practice of correctional health care and the morale of staff by a variety of structural and functional changes, including: ensuring that high ethical standards and excellence in clinical practice were of primordial importance during hiring of professional and supervisory staff; supporting disciplining or career counseling of existing staff where appropriate; implementing an organizational structure such that patient care decisions were under the final direct authority of a clinician and were designed to ensure that patient needs were met, while respecting and operating within the confines of a custodial system.
x Improved quality of care by centralizing and standardizing health care operations, including: authoring a new Offender Health Plan defining patient benefits based on the Eighth Amendment, case law, and evidence-based medicine; implementing a novel system of utilization management in medical, dental, and mental health, using the medical staffs as real-time peer reviewers; developing a pharmacy procedures manual and creating a Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee; achieving initial American Correctional Association accreditation for 13 facilities (all with almost perfect scores on first audit); migrating the eight individual pharmacy databases to a single central database.
x Blunted the growth in health care spending without compromising quality of care by a number of interventions, including: better coordination and centralization of contracting with external vendors, including new statewide contracts for hospitalization, laboratory, drug purchasing, radiology, physician recruitment, and agency nursing; implementing a statewide formulary; issuing quarterly operational reports at the state and facility levels.
x Piloted the following projects: direct issuance of over-the-counter medications on demand through inmates stores (commissary), obviating the need for a practitioner visit and prescription; computerized practitioner order entry (CPOE); pill splitting; ER telemedicine.
x Oversaw the health services team that participated variously in pre-design, design, or build phases of five capital projects to build complete new health units.

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

2001 – 2002

Regional Medical Director, Northeast Region, 2001 – 2002
Responsible for clinical oversight of medical services for 14,000 offenders in 14 prisons, including one (already) under court monitoring.
x Oversaw contract with vendor to manage 60-bed regional infirmary and hospice.
x Coordinated activities among the Regional Medical Unit outpatient clinic, the Albany Medical College, and the 13 feeder prisons to provide most of the specialty care for the region.
x Worked with contracting specialists and Emergency Departments to improve access and decrease medical out-trips by increasing the proportion of scheduled and emergency services provided by telemedicine.
x Provided training, advice, and counseling to practitioners and facility health administrators in the region to improve the quality of care delivered.

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. (now CORIZON)

2000 – 2001

Regional Medical Director, New York Region, 2000 – 2001
Responsible for clinical management of managed care contract with New York State Department of Correctional Services to provide utilization management services for the northeast and northern regions of New York State and supervision of the 60-bed regional infirmary and hospice.
x Migrated the utilization approval function from one of an anonymous rule-based “black box” to a collaborative evidence-based decision making process between the vendor and front-line clinicians.

MERCY INTERNAL MEDICINE, ALBANY, NEW YORK
Neighborhood three-physician internal medicine group practice. Primary Care Physician, 1999 – 2000 (6 months) Provided direct primary care to a panel of community patients during a period of staff shortage.

1999 – 2000

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 207 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 4

ALBANY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ALBANY, NEW YORK

1998 – 1999

Acting Facility Medical Director, 1998 – 1999

Directed the medical staff of an 800 bed jail and provided direct patient care following the sudden loss of the Medical Director, pending hiring of a permanent replacement. Coordinated care of jail patients in local hospitals. Provided consultation to the Superintendent on improvements to operation and staffing of medical unit and need for privatization.

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, ALBANY, NY

1992 – 1998

Assistant Chief, Medical Service, 1995 – 1998 Chief, Section of General Internal Medicine and Emergency Services, 1992 – 1998
Responsible for operation of the general internal medicine clinics and the Emergency Department.
x Designed and implemented an organizational and physical plant makeover of the general medicine ambulatory care clinic from an episodic-care driven model with practitioners functioning independently supported by minimal nursing involvement, to a continuity-of-care model with integrated physician/mid-level practitioner/registered nurse/licensed practice nurse/practice manager teams.
x Led the design and opening of a new Emergency Department.
x As the VA Section Chief of Albany Medical College’s Division of General Internal Medicine, coordinated academic activities of the Division at the VA, including oversight of, and direct teaching in, ambulatory care and inpatient internal medicine rotations for medical students, residents, and fellows. Incorporated medical residents as part of the general internal medicine clinics. Awarded $786,000 Veterans Administration grant (“PRIME I”) over four years for development and operation of educational programs for medicine residents and students in allied health professions (management, pharmacy, social work, physician extenders) wishing to study primary care delivery.

ERIE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, BUFFALO, NY

1988 – 1990

Director of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Services, 1989 – 1990 Staff Physician, STD Clinic, 1988 – 1989 Staff Physician, Lackawanna Community Health Center, 1988 – 1990
Provided leadership and patient care services in the evaluation and treatment of STDs. Successfully reorganized the county’s STD services which were suffering from mismanagement and were under public scrutiny. Provided direct patient care services in primary care clinic for underserved neighborhood.

UNION OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTER, BUFFALO, NY Staff Physician, 1988 – 1990 Provided direct patient care for the evaluation of occupationally-related health disorders.

1988 – 1990

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, BUFFALO, NY

1985 – 1990

Chief Outpatient Medical Section and Primary Care Clinic, 1986 – 1988 VA Section Head, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Buffalo, 1986 – 1988
x Developed and implemented a major restructuring of the general medicine ambulatory care clinic to reduce fragmentation of care by introduction of a continuity-of-care model with a physician/nurse team approach.

Medical Director, Anticoagulation Clinic 1986 – 1990 Staff Physician, Emergency Department, 1985 – 1986

FACULTY APPOINTMENTS

2007 – present
1999 – present
1996 – 2002 1992 – 2002

Affiliate Assistant Professor, Department of Health Services, School of Public Health, University of Washington
Clinical Professor, Fellowship in Applied Public Health (previously Volunteer Faculty, Preventive Medicine Residency), University at Albany School of Public Health
Volunteer Faculty, Office of the Dean of Students, University at Albany
Associate Clinical/Associate/Assistant Professor of Medicine, Albany Medical College

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 208 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 5

1993 – 1997 1990 – 1992 1985 – 1990 1982 – 1985

Clinical Associate Faculty, Graduate Program in Nursing, Sage Graduate School Instructor of Medicine, Indiana University Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Buffalo Clinical Assistant Instructor of Medicine, University of Buffalo

2016 – present 2016 – present 2016 – 2017 2013 – present 2013 – 2016
2013 – present 2011 – 2012 2007 – present 2004 – 2006
2004 2003 – present
2001 – present 1999 – present
1999
1997 – 1998 1996 – 2002 1996 – 2002 1995 – 1998 1995
1994 – 1998
1993 1993
1988 – 1989
1987 – 1990 1987 – 1989
1987 – 1988 1987 1986 – 1988 1986 – 1988
1979 – 1980 1973 – 1975

OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Chair, Education Committee, Academic Consortium on Criminal Justice Health Washington State Institutional Review Board (“Prisoner Advocate” member) Mortality Reduction Workgroup, American Jail Association Conference Planning Committee – Medical/Mental Health Track, American Jail Association “Health in Prisons” course, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University/International Committee of the Red Cross Institutional Review Board, University of Washington (“Prisoner Advocate” member), Education Committee, National Commission on Correctional Health Care National Advisory Committee, COCHS (Community–Oriented Correctional Health Services) Fellow’s Advisory Committee, University of Washington Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar
Program External Expert Panel to the Surgeon General on the “Call to Action on Correctional Health Care” Faculty Instructor, Critical Appraisal of the Literature Course, Family Practice Residency Program,
Providence St. Peter Hospital, Olympia, Washington Chair/Co-Chair, Education Committee, American College of Correctional Physicians Critical Appraisal of the Literature Course, Preventive Medicine Residency Program, New York State
Department of Health/University at Albany School of Public Health Co–Chairperson, Education Subcommittee, Workshop Submission Review Committee, Annual
Meeting, Society of General Internal Medicine Northeast US Representative, National Association of VA Ambulatory Managers Faculty Mentor, Journal Club, Internal Medicine Residency Program, Albany Medical College Faculty Advisor and Medical Control, 5 Quad Volunteer Ambulance Service, University at Albany Preceptor, MBA Internship, Union College Quality Assurance/Patient Satisfaction Subcommittee, VA National Curriculum Development
Committee for Implementation of Primary Care Practices, Veterans Administration Residency Advisory Committee, Preventive Medicine Residency, New York State Department of
Health/School of Public Health, University at Albany Chairperson, Dean's Task Force on Primary Care, Albany Medical College Task Group to develop curriculum for Comprehensive Care Case Study Course for Years 1 through 4,
Albany Medical College Teaching Effectiveness Program for New Housestaff, Graduate Medical Dental Education Consortium
of Buffalo Human Studies Review Committee, School of Allied Health Professions, University of Buffalo Chairman, Subcommittee on Hospital Management Issues and Member, Subcommittee on
Teaching of Ad Hoc Committee to Plan Incoming Residents Training Week, Graduate Medical Dental Education Consortium of Buffalo Dean's Ad Hoc Committee to Reorganize "Introduction to Clinical Medicine" Course Preceptor, Nurse Practitioner Training Program, School of Nursing, University of Buffalo Course Coordinator, Simulation Models Section of Physical Diagnosis Course, University of Buffalo Chairman, Service Chiefs' Continuity of Care Task Force, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Buffalo, New York Laboratory Teaching Assistant in Gross Anatomy, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium Instructor and Instructor Trainer of First Aid, American National Red Cross

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 209 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 6

1972 – 1975 1972 – 1975

Chief of Service or Assistant Chief of Operations, 5 Quad Volunteer Ambulance Service, University at Albany.
Emergency Medical Technician Instructor and Course Coordinator, New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services

2019 – present 2015 – present 2015 – present
2011 – present 2010 – present 2010 – present 2001 – present 2001 – 2004 1996
1990 – 1992

REVIEWER/EDITOR
Criminal Justice Review (reviewer) PLOS ONE (reviewer) Founding Editorial Board Member and Reviewer, Journal for Evidence-based Practice in Correctional Health, Center for Correctional Health Networks, University of Connecticut American Journal of Public Health (reviewer) International Advisory Board Member and Reviewer, International Journal of Prison Health Langeloth Foundation (grant reviewer) Reviewer and Editorial Board Member (2009 – present), Journal of Correctional Health Care Journal of General Internal Medicine (reviewer) Abstract Committee, Health Services Research Subcommittee, Annual Meeting, Society of General Internal Medicine (reviewer) Medical Care (reviewer)

EDUCATION
University at Albany, College of Arts and Sciences, Albany; B.S., 1975 (Biology) University at Albany, School of Education, Albany; AMST (Albany Math and Science Teachers) Teacher Education
Program, 1975 Université Libre de Bruxelles, Faculté de Medecine, Brussels, Belgium; Candidature en Sciences Medicales, 1980 University at Buffalo, School of Medicine, Buffalo; M.D., 1982 University at Buffalo Affiliated Hospitals, Buffalo; Residency in Internal Medicine, 1985 Regenstrief Institute of Indiana University, and Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Administration Medical Center; VA/NIH
Fellowship in Primary Care Medicine and Health Services Research, 1992 Indiana University, School of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Bloomington; M.P.H., 1992 New York Academy of Medicine, New York; Mini-fellowship Teaching Evidence-Based Medicine, 1999

CERTIFICATION
Provisional Teaching Certification for Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Grades 7–12, New York State Department of Education (expired), 1975
Diplomate, National Board of Medical Examiners, 1983 Diplomate, American Board of Internal Medicine, 1985 Fellow, American College of Physicians, 1991 License: Washington (#MD00041843, active); New York (#158327, inactive); Indiana (#01038490, inactive) “X” Waiver (buprenorphine), Department of Health & Human Services, 2018

2019 – present 2005 – 2016 2004 – 2006
2000 – present

MEMBERSHIPS
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs American Correctional Association/Washington Correctional Association American College of Correctional Physicians (Member, Board of Directors, Chair Education Committee) American College of Correctional Physicians

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 210 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 7

RECOGNITION
B. Jaye Anno Award for Excellence in Communication, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. 2019 Award of Appreciation, Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. 2018 Armond Start Award of Excellence, American College of Correctional Physicians. 2010 (First) Annual Preventive Medicine Faculty Excellence Award, New York State Preventive Medicine Residency Program, University at Albany School of Public Health/New York State Department of Health. 2010 Excellence in Education Award for excellence in clinical teaching, Family Practice Residency Program, Providence St. Peter Hospital, Olympia, Washington. 2004 Special Recognition for High Quality Workshop Presentation at Annual Meeting, Society of General Internal Medicine. 1996 Letter of Commendation, House Staff Teaching, University of Buffalo. 1986
WORKSHOPS, SEMINARS, PRESENTATIONS, INVITED LECTURES
It’s the 21st Century – Time to Bid Farewell to “Sick Call” and “Chronic Care Clinic”. Annual Conference, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 2019
HIV and Ethics – Navigating Medical Ethical Dilemmas in Corrections. Keynote Speech, 14th Annual HIV Care in the Correctional Setting. AIDS Education and Training Program (AETC) Mountain West, Olympia, Washington. 2019
Honing Nursing Skills to Keep Patients Safe in Jail. Orange County Jail Special Training Session (including San Bernardino and San Diego Jail Staffs), Theo Lacy Jail, Orange, California. 2019
What Would You Do? Navigating Medical Ethical Dilemmas. Leadership Training Academy, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. San Diego, California. 2019
Preventing Jail Deaths. Jail Death Review and Investigations: Best Practices Training Program, American Jail Association, Arlington, Virginia. 2018
How to Investigate Jail Deaths. Jail Death Review and Investigations: Best Practices Training Program, American Jail Association, Arlington, Virginia. 2018
Executive Manager Program in Correctional Health. 4-day training for custody/health care teams from jails and prisons on designing safe and efficient health care systems. National Institute for Corrections Training Facility, Aurora, Colorado, and other venues in Washington State. Periodically. 2014 – present
Medical Ethics in Corrections. Criminal Justice 441 – Professionalism and Ethical Issues in Criminal Justice. University of Washington, Tacoma. Recurring seminar. 2012 – present
Medical Aspects of Deaths in ICE Custody. Briefing for U.S. Senate staffers, Human Rights Watch. Washington, D.C. 2018
Jails’ Role in Managing the Opioid Epidemic. Panelist. Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs Annual Conference. Spokane, Washington. 2018
Contract Prisons and Contract Health Care: What Do We Know? Behind Bars: Ethics and Human Rights in U.S. Prisons Conference. Center for Bioethics – Harvard Medical School/Human Rights Program – Harvard Law School. Boston, Massachusetts. 2017
Health Care Workers in Prisons. (With Dr. J. Wesley Boyd) Behind Bars: Ethics and Human Rights in U.S. Prisons Conference. Center for Bioethics – Harvard Medical School/Human Rights Program – Harvard Law School. Boston, Massachusetts. 2017
Prisons, Jails and Medical Ethics: Rubber, Meet Road. Grand Rounds. Touro Medical College. New York, New York. 2017
Jail Medical Doesn’t Have to Keep You Up at Night – National Standards, Risks, and Remedies. Washington Association of Counties. SeaTac, Washington. 2017
Prison and Jail Health Care: What do you need to know? Grand Rounds. Providence/St. Peters Medical Center. Olympia, Washington. 2017
Prison Health Leadership Conference. 2-Day workshop. International Corrections and Prisons Association/African Correctional Services Association/Namibian Corrections Service. Omaruru, Namibia. 2016; 2018

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 211 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 8

What Would YOU Do? Navigating Medical Ethical Dilemmas. Spring Conference. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Nashville, Tennessee. 2016
Improving Patient Safety. Spring Provider Meeting. Oregon Department of Corrections. Salem, Oregon 2016
A View from the Inside: The Challenges and Opportunities Conducting Cardiovascular Research in Jails and Prisons. Workshop on Cardiovascular Diseases in the Inmate and Released Prison Population. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Bethesda, Maryland. 2016
Why it Matters: Advocacy and Policies to Support Health Communities after Incarceration. At the Nexus of Correctional Health and Public Health: Policies and Practice session. Panelist. American Public Health Association Annual Meeting. Chicago, Illinois. 2015
Hot Topics in Correctional Health Care. Presented with Dr. Donald Kern. American Jail Association Annual Meeting. Charlotte, North Carolina. 2015
Turning Sick Call Upside Down. Annual Conference. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Dallas, Texas, 2015.
Diagnostic Maneuvers You May Have Missed in Nursing School. Annual Conference. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Dallas, Texas. 2015
The Challenges of Hunger Strikes: What Should We Do? What Shouldn’t We Do? Annual Conference. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Dallas, Texas. 2015
Practical and Ethical Approaches to Managing Hunger Strikes. Annual Practitioners’ Conference. Washington Department of Corrections. Tacoma, Washington. 2015
Contracting for Health Services: Should I, and if so, how? American Jail Association Annual Meeting. Dallas, Texas. 2014
Hunger Strikes: What should the Society of Correctional Physician’s position be? With Allen S, May J, Ritter S. American College of Correctional Physicians (Formerly Society of Correctional Physicians) Annual Meeting. Nashville, Tennessee. 2013
Addressing Conflict between Medical and Security: an Ethics Perspective. International Corrections and Prison Association Annual Meeting. Colorado Springs, Colorado. 2013
Patient Safety and ‘Right Using’ Nurses. Keynote address. Annual Conference. American Correctional Health Services Association. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2013
Patient Safety: Overuse, underuse, and misuse…of nurses. Keynote address. Essentials of Correctional Health Care conference. Salt Lake City, Utah. 2012
The ethics of providing healthcare to prisoners-An International Perspective. Global Health Seminar Series. Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 2012
Recovery, Not Recidivism: Strategies for Helping People Who are Incarcerated. Panelist. NAMI Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington, 2012
Ethics and HIV Workshop. HIV/AIDS Care in the Correctional Setting Conference, Northwest AIDS Education and Training Center. Salem, Oregon. 2011
Ethics and HIV Workshop. HIV/AIDS Care in the Correctional Setting Conference, Northwest AIDS Education and Training Center. Spokane, Washington. 2011
Patient Safety: Raising the Bar in Correctional Health Care. With Dr. Sharen Barboza. National Commission on Correctional Health Care Mid-Year Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee. 2010
Patient Safety: Raising the Bar in Correctional Health Care. American Correctional Health Services Association, Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon. 2010
Achieving Quality Care in a Tough Economy. National Commission on Correctional Health Care Mid-Year Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, 2010 (Co-presented with Rick Morse and Helena Kim, PharmD.)
Involuntary Psychotropic Administration: The Harper Solution. With Dr. Bruce Gage. American Correctional Health Services Association, Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon. 2010
Evidence Based Decision Making for Non-Clinical Correctional Administrators. American Correctional Association 139th Congress, Nashville, Tennessee. 2009
Death Penalty Debate. Panelist. Seattle University School of Law, Seattle, Washington. 2009

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 212 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 9

The Patient Handoff – From Custody to the Community. Washington Free Clinic Association, Annual Meeting, Olympia, Washington. Lacey, Washington. 2009
Balancing Patient Advocacy with Fiscal Restraint and Patient Litigation. National Commission on Correctional Health Care and American College of Correctional Physicians “Medical Directors Boot Camp,” Seattle, Washington. 2009
Staff Management. National Commission on Correctional Health Care and American College of Correctional Physicians “Medical Directors Boot Camp,” Seattle, Washington. 2009
Management Dilemmas in Corrections: Boots and Bottom Bunks. Annual Meeting, American College of Correctional Physicians, Chicago, Illinois. 2008
Public Health and Correctional Health Care. Masters Program in community–based population focused management – Populations at risk, Washington State University, Spokane, Washington. 2008
Managing the Geriatric Population. Panelist. State Medical Directors’ Meeting, American Corrections Association, Alexandria, Virginia. 2007
I Want to do my own Skin Biopsies. Annual Meeting, American College of Correctional Physicians, New Orleans, Louisiana. 2005
Corrections Quick Topics. Annual Meeting, American College of Correctional Physicians. Austin, Texas. 2003
Evidence Based Medicine in Correctional Health Care. Annual Meeting, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Austin, Texas. 2003
Evidence Based Medicine. Excellence at Work Conference, Empire State Advantage. Albany, New York. 2002
Evidence Based Medicine, Outcomes Research, and Health Care Organizations. National Clinical Advisory Group, Integrail, Inc., Albany, New York. 2002
Evidence Based Medicine. With Dr. LK Hohmann. The Empire State Advantage, Annual Excellence at Work Conference: Leading and Managing for Organizational Excellence, Albany, New York. 2002
Taking the Mystery out of Evidence Based Medicine: Providing Useful Answers for Clinicians and Patients. Breakfast Series, Institute for the Advancement of Health Care Management, School of Business, University at Albany, Albany, New York. 2001
Diagnosis and Management of Male Erectile Dysfunction – A Goal–Oriented Approach. Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, San Francisco, California. 1999
Study Design and Critical Appraisal of the Literature. Graduate Medical Education Lecture Series for all housestaff, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York. 1999
Male Impotence: Its Diagnosis and Treatment in the Era of Sildenafil. 4th Annual CME Day, Alumni Association of the Albany–Hudson Valley Physician Assistant Program, Albany, New York. 1998
Models For Measuring Physician Productivity. Panelist. National Association of VA Ambulatory Managers National Meeting, Memphis, Tennessee. 1997
Introduction to Male Erectile Dysfunction and the Role of Sildenafil in Treatment. Northeast Regional Meeting Pfizer Sales Representatives, Manchester Center, Vermont. 1997
Male Erectile Dysfunction. Topics in Urology, A Seminar for Primary Healthcare Providers, Bassett Healthcare, Cooperstown, New York. 1997
Evaluation and Treatment of the Patient with Impotence: A Practical Primer for General Internists. Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, Washington D.C. 1996
Impotence: An Update. Department of Medicine Grand Rounds, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York. 1996
Diabetes for the EMT First–Responder. Five Quad Volunteer Ambulance, University at Albany. Albany, New York. 1996
Impotence: An Approach for Internists. Medicine Grand Rounds, St. Mary's Hospital, Rochester, New York. 1994
Male Impotence. Common Problems in Primary Care Precourse. American College of Physicians National Meeting, Miami, Florida. 1994
Patient Motivation: A Key to Success. Tuberculosis and HIV: A Time for Teamwork. AIDS Program, Bureau of Tuberculosis Control – New York State Department of Health and Albany Medical College, Albany, New York. 1994

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 213 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 10

Recognizing and Treating Impotence. Department of Medicine Grand Rounds, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York. 1992
Medical Decision Making: A Primer on Decision Analysis. Faculty Research Seminar, Department of Family Practice, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1992
Effective Presentation of Public Health Data. Bureau of Communicable Diseases, Indiana State Board of Health, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1991
Impotence: An Approach for Internists. Housestaff Conference, Department of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1991
Using Electronic Databases to Search the Medical Literature. NIH/VA Fellows Program, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1991
Study Designs Used in Epidemiology. Ambulatory Care Block Rotation. Department of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1991
Effective Use of Slides in a Short Scientific Presentation. Housestaff Conference, Department of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1991
Impotence: A Rational and Practical Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment for the General Internist. Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, Washington D.C. 1991
Nirvana and Audio–Visual Aids. With Dr. RM Lubitz. Society of General Internal Medicine, Midwest Regional Meeting, Chicago. 1991
New Perspectives in the Management of Hypercholesterolemia. Medical Staff, West Seneca Developmental Center, West Seneca, New York. 1989
Effective Use of Audio–Visual Aids. Nurse Educators, American Diabetes Association, Western New York Chapter, Buffalo, New York. 1989
Management of Diabetics in the Custodial Care Setting. Medical Staff, West Seneca Developmental Center, West Seneca, New York, 1989
Effective Use of Audio–Visuals in Diabetes Peer and Patient Education. American Association of Diabetic Educators, Western New York Chapter, Buffalo, New York. 1989
Pathophysiology, Diagnosis and Care of Diabetes. Nurse Practitioner Training Program, School of Nursing, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. 1989
Techniques of Large Group Presentations to Medical Audiences – Use of Audio–Visuals. New Housestaff Training Program, Graduate Medical Dental Education Consortium of Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. 1988

PUBLICATIONS/ABSTRACTS
Borschmann, R, Tibble, H, Spittal, MJ, … Stern, MF, Viner, KM, Wang, N, Willoughby, M, Zhao, B, and Kinner, SA. The Mortality After Release from Incarceration Consortium (MARIC): Protocolfor a multi-national, individual participant data meta-analysis. Int. J of Population Data Science 2019 5(1):6
Binswanger IA, Maruschak LM, Mueller SR, Stern MF, Kinner SA. Principles to Guide National Data Collection on the Health of Persons in the Criminal Justice System. Public Health Reports 2019 134(1):34S-45S
Stern M. Hunger Strike: The Inside Medicine Scoop. American Jails 2018 32(4):17-21
Grande L, Stern M. Providing Medication to Treat Opioid Use Disorder in Washington State Jails. Study conducted for Washington State Department of Social and Health Services under Contract 1731-18409. 2018.
Stern MF, Newlin N. Epicenter of the Epidemic: Opioids and Jails. American Jails 2018 32(2):16-18
Stern MF. A nurse is a nurse is a nurse…NOT! Guest Editorial, American Jails 2018 32(2):4,68
Wang EA, Redmond N, Dennison Himmelfarb CR, Pettit B, Stern M, Chen J, Shero S, Iturriaga E, Sorlie P, Diez Roux AV. Cardiovascular Disease in Incarcerated Populations. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2017 69(24):2967-76
Mitchell A, Reichberg T, Randall J, Aziz-Bose R, Ferguson W, Stern M. Criminal Justice Health Digital Curriculum. Poster, Annual Academic and Health Policy Conference on Correctional Health, Atlanta, Georgia, March, 2017

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 214 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 11

Stern MF. Patient Safety (White Paper). Guidelines, Management Tools, White Papers, National Commission on Correctional Health Care. http://www.ncchc.org/filebin/Resources/Patient-Safety-2016.pdf. June, 2016
Binswanger IA, Stern MF, Yamashita TE, Mueller SR, Baggett TP, Blatchford PJ. Clinical risk factors for death after release from prison in Washington State: a nested case control study. Addiction 2015 Oct 17
Stern MF. Op-Ed on Lethal Injections. The Guardian 2014 Aug 6
Stern MF. American College of Correctional Physicians Calls for Caution Placing Mentally Ill in Segregation: An Important Band-Aid. Guest Editorial. Journal of Correctional Health Care 2014 Apr; 20(2):92-94
Binswanger I, Blatchford PJ, Mueller SR, Stern MF. Mortality After Prison Release: Opioid Overdose and Other Causes of Death, Risk Factors, and Time Trends From 1999 to 2009. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013 Nov; 159(9):592-600
Williams B, Stern MF, Mellow J, Safer M, Greifinger RB. Aging in Correctional Custody: Setting a policy agenda for older prisoner health care. American Journal of Public Health 2012 Aug; 102(8):1475-1481
Binswanger I, Blatchford PJ, Yamashita TE, Stern MF. Drug-Related Risk Factors for Death after Release from Prison: A Nested Case Control Study. Oral Presentation, University of Massachusetts 4th Annual Academic and Health Policy Conference on Correctional Healthcare, Boston, Massachusetts, March, 2011
Binswanger I, Blatchford PJ, Forsyth S, Stern MF, Kinner SA. Death Related to Infectious Disease in Ex-Prisoners: An International Comparative Study. Oral Presentation, University of Massachusetts 4th Annual Academic and Health Policy Conference on Correctional Healthcare, Boston, Massachusetts, March, 2011
Binswanger I, Lindsay R, Stern MF, Blatchford P. Risk Factors for All-Cause, Overdose and Early Deaths after Release from Prison in Washington State Drug and Alcohol Dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence Aug 1 2011;117(1):1-6
Stern MF, Greifinger RB, Mellow J. Patient Safety: Moving the Bar in Prison Health Care Standards. American Journal of Public Health November 2010;100(11):2103-2110
Strick LB, Saucerman G, Schlatter C, Newsom L, Stern MF. Implementation of Opt-Out HIV testing in the Washington State Department of Corrections. Poster Presentation, National Commission on Correctional Health Care Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, October, 2009
Binswanger IA, Blatchford P, Stern MF. Risk Factors for Death After Release from Prison. Society for General Internal Medicine 32nd Annual Meeting; Miami: Journal of General Internal Medicine; April 2009. p. S164-S95
Stern MF. Force Feeding for Hunger Strikes – One More Step. CorrDocs Winter 2009;12(1):2
Binswanger I, Stern MF, Deyo RA, Heagerty PJ, Cheadle A, Elmore JG, Koepsell TD. Release from Prison – A High Risk of Death for Former Inmates. New England Journal of Medicine 2007 Jan 11;356(2):157–165
Stern MF, Hilliard T, Kelm C, Anderson E. Epidemiology of Hepatitis C Infection in the Washington State Department of Corrections. Poster Presentation, CDC/NIH ad hoc Conference on Management of Hepatitis C in Prisons, San Antonio, Texas, January, 2003
Phelps KR, Stern M, Slingerland A, Heravi M, Strogatz DS, Haqqie SS. Metabolic and skeletal effects of low and high doses of calcium acetate in patients with preterminal chronic renal failure. Am J Nephrol 2002 Sep–Dec;22(5–6):445–54
Goldberg L, Stern MF, Posner DS. Comparative Epidemiology of Erectile Dysfunction in Gay Men. Oral Presentation, International Society for Impotence Research Meeting, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, August 1998. Int J Impot Res. 1998;10(S3):S41 [also presented as oral abstract Annual Meeting, Society for the Study of Impotence, Boston, Massachusetts, October, 1999. Int J Impot Res. 1999;10(S1):S65]
Stern MF. Erectile Dysfunction in Older Men. Topics in Geriatric Rehab 12(4):40–52, 1997. [republished in Geriatric Patient Education Resource Manual, Supplement. Aspen Reference Group, Eds. Aspen Publishers, Inc., 1998]
Stern MF, Wulfert E, Barada J, Mulchahy JJ, Korenman SG. An Outcomes–Oriented Approach to the Primary Care Evaluation and Management of Erectile Dysfunction. J Clin Outcomes Management 5(2):36–56, 1998
Fihn SD, Callahan CM, Martin D, et al.; for the National Consortium of Anticoagulation Clinics.* The Risk for and Severity of Bleeding Complications in Elderly Patients Treated with Warfarin. Ann Int Med. 1996;124:970–979
Fihn SD, McDonell M, Martin D, et al.; for the Warfarin Optimized Outpatient Follow–up Study Group.* Risk Factors for Complications of Chronic Anticoagulation. Ann Int Med. 1993;118:511–520. (*While involved in the original proposal development and project execution, I was no longer part of the group at the time of this publication)
Stern MF, Dittus RS, Birkhead G, Huber R, Schwartz J, Morse D. Cost–Effectiveness of Hepatitis B Immunization Strategies for High Risk People. Oral Presentation, Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, Washington, D.C., May 1992. Clin Res 1992

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 215 of 260

Marc F. Stern, M.D.

Page 12

Fihn SD, McDonell MB, Vermes D, Martin D, Kent DL, Henikoff JG, and the Warfarin Outpatient Follow–up Study Group. Optimal Scheduling of Patients Taking Warfarin. A Multicenter Randomized Trial. Oral Presentation, Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, Washington, D.C., May 1992. Clin Res 1992
Fihn SD, McDonnell MB, Vermes D, Kent DL, Henikoff JG, and the Warfarin Anticoagulation Study Group. Risk Factors for Complications During Chronic Anticoagulation. Poster Presentation, Society of General Internal Medicine National Meeting, Seattle, May 1991
Pristach CA, Donoghue GD, Sarkin R, Wargula C, Doerr R, Opila D, Stern M, Single G. A Multidisciplinary Program to Improve the Teaching Skills of Incoming Housestaff. Acad Med. 1991;66(3):172–174
Stern MF. Diagnosing Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhea Infections. (letter) J Gen Intern Med. 1991;6:183
Stern MF, Fitzgerald JF, Dittus RS, Tierney WM, Overhage JM. Office Visits and Outcomes of Care: Does Frequency Matter? Poster Presentation, Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting, Seattle, May 1991. Clin Res 1991;39:610A
Stern MF. Cobalamin Deficiency and Red Blood Cell Volume Distribution Width. (letter) Arch Intern Med. 1990;150:910
Stern M, Steinbach B. Hypodermic Needle Embolization to the Heart. NY State J Med. 1990;90(7):368–371
Stern MF, Birkhead G, Huber R, Schwartz J, Morse D. Feasibility of Hepatitis B Immunization in an STD Clinic. Oral Presentation, American Public Health Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta, November 1990

EXPERT TESTIMONY Pajas v. County of Monterey, et al. US District Court for the Northern District of California, 2019 (trial) Dockery, et al. v. Hall et al. US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Northern Division, 2018 (trial) Benton v. Correct Care Solutions, et al. US District Court for the District of Maryland, 2018 (deposition) Pajas v. County of Monterey, et al. US District Court Northern District of California, 2018 (deposition) Walter v. Correctional Healthcare Companies, et al. US District Court, District of Colorado, 2017 (deposition) Winkler v. Madison County, Kentucky, et al. US District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division at Lexington, 2016 (deposition) US v. Miami-Dade County, et al. US District Court, Southern District of Florida, periodically 2014 - 2016

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 216 of 260
EXHIBIT 3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 217 of 260
DECLARATION OF RACHEL CICUREL STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Rachel Cicurel, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Rachel Cicurel. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am a staff attorney in the Trial Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since October 3, 2016. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as a trial attorney at PDS is to represent people in criminal proceedings in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
3. As part of my duties as an attorney at PDS, I regularly conduct legal visits with clients in the custody of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections, both at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”).
4. Since March 1, 2020, I have visited CTF two times.
5. While I was in that facility, I observed the following:
a. On March 1, 2020, I visited CTF. I observed staff at CTF acting in their normal manner regarding entrance protocol and cleanliness. When I entered the facility, I provided my PDS identification card and the required visitor paperwork to the staff behind the first window. I was not asked about my current health or the health of those around whom I had recently been. My temperature was not taken, and I was not asked if I had recently been out of the country. After receiving a visitor pass, I put my personal items and shoes through the metal detector and prepared to be screened. The screening and pat down processes were normal. I did not observe staff members wearing masks. I was permitted to bring in my own cleaning wipes, but did not observe CTF staff wiping down any surfaces or taking any other notable measures to keep the facility particularly clean. Despite the global epidemic, everything at CTF seemed to be business as usual.
b. On March 3, 2020, I visited CTF. I observed nothing out of the ordinary. The entrance procedures were standard, with no additional screening about my recent whereabouts or current health. The staff were not wearing masks, not wiping down surfaces, and did not appear to be taking any extra measures to keep the facility clean. However, I was allowed to bring my own wipes into CTF with me.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 218 of 260
6. Since last visiting CTF, I have spoken further to clients. Through those conversations, I learned the following:
a. On March 19, 2020, I spoke with Client A at CTF. I learned that Client A was sick with a cough, but that it was taking many days, and sometimes over a week, to obtain a medical visit. I learned that at least 15 to 18 people on the 50-and-over block had coughs or colds. I learned that the 50-and-over block at CTF had been provided with almost no information about coronavirus or how to combat it; specifically, the only instruction given to the 50-and-over block was to wash their hands. Reminders for residents to wash their hands came about once per day. However, the residents had not been given soap or hand sanitizer. Rather, in order to wash their hands, the residents had to purchase their own soap to use. As a result, some residents were using shampoo to wash their hands in lieu of anything else; others had nothing with which to wash their hands. I learned that the common areas were cleaned once each day, but that CTF had no limit imposed regarding how many people could use the common areas at one time. Instead, an entire unit could be in the common area at once. I learned that the residents had been given Windex to clean their cells approximately once every three days, but had not been given any cleaning products with bleach or chemicals strong enough to actually sterilize the cells. When the supplies ran out, the residents had to wait several more days for supplies to be restocked. Meanwhile, only some of the staff were wearing gloves and masks; others were not.
b. On March 22, 2020, I spoke with Client B at CTF. During the conversation, I could hear Client B’s deep, guttural cough, as he had to stop the conversation several times to cough extensively. I learned that a few days prior, Client B had sought medical help for chest pains, a cough, and the chills. At the time, Client B’s body ached, and a staff member took Client B to the medical unit. The medical unit determined that Client B also had a fever, but did not test Client B for COVID-19 or quarantine him from other residents. Instead, the medical staff specifically told Client B that he did not have COVID-19, failed to provide an explanation as to how they had come to such a conclusion without testing him, and placed him back in his unit. I also learned that on the unit, none of the residents had been given any soap. Although soap dispensers had been added to the units about two weeks prior, they had been removed the previous week. Residents had been informed that the soap was not for them, but only for staff. Cleaning supplies was also scarce. I learned that whether or not the residents were given supplies to clean depended on which staff members were on duty, and that even when supplies was provided, residents were given three to four cleaning wipes total—not three to four wipes per person, but three to four wipes for the entire unit to share—to clean the unit’s common area. The residents were responsible for cleaning their own cells, but had gone days without cleaning supplies. The supplies had run out, but had not yet been replaced.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 219 of 260
c. On March 25, 2020, I spoke with Client B at CTF. I learned that Client B had again gone to see the medical unit a few days prior with at least five other men from his unit, all of whom were coughing. At that time, the medical unit checked Client B for the flu by swabbing inside his nose with Q-tips, but did not take his temperature. Despite being sick, Client B had been permitted to continue to work in the kitchen. He had worked at the end of last week, despite having a fever, and at the beginning of this week, despite still being congested, which I could hear in his voice during the conversation. No masks were available to those working in the kitchen even though a group of about 20 people work in the kitchen together, without much space between them, as they prepare three meals each day. Additionally, I learned that Client B’s unit was void of any cleaning products, and several days had passed since the residents on his unit had been able to clean. This was particularly concerning because a resident had been quarantined last week, but had already come back to Client B’s unit.
d. On March 25, 2020, I also spoke with Client A at CTF. I learned that Client A had been having night sweats and continuing to find himself light-headed. He suffers from asthma, and had put in a medical request for an asthma pump several nights before. However, since he had still not been called to the medical unit, he intended to file a grievance form to attempt to obtain the asthma pump. I learned that residents were not being prevented from, or even advised against, eating or spending time in large groups, and crowds of people had been congregating together. Nonetheless, the common areas were only being cleaned with Windex— nothing stronger and nothing with bleach. I learned that approximately 25 to 30 people on the 50-and-over block had been repeatedly asking staff for soap, but staff were continuously refusing to provide any. No hand sanitizer was available, either, and residents who ran out of soap had to borrow from one another. Additionally, I learned that staff had not been wearing masks or gloves. During our conversation, several staff members were seen wearing neither masks nor gloves. I learned that a sizeable number of residents on the 50-and-over unit had coughs, and several staff members had coughs, as well. Client A could think of four specific officers with coughs and two who were involved in food preparation.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 26th day of March 2020, in Washington, D.C.
____________________________ Rachel Cicurel Staff Attorney Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 220 of 260
EXHIBIT 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 221 of 260

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 222 of 260

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 223 of 260
EXHIBIT 5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 224 of 260

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 225 of 260

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 226 of 260
EXHIBIT 6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 227 of 260

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 228 of 260

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 229 of 260
EXHIBIT 7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 230 of 260

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 231 of 260
EXHIBIT 8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 232 of 260
'(&/$5$7,212)'$1,(/'321' 67$))$77251(<$77+(38%/,&'()(1'(56(59,&(
 I, Daniel D. Pond, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and
correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
  0\QDPHLV'DQLHO'3RQG,PDNHWKHVHVWDWHPHQWVEDVHGXSRQP\SHUVRQDO
NQRZOHGJH   ,DPDVWDIIDWWRUQH\LQWKH&RPPXQLW\'HIHQGHU'LYLVLRQDWWKH3XEOLF'HIHQGHU6HUYLFH IRUWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELDKHUHLQDIWHU³3'6´DQGKDYHVHUYHGLQWKLVUROHVLQFH -DQXDU\3'6LVDIHGHUDOO\IXQGHGLQGHSHQGHQWRUJDQL]DWLRQGHGLFDWHGWR UHSUHVHQWLQJLQGLJHQWDGXOWVDQGFKLOGUHQDFFXVHGRIFULPHVLQWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD 0\SULQFLSDOUHVSRQVLELOLW\DVDVWDIIDWWRUQH\DWLVWRUHSUHVHQWFOLHQWVLQDYDULHW\RI PDWWHUVLQFOXGLQJSULVRQHUV¶ULJKWVLVVXHV   $VSDUWRIP\GXWLHVDVDQDWWRUQH\DW3'6,UHJXODUO\FRQGXFWOHJDOYLVLWVZLWKFOLHQWVLQ WKHFXVWRG\RIWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD¶V'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQVERWKDWWKH&HQWUDO 'HWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\³&')´DQGDWWKH&RUUHFWLRQDO7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLW\³&7)´   6LQFH0DUFK,KDYHYLVLWHG&')WZLFHDQG&7)WZLFH   :KLOH,ZDVLQWKRVHIDFLOLWLHV,REVHUYHGWKHIROORZLQJ 
D 2Q0DUFK,YLVLWHG&'),GLGQRWREVHUYH'2&VWDIIDWWKHHQWUDQFH PRQLWRULQJTXHVWLRQLQJRUWDNLQJWKHWHPSHUDWXUHRIDQ\YLVLWRUV0\WHPSHUDWXUH DQGWKHWHPSHUDWXUHRIRWKHUYLVLWRUVZHUHQRWEHLQJWDNHQDWWKDWWLPH,GLGQRW REVHUYH'2&VWDIIZHDULQJPDVNV,GLGQRWREVHUYHVRDSRUKDQGVDQLWL]HUIRU YLVLWRUVDSDUWIURPWKHKDQGVRDSLQWKHPHQ¶VUHVWURRP,GLGQRWREVHUYHVWDII ZLSLQJGRZQDQ\VXUIDFHV,QRWLFHGQRGLIIHUHQFHVIURPDQ\RIP\SUHYLRXVYLVLWV RYHUWKH\HDUV 
E 2Q0DUFK,YLVLWHG&7),REVHUYHG'2&VWDIIDWWKHHQWUDQFHDVNLQJ YLVLWRUVLIWKH\KDGUHFHQWO\KDGDIHYHUGU\FRXJKRUVKRUWQHVVRIEUHDWKLI WKH\KDGUHFHQWO\WUDYHOOHGWR&KLQD6RXWK.RUHDRU,WDO\RULIWKH\KDG UHFHQWO\EHHQLQFRQWDFWZLWKDSHUVRQH[KLELWLQJWKRVHV\PSWRPVRUZKRKDG WUDYHOOHGWRWKRVHFRXQWULHV0\WHPSHUDWXUHDQGWKHWHPSHUDWXUHRIRWKHUYLVLWRUV ZHUHQRWEHLQJWDNHQDWWKDWWLPH,GLGQRWREVHUYH'2&VWDIIZHDULQJPDVNV, GLGQRWREVHUYHVRDSRUKDQGVDQLWL]HUIRUYLVLWRUVDSDUWIURPWKHKDQGVRDSLQWKH PHQ¶VUHVWURRP,GLGQRWREVHUYHVWDIIZLSLQJGRZQDQ\VXUIDFHV1RVWDII UHVLGHQWVRUYLVLWRUVZHUHREVHUYLQJIRRWVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ,GLGREVHUYHSRVWHG QRWLILFDWLRQVDERXWVORZLQJWKHVSUHDGRI&29,'EXWDSDUWIURPWKRVHSRVWHG

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 233 of 260
QRWLFHVDQGWKHWKUHHTXHVWLRQIRUPDWWKHHQWUDQFH,QRWLFHGQRGLIIHUHQFHVIURP DQ\RIP\SUHYLRXVYLVLWVRYHUWKH\HDUV  F 2Q0DUFK,YLVLWHG&7),REVHUYHG'2&VWDIIDWWKHHQWUDQFHDVNLQJ YLVLWRUVLIWKH\KDGUHFHQWO\KDGDIHYHUGU\FRXJKRUVKRUWQHVVRIEUHDWKLI WKH\KDGUHFHQWO\WUDYHOOHGWR&KLQD6RXWK.RUHDRU,WDO\RULIWKH\KDG UHFHQWO\EHHQLQFRQWDFWZLWKDSHUVRQH[KLELWLQJWKRVHV\PSWRPVRUZKRKDG WUDYHOOHGWRWKRVHFRXQWULHV0\WHPSHUDWXUHDQGWKHWHPSHUDWXUHRIRWKHUYLVLWRUV ZHUHWDNHQEHIRUHEHLQJDOORZHGLQ,GLGREVHUYHRQHRUWZR'2&VWDIIPHPEHUV ZHDULQJPDVNVEXWGR]HQVRIRWKHUVZHUHQ¶W'2&VWDIIPHPEHUVZKRZHUH PDQQLQJWKH[UD\PDFKLQHDQGFRQGXFWLQJSDWGRZQVZHUHZHDULQJODWH[JORYHV EXWGR]HQVRIRWKHUVWDIIPHPEHUVZHUHQ¶W,GLGQRWREVHUYHVRDSRUKDQG VDQLWL]HUIRUYLVLWRUVDSDUWIURPWKHKDQGVRDSLQWKHPHQ¶VUHVWURRP,GLGQRW REVHUYHVWDIIZLSLQJGRZQDQ\VXUIDFHV1RVWDIIUHVLGHQWVRUYLVLWRUVZHUH REVHUYLQJIRRWVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ,GLGREVHUYHSRVWHGQRWLILFDWLRQVDERXW VORZLQJWKHVSUHDGRI&29,'EXWDSDUWIURPWKRVHSRVWHGQRWLFHVDQGWKH WKUHHTXHVWLRQIRUPDWWKHHQWUDQFH,QRWLFHGQRGLIIHUHQFHVIURPDQ\RIP\ SUHYLRXVYLVLWVRYHUWKH\HDUV  G 2Q0DUFK,DOVRYLVLWHG&'),REVHUYHG'2&VWDIIDWWKHHQWUDQFH DVNLQJYLVLWRUVLIWKH\KDGUHFHQWO\KDGDIHYHUGU\FRXJKRUVKRUWQHVVRI EUHDWKLIWKH\KDGUHFHQWO\WUDYHOOHGWR&KLQD6RXWK.RUHDRU,WDO\RULI WKH\KDGUHFHQWO\EHHQLQFRQWDFWZLWKDSHUVRQH[KLELWLQJWKRVHV\PSWRPVRUZKR KDGWUDYHOOHGWRWKRVHFRXQWULHV0\WHPSHUDWXUHDQGWKHWHPSHUDWXUHRIRWKHU YLVLWRUVZHUHWDNHQEHIRUHEHLQJDOORZHGLQ,GLGREVHUYHRQHRUWZR'2&VWDII PHPEHUVZHDULQJPDVNVEXWGR]HQVRIRWKHUVZHUHQ¶W'2&VWDIIPHPEHUVZKR ZHUHPDQQLQJWKH[UD\PDFKLQHDQGFRQGXFWLQJSDWGRZQVZHUHZHDULQJODWH[ JORYHVEXWGR]HQVRIRWKHUVWDIIPHPEHUVZHUHQ¶W,GLGQRWREVHUYHVRDSRUKDQG VDQLWL]HUIRUYLVLWRUVDSDUWIURPWKHKDQGVRDSLQWKHPHQ¶VUHVWURRP,GLGQRW REVHUYHVWDIIZLSLQJGRZQDQ\VXUIDFHV1RVWDIIUHVLGHQWVRUYLVLWRUVZHUH REVHUYLQJIRRWVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ,GLGREVHUYHSRVWHGQRWLILFDWLRQVDERXW VORZLQJWKHVSUHDGRI&29,'EXWDSDUWIURPWKRVHSRVWHGQRWLFHVDQGWKH WKUHHTXHVWLRQIRUPDWWKHHQWUDQFH,QRWLFHGQRGLIIHUHQFHVIURPDQ\RIP\ SUHYLRXVYLVLWVRYHUWKH\HDUV   :KLOH,ZDVLQWKRVHIDFLOLWLHV,FRQGXFWHGOHJDOYLVLWVZLWKP\FOLHQWV7KURXJKWKRVH PHHWLQJV,OHDUQHGWKHIROORZLQJ  D &HOOVZHUHQRWEHLQJFOHDQHGRUGLVLQIHFWHGE\VWDIISURIHVVLRQDOGHHSFOHDQHUVRU UHVLGHQWVZRUNLQJGHWDLO5HVLGHQWVZHUHUHVSRQVLEOHIRUDOOWKHFOHDQLQJZDVKLQJ DQGGLVLQIHFWLQJRIWKHLURZQFHOOV)RUUHVLGHQWVZLWKFHOOPDWHVLWSURYHGGLIILFXOW WRSURSHUO\FOHDQDQGGLVLQIHFWFHOOVLIWKHFHOOPDWHKDGQRWERXJKWLQWRWKH QHFHVVLW\RIWKHFOHDQLQJ,IUHVLGHQWVGLGQRWSURDFWLYHO\ZDVKFOHDQDQGGLVLQIHFW

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 234 of 260

WKHLURZQFHOOVWKHLUFHOOVZRXOGQRWEHZDVKHGFOHDQHGRUGLVLQIHFWHGDWDOO &OLHQWV,VSRNHZLWKKDGVRDSEXWLWZDVVRDSWKDWWKH\SXUFKDVHGWKHPVHOYHV IURPFRPPLVVDU\QRWSURYLGHGWRWKHPE\'2&'LVLQIHFWDQWZDVQRWSURYLGHG RUDYDLODEOHWRDQ\RIWKHUHVLGHQWV,VSRNHZLWK/XFNLO\QRQHRIP\FOLHQWVZHUH VLFNDWWKDWWLPH&RPPRQDUHDVZHUHQRWEHLQJFOHDQHGDQ\PRUHRIWHQRU WKRURXJKO\WKDQDQ\RWKHUPRUHµQRUPDO¶WLPH1RRQHLQHLWKHUIDFLOLW\ZDV SUDFWLFLQJIRRWVRFLDOGLVWDQFLQJ  E 7KURXJKP\GLVFXVVLRQVZLWKFOLHQWVDWERWKIDFLOLWLHV,OHDUQHGWKDWDOWKRXJKWKHUH LVDKLJKOHYHORIDZDUHQHVVDERXW&29,'DPRQJVWDIIDQGUHVLGHQWVLQWKH '2&DWWKHWLPHRIP\YLVLWVDQGFRQYHUVDWLRQVQRFRQFUHWHDFWLRQZDVEHLQJ WDNHQZKDWVRHYHUWRNHHSSHRSOHKHDOWK\DSDUWIURPVFUHHQLQJYLVLWRUVDWWKH HQWUDQFH 

,GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVWKDWWKHIRUHJRLQJLVWUXH DQGFRUUHFWWRWKHEHVWRIP\NQRZOHGJHDQGEHOLHI



([HFXWHGRQWKHWK GD\RI0DUFKLQ:DVKLQJWRQ'& 









































'DQLHO'3RQG















6WDII$WWRUQH\

3XEOLF'HIHQGHU6HUYLFHIRU'&

,QGLDQD$YH1:

:DVKLQJWRQ'& 









Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 235 of 260
EXHIBIT 9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 236 of 260
'(&/$5$7,212)6$08(/ &<3+(56 ,19(67,*$7,9(,17(51$77+(38%/,&'()(1'(56(59,&(
,6$08(/&<3+(56FHUWLI\XQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\WKDWWKHIROORZLQJVWDWHPHQWLVWUXHDQGFRUUHFWSXUVXDQWWR86& 
 0\QDPHLV6$08(/&<3+(56,PDNHWKHVHVWDWHPHQWVEDVHGXSRQP\SHUVRQDONQRZOHGJH  ,DPDQLQYHVWLJDWLYHLQWHUQIRUWKH7ULDO'LYLVLRQDWWKH3XEOLF'HIHQGHU6HUYLFHIRUWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD
KHUHLQDIWHU³3'6´DQGKDYHVHUYHGLQWKLVUROHVLQFH)HEUXDU\3'6LVDIHGHUDOO\IXQGHGLQGHSHQGHQW RUJDQL]DWLRQGHGLFDWHGWRUHSUHVHQWLQJLQGLJHQWDGXOWVDQGFKLOGUHQDFFXVHGRIFULPHVLQWKH'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD0\ SULQFLSDOUHVSRQVLELOLW\DVDQLQYHVWLJDWLYHLQWHUQDW3'6LVWRDVVLVWLQWKHSUHSDUDWLRQRIWULDOFDVHVWKURXJKZLWQHVV LQWHUYLHZVLQYHVWLJDWLRQDQGUHYLHZLQJUHFRUGV  $VSDUWRIP\GXWLHVDVDQLQYHVWLJDWLYHLQWHUQDW3'6,UHJXODUO\FRQGXFWOHJDOYLVLWVZLWKSHRSOHLQWKHFXVWRG\RIWKH 'LVWULFWRI&ROXPELD¶V'HSDUWPHQWRI&RUUHFWLRQVERWKDWWKH&HQWUDO'HWHQWLRQ)DFLOLW\³&')´DQGDWWKH &RUUHFWLRQDO7UHDWPHQW)DFLOLW\³&7)´  6LQFH0DUFK,KDYHYLVLWHG&')DQG&7)RQHWLPHHDFK  :KLOH,ZDVLQWKRVHIDFLOLWLHV,REVHUYHGWKHIROORZLQJ
D 2Q0DUFK,YLVLWHG&7),REVHUYHGWKHVWDQGDUGVFUHHQLQJSURFHVVIRUHQWHULQJWKHIDFLOLW\,ZDV QRWDVNHGDQ\DGGLWLRQDOTXHVWLRQVDERXWP\KHDOWKRUUHFHQWWUDYHOQRUZDV,VFUHHQHGIRUV\PSWRPVRI &29,':LWKLQWKHIDFLOLW\,GLGQRWVHHDQ\VWDIIPHPEHUVZLWKPDVNVRUJORYHV,GLGQRWVHHDQ\VRDS RUKDQGVDQLWL]HUIRUYLVLWRUV,GLGQRWVHHVWDIIPHPEHUVZLSLQJGRZQVXUIDFHV(YHU\WKLQJDSSHDUHGWREH IXQFWLRQLQJWKHVDPHZD\,KDGVHHQLWIXQFWLRQLQ)HEUXDU\,GLGQRWREVHUYHDQ\SUHFDXWLRQVEHLQJWDNHQWR SUHYHQWWKHVSUHDGRI&29,'
D 2Q0DUFK,YLVLWHG&'),REVHUYHGWZRSHRSOHVLWWLQJEHIRUHWKHVHFXULW\FKHFNSRLQWZHDULQJ JORYHVEXWQRWPDVNV,GLGQRWVHHDQ\UHDGLO\DYDLODEOHVRDSRUKDQGVDQLWL]HULQWKHOREE\DUHD,REVHUYHG WRSHRSOHH[LWIURPWKHVHFXULW\FKHFNSRLQW1RQHRIWKHVHSHRSOHKDGRQJORYHVRUPDVNV7KH'2& HPSOR\HHZKREURXJKWPHUHFRUGVOLNHZLVHODFNHGJORYHVRUDPDVN$IWHUVKHJDYHPHWKHUHFRUGVVKH UHHQWHUHGWKHIDFLOLW\ZLWKRXWEHLQJVFUHHQHG,GRQRWNQRZZKDWWKHSURWRFROWRHQWHUWKHIDFLOLW\LVEHFDXVH ,GLGQRWVHHNHQWUDQFHSDVWWKHOREE\
 ,FRQGXFWHGDOHJDOYLVLWZLWKD3'6FOLHQWZKRLVFXUUHQWO\LQFDUFHUDWHGDW&7)YLDSKRQH7KURXJKWKDWPHHWLQJV, OHDUQHGWKHIROORZLQJ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 237 of 260
D &OLHQWVDLGWKHUHDUHEHWZHHQDQGSHRSOHRQKLVXQLWWKDWDUHFXUUHQWO\LOODQGVHYHUDORIWKHPDUH FRXJKLQJ&OLHQWVDLGDOOWKHSHRSOHZKRDUHVLFNRQKLVXQLWLQFOXGLQJKLPVHOIZHQWWRPHGLFDOWRJHWKHURQ )ULGD\0DUFKDQGRQ6XQGD\0DUFK&OLHQWVDLGFOHDQLQJSURGXFWVLQFOXGLQJVRDSDQGGLVLQIHFWDQW DUHQRORQJHUDYDLODEOHWRUHVLGHQWVDW&7)&OLHQWVDLGWKHODVWWLPHWKH\ZHUHDEOHWRFOHDQWKHLUFHOOVZDV GD\VEHIRUH0DUFK
,GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVWKDWWKHIRUHJRLQJLVWUXHDQGFRUUHFWWRWKHEHVWRIP\ NQRZOHGJHDQGEHOLHI
([HFXWHGRQWKHGD\RI0DUFKLQ:DVKLQJWRQ'&
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6DPXHO&\SKHUV ,QYHVWLJDWLYH,QWHUQ
3XEOLF'HIHQGHU6HUYLFHIRU'& ,QGLDQD$YH1: :DVKLQJWRQ'&

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 238 of 260
EXHIBIT 10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 239 of 260
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH WONG STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Joseph Wong, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Joseph Wong. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am a supervising attorney in the Trial Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since February of 2020 and as a PDS staff attorney since October of 2013. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as a trial attorney at PDS is to represent people in criminal proceedings in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
3. As part of my duties as an attorney at PDS, I regularly conduct legal visits with clients in the custody of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections, both at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”).
4. Since March 1, 2020, I have visited CDF one time.
5. While I was in CDF, I observed the following:
a. On 3/11/20, I visited CDF. I observed that there were no changes to the protocol for entering the facility. Visitors were not asked any questions about their health or screened in any way, nor were the security staff engaged in any visible precautions such as wearing masks or gloves or sanitizing surfaces. The process included security staff going through personal belongings of visitors prior by hand and patting down visitors with their hands. I do not recall the officers conducting the pat downs or searching through personal belongings wearing gloves. I do not recall observing any available soap or hand sanitizer stations for visitors.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 25th day of March 2020, in Washington, D.C.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 240 of 260
_______________________________ Joseph Wong Supervising Attorney Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 241 of 260
EXHIBIT 11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 242 of 260
DECLARATION OF RONALD B. RESETARITS STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Ronald B. Resetarits, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Ronald B. Resetarits. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am a staff attorney in the Trial Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since September 2014. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as a trial attorney at PDS is to represent people in criminal proceedings in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
3. As part of my duties as an attorney at PDS, I regularly conduct legal visits with clients in the custody of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections, both at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”).
4. On March 11, 2020, I entered CDF to conduct several legal visits. When I entered CDF, there was no screening or questionnaire related to COVID-19. I saw no changes at all related to COVID-19 when I entered the jail for my legal visits on March 11, 2020. When I was finished with my legal visits and exited the jail, I saw that jail officials were setting up a table in the jail entrance area.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 25th day of March 2020, in Washington, D.C.
_______________________________ Ronald B. Resetarits Staff Attorney Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW, Washington, DC rresetarits@pdsdc.org 202-824-2406

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 243 of 260
EXHIBIT 12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 244 of 260
DECLARATION OF EILEEN JOHNSON INVESTIATIVE INTERN AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Eileen Johnson, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Eileen Johnson. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am an investigative intern for the Parole Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since December of 2019. Prior to joining the parole division, I was an investigative intern for the Trial Division at PDS from 6/15/2019 to 11/15/2019. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as an investigative intern at PDS is to assist in the preparation of parole cases through witness interviews, investigation, client meetings, and record collection and review.
3. As part of my duties as an investigative intern at PDS, I regularly conduct legal visits with people in the custody of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections, both at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”).
4. Since March 1, 2020, I have visited CDF three times and CTF two times.
5. While I was in those facilities, I observed the following:
a. On March 17, 2020 around 8:30 AM, I visited CDF. In the entrance area, there was a table set up with two men who were asking visitors to fill out forms in order to enter. On the form, I had to check off that I hadn’t been having any symptoms and that I hadn’t had any contact with anyone who had traveled outside the country. I observed one of the men that was sitting at the table eating as he gave out the forms. I don’t remember whether either was wearing a mask or gloves. Right outside the door to enter security, there was a nurse stationed who was taking temperatures with a forehead thermometer. As I proceeded to the nurse’s station, I witnessed an argument break out between the nurse and the woman who usually sits on the third floor visiting room. The woman is older and has short hair. I saw the nurse try to take the woman’s temperature. As soon as the nurse brought the thermometer close to the woman’s face, the woman yelled at her, asking why she was getting so close to her face without wearing gloves. I observed the nurse not wearing gloves. I can’t recall if she was wearing a mask. I then heard the nurse yell back that she didn’t need to wear gloves because she

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 245 of 260
wasn’t touching anyone. The woman said she did not believe the nurse and continued to yell at her and to refuse the thermometer. She then commented that she was going to report the nurse for not wearing gloves. The nurse did not put on gloves and the woman proceeded into the security area. The nurse then commented to me that taking temperatures was only a “cosmetic” step anyway and that the jail was doing it only to make visitors feel safer. I felt uncomfortable with the nurse getting so close to my face without wearing gloves but I let her take my temperature so that I would be allowed to enter the facility. I observed her continue to take temperatures without gloves and never saw her look at the thermometer to actually check the temperature reading. I then proceeded into the security area. The scanner seemed to be broken so I was instructed to place my items in a bin. A CO then went through the bin. I can’t remember if the CO was wearing gloves. I entered the scanner as usual. I observed one security officer wearing a mask in the lobby area. I did not observe any other COs wearing masks inside the facility. There was a hand sanitizer dispenser in the lobby that I used before starting my visit. I then proceeded to the second floor to start my visit. Because it was before 9, my partner and I were the first ones to that floor. When we got there, we observed a female CO wiping down the area where the CO sits in the visiting area. She told us to sit down and we waited for approximately ten minutes while she cleaned every inch of her station. I did not see this CO or any other CO wipe down any other surfaces during my visit. The CO then assigned us to room 2. Before leaving the lobby, I commented to the CO that I had brought my own wipes to wipe down our visiting room, just as she had wiped down her area. She responded that that was a good idea on my part. When we got to the visiting room, I wiped down the table and all three chairs with the wipes I had brought. There was no hand sanitizer or other cleaning product in my visiting room or in any of the others that I could see. I did not observe any hand sanitizer or other cleaning product in the waiting area of the second floor. In between clients, I went to the bathroom on the second floor. There was soap in the bathroom. After concluding my visits, I left the second floor and went to the first floor to wait for Ms. Boykin to come down with the medical records I had requested. While waiting, the female CO that was wearing the mask started to speak to me and another CO about how she was worried about coronavirus. She said she was really scared because she heard a CO had died of coronavirus somewhere else and that she did not feel safe from the virus. After getting the records from Ms. Boykin, I departed the facility around 1 PM. b. On March 11th, 2020, around 9 AM, I went to CTF for a parole final revocation hearing. I did not have to do anything out of the ordinary in order to enter CTF. Final revocation hearings happen in an area of the jail near the activity center and below the basketball courts, judging by the noise. I observed hand sanitizer in the large room where the legal team waits. There was also soap in the bathroom. There was no hand sanitizer in the client holding rooms when I entered them to meet with my client. There was no hand sanitizer in the smaller room where the

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 246 of 260
hearing took place. I did not observe any staff members wiping down any surfaces. c. On March 10th, 2020, around 5 PM, I went to CDF for a client visit. I had not been expecting to go on the visit so I did not bring any cleaning supplies. I felt uncomfortable using the visiting room without cleaning it first. During my time at CDF that day, I did not observe any staff members wearing a mask or gloves. I saw hand sanitizer in the lobby but did not see it on the visiting floor or in the visiting rooms. I did not observe any COs wiping down any surfaces. d. On March 2nd, 2020, around 11 AM, I went to CDF for a client visit. I did not observe any surfaces being wiped down. There was hand sanitizer in the lobby but not anywhere else in the facility. I did not have to do anything out of the ordinary to enter the facility. e. On March 2nd, 2020, around 1 PM, I visited a client at CTF. I did not observe any staff members wearing masks in the entrance or security areas. I did not observe any COs wearing gloves. I did not observe any hand sanitizer in the entrance or security areas. I did not observe any COs wiping down any surfaces. I proceeded to the second floor visiting area. I wanted to wash my hands because I had come to CTF from the jail but was told there was no bathroom on that floor. I did not see any hand sanitizer to use so I did not clean my hands. 6. While I was in those facilities, I conducted legal visits with PDS clients. Through those meetings, I learned the following:
a. According to one client at CDF, multiple people were sick on his tier. He said that he had to buy cleaning products because what was provided was not effective. This client works in the kitchen and thus touches the food of hundreds of people each day. He was dressed in his white work uniform when I met with him and was not wearing a mask. I did not ask if he had access to a mask for his kitchen work.
7. As a parole division intern, I frequently communicate closely with family members of PDS clients. Through conversations with family members, I learned the following.
a. On March 8th, 2020, I received an email from a client’s girlfriend. In her email she said, “I know you are aware of the virus going around, inmates are sick of [sic] there and not being treated properly. They have nothing to sanitize there [sic] area. I’m afraid of him getting sick being over there.” I followed up by text message to get more information and received the following information from the client’s girlfriend: “Some of the guys have the flu and other cold like symptoms…The other guys haven’t been tested so no telling what they have.” On March 20th, 2020, she reached out to me again, texting, “There [sic] planning on being on lockdown and he hasn’t been released…He said it’s sick people in there and it’s hot in there. I’m really scared for him I don’t want him to catch anything.”

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 247 of 260
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 25th day of March 2020, in Washington, D.C.
_______________________________ Eileen Johnson Investigative Intern Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 248 of 260
EXHIBIT 13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 249 of 260
DECLARATION OF Katherine Kuenzle INVESTIATIVE INTERN AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Katherine Kuenzle, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Katherine Kuenzle. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am an investigative intern for the Trial Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since 02/03/2020. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as an investigative intern at PDS is to assist in the preparation of trial cases through witness interviews, investigation, and reviewing records.
3. As part of my duties as an investigative intern at PDS, I conduct phone calls with clients in the custody of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections, both at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”).
4. While I was conducting a phone call with a PDS client who is a resident of CTF, I learned the following: a. Client went to medical twice in one week because he had a fever, cough, sore throat, and chills. During client’s first trip to medical on a Friday, client’s temperature was taken. However, when client returned to medical the second time on a Sunday, despite still complaining of a fever, client’s temperature was not taken. Instead, medical checked for the flu by putting a q-tip in client’s nsoe. b. Despite having a fever, cough, sore throat, and chills, client still worked in the kitchen preparing 3-4 meals a day without a mask on a Friday and the following Tuesday. Client worked in the kitchen with 20 other people who were unable to maintain a far distance between each other.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 26th day of March 2020, in Washington, D.C.
_______________________________ Katherine Kuenzle Investigative Intern Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 250 of 260
EXHIBIT 14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 251 of 260
DECLARATION OF KAVYA L. R. NAINI STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Kavya Naini, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Kavya Naini. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am a staff attorney in the Special Litigation Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since October 2019. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. One of my responsibilities as a staff attorney in the Special Litigation Division is to represent people in criminal and post-conviction proceedings in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
3. As part of my duties as an attorney at PDS, I regularly conduct legal visits with clients in the custody of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections, both at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”).
4. Since March 1, 2020, I have visited CTF at least 5 times (confirmed visits on 3/1, 3/5, 3/12, 3/13, 3/20).
5. While I was in those facilities, I observed the following:
a. On March 1, 5, and 12, I did not see any noticeable difference in CTF operations. I was not screened when entering the facility. The visiting areas were full of individuals. On March 5, my visit overlapped with a social visit and the visiting area was full of families and friends visiting their loved ones – including my client, who had a visit from his elderly mother and friend. On each of those visits, residents were forced to wait in the back sitting next to each other while they waited to be escorted to their units.
b. On March 13, I visited CTF in the early morning around 8:30am. When I arrived, there were two individuals right by the front door, and one asked me if I had traveled to countries with COVID-19 in the past 30 days or had any symptoms associated with COVID-19. I was allowed to enter. Apart from this initial screen, there were no noticeable changes in CTF’s operations. No one was wearing gloves or masks, and I did not see people wiping down surfaces. There was a hand sanitizer dispenser in the visiting area that was available to everyone.
c. On March 20, I visited CTF in the late morning. I observed that there were two stations set up when you entered the facility. The first station was right by the entrance and had two DOC staff members seated in close proximity to each other,
1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 252 of 260
neither was wearing a mask. One of them used a forehead thermometer to check my temperature. When I asked my temperature, she said that it was 93 degrees. About 10 feet away, there was a second station with three staff members seated at it. All three were seated next to each other. Only one was wearing gloves. There was a sheet of paper on the table along with some pens. I filled out the sheet of paper which asked questions about COVID symptoms and if I had been to highrisk countries in the past thirty days. When I answered no and signed the paper. The employee with gloves fastened a wristband on my right wrist. I did not see her change her gloves at any point before or after our interactions. I asked the employees how they were doing, and they said they were fine for now but seemed nervous about what was coming.
After finishing the initial screen, I entered the facility. I submitted my legal visit form to the employee in the front office, who was in close physical conversation with another employee. Neither were wearing masks or gloves. I went through the security check. Neither employee running the conveyor machine or the body scanner was wearing gloves or a mask. I was able to carry my small bottle of hand sanitizer with me.
I went upstairs to see my clients. There was a hand sanitizer dispenser near the door of the visiting area. I handed my sheets to the employee at the front desk in the visiting area. The employee was not wearing gloves or a mask. My clients were brought up one by one. But after my visit with one was over, my two clients had to squeeze by each other in a tight hallway of space to enter the bigger visiting area. My first client used the hand sanitizer dispenser when he first came into the visiting area, and I gave my second client some hand sanitizer from my bottle when he came into the legal visiting room.
There was nobody else in the visiting area except for me, my client, and the lady at the front desk for the large portion of our visit. I was there for about 3.5 hours. Most of the time was spent in one of the small legal visit rooms, but in my time there, I did not see staff wiping down any surfaces. I saw nobody wearing a mask. As I was leaving the facility, I saw one man spraying down the trays that are used on the conveyor belt when the guards are scanning visitor’s items.
6. While I was in those facilities, I conducted legal visits with my clients. Through those meetings, I learned the following:
a. My clients told me that there were announcements at various points of the day asking people to clean. However, there was no enforcement of the cleaning and it was mainly expected that residents would be cleaning. I learned that one of my clients was still programming because only outside programming had stopped. And because programming was a requirement to stay in the unit, he had to
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 253 of 260
participate. I also learned that residents had been given a bar of soap the week of March 16, but that it was not a big bar, and for those people who did not have money to buy soap for the shower or to wash their clothes, it would not last long. My clients confirmed that they were not told that they would be getting any more soap once it was finished. In addition, hand sanitizer in the units had been primarily reserved for use by staff alone. Clients were also concerned about cleaning supplies. One mentioned that it had been several days since anything in the unit was properly cleaned because they had not gotten a refill of their cleaning supplies. He was starting to think about using shampoo to clean the showers because he did not have any disinfectant.
One of my clients lived in a unit where people from his unit were escorted out by staff in masks because of possible exposure to the U.S. Marshal. He said that those people had been living in the unit and interacting with others, and that no one had spoken to the rest of them about their interactions with the people that were quarantined. Another client said that staff do not clean common areas in the unit, it is up to the residents to clean their cells and common areas. One of my clients said that his unit did have cleaning supplies. He said he was trying to clean regularly but there were other guys in his unit that were not taking it seriously and were not cleaning or washing their hands regularly.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 29th day of March 2020, in Washington, D.C.
_______________________________ Kavya Naini Staff Attorney Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 254 of 260
EXHIBIT 15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 255 of 260
DECLARATION OF IESHAAH MURPHY SUPERVISING ATTORNEY AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Ieshaah Murphy, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Ieshaah Murphy. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am a supervising attorney in the Trial Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since February 19, 2017. Prior to working as a supervising attorney, I was a staff attorney in the Trial Division at PDS. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as a supervising trial attorney at PDS is to represent people in criminal proceedings in the District of Columbia Superior Court and to supervise the practice of PDS’s trial attorneys.
3. As part of my duties as an attorney at PDS, I regularly conduct legal visits with clients in the custody of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections, both at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”).
4. Since March 1, 2020, I have visited CDF two times.
5. While I was in those facilities, I observed the following:
a. On March 5, I visited CDF. I observed no changes to the normal protocol of entering the facility. I entered the front door, placed my bag, which included a laptop and client files, onto the conveyor belt to be searched, and I was patted down. None of the corrections officers were wearing gloves, masks, or any other protective gear. Another attorney entered the facilty just after I did. He was also searched. The two corrections officers who searched my bag and patted me down did not wash their hands before also doing the same things to the other attorney. In the visiting hall, the corrections officer was not wearing gloves or a mask. I never saw anyone attempt to clean or wipe down the visiting hall area.
b. On March 18, I visited CDF. I observed a slight change in protocol to enter the building. Before entering, staff checked my temperature with a forehead thermometer and provided me with a questionnaire. The questionnaire asked me if I had any lower respiratory symptoms (cough, shortness of breath) or fever, if I had come into close contact with someone diagnosed with or suspected of having COVID-19, or if I had recently traveled to an area with known local spread of COVID-19. I answered “No” to all questions. No one asked any follow-up

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 256 of 260
questions. My temperature was 98.2 degress. Upon entering the jail, the procedure for getting searched and getting an ID remain unchanged. None of the corrections officers were wearing gloves, masks, or any other protective gear. The corrections officer who search my bag did not wash his hands prior. The corrections officer behind the glass partition, responsible for giving me an ID and entering into the computer which clients I came to visit, was coughing. He did not cover his mouth and coughed all over the keyboard and the paperwork I had filled out to see my clients. He returned my ID and the paperwork to me. The corrections officers would not let me take a container of Lysol up to the visiting hall with me. They allowed me to take disinfectant wipes and hand sanitizer. The proctocol in the visiting hall was the same as any other visit. The corrections officer administering the legal visit was not wearng gloves or a mask. Upon noticing me giving one client hand sanitizer, she told me that was not allowed. During the two hours I was there, I did not notice any attempts by staff to clean the area.
6. While I was in those facilities, I conducted legal visits with my clients. Through those meetings, I learned the following:
a. There are multiple residents on various units who are sick and coughing. b. One client had a cell mate who was currently sick (coughing, sore throat). c. The process for getting seen at the infirmary still takes 2-3 days, at best. d. The staff is not cleaning common areas regularly (not even once a day). e. They are not provided with products to clean their cells.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 27th day of March 2020, in Washington, D.C.
_______________________________ Ieshaah Murphy Supervising Attorney Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 257 of 260
EXHIBIT 16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 258 of 260
DECLARATION OF SYLVIA SMITH STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Sylvia Smith, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Sylvia Smith I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am a staff attorney in the Trial Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since October 5, 2015. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as a trial attorney at PDS is to represent people in criminal proceedings in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
3. As part of my duties as an attorney at PDS, I regularly conduct legal visits with clients in the custody of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections, both at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”).
4. On March 29, 2020, I visited CDF. While I was in CDF, I observed the following:
a. When I entered CDF, there were three correction officers (“COs”) with gloves and masks on. Besides these three women, during the course of my visit, I did not see any other COs with masks on, and only saw one other CO wearing gloves. That is, between the seven COs I personally interacted with, and one CO that I observed, none were wearing masks, and only one was wearing gloves.
b. When I entered into the screening area, there were two COs, one operating the metal detection conveyor belt, the other CO was operating the x-ray machine and the hand-wand metal-detector. Neither CO was wearing masks or gloves.
c. Another CO entered behind me with a pizza in her hand. The same CO with the pizza ran the x-ray machine for me.
d. At the time I headed up to the 2nd floor for my visit, the CO with the pizza was trying to find some plastic to wrap it in.
e. When I got to the 2nd floor, there was a female CO in the area where our clients are called down to visitation. That CO did not have a mask nor did she have gloves on. She was eating sunflower seeds and spitting them into a paper or Styrofoam cup. As she was entering my information and calling for my client, I asked about whether or not the area had been washed down. She told me that she thinks the visitation area is cleaned once a day, though she hadn’t seen them do it that day, and did not know if they wiped down the phones.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 259 of 260
f. I saw a cleaning cart in the visitation area. On the cart was a bag full of rags in it. There was also a bottle with a “Windex” brand label on it. I didn’t see other cleaning supplies on the cart and it was just stationed there without anyone around.
g. After meeting with my client, I asked a CO if I could leave my client with a mask as I had heard that some residents had masks. The CO said I could not and that masks were considered contraband.
h. I was at the facility for 2 hours and did not hear any announcements over the intercom. I am certain there were no announcements while I was in the facility.
5. While I was at CDF I conducted meeting(s) with my client(s), through which I learned the following:
a. There are approximately 180 people on the unit. b. Residents are getting updates about people testing positive at CDF and CTF not
through staff, but through reading the news. c. Residents are not being provided with laundry detergent, and have not been
offered detergent for free. d. Residents worried about getting infected through the food have had to rely solely
on food through commissary. e. No one is cleaning residents’ cells, and they have not been offered cleaning
supplies to clean their cells. f. The COs are not wearing masks and most do not wear gloves. g. The staff at the facility do not appear to be cleaning common areas regularly, or
even daily. The cleaning supplies are limited and appear to be watered down. Residents on “detail” are responsible for cleaning, not DOC staff. h. The phones on the units are being used frequently, and not being wiped down between calls. i. More people are exhibiting symptoms. When they report these symptoms, staff tell them to put in a request for medical. It takes 2 to 3 days to get seen by medical.
6. While I was at CTF on March 29, 2020, I learned the following from the CO who was operating the metal detection conveyer belt:
x Three people were in “safe cell” at CDF because they had been exhibiting symptoms and awaiting testing;
x 25 staff members were on administrative leave from CTF after one of the residents tested positive for Covid-19.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 260 of 260
Executed on the 29th day of March 2020, in Washington, D.C.
Sylvia Smith Staff Attorney Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners

v.
QUINCY BOOTH, in their official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

No. 1:20-cv-849

Defendants-Respondents.

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Upon consideration Plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction, and any opposition, reply, and further pleadings and argument submitted in support thereof, or in opposition thereto; It appearing to the Court that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their action, that Plaintiffs and the members of the class they seek to represent will suffer irreparable injury to their Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights and, at a minimum, severely increased risks to their health, perhaps including death, if Defendants are not preliminarily enjoined and ordered to take appropriate measures against Plaintiffs’ exposure to the COVID-19 virus, that the Defendants will not be harmed if such an order is issued, and that the public interest favors the entry of such an order, it is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is hereby GRANTED; and Defendants Booth and Johnson (together with their respective successors in office, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and anyone acting in concert with them) are required to, pending trial in this action or further order of this Court, to:

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 4
1. Immediately take all actions within their power to reduce the inmate population of the D.C. Jail and CTF including, but not limited to, releasing as many people as possible through the COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020, which allows the Department of Corrections “to award additional credits beyond the limits described . . . to effectuate the immediate release of persons sentenced for misdemeanors[.]” 67 D.C. Reg. 3106 (March 20, 2020);
2. Ensure that each inmate receives, free of charge, an individual supply of hand soap, sufficient to allow frequent hand washing; paper towels; toilet paper; running water; and facial tissue;
3. Provide no-touch trash receptacles for tissue and paper towel disposal; 4. Ensure that all inmates, when not in cells with access to hand soap and running water,
have access to hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol; 5. Provide access to daily showers for each inmate and daily access to clean laundry,
including clean personal towels and washrags after each shower; 6. Require that all DOC staff wear personal protective equipment, including masks and
gloves when interacting with visitors and residents or when touching surfaces in common areas; 7. Provide an anonymous mechanism for residents to report staff who violate these guidelines so that appropriate corrective action can be taken to ensure staff compliance. 8. Take each inmate’s temperature daily (with a functioning and properly operated thermometer) to identify potential COVID-19 infections; 9. Assess (through questioning) each inmate daily to identify potential COVID-19 infections;
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 4
10. Conduct immediate testing for anyone displaying known symptoms of COVID-19; 11. Immediately provide masks for any individual displaying or reporting COVID-19
symptoms until they can be evaluated by a qualified medical professional or placed in non-punitive quarantine; 12. Frequently communicate to inmates to provide information about COVID-19, reducing the risk of transmission, and any changes in policies or practices; 13. Provide inmates with an adequate supply of disinfectant hand wipes or disinfectant products effective against the virus that causes COVID-19 (at the manufacturer’s recommended concentration), to clean their cells and other surfaces; 14. Clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces with disinfectant products effective against the virus that causes COVID-19 (at the manufacturer’s recommended concentration), as well as surfaces in common areas, every two hours during waking hours, and at least once during the night; 15. Ensure that individuals identified as having COVID-19 or having been exposed to COVID-19 are properly quarantined in a non-punitive setting, with continued access to showers, recreation, mental health services, reading materials, commissary, phone and video visitation with loved ones, communication with counsel, and personal property; 16. Respond to all emergency (as defined by the medical community) requests for medical attention within an hour; 17. Provide access to unmonitored, confidential legal calls and video visits with counsel to reduce the need for defense teams to enter into the facility and meet with clients in dangerously close quarters; and
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 6-3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 4 18. Facilitate video conferencing and telephonic conferencing, when requested, as an
alternative to in-person court appearances. 19. Provide any independent monitor to be appointed by this Court with unfettered access
to medical units, confidential communication with detained individuals in and out of quarantine, and surveillance video of public areas of the facilities. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall not be required to furnish security for costs. Entered on April ___, 2020 at ______a.m./p.m.
By: ______________________________ United States District Judge
4

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiff,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: 20-00849 (CKK)

:

:

:

:

:

:

MOTION OF THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LABOR COMMITTEE FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

The Fraternal Order of Police for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections

Labor Committee (FOP/DOC), through its attorneys with HANNON LAW GROUP, LLP,

respectfully presents this motion for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of the

position of Plaintiffs. Counsel for Plaintiffs consent to the relief sought in this motion. Counsel

for Defendants oppose this motion.

INTRODUCTION

Local Civil Rule 7 (o)(1) provides that a party seeking to file a brief as amicus curiae

may do so upon leave of court. LCvR 7 (o)(2) provides:

A motion for leave to file an amicus brief shall concisely state the nature of the movant's interest; identify the party or parties supported, if any; and set forth the reasons why an amicus brief is desirable, why the movant’s position is not adequately represented by a party, and why the matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case. The motion shall state the position of each party as to the filing of such a brief and be accompanied by a proposed order. The motion shall be filed in a timely manner such that it does not unduly delay the Court’s ability to rule on any pending matter. Any party may file an opposition to a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, concisely stating the reasons for such opposition, within 14 days after service of the motion or as ordered by the Court. There shall be no further briefing unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 4
ARGUMENT District courts have discretion whether to grant leave to file an amicus brief. Jin v. Ministry of State Sec., 557 F. Supp. 2d 131, 136 (D.D.C. 2008); see also Stuart v. Huff, 706 F.3d 345, 355 (4th Cir. 2013). There is no Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that applies to motions for leave to appear as amicus curiae in district court. Therefore, district courts often look for guidance to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29, which applies to amicus briefs in federal appellate cases. See, e.g., Am. Humanist Ass’n v. Md.-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n, 147 F. Supp. 3d 373, 389 (D. Md. 2015). Rule 29 provides that prospective amici must file along with the proposed brief, a motion that states “the movant’s interest” and “the reason why an amicus brief is desirable and why the matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case.” Fed. R. App. Proc. 29(a)(3). Our Local Civil Rule 7 (o)(2) requires this information plus more. A. The Nature of the Interest of the FOP/DOC The FOP/DOC consists of over 900 members who work at the D.C. Jail. The majority work in positions in Housing Units requiring them to interact with inmates throughout the shift. Others work in locations which require them to have contact with inmates as well as other staff at the Jail. The members’ interest is the same as that of the inmates whom they guard and protect: to be free of infection from the COVID-19 virus already rampant at the D.C. Jail. Two of our members have tested positive for COVID-19, as well as the wife of one of them. The members still working at the Jail are not tested. As the expert for the Plaintiffs opines, the likelihood is very high that a very large percentage of our members are now infected with COVID-19.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 4
The interest of the FOP/DOC includes a right to be heard. As is detailed in the amicus brief lodged herewith, the leadership of the DOC has failed to communicate with the FOP/DOC regarding the crisis at the D.C. Jail. In addition, the leadership fails to employ recognized standards for providing for the protection of the health and safety of our members and their families.
In short, the members of the FOP/DOC believe that their lives are at risk if Plaintiffs do not succeed in portraying to the Court the truth of the inferno in which they work.
B. An Amicus Brief from the FOP/DOC is Desirable. The Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order turns on the facts of what is occurring on a daily basis at the D.C. Jail. The FOP/DOC Labor Committee has reviewed the factual allegations and declarations filed by the DOC in this case. The members of the Committee know from personal knowledge, and from the personal knowledge of their members in the Jail, that the information being provided to the Court is false in many respects, misleading and incomplete. In addition, during this crisis the leadership of the DOC is not coming into the D.C. Jail. Their representations of what is happening in the Housing Units, in inmates’ cells, in the quarantine units, in the transportation units, in the halls of the Jail are not based on personal knowledge. What FOP/DOC is able to present to the Court is even superior to that found so far by Plaintiffs’ counsel, who are themselves severely hampered in finding the truth. C. The Interests of the FOP/DOC are not Adequately Represented. The DOC defendants will not represent our interests. The inmate Plaintiffs, even with compulsory process, cannot adequately learn the facts, know where to look for them, or in some cases know what they mean. On the other hand, Plaintiffs’ counsel complement the knowledge
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23 Filed 04/02/20 Page 4 of 4

of the FOP/DOC Labor Committee, as counsel are in the unique position as legal representatives

for incarcerated citizens. Their understanding of their clients’ lives in the D.C. Jail will be

complemented by the knowledge of their clients’ custodians.

D. Why the Matters to be Asserted by FOP/DOC are Relevant.

The matters that FOP/DOC intends to assert consist, in part, of the following: (1) the

facts regarding the failure of DOC to provide COVID-19 protections to inmates and staff; (2) the

facts which contradict almost every averment in the Declarations of Beth Jordan, M.D., and

Warden Lennard Johnson; (3) the departures of DOC from both CDC Guidance and their own

protocol for protection of inmates and staff from COVID-19; and (4) how the DOC leadership

and the Mayor of the District of Columbia have attempted to cover-up the disaster of the D.C.

Jail COVID-19 crisis.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the FOP/DOC respectfully requests that the Court grant leave

for the filing of a brief amicus curiae, attached hereto as Exhibit A, in support of Plaintiffs’

Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.

Dated: April 2, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

HANNON LAW GROUP, LLP

/s/ J. Michael Hannon J. Michael Hannon, D.C. Bar #352526 HANNON LAW GROUP, LLP 333 8th Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel: (202) 232-1907 Fax: (202) 232-3704 jhannon@hannonlawgroup.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiff,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: 20-00849 (CKK)

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Motion of the FOP/DOC Labor Committee for leave to file an

amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, it is on this

________day of April, 2020, hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept for filing the brief

attached as Exhibit A to the Motion of the FOP/DOC Labor Committee.

_________________________________ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 23
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiff,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: 20-00849 (CKK)

:

:

:

:

:

:

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LABOR COMMITTEE’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

The Fraternal Order of Police for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections

Labor Committee (FOP/DOC), through its attorneys with HANNON LAW GROUP, LLC,

respectfully present this memorandum as amicus curiae in support of the position of Plaintiffs.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND1

The Fraternal Order of Police for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections

Labor Committee (FOP/DOC) is the recognized bargaining unit for corrections officers, case

managers, transportation personnel, and some ancillary employees who work at the D.C. Jail.

The D.C. Jail consists of two detention centers: the Central Detention Facility (CDF) for men

and restricted inmates; and, the Central Treatment Facility (CTF) for women and men. The

relationship between the DOC and the FOP/DOC is governed by a Collective Bargaining

Agreement and D.C. Personnel law and regulations.

1

If necessary and if called upon to testify, the undersigned represents to the Court that the

members of the FOP/DOC Labor Committee and its Stewards will testify on personal knowledge

to the facts set forth in this section. The facts presented are also known to the undersigned from

his personal participation as counsel.

1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 23

HANNON LAW GROUP has represented FOP/DOC as its general counsel since 2006, the first year of the administration of DOC Director Devon Brown. During Brown’s administration of the Jail, HANNON LAW GROUP represented dozens of FOP/DOC members who were proposed for discipline or dismissal by Director Brown. In winning the majority of those cases, HANNON LAW GROUP obtained well over $3 million dollars in back pay for members and attorneys’ fees.
During the administration of the DOC’s current Director Quincy Booth, the rate of discipline proposed by Director Booth mimics that of Director Brown.2 Once again, HANNON LAW GROUP has succeeded in overturning almost all of the disciplinary actions, again resulting in a loss to the taxpayers of well over $1 million dollars in back pay and attorneys’ fees.
The FOP/DOC is led by five elected members of the Labor Committee: Cpl. Benjamin Olubasusi, Chairman; Cpl. Arnold Hudson Sr., Vice Chairman; Sgt. Jannease Johnson, Executive Secretary; Cpl. Laurrine Ellis, Recording Secretary; and Cpl. Naomi Namata, Treasurer. Twelve Shops Stewards also represent the FOP/DOC in the Jail. The Labor Committee meets regularly among themselves, and during the COVID-19 crisis meets daily with HANNON LAW GROUP.
Failure of DOC Leadership to Communicate with the FOP/DOC Over the COVOD-19 Crisis As part of good operational practice, the FOP/DOC and the DOC should conduct a labor/management meeting on a monthly basis. The FOP/DOC first meets with the warden at the Jail, and next the team meets with the Director at the Reeves Center. Director Booth has

2

During the interim administration of Director Thomas Faust, proposals for discipline

were at a minimum. The FOP/DOC lobbied the City Council and the Mayor for appointment of

Director Faust to succeed Devon Brown. Labor/Management relations during that period were

excellent.

2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 4 of 23
canceled these meetings for January, February and March 2020 during this COVID-19 crisis. As we discuss further below, the DOC leadership has consistently refused to communicate with the Labor Committee or their counsel during this crisis.
On March 25, 2020, the Mayor announced the number of positive COVID-19 infected persons in the District of Columbia increased that day by 46 new cases to a total of 183. Notably, of the new cases 13 were in their 20s, 12 were in their 30s, and only 7 were over the age of 60. The Mayor’s update attributed this increase, in part, to correctional and detention centers:
With ongoing community transmission, contact tracing is focused on positive cases associated with childcare facilities, schools and universities, healthcare facilities, senior care facilities, correctional and detention centers, and facilities serving individuals who are experiencing homelessness. Guidance will be published for healthcare providers, employers and the public to provide information on what to do if you have been diagnosed with or are a contact of someone who has COVID-19. On March 19, HANNON LAW GROUP sent an email to DOC on behalf of the FOP/DOC regarding the quarantine of 50 inmates who came in contact with an infected U.S. Marshal at the Courthouse, requesting immediate provision of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for its members. (Exhibit A) We received no response. On the same date March 19, we sent a “Request for Information on Potentially Dangerous Conditions at the DOC Facilities” to DOC’s General Counsel Eric Glover and to its HR Director. (Exhibit D) Among the request for information were the following: · Have all in-person visits, programming and volunteer activities at all Agency facilities in fact been suspended? · Have DOC officials established Incident Command Team? Who is on that team? Are any members of the Union on that team? · Is the Medical Staff meeting with each housing unit and officer roll call? Please provide details as to time, place and frequency of the meetings that the Medical Staff is holding. · What is the Agency's strategic communications plan with regard to COVID-
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 5 of 23
19, and how has it been communicated to the staff? Is it updated and communicated regularly as this situation evolves? The last update on the DOC web page is dated March 14, 2020.
· What does "enhanced cleaning efforts" mean? Have those “enhanced cleaning efforts” been implemented, especially within common areas? How often is this level of cleaning being done?
· The Agency promised to order additional cleaning and sanitation supplies, including protective gloves, masks and clothing for staff. No information was provided about dispensing these items. Have these items been received and distributed? Are there any supplies you need that you do not have? Have sanitizing wipes been provided by the Agency? Is the staff permitted to bring personal sanitation material, other than wipes? Are inmates being provided safety materials that the staff is not?
· Was there a two-hour cleaning of the entire facility? How many times has this happened? Is this occurring daily/regularly?
· Please describe the Agency's efforts in partnering and/or sharing information with criminal justice partners?
· Are daily updates continuing to be sent via emails to the staff regarding COVID-19? Can you please make those available?
· Have the DOC employees (officers and medical staff) been provided appropriate protective devices/material/training? Are staff members knowledgeable on and adequately equipped to prevent transmission, minimize spread and protect themselves and the inmate population from contacting COVID-19?
· Is the DOC working in close connection with the DC Department of Health? What medical support does the Agency have specifically for the virus?
· Are all incoming inmates, staff and other individuals with access to the DOC facilities questioned as to their level of risk?
· What is the procedure for processing all new inmates to the facilities?
· What is the procedure for assessing the risk to existing inmates?
· What testing is being offered to confirm a diagnosis of COVID-19?
· What procedures are in place if an inmate is symptomatic?
· What procedures are in place if an inmate tests positive?
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 6 of 23
· What procedures are in place for quarantines? · Are there any of the following:
· Asymptomatic inmates currently housed at any of the facilities who are at high-risk for contracting COVID-19? · Symptomatic inmates currently housed at any of the facilities? If so, what actions are being taken with regard to those individuals? · Inmates currently housed at any of the facilities who have tested positive for COVID-19? · What is being done to track any inmates, visitors, staff, or other individuals with access to any of the facilities who have been at any DOC facility within the past two weeks, including any individuals who were held and released or transferred? · What is the impact of the Agency’s response to the Mayor's Order 2020048: Prohibition on Mass Gatherings During Public Health Emergency Coronavirus (COVID-19)? The next morning, DOC’s General Counsel responded: “DOC is preparing a response to your inquires and will contact you as soon as possible.” We have received no response. Also on March 23, 2020, the FOP/DOC Labor Committee delivered to the DOC leadership and posted throughout the D.C. Jail an Announcement regarding critical actions to be addressed by the Labor Committee regarding COVID-19, as well as the failure to prosecute an inmate for the brutal beating of a corrections officer. (Exhibit C) Instead of communicating with the Union as requested on March 19, 2020, Director Booth issued a notice on the same date of March 23, announced at every roll call, falsely stating: “It has come to the agency's attention that employees of the DOC intend to engage in either a walkout and/or protest on the grounds of the DOC.” Rather than communicating honestly with the Union on these critical conditions of work, Director Booth threatened the corrections officers
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 7 of 23
with discipline. This action was clearly in retaliation for the Union presenting legitimate concerns about DOC’s failure to implement protections for inmates and corrections officers.
In the afternoon of March 24, 2020, Director Booth summoned the FOP/DOC Labor Committee Chairman Cpl. Benjamin Olubasusi to his office at the Reeves Center. Without notice to HANNON LAW GROUP, the Director then put Deputy Mayor Kevin Donahue and Mayor Bowser on speaker phone. The Mayor then falsely warned Cpl. Olubasusi that it is a “crime” for D.C. corrections officers “to walk out of the Jail.” Director Booth asked Cpl. Olubasusi, “What do you want?”
Also on March 24, HANNON LAW GROUP participated in a National Conference Call sponsored by the National Fraternal Order of Police on COVID-19. Speakers on the call included high-ranking experts from the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, and the White House, as well as FOP State Representatives from all 50 states. The purpose of the call was to implement protocols for law enforcement officers and corrections officers nationwide. Highlights from the call are the following:
Increasing infections will reduce the number of officers on duty. Loss of officers on duty will increase the work load on the uninfected officers. The resultant lack of officers will lead to additional crime and risk in the corrections system. PPE equipment is not being provided to officers nationwide. Because “social distancing” is impossible in law enforcement, the infection rate among officers will be higher than the general population. Coordination and Communication between and among political leaders and officers is the most important criteria to meet this challenge. State health departments, which are in control of the distribution of PPE, must make law enforcement and corrections officers a priority group for receipt of PPE and education.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 8 of 23
On March 25, 2020, HANNON LAW GROUP also participated in a national conference
call sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security at which medical experts with DHS
reviewed with participants the March 23, 2020, “CDC Interim Guidance for Management of the
Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) for Correctional and Detention Facilities.” (Exhibit B)
HANNON LAW GROUP alerted DOC leadership to the conference and provided them with
registration information.
Also on March 25, 2020, in response to Director Booth’s question of Cpl. Olubasusi
“What do you want?”, HANNON LAW GROUP sent a letter to Director Booth outlining
conditions at the Jail and listing those actions urgently requested by FOP/DOC. (Exhibit E) The
letter reported the current conditions at the Jail, as reported by members working in the Jail, as
follows:
1. There is no Communication and Coordination between DOC leaders and the FOP/DOC Labor Committee. Labor/Management meetings are repeatedly cancelled, including one meeting scheduled during this critical time period.
2. Inmates coming into the Jail are not screened for symptoms of COVID-19.
3. Corrections Officers receiving and discharging inmates have no PPE; however, they must have direct contact with these inmates.
4. Inmates continue to move within the Jail. Those inmates in the four restricted housing units must be escorted by hand by corrections officers without any PPE. Inmates in non-restricted housing units travel alone through the Jail as required for appointments. At latest count, there were 1,149 inmates in the Central Detention Facility and 509 in the Correctional Treatment Facility.
5. The corrections officers assigned to housing units have no masks, insufficient gloves, no gowns, no disinfectants, and no comprehensive cleaning occurs on a regular basis in these units. In each unit, one corrections officer is required to be out among the inmates at all times, without any protection.
6. Inmates are not required to engage in any of the behaviors which the Mayor recommends for the general population, such as “social distancing”, repeated hand-washing, and health monitoring.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 9 of 23
7. Case workers must meet with inmates in small offices with no PPE or other distancing measures.
8. Inmates continue to engage in recreation in a common yard, also without social distancing or other protections from the spread of COVID-19.
9. Corrections officers enter the Jail three shifts a day. There is no distancing at entrances, no distancing at roll calls, no attempt to obtain or record health concerns of each officer.
10. When the D.C. Jail was forced to quarantine 65 inmates who were at risk to exposure to COVID-19 when they were at court, an ERT was designated to remove them from the general population to a “quarantine” housing unit. The ERT members refused the assignment without provision of gowns and other appropriate PPE protection. They were ordered to remove the inmates with only masks and gloves. During the extraction, one of the members was spit upon by an inmate. Sgt. Alexander and Sgt. Graham were then removed from the ERT team and assigned to another post outside the Jail.
11. These inmates were not “quarantined” in any meaningful manner. They were housed two to a cell, and the corrections officers on the unit were not provided with any PPE or other means for protection against infections.
The letter, yet again, detailed FOP/DOC’s repeated request for help:
WHAT DO WE WANT?
1. A Daily Meeting among the Labor Committee, its Shop Stewards, its counsel and the DOC Director, Deputy Director, and its counsel to discuss conditions and responses to COVID-19;
2. A COVID-19 Protocol for officers and inmates including the following:
Restricted movement of inmates Distancing among inmates/inmates, officers/officers, and officers/inmates Incident Reporting of officers and inmates’ symptoms of illness
3. Regular Disinfection of the CDF and CTF
4. Priority for PPE for officers
5. Discontinuation of inmate transport for court appearances
6. 14-day Quarantine for new inmates
7. Establish a quarantine unit
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 10 of 23
8. Establish an on-site testing unit for those meeting CDC test criteria, including persons living in the household of a corrections officer
9. Treat COVID-19 among officers as duty-connected Again receiving no response, the Labor Committee then established Protocols for its membership based on CDC Guidance. (Exhibit F) On March 28, 2020, these detailed Protocols were delivered to DOC leadership for implementation and distributed throughout the Jail, along with copies of the March 23, 2020, CDC Guidance for Correctional Facilities. (Exhibit B) Once again, no response was received from the leadership. Although the Labor Committee urged members to refuse to comply with an order to violate those Protocols, members consistently relented when ordered, for example, to escort quarantined inmates to showers without any PPE.
FOP/DOC Decides to Support the PDS/ACLU Lawsuit On March 29, 2020, the Labor Committee learned that the 50-year-old wife of one of the elected members of the Labor Committee, a 29-year veteran, is infected with COVID-19. She is hospitalized in serious condition. Her husband, our officer and friend, has been tested for COVID-19, and learned on April 1, 2020, that he too is positive for COVID-19. The Labor Committee also learned that two inmates most recently testing positive at the Jail for COVID-19 were among the 65 inmates who were quarantined after exposure to a COVID positive U.S. Marshal at Superior Court. That quarantine lasted for only two days, when DOC’s Public Information Officer Keena Blackman announced that the quarantine was being lifted without any of those inmates being tested. The reason given by Dr. Blackman follows: After sending out yesterday’s Open Letter we learned through the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the DC Department of Health (DC Health) full investigation into the U.S. Marshal’s contact tracing that none of the DOC residents were in contact with the individual. The quarantine has been lifted.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 11 of 23
Our conclusion from this is that whoever is conducting the “tracing” and “investigations” are not doing so in a professional, effective and reliable manner.
The Labor Committee also learned that the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia and the American Civil Liberties Union intended to file suit in federal court against the DOC, alleging that failure to protect inmates from COVID-19 is a violation of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
Therefore, the Labor Committee decided to issue a Press Release to correct and supplement information issued by various organizations regarding conditions at the D.C. Jail, namely: the Executive Office of the Mayor, the Department of Corrections, Deputy Mayor Kevin Donahue, Councilmember and Chair of the Public Safety Committee Charles Allen, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and various media. (FOP/DOC Press Release, March 29, 2020, Exhibit G) The Labor Committee announced its own conclusion that: (1) the City does not have the resources to combat COVID-19, and the Jail is the lowest priority among the health and safety community; and, (2) the City wants to keep the truth from the public. The Mayor said as much at her press conference when she announced that corrections officers will not be provided with protective equipment because the officers do not provide medical care.
The FOP/DOC Press Release also announced that the Labor Committee decided that the Public Defender Service is correct that DOC is not following the “Guidance on Management of COVID-19 at Correctional and Detention Facilities”, issued and updated regularly by the Center for Disease Control. Personal Protective Equipment recommended by CDC is not present at the Jail for corrections officers or is in short supply and hoarded by supervisors under lock and key.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 12 of 23
Cleaning and disinfection of the Housing Units is inadequately performed by inmates, and the Department of Health has not conducted inspections of the Housing Units.
In the meantime, the administrative wing of the Jail, occupied by the warden and his staff, is disinfected daily by a team of workers in protective clothing. The Director of the Jail, Quincy Booth, and his leadership staff actually do not even work at the Jail. They are located at the Reeves Center in splendid isolation from the inmates, issuing directives to officers through texts and email. Our Labor Committee members have not seen Director Booth at the Jail in weeks.
Based on the reports of our members who are on-site eye-witnesses and victims of DOC’s perfidy, the Labor Committee concludes that DOC misleads the public in its reporting of positive cases of COVID-19 among inmates. Testing is inadequate at the D.C. Jail. Inmates are only tested when it is too late to protect other inmates, and the results take hours to days. No testing is available for corrections officers. Any corrections officer exposed to COVID-19 or with symptoms is sent home for 14-day self-quarantine.
These officers and their family members are unable to obtain testing while on quarantine without going to a hospital with testing. More importantly, the DOC is not addressing the obvious: the rate of quarantine of corrections officers working in the Central Treatment Facility was 25% of the force on March 27, to increase significantly after the announcement of two infected inmates in CTF. Officers assigned to the Central Detention Facility are being reassigned to CTF due to the number of CTF officers on quarantine. Soon the Jail will have no corrections officers.
Late in the evening of March 31, 2020, the FOP/DOC announced a Press Conference to be held the next morning, April 1, 2020, in front of the D.C. Jail. (Exhibit H) One of the
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 13 of 23
purposes of the Press Conference was to announce that the FOP/DOC, on behalf of its members working in the D.C. Jail, had authorized HANNON LAW GROUP to seek status in the PDS/ACLU lawsuit as a “friend of the court” in support of the inmates.
Pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, HANNON LAW GROUP made the following notification to the DOC Public Information Officer:
Due to the high number of media inquiries re: COVID-19 at the Jail, the FOP/DOC Labor Committee and it Stewards will be giving an open press conference to the media. This notice is sent pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and none will violate the guidance and requirements of the agency stated therein. At 10:45 p.m. that evening, Eric Glover, Esq., General Counsel for the DOC, sent an email to HANNON LAW GROUP, stating: Per my previous email to you, per DOC’s media policy, “[e]mployees approached by the media for an interview that has any bearing on DOC shall notify the PIO for appropriate review and authorization.” As no review has taken place by the agency’s PIO, DOC does not authorize the below referenced media event. Thank you. HANNON LAW GROUP responded: There is nothing to review, and the CBA does not require authorization from the DOC. Thank you. Shortly before the Press Conference ended, the Deputy Warden called the Protective Service Division Police in an attempt to break up the press conference. The officers took no action.
The Structure of the D.C. Jail The physical structure of the Jail is important to understand in the context of this crisis. The following depicts the usual posts for corrections officers at the D.C. Jail: Housing Units in CDF – 18 Housing Units with 80 double cells (with one exception) Housing Units in CTF – 20 Housing Units with inmate occupancy that varies from 2-50 per unit
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 14 of 23
Number of Entrances for CDF (Approximately 5) CTF (Approximately 4) Total Number of Posts in CDF: #1 Shift 90; #2 Shift 160 ; #3 Shift 132 Total Number of Posts in CTF: #1 Shift 66; #2 Shift 101; #3 Shift 81 Total Number of Transportation Officers 30 Total Number of Vehicles Used for Transportation: (9) Medical Holding Unit (2) CCB (10) Court Transport Each Housing Unit is supervised by 1-3 officers working in a control module known as the “bubble”. The bubble is self-contained and allows a view of most of the cells which project out from the bubble in two directions like spokes. Each of the two wings has four tiers, or levels. The cell doors are controlled from the bubble. Showers can be accessed from the tiers, but out of view of the bubble. At least one officer is required to be on the “floor” at all times. Each Housing Unit in CDF has an office for the unit’s Case Manager. The Case Manager ordinarily meets with her clients face to face in the office. Case Managers, before this COVID19 crisis, afforded their clients use of the phone for legal calls. Supervisors from the rank of Lieutenant up to Major work in their own module known as the Command Center. Inmates ordinarily may leave the Housing Unit to go to court, the infirmary, to the visiting hall, and to appointments without escort. However, there are 4 Housing Units at the CDT with restricted movement. The inmates in these units must be escorted at all time by an officer when outside the unit. At the current time, inmates are permitted only 2 ½ hours of free time outside of their cells. This time is spent in the open areas of the unit. An officer must be on the floor at all times. An inmate sent out to a hospital must be accompanied by a corrections officer.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 15 of 23
REBUTTAL TO THE AVERMENTS OF THE DOC Attached to this brief as Exhibit H is a joint declaration of undersigned counsel and four members of the FOP/DOC Labor Committee and its Stewards. The information contained in the Declaration was obtained during the conference calls held by the FOP/DOC and HANNON LAW GROUP on a daily basis. Any information not actually witnessed by the declarant officers was provided to them directly by other corrections officers. Some of those conversations were witnessed by attorneys at HANNON LAW GROUP. Corrections officers at the D.C. Jail are law enforcement officers as a matter of law; although, the DOC limits their authority to act as LEOs and to exercise some of the privileges of LEOs. Nevertheless, information received from other corrections officers is deemed reliable for assessment of probable cause in the criminal context. We shall not repeat or summarize here what is said in the declaration. However, the declaration contains a section specifically rebutting the sworn statements of Beth Jordan, M.D., and Warden Lennard Johnson. There are several conclusion to be drawn from comparison of the declarations provided by the DOC and statements by their counsel with the declaration provided by the FOP/DOC Labor Committee members. 1. No one is in charge at the DOC, and the attorneys representing them in this litigation are woefully uninformed by their clients. There are no declarations from Director Quincy Booth, who is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. 2. There is no evidence of how the task of identifying symptomatic inmates and corrections officers is conducted at the Jail. At some point, the Court is told that an inmate is tested. How is that information obtained, to whom is it communicated, and what are the consequences?
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 16 of 23
3. No one is engaging in the most critical task: to trace contacts from symptomatic inmates and COVID-19 positive inmates to the rest of the Jail community of inmates and corrections officers in order to stem the inevitable spread of this disease. The FOP/DOC is not even told by DOC which of its members have tested positive and which of its members are sent home to quarantine. How can we protect our colleagues and the inmates we protect who have had contacts with these persons. This failure is most evident in the decision to “de-quarantine” 65 inmates only two days after being placed in quarantine. Thereafter, four of this group tested positive for COVID-19 while in the general population.
4. The Mayor of the District of Columbia does not want to tell the citizens the truth about the COVID-19 crisis in the D.C. Jail. We have implored Deputy Mayor Kevin Donahue, the deputy for public safety, to interact with us, and we are greeted by silence. We monitor the Mayor’s daily press conference on the COVID-19 crisis, which is becoming less informative and more evasive every day. The Deputy Mayor’s announcement of the number of COVID-19 cases at the Jail is always lower than what we know is the truth. There is never any information provided by the Mayor regarding the number of masks, gloves, and other protection on hand, not only for the corrections officers, but also for MPD, the Fire Department and others. For that reason, we contacted FEMA which reported to us the number of such PPE equipment and apparel that has been shipped to the District of Columbia from the federal stockpile. That information is contained in the declaration.
As far as we can determine in our investigation, the District of Columbia has not requested that FEMA arrange for the installation of portable hospitals in the District of Columbia, such as are being completed in New York City, Chicago, and New Orleans to name only a few locations. A field hospital could easily be assembled in the parking lot of the Jail or
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 17 of 23
in the D.C. Armory adjacent to the Jail. In that event, all quarantined and COVID-19 positive
inmates could be isolated from the rest of the Jail population.
THE CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL’S GUIDANCE SHOULD INFORM THE COURT’S RULINGS
The FOP/DOC has consistently insisted that the DOC conform its conduct to CDC
Guidance. Declarations filed in this case by the DOC claim the same. The CDC Guidance from
March 23, 2020, is attached as Exhibit B. Our summary of the salient portions is as follows:
1. The Need for Vigilance in Corrections Facilities:
The CDC Guidance summaries the heightened concerns related to Corrections Facilities
during this pandemic as follows:
• Incarcerated/detained persons live, work, eat, study, and recreate within congregate environments, heightening the potential for COVID-19 to spread once introduced.
• In most cases, incarcerated/detained persons are not permitted to leave the facility.
• There are many opportunities for COVID-19 to be introduced into a correctional or detention facility, including daily staff ingress and egress; transfer of incarcerated/detained persons between facilities and systems, to court appearances, and to outside medical visits; and visits from family, legal representatives, and other community members. Some settings, particularly jails and detention centers, have high turnover, admitting new entrants daily who may have been exposed to COVID-19 in the surrounding community or other regions.
• Persons incarcerated/detained in a particular facility often come from a variety of locations, increasing the potential to introduce COVID-19 from different geographic areas.
• Options for medical isolation of COVID-19 cases are limited and vary depending on the type and size of facility, as well as the current level of available capacity, which is partly based on medical isolation needs for other conditions.
• Adequate levels of custody and healthcare staffing must be maintained to ensure safe operation of the facility, and options to practice social distancing through work alternatives such as working from home or reduced/alternate schedules are limited for many staff roles.
• Correctional and detention facilities can be complex, multi-employer settings that include government and private employers. Each is organizationally distinct and responsible for its own operational, personnel, and occupational health protocols and may be prohibited from 16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 18 of 23
issuing guidance or providing services to other employers or their staff within the same setting. Similarly, correctional and detention facilities may house individuals from multiple law enforcement agencies or jurisdictions subject to different policies and procedures.
• Incarcerated/detained persons and staff may have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe disease from COVID-19.
• Because limited outside information is available to many incarcerated/detained persons, unease and misinformation regarding the potential for COVID-19 spread may be high, potentially creating security and morale challenges.
• The ability of incarcerated/detained persons to exercise disease prevention measures (e.g., frequent handwashing) may be limited and is determined by the supplies provided in the facility and by security considerations. Many facilities restrict access to soap and paper towels and prohibit alcohol-based hand sanitizer and many disinfectants.
• Incarcerated persons may hesitate to report symptoms of COVID-19 or seek medical care due to co-pay requirements and fear of isolation.
(CDC Guidance at 2, Ex. B) 2. Close Contact Requiring Precautions: Precautions are required if a CO or inmate is “within approximately 6 feet of a COVID-
19 case for a prolonged period” or in “direct contact with infectious secretions.” (CDC Guidance at 3, Ex. B)
3. Medical Isolation: Medical isolation refers to confining a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case (ideally to a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes), to prevent contact with others and to reduce the risk of transmission. (CDC Guidance at 4, Ex. B) 4. Quarantine: Quarantine refers to the practice of confining individuals who have had close contact with a COVID-19 case to determine whether they develop symptoms of the disease. Quarantine for COVID-19 should last for a period of 14 days. Ideally, each quarantined individual would be quarantined in a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes. (Id.)
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 19 of 23
5. Social Distancing: Although social distancing is challenging to practice in correctional and detention environments, it is a cornerstone of reducing transmission of respiratory diseases such as COVID-19. (Id.) 6. Communication and Coordination: The first principle of the CDC Guidance is for the facility to communicate and coordinate with all constituents, including staff, inmates, the courts, law enforcement and facilities in adjacent jurisdictions. (CDC Guidance at 5, Ex. B) 7. Operations and Supplies: Facilities must ensure that sufficient stocks of hygiene supplies, cleaning supplies, PPE, and medical supplies (consistent with the healthcare capabilities of the facility) are on hand and available, and have a plan in place to restock as needed if COVID-19 transmission occurs within the facility. (CDC Guidance at 7, Ex. B) 8. Training: Facilities must ensure that staff and incarcerated/detained persons are trained to correctly don, doff, and dispose of PPE that they will need to use within the scope of their responsibilities. (CDC Guidance at 8, Ex. B) 9. Cleaning and Disinfecting Practices: Even if COVID-19 cases have not yet been identified inside the facility or in the surrounding community, begin implementing intensified cleaning and disinfecting procedures according to CDC recommendations, in an attempt to prevent spread of COVID-19 if introduced. (CDC Guidance at 9, Ex. B) 10. Implementation of Practices:
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 20 of 23 If an individual has symptoms of COVID-19 (fever, cough, shortness of breath), the facility must require the individual to wear a face mask. Similarly, the facility must ensure that staff who have direct contact with the symptomatic inmate wear recommended PPE. (CDC Guidance at 10, Ex. B) In addition, the facility must implement social distancing strategies to increase the physical space between inmates “regardless of the presence of symptoms.” (CDC Guidance at 11, Ex. B) The facility must communicate clearly and frequently with inmates about changes to their daily routine and how inmates can contribute to risk reduction. (CDC Guidance at 12, Ex. B) 11. Personal Protective Equipment: The Facility should comply with this table for use of PPE:
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 21 of 23 20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 22 of 23

12. Control Movement of Quarantined Inmates:

The facility must keep quarantined inmates’ movement to an absolute minimum. Medical

evaluation and care should be provided inside or near the quarantined space. Meals should be served

inside the space, and individuals must be excluded from all group activities. (CDC Guidance at 19,

Ex. B)

13. Communication with Staff:

The facility must provide clear information to staff about the presence of COVID-19 cases

within the facility, and the need to enforce social distancing and encourage hygiene precautions.

(CDC Guidance at 22, Ex. B)

CONCLUSION

The FOP/DOC Labor Committee and its represented members respectfully request that

the Court grant a temporary restraining order as requested by Plaintiffs. In particular, we request

that the Court appoint a master, in consultation with the parties and the FOP/DOC, to investigate

the Plaintiffs allegations.

Dated: April 2, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

HANNON LAW GROUP, LLP

/s/ J. Michael Hannon J. Michael Hannon, D.C. Bar #352526 HANNON LAW GROUP, LLP 333 8th Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel: (202) 232-1907 Fax: (202) 232-3704 jhannon@hannonlawgroup.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 23 of 23 22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-3 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A

3/20/2020

Case 1:20-cv-0084Ha9n-nConKLKaw GDrooupcMuamil -eCnrittic2a3l In-3cidenFt ailtethde D0C4/J0ai2l -/M2a0rch P19a, 2g0e202 of 3
J. Michael Hannon <jhannon@hannonlawgroup.com>

Critical Incident at the DC Jail - March 19, 2020
1 message

Ann-Kathryn So <akso@hannonlawgroup.com>

Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:52 PM

To: Quincy.Booth@dc.gov, lennard.johnson@dc.gov, Eric.Glover@dc.gov,

paulette.johnson@dc.gov

Cc: kevin.donahue@dc.gov, lindsey.maxwell@dc.gov, "J. Michael Hannon"

<jhannon@hannonlawgroup.com>, "Olubasusi, Benjamin R. (DOC)"

<benjamin.olubasusi@dc.gov>

Good afternoon, Today, March 19, 2020, at 0545, the Squad Leader (Sgt. Joseph Alexander) and the Team Leader (Sgt. Donald Graham) of the DOC's Emergency Response Team (ERT) were called in, and informed that a US Marshal at D.C. Superior Court tested positive for COVID-19. The two Sergeants were handed a list of 50 inmates who possibly came in contact with the US Marshal. They were ordered to extract the 50 inmates, and quarantine them in an empty cell block. They were ordered to do so using only face masks and gloves. Both Sergeants requested full body coverage (face shield, clothing coverage, etc.) as personal protective equipment (PPE), and were refused. Sgt. Alexander has personal knowledge that the items requested are in the Agency's inventory. Both Sergeants indicated they were uncomfortable performing the inmate extraction without proper PPE. The DOC Management representative, Deputy Warden for Operations, Kathleen Jo Landerkin, again refused to provide the equipment, and asked who on the ERT was also uncomfortable conducting the extraction with only face masks and gloves. Every member of the ERT responded positively. The ERT was ordered to conduct the extraction anyway. All did as they were told. At the time of the extraction, all 50 inmates were housed in general population, with other inmates. Sgt. Alexander asked if inmates with whom the 50 were housed should be quarantined, management told him only the 50 inmates were to be moved into the empty cell block. Those cellmates are still in general population. During the extraction, approximately half of the 50 inmates resisted being moved. All but one moved eventually without incident; however, one inmate spit in the face of one of the ERT officers, who was only protected by the face mask. The 50 at-risk inmates are being housed two to a cell in “quarantine” in an isolated cell block. The officer who was spit on, Hakeem Smith, has gone home. Immediately after the extraction, the two Sergeants were reassigned to a different unit (central cell block) and different shift (night) and their department phones have been taken away. In addition, they were removed from the ERT. They were told by Major Carlos Bivens that this was not a disciplinary action. The DOC management has created an unconscionable public health crisis, and almost certainly guaranteed and accelerated the rampant spread of COVID-19 within the DOC facilities and the communities in which the staff live. Ms. Landerkin directly put the lives of the officers on the ERT in imminent danger. She did so without regard for their personal safety or that of the inmate population. In addition to being callous and reprehensible, her actions are in obvious violation of several provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and are arguably illegal. The Agency is following absolutely no appropriate guidelines with regard to the safe handling and treatment of the front line staff or inmate population. The 50 at-risk inmates are housed two to a cell in “quarantine” status. They were extracted from cell blocks where they were housed more than one to a cell, and required to participate in recreation and other group activities. All of this is in violation of the Mayor’s Order 2020-048: Prohibition on Mass Gatherings During Public Health Emergency - Coronavirus (COVID-19). In addition, when asked by the ERT officers if the inmates with whom the 50 at-risk inmates were housed originally also should be quarantined, DOC management refused. Management’s response was that if they were not on the list, they were to be left in their unit.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=7a2ff56da2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1661630953474075703%7Cmsg-f%3A16616309534740… 1/2

3/20/2020

Case 1:20-cv-0084Ha9n-nConKLKaw GDrooupcMuamil -eCnrittic2a3l In-3cidenFt ailtethde D0C4/J0ai2l -/M2a0rch P19a, 2g0e203 of 3

As if this public health crisis created by Ms. Landerkin was not enough, DOC

management clearly retaliated against Sgts. Alexander and Graham for their request for

PPE. At the time of the order reassigning them, they were told it was not a disciplinary

action. Management can call it whatever they choose; however, it is clearly

retaliatory. The DOC ordered staff into a life-threatening situation without the proper

equipment, and retaliated against them for asking for the proper PPE. The PPE

requested was not unreasonable; it was exactly what is being recommended throughout

the industry and the nation for handling of infectious individuals. There is absolutely no

justification for not providing this equipment, especially upon request and in light of the

fact that it was on hand. This treatment will not be tolerated.

I indicated in my email Request for Information sent earlier today to Eric Glover and Paulette Johnson that the Union’s priority was to protect the health and safety of the staff. We will take immediate and decisive action to do so in the face of the deliberate and dangerous actions taken by DOC management today. One such action is to file a group grievance for multiple violations of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. A detailed email will follow with the exact provisions that have been violated. Please consider this official notice.

V/R,

Ann-Kathryn So

--

Ann-Kathryn So HANNON LAW GROUP, LLP 333 8th Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 (202) 745-6888, Direct (202) 232-3704, Facsimile

The informa on contained in this e-mail is intended only for the personal and conﬁden al use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an a orney-client communica on and as such is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby no ﬁed that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemina on, distribu on, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communica on in error, please no fy us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
The informa on contained in this e-mail is intended only for the personal and conﬁden al use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an a orney-client communica on and as such is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby no ﬁed that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemina on, distribu on, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communica on in error, please no fy us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=7a2ff56da2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1661630953474075703%7Cmsg-f%3A16616309534740… 2/2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 27
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 27
Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities

This interim guidance is based on what is currently known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as of March 23, 2020.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will update this guidance as needed and as additional information becomes available. Please check the following CDC website periodically for updated interim guidance: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html.
This document provides interim guidance specific for correctional facilities and detention centers during the outbreak of COVID-19, to ensure continuation of essential public services and protection of the health and safety of incarcerated and detained persons, staff, and visitors. Recommendations may need to be revised as more information becomes available.

In this guidance
• Who is the intended audience for this guidance?
• Why is this guidance being issued?
• What topics does this guidance include?
• Definitions of Commonly Used Terms
• Facilities with Limited Onsite Healthcare Services
• COVID-19 Guidance for Correctional Facilities
• Operational Preparedness
• Prevention
• Management
• Infection Control
• Clinical Care of COVID-19 Cases
• Recommended PPE and PPE Training for Staff and Incarcerated/Detained Persons
• Verbal Screening and Temperature Check Protocols for Incarcerated/ Detained Persons, Staff, and Visitors

Who is the intended audience for this guidance?
This document is intended to provide guiding principles for healthcare and non-healthcare administrators of correctional and detention facilities (including but not limited to federal and state prisons, local jails, and detention centers), law enforcement agencies that have custodial authority for detained populations (i.e., US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and US Marshals Service), and their respective health departments, to assist in preparing for potential introduction, spread, and mitigation of COVID-19 in their facilities. In general, the document uses terminology referring to correctional environments but can also be applied to civil and pre-trial detention settings.
This guidance will not necessarily address every possible custodial setting and may not use legal terminology specific to individual agencies’ authorities or processes. The guidance may need to be adapted based on individual facilities’ physical space, staffing, population, operations, and other resources and conditions. Facilities should contact CDC or their state, local, territorial, and/or tribal public health department if they need assistance in applying these principles or addressing topics that are not specifically covered in this guidance.

CS 316182-A  03/26/2020

cdc.gov/coronavirus

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 27
Why is this guidance being issued?
Correctional and detention facilities can include custody, housing, education, recreation, healthcare, food service, and workplace components in a single physical setting. The integration of these components presents unique challenges for control of COVID-19 transmission among incarcerated/detained persons, staff, and visitors. Consistent application of specific preparation, prevention, and management measures can help reduce the risk of transmission and severe disease from COVID-19.
• Incarcerated/detained persons live, work, eat, study, and recreate within congregate environments, heightening the potential for COVID-19 to spread once introduced.
• In most cases, incarcerated/detained persons are not permitted to leave the facility.
• There are many opportunities for COVID-19 to be introduced into a correctional or detention facility, including daily staff ingress and egress; transfer of incarcerated/detained persons between facilities and systems, to court appearances, and to outside medical visits; and visits from family, legal representatives, and other community members. Some settings, particularly jails and detention centers, have high turnover, admitting new entrants daily who may have been exposed to COVID-19 in the surrounding community or other regions.
• Persons incarcerated/detained in a particular facility often come from a variety of locations, increasing the potential to introduce COVID-19 from different geographic areas.
• Options for medical isolation of COVID-19 cases are limited and vary depending on the type and size of facility, as well as the current level of available capacity, which is partly based on medical isolation needs for other conditions.
• Adequate levels of custody and healthcare staffing must be maintained to ensure safe operation of the facility, and options to practice social distancing through work alternatives such as working from home or reduced/alternate schedules are limited for many staff roles.
• Correctional and detention facilities can be complex, multi-employer settings that include government and private employers. Each is organizationally distinct and responsible for its own operational, personnel, and occupational health protocols and may be prohibited from issuing guidance or providing services to other employers or their staff within the same setting. Similarly, correctional and detention facilities may house individuals from multiple law enforcement agencies or jurisdictions subject to different policies and procedures.
• Incarcerated/detained persons and staff may have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe disease from COVID-19.
• Because limited outside information is available to many incarcerated/detained persons, unease and misinformation regarding the potential for COVID-19 spread may be high, potentially creating security and morale challenges.
• The ability of incarcerated/detained persons to exercise disease prevention measures (e.g., frequent handwashing) may be limited and is determined by the supplies provided in the facility and by security considerations. Many facilities restrict access to soap and paper towels and prohibit alcohol-based hand sanitizer and many disinfectants.
• Incarcerated persons may hesitate to report symptoms of COVID-19 or seek medical care due to co-pay requirements and fear of isolation.
CDC has issued separate COVID-19 guidance addressing healthcare infection control and clinical care of COVID-19 cases as well as close contacts of cases in community-based settings. Where relevant, community-focused guidance documents are referenced in this document and should be monitored regularly for updates, but they may require adaptation for correctional and detention settings.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 4 of 27
This guidance document provides additional recommended best practices specifically for correctional and detention facilities. At this time, different facility types (e.g., prison vs. jail) and sizes are not differentiated. Administrators and agencies should adapt these guiding principles to the specific needs of their facility.
What topics does this guidance include?
The guidance below includes detailed recommendations on the following topics related to COVID-19 in correctional and detention settings:
√ Operational and communications preparations for COVID-19
√ Enhanced cleaning/disinfecting and hygiene practices
√ Social distancing strategies to increase space between individuals in the facility
√ How to limit transmission from visitors
√ Infection control, including recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) and potential alternatives during PPE shortages
√ Verbal screening and temperature check protocols for incoming incarcerated/detained individuals, staff, and visitors
√ Medical isolation of confirmed and suspected cases and quarantine of contacts, including considerations for cohorting when individual spaces are limited
√ Healthcare evaluation for suspected cases, including testing for COVID-19
√ Clinical care for confirmed and suspected cases
√ Considerations for persons at higher risk of severe disease from COVID-19
Definitions of Commonly Used Terms
Close contact of a COVID-19 case—In the context of COVID-19, an individual is considered a close contact if they a) have been within approximately 6 feet of a COVID-19 case for a prolonged period of time or b) have had direct contact with infectious secretions from a COVID-19 case (e.g., have been coughed on). Close contact can occur while caring for, living with, visiting, or sharing a common space with a COVID-19 case. Data to inform the definition of close contact are limited. Considerations when assessing close contact include the duration of exposure (e.g., longer exposure time likely increases exposure risk) and the clinical symptoms of the person with COVID-19 (e.g., coughing likely increases exposure risk, as does exposure to a severely ill patient).
Cohorting—Cohorting refers to the practice of isolating multiple laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases together as a group, or quarantining close contacts of a particular case together as a group. Ideally, cases should be isolated individually, and close contacts should be quarantined individually. However, some correctional facilities and detention centers do not have enough individual cells to do so and must consider cohorting as an alternative. See Quarantine and Medical Isolation sections below for specific details about ways to implement cohorting to minimize the risk of disease spread and adverse health outcomes.
Community transmission of COVID-19—Community transmission of COVID-19 occurs when individuals acquire the disease through contact with someone in their local community, rather than through travel to an affected location. Once community transmission is identified in a particular area, correctional facilities and detention centers are more likely to start seeing cases inside their walls. Facilities should consult with local public health departments if assistance is needed in determining how to define “local community” in the context of COVID-19 spread. However, because all states have reported cases, all facilities should be vigilant for introduction into their populations.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 5 of 27
Confirmed vs. Suspected COVID-19 case—A confirmed case has received a positive result from a COVID-19 laboratory test, with or without symptoms. A suspected case shows symptoms of COVID-19 but either has not been tested or is awaiting test results. If test results are positive, a suspected case becomes a confirmed case.
Incarcerated/detained persons—For the purpose of this document, “incarcerated/detained persons” refers to persons held in a prison, jail, detention center, or other custodial setting where these guidelines are generally applicable. The term includes those who have been sentenced (i.e., in prisons) as well as those held for pre-trial (i.e., jails) or civil purposes (i.e, detention centers). Although this guidance does not specifically reference individuals in every type of custodial setting (e.g., juvenile facilities, community confinement facilities), facility administrators can adapt this guidance to apply to their specific circumstances as needed.
Medical Isolation—Medical isolation refers to confining a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case (ideally to a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes), to prevent contact with others and to reduce the risk of transmission. Medical isolation ends when the individual meets pre-established clinical and/or testing criteria for release from isolation, in consultation with clinical providers and public health officials (detailed in guidance below). In this context, isolation does NOT refer to punitive isolation for behavioral infractions within the custodial setting. Staff are encouraged to use the term “medical isolation” to avoid confusion.
Quarantine—Quarantine refers to the practice of confining individuals who have had close contact with a COVID-19 case to determine whether they develop symptoms of the disease. Quarantine for COVID-19 should last for a period of 14 days. Ideally, each quarantined individual would be quarantined in a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes. If symptoms develop during the 14-day period, the individual should be placed under medical isolation and evaluated for COVID-19. If symptoms do not develop, movement restrictions can be lifted, and the individual can return to their previous residency status within the facility.
Social Distancing—Social distancing is the practice of increasing the space between individuals and decreasing the frequency of contact to reduce the risk of spreading a disease (ideally to maintain at least 6 feet between all individuals, even those who are asymptomatic). Social distancing strategies can be applied on an individual level (e.g., avoiding physical contact), a group level (e.g., canceling group activities where individuals will be in close contact), and an operational level (e.g., rearranging chairs in the dining hall to increase distance between them). Although social distancing is challenging to practice in correctional and detention environments, it is a cornerstone of reducing transmission of respiratory diseases such as COVID-19. Additional information about social distancing, including information on its use to reduce the spread of other viral illnesses, is available in this CDC publication.
Staff—In this document, “staff” refers to all public sector employees as well as those working for a private contractor within a correctional facility (e.g., private healthcare or food service). Except where noted, “staff” does not distinguish between healthcare, custody, and other types of staff including private facility operators.
Symptoms—Symptoms of COVID-19 include fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Like other respiratory infections, COVID-19 can vary in severity from mild to severe. When severe, pneumonia, respiratory failure, and death are possible. COVID-19 is a novel disease, therefore the full range of signs and symptoms, the clinical course of the disease, and the individuals and populations most at risk for disease and complications are not yet fully understood. Monitor the CDC website for updates on these topics.
Facilities with Limited Onsite Healthcare Services
Although many large facilities such as prisons and some jails usually employ onsite healthcare staff and have the capacity to evaluate incarcerated/detained persons for potential illness within a dedicated healthcare space, many smaller facilities do not. Some of these facilities have access to on-call healthcare staff or providers who visit the facility every few days. Others have neither onsite healthcare capacity nor onsite medical isolation/quarantine space and must transfer ill patients to other correctional or detention facilities or local hospitals for evaluation and care.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 6 of 27
The majority of the guidance below is designed to be applied to any correctional or detention facility, either as written or with modifications based on a facility’s individual structure and resources. However, topics related to healthcare evaluation and clinical care of confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases and their close contacts may not apply directly to facilities with limited or no onsite healthcare services. It will be especially important for these types of facilities to coordinate closely with their state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health department when they encounter confirmed or suspected cases among incarcerated/detained persons or staff, in order to ensure effective medical isolation and quarantine, necessary medical evaluation and care, and medical transfer if needed. The guidance makes note of strategies tailored to facilities without onsite healthcare where possible.
Note that all staff in any sized facility, regardless of the presence of onsite healthcare services, should observe guidance on recommended PPE in order to ensure their own safety when interacting with confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases. Facilities should make contingency plans for the likely event of PPE shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID-19 Guidance for Correctional Facilities
Guidance for correctional and detention facilities is organized into 3 sections: Operational Preparedness, Prevention, and Management of COVID-19. Recommendations across these sections can be applied simultaneously based on the progress of the outbreak in a particular facility and the surrounding community.
• Operational Preparedness. This guidance is intended to help facilities prepare for potential COVID-19 transmission in the facility. Strategies focus on operational and communications planning and personnel practices.
• Prevention. This guidance is intended to help facilities prevent spread of COVID-19 from outside the facility to inside. Strategies focus on reinforcing hygiene practices, intensifying cleaning and disinfection of the facility, screening (new intakes, visitors, and staff), continued communication with incarcerated/ detained persons and staff, and social distancing measures (increasing distance between individuals).
• Management. This guidance is intended to help facilities clinically manage confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases inside the facility and prevent further transmission. Strategies include medical isolation and care of incarcerated/detained persons with symptoms (including considerations for cohorting), quarantine of cases’ close contacts, restricting movement in and out of the facility, infection control practices for individuals interacting with cases and quarantined contacts or contaminated items, intensified social distancing, and cleaning and disinfecting areas visited by cases.
Operational Preparedness
Administrators can plan and prepare for COVID-19 by ensuring that all persons in the facility know the symptoms of COVID-19 and how to respond if they develop symptoms. Other essential actions include developing contingency plans for reduced workforces due to absences, coordinating with public health and correctional partners, and communicating clearly with staff and incarcerated/detained persons about these preparations and how they may temporarily alter daily life.
Communication & Coordination
√ Develop information-sharing systems with partners. ο Identify points of contact in relevant state, local, tribal, and/or territorial public health departments before cases develop. Actively engage with the health department to understand in advance which entity has jurisdiction to implement public health control measures for COVID-19 in a particular correctional or detention facility.
ο Create and test communications plans to disseminate critical information to incarcerated/detained persons, staff, contractors, vendors, and visitors as the pandemic progresses.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 7 of 27
ο Communicate with other correctional facilities in the same geographic area to share information including disease surveillance and absenteeism patterns among staff.
ο Where possible, put plans in place with other jurisdictions to prevent confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases and their close contacts from being transferred between jurisdictions and facilities unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/quarantine, clinical care, extenuating security concerns, or to prevent overcrowding.
ο Stay informed about updates to CDC guidance via the CDC COVID-19 website as more information becomes known.
√ Review existing pandemic flu, all-hazards, and disaster plans, and revise for COVID-19. ο Ensure that physical locations (dedicated housing areas and bathrooms) have been identified to isolate confirmed COVID-19 cases and individuals displaying COVID-19 symptoms, and to quarantine known close contacts of cases. (Medical isolation and quarantine locations should be separate). The plan should include contingencies for multiple locations if numerous cases and/ or contacts are identified and require medical isolation or quarantine simultaneously. See Medical Isolation and Quarantine sections below for details regarding individual medical isolation and quarantine locations (preferred) vs. cohorting. ο Facilities without onsite healthcare capacity should make a plan for how they will ensure that suspected COVID-19 cases will be isolated, evaluated, tested (if indicated), and provided necessary medical care. ο Make a list of possible social distancing strategies that could be implemented as needed at different stages of transmission intensity. ο Designate officials who will be authorized to make decisions about escalating or de-escalating response efforts as the epidemiologic context changes.
√ Coordinate with local law enforcement and court officials. ο Identify lawful alternatives to in-person court appearances, such as virtual court, as a social distancing measure to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. ο Explore strategies to prevent over-crowding of correctional and detention facilities during a community outbreak.
√ Post signage throughout the facility communicating the following: ο For all: symptoms of COVID-19 and hand hygiene instructions ο For incarcerated/detained persons: report symptoms to staff ο For staff: stay at home when sick; if symptoms develop while on duty, leave the facility as soon as possible and follow CDC-recommended steps for persons who are ill with COVID-19 symptoms including self-isolating at home, contacting their healthcare provider as soon as possible to determine whether they need to be evaluated and tested, and contacting their supervisor. ο Ensure that signage is understandable for non-English speaking persons and those with low literacy, and make necessary accommodations for those with cognitive or intellectual disabilities and those who are deaf, blind, or low-vision.
Personnel Practices
√ Review the sick leave policies of each employer that operates in the facility. ο Review policies to ensure that they actively encourage staff to stay home when sick. ο If these policies do not encourage staff to stay home when sick, discuss with the contract company. ο Determine which officials will have the authority to send symptomatic staff home.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 8 of 27
√ Identify staff whose duties would allow them to work from home. Where possible, allowing staff to work from home can be an effective social distancing strategy to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. ο Discuss work from home options with these staff and determine whether they have the supplies and technological equipment required to do so. ο Put systems in place to implement work from home programs (e.g., time tracking, etc.).
√ Plan for staff absences. Staff should stay home when they are sick, or they may need to stay home to care for a sick household member or care for children in the event of school and childcare dismissals. ο Allow staff to work from home when possible, within the scope of their duties. ο Identify critical job functions and plan for alternative coverage by cross-training staff where possible. ο Determine minimum levels of staff in all categories required for the facility to function safely. If possible, develop a plan to secure additional staff if absenteeism due to COVID-19 threatens to bring staffing to minimum levels. ο Consider increasing keep on person (KOP) medication orders to cover 30 days in case of healthcare staff shortages.
√ Consider offering revised duties to staff who are at higher risk of severe illness with COVID-19. Persons at higher risk may include older adults and persons of any age with serious underlying medical conditions including lung disease, heart disease, and diabetes. See CDC’s website for a complete list, and check regularly for updates as more data become available to inform this issue. ο Facility administrators should consult with their occupational health providers to determine whether it would be allowable to reassign duties for specific staff members to reduce their likelihood of exposure to COVID-19.
√ Offer the seasonal influenza vaccine to all incarcerated/detained persons (existing population and new intakes) and staff throughout the influenza season. Symptoms of COVID-19 are similar to those of influenza. Preventing influenza cases in a facility can speed the detection of COVID-19 cases and reduce pressure on healthcare resources.
√ Reference the Occupational Safety and Health Administration website for recommendations regarding worker health.
√ Review CDC’s guidance for businesses and employers to identify any additional strategies the facility can use within its role as an employer.
Operations & Supplies
√ Ensure that sufficient stocks of hygiene supplies, cleaning supplies, PPE, and medical supplies (consistent with the healthcare capabilities of the facility) are on hand and available, and have a plan in place to restock as needed if COVID-19 transmission occurs within the facility. ο Standard medical supplies for daily clinic needs ο Tissues ο Liquid soap when possible. If bar soap must be used, ensure that it does not irritate the skin and thereby discourage frequent hand washing. ο Hand drying supplies ο Alcohol-based hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol (where permissible based on security restrictions) ο Cleaning supplies, including EPA-registered disinfectants effective against the virus that causes COVID-19
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 9 of 27
ο Recommended PPE (facemasks, N95 respirators, eye protection, disposable medical gloves, and disposable gowns/one-piece coveralls). See PPE section and Table 1 for more detailed information, including recommendations for extending the life of all PPE categories in the event of shortages, and when face masks are acceptable alternatives to N95s.
ο Sterile viral transport media and sterile swabs to collect nasopharyngeal specimens if COVID-19 testing is indicated
√ Make contingency plans for the probable event of PPE shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for non-healthcare workers. ο See CDC guidance optimizing PPE supplies.
√ Consider relaxing restrictions on allowing alcohol-based hand sanitizer in the secure setting where security concerns allow. If soap and water are not available, CDC recommends cleaning hands with an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol. Consider allowing staff to carry individual-sized bottles for their personal hand hygiene while on duty.
√ Provide a no-cost supply of soap to incarcerated/detained persons, sufficient to allow frequent hand washing. (See Hygiene section below for additional detail regarding recommended frequency and protocol for hand washing.) ο Provide liquid soap where possible. If bar soap must be used, ensure that it does not irritate the skin and thereby discourage frequent hand washing.
√ If not already in place, employers operating within the facility should establish a respiratory protection program as appropriate, to ensure that staff and incarcerated/detained persons are fit tested for any respiratory protection they will need within the scope of their responsibilities.
√ Ensure that staff and incarcerated/detained persons are trained to correctly don, doff, and dispose of PPE that they will need to use within the scope of their responsibilities. See Table 1 for recommended PPE for incarcerated/detained persons and staff with varying levels of contact with COVID-19 cases or their close contacts.
Prevention
Cases of COVID-19 have been documented in all 50 US states. Correctional and detention facilities can prevent introduction of COVID-19 from the community and reduce transmission if it is already inside by reinforcing good hygiene practices among incarcerated/detained persons, staff, and visitors (including increasing access to soap and paper towels), intensifying cleaning/disinfection practices, and implementing social distancing strategies.
Because many individuals infected with COVID-19 do not display symptoms, the virus could be present in facilities before cases are identified. Both good hygiene practices and social distancing are critical in preventing further transmission.
Operations
√ Stay in communication with partners about your facility’s current situation. ο State, local, territorial, and/or tribal health departments ο Other correctional facilities
√ Communicate with the public about any changes to facility operations, including visitation programs.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 10 of 27
√ Restrict transfers of incarcerated/detained persons to and from other jurisdictions and facilities unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/quarantine, clinical care, extenuating security concerns, or to prevent overcrowding. ο Strongly consider postponing non-urgent outside medical visits. ο If a transfer is absolutely necessary, perform verbal screening and a temperature check as outlined in the Screening section below, before the individual leaves the facility. If an individual does not clear the screening process, delay the transfer and follow the protocol for a suspected COVID-19 case— including putting a face mask on the individual, immediately placing them under medical isolation, and evaluating them for possible COVID-19 testing. If the transfer must still occur, ensure that the receiving facility has capacity to properly isolate the individual upon arrival. Ensure that staff transporting the individual wear recommended PPE (see Table 1) and that the transport vehicle is cleaned thoroughly after transport.
√ Implement lawful alternatives to in-person court appearances where permissible.
√ Where relevant, consider suspending co-pays for incarcerated/detained persons seeking medical evaluation for respiratory symptoms.
√ Limit the number of operational entrances and exits to the facility.
Cleaning and Disinfecting Practices
√ Even if COVID-19 cases have not yet been identified inside the facility or in the surrounding community, begin implementing intensified cleaning and disinfecting procedures according to the recommendations below. These measures may prevent spread of COVID-19 if introduced.
√ Adhere to CDC recommendations for cleaning and disinfection during the COVID-19 response. Monitor these recommendations for updates. ο Several times per day, clean and disinfect surfaces and objects that are frequently touched, especially in common areas. Such surfaces may include objects/surfaces not ordinarily cleaned daily (e.g., doorknobs, light switches, sink handles, countertops, toilets, toilet handles, recreation equipment, kiosks, and telephones). ο Staff should clean shared equipment several times per day and on a conclusion of use basis (e.g., radios, service weapons, keys, handcuffs). ο Use household cleaners and EPA-registered disinfectants effective against the virus that causes COVID-19 as appropriate for the surface, following label instructions. This may require lifting restrictions on undiluted disinfectants. ο Labels contain instructions for safe and effective use of the cleaning product, including precautions that should be taken when applying the product, such as wearing gloves and making sure there is good ventilation during use.
√ Consider increasing the number of staff and/or incarcerated/detained persons trained and responsible for cleaning common areas to ensure continual cleaning of these areas throughout the day.
√ Ensure adequate supplies to support intensified cleaning and disinfection practices, and have a plan in place to restock rapidly if needed.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 11 of 27
Hygiene
√ Reinforce healthy hygiene practices, and provide and continually restock hygiene supplies throughout the facility, including in bathrooms, food preparation and dining areas, intake areas, visitor entries and exits, visitation rooms and waiting rooms, common areas, medical, and staff-restricted areas (e.g., break rooms).
√ Encourage all persons in the facility to take the following actions to protect themselves and others from COVID-19. Post signage throughout the facility, and communicate this information verbally on a regular basis. Sample signage and other communications materials are available on the CDC website. Ensure that materials can be understood by non-English speakers and those with low literacy, and make necessary accommodations for those with cognitive or intellectual disabilities and those who are deaf, blind, or low-vision.
ο Practice good cough etiquette: Cover your mouth and nose with your elbow (or ideally with a tissue) rather than with your hand when you cough or sneeze, and throw all tissues in the trash immediately after use.
ο Practice good hand hygiene: Regularly wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, especially after coughing, sneezing, or blowing your nose; after using the bathroom; before eating or preparing food; before taking medication; and after touching garbage.
ο Avoid touching your eyes, nose, or mouth without cleaning your hands first. ο Avoid sharing eating utensils, dishes, and cups. ο Avoid non-essential physical contact.
√ Provide incarcerated/detained persons and staff no-cost access to: ο Soap—Provide liquid soap where possible. If bar soap must be used, ensure that it does not irritate the skin, as this would discourage frequent hand washing.
ο Running water, and hand drying machines or disposable paper towels for hand washing ο Tissues and no-touch trash receptacles for disposal
√ Provide alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol where permissible based on security restrictions. Consider allowing staff to carry individual-sized bottles to maintain hand hygiene.
√ Communicate that sharing drugs and drug preparation equipment can spread COVID-19 due to potential contamination of shared items and close contact between individuals.
Prevention Practices for Incarcerated/Detained Persons
√ Perform pre-intake screening and temperature checks for all new entrants. Screening should take place in the sallyport, before beginning the intake process, in order to identify and immediately place individuals with symptoms under medical isolation. See Screening section below for the wording of screening questions and a recommended procedure to safely perform a temperature check. Staff performing temperature checks should wear recommended PPE (see PPE section below).
ο If an individual has symptoms of COVID-19 (fever, cough, shortness of breath):  Require the individual to wear a face mask.  Ensure that staff who have direct contact with the symptomatic individual wear recommended PPE.  Place the individual under medical isolation (ideally in a room near the screening location, rather than transporting the ill individual through the facility), and refer to healthcare staff for further evaluation. (See Infection Control and Clinical Care sections below.)  Facilities without onsite healthcare staff should contact their state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health department to coordinate effective medical isolation and necessary medical care.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 12 of 27
ο If an individual is a close contact of a known COVID-19 case (but has no COVID-19 symptoms):  Quarantine the individual and monitor for symptoms two times per day for 14 days. (See Quarantine section below.)  Facilities without onsite healthcare staff should contact their state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health department to coordinate effective quarantine and necessary medical care.
√ Implement social distancing strategies to increase the physical space between incarcerated/ detained persons (ideally 6 feet between all individuals, regardless of the presence of symptoms). Strategies will need to be tailored to the individual space in the facility and the needs of the population and staff. Not all strategies will be feasible in all facilities. Example strategies with varying levels of intensity include: ο Common areas:  Enforce increased space between individuals in holding cells, as well as in lines and waiting areas such as intake (e.g., remove every other chair in a waiting area) ο Recreation:  Choose recreation spaces where individuals can spread out  Stagger time in recreation spaces  Restrict recreation space usage to a single housing unit per space (where feasible) ο Meals:  Stagger meals  Rearrange seating in the dining hall so that there is more space between individuals (e.g., remove every other chair and use only one side of the table)  Provide meals inside housing units or cells ο Group activities:  Limit the size of group activities  Increase space between individuals during group activities  Suspend group programs where participants are likely to be in closer contact than they are in their housing environment  Consider alternatives to existing group activities, in outdoor areas or other areas where individuals can spread out ο Housing:  If space allows, reassign bunks to provide more space between individuals, ideally 6 feet or more in all directions. (Ensure that bunks are cleaned thoroughly if assigned to a new occupant.)  Arrange bunks so that individuals sleep head to foot to increase the distance between them  Rearrange scheduled movements to minimize mixing of individuals from different housing areas ο Medical:  If possible, designate a room near each housing unit to evaluate individuals with COVID-19 symptoms, rather than having them walk through the facility to be evaluated in the medical unit. If this is not feasible, consider staggering sick call.  Designate a room near the intake area to evaluate new entrants who are flagged by the intake screening process for COVID-19 symptoms or case contact, before they move to other parts of the facility.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 13 of 27
√ Communicate clearly and frequently with incarcerated/detained persons about changes to their daily routine and how they can contribute to risk reduction.
√ Note that if group activities are discontinued, it will be important to identify alternative forms of activity to support the mental health of incarcerated/detained persons.
√ Consider suspending work release programs and other programs that involve movement of incarcerated/detained individuals in and out of the facility.
√ Provide up-to-date information about COVID-19 to incarcerated/detained persons on a regular basis, including: ο Symptoms of COVID-19 and its health risks ο Reminders to report COVID-19 symptoms to staff at the first sign of illness
√ Consider having healthcare staff perform rounds on a regular basis to answer questions about COVID-19.
Prevention Practices for Staff
√ Remind staff to stay at home if they are sick. Ensure that staff are aware that they will not be able to enter the facility if they have symptoms of COVID-19, and that they will be expected to leave the facility as soon as possible if they develop symptoms while on duty.
√ Perform verbal screening (for COVID-19 symptoms and close contact with cases) and temperature checks for all staff daily on entry. See Screening section below for wording of screening questions and a recommended procedure to safely perform temperature checks. ο In very small facilities with only a few staff, consider self-monitoring or virtual monitoring (e.g., reporting to a central authority via phone). ο Send staff home who do not clear the screening process, and advise them to follow CDCrecommended steps for persons who are ill with COVID-19 symptoms.
Provide staff with up-to-date information about COVID-19 and about facility policies on a regular basis, including:
ο Symptoms of COVID-19 and its health risks ο Employers’ sick leave policy ο If staff develop a fever, cough, or shortness of breath while at work: immediately put on a
face mask, inform supervisor, leave the facility, and follow CDC-recommended steps for persons who are ill with COVID-19 symptoms. ο If staff test positive for COVID-19: inform workplace and personal contacts immediately, and do not return to work until a decision to discontinue home medical isolation precautions is made. Monitor CDC guidance on discontinuing home isolation regularly as circumstances evolve rapidly. ο If a staff member is identified as a close contact of a COVID-19 case (either within the facility or in the community): self-quarantine at home for 14 days and return to work if symptoms do not develop. If symptoms do develop, follow CDC-recommended steps for persons who are ill with COVID-19 symptoms.
√ If a staff member has a confirmed COVID-19 infection, the relevant employers should inform other staff about their possible exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace, but should maintain confidentiality as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. ο Employees who are close contacts of the case should then self-monitor for symptoms (i.e., fever, cough, or shortness of breath).
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 14 of 27
√ When feasible and consistent with security priorities, encourage staff to maintain a distance of 6 feet or more from an individual with respiratory symptoms while interviewing, escorting, or interacting in other ways.
√ Ask staff to keep interactions with individuals with respiratory symptoms as brief as possible.
Prevention Practices for Visitors
√ If possible, communicate with potential visitors to discourage contact visits in the interest of their own health and the health of their family members and friends inside the facility.
√ Perform verbal screening (for COVID-19 symptoms and close contact with cases) and temperature checks for all visitors and volunteers on entry. See Screening section below for wording of screening questions and a recommended procedure to safely perform temperature checks. ο Staff performing temperature checks should wear recommended PPE. ο Exclude visitors and volunteers who do not clear the screening process or who decline screening.
√ Provide alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol in visitor entrances, exits, and waiting areas.
√ Provide visitors and volunteers with information to prepare them for screening. ο Instruct visitors to postpone their visit if they have symptoms of respiratory illness. ο If possible, inform potential visitors and volunteers before they travel to the facility that they should expect to be screened for COVID-19 (including a temperature check), and will be unable to enter the facility if they do not clear the screening process or if they decline screening. ο Display signage outside visiting areas explaining the COVID-19 screening and temperature check process. Ensure that materials are understandable for non-English speakers and those with low literacy.
√ Promote non-contact visits: ο Encourage incarcerated/detained persons to limit contact visits in the interest of their own health and the health of their visitors. ο Consider reducing or temporarily eliminating the cost of phone calls for incarcerated/detained persons. ο Consider increasing incarcerated/detained persons’ telephone privileges to promote mental health and reduce exposure from direct contact with community visitors.
√ Consider suspending or modifying visitation programs, if legally permissible. For example, provide access to virtual visitation options where available. ο If moving to virtual visitation, clean electronic surfaces regularly. (See Cleaning guidance below for instructions on cleaning electronic surfaces.) ο Inform potential visitors of changes to, or suspension of, visitation programs. ο Clearly communicate any visitation program changes to incarcerated/detained persons, along with the reasons for them (including protecting their health and their family and community members’ health). ο If suspending contact visits, provide alternate means (e.g., phone or video visitation) for incarcerated/detained individuals to engage with legal representatives, clergy, and other individuals with whom they have legal right to consult.
NOTE: Suspending visitation would be done in the interest of incarcerated/detained persons’ physical health and the health of the general public. However, visitation is important to maintain mental health.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 15 of 27
If visitation is suspended, facilities should explore alternative ways for incarcerated/detained persons to communicate with their families, friends, and other visitors in a way that is not financially burdensome for them. See above suggestions for promoting non-contact visits.
√ Restrict non-essential vendors, volunteers, and tours from entering the facility.
Management
If there has been a suspected COVID-19 case inside the facility (among incarcerated/detained persons, staff, or visitors who have recently been inside), begin implementing Management strategies while test results are pending. Essential Management strategies include placing cases and individuals with symptoms under medical isolation, quarantining their close contacts, and facilitating necessary medical care, while observing relevant infection control and environmental disinfection protocols and wearing recommended PPE.
Operations
√ Implement alternate work arrangements deemed feasible in the Operational Preparedness section.
√ Suspend all transfers of incarcerated/detained persons to and from other jurisdictions and facilities (including work release where relevant), unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/quarantine, care, extenuating security concerns, or to prevent overcrowding. ο If a transfer is absolutely necessary, perform verbal screening and a temperature check as outlined in the Screening section below, before the individual leaves the facility. If an individual does not clear the screening process, delay the transfer and follow the protocol for a suspected COVID-19 case— including putting a face mask on the individual, immediately placing them under medical isolation, and evaluating them for possible COVID-19 testing. If the transfer must still occur, ensure that the receiving facility has capacity to appropriately isolate the individual upon arrival. Ensure that staff transporting the individual wear recommended PPE (see Table 1) and that the transport vehicle is cleaned thoroughly after transport.
√ If possible, consider quarantining all new intakes for 14 days before they enter the facility’s general population (SEPARATELY from other individuals who are quarantined due to contact with a COVID-19 case). Subsequently in this document, this practice is referred to as routine intake quarantine.
√ When possible, arrange lawful alternatives to in-person court appearances.
√ Incorporate screening for COVID-19 symptoms and a temperature check into release planning. ο Screen all releasing individuals for COVID-19 symptoms and perform a temperature check. (See Screening section below.)  If an individual does not clear the screening process, follow the protocol for a suspected COVID-19 case—including putting a face mask on the individual, immediately placing them under medical isolation, and evaluating them for possible COVID-19 testing.  If the individual is released before the recommended medical isolation period is complete, discuss release of the individual with state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health departments to ensure safe medical transport and continued shelter and medical care, as part of release planning. Make direct linkages to community resources to ensure proper medical isolation and access to medical care.  Before releasing an incarcerated/detained individual with COVID-19 symptoms to a communitybased facility, such as a homeless shelter, contact the facility’s staff to ensure adequate time for them to prepare to continue medical isolation, or contact local public health to explore alternate housing options.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 16 of 27
√ Coordinate with state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health departments. ο When a COVID-19 case is suspected, work with public health to determine action. See Medical Isolation section below. ο When a COVID-19 case is suspected or confirmed, work with public health to identify close contacts who should be placed under quarantine. See Quarantine section below. ο Facilities with limited onsite medical isolation, quarantine, and/or healthcare services should coordinate closely with state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health departments when they encounter a confirmed or suspected case, in order to ensure effective medical isolation or quarantine, necessary medical evaluation and care, and medical transfer if needed. See Facilities with Limited Onsite Healthcare Services section.
Hygiene
√ Continue to ensure that hand hygiene supplies are well-stocked in all areas of the facility. (See above.)
√ Continue to emphasize practicing good hand hygiene and cough etiquette. (See above.)
Cleaning and Disinfecting Practices
√ Continue adhering to recommended cleaning and disinfection procedures for the facility at large. (See above.)
√ Reference specific cleaning and disinfection procedures for areas where a COVID-19 case has spent time (below).
Medical Isolation of Confirmed or Suspected COVID-19 Cases
NOTE: Some recommendations below apply primarily to facilities with onsite healthcare capacity. Facilities with Limited Onsite Healthcare Services, or without sufficient space to implement effective medical isolation, should coordinate with local public health officials to ensure that COVID-19 cases will be appropriately isolated, evaluated, tested (if indicated), and given care.
√ As soon as an individual develops symptoms of COVID-19, they should wear a face mask (if it does not restrict breathing) and should be immediately placed under medical isolation in a separate environment from other individuals.
√ Keep the individual’s movement outside the medical isolation space to an absolute minimum. ο Provide medical care to cases inside the medical isolation space. See Infection Control and Clinical Care sections for additional details. ο Serve meals to cases inside the medical isolation space. ο Exclude the individual from all group activities. ο Assign the isolated individual a dedicated bathroom when possible.
√ Ensure that the individual is wearing a face mask at all times when outside of the medical isolation space, and whenever another individual enters. Provide clean masks as needed. Masks should be changed at least daily, and when visibly soiled or wet.
√ Facilities should make every possible effort to place suspected and confirmed COVID-19 cases under medical isolation individually. Each isolated individual should be assigned their own housing space and bathroom where possible. Cohorting should only be practiced if there are no other available options.
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 17 of 27
ο If cohorting is necessary:  Only individuals who are laboratory confirmed COVID-19 cases should be placed under medical isolation as a cohort. Do not cohort confirmed cases with suspected cases or case contacts.  Unless no other options exist, do not house COVID-19 cases with individuals who have an undiagnosed respiratory infection.  Ensure that cohorted cases wear face masks at all times.
√ In order of preference, individuals under medical isolation should be housed: ο Separately, in single cells with solid walls (i.e., not bars) and solid doors that close fully ο Separately, in single cells with solid walls but without solid doors ο As a cohort, in a large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes fully. Employ social distancing strategies related to housing in the Prevention section above. ο As a cohort, in a large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls but without a solid door. Employ social distancing strategies related to housing in the Prevention section above. ο As a cohort, in single cells without solid walls or solid doors (i.e., cells enclosed entirely with bars), preferably with an empty cell between occupied cells. (Although individuals are in single cells in this scenario, the airflow between cells essentially makes it a cohort arrangement in the context of COVID-19.) ο As a cohort, in multi-person cells without solid walls or solid doors (i.e., cells enclosed entirely with bars), preferably with an empty cell between occupied cells. Employ social distancing strategies related to housing in the Prevention section above. ο Safely transfer individual(s) to another facility with available medical isolation capacity in one of the above arrangements (NOTE—Transfer should be avoided due to the potential to introduce infection to another facility; proceed only if no other options are available.)
If the ideal choice does not exist in a facility, use the next best alternative.
√ If the number of confirmed cases exceeds the number of individual medical isolation spaces available in the facility, be especially mindful of cases who are at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Ideally, they should not be cohorted with other infected individuals. If cohorting is unavoidable, make all possible accommodations to prevent transmission of other infectious diseases to the higher-risk individual. (For example, allocate more space for a higher-risk individual within a shared medical isolation space.) ο Persons at higher risk may include older adults and persons of any age with serious underlying medical conditions such as lung disease, heart disease, and diabetes. See CDC’s website for a complete list, and check regularly for updates as more data become available to inform this issue. ο Note that incarcerated/detained populations have higher prevalence of infectious and chronic diseases and are in poorer health than the general population, even at younger ages.
√ Custody staff should be designated to monitor these individuals exclusively where possible. These staff should wear recommended PPE as appropriate for their level of contact with the individual under medical isolation (see PPE section below) and should limit their own movement between different parts of the facility to the extent possible.
√ Minimize transfer of COVID-19 cases between spaces within the healthcare unit.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 18 of 27
√ Provide individuals under medical isolation with tissues and, if permissible, a lined no-touch trash receptacle. Instruct them to: ο Cover their mouth and nose with a tissue when they cough or sneeze ο Dispose of used tissues immediately in the lined trash receptacle ο Wash hands immediately with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. If soap and water are not available, clean hands with an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol (where security concerns permit). Ensure that hand washing supplies are continually restocked.
√ Maintain medical isolation until all the following criteria have been met. Monitor the CDC website for updates to these criteria.
For individuals who will be tested to determine if they are still contagious:  The individual has been free from fever for at least 72 hours without the use of fever-reducing medications AND  The individual’s other symptoms have improved (e.g., cough, shortness of breath) AND  The individual has tested negative in at least two consecutive respiratory specimens collected at least 24 hours apart
For individuals who will NOT be tested to determine if they are still contagious:  The individual has been free from fever for at least 72 hours without the use of fever-reducing medications AND  The individual’s other symptoms have improved (e.g., cough, shortness of breath) AND  At least 7 days have passed since the first symptoms appeared
For individuals who had a confirmed positive COVID-19 test but never showed symptoms: ο At least 7 days have passed since the date of the individual’s first positive COVID-19 test AND ο The individual has had no subsequent illness
√ Restrict cases from leaving the facility while under medical isolation precautions, unless released from custody or if a transfer is necessary for medical care, infection control, lack of medical isolation space, or extenuating security concerns. ο If an incarcerated/detained individual who is a COVID-19 case is released from custody during their medical isolation period, contact public health to arrange for safe transport and continuation of necessary medical care and medical isolation as part of release planning.
Cleaning Spaces where COVID-19 Cases Spent Time
Thoroughly clean and disinfect all areas where the confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case spent time. Note—these protocols apply to suspected cases as well as confirmed cases, to ensure adequate disinfection in the event that the suspected case does, in fact, have COVID-19. Refer to the Definitions section for the distinction between confirmed and suspected cases.
ο Close off areas used by the infected individual. If possible, open outside doors and windows to increase air circulation in the area. Wait as long as practical, up to 24 hours under the poorest air exchange conditions (consult CDC Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities for wait time based on different ventilation conditions), before beginning to clean and disinfect, to minimize potential for exposure to respiratory droplets.
ο Clean and disinfect all areas (e.g., cells, bathrooms, and common areas) used by the infected individual, focusing especially on frequently touched surfaces (see list above in Prevention section).
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 19 of 27
√ Hard (non-porous) surface cleaning and disinfection ο If surfaces are dirty, they should be cleaned using a detergent or soap and water prior to disinfection. ο For disinfection, most common EPA-registered household disinfectants should be effective. Choose cleaning products based on security requirements within the facility.  Consult a list of products that are EPA-approved for use against the virus that causes COVID-19. Follow the manufacturer’s instructions for all cleaning and disinfection products (e.g., concentration, application method and contact time, etc.).  Diluted household bleach solutions can be used if appropriate for the surface. Follow the manufacturer’s instructions for application and proper ventilation, and check to ensure the product is not past its expiration date. Never mix household bleach with ammonia or any other cleanser. Unexpired household bleach will be effective against coronaviruses when properly diluted. Prepare a bleach solution by mixing:
- 5 tablespoons (1/3rd cup) bleach per gallon of water or
- 4 teaspoons bleach per quart of water
√ Soft (porous) surface cleaning and disinfection ο For soft (porous) surfaces such as carpeted floors and rugs, remove visible contamination if present and clean with appropriate cleaners indicated for use on these surfaces. After cleaning:  If the items can be laundered, launder items in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions using the warmest appropriate water setting for the items and then dry items completely.  Otherwise, use products that are EPA-approved for use against the virus that causes COVID-19 and are suitable for porous surfaces.
√ Electronics cleaning and disinfection ο For electronics such as tablets, touch screens, keyboards, and remote controls, remove visible contamination if present.  Follow the manufacturer’s instructions for all cleaning and disinfection products.  Consider use of wipeable covers for electronics.  If no manufacturer guidance is available, consider the use of alcohol-based wipes or spray containing at least 70% alcohol to disinfect touch screens. Dry surfaces thoroughly to avoid pooling of liquids.
Additional information on cleaning and disinfection of communal facilities such can be found on CDC’s website.
√ Ensure that staff and incarcerated/detained persons performing cleaning wear recommended PPE. (See PPE section below.)
√ Food service items. Cases under medical isolation should throw disposable food service items in the trash in their medical isolation room. Non-disposable food service items should be handled with gloves and washed with hot water or in a dishwasher. Individuals handling used food service items should clean their hands after removing gloves.
√ Laundry from a COVID-19 cases can be washed with other individuals’ laundry. ο Individuals handling laundry from COVID-19 cases should wear disposable gloves, discard after each use, and clean their hands after. ο Do not shake dirty laundry. This will minimize the possibility of dispersing virus through the air. ο Launder items as appropriate in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. If possible, launder items using the warmest appropriate water setting for the items and dry items completely.
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 20 of 27
ο Clean and disinfect clothes hampers according to guidance above for surfaces. If permissible, consider using a bag liner that is either disposable or can be laundered.
√ Consult cleaning recommendations above to ensure that transport vehicles are thoroughly cleaned after carrying a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case.
Quarantining Close Contacts of COVID-19 Cases
NOTE: Some recommendations below apply primarily to facilities with onsite healthcare capacity. Facilities without onsite healthcare capacity, or without sufficient space to implement effective quarantine, should coordinate with local public health officials to ensure that close contacts of COVID-19 cases will be effectively quarantined and medically monitored.
√ Incarcerated/detained persons who are close contacts of a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case (whether the case is another incarcerated/detained person, staff member, or visitor) should be placed under quarantine for 14 days (see CDC guidelines). ο If an individual is quarantined due to contact with a suspected case who is subsequently tested for COVID-19 and receives a negative result, the quarantined individual should be released from quarantine restrictions.
√ In the context of COVID-19, an individual (incarcerated/detained person or staff) is considered a close contact if they: ο Have been within approximately 6 feet of a COVID-19 case for a prolonged period of time OR ο Have had direct contact with infectious secretions of a COVID-19 case (e.g., have been coughed on)
Close contact can occur while caring for, living with, visiting, or sharing a common space with a COVID-19 case. Data to inform the definition of close contact are limited. Considerations when assessing close contact include the duration of exposure (e.g., longer exposure time likely increases exposure risk) and the clinical symptoms of the person with COVID-19 (e.g., coughing likely increases exposure risk, as does exposure to a severely ill patient).
√ Keep a quarantined individual’s movement outside the quarantine space to an absolute minimum. ο Provide medical evaluation and care inside or near the quarantine space when possible. ο Serve meals inside the quarantine space. ο Exclude the quarantined individual from all group activities. ο Assign the quarantined individual a dedicated bathroom when possible.
√ Facilities should make every possible effort to quarantine close contacts of COVID-19 cases individually. Cohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected. Cohorting should only be practiced if there are no other available options. ο If cohorting of close contacts under quarantine is absolutely necessary, symptoms of all individuals should be monitored closely, and individuals with symptoms of COVID-19 should be placed under medical isolation immediately. ο If an entire housing unit is under quarantine due to contact with a case from the same housing unit, the entire housing unit may need to be treated as a cohort and quarantine in place. ο Some facilities may choose to quarantine all new intakes for 14 days before moving them to the facility’s general population as a general rule (not because they were exposed to a COVID-19 case). Under this scenario, avoid mixing individuals quarantined due to exposure to a COVID-19 case with individuals undergoing routine intake quarantine.
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 21 of 27
ο If at all possible, do not add more individuals to an existing quarantine cohort after the 14-day quarantine clock has started.
√ If the number of quarantined individuals exceeds the number of individual quarantine spaces available in the facility, be especially mindful of those who are at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Ideally, they should not be cohorted with other quarantined individuals. If cohorting is unavoidable, make all possible accommodations to reduce exposure risk for the higher-risk individuals. (For example, intensify social distancing strategies for higher-risk individuals.)
√ In order of preference, multiple quarantined individuals should be housed: ο Separately, in single cells with solid walls (i.e., not bars) and solid doors that close fully ο Separately, in single cells with solid walls but without solid doors ο As a cohort, in a large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls, a solid door that closes fully, and at least 6 feet of personal space assigned to each individual in all directions ο As a cohort, in a large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls and at least 6 feet of personal space assigned to each individual in all directions, but without a solid door ο As a cohort, in single cells without solid walls or solid doors (i.e., cells enclosed entirely with bars), preferably with an empty cell between occupied cells creating at least 6 feet of space between individuals. (Although individuals are in single cells in this scenario, the airflow between cells essentially makes it a cohort arrangement in the context of COVID-19.) ο As a cohort, in multi-person cells without solid walls or solid doors (i.e., cells enclosed entirely with bars), preferably with an empty cell between occupied cells. Employ social distancing strategies related to housing in the Prevention section to maintain at least 6 feet of space between individuals housed in the same cell. ο As a cohort, in individuals’ regularly assigned housing unit but with no movement outside the unit (if an entire housing unit has been exposed). Employ social distancing strategies related to housing in the Prevention section above to maintain at least 6 feet of space between individuals. ο Safely transfer to another facility with capacity to quarantine in one of the above arrangements
(NOTE—Transfer should be avoided due to the potential to introduce infection to another facility; proceed only if no other options are available.)
√ Quarantined individuals should wear face masks if feasible based on local supply, as source control, under the following circumstances (see PPE section and Table 1): ο If cohorted, quarantined individuals should wear face masks at all times (to prevent transmission from infected to uninfected individuals). ο If quarantined separately, individuals should wear face masks whenever a non-quarantined individual enters the quarantine space. ο All quarantined individuals should wear a face mask if they must leave the quarantine space for any reason. ο Asymptomatic individuals under routine intake quarantine (with no known exposure to a COVID-19 case) do not need to wear face masks.
√ Staff who have close contact with quarantined individuals should wear recommended PPE if feasible based on local supply, feasibility, and safety within the scope of their duties (see PPE section and Table 1). ο Staff supervising asymptomatic incarcerated/detained persons under routine intake quarantine (with no known exposure to a COVID-19 case) do not need to wear PPE.
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 22 of 27
√ Quarantined individuals should be monitored for COVID-19 symptoms twice per day, including temperature checks. ο If an individual develops symptoms, they should be moved to medical isolation immediately and further evaluated. (See Medical Isolation section above.) ο See Screening section for a procedure to perform temperature checks safely on asymptomatic close contacts of COVID-19 cases.
√ If an individual who is part of a quarantined cohort becomes symptomatic: ο If the individual is tested for COVID-19 and tests positive: the 14-day quarantine clock for the remainder of the cohort must be reset to 0. ο If the individual is tested for COVID-19 and tests negative: the 14-day quarantine clock for this individual and the remainder of the cohort does not need to be reset. This individual can return from medical isolation to the quarantined cohort for the remainder of the quarantine period. ο If the individual is not tested for COVID-19: the 14-day quarantine clock for the remainder of the cohort must be reset to 0.
√ Restrict quarantined individuals from leaving the facility (including transfers to other facilities) during the 14-day quarantine period, unless released from custody or a transfer is necessary for medical care, infection control, lack of quarantine space, or extenuating security concerns.
√ Quarantined individuals can be released from quarantine restrictions if they have not developed symptoms during the 14-day quarantine period.
√ Meals should be provided to quarantined individuals in their quarantine spaces. Individuals under quarantine should throw disposable food service items in the trash. Non-disposable food service items should be handled with gloves and washed with hot water or in a dishwasher. Individuals handling used food service items should clean their hands after removing gloves.
√ Laundry from quarantined individuals can be washed with other individuals’ laundry. ο Individuals handling laundry from quarantined persons should wear disposable gloves, discard after each use, and clean their hands after. ο Do not shake dirty laundry. This will minimize the possibility of dispersing virus through the air. ο Launder items as appropriate in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. If possible, launder items using the warmest appropriate water setting for the items and dry items completely. ο Clean and disinfect clothes hampers according to guidance above for surfaces. If permissible, consider using a bag liner that is either disposable or can be laundered.
Management of Incarcerated/Detained Persons with COVID-19 Symptoms
NOTE: Some recommendations below apply primarily to facilities with onsite healthcare capacity. Facilities without onsite healthcare capacity or without sufficient space for medical isolation should coordinate with local public health officials to ensure that suspected COVID-19 cases will be effectively isolated, evaluated, tested (if indicated), and given care.
√ If possible, designate a room near each housing unit for healthcare staff to evaluate individuals with COVID-19 symptoms, rather than having them walk through the facility to be evaluated in the medical unit.
√ Incarcerated/detained individuals with COVID-19 symptoms should wear a face mask and should be placed under medical isolation immediately. Discontinue the use of a face mask if it inhibits breathing. See Medical Isolation section above.
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 23 of 27
√ Medical staff should evaluate symptomatic individuals to determine whether COVID-19 testing is indicated. Refer to CDC guidelines for information on evaluation and testing. See Infection Control and Clinical Care sections below as well.
√ If testing is indicated (or if medical staff need clarification on when testing is indicated), contact the state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health department. Work with public health or private labs as available to access testing supplies or services. ο If the COVID-19 test is positive, continue medical isolation. (See Medical Isolation section above.) ο If the COVID-19 test is negative, return the individual to their prior housing assignment unless they require further medical assessment or care.
Management Strategies for Incarcerated/Detained Persons without COVID-19 Symptoms
√ Provide clear information to incarcerated/detained persons about the presence of COVID-19 cases within the facility, and the need to increase social distancing and maintain hygiene precautions. ο Consider having healthcare staff perform regular rounds to answer questions about COVID-19. ο Ensure that information is provided in a manner that can be understood by non-English speaking individuals and those with low literacy, and make necessary accommodations for those with cognitive or intellectual disabilities and those who are deaf, blind, or low-vision.
√ Implement daily temperature checks in housing units where COVID-19 cases have been identified, especially if there is concern that incarcerated/detained individuals are not notifying staff of symptoms. See Screening section for a procedure to safely perform a temperature check.
√ Consider additional options to intensify social distancing within the facility.
Management Strategies for Staff
√ Provide clear information to staff about the presence of COVID-19 cases within the facility, and the need to enforce social distancing and encourage hygiene precautions. ο Consider having healthcare staff perform regular rounds to answer questions about COVID-19 from staff.
√ Staff identified as close contacts of a COVID-19 case should self-quarantine at home for 14 days and may return to work if symptoms do not develop. ο See above for definition of a close contact. ο Refer to CDC guidelines for further recommendations regarding home quarantine for staff.
Infection Control
Infection control guidance below is applicable to all types of correctional facilities. Individual facilities should assess their unique needs based on the types of exposure staff and incarcerated/ detained persons may have with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases.
√ All individuals who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to COVID-19 cases or infectious materials (including body substances; contaminated medical supplies, devices, and equipment; contaminated environmental surfaces; or contaminated air) should follow infection control practices outlined in the CDC Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings. Monitor these guidelines regularly for updates.
22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 24 of 27
ο Implement the above guidance as fully as possible within the correctional/detention context. Some of the specific language may not apply directly to healthcare settings within correctional facilities and detention centers, or to facilities without onsite healthcare capacity, and may need to be adapted to reflect facility operations and custody needs.
ο Note that these recommendations apply to staff as well as to incarcerated/detained individuals who may come in contact with contaminated materials during the course of their work placement in the facility (e.g., cleaning).
√ Staff should exercise caution when in contact with individuals showing symptoms of a respiratory infection. Contact should be minimized to the extent possible until the infected individual is wearing a face mask. If COVID-19 is suspected, staff should wear recommended PPE (see PPE section).
√ Refer to PPE section to determine recommended PPE for individuals persons in contact with confirmed COVID-19 cases, contacts, and potentially contaminated items.
Clinical Care of COVID-19 Cases
√ Facilities should ensure that incarcerated/detained individuals receive medical evaluation and treatment at the first signs of COVID-19 symptoms. ο If a facility is not able to provide such evaluation and treatment, a plan should be in place to safely transfer the individual to another facility or local hospital. ο The initial medical evaluation should determine whether a symptomatic individual is at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Persons at higher risk may include older adults and persons of any age with serious underlying medical conditions such as lung disease, heart disease, and diabetes. See CDC’s website for a complete list, and check regularly for updates as more data become available to inform this issue.
√ Staff evaluating and providing care for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases should follow the CDC Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) and monitor the guidance website regularly for updates to these recommendations.
√ Healthcare staff should evaluate persons with respiratory symptoms or contact with a COVID-19 case in a separate room, with the door closed if possible, while wearing recommended PPE and ensuring that the suspected case is wearing a face mask. ο If possible, designate a room near each housing unit to evaluate individuals with COVID-19 symptoms, rather than having them walk through the facility to be evaluated in the medical unit.
√ Clinicians are strongly encouraged to test for other causes of respiratory illness (e.g., influenza).
√ The facility should have a plan in place to safely transfer persons with severe illness from COVID-19 to a local hospital if they require care beyond what the facility is able to provide.
√ When evaluating and treating persons with symptoms of COVID-19 who do not speak English, using a language line or provide a trained interpreter when possible.
Recommended PPE and PPE Training for Staff and Incarcerated/Detained Persons
√ Ensure that all staff (healthcare and non-healthcare) and incarcerated/detained persons who will have contact with infectious materials in their work placements have been trained to correctly don, doff, and dispose of PPE relevant to the level of contact they will have with confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases.
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 25 of 27
ο Ensure that staff and incarcerated/detained persons who require respiratory protection (e.g., N95s) for their work responsibilities have been medically cleared, trained, and fit-tested in the context of an employer’s respiratory protection program.
ο For PPE training materials and posters, please visit the CDC website on Protecting Healthcare Personnel.
√ Ensure that all staff are trained to perform hand hygiene after removing PPE.
√ If administrators anticipate that incarcerated/detained persons will request unnecessary PPE, consider providing training on the different types of PPE that are needed for differing degrees of contact with COVID-19 cases and contacts, and the reasons for those differences (see Table 1). Monitor linked CDC guidelines in Table 1 for updates to recommended PPE.
√ Keep recommended PPE near the spaces in the facility where it could be needed, to facilitate quick access in an emergency.
√ Recommended PPE for incarcerated/detained individuals and staff in a correctional facility will vary based on the type of contact they have with COVID-19 cases and their contacts (see Table 1). Each type of recommended PPE is defined below. As above, note that PPE shortages are anticipated in every category during the COVID-19 response. ο N95 respirator
See below for guidance on when face masks are acceptable alternatives for N95s. N95 respirators should be prioritized when staff anticipate contact with infectious aerosols from a COVID-19 case. ο Face mask ο Eye protection—goggles or disposable face shield that fully covers the front and sides of the face ο A single pair of disposable patient examination gloves
Gloves should be changed if they become torn or heavily contaminated. ο Disposable medical isolation gown or single-use/disposable coveralls, when feasible
 If custody staff are unable to wear a disposable gown or coveralls because it limits access to their duty belt and gear, ensure that duty belt and gear are disinfected after close contact with the individual. Clean and disinfect duty belt and gear prior to reuse using a household cleaning spray or wipe, according to the product label.
 If there are shortages of gowns, they should be prioritized for aerosol-generating procedures, care activities where splashes and sprays are anticipated, and high-contact patient care activities that provide opportunities for transfer of pathogens to the hands and clothing of staff.
√ Note that shortages of all PPE categories are anticipated during the COVID-19 response, particularly for non-healthcare workers. Guidance for optimizing the supply of each category can be found on CDC’s website: ο Guidance in the event of a shortage of N95 respirators  Based on local and regional situational analysis of PPE supplies, face masks are an acceptable alternative when the supply chain of respirators cannot meet the demand. During this time, available respirators should be prioritized for staff engaging in activities that would expose them to respiratory aerosols, which pose the highest exposure risk. ο Guidance in the event of a shortage of face masks ο Guidance in the event of a shortage of eye protection ο Guidance in the event of a shortage of gowns/coveralls
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 26 of 27
Table 1. Recommended Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for Incarcerated/Detained Persons and Staff in a Correctional Facility during the COVID-19 Response

Classification of Individual Wearing PPE

N95 respirator

Face mask

Eye Protection

Gloves

Gown/ Coveralls

Incarcerated/Detained Persons

Asymptomatic incarcerated/detained persons (under Apply face masks for source control as feasible based on local supply, quarantine as close contacts of a COVID-19 case*) especially if housed as a cohort

Incarcerated/detained persons who are confirmed or

suspected COVID-19 cases, or showing symptoms of

–



–

–

–

COVID-19

Incarcerated/detained persons in a work placement

handling laundry or used food service items from a

–

COVID-19 case or case contact

–







Incarcerated/detained persons in a work placement Additional PPE may be needed based on

cleaning areas where a COVID-19 case has spent time the product label. See CDC guidelines for





more details.

Staff

Staff having direct contact with asymptomatic incarcerated/detained persons under quarantine as close contacts of a COVID-19 case* (but not performing temperature checks or providing medical care)

–

Face mask, eye protection, and gloves as local supply and scope of duties allow.

–

Staff performing temperature checks on any group

of people (staff, visitors, or incarcerated/detained persons), or providing medical care to asymptomatic

–

quarantined persons









Staff having direct contact with (including transport)

or offering medical care to confirmed or suspected

**

COVID-19 cases (see CDC infection control guidelines)







Staff present during a procedure on a confirmed

or suspected COVID-19 case that may generate respiratory aerosols (see CDC infection control



–







guidelines)

Staff handling laundry or used food service items from a COVID-19 case or case contact

–

–

–





Staff cleaning an area where a COVID-19 case has

Additional PPE may be needed based on

spent time

the product label. See CDC guidelines for





more details.

* If a facility chooses to routinely quarantine all new intakes (without symptoms or known exposure to a COVID-19 case) before integrating into the facility’s general population, face masks are not necessary.
** A NIOSH-approved N95 is preferred. However, based on local and regional situational analysis of PPE supplies, face masks are an acceptable alternative when the supply chain of respirators cannot meet the demand. During this time, available respirators should be prioritized for procedures that are likely to generate respiratory aerosols, which would pose the highest exposure risk to staff.

25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-4 Filed 04/02/20 Page 27 of 27
Verbal Screening and Temperature Check Protocols for Incarcerated/Detained Persons, Staff, and Visitors
The guidance above recommends verbal screening and temperature checks for incarcerated/detained persons, staff, volunteers, and visitors who enter correctional and detention facilities, as well as incarcerated/detained persons who are transferred to another facility or released from custody. Below, verbal screening questions for COVID-19 symptoms and contact with known cases, and a safe temperature check procedure are detailed. √ Verbal screening for symptoms of COVID-19 and contact with COVID-19 cases should include
the following questions: ο Today or in the past 24 hours, have you had any of the following symptoms?  Fever, felt feverish, or had chills?  Cough?  Difficulty breathing? ο In the past 14 days, have you had contact with a person known to be infected with the novel coronavirus (COVID-19)?
√ The following is a protocol to safely check an individual’s temperature: ο Perform hand hygiene ο Put on a face mask, eye protection (goggles or disposable face shield that fully covers the front and sides of the face), gown/coveralls, and a single pair of disposable gloves ο Check individual’s temperature ο If performing a temperature check on multiple individuals, ensure that a clean pair of gloves is used for each individual and that the thermometer has been thoroughly cleaned in between each check. If disposable or non-contact thermometers are used and the screener did not have physical contact with an individual, gloves do not need to be changed before the next check. If non-contact thermometers are used, they should be cleaned routinely as recommended by CDC for infection control. ο Remove and discard PPE ο Perform hand hygiene
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT C

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 3
Fraternal Order of Police
Department of Corrections Labor Committee 711 4TH Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20001
ANNOUNCEMENT TO DOC/FOP MEMBERS MARCH 23, 2020
These are grave times at the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC). There is no question that dire threats face our workforce. The Executive Board of the Fraternal Order of Police/Department of Corrections Labor Committee’s (FOP/DOC LC) is committed to supporting and protecting the Union’s membership, and is doing all that it can to do so. We all know we face serious threats both inside and outside of the DOC facilities. There is no question that each one of us puts our lives and our livelihoods on the line every time we report to work and man our post or take our seat at our desk.
We know your health and safety is at risk every day, and we want you to know it is our TOP priority to tackle the critical issues we all face with speed and effectiveness!!
In keeping with our priorities, this serves as official notice of three crucial actions the FOP DOC LC’s Executive Board is taking to protect the membership.
COVID-19—DOC has not provided its employees a valid action plan in response to COVID-19. We hear more every day about the virus, yet the DOC has done very little to support the frontline officers and staff against COVID-19. The DOC’s public website about COVID-19 has not been updated since at least March 14, 2020. Our attorneys sent a Request for Information on March 19, 2020, asking if the DOC had done what it promised to protect our members, and what future steps would be taken. No answer has been received as of March 23, 2020. DOC management has canceled our labor/management meetings at this critical time. Our attorneys also made the DOC aware of several violations they committed in the “quarantine” order DOC Management issued and had executed on March 19, 2020. This action led to a “No Confidence” vote by the Board. The DOC is up against its deadline to respond to that letter. We continue to work on getting that information to hold DOC Management accountable.
Officer Assault—One of our officers was viciously assaulted on March 13, 2020 by an inmate. DOC Management’s response to this was to issue disciplinary action against two fellow officers, who responded as they should have to save the life of the assaulted officer. Due to DOC Management’s incompetent presentation of the case to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, no charges were made against the inmate for the unprovoked attack on our officer!!

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 3
We have instructed the HANNON LAW GROUP to investigate the incident, and we are confident they will do so fully. We anticipate that as a result of their efforts, HANNON LAW GROUP will re-present the case to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for proper prosecution of the inmate. Mr. J. Michael Hannon is a former Assistant United States Attorney.
We are also contesting the removal of the officers who came to the aid of our colleague.
National FOP—We are working with the DC Lodge #1 Leadership and National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) organization to advocate on YOUR behalf! We have made them aware of the failure of the DOC Management team to:
• ensure that proper protocols are followed with both staff, inmates and visitors at all DOC facilities;
• work with the Union on solutions as the COVID-19 situation evolves, and • provide a safe working environment; and • offer the proper equipment to ensure that the staff, inmates and visitors are
protected.
We expect to present to the DOC our own set of protocols based on national standards being followed by other correctional institutions. If those protocols are not adopted, our members cannot work safely at the D.C. Jail.
We are prepared to take every action necessary to protect you and your family. We are prepared to escalate these issues as far as they need to go to obtain the attention of our citizens, the Mayor, and the courts if necessary.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-6 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT D

3/23/2020

CaseHa1n:n2on0L-cawv-G0ro0u8p 4M9ai-l C- FKwdK: ReDquoesct ufomr Inefonrmt a2ti3on-6on PFoteilnetidally0D4a/n0g2er/o2u0s ConPdaitigones a2t thoefD8OC Facilities
J. Michael Hannon <jhannon@hannonlawgroup.com>

Fwd: Request for Information on Potentially Dangerous Conditions at the DOC Facilities
1 message

Ann-Kathryn So <akso@hannonlawgroup.com>

Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:53 PM

To: "J. Michael Hannon" <jhannon@hannonlawgroup.com>

Here is his response to my first email. I have heard nothing about the second.

---------- Forwarded message --------From: Glover, Eric (DOC) <eric.glover@dc.gov> Date: Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:16 AM Subject: RE: Request for Information on Potentially Dangerous Conditions at the DOC Facilities To: Ann-Kathryn So <akso@hannonlawgroup.com>, Johnson, Paulette (DOC) <paulette.johnson@dc.gov> Cc: Olubasusi, Benjamin R. (DOC) <benjamin.olubasusi@dc.gov>

Ms. So:
Thank you for contacting the District of Columbia Department of Corrections. DOC is preparing a response to your inquires and will contact you as soon as possible.
Regards,
Eric S. Glover General Counsel District of Columbia Department of Corrections 2000 14th Street, N.W. Seventh Floor
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=7a2ff56da2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1661605089874768569%7Cmsg-f%3A16619858531817… 1/7

3/23/2020

CaseHa1n:n2on0L-cawv-G0ro0u8p 4M9ai-l C- FKwdK: ReDquoesct ufomr Inefonrmt a2ti3on-6on PFoteilnetidally0D4a/n0g2er/o2u0s ConPdaitigones a3t thoefD8OC Facilities

Washington, D.C. 20009

Phone: (202) 671-0088

Office Cell: (202) 286-8736

Fax: (202) 671-2514

Confidentiality Notice: This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete all copies of the message.
Metadata: This email transmission and any accompanying material may contain embedded metadata. Any included metadata is confidential or privileged information and is not intended to be viewed by a non-client recipient.
From: Ann-Kathryn So [mailto:akso@hannonlawgroup.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 11:00 AM To: Glover, Eric (DOC) <eric.glover@dc.gov>; Johnson, Paule e (DOC) <paulette.johnson@dc.gov> Cc: Olubasusi, Benjamin R. (DOC) <benjamin.olubasusi@dc.gov> Subject: Request for Informa on on Poten ally Dangerous Condi ons at the DOC Facili es
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the DC Government. Do not click on links or open a achments unless you recognize the sender and know that the content is safe. If you believe that this email is suspicious, please forward to phishing@dc.gov for addi onal analysis by OCTO Security Opera ons Center (SOC).
Good morning,

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=7a2ff56da2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1661605089874768569%7Cmsg-f%3A16619858531817… 2/7

3/23/2020

CaseHa1n:n2on0L-cawv-G0ro0u8p 4M9ai-l C- FKwdK: ReDquoesct ufomr Inefonrmt a2ti3on-6on PFoteilnetidally0D4a/n0g2er/o2u0s ConPdaitigones a4t thoefD8OC Facilities

In light of the ever-changing landscape with respect to the pandemic, we would like to

ensure that the Agency is doing everything it can to keep the staff, residents, and visitors

as safe as possible from COVID-19. Swift effective action is critical as the numbers of

suspected and confirmed cases rise exponentially. This is especially true for DOC staff

members, who have regular contact with the inmate population. They must be

protected!

The DOC has publicized a number of measures it has or will be taking. Please confirm the following DOC efforts:

· Have all in-person visits, programming and volunteer activities at all Agency facilities in fact been suspended?
· Have DOC officials established Incident Command Team? Who is on that team? Are any members of the Union on that team?
· Is the Medical Staff meeting with each housing unit and officer roll call? Please provide details as to time, place and frequency of the meetings that the Medical Staff is holding.
· What is the Agency's strategic communications plan with regard to COVID19, and how has it been communicated to the staff? Is it updated and communicated regularly as this situation evolves? The last update on the DOC web page is dated March 14, 2020.
· What does "enhanced cleaning efforts" mean? Have those “enhanced cleaning efforts” been implemented, especially within common areas? How often is this level of cleaning being done?
· The Agency promised to order additional cleaning and sanitation supplies, including protective gloves, masks and clothing for staff. No information was provided about dispensing these items. Have these items been received and distributed? Are there any supplies you need that you do not have? Have sanitizing wipes been provided by the Agency? Is the staff permitted to bring personal sanitation material, other than wipes? Are inmates being provided safety materials that the staff is not?
· Was there a two-hour cleaning of the entire facility? How many times has this happened? Is this occurring daily/regularly?
· Please describe the Agency's efforts in partnering and/or sharing information with criminal justice partners?
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=7a2ff56da2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1661605089874768569%7Cmsg-f%3A16619858531817… 3/7

3/23/2020

CaseHa1n:n2on0L-cawv-G0ro0u8p 4M9ai-l C- FKwdK: ReDquoesct ufomr Inefonrmt a2ti3on-6on PFoteilnetidally0D4a/n0g2er/o2u0s ConPdaitigones a5t thoefD8OC Facilities
· Are daily updates continuing to be sent via emails to the staff regarding COVID-19? Can you please make those available?

Most notable in the Agency’s public response to COVID-19 is that there is nothing that addresses the procedures for the screening, quarantine and/or treatment of staff, inmates and/or anyone who comes into contact with either or both. Can you provide detailed information as to what those procedures are? Specifically:

· Have the DOC employees (officers and medical staff) been provided appropriate protective devices/material/training? Are staff members knowledgeable on and adequately equipped to prevent transmission, minimize spread and protect themselves and the inmate population from contacting COVID-19?
· Is the DOC working in close connection with the DC Department of Health? What medical support does the Agency have specifically for the virus?
· Are all incoming inmates, staff and other individuals with access to the DOC facilities questioned as to their level of risk?
· What is the procedure for processing all new inmates to the facilities?
· What is the procedure for assessing the risk to existing inmates?
· What testing is being offered to confirm a diagnosis of COVID-19?
· What procedures are in place if an inmate is symptomatic?
· What procedures are in place if an inmate tests positive?
· What procedures are in place for quarantines?
· Are there any of the following:
· Asymptomatic inmates currently housed at any of the facilities who are at high-risk for contracting COVID-19?
· Symptomatic inmates currently housed at any of the facilities? If so, what actions are being taken with regard to those individuals?
· Inmates currently housed at any of the facilities who have tested positive for COVID-19?
· What is being done to track any inmates, visitors, staff, or other individuals with access to any of the facilities who have been at any DOC facility within the
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=7a2ff56da2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1661605089874768569%7Cmsg-f%3A16619858531817… 4/7

3/23/2020

CaseHa1n:n2on0L-cawv-G0ro0u8p 4M9ai-l C- FKwdK: ReDquoesct ufomr Inefonrmt a2ti3on-6on PFoteilnetidally0D4a/n0g2er/o2u0s ConPdaitigones a6t thoefD8OC Facilities
past two weeks, including any individuals who were held and released or transferred?
· What is the impact of the Agency’s response to the Mayor's Order 2020048: Prohibition on Mass Gatherings During Public Health Emergency Coronavirus (COVID-19)?

Of a most critical nature, it has come to our attention that there may be one or more inmates currently housed within DOC facilities who are either symptomatic and/or tested positive for COVID-19. Please confirm if the Agency is aware of anyone housed at or with access to any of their facilities who either is symptomatic or has tested positive for COVID-19, and, if so, what actions have been taken and will be taken in response. Is the Agency following the CDC’s Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings or similar guidelines? Please provide the Union's Executive Management with your detailed emergency action plan.

Without question, this pandemic is a health and safety crisis. The District of Columbia has been in the forefront of a proactive response, and that must extend to the DOC. The entire DOC population is at higher risk than the general public, and every precaution and safety measure must be taken. It is the Union’s priority to protect the staff, and it will take actions necessary to do so.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. V/R, Ann

--

Ann-Kathryn So HANNON LAW GROUP, LLP 333 8th Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 (202) 745-6888, Direct (202) 232-3704, Facsimile
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=7a2ff56da2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1661605089874768569%7Cmsg-f%3A16619858531817… 5/7

3/23/2020

CaseHa1n:n2on0L-cawv-G0ro0u8p 4M9ai-l C- FKwdK: ReDquoesct ufomr Inefonrmt a2ti3on-6on PFoteilnetidally0D4a/n0g2er/o2u0s ConPdaitigones a7t thoefD8OC Facilities

The informa on contained in this e-mail is intended only for the personal and conﬁden al use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an a orney-client communica on and as such is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby no ﬁed that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemina on, distribu on, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communica on in error, please no fy us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
The informa on contained in this e-mail is intended only for the personal and conﬁden al use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an a orney-client communica on and as such is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby no ﬁed that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemina on, distribu on, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communica on in error, please no fy us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
For the latest information on the District Government’s response to COVID-19 (Coronavirus), please visit coronavirus.dc.gov.
--
Ann-Kathryn So HANNON LAW GROUP, LLP 333 8th Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 (202) 745-6888, Direct (202) 232-3704, Facsimile
The informa on contained in this e-mail is intended only for the personal and conﬁden al use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an a orney-client communica on and as such is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby no ﬁed that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemina on, distribu on, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communica on in error, please no fy us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
The informa on contained in this e-mail is intended only for the personal and conﬁden al use of the recipient(s) named above. This message
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=7a2ff56da2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1661605089874768569%7Cmsg-f%3A16619858531817… 6/7

3/23/2020

CaseHa1n:n2on0L-cawv-G0ro0u8p 4M9ai-l C- FKwdK: ReDquoesct ufomr Inefonrmt a2ti3on-6on PFoteilnetidally0D4a/n0g2er/o2u0s ConPdaitigones a8t thoefD8OC Facilities

may be an a orney-client communica on and as such is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. If the reader of this message is not the intended

recipient, you are hereby no ﬁed that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemina on, distribu on, or copying of

this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communica on in error, please no fy us immediately by e-mail and delete the

original message.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=7a2ff56da2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1661605089874768569%7Cmsg-f%3A16619858531817… 7/7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-7 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT E

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-7 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 6

J. MICHAEL HANNON * DANIEL S. CROWLEY *†‡
PARTNERS
ANN-KATHRYN SO § TALON R. HURST *§ ERIK H. FAWCETT || DAVIS C. RAJTIK †
ASSOCIATES

HANNON LAW GROUP, LLP COUNSELORS AND ATTORNEYS AT LAW
333 8TH STREET NE WASHINGTON, DC 20002
EST. MARCH 17, 2006
T (202) 232-1907  F (202) 232-3704 www.hannonlawgroup.com
March 25, 2020

WILLIAM CLAYTON BATCHELOR *† OF COUNSEL
* ALSO ADMITTED IN MARYLAND † ALSO ADMITTED IN VIRGINIA ‡ ALSO ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS §ALSO ADMITTED IN NEW JERSEY || ADMITTED IN MARYLAND ONLY; UNDER SUPERVISION OF J. MICHAEL HANNON

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ONLY

Quincy L. Booth Office of the Director D.C. Department of Corrections

IMPLEMENTATION OF MAYOR’S ORDERS ON COVID-19

We present this letter on behalf of the bargaining unit for all D.C. Jail corrections officers, the Fraternal Order of Police Department of Corrections Labor Committee.

INTRODUCTION

Today the Mayor announced the number of positive COVID-19 infected persons in the District of Columbia increased by 46 new cases to a total of 183. Notably, of the new cases 13 are in their 20s, 12 are in their 30s, and only 7 are over the age of 60. The Mayor’s update also reports the following:

With ongoing community transmission, contact tracing is focused on positive cases associated with childcare facilities, schools and universities, healthcare facilities, senior care facilities, correctional and detention centers, and facilities serving individuals who are experiencing homelessness. Guidance will be published for healthcare providers, employers and the public to provide information on what to do if you have been diagnosed with or are a contact of someone who has COVID-19.

On March 19, our office sent an email to DOC regarding the quarantine of 50 inmates who came in contact with an infected U.S. Marshal at the Courthouse. (Attachment A). We received no response.

On the same date March 19, we sent a “Request for Information on Potentially Dangerous Conditions at the DOC Facilities” to DOC’s General Counsel and to its HR Director. (Attachment B). The next morning, DOC’s General Counsel responded: “DOC is preparing a response to your inquires and will contact you as soon as possible.” We have received no response.

On March 23, 2020, the FOP/DOC Labor Committee delivered to the DOC leadership and posted throughout the D.C. Jail an Announcement regarding critical actions to be addressed

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-7 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 6
Page 2 of 5 March 25, 2020 Booth, Quincy L.
by the Labor Committee regarding COVID-19, as well as the failure to prosecute an inmate for the brutal beating of a corrections officer. (Attachment C).
Instead of communicating with the Union as requested on March 19, 2020, you issued a notice on the same date of March 23, announced at every roll call, falsely stating: “It has come to the agency's attention that employees of the DOC intend to engage in either a walkout and/or protest on the grounds of the DOC.” Rather than communicating honestly with the Union on these critical conditions of work, you threatened the corrections officers with discipline. This action was clearly in retaliation for the Union presenting legitimate concerns about your failure to implement protections for inmates and corrections officers. This is not only an unfair labor practice and a prohibited personnel practice, but also a violation of the District of Columbia Whistleblower Reinforcement Act of 1998.
In the afternoon of yesterday, March 24, you summoned the FOP/DOC Labor Committee President Cpl. Benjamin Olubasusi to your office at the Reeves Center. Without notice to HANNON LAW GROUP, you put Deputy Mayor Kevin Donahue and Mayor Bowser on your speaker phone. The Mayor then falsely warned Cpl. Olubasusi that it is a “crime” for D.C. corrections officers “to walk out of the Jail.” You asked Cpl. Olubasusi what the Union wants, as if our communications over the past 5 days were never read.
Also yesterday afternoon, HANNON LAW GROUP participated in a National Conference Call sponsored by the National Fraternal Order of Police on COVID-19. Speakers on the call included high-ranking experts from the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, and the White House, as well as FOP State Representatives from all 50 states. The purpose of the call is to implement protocols for law enforcement officers and corrections officers nationwide. Highlights from the call are the following:
Increasing infections will reduce the number of officers on duty.
Loss of officers on duty will increase the work load on the uninfected officers.
The resultant lack of officers will lead to additional crime and risk in the corrections system.
PPE equipment is not being provided to officers nationwide.
Because “social distancing” is impossible in law enforcement, the infection rate among officers will be higher than the general population.
Coordination and Communication between and among political leaders and officers is the most important criteria to meet this challenge.
State health departments, which are in control of the distribution of PPE, must make law enforcement and corrections officers a priority group for receipt of PPE and education.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-7 Filed 04/02/20 Page 4 of 6
Page 3 of 5 March 25, 2020 Booth, Quincy L.
CONDITIONS AT THE D.C. JAIL
The FOP/DOC Labor Committee, its Shop Stewards, and its members walk the line in the D.C. Jail 24/7. You, Director Booth, are miles away at the Reeves Center, and your administrative staff remain behind glass walls and doors in the administrative section of the D.C. Jail, all in splendid isolation from the inmate population, with regular disinfection teams in gowns, gloves and masks. Here is the report of our members on conditions at the Jail:
1. There is no Communication and Coordination between DOC leaders and the FOP/DOC Labor Committee. Labor/Management meetings are repeatedly cancelled, including one meeting scheduled during this critical time period.
2. Inmates coming into the Jail are not screened for symptoms of COVID-19.
3. Corrections Officers receiving and discharging inmates have no PPE; however, they must have direct contact with these inmates.
4. Inmates continue to move within the Jail. Those inmates in the four restricted housing units must be escorted by hand by corrections officers without any PPE. Inmates in non-restricted housing units travel alone through the Jail as required for appointments. At latest count, there were 1,149 inmates in the Central Detention Facility and 509 in the Correctional Treatment Facility.
5. The corrections officers assigned to housing units have no masks, insufficient gloves, no gowns, no disinfectants, and no comprehensive cleaning occurs on a regular basis in these units. In each unit, one corrections officer is required to be out among the inmates at all times, without any protection.
6. Inmates are not required to engage in any of the behaviors which the Mayor recommends for the general population, such as “social distancing”, repeated hand-washing, and health monitoring.
7. Case workers must meet with inmates in small offices with no PPE or other distancing measures.
8. Inmates continue to engage in recreation in a common yard, also without social distancing or other protections from the spread of COVID-19.
9. Corrections officers enter the Jail three shifts a day. There is no distancing at entrances, no distancing at roll calls, no attempt to obtain or record health concerns of each officer.
10. When the D.C. Jail was forced to quarantine 65 inmates who were at risk to exposure to COVID-19 when they were at court, an ERT was designated to remove them from the general population to a “quarantine” housing unit. The

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-7 Filed 04/02/20 Page 5 of 6 Page 4 of 5 March 25, 2020 Booth, Quincy L.
ERT members refused the assignment without provision of gowns and other appropriate PPE protection. They were ordered to remove the inmates with only masks and gloves. During the extraction, one of the members was spit upon by an inmate. Sgt. Alexander and Sgt. Graham were then removed from the ERT team and assigned to another post outside the Jail.
11. These inmates were not “quarantined” in any meaningful manner. They were housed two to a cell, and the corrections officers on the unit were not provided with any PPE or other means for protection against infections.
WHAT DO WE WANT?
Both you and the Mayor asked Cpl. Olubasusi “What do you want?” While this crisis should not be a time of legal technicalities, we choose to view this as a willingness by management to bargain over the terms and conditions of employment of our officers. The following is an enumeration of our requests. This list, as we all know, is subject to change as the pandemic changes.
1. A Daily Meeting among the Labor Committee, its Shop Stewards, its counsel and the DOC Director, Deputy Director, and its counsel to discuss conditions and responses to COVID-19;
2. A COVID-19 Protocol for officers and inmates including the following:
Restricted movement of inmates
Distancing among inmates/inmates, officers/officers, and officers/inmates
Incident Reporting of officers and inmates’ symptoms of illness
3. Regular Disinfection of the CDF and CTF
4. Priority for PPE for officers
5. Discontinuation of inmate transport for court appearances
6. 14-day Quarantine for new inmates
7. Establish a quarantine unit
8. Establish an on-site testing unit for those meeting CDC test criteria, including persons living in the household of a corrections officer
9. Treat COVID-19 among officers as duty-connected

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-7 Filed 04/02/20 Page 6 of 6
Page 5 of 5 March 25, 2020 Booth, Quincy L.
In addition, we require production of all videotape and investigative reports of the assault on Officer Sulaimon T. Abiola so that we may investigate the assault and present it to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for prosecution. Corporal Ayodeji Falade, Officer Olumide Popoola, Officer John Lewis, Officer Rahsard Roberts, Officer Abdou Alaguitouni and Corporal Damian Barnes and any other suspended officers must be returned to work pending your investigation into the assault.
CONCLUSION
We agree with Mayor Bowser’s sentiment that these are difficult times, and we should all be pulling on the same rope. However, cooperation is a two-way street. We note with a great deal of concern that at today’s news conference, the Mayor stated that corrections officers do not require PPE because they do not provide medical care.
The District of Columbia cannot treat its corrections officers as chattel. Already, the life expectancy among corrections officers nationwide is among the lowest in law enforcement.
Thank you for your courtesies.
Sincerely,
s/ J. Michael Hannon
J. Michael Hannon

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-8 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT F

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-8 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 5
Fraternal Order of Police
Department of Corrections Labor Committee 711 4TH Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20001
MANDATORY CDC COVID-19 PROTOCOL MARCH 28, 2020
Introduction
The Department of Corrections and the Office of the Mayor have refused our repeated requests for communication regarding implementation of the CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL’s COVID-19 Protocol for Corrections Facilities. HANNON LAW GROUP, therefore, at the Board’s direction has participated in nationwide conferences to ascertain the appropriate COVID-19 Protocol for our members.
The following Protocol is based on CDC’s “Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities,” copies of which will soon be distributed throughout the CDF and CTF. HANNON LAW GROUP participated in a national conference on this topic sponsored by the National Fraternal Order of Police on March 24. HANNON LAW GROUP then participated in a national conference on this topic sponsored by the CDC on March 27.
These Protocols are Mandatory
These Protocols are based on guidance from the CDC as well as the Department of Homeland Security. The President’s program of protection is also echoed by Orders issued by the Mayor of the District of Columbia. Therefore, any member who complies with these Protocols is following the directive of both the United States and the District of Columbia.
If you are ordered to violate any one of these Protocols by a supervisor, or if you are uncomfortable in the performance of your duties based on concern for exposure to symptomatic inmates or Members, immediately contact a Union Labor Committee Officer or Shop Steward who will come to your location. Should any disciplinary action be taken against you, the Union will provide you with representation through HANNON LAW GROUP.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-8 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 5
Entrance to the Facilities
1. Distancing: Members must maintain more than 6’ distance from any other person once arriving at the parking lot and throughout the shift, unless provided with appropriate PPE.
2. Members entering may bring personal protective gloves, eye protection, personal disinfectant, paper or N95 masks, and gowns if they have them. They should be placed in your clear carrying bag.
3. Members entering should not wear clothing over the uniform to facilitate visual search by the Members assigned to the entrance.
4. Members assigned to the entrance may not conduct a hand or wand search of an arriving Member if the assigned Member is not provided with a mask, gloves and gown.
5. Members entering must complete a COVID-19 report form and provide it to the Member posted at the entrance. If no medical staff is at the entrance to take the temperature of the entering Member, that Member must not enter the Jail.
6. Any Member who does not qualify for entrance based on answers to the COVID-19 report form must return home for 14-day self-quarantine. If a quarantined Member is not contacted by a DOC or DC medical professional within 3 days of returning home, that Member must contact an officer of the Labor Committee.
Working in Housing Units
1. Members should not accept assignment to a Housing Unit unless hand disinfectant, face masks, gloves, and disinfectant wipes are available in the bubble.
2. Members will not leave the bubble when inmates are on the floor of the unit. This means that 30-minute security checks will not take place during the time that inmates are on the floor.
3. Members may conduct security checks without PPE when inmates are in their cells.
4. Members may not deliver food trays to inmate cells without being provided face masks and gloves.
5. Members must routinely clean all surfaces in the bubble during their shift.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-8 Filed 04/02/20 Page 4 of 5
6. Case Managers may not report to their offices if face masks, gloves, hand disinfectant, and cleaning disinfectant is not available in the office.
7. Case Managers may not meet with inmates in their offices unless the inmate is provided and wears a face mask and gloves.
8. Case Managers must disinfect surfaces in the office before and after meeting with each inmate.
9. If a Member observes that the Housing Unit is not properly cleaned and disinfected, the Member should contact a supervisor and an Officer of the Labor Committee or Shop Steward.
Working in Quarantine Units
Members must not accept a post in a Quarantine Unit unless provided with an N95 or equivalent face mask, eye protection, gloves, gown, hand disinfectant, and cleaning disinfectant.
Working in Restricted Movement Housing Units
1. The protocol for working in a Housing Unit must be followed.
2. A Member may not escort an inmate without being provided with a face mask, eye protection, and gloves.
All Transportation Personnel
1. Members assigned to any form of inmate transport requiring contact with inmates may not report to post if not provided with face mask, gloves, hand disinfectant, cleaning wipes, and eye protection.
2. Members concerned that the vehicle has not been disinfected should request disinfectant of the vehicle from a supervisor and contact an Officer of the Labor Committee or Shop Steward, if not provided.
Other Posts
1. Members at any other post must engage in distancing.
2. No member may be required to contact an inmate unless provided with appropriate PPE, depending on whether the inmate is in general population (face mask, eye protection and gloves) or quarantined (face mask, eye protection, gloves and gown).
3. No Member may be required to escort or guard an inmate outside the Jail who is symptomatic or positive for COVID-19.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-8 Filed 04/02/20 Page 5 of 5 4. Any Member required to escort or guard an inmate outside the Jail who is
not infected or symptomatic must be provided with face mask, eye protection and gloves. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE DOC LABOR COMMITTEE Cpl. Benjamin Olubasusi (202) 699-2198 Cpl. Arnold Hudson (202) 445-4051 Sgt. Jannease Johnson (202) 436-1952 Cpl. Laurrine Ellis Cpl. Naomi Namata (202) 615-4889 HANNON LAW GROUP: info@hannonlawgroup.com
Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-9 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 3
Fraternal Order of Police
Department of Corrections Labor Committee 711 4TH Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20001
PRESS RELEASE MARCH 29, 2020
Today we learned that the 50-year-old wife of one of our corrections officers, a 29-year veteran, is infected with COVID-19. She is hospitalized in serious condition. Her husband, our officer and friend, has been tested for COVID-19, but his results are not available. We also learned that two inmates most recently testing positive at the Jail for COVID-19 are among the 65 inmates who were quarantined after exposure to a COVID positive U.S. Marshal at Superior Court. That quarantine lasted for only two days, when DOC’s Public Information Officer Keena Blackman announced that the quarantine was being lifted without any of those inmates being tested. The reason given by Dr. Blackman follows:
After sending out yesterday’s Open Letter we learned through the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the DC Department of Health (DC Health) full investigation into the U.S. Marshal’s contact tracing that none of the DOC residents were in contact with the individual. The quarantine has been lifted.
Our conclusion from this is that the “tracing” and “investigations” conducted by the DOC, by United Health at the D.C. Jail, and by the DC Department of Health are ineffective.
The FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE LABOR COMMITTEE for the D.C. Department of Corrections (FOP/DOC) is issuing this Press Release to correct and supplement information issued by various organizations regarding conditions at the D.C. Jail, namely: the Executive Office of the Mayor, the Department of Corrections, Deputy Mayor Kevin Donahue, Councilmember and Chair of the Public Safety Committee Charles Allen, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and various media.
Since early March, FOP/DOC and its counsel HANNON LAW GROUP have attempted to engage in a dialogue with the leadership at the D.C. Jail, with the Mayor, and with the City Council to assist in the management of the COVID-19 crisis at the Jail. Our efforts have been rejected. DOC long ago ceased its regular labor/management meetings.
Our conclusion is two-fold: (1) the City does not have the resources to combat COVID-19, and the Jail is the lowest priority among the health and safety community;
1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-9 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 3
and, (2) the City wants to keep the truth from the public. The Mayor said as much at a recent press conference when she announced that corrections officers will not be provided with protective equipment because the officers do not provide medical care.
The Public Defender Service is correct that DOC is not following the “Guidance on Management of COVID-19 at Correctional and Detention Facilities”, issued and updated regularly by the Center for Disease Control. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) recommended by CDC is not present at the Jail for corrections officers or is in short supply and hoarded by supervisors under lock and key. Cleaning and disinfection of the Housing Units is inadequately performed by inmates, and the Department of Health has not conducted inspections of the Housing Units to our knowledge.
In the meantime, the administrative wing of the Jail, occupied by only a handful of DOC leadership, is disinfected daily by a team of workers in full protective clothing. The Director of the Jail, Quincy Booth, and his leadership staff actually do not even work at the Jail. They are at the Reeves Center in splendid isolation from the inmates, issuing directives to officers through texts and email.
DOC misleads the public in its reporting of positive cases of COVID-19 among inmates. Testing is inadequate at the D.C. Jail. Inmates are only tested when it is too late to protect other inmates, and the results take almost 6 hours. No testing is available for corrections officers. Any correction officer exposed to COVID-19 or with symptoms is sent home for 14-day self-quarantine. These officers and their family members are unable to obtain testing while on quarantine without going to a hospital with testing. More importantly, the DOC is not addressing the obvious: the rate of quarantine of corrections officers working in the Central Treatment Facility is already approximately 25% in the past 5 days and will increase significantly today after the announcement of two infected inmates in CTF. Already officers assigned to the Central Detention Facility are being re-assigned to CTF due to the number of CTF officers on quarantine. Soon the Jail will have no corrections officers.
Because COVID-19 testing in the Jail is only being used as a diagnostic tool, the rate of infection does not reflect the true level of infection at the Jail. The spread of all illnesses in a Jail population dramatically exceeds that in the general population. D.C.’s own statistics for newly infected persons show that almost a third of the 342 infected persons are in their 20s and 30s. Any expert in public health will tell you that there are untested COVID-19 infected inmates and infected corrections officers in the Jail today.
Yesterday, FOP/DOC unilaterally implemented its own Protocol for corrections officers and other members working at the Jail. In essence, because of the lack of PPE and other prophylactic cleaning measures, corrections officers will “shelter in place” in self-contained structures in the Jail called “bubbles.” Corrections officers will not leave the bubble for contact work with inmates unless provided with the appropriate PPE. This includes conducting security checks while inmates are on the floor and delivering meals to cells.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-9 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 3 FOP/DOC recognizes this is a crisis, and it is not unfair to say that the corrections officers who continue to report to work are doing so because of our leadership. However, the first principle for addressing this crisis – as emphasized by the CDC and the Department of Homeland Security with whom we are in consultation – is COMMUNICATION. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE DOC LABOR COMMITTEE Cpl. Benjamin Olubasusi- Chairman Cpl. Arnold Hudson Sr. Vice Chairman Sgt. Jannease Johnson- Executive Secretary Cpl. Laurrine Ellis - Recording Secretary Cpl. Naomi Namata - Treasurer FOR INFORMATION: J. Michael Hannon, jhannon@hannonlawgroup.com
Ann-Kathryn So, akso@hannonlawgroup.com Cpl. Benjamin Olubasusi, Benjamin.Olubasusi@dc.gov
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-10 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT H

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-10 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 2
Fraternal Order of Police
Department of Corrections Labor Committee 711 4TH Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20001
FOP/DOC TO HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE*
8:30 A.M. WEDNESDAY APRIL 1, 2020
PARKING LOT OUTSIDE THE D.C. JAIL 1901 D St SE, Washington, DC 20003
Members and Shop Stewards of the FOP/DOC Labor Committee along with their General Counsel, J. Michael Hannon, will speak and answer questions.
FOP/DOC will also be announcing its decision to participate in the lawsuit brought against the D.C. Jail by the Public Defender Service and the ACLU. Media unable to attend in person may participate by registering tomorrow with Zoom:
https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_8pqgrjgbSxK0zRaQgPz6oA
* In response to the increasing requests for information from the media and citizens.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 21
EXHIBIT I

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs-Petitioners,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants-Respondents.

: : : : : No. 1:20-cv-849 : : : :

DECLARATIONS OF J. MICHAEL HANNON, ESQ. AND FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE /DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LABOR COMMITTEE
On this 2nd day of April, 2020, I, J. Michael Hannon, Esq., do hereby declare: 1. I am the founding partner at HANNON LAW GROUP, LLP, which represents Fraternal Order of Police/Department of Corrections (“FOP/DOC LC”) in their Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae brief filed in the above captioned case. 2. My firm, HANNON LAW GROUP, LLP, has served as Legal Counsel for the FOP/DOC LC from 2006 through the present in a variety of matters. 3. I submit this declaration in support of the FOP/DOC/LC’s Amicus Curiae brief. Educational Background and Professional Experience of J. Michael Hannon 4. After earning my Bachelor of Arts degree from Princeton University in 1972, I attended graduate school at the University of Michigan, where I earned a Masters in American Studies in 1976. I then earned my Juris Doctor degree from The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law in 1980. 5. I was admitted to the Bar of the District of Columbia in 1981 and the Bar of Maryland in 1982. I am also admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 21
Claims, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, United States District Court for Maryland, and U.S. District Court for Colorado.
6. From 1980 to 1981, I served as Law Clerk to the Honorable Frank Q. Nebeker of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
7. From 1981 to 1988, I served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia where I investigated and prosecuted violent and white-collar offenders. From 1983 to 1985, I was responsible for the investigation and prosecution of homicide and sex offense cases in the Superior Court. I was promoted to the Special Prosecutions Section where I investigated and prosecuted racketeering, international fraud, and terrorism cases in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
8. In 1988, I entered private practice as a Partner at the law firm Thompson O’Donnell, LLP, where I practiced for 18 years. During that time, I argued the first appeal before the United States Supreme Court from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in October of 1994. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of my veteran client, overturning a 70-year practice by the Department of Veterans Affairs of denying compensation to medically injured veterans. See Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (1994).
9. I founded HANNON LAW GROUP, LLP, in May of 2006, to expand the range of legal resources available to my clients.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 4 of 21
10. I have participated in over 200 jury trials, bench trials, arbitrations, mediations, and other forms of litigation.
11. On March 27, 2020, I attended a national virtual conference hosted by the Department of Homeland Security and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on the proper protocols for correctional facilities and personnel. The written guidelines are attached as Exhibit B to our Amicus brief.
12. Pursuant to these guidelines and in the absence of any guidance for inmates and staff with regard to modifying operations in the face of COVID-19, the FOP/DOC LC and their counsel developed a COVID-19 protocol in compliance with CDC guidelines on March 28, 2020.
13. The protocol included the following requirements: a. All individuals in the facility must maintain more than 6’ distance from any other person (for staff-once arriving at the parking lot and throughout the shift and for inmates throughout the facility), unless provided with appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). b. Physical searches of another person must not be conducted without the use of a mask, gloves, and if appropriate, gown. c. Upon reporting for duty at any DOC facility entrance, Union members must complete a COVID-19 report form and provide it to the Member posted at the entrance who is conducting the temperature check. If no medical staff is at
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 5 of 21
the entrance to take the temperature of the entering Member, that Member must not enter the Jail. d. Members should not accept assignment to a Housing Unit unless hand disinfectant, face masks, gloves, and disinfectant wipes are available in the bubble. e. Members will not leave the bubble when inmates are on the floor of the unit. This means that 30-minute security checks will not take place during the time that inmates are on the floor. f. Members may conduct security checks without PPE when inmates are in their cells. g. Members may not deliver food trays to inmate cells without being provided face masks and gloves. h. Members must routinely clean all surfaces in the bubble during their shift. i. Case Managers may not report to their offices if face masks, gloves, hand disinfectant, and cleaning disinfectant is not available in the office. j. Case Managers may not meet with inmates in their offices unless the inmate is provided and wears a face mask and gloves. k. Case Managers must disinfect surfaces in the office before and after meeting with each inmate.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 6 of 21
l. If a Member observes that the Housing Unit is not properly cleaned and disinfected, the Member should contact a supervisor and an Officer of the Labor Committee or Shop Steward.
m. Members must not accept a post in a Quarantine Unit unless provided with an N95 or equivalent face mask, eye protection, gloves, gown, hand disinfectant, and cleaning disinfectant.
n. A Member may not escort an inmate without being provided with a face mask, eye protection, and gloves.
o. Members assigned to any form of inmate transport requiring contact with inmates may not report to post if not provided with face mask, gloves, hand disinfectant, cleaning wipes, and eye protection.
p. Members concerned that the vehicle has not been disinfected should request disinfectant of the vehicle from a supervisor and contact an Officer of the Labor Committee or Shop Steward, if not provided.
q. Members at any post must engage in distancing. r. No member may be required to contact an inmate unless provided with
appropriate PPE, depending on whether the inmate is in general population (face mask, eye protection and gloves) or quarantined (face mask, eye protection, gloves and gown).
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 7 of 21
s. No Member may be required to escort or guard an inmate outside the Jail who is symptomatic or positive for COVID-19.
t. Any Member required to escort or guard an inmate outside the Jail who is not infected or symptomatic must be provided with face mask, eye protection and gloves.
The DOC had provided minimal guidance, and continues to refuse to offer proper health and safety protocols for the staff or the inmates.
Professional Experience of Benjamin Olubasusi 14. Benjamin Olubasusi is a Correctional Officer at the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC), and has achieved the rank of Corporal. Cpl. Olubasusi has been an employee of the DOC for approximately ten (10) years. 15. Throughout his tenure, he has worked in various posts inside the DOC’s Central Detention Facility (CDF), including Northwest One (NW1) (maximum security unit), Southwest Two (SW2) (maximum security unit), South One (1) (Restrictive Housing Unit). 16. Cpl. Olubasusi currently is serving as the Chairperson of the FOP/DOC LC, having been elected to that position in May, 2019. 17. Corporal Olubasusi has witnessed that social distancing is not be followed by the inmates in the quarantine unit, who are individuals identified as having had contact with an inmate who tested positive for COVID-19. As of March 31, 2020, there were approximately 50 inmates on one unit and approximately 40 on the other. In each of these units, the inmates were
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 8 of 21
required to go on recreation together in close proximity. They were guarded by only one officer, who had only a mask and gloves. The officer was required to stand in close proximity of potentially infected individuals.
18. Cpl. Olubasusi has witnessed personally that Union members assigned to the quarantine unit do not have gowns or face shields, when working in an area where inmates have come in close contact with COVID-19-infected inmates.
19. Cpl. Olubasusi has asked Director Booth for Labor/Management meetings to discuss the impact of and response to COVID-19 on staff and inmates in the DOC facilities, and has been refused at every request.
20. Cpl. Olubasusi requested that management of Unity Health Care and DOC medical staff, including Beth Jordan, M.D., meet with the FOP/DOC LC Executive Board to discuss the proper health protocols for staff and inmates for COVID-19, and has been refused to date.
Professional Experience of Arnold Hudson 21. Arnold Hudson is a Correctional Officer at the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC), and has achieved the rank of Corporal. Cpl. Hudson has been an employee of the DOC for over 28 years. 22. Throughout his tenure, he has worked in various posts and positions, including at the Lorton, VA facilities from 1991 to 1997 in Maximum Security from 1991 to 1993, in South
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 9 of 21
One (S1) (Status Block) and South Three (S3) (Mental Health) from 1993 to 1997. In 1997, he began working in the CDF and from that time, he has been assigned to the Laundry division.
23. Cpl. Hudson currently is serving as the Vice-Chairperson of the FOP/DOC LC, having been elected to that position in May, 2019.
24. Cpl. Hudson has tested positive for COVID-19, and is on administrative leave. He has informed the DOC about his positive result, but to date has not been contacted for contact tracing for quarantine of either staff or inmates in close contact with him.
25. It has been reported to Cpl. Hudson as recently as April 2, 2020, that only one officer is assigned in the Special Management Unit – B (SMU-B), where all inmates who have tested positive for COVID-19 have been housed. The officer assigned to SMU-B is provided with disposable mask, gloves and gown, but is required to reuse the eye shield. The officer assigned to SMU-B is required to feed the infected inmates and take them for their showers.
Professional Experience of Jannease Johnson 26. Jannease Johnson is a Correctional Officer at the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC), and has achieved the rank of Sergeant. Sgt. Johnson has been an employee of the DOC for over 28 years. 27. Throughout her tenure, she has worked in various posts and positions. She worked at the Youth Center in Lorton, VA from June, 1992 until it closed in 2000. From 2000 to date, she has worked at the CDF as Relief Officer, Count Book and Compliance Officer,
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 10 of 21
Southeast Two Officer-In-Charge (OIC), Command Center OIC, Major’s Aide, and Adjustment Board Chair.
28. Sgt. Johnson currently is serving as the Executive Secretary of the FOP/DOC LC, having been elected to that position in June, 2018.
29. Sgt. Johnson personally has witnessed cleaning crews in the CDF that only clean the administrative side of the DOC facilities. The cleaners use the same rag to wipe down everything they are instructed to wipe down with bleach. All were wearing gloves; some had masks.
30. It was reported to Sgt. Johnson by a Correctional Officer assigned to escort the cleaning staff that Deputy Warden Landerkin had instructed that Officer not to take the cleaning crew to the infirmary. It was also reported to Sgt. Johnson that those cleaners use the bathroom while cleaning, and do not wash their hands before going back to cleaning duties.
31. Front line Correctional Officers have reported to Sgt. Johnson completely unsanitary conditions, complete lack of ventilation, and that they have to fight with management to get Personal Protective Equipment.
32. Sgt. Johnson has witnessed inmates, as recently as April 1, 2020, travelling within the facilities and during their assigned recreation periods without practicing any social distancing. The inmates were “elbow to elbow” in proximity to each other.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 11 of 21
33. It has been reported to Sgt. Johnson that there are at least ten (10) inmates displaying symptoms in Southeast Two (SE2) with no PPE for the officers assigned there, no quarantine for the inmates, and no guidance from DOC medical staff.
Professional Experience of Lawanda Reddick 34. Lawanda Reddick is a Correctional Officer at the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC), and has achieved the rank of Corporal. Cpl. Reddick has been an employee of the DOC for approximately twelve (12) years. 35. Throughout her tenure, she has worked in various posts inside the DOC’s CDF. Currently, she is assigned to Receiving and Discharge (R&D), where Correctional Officers receive new intakes and court returns, and also send inmates out to other jurisdictions, court or other facilities. 36. Cpl. Reddick currently is serving as a Chief Shop Steward of the FOP/DOC LC, having been elected to that position in May, 2019. 37. The post to which she is currently assigned (R&D) has masks available, but only for incoming inmates. No Correctional Officers are provided masks. DOC Management (Deputy Warden Landerkin) has informed the staff assigned to R&D that masks are for incoming inmates and not for Correctional Officer use. 38. The City is not being truthful on how inmates coming into the facilities are processed. Inmates are having their temperatures taken only. No other procedures are in place to screen incoming inmates.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 12 of 21
39. At Roll Call, Cpl. Reddick witnessed an entire shift of Correctional Officers being told by management (Deputy Warden Landerkin) that the Officers are exempt from the social distancing requirement imposed by the Mayor and CDC because they work for the DOC.
40. Correctional Officers also have been told that the risk of contracting COVID-19 is just part of their job, and that is why they have health insurance.
Professional Experience of Cherno Mballow 41. Cherno Mballow is a Correctional Officer at the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC), and has achieved the rank of Corporal. Cpl. Mballow has been an employee of the DOC for approximately six (6) years. 42. Throughout his tenure, he has worked in various posts inside the CDF. Currently, he works DOC auxiliary posts and environmental. He assists in preparing the units for inspection by the D.C. Department of Health (DOH). 43. Cpl. Mballow currently is serving as a Chief Shop Steward of the FOP/DOC LC, having been elected to that position in May, 2019. 44. Cpl. Mballow has seen severe shortage in personal protective equipment, to include masks, gloves, gowns and eye shields.
Operational Activities at the DOC 45. As of the date of this declaration, the DOC continues to operate in many respects as business as usual. Very few changes to the daily operations have been implemented in preparation for and in response to COVID-19.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 13 of 21
46. No actual changes in protocols for cleaning of individuals or physical locations, or distribution of cleaning, sanitizing or disinfecting products have been communicated clearly to the staff or inmates or executed.
47. No actual changes in protocols for cleaning of individuals or physical locations handling of inmate food preparation or distribution of food have been communicated clearly to the staff or inmates or executed.
48. There is no true quarantine. Cell mates of inmates who have tested positive for COVID-19 remain in General Population. The 65 inmates who had contact with the U.S. Marshal assigned to the D.C. Court and who tested positive initially were quarantined, but then two days later were released back to general population. Six of those 65 inmates have tested positive for COVID-19.
49. Inmates continue to meet with case managers and treatment specialists in violation of the social distancing requirements as of April 1, 2020, and without any protective equipment.
50. There was an Open Letter sent to the DOC staff on April 2, 2020 by Dr. Keena Blackmon. The letter was from Director Quincy Booth regarding COVID-19 testing for DOC staff. The letter states, in part, “Correctional Officers are highly encouraged to take advantage of the coronavirus (COVID-19) screenings and should contact the Infection Control Group at (202) 844-5994 or infection.control@dc.gov to schedule an appointment.” Sgt. Johnson called upon receipt of the letter, and was informed, “I don’t know why your agency told you to call the
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 14 of 21
number because we only service DC Fire and EMS.” The representative also told Sgt. Johnson that the DOC should contact DOH. She was refused an appointment.
Responses to Declaration of Dr. Beth Jordan on April 2, 2020 Counsel for the FOP/DOC LC received the Declaration of Dr. Beth Jordan on April 2, 2020, and refutes the following representations made to this Court based on the personal knowledge of the above identified FOP/DOC members as communicated to him. 51. (Dr. Jordan Declaration #3) The DOC does not implement operational and medical procedures in response to COVID-19 based on guidance from the CDC. 52. (Dr. Jordan Declaration #5) Sgt. Johnson personally witnessed as recently as April 2, 2020, that the screening procedure outlined by Dr. Jordan is not what is occurring. The screening survey is a three-question form that is left on a table for individuals to complete; it is optional, not required. The DOC staff that screen entrants to the facility may or may not be wearing gloves and a mask. The thermometer is not being used properly, and often does not work. In addition, the logistical nature of the front entrance makes it impossible for employees to stand 6 feet apart. 53. (Dr. Jordan Declaration #6) At the Inmate Reception Center (IRC), the incoming inmates wait in a waiting room before being seen at a glass window, where they talk to the staff by phone. It is unknown if the inmates are practicing social distancing while waiting to be seen. Once the inmates are past that checkpoint, they are taken to at least three different stations (including having their photos taken and being strip searched) where there is contact with staff who are not protected with gloves or masks or gowns or eye protection.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 15 of 21
54. (Dr. Jordan Declaration #7) All new inmates are assigned to South Two unit. The maximum time that new inmates were housed in that unit was 72 hours until on or about March 25, 2020, when the policy changed to 14 days. It was reported to Cpl. Hudson that as recently as April 2, 2020, that no new inmates have been placed in quarantine for 14 days. As of April 2, 2020, the longest any new inmate has been housed in South Two is eight days. Some of these new inmates were housed in a single cell and some have cellmates. The officers assigned to that unit do not have any PPE.
55. (Dr. Jordan Declaration #8) No members of the Union leadership have witnessed any meetings held by DOC’s medical staff with staff and residents. Cpl. Olubasusi has requested a meeting with DOC’s medical staff to include Dr. Jordan, but his requests have been ignored or refused. It is very unlikely that DOC’s medical staff has met with DOC staff and residents on a regular basis. To do so, medical staff would have to enter 38 separate Housing Units. It is also unlikely because meeting with inmates in groups of ten would take days.
56. (Dr. Jordan Declaration #11) It was reported to Cpl. Olubasusi, Cpl. Hudson and Sgt. Johnson as recently as April 2, 2020, that there are only two units within the DOC facilities that are housing positive inmates—SMU-B and Medical 82. As of today, there were reported 13 inmates in SMU-B and two of the 12 inmates in Medical 82 have tested positive. The official number of inmates who have tested positive that has been released to the public is six. It has been reported to Sgt. Johnson that two inmates have been quarantined in the Protective Custody Housing unit, presumably for COVID-19-related symptoms. If as Dr. Jordan declared there are
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 16 of 21
22 inmates who have been tested, the whereabouts of all 22 is unknown. It has been reported to Sgt. Johnson that at least one of the inmates whose test results are pending is in general population. We do not know where all of these 22 inmates are at this time in the DOC facility. Per the Department of Health Director’s public statements, individuals who have had COVID-19 exposure but have tested negative still should quarantine for 14 days. There is no evidence this is happening with the inmates who have tested negative or the ones with test results pending.
57. (Dr. Jordan Declaration #13) Based on the personal observations of Cpl. Olubasusi, Cpl. Hudson, Sgt. Johnson, Cpl. Reddick, Cpl. Mballow and the dozens of staff who have reported to them, the DOC is not providing either the staff or the residents access to necessary medical care or working to keep staff safe with regular (or any) prevention guidance or access to appropriate PPE.
Responses to Declaration of Warden Lennard Johnson on April 2, 2020 Counsel for the FOP/DOC LC received the Declaration of Warden Lennard Johnson on April 2, 2020, and refutes the following representations made to this Court. 58. (Warden Johnson Declaration #4) Cpl. Olubasusi, Cpl. Hudson, Sgt. Johnson, Cpl. Reddick, Cpl. Mballow are unaware of what the DOC Incident Command System is; however, there have been no meetings whatsoever with the FOP/DOC LC leadership (the union being a key detention stakeholder) to discuss COVID-19 preventative measures at the DOC's facilities. There have been no notices of any of the meetings referenced in this paragraph, and the FOP/DOC LC would like to participate in meetings regarding the working conditions for the staff. In addition, the FOP/DOC LC would like to be informed as to the details regarding,
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 17 of 21
minutes of and outcomes from any meetings of the DOC Incident Command Team and the daily meetings of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) for the District of Columbia.
59. (Warden Johnson Declaration #5) The DOC has taken minimal steps to mitigate the spread of the COVID-19 virus; in fact, the measures taken are likely to result in the rapid spread of the virus. To date, the Mayor of the District of Columbia has released publicly that one DOC staff member has tested positive for COVID-19; however, this has not been communicated to the DOC staff. Cpl. Olubasusi, Cpl. Hudson and Sgt. Johnson are aware of at least three DOC staff members who have tested positive and alerted the DOC. No contact tracing has been done for at least one if not all of these staff members with regard to whether inmates or other staff should be quarantined.
60. (Warden Johnson Declaration #6) It was reported to Sgt. Johnson as recently as April 2, 2020, that the only scheduled sanitization that occurs is an announcement over the Public Address (PA) system that requests inmates to participate in cleaning their areas. The PA system is not designed to be heard throughout the facility and all Housing Units, and there are no clear instructions or policies for how inmates are supposed to clean their areas. There are no consequences for inmates who choose not to clean. There are no instructions given to inmates for what is considered a “high use” and “high touch” areas for special cleaning.
61. (Warden Johnson Declaration #7) It was reported to Cpl. Olubasusi and Sgt. Johnson as recently as April 2, 2020, that the cleaning materials for residents to clean their own cells are not generally available to the residents. They are under lock and key, and the residents
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 18 of 21
have to request them, if they are even aware that they exist. The ECOLAB Peroxide that is used may not be sufficient to ensure proper sanitization. It takes anywhere from 45 seconds to five minutes for the cleaning solution to kill germs effectively, depending on the concentration used. There is no evidence that any staff or inmates have been made aware of this requirement.
62. (Warden Johnson Declaration #8) Not all inmates have sinks in their cells. For those inmates who do not, they have to ask an officer to let them out of their cell to be able to use a sink. It is the personal experience of Cpl. Olubasusi and Sgt. Johnson that inmates do not regularly ask to do this. Given that inmates are currently allowed out of their cells only 2 ½ hours a day, there is likely very little inmate hand cleaning taking place for those inmates.
63. (Warden Johnson Declaration #9) The residents often carry their washcloths in and around their housing unit. There is no requirement to keep them in an individual cell. While the inmates can request that the washcloth be laundered, Cpl. Hudson’s personal experience is that many do not. In addition, there is no requirement to wash the jumpsuits that the inmates wear. Many do not put out their jumpsuits for laundering, and are not required to do so.
64. (Warden Johnson Declaration #10) Hand sanitizer is available in CTF in a wall dispenser; however, any inmate that wishes to use it must be out of their cell to do so, which requires the inmate to ask and an officer to release them. High-risk staff may have “priority access” to hand sanitizer, but Cpl. Olubasusi and Sgt. Johnson are unaware of any staff who are aware of that fact. There is no “priority access” to proper PPE for any high-risk staff who come in contact with high risk residents, and what PPE there is completely insufficient. In SMU-B, for
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 19 of 21
example, the unit which houses inmates who test positive for COVID-19, the “protective” suits given to the staff are made out of paper and made only to protect from non-hazardous material and dry particulates. (http://www.cellucap.com/index.php?display=yes&productid=68). These are not CDC approved gowns.
65. (Warden Johnson Declaration #11) Some activities for the residents have been curtailed; however, they are allowed in-house recreation each day, and it occurs in groups, not individually. There is no social distancing encouraged.
66. (Warden Johnson Declaration #13) There was no attachment with a current list of COVID-19-related supplies. In any event, the FOP/DOC LC Executive Board is unaware of sufficient PPE, cleaning/disinfecting supplies or hand sanitizer for the staff or the residents. Cpl. Olubasusi, Cpl. Hudson and Sgt. Johnson are unaware of what the DOC’s Operations Support Team is; however, repeated attempts by FOP/DOC LC officials to ascertain the inventory of the COVID-19-related supplies has been denied.
67. (Warden Johnson Declaration #13) On March 31, 2020, I J. Michael Hannon called the FEMA liaison to state governments. The FEMA liaison maintains data on the PPE shipped from the United States stockpile to each state. The FEMA liaison reported that the following were shipped to the District of Columbia from the stockpile: Surgical masks 314,601; N95 masks 132,437; Gloves 383,760; Gowns 55,657; Face shields 67,644; and Coveralls 3,550. HANNON LAW GROUP has monitored the Mayor’s daily press briefings, and to our
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 20 of 21

knowledge the Mayor has never provided statistics as to the amount of PPE available to the District of Columbia.
I HEREBY SWEAR under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct as to the knowledge attributed to me.
__s/J. Michael Hannon______________

_______________________________________ Cpl. Benjamin Olubasusi1

_______________________________________ Cpl. Arnold Hudson, Sr.

_______________________________________ Sgt. Jannease Johnson

_______________________________________ Cpl. Lawanda Reddick

_______________________________________ Cpl. Cherno Mballow

1

Original signatures will be filed with the Court tomorrow.

19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 23-11 Filed 04/02/20 Page 21 of 21

Dated: April 2, 2020

Respectfully submitted,
HANNON LAW GROUP, LLP
/s/J. Michael Hannon J. Michael Hannon, #352526 333 8th Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Tel: (202) 232-1907 Fax: (202) 232-3704 jhannon@hannonlawgroup.com Attorneys for Fraternal Order of Police/Department of Corrections Labor Committee

20

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24 Filed 04/03/20 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners

v.
QUINCY BOOTH, in their official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

No. 1:20-cv-00849 (CKK)

Defendants-Respondents.

EMERGENCY MOTION TO CONVERT APRIL 6, 2020 STATUS CONFERENCE INTO MERITS HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Since Plaintiffs’ filed their Application for a Temporary Restraining Order on March 30, 2020 (Docket No. 5), there have been two new developments that heighten the urgency of Plaintiffs’ Application.
First, the spread of the virus in the District of Columbia and in the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) is continuing rapidly. When Plaintiffs filed their suit, there were five positive cases in the DOC. Yesterday, Defendants represented that there were eight positive cases. By this morning, there were twelve, including at least one new positive test in an entirely new segment of the facility. See Docket No. 20-2 (“Jordan Decl.), at ¶ 11. There may well be more by now. Plaintiffs — and the public health of the District of Columbia — can ill-afford to wait for the virus to continue its exponential growth through the DOC population. As Plaintiffs’ expert Dr.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24 Filed 04/03/20 Page 2 of 10
Meyer explains, the “horizon of risk for rapid and severe COVID-19 in these facilities is a matter of hours not days.” Docket No. 5-2, Exhibit 1 (“Meyer Decl.”), at ¶ 37.
Second, Defendants’ policies, which have not been updated since the start of the crisis and which are at least ten years old, do not rebut most of Plaintiffs’ evidence in support of the TRO. Indeed, additional evidence from DOC staff, discussed below and attached to this motion, suggests that Defendants are not following or implementing their own policies.
In light of the escalation of the crisis at the Jail and the alarming gaps both in Defendants’ preparedness and between their policies and the realities at the D.C. Jail, Plaintiffs request that the Court convert the status conference scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on April 6, 2020, into a hearing on the merits of Plaintiffs’ application for a TRO. The Court has discretion to convert the status hearing into a merits hearing. See LCvR 7(f). In order to ensure that the Court has sufficient time to review the pleadings for that hearing, Plaintiffs would consent to moving the deadline for their reply brief, currently set for 5:00 pm on Sunday, April 5, 2020 (see Minute Order, April 1, 2020) to 5:00 pm on Saturday, April 4, 2020. Defendants have advised that they do not consent to this motion.
I. COVID-19 is Spreading Rapidly in the DOC, in the Region, and in Correctional Facilities Generally.
When Plaintiffs’ filed suit on March 30, 2020, the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the District of Columbia, and the DOC provided the following statistics regarding infection and death from COVID-19:
• Worldwide – 638,146 confirmed cases; 30,039 deaths • United States – 122,653 confirmed cases; 2,112 deaths • DMV Region – 2,934 confirmed cases; 53 deaths • DOC – 5 confirmed resident cases. See Compl. ¶¶ 1, 20-22. Just three days later, the picture is significantly worse:
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24 Filed 04/03/20 Page 3 of 10
• Worldwide – 900,306 cases (41 percent increase); 45,693 deaths (52 percent increase)1
• United States – 213,144 cases (73 percent increase); 4,513 deaths (114 percent increase)2
• DMV Region – 4,697 cases (60 percent increase); 88 deaths (66 percent increase)3
• DOC – 12 confirmed resident cases (71 percent increase).4 Given the speed at which the virus is infecting people worldwide — and particularly the speed at which the virus is infecting people in DOC custody — it is no exaggeration to say that obtaining relief even one day sooner could mean the difference between life and death for those in DOC custody and DOC staff as well.
The fact that there has been some progress toward compliance with the D.C. COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020 does not undermine this conclusion. It wasn’t until two days after this lawsuit was filed, and two weeks after the Act was passed, that Defendants released 23 people under that emergency legislation. See Docket No. 18 (“3/31/20 Tr.”), at 6. More importantly, even if the entire category of prisoners eligible for release under the Act were released at this moment either through Defendants’ exercise of discretion or through Superior Court review process currently underway, that group — approximately 94 individuals, including the 23 released on Wednesday — amounts to less than six percent of the population of the Jail as
1 See WORLD HEALTH ORG., Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Pandemic (last visited April 2, 2020, 5:30 PM), https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019. 2 See CTRS. DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, Cases in U.S. (last visited April 2, 2020, 5:30 PM), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. 3 See Joe Heim & Dana Hedgpeth, Live Updates: Jobless Claims Skyrocket in the D.C. Area; Mayor Tells Hospitals City Needs 3,600 More Beds for Surge, Wash. Post (April 2, 2020, 4:50 PM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/04/02/coronavirus-dc-maryland-virginialive-updates/. 4 Docket No. 20-2 (“Jordan Decl.”), at ¶ 11.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24 Filed 04/03/20 Page 4 of 10
of March 27, 2020.5 That would leave over 1,500 individuals, including many with conditions that put them at particular risk in the facility, subject to the conditions described in frightening detail in Plaintiffs’ TRO motion papers.
It is truly urgent that DOC be required to implement meaningful change, including both improvements in conditions and releases guided by the appointment of a public health expert to assist the Court in determining how many and which class members to order released, consistent with public health and safety, so as to ensure that the number of prisoners remaining at the CDF and CTF can be housed consistently with CDC guidance on best practices to prevent the spread of COVID-19, including the requirement that prisoners be able to maintain six feet of space between them. As Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Meyer explains, the “horizon of risk for rapid and severe COVID19 in these facilities is a matter of hours not days.” Docket No. 5-2, Exhibit 1 (“Meyer Decl.”), at ¶ 37. The escalating numbers of diagnosed cases alone warrant expediting the proceedings so that Plaintiffs may be heard on their relief as soon as possible and before it is too late.
II. Defendants’ Policies Fail To Rebut Plaintiffs’ Evidence and New Evidence Suggests They Are Not Even Being Implemented.
In response to the Court’s request for “all relevant written procedures and practices concerning COVID-19,” Defendants docketed the following:
• Unity Health Care’s — DOC’s medical contractor — “Coronavirus Protocol” for the Department of Corrections Health Center (Docket No. 19-3);
• A flowchart showing DOC’s COVID-19 screening protocol (Docket No. 19-4); • An e-mail from Shreya Khuntia, Epidemiologist at the District of Columbia
Department of Health to “Beth” (Docket No. 19-5); and • Unity Health Care’s 2008 “Medical Plan for Pandemic Influenza,” most
recently revised on October 1, 2018 (Docket No. 19-6).
5 Keith L. Alexander et al., As Inmates in D.C., Maryland and Virginia Test Positive for the Coronavirus, Jail Officials Scramble to Reduce the Risk, WASH. POST (April 1, 2020) (reporting that there are around 1,600 residents in DOC custody).
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24 Filed 04/03/20 Page 5 of 10
Defendants also provided, under seal, a document they referred to as “DOC’s Pandemic Flu Plan (2009, currently being revised).” See Docket Nos. 19, at 2 n.1 & 22-2. Defendants also provided two policies related to good-time credits. See Docket Nos. 19-1 & 19-2.
A review of these documents, in combination with evidence suggesting they are not being implemented, raises grave concerns that also merit expediting the proceeding. Unity Health Care — the medical services contractor for DOC — has developed a “Coronavirus Protocol” covering the DOC Health Center. See Docket No. 19-3, at 4 (discussing cleaning and disinfection “in healthcare facilities”). However, according to Defendants’ submission, the only written policy or procedure guiding efforts to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in the rest of DOC operations (that is, housing units and the rest of the facilities not operated by Unity Health Care) is a 2009 “Pandemic Flu Plan,” Docket No. 22-2, which is “currently being revised,” Docket No. 19, at 2.6 As an initial matter, it is shocking that, over three weeks after the Mayor declared a public health emergency, DOC has not yet updated its policies to require the social distancing and other precautionary measures that the CDC and others have insisted on.
Another problem revealed by Defendants’ submissions is that DOC has tested only 22 residents, Jordan Decl. ¶ 11, even though 65 residents interacted with the Deputy Marshal who tested positive (and that, according to DOC staff, six of those 65 residents subsequently tested positive themselves, see Docket No. 23-11, at ¶ 48). Defendants’ response does not indicate when those tests were conducted or the unit or facility of the residents that were tested.
Defendants’ submissions look even worse when juxtaposed with declarations from DOC’s own staff members showing that Defendants’ policies were not widely disseminated and have not

6

Neither Defendants’ flowchart (Docket No. 19-4) nor Defendants’ email to Beth (Docket

No. 19-5) purport to offer staff guidance on how to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in the DOC.

5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24 Filed 04/03/20 Page 6 of 10
been implemented. First, it appears that DOC’s “Pandemic Flu Plan” is not even the most recent version of DOC’s own policy. Doreen Deterville, a staff member who has worked at the DOC since February 2017, and who currently works in CTF, “searched through DOC’s policies to identify any plan regarding pandemics” earlier this week and found a plan that seems to be an updated version of the policy that Defendants’ filed under seal. See Exh. A (“Deterville Decl.”), ¶ 7 & Attach. A. 7 The main difference between the two versions — itself troubling — is that the more recent policy deletes an entire section that had been present in the 2009 policy regarding staff training in preparation for the pandemic. Compare Docket No. 22-2, with Deterville Decl., Attach. A.
And apparently, no such training has occurred. It does not seem as if DOC leadership was even aware of this policy until March 27, 2020, when Ms. Deterville emailed DOC’s Director of Programs & Case Management, Camile Williams, to inform her of the policy. Deterville Decl. ¶ 8. Ms. Williams responded: “Good stuff! I just glanced over the entire thing. Thanks for sharing.” Id. Deterville’s “understanding of her message was that she had not seen this policy until [she] sent it to [her].” Id. Indeed, it is difficult to understand Ms. Williams’s reaction in any other way; if that document was one with which Ms. Williams had been familiar prior to Ms. Deterville’s email, one would have expected her to say that rather than responding that she had “glanced” at it and expressing her appreciation.
Further, DOC did not inform its staff about the policy. According to Ms. Deterville, she has “never seen,” until now, the policies and procedures that Defendants claim to be implementing, and “DOC never sent an all-staff email with those plans, or anything similarly comprehensive,”
7 It is puzzling why Defendants’ own search of what was presumably the same set of policies did not turn up the updated policy.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24 Filed 04/03/20 Page 7 of 10
even though “DOC’s standard procedure is to disseminate the relevant policies to all staff affected by it.” Deterville Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.
That may be the reason why the policies do not actually seem to be implemented. For instance, while the policies call for certain staff to don personal protective equipment, Defendant Booth informed staff that “using personal protective equipment (PPE) could increase [staff] risk of contracting the virus.” Id. ¶ 10. Those policies also call for high-touch surfaces to be disinfected, but Ms. Deterville points out that the “biometric scanning device” that literally “all staff must place their hands on” is “not wiped between uses.” Id. ¶ 16. To make matters worse, Ms. Deterville recounts that on March 27, no hand sanitizer was available for staff at the entrance of CTF; the next day, CTF had refilled the hand sanitizer bottle with a formula containing “1% benzalkonium chloride,” id. ¶ 16, which the CDC does not recommend and actively cautions that it “has less reliable activity against coronavirus than either of the alcohol[]” based sanitizers.8
Lennette Nesbitt, a DOC case manager at the CTF since 2017, corroborates these concerns and notes systemic deviations from the stated policies and the actual practices in the facilities. DOC relies on residents to clean the facilities themselves, but residents receive no training and almost always lack protective equipment when they clean. See Exhibit B (“Nesbitt Decl.”), at ¶¶ 7-9. Social distancing is not occurring. Id. ¶ 15. The Jail does not have enough cleaning solution. Id. ¶ 11. Key common touch-points remain unsanitized: Ms. Nesbitt reports that “[d]uring the week of March 23, multiple inmate came to my office to make legal calls. After they left, I did not have any cleaning solution capable of killing covid-19 that I could use to wipe down surfaces. As
8 See CTRS. DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, Frequently Asked Questions about Hand Hygiene for Healthcare Personnel Responding to COVID-2019, https://www.cdc.gov/ coronavirus/2019-ncov/infection-control/hcp-hand-hygiene-faq.html (last accessed April 2, 2020).
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24 Filed 04/03/20 Page 8 of 10
a result, any virus particles any inmate left on my phone remained there, where each successive inmate’s face could come into contact with it.” Id. ¶ 13. As a result of all the risks she faces in light of DOC’s lack of precautionary measures, Ms. Nesbitt reports that “[t]he nature of our facility, the lack of protective gear, my inability to obtain adequate cleaning supplies all left me afraid to come to work—so much so that I would have to sit in my car for thirty minutes every day so I could calm myself down before entering the building. Id. ¶ 3.
The experiences of DOC staff and Plaintiffs documented in the TRO papers and the attached declarations are buttressed and expanded on by the proposed amicus brief of the Fraternal Order of Police for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections Labor Committee (FOP/DOC) — the union representing DOC staff — which attaches a joint declaration of five DOC Correctional Officers who serve as union officials. See Docket Nos. 23-2 & 23-11 (proposed amicus brief and Exhibit I). The brief and declaration thoroughly rebut Defendants’ claims about the safety of their facilities and the nature of their practices. The five Correctional Officers document in detail, based on personal experience, that, for instance, they lack protective equipment, screening protocols are not observed, sanitizing and food-preparation protocols have not been communicated or executed, cleaning instructions to residents are not communicated to all residents, and cleaning supplies are not available for residents. Docket No. 23-11, at 12-16. Based upon their personal experiences working inside of DOC facilities for years, DOC staff state: “Very few changes to the daily operations have been implemented in preparation for and in response to COVID-19.” Id. at 11.
Just as important as what Defendants’ submissions say is what they do not say. Plaintiffs make the following specific and detailed allegations about current conditions in the jail that Defendants’ policies and declarations make no mention of:
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24 Filed 04/03/20 Page 9 of 10
• Plaintiffs and proposed class members are not being required to practice social distancing, and in fact are being actively encouraged to do so by attending programs in large groups. One Plaintiff describes sitting in “group” sessions of up to 30 residents for hours a day, passing pens and papers between them. See Docket No. 6-2, Exhibit 5 at ¶¶ 3, 7. Another Plaintiff describes residents of his housing unit sharing a large cooler of juice, using their hands to dip cups into the cooler to get juice. See Docket No. 6-2, Exhibit 6 at ¶ 6.
• Plaintiffs and proposed class members are not being required to practice social distancing, and in fact are being actively encouraged to do so by attending programs in large groups.
• Defendants are still using Windex as an all-purpose cleaning solution, see Docket No. 5-2, Exhibit 3 at ¶ 6(a); Exhibit 16 at ¶ 4(f), despite the fact that Windex “could actually be harmful” in preventing the spread of COVID-19, according to Dr. Mever, see Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(a)(ii).
• Medical facilities are horribly under-equipped to provide care during an outbreak, as Dr. Meyer puts it: “The 2019 D.C. Auditor report suggests there is a single medical isolation space in CTF with negative pressure capacity . . . . To say this is unacceptable is an understatement.”
• Plaintiffs and proposed class members wait days after requesting to see medical staff, as one Plaintiff recounts: “[I]t takes days before you get a visit with anyone from the medical unit.” Docket No. 5-2, Exhibit 7, at ¶ 4.
• In Defendants’ own words, the “current HVAC system has significant design problems that inhibit proper airflow,” Meyer Decl., ¶ 28(c), a condition that is echoed repeatedly by Plaintiff Banks, who is housed next to a quarantine unit and describes the ventilation between his unit and the quarantine unit as “very poor,” and that the units are “not sealed off,” Docket No. 5-2, Exhibit 6, at ¶ 3.
In sum, there is a yawning gap between what DOC claims its policies are and what actually
happens inside DOC facilities. Whether because of this gap, or because the policies themselves
are ineffective, the results are clear: COVID-19 is rapidly spreading in Defendants’ facilities.
Plaintiffs therefore request that the Court exercise its discretion to convert the hearing for
Monday, April 6, 2020, into a merits hearing for argument on Plaintiffs’ Application for
Temporary Restraining Order and, if the Court feels it necessary to adjust the briefing schedule as
a result, to advance the deadline of Plaintiffs’ reply brief by 24 hours.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24 Filed 04/03/20 Page 10 of 10

DATED: April 3, 2020 Washington, D.C.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Steven Marcus
Steven Marcus (D.C. Bar # 1630882) Jonathan Anderson (D.C. Bar # 475306) Jenna Cobb (D.C. Bar # 979506) Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel. 202-824-2524 Fax 202-824-2525 smarcus@pdsdc.org
/s/ Scott Michelman Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar # 1006945) Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar # 235960) Michael Perloff (D.C. Bar # 1601047) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. 202-457-0800 smichelman@acludc.org

10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 1 of 26
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 2 of 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF DOREEN DETERVILLE

1. My name is Doreen Deterville. I am competent to make this declaration and I make these

statements based on personal knowledge.

2. I have worked for the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC) since February 2017 and

currently serve as the chairperson for the Youth Rehabilitation Act Committee. In that role, I

lead a team comprised of a case manager, licensed clinical psychologist and vocational

experts who make sentencing recommendations to courts in cases involving youth

defendants.

3. My office is located in an off-unit suite of the C-bldg of the Correctional Treatment Facility,

in a space that sits between two housing units.

4. Based on my interactions with leadership and my observations of the safety precautions

taken so far, I do not believe that the housing units are safe places to work, let alone live.

5. Plaintiff’s counsel in this action sent me copies of Dkt. No. 19-3 (the Unity coronavirus

protocol), 19-4 (the flow chart related to that protocol), and 19-6 (the Unity medical plan),

which the government filed in this action on April 1, 2020. DOC never emailed me those

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 3 of 26
plans and I had never seen them before. 6. In the event of a new policy or emergency, DOC’s standard procedure is to disseminate the
relevant policies to all staff affected by it. Staff, in turn, are required to read those policies. The fact that DOC never sent an all-staff email with those plans, or anything similarly comprehensive, makes me seriously doubt that it has implemented them. 7. Earlier this week, I independently searched through DOC’s policies to identify any plan regarding pandemics. I found a plan, which is attached to this declaration as Attachment A, that was distinct from the documents I received from plaintiff’s counsel. 8. On Monday March 27, 2020, before I had any contact with plaintiff’s counsel, I emailed the plan in Attachment A to my supervisor, Dr. Syncia Sabain, the chief of treatment and community services at DOC. She forwarded it to her supervisor, Director of Programs & Case Management Camile Williams. Ms. Williams responded by saying “Good stuff! I just glanced over the entire thing. Thanks for sharing.” My understanding of her message was that she had not seen this policy until I sent it to her. 9. DOC officials have made statements and taken actions that contradict the plans filed in with the Court on April 1, 2020. 10. For example, on March 23, 2020, I attended a meeting where DOC Director Quincy Booth answered questions from staff about the Department’s response to the Covid-19 crisis. In that meeting, Director Booth told staff that, although it might seem “counterintuitive,” using personal protective equipment (PPE) could increase our risk of contracting the virus. He asserted that we needed specialized training to wear that gear, and without that training, we could contaminate ourselves by putting it on. Director Booth did not offer to provide training on how to wear the gear.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 4 of 26
11. The next day, March 24, DOC made an announcement through its loudspeaker system instructing staff to meet with Dr. Sabain if they wished to learn more about PPE. The meeting was not mandatory, but I went to her office.
12. Dr. Sabain provided me with a single mask, a pair of gloves, and a bottle of cleaning solution. There are instructions on the mask’s packaging demonstrating how to wear it; Dr. Sabain did not offer any additional information. Additionally, she told me that it was unnecessary to wear masks and gloves.
13. Although I was able to obtain a few PPE items, there have been Department-wide shortages of PPE and cleaning supplies. During the March 23 meeting with Director Booth, multiple staff members complained that they lacked access to cleaning supplies. Director Booth did not make any commitment to increase access.
14. Two or three days later, on March 25 or March 26, I entered the CTF with a colleague who works as a case manager, a position that requires regular contact with inmates. She asked a correctional officer for a mask and was told that none was available.
15. I have not seen any correctional officers wearing gowns and I see a minimum of 30 correctional officers every day.
16. On Monday, March 27, when I entered the CTF, there was no hand sanitizer at the entrance. That was concerning because, in order to enter the facility, all staff must place their hands on a biometric scanning device. We cannot use gloves to perform this activity and the biometric reader is not wiped between uses.
17. On Tuesday, March 28, the hand sanitizer bottle at the entrance was refilled. However, the active ingredient in the hand sanitizer was 1% benzalkonium chloride and, in reviewing the label, I did not see any reference to alcohol.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 5 of 26
18. On its website, the CDC has stated that it “does not have a recommended alternative to hand rub products with greater than 60% ethanol or 70% isopropanol.” CDC, Frequently Asked Questions about Hand Hygiene for Healthcare Personnel Responding to Covid-2019, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/infection-control/hcp-hand-hygiene-faq.html (last accessed Apr. 2, 2020). Although the website notes that the FDA has deemed “[b]enzalkonium chloride . . . eligible . . . for use in the formulation of healthcare personnel hand rubs,” the CDC has explained that the “available evidence indicates that benzalkonium chloride has less reliable activity against coronavirus than either of the alcohols.” Id.
19. I also have serious concerns about DOC’s efforts to prevent the spread of virus. For example, prisoners who test positive for coronavirus are housed in unit SMU-B. SMU-B sits adjacent to the C-bldg elevators at the first level of the facility. The most expedient way to access that unit is through an elevator that runs through my building and that I use regularly. I have not seen any additional efforts to clean that elevator since March 1, 2020 and the floors remain dirty.
I, Doreen Deterville, certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, including 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Dated: April 2, 2020

Doreen Deterville Chairperson Youth Rehabilitation Act Committee D.C. Department of Corrections 1901 E Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20003

4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 6 of 26
Attachment A

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 7 of 26

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Pandemic Plan

Number: Date:

5031.1 Annex 14 September 7, 2010

1. OBJECTIVES. Reasonable efforts will be made to protect staff, visitors, inmates and the general population. A plan is available for continuing operations of the facility in the event of staff work stoppage.
2. DEFINITIONS
a. Influenza (flu). Refers to illnesses caused by a number of different influenza viruses. Flu can cause a range of symptoms and effects, from mild to lethal.
b. Influenza-Like-Illness (ILI). Many upper respiratory diseases that cause people to be ill, including the common cold and influenza.
c. Seasonal/Common Flu. A temporary illness that can be transmitted person to person. Most people have some immunity, and a vaccine is available.
d. Pandemic Flu. A global outbreak of disease that occurs when a new influenza virus emerges for which people have little or no immunity, and for which there is no vaccine. This can cause serious illness, and spreads easily from person to person worldwide.
e. Avian Flu (H5N1). Is influenza; a virus subtype that occurs mainly in birds, is highly contagious among birds, and can be deadly to them. H5N1 virus does not usually infect people, but a number of confirmed cases of human infection have occurred since 1997. Most of these cases have resulted from people having direct contact or close contact with H5N1-infected poultry or H5N1-contaminated surfaces.
f. Swine Flu (H1N1). Novel H1N1 (referred to as “swine flu”) is a new influenza virus causing illness in people. This virus was first detected in people in the United States in April 2009. This virus is spreading from person-to-person worldwide, probably in much the same way that regular seasonal influenza viruses spread. On June 11, 2009, the World Health

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 8 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 2 of 20
Organization (WHO) signaled that a pandemic of novel H1N1 flu was underway.
g. Flu Symptoms. Range from: fever, cough sore throat and muscle aches, to diarrhea, eye infections, pneumonia and severe respiratory disease; and other severe and life-threatening complications.
h. Isolation. Separation or restricted movement of ill persons with a contagious disease.
i. Quarantine. Separation or restricted movement of well person(s) presumed to have been exposed to a contagion.
j. Facemask. Loose-fitting, disposable masks that cover the mouth and nose. These include products labeled as surgical, dental, medical procedure, isolation and laser masks. Facemasks help stop droplets from being spread by the person wearing them. They also keep splashes and sprays from reaching the mouth and nose of the person wearing the facemask. They are not designed to protect you against breathing in very small particles. Facemasks should be used once then thrown away in the trash.
k. Respirator. N95, or higher filtering face piece respirator. Is designed to protect you from breathing in very small particles, which might contain viruses. These types of respirators fit tightly to the face so that most air is inhaled through the filter material. To work most effectively, the N95 mask must be fitted for each person who wears one. Like surgical masks the N95 should be worn once and thrown away in the trash. Compared with a facemask it is harder to breathe through a respirator for long periods of time. Respirators are not recommended for children or people who have facial hair.
l. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Employees who work closely (within 6 feet) of people known or suspected to be infected with pandemic influenza should wear PPE, examples of PPE are:
1) Gloves
2) Goggles
3) Face Shields
4) Surgical Masks and
5) Respirators e.g. N95

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 9 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 3 of 20
m. Incident Commander. The designated operations commander during a facility-wide emergency. The Incident Commander assumes control of the scene and takes immediate action to ensure continued operations, safety and security of the DOC.
n. DOC Medical Director or Designee. Is the responsible health authority for the DOC. In the event the medical director is unavailable during a pandemic, the contracted medical director for health services shall be designated to act in their stead.
o. The DC Department of Health (DOH) will, in general, follow the CDC guidelines for prevention and control. http://dchealth.dc.gov/doh/frames.asp?doc=/doh/lib/doh/information/influe nza/pdf/dc_pandemic_influenza_plan.pdf
3. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
a. The District of Columbia has a city wide integrated Influenza Pandemic Plan that is under the command for the Director of the DOH in the event of an outbreak.
b. In addition to public health, the general strategy of the plan is to protect the infrastructure so to ensure that the health and medical community, as well as government and business, will continue to function. This decision will require allocation and redirection of scarce resources toward those who are needed to maintain optimal functioning and health of society.
c. The DOC Influenza Pandemic Plan is developed in accordance with CDC recommendations and in cooperative agreement to support and facilitate the District’s Plan.
d. The above information was extracted from the District of Columbia Department of Health Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan (2005).
4. OVERVIEW
a. In the event of pandemic influenza, the DOC and other employers will play a key role in protecting employees' health and safety as well as limiting the negative impact to the economy and society. Planning for pandemic influenza is critical. As with any catastrophe, having a contingency plan is essential.
b. Strategies that delay or reduce the impact of a pandemic (also called nonpharmaceutical interventions) may help reduce the spread of disease until a vaccine is available.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 10 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 4 of 20
c. HHS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have developed guidelines, including checklists, to assist businesses, industries, and other employers in planning for a pandemic outbreak as well as for other comparable catastrophes. Please visit www.pandemicflu.gov and www.cdc.gov for information on planning, education and health related to the pandemic flu.
5. PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
a. Vulnerability to the pandemic flu will be universal.
b. Efficient and sustained person to person transmissions signals an eminent pandemic.
c. The clinical disease attack rate will likely be 30% or higher in the overall population during the pandemic. Illness rates will be highest among school-aged children (about 40%) and decline with age. Among working adults, an average of 20% will become ill during a community outbreak.
d. Some persons will become infected but not develop clinically significant symptoms. Those who show no symptoms or minimal symptoms they can transmit infection and develop protection to later infections.
e. Of those who become ill with influenza, 50% will seek outpatient medical care.
f. With the availability of effective antiviral drugs for treatment, this amount may be higher in the next pandemic.
g. The number of hospitalizations and deaths will depend on the virulence of the pandemic virus. Estimates differ about 10-fold between more and less severe scenarios.
h. Risk groups for severe and fatal infection cannot be predicted with certainty but are likely to include infants, young people, the elderly, pregnant women, and persons with chronic medical conditions.
i. Rates of absenteeism will depend on the severity of the pandemic
j. In a severe pandemic, absenteeism is attributed to illness, the need to care for ill family members, and fear of infection may reach 40% during the peak weeks of a community outbreak, with lower rates of absenteeism during the weeks before and after the peak.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 11 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 5 of 20
k. Certain public health measures (closing schools, quarantining household contacts of infected individuals, “snow days”) are likely to increase rates of absenteeism.
l. Persons who become ill may shed virus and can transmit infection for up to one day before the onset of illness. Viral shedding and the risk of transmission will be greatest within (7) days of illness, though infectivity rapidly decreases after (5) days.
m. On average, infected persons will transmit infection to approximately two other people.
n. In an affected community, a pandemic outbreak will last about 6 to 8 weeks.
o. Multiple waves (periods during which community outbreaks occur across the country) of illness could occur with each wave lasting 2-3 months. Historically, the largest waves have occurred in the fall and winter, but the seasonality of a pandemic cannot be predicted with certainty.
6. PANDEMIC OUTBREAK-COMMAND AND CONTROL
a. The incident command system/emergency (ICS) procedures shall be utilized to manage the response to a level of ILI cases, which exceeds the ability of the ranking supervisor on duty to effectively and safely manage. Factors to be considered may be the total number of ILI cases, the distribution of ILI cases throughout the facility and the impact of an increasing number of ILI cases on the overall health of staff and the entire inmate population.
b. The Incident Commander shall assume control of the scene, and take immediate actions as outlined below (¶13-14).
7. INITIAL RESPONSE ALERTS AND IMMEDIATE ACTION
a. Once the Incident Command System is established, the Incident Commander will make notification in accordance with PS 1280.2 Reporting and Notification Procedures for Significant Incidents and Extraordinary Occurrences.
b. The Incident Commander shall coordinate with the DOC Medical Director to make notification to the D.C. Department of Health, and other pertinent agencies. Additional notification will be made to the Warden of the CTF who may assist in providing supplies and additional resources.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 12 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 6 of 20
c. The Incident Commander shall alert the Public Information Office to advance the alert to be sent out via electronic mail, if needed.
d. The Incident Commander shall open an Incident Command Post in the Warden’s conference room or in the upper level of the Armory. Procedures for the operation of the Command Post are detailed in section 14 below.
e. The Incident Commander shall lock down impacted unit(s) and limit movement in order to mitigate the spread of ILI. Consideration will be focused on the protection of the public and visitation may be suspended at the discretion of Incident Commander. All personnel at all facilities will be briefed and advised to increase the staff awareness and precautionary infection control measures.
f. The Incident Commander shall coordinate efforts to quarantine the housing unit(s) where the ILI cases have been identified. In collaboration with the DOC Medical Director, the Incident Commander shall determine if the entire unit is placed on lockdown or if only those inmates with ILI cases will be isolated and confined to their cell(s). All movement from the impacted unit(s) will cease. This procedure will apply to males, females and juveniles.
g. All essential services (food service, laundry, medical care, canteen, etc.) shall be delivered to the unit(s).
h. All staff on the quarantine unit(s) shall be provided PPE.
i. The Incident Commander shall continue the ICS until such time as the level of ILI cases have subsided to a manageable level under normal operations. At such time the ICS will be deactivated and a debriefing of all staff will be prepared.
8. PHASE 1-QUARANTINE AND LOCKDOWN
a. Medical staff is responsible for providing appropriate medical treatment to the inmate population.
b. Medical shall provide inmates with ILI a mask and evaluate all other inmates on the housing unit with the ILI case. Medical may perform rapid Influenza A-B testing, and treat accordingly.
c. Inmates with ILI shall be placed in a single cell in his/her housing unit or if possible housed with another inmate who is also symptomatic. Medical shall supply these inmates with surgical masks. The masks shall be

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 13 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 7 of 20
properly disposed of within twenty-four (24) hours or sooner if needed and the inmate issued another.
d. Alert inmates in the unit where ILI case has been identified. Medical shall triage, including temperature checks, all inmates in the infected unit(s). Inmates in this unit shall be quarantined while medical personnel determine if they can be cleared for open population in the cellblock. Inmates with no symptoms of ILI shall be quarantined no less than (5) days.
e. Inmates identified by medical as being high risk for developing influenza shall be offered the vaccine, when the vaccine is available in accordance with CDC guidelines.
f. Clean and exchange all linen and clothing. Clean and disinfect the entire housing unit, including walls, railings, floors, table tops etc.
g. Heavily soiled items shall be disposed of by utilizing the red biohazard bags in accordance with the biohazard procedures governing the PS 6000.1 Medical Management.
h. The Incident Commander or designee shall ensure that Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is obtained from CCA-CTF storage site and provided to the medical staff for immediate use: Gowns, Gloves and N-95 masks.
i. Universal Precautions shall remain in place for seven (7) days after the fever has been resolved.
9. INTAKES
a. When a pandemic influenza is medically confirmed, a member of the medical staff shall be present in R&D (male and female) at any time inmates are processed into the CDF or CTF. Intakes shall be assessed by medical and directed into either the quarantine or isolation or holding area based on their history and/or symptoms.
b. Juvenile and/or female intakes with ILI shall be transferred to the CCA wearing a surgical mask. Juveniles and/or females shall be housed in accordance with the CCA pandemic flu plan.
c. Male CDF Intakes with ILI shall first be housed in a safe cell on the 3rd floor medical unit wearing a surgical mask. When at capacity, those intakes shall be transferred to the CCA wearing a mask and housed in accordance with the CCA pandemic flu plan. When CCA housing for ILI cases reach capacity, those intakes shall be placed in the CDF North-3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 14 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 8 of 20
under the direction of the DOC medical director and the Incident Coordinator.
d. Quarantined unit (s) shall not receive new intake inmates until officially cleared by medical staff.
10. INMATES REQUIRING HOSPITALIZATION
a. It will be the assumption that hospitals will be too ill-equipped to respond to a pandemic due to the sheer volume of cases. Hospitals will reach their limits. Therefore, the DOC will prepare to care for ill inmates within the facilities.
b. Medical staff shall arrange for the transfer of inmates who require emergency treatment to the hospital. The DOC shall comply escorts as directed in PS 4910.1 Escorted Trips.
c. All cases shall be transported wearing a mask.
d. Staff providing escort and transportation for ILI cases shall wear masks.
11. COURT TRIPS AND INTERNAL LEGAL VISITS
a. In the event that Inmates are scheduled for a court appearance:
1) DOC shall notify the courts of all ILI inmates prior to their arrival to court. Notification shall be made through an expanded medical alert. Those inmates shall be transferred to court wearing a surgical mask;
2) ILI cases shall be scratched from court via the medical alert system;
3) The DOC shall notify the courts of Inmates who present with ILI symptoms, and had appeared in court within (7) days of symptoms onset.
b. In the event that Inmates have internal Legal Visits:
1) The ILI inmates shall wear a surgical mask while attending legal visits;
2) The Inmates attorney shall be offered a surgical mask (without informing the attorney of any medical issues).

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 15 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 9 of 20
12. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
a. Culinary shall serve the quarantined unit(s) with styrofoam and disposable items only.
b. The environmental team shall dispose all items in compliance with standard procedures governing disposal and OSHA guidelines.
c. Gloves are to be worn at all times during preparation, serving and disposal of food/dishes/utensils.
13. CONVERTING NORTH-3 TO MEDICAL HOUSING UNIT
a. The following procedures shall only take place under the direction of the Incident Commander and the DOC Medical Director.
b. Move all inmates assigned to North-3 (NO-3) to an alternate housing unit unaffected by the virus.
c. Upon removal of all inmates, the unit, to include walls, railings, cell doors, table tops, etc. shall be cleaned and disinfected in accordance with approved CDC guidelines for disinfecting agents.
d. All personnel assigned to NO-3 shall be issued PPE to include N-95 masks.
e. Both NO-3 and the housing unit where the ILI case was identified shall be cleaned and disinfected, subsequently all other housing units shall be disinfected in accordance with approved CDC guidelines for disinfecting agents.
f. Only Inmates affected by the virus shall be housed in the quarantined unit, per medical staff direction.
14. PHASE 2-COMMAND POST
a. Only authorized staff shall be permitted in the Armory during the emergency, as outlined in PS 5031.1 Emergency Plan.
b. The Incident Commander shall control movement of designated personnel in and out of the Operations Command Post.
c. The Incident Commander shall conduct roll call. Staff present shall include: Deputy Wardens, Majors, Medical Director or designee, Maintenance, Food Service Manager, etc.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 16 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 10 of 20
d. Incident Commander shall coordinate scheduling of briefings to ensure safety, count status, and employee status.
e. Incident Commander shall ensure that all essential employees are notified to report for duty.
f. Upon assessment of the seriousness of the emergency, the Incident Commander shall make immediate notification to the MPD, Courts and USMS if the DOC is unable to accept commitments, or if access to the facility is prohibited.
g. The Incident Commander shall meet with the DOC Medical Director or designee, no less than once each shift, for an update of the situation and to receive reports on new or resolved cases.
h. The Incident Commander shall ensure that all correctional staff radios and vehicles are operational.
i. Main communications channel that must be operational are:
1) Existing phone/fax lines
2) Cell phones
3) Internet
4) Email
5) Wireless email capability
6) Radios
j. The Perimeter Officer shall maintain external security around the facility.
k. The Incident Commander shall determine who enters the Staff and Visitor Control Entrances.
15. COMMUNICATIONS
a. Assuming that communications may be stressed or even inoperable, employees shall maintain contact by:
1) Use of facility land lines and/or cell phones.
2) Radios shall be used for on-going communication with the command center.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 17 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 11 of 20
16. MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF STAFF
a. Management of DOC, and medical personnel assigned to the quarantined unit(s) shall include:
1) No less than daily temperature checks and monitoring for ILI symptoms.
2) Coordination between the Medical Contractor, DOC and CCA to ensure appropriate monitoring of symptoms and temperature checks take place.
3) Any employee with a temperature of more than 100.4, or shows signs and symptoms of ILI, must immediately remove themselves from the area and make notification to their supervisor.
4) Medical shall instruct these employees with the flu-like symptoms and a temperature of more than 100.4 degrees to seek medical attention.
5) D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services shall be notified if medical has deemed the employees condition to be in need of hospitalization.
6) Medical Contractor shall make notification to the DOC Medical Director and Warden of the status of employees identified with ILI.
17. FLU VACCINATIONS FOR STAFF
a. The DOH has deemed the DOC and CCA staff as priority employees to receive the flu vaccination. In the event of a pandemic outbreak the DOH will offer the DOC and CCA employees the flu vaccination.
b. Medical staff is deemed priority in receiving the vaccination.
c. Vaccinations shall be administered in accordance with CDC guidelines.
18. FLU VACCINATIONS FOR INMATES
a. The Medical Contractor shall vaccinate in accordance with CDC guidelines for clinicians in vaccinating the high-risk individuals.
b. In accordance with CDC guidelines, the DOC deems the following inmates high-risk and will be offered the flu vaccine first:
1) Juveniles, pregnant females and inmates with chronic conditions.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 18 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 12 of 20
2) Medical staff shall seek parental/guardian consent for juveniles before the vaccination may be administered.
19. ABSENTEEISM
a. Personnel are expected to report for duty if they are not ill. The facilities Incident Commander shall implement the recall plan to notify all essential employees.
b. Designated Essential Employees are:
1) All correctional security staff;
2) Warrant squad investigators;
3) See Executive Agencies Recall Roster.
c. Under the direction of the Incident Commander or designee the following shall occur:
1) Housing Unit officers staffing shall be adjusted to maintain security.
2) Medical Unit officers staffing shall be adjusted to maintain security.
3) Other staff shall be redeployed to meet and maintain safety and security in the facility.
20. ALTERNATE POSITIONS
a. The Incident Commander shall designate, redeploy and assign the appropriate staff in order to maintain operations, safety and security of the DOC.
21. CONTINUED OPERATIONS WITHIN FACILITY
a. In the event of a lock-down, the facility shall:
1) Maintain lock down status until the Incident Commander has cleared the facility to resume normal operations;
2) Conduct count in accordance with department policy;
3) Maintain one (1) Officer on the housing unit floor at all times;

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 19 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 13 of 20
4) Develop a relief schedule for posts in the infected housing units. Frequent rotation of the post shall occur based on the limited wear of the N95 masks.
5) Ensure that all count sheets are collected from the housing units and delivered to the count book.
6) Conduct radio checks every hour.
7) Ensure correctional officers assigned to isolation or quarantine units have limited access to other areas in the facility.
b. The Incident Commander has the authority to modify the procedural steps in section 21 as deemed appropriate and necessary to ensure safety and security.
22. SERVICES TO CONTINUE DURING LOCK DOWN:
a. Medical
1) Medical Staff shall maintain necessary medical sick call services in accordance to the inmates’ immediate needs.
b. Medication
1) Medication shall be issued to inmates as ordered by a qualified licensed provider.
2) Bedside medication shall be distributed for (10) days at a time. Medication issued thru sick call shall increase from (3) days to (6) days. Medications prescribed for (5-7) days shall increase to (10-14) days.
3) Watch take medication shall be administered by a licensed medical professional during the scheduled times as described in the physicians orders.
c. Environmental
1) All garbage shall be properly disposed of in common areas, such as housing units, culinary, medical, at least every shift.
2) Housing units shall be cleaned in accordance with approved CDC guidelines for disinfecting agents at least daily and before another inmate occupies a cell.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 20 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 14 of 20
3) In addition, common areas, including rails, tabletops, floors, bedrails, TVs shall be cleaned and disinfected daily. Disposable disinfectant wipes shall be used on smooth metal surfaces, tabletops.
4) A damp cloth, not dry dusting or sweeping, shall be used to minimize the possibility of airborne exposure to infected material.
5) Gloves and surgical masks shall be worn at all times while cleaning and disinfecting.
6) Blood and body fluids shall be cleaned and disinfected immediately, as currently recommended by the CDC and/or Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
d. Food Service
1) The food service vendor shall prepare foods with Styrofoam trays and adhere to strict infection control guidelines.
2) Inmates shall receive three (3) meals a day.
3) All reusable dishes shall be washed in hot water in dishwasher.
4) After each wash cycle, the dishwasher shall be disinfected in accordance with approved CDC guidelines for disinfecting agents before the next wash.
5) All trash is to be disposed of in compliance with OSHA standards.
23. LAUNDRY OPERATIONS
a. Gowns and gloves shall be worn at all times when directly handling to include transporting soiled linen and laundry.
b. For laundry contaminated with the virus, soiled linen shall be placed directly into a laundry bag in the inmates’ cell. The Bag shall remain sealed until time of laundering.
c. Laundry shall be collected and cleaned daily (when applicable). The dryer shall maintain a temperature of 110 degrees.
d. Hands shall be washed with soap and water for at least twenty (20) seconds while hands and wrists are under the water.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 21 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 15 of 20
24. TEMPORARY MORGUE
a. In the event deaths occur from this pandemic and the need arises for a temporary morgue the following shall occur:
1) PPE (mask, face shield, gown and gloves), shall be worn at all times when handling the deceased.
2) The deceased shall be sealed in an impermeable (water tight) body bag before transfer. The exterior of the bag shall remain clean and dry.
3) The Incident Commander or designee shall relocate the refrigerated box truck from the motor pool to the CDF loading dock area for storage of the deceased.
4) If for any reason the refrigerated box truck is not accessible, a secondary plan shall be the walk-in freezer located in the CDF warehouse area adjacent to the loading dock.
5) The Incident Commander shall coordinate with the CCA command to have the deceased from the CTF transferred to these sites. When the CDF sites reach capacity, the space identified at the CTF shall be utilized.
6) The areas identified above, shall maintain approximately forty (40) deceased persons.
7) These areas shall be temporary until arrangements are made with the city morgue.
25. RELEASES
a. In the event an inmate is released to the community, the following measures shall be taken:
1) If a quarantined inmate does not present with symptoms of ILI, he/she shall be released home.
2) Inmate’s positive for ILI and have a home, medical shall notify the Department of Health (DOH).
3) Inmates positive with ILI and do not have a home, the medical contractor’s Discharge Planning Coordinator and the DOC Medical Director shall contact the DOH to arrange for appropriate medical housing in the community.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 22 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 16 of 20
26. REPORTING
a. All information in the event of a rapidly spreading pandemic flu requires accurate reporting. The DOC medical director and medical contractor shall review all lab reports and make notification of all identified ILI cases to the Department of Health.
27. PHASE 3- RESUME NORMAL OPERATIONS
a. The DOC medical director shall evaluate the pandemic situation and make proper notification to the Incident Commander.
28. SUPPLIES
In the event of a pandemic outbreak supplies shall be readily available to the staff and inmates. The DOC and CCA shall maintain a stockpile for immediate use. The medical contractor shall maintain the medications. All supplies shall be maintained at the designated space at the CTF. Supplies shall be plentiful enough to sustain staff and inmates for at least four (4) weeks. Below is a list of items that are required to build a stockpile:
a. Disposable N95 Masks
b. Saccharine Fit Test Kits
c. Disposable Exposure Control Gowns
d. Intravenous Catheters (IV’s)
e. Intravenous Fluids
f. Thermometers and Covers
g. Rapid Test Kits for Influenza
h. Tamiflu
i. Disposable eye Shields
j. Alcohol Based Hand Sanitizer
k. Germicide Wipes (surface cleaners)
l. Sharps Disposable Containers

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 23 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 17 of 20
m. Bio-Hazard Waste Bags n. Body Bags o. Safety Glasses p. Disposable Surgical Masks q. Oxygen Cannulas

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 24 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 18 of 20
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
1. Avian flu. A highly contagious viral disease with up to 100% mortality in domestic fowl caused by influenza A virus subtypes H5 and H7. All types of birds are susceptible to the virus but outbreaks occur most often in chickens and turkeys. The infection may be carried by migratory wild birds, which can carry the virus but show no signs of disease. Humans are only rarely affected.
2. Absenteeism rate. Proportion of employed persons absent from work at a given point in time or over a defined period of time.
3. CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. government agency at the forefront of public health efforts to prevent and control infectious and chronic diseases, injuries, workplace hazards, disabilities, and environmental health threats. CDC is one of 13 major operating components of the Department of Health and Human Services.
4. Cleaning. The removal of visible soil (e.g., organic and inorganic material) from objects and surfaces and normally is accomplished manually or mechanically using water with detergents or enzymatic products. Thorough cleaning is essential before high-level disinfection and sterilization because inorganic and organic materials that remain on the surfaces of instruments interfere with the effectiveness of these processes.
5. Contagious. A contagious disease is easily spread from one person to another by contact with the infectious agent that causes the disease. The agent may be in droplets of liquid particles made by coughing or sneezing, contaminated food utensils, water or food.
6. Cough etiquette. Covering the mouth and nose while coughing or sneezing; using tissues and disposing in no-touch receptacles; and washing of hands often to avoid spreading an infection to others.
7. Decontamination. Removes pathogenic microorganisms from objects so they are safe to handle, use, or discard.
8. Disinfection. Describes a process that eliminates many or all pathogenic microorganisms, except bacterial spores, on inanimate objects. In health-care settings, objects usually are disinfected by liquid chemicals or wet pasteurization.
9. Epidemic. A disease occurring suddenly in humans in a community, region or country in numbers clearly in excess of normal. See epizootic and pandemic.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 25 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 19 of 20
10. Face mask. Disposable surgical or procedure mask covering the nose and mouth of the wearer and designed to prevent the transmission of large respiratory droplets that may contain infectious material.
11. Hand hygiene. Hand washing with either plain soap or antimicrobial soap and water or use of alcohol-based products (gels, rinses, foams containing an emollient) that do not require the use of water.
12. Incubation period. The interval (in hours, days, or weeks) between the initial, effective exposure to an infectious organism and the first appearance of symptoms of the infection.
13. Infection control. Hygiene and protective measures to reduce the risk of transmission of an infectious agent from an infected person to uninfected persons (e.g., hand hygiene, cough etiquette, use of personal protective equipment, such as face masks and respirators, and disinfection).
14. Influenza. A serious disease caused by viruses that infect the respiratory tract.
15. Influenza pandemic. worldwide epidemic caused by the emergence of a new or novel influenza strain to which humans have little or no immunity and which develops the ability to infect and be transmitted efficiently and between humans for a sustained period of time in the community.
16. Isolation. A state of separation between persons or groups to prevent the spread of disease. The first published recommendations for isolation precautions in United States hospitals appeared as early as 1877, when a handbook recommended placing patients with infectious diseases in separate facilities. Isolation measures can be undertaken in hospitals or homes, as well as in alternative facilities.
17. Pandemic. The worldwide outbreak of a disease in humans in numbers clearly in excess of normal.
18. Personal protective equipment (PPE). PPE is any type of clothing, equipment, or respiratory protection device (respirators) used to protect workers against hazards they encounter while doing their jobs. PPE can include protection for eyes, face, head, torso, and extremities. Gowns, face shields, gloves, face masks, and respirators are examples of PPE commonly used within healthcare facilities. When PPE is used in a workplace setting to protect workers against workplace hazards, its use must be consistent with regulations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (www.osha.gov/index.html).
19. Quarantine. The period of isolation decreed to control the spread of disease. Before the era of antibiotics, quarantine was one of the few available means of halting the spread of infectious disease. It is still employed today as needed.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 26 of 26
5031.1A Annex 4 Page 20 of 20
The list of quarantinable diseases in the U.S. is established by Executive Order of the President, on recommendation of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and includes cholera, diphtheria, infectious tuberculosis, plague, smallpox, yellow fever, and viral hemorrhagic fevers (such as Marburg, Ebola, and Congo-Crimean disease). In 2003, SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) was added as a quarantinable disease. In 2005 another disease was added to the list, influenza caused by novel or reemergent influenza viruses that are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic.
20. Seasonal flu. A respiratory illness that can be transmitted person to person. Most people have some immunity, and a vaccine is available. This is also known as the common flu or winter flu.
21. Sterilization. A process that destroys or eliminates all forms of microbial life and is carried out in health-care facilities by physical or chemical methods. Steam under pressure, dry heat, and liquid chemicals are the major sterilizing agents used in health-care facilities.
22. Surgical mask. Disposable face mask that covers the mouth and nose and comes in two basic types. The first type is affixed to the head with two ties and typically has a flexible adjustment for the nose bridge. This type of surgical mask may be flat/pleated or duck-billed in shape. The second type of surgical mask is pre-molded, or cup shaped, and adheres to the head with a single elastic strap and usually has a flexible adjustment for the nose bridge. Surgical masks are used to prevent the transmission of large particles.
23. Vaccine. A preparation consisting of antigens of a disease-causing organism which, when introduced into the body, stimulates the production of specific antibodies or altered cells. This produces immunity to the disease-causing organism. The antigen in the preparation can be whole disease-causing organisms (killed or weakened) or parts of these organisms.
24. Virus. Any of various simple submicroscopic parasites of plants, animals, and bacteria that often cause disease and that consist essentially of a core of RNA or DNA surrounded by a protein coat. Unable to replicate without a host cell, viruses are typically not considered living organisms.
25. WHO. World Health Organization, an agency of the United Nations established in 1948 to further international cooperation in improving health conditions.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-2 Filed 04/03/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-2 Filed 04/03/20 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849 (CKK)

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF LENNETTE NESBITT

1. My name is Lennette Nesbitt. I am competent to make this declaration and I make these

statements based on personal knowledge.

2. I work as a case manager for the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC) at the Correctional

Treatment Facility (CTF). I have held this position since 2017. From 2005 to 2012, I also

worked at CTF, during which time I was employed by Correction Corporation of America.

3. When I learned that covid-19 had reached D.C., I knew my job put me at a high risk of

contracting the illness. The nature of our facility, the lack of protective gear, my inability to

obtain adequate cleaning supplies all left me afraid to come to work—so much so that I would

have to sit in my car for about thirty minutes every day so I could calm myself down before

entering the building.

4. Despite my fears, I had worked all but two days in March until last Friday, March 27. That

day, I reported that I had been in close proximity with someone who had been in direct contact

with a person suffering from the virus. Since then, I have not returned to the CTF. Fortunately,

my medical provider helped me secure covid-19 testing, and thankfully, my test came back

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-2 Filed 04/03/20 Page 3 of 4
negative Wednesday afternoon. 5. The risks I face are magnified for the inmates I serve. 6. I have observed the conditions at DOC closely. My job requires me to walk through housing
units and, from my office window, I can see into one of the recreational areas. This vantage point has allowed me to view cleaning practices and note the availability of protective gear. 7. DOC does not have a professional cleaning service working in the housing units. Instead, the Department relies on inmates to clean the units themselves. 8. The unit I work on is reserved for people 50 and over. Many inmates in my unit have health conditions and spent significant amounts of time in the medical unit even before covid-19 reached the United States. Nonetheless, with the exception of one occasion where I saw an officer cleaning a surface with solution earlier this month, the only individuals I have ever seen cleaning the housing unit during my nine and a half years of service are inmates. 9. To my knowledge, the inmates do not receive any training from staff on how to clean or sanitize. In all my years working at CTF, I have never seen any such training occur—not even this March, when the dangers of covd-19 became well-known. 10. As I have watched inmates clean, I have not seen any of them wearing gowns or masks. In fact, I only know of one inmate in the entire CTF who was in possession of a mask. 11. Personally, I have had trouble getting a mask too. I asked my supervisor for protective gear but never received any. I also asked my supervisor for cleaning solution and didn’t get that either. My supervisor told me that she only had five bottles of solution for the eleven case managers she oversaw. She did not provide me with one of the bottles, nor, to my knowledge, did she give a bottle to one of my colleagues. As of March 26, 2020, I still didn’t have access to cleaning solution capable of killing covid-19.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-2 Filed 04/03/20 Page 4 of 4

12. On March 17, the warden sent a notice to all staff informing us that we could bring our own

sanitizing wipes to work to clean our offices. I brought my own wipes but quickly ran out.

13. During the week of March 23, multiple inmates came to my office to make legal calls. After

they left, I did not have any cleaning solution capable of killing covid-19 that I could use to

wipe down surfaces. As a result, any virus particles any inmate left on my phone remained

there, where each successive inmate’s face could come into contact with it.

14. Social distancing is not happening in my unit. From my office window, I can see one of the

recreation areas, and have routinely seen inmates sitting or standing close to one another, rather

than six feet apart. Chairs are clustered together and inmates will frequently sit next to each

other to play cards or chat. The recreational area also has a television room; that room is small

enough that when more than four people sit there it gets warm. I regularly noticed inmates

crowded in that room as recently as last week.

15. I don’t recall ever having heard announcements instructing inmates to social distance from one

another.

16. Another factor that creates risk is the lack of fresh air coming into the CTF. To enter the

housing units from outside the facility, people must pass through layers of thick, secured doors.

None of the windows inside the facility open. As a result, old air circulates throughout the

building and fresh air rarely enters. Any particles of virus in the air put all of us at risk.

I, Michael Perloff, certify that I have read the foregoing to Ms. Nesbitt and that she affirmed that the foregoing is true and correct on April 3, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: April 3, 2020

/s/ Michael Perloff Michael Perloff American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, D.C. 20005

3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 24-3 Filed 04/03/20 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners

v.
QUINCY BOOTH, in their official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

No. 1:20-cv-00849 (CKK)

Defendants-Respondents.

[Proposed] ORDER Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Convert April 6, 2020 Status Conference into Merits Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, and any response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is granted. The telephonic status conference scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on Monday, April 6, 2020, shall be a hearing on the merits of Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file their reply memorandum not later than 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, April 4, 2020.

Dated: April ___, 2020

_______________________________ Colleen Kollar-Kotelly United States District Judge

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 1 of 34

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-0849 (CKK)

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Quincy Booth, Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC), and Lennard Johnson, DOC Warden, in their official capacities (collectively, DOC or the District).1 Plaintiffs allege that DOC’s practices inside District of Columbia jail facilities warrant a TRO mandating immediate, sweeping and detailed relief in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. But plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing for the extraordinary remedy of a TRO. The allegations they proffer to support their arguments do not reflect the extensive measures DOC has taken to address the rapidly unfolding events of the pandemic. Plaintiffs have not shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their Fifth or Eighth Amendment claim because they have not established either an unreasonable risk of harm

1

The four plaintiffs are inmates currently housed in DOC facilities: two as pretrial

detainees, one awaiting sentencing post-conviction, and one serving a sentence post-conviction.

See Compl. ¶¶ 14–17 and p. 11, below.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 2 of 34
or deliberate indifference on the part of District officials, and they do not have standing to seek most of their requested relief. Plaintiffs have also failed to show a likelihood of irreparable harm absent emergency relief, or that the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in their favor. Because plaintiffs have not shown they are entitled to any relief, their request for a Courtappointed expert and independent monitor is unwarranted.
As discussed below, DOC has taken and continues to take extensive measures to ensure that the District’s incarcerated population remains safe and secure amid this pandemic, despite supply shortages, a fast-moving informational landscape and evolving recommendations from public health experts worldwide. Court intervention is not necessary. Plaintiffs’ application for a TRO should be denied.
BACKGROUND I. COVID-19 in the District of Columbia
On March 7, 2020, officials announced the District’s first confirmed case of COVID-19, also known as the novel coronavirus, an infectious respiratory virus that has spread rapidly across the globe since its first detection in humans in late 2019. See Press Release, Gov’t of the District of Columbia, DC Department of Health Confirms First Coronavirus Case (March 7, 2020), available at https://coronavirus.dc.gov/release/dc-department-health-confirms-first-coronaviruscase; D.C. Health, COVID-19 FAQs, available at https://coronavirus.dc.gov/node/1464356. Although the virus’s sufferers have exhibited a range of symptoms, severe cases have been known to cause shortness of breath, pneumonia and even death. Id. The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the spread of COVID-19 a global pandemic. See “WHO Director-General’s Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on COVID-19 – 11 March 2020,” World Health Organization, March 11, 2020, available at https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 3 of 34

general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020.

Municipalities across the country have hastened to respond to COVID-19’s unprecedented

spread in just a few short weeks. Since early March 2020, U.S. cities and states have ordered the

closure of schools and non-essential businesses, banned large gatherings and recommended that

individuals who do not live in the same household abide by now-familiar “social distancing”

measures where feasible. See, e.g., Jesse McKinley and Michael Gold, Ban on Large Gatherings

in N.Y. as Coronavirus Cases Rise Sharply, N.Y. Times, March 12, 2020, available at

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/nyregion/coronavirus-nyc-event-ban.html;

Dominic

Fracassa, SF bans large gatherings as nation moves to confront pandemic, San Francisco

Chronicle, March 11, 2020, available at https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Mayor-

London-Breed-bans-all-large-gatherings-15123312.php.

The District is no exception. On February 28, 2020, more than a week before the District

recorded its first case of COVID-19, Mayor Muriel Bowser issued an order preemptively

activating the District’s Emergency Operations Center and requiring all District agencies to ensure

they had up-to-date plans for emergency operations. See Mayor’s Order 2020-035, February 28,

2020,

available

at

https://dchealth.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doh/

page_content/attachments/2020-035-District-Government-Preparation-for-the-Coronavirus-

COVID-19.pdf. As described below, DOC moved promptly. See Decl. of Dr. Beth Jordan (Jordan Decl.) [20-2] ¶¶ 4, 5, 11; Decl. of Lennard Johnson (Johnson Decl.) [20-1] ¶ 4.2 While the District

prepared in earnest, events unfolded quickly. By March 11, 2020, Mayor Bowser issued a

Declaration of Public Emergency and a Declaration of Public Health Emergency based on the

2

In its filing of the Declaration of Lennard Johnson, the District inadvertently failed to attach

a referenced list of DOC supplies. That list is included here as Exhibit A.

3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 4 of 34
WHO declaration of a pandemic, as well as on the outbreaks seen in other cities throughout the world. See Mayor’s Order 2020-045, March 11, 2020, available at https://mayor.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mayormb/release_content/attachments/MO.Decla rationofPublicEmergency03.11.20.pdf; Mayor’s Order 2020-046, March 11, 2020, available at https://mayor.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mayormb/release_content/attachments/MO.Decla rationofPublicHealthEmergency03.11.20.pdf. Both Declarations have since been extended through at least April 24, 2020, and the District is now under a stay-at-home order. See Mayor’s Order 2020-054, March 30, 2020, available at https://mayor.dc.gov/release/mayor-bowser-issuesstay-home-order.
Despite federal, state and local government efforts across the country, COVID-19 has continued to spread rapidly, generating immense demand for protective face masks, gloves, hand sanitizer and other products used to limit transmission of pathogens; a shortage of all these items has resulted. See United States Conference of Mayors, “Shortages of COVID-19 Emergency Equipment in U.S. Cities: A Survey of the Nation’s Mayors,” March 27, 2020, available at https://www.usmayors.org/issues/covid-19/equipment-survey/ (noting, for example, that 91.5% of cities surveyed do not have an adequate supply of face masks for their first responders). The District has taken unusual measures in response, commissioning assistance from local businesses to fill in supply gaps where possible. See Press Release, “Mayor Bowser Commissions Hand Sanitizer from DC Businesses to Support Frontline DC Workers,” Government of the District of Columbia, March 23, 2020, available at https://coronavirus.dc.gov/release/mayor-bowsercommissions-hand-sanitizer-dc-businesses-support-frontline-dc-workers (announcing District commissioned local distillery and coffee shop to produce hand sanitizer). This case arises in the context of an unprecedented response to an unprecedented situation.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 5 of 34
II. DOC’s Response DOC is the agency charged with safely and securely housing pretrial detainees, those
serving sentences for misdemeanor offenses, and those adjudicated guilty but awaiting sentencing for offenses in the District. DOC is responsible for ensuring “the safekeeping, care, protection, instruction, and discipline of all persons committed to [its] institutions.” D.C. Code § 24-211.02(a). The agency also plays an important role in ensuring the safety of those inside and outside its facilities. See, e.g., 28 DCMR § 500.3 (permitting DOC to take individuals charged with criminal violations into involuntary protective custody who are “found to be in danger from a clear and present threat to that resident’s safety”); Id. § 507.10 (allowing DOC to withhold from residents information “which may endanger any resident(s) or other person(s), or cause a riot, other major disturbance, or damage to property”); Teamsters Local Union 1714 v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 579 A.2d 706, 712 (D.C. 1990) (observing DOC employees “are involved directly with public safety”).
DOC operates a system consisting of two primary correctional facilities: the Central Detention Facility (CDF) and the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF). See D.C. Department of Corrections, “Correctional Facilities,” available at https://doc.dc.gov/page/correctional-facilities. DOC also contracts with two privately operated halfway houses to provide various services. Id. Despite their combined capacity of more than 3,600 residents, these facilities currently house fewer than 1,600 individuals in total—less than half their total capacity. See DOC Inmate Count March 28, 2020 to April 3, 2020, Ex. B.
District and DOC officials have nevertheless remained cognizant of how COVID-19 might affect both residents and staff in its facilities. DOC continues to take the steps described below to ensure the safety and well-being of its staff and residents.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 6 of 34
A. Cleaning Measures and Resident Hygiene DOC ensures that its facilities are properly cleaned and sanitized. In addition to its standard cleaning practices, DOC now cleans all common spaces and housing unit common areas every two hours between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m., and twice each night between 12:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. to sanitize “high use and high touch” areas. Johnson Decl. ¶ 6. Residents have access to cleaning materials, including peroxide-based cleaner and disinfectant, to clean their cells. Id. ¶ 7. Each week, residents also receive a new supply of personal hygiene items free of charge. These include a new bar of soap, a roll of toilet paper, clean towels, and clean sheets, as well as the opportunity to launder their washcloths. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. They can also purchase additional soap through DOC’s commissary. Id. ¶ 8. All residents have access to sinks with both hot and cold water for hand washing. Id. Because of local and nationwide shortages, DOC does not have enough hand sanitizer to guarantee a supply for each resident; residents in CTF (not CDF) nevertheless have access to hand sanitizer from wall-mounted dispensers. Id. ¶ 10. To keep everyone in DOC facilities as safe as possible, “high-risk” staff receive priority access to the limited supply of hand sanitizer; this includes staff working in isolation and quarantine units, officers working transportation and escort details, and staff conducting COVID-19 screenings. Id. Residents receive regular information from DOC staff about COVID-19 prevention measures. Jordan Decl. ¶ 8. DOC has placed signs and posters throughout its facilities to alert both residents and staff of prevention measures they should take. Johnson Decl. ¶ 12. B. Screening Measures As of March 13, 2020, everyone entering DOC facilities—including legal visitors, DOC employees, and new residents—gets screened for symptoms of COVID-19 by completing a
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 7 of 34

screening survey and having their temperature taken. Jordan Decl. ¶ 5.3 The staff member conducting these screenings wears a face mask and gloves while doing so, and DOC maintains a record of each screening. Id. Regardless of screening results, every new resident entering a DOC facility is placed into quarantine for 14 days before being assigned to their permanent housing unit. Jordan Decl. ¶ 7. Residents who screen positive receive additional medical attention and treatment by qualified medical staff where appropriate. Id. ¶ 6. DOC medical staff meet regularly with staff and residents in DOC housing units to discuss COVID-19 prevention measures. Id. ¶ 8.
C. Response Measures DOC provides medical treatment based on guidance and recommendations from the District of Columbia Department of Health (DOH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Id. ¶ 4. Residents who test positive for COVID-19 are reassigned to isolation units and checked by medical staff at least twice daily. Id. ¶ 11. As of April 2, 2020, DOC has conducted 22 tests, 12 have come back positive, and 4 have come back negative, with results pending for the remaining 6. Id. Also as of April 2, 2020, 125 residents are in quarantine units. Decl. of Kathleen Jo Landerkin (Landerkin Decl.) [21-2] ¶ 7. D. Resident Movement and Communications Access To further prevent the spread of COVID-19, DOC has also made changes to inmate

3

In their motion for a TRO, plaintiffs assert that “DOC staff themselves report” that, among

other things, DOC does not screen new residents for COVID-19. See Pls.’ Mem. in Support of

App. for TRO [5-1] at 3. But for this proposition, plaintiffs cite a letter, attached to their expert’s

declaration, written by an attorney on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police Department of

Corrections Labor Committee dated March 25, 2020. See Exhibit B to Exhibit 1 of Pls.’ App. for

TRO [5-2] at 32. (Plaintiffs appear to have cited it incorrectly in their brief.) In addition to being

hearsay within hearsay, this document is not a declaration or affidavit made under oath and

therefore is inadmissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 805. In addition, the letter was written five days before

plaintiffs filed their TRO motion. As indicated, DOC policies and procedures have been changing

rapidly as events have unfolded, and the Court should place little if any weight on vague statements

rebutted by more recent and accurate accounts of contemporaneous events at DOC facilities.

7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 8 of 34
movements. DOC residents are now moved from their housing units only for court appearances, medical and dental appointments, work details, and legal visits (whether conducted in-person or remotely); CDF residents are also moved for video conferencing. Johnson Decl. ¶ 11.
On March 11, 2020, the day Mayor Bowser first issued emergency declarations for the District, DOC instituted a policy of screening “all staff and visitors (friends, family members, attorneys, contractors, volunteers, etc.)” for COVID-19 at the main entrances of all facilities. See D.C. Department of Corrections, Coronavirus Prevention, available at https://doc.dc.gov/page/coronavirus-prevention. As events unfolded rapidly, DOC continued to take additional measures. Just three days later on March 14, 2020, DOC formally suspended “all in-person visits, programming, and volunteer activities” for the duration of the District’s Public Health Emergency. See id. DOC also provided residents with the means to video conference with friends and loved ones. See id. (residents still have access to in-unit “video visitation visits”).
Even though residents are still permitted to receive in-person visits from their attorneys, DOC provides each resident with one ten-minute phone call each day to their attorney of record. Decl. of Camile Williams (Williams Decl.) [21-1] ¶ 7. The call is provided free of charge, and each phone call is unmonitored. Id. Although the system for providing these calls is newly implemented, DOC “is making all reasonable efforts to ensure that all inmates can have access to legal calls.” Id. ¶ 9.
E. Reduction of Resident Population Since the Mayor’s emergency declarations on March 11, 2020, DOC’s resident population has decreased by more than 16 percent as of April 3, 2020. Compare DOC Inmate Count March 7, 2020 to March 13, 2020, Ex. C (1,863 inmates at all DOC facilities as of March 11, 2020) with DOC Inmate Count March 28, 2020 to April 3, 2020, Ex. B (showing 1,557 inmates at all DOC
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 9 of 34

facilities as of April 3, 2020). On March 15, 2020, the Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted District law enforcement the discretion “to release an individual not otherwise eligible for release … upon approval of the prosecuting authority.” See Superior Court of the District of Columbia Order, March 16, 2020, available at http://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/Order_3-16-20.pdf. As a result, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) announced that it would expand criteria for releasing individuals pending a future court date who otherwise would have been taken into custody. See Metropolitan Police Department Operational Adjustments During COVID-19, March 18, 2020, available at https://mpdc.dc.gov/release/metropolitan-police-department-operational-adjustments-duringcovid-19.
DOC does not have the legal authority to unilaterally release individuals from its custody. Before this pandemic, District of Columbia law provided DOC discretion to award a limited number of sentencing credits to those serving sentences for misdemeanors, for good behavior, D.C. Code § 24-221.01c(a), and “up to 3 credits per calendar month for each” of certain designated rehabilitation, work detail, or other special programs, id. § 24-221.01c(b).4 Individuals can also earn “educational good time credits of no less than 3 days a month and not more than 5 days a month” for participating in specified academic or vocational programs.” Id. § 24-221.01(a). Until recently, the law expressly stated that “[n]o person shall receive more than 10 credits per calendar month” when combining all of these categories. Id. § 24-221.01c(c) (2016).
On March 18, 2020, however, the D.C. Council passed the COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020 (COVID-19 Emergency Act). See D.C. Act 23-247, March 17, 2020, available at http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/44469/B23-0718-SignedAct.pdf.

4

Each credit counts as one day of an individual’s sentence.

9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 10 of 34
Among other measures, the COVID-19 Emergency Act amended Section 24-221.01c(c) to specify that “during a period for which a public health emergency has been declared …, [DOC] shall have discretion to award additional credits” to those serving misdemeanor sentences “to effectuate immediate release of persons sentenced for misdemeanors”—with the qualification that this discretion could only be exercised “consistent with public safety.” See D.C. Code § 24-221.01c(c) (2020).
DOC has used its newly-granted discretion to double the maximum number of monthly sentencing credits a resident serving a misdemeanor sentence may receive from 10 to 20. See DOC Change Notice #20-002, March 18, 2020 [19-2], ¶ 2c.5 Since making this change, DOC has applied this policy to effectuate the early release of dozens of residents. See Natalie Delgadillo and Rachel Sadon, “D.C. Now Has Nearly 600 Confirmed Coronavirus Cases, 11 Deaths,” DCist, April 1, 2020, available at https://dcist.com/story/20/04/01/d-c-now-has-nearly-600-confirmedcoronavirus-cases-11-deaths/.
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia, in response to an “Emergency Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Persons Serving Misdemeanor Sentences at the Department of Corrections Should Not Be Released Forthwith in Light of the Crisis Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic” filed by the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS), ordered expedited responses by the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) and the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia (OAG). See In Re Sentenced Misdemeanants, 2020 CNC

5

It has since been changed a second time to expand the circumstances in which residents

can receive credits. See DOC Change Notice #19-002, April 1, 2020 [19-1].

10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 11 of 34

000120 (Super. Ct. of D.C. March 31, 2019) (Order).6 The court’s order noted “that nothing in this Order shall prevent the filing of a D.C. SCR Rule 35 motion for sentence reduction to be filed on behalf of an individual defendant serving a misdemeanor sentence” and directed that such motions shall be filed with Judges McKenna and Dayson, and require a response from USAO or OAG within two business days. Id. As of this filing, the Superior Court has not yet ruled on PDS’s motion. III. Plaintiffs’ Allegations
Plaintiffs in this case are four individuals currently in DOC custody; plaintiffs Phillips and Banks reside at CDF, while plaintiffs Smith and Jackson reside at CTF. Compl. [1] ¶¶ 14-17. Plaintiff Phillips is incarcerated pending trial and was denied bond. See id. ¶ 14; United States v. D’Angelo Phillips, Case No. 2020 CF3 002932 (D.C. Super. Ct.). Plaintiff Banks has pled guilty to a felony and awaits sentencing. See Compl. ¶ 15; United States v. Edward M. Banks, Case No. 2019 CF1 010956 (D.C. Super. Ct.). Plaintiff Smith is incarcerated pending trial. Compl. ¶ 16. And plaintiff Jackson “is being held post-conviction.” Id. ¶ 17.
Although the Complaint does not state any specific allegations pertaining to plaintiffs in particular, it does lay out a number of general allegations concerning DOC’s response to COVID19. Plaintiffs allege that DOC’s “response was slow and insufficient.” Compl. ¶ 63. They acknowledge that beginning on March 3, 2020, DOC began taking various precautions such as notifying employees of risks associated with the virus. Id. ¶ 64. However, plaintiffs allege deficiencies as of early March in the provision of hygienic products such as soap, towels, hand sanitizer, cleaning supplies, face masks, and gloves. Id. ¶¶ 66-67, 73-79. They also allege

6

The USAO and OAG opposed the motion on April 1, 2020. See Docket, In Re Sentenced

Misdemeanants, 2020 CNC 000120 (Super. Ct. of D.C.) (available at

https://www.dccourts.gov/eaccess).

11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 12 of 34
deficiencies as of mid-to-late March in certain visitor screening procedures, id. ¶¶ 68-70, 72, quarantine procedures, id. ¶¶ 80-82, and resident testing and medical treatment, id. ¶¶ 83-84, 87. In addition, plaintiffs allege inadequate measures to ensure sufficient distancing from others. Id. ¶¶ 86-91, 94-96. Although plaintiffs allege that, in the past, inadequate provisions were made for residents to speak with their lawyers on unmonitored phone lines, id. ¶ 93, they acknowledge that “[s]ome limited arrangements have been provided in the last few days,” id.
Plaintiffs raise two legal claims, one under the Fifth Amendment and one under the Eighth Amendment, both alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Id. ¶¶ 153-74. They also raise allegations on behalf of two putative classes. Id. ¶¶ 148-52. As relief, plaintiffs request that the Court issue a 20-part injunction, most of which orders the District to take specific actions. Id. at 34-37. IV. Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit on March 30, 2020. See Compl. Along with the Complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, an application for a temporary restraining order, and a motion for preliminary injunction. See Mot. to Certify Class [3]; Application for Temporary Restraining Order [5]; Mot. for Preliminary Injunction [6].
On March 31, 2020, the Court held a telephone conference with the Parties and ordered DOC to provide the following by 1:00 p.m. on April 1, 2020:
a list of the names of the approximately 94 inmates who have been sentenced to misdemeanors and who Defendants are considering for release; the numbers of people who have been tested for COVID-19 and a break-down of the identities of those individuals (such as inmates, visitors, etc.) and the results of those tests; the date on which Defendants began testing people coming into the jails; the number and a breakdown of the results of COVID-19 tests which have been done on those who were incarcerated prior to the date on which Defendants began testing all incoming inmates; all relevant written procedures and practices concerning COVID-19; and
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 13 of 34
Defendants[’] process which is in place or will be put in place to allow legal counsel to communicate with their clients electronically or by other means. See Minute Order of April 1, 2020. The Court further ordered that by April 2, 2020, DOC provide “[d]eclarations about the processes and procedures actually in place and the current conditions of the jail, concentrating on Plaintiffs’ requests for relief 2-9,” as enumerated in the proposed order attached to their application for a TRO. Id. Lastly, the Court ordered that DOC file by 4:30 p.m. on April 3, 2020, a response to plaintiffs’ application for a TRO, focusing on “the merits of Plaintiffs’ 5th and 8th Amendment claims as well as on the need for an independent monitor and expert.”
LEGAL STANDARD A temporary restraining order “is ‘an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.’” Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 393 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)). “The same standards apply for both temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.” Experience Works, Inc. v. Chao, 267 F. Supp. 2d 93, 96 (D.D.C. 2003). A plaintiff seeking a TRO must establish that: (1) “he is likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) “he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief”; (3) “the balance of equities tips in his favor”; and (4) “an injunction is in the public interest.” Sherley, 644 F.3d at 392. Because injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy, a plaintiff seeking such relief must prove all four prongs of the standard before relief can be granted. In re Navy Chaplaincy, 738 F.3d 425, 428 (D.C. Cir 2013); Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. The plaintiff bears the burden of doing so. Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1292 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 14 of 34
“The usual role of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending the outcome of litigation.” Cobell v. Norton, 455 F.3d 301, 314 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Dist. 50, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am., 412 F.2d 165, 168 (D.C. Cir. 1969)); see also Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (CFGC) (same). Where, instead, a plaintiff seeks a “mandatory injunction”—i.e., one that would compel a positive act by the defendant—courts generally require the plaintiff to meet a higher standard and show “extreme or very serious damage” or that plaintiff is “clearly entitled” to immediate relief. Sweis v. U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Comm’n, 950 F. Supp. 2d 44, 48 (D.D.C. 2013) (citations omitted)); see also Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 15 F. Supp. 3d 32 (D.D.C. 2014).
ARGUMENT I. Plaintiffs Cannot Show a Likelihood of Success on the Merits.
First and foremost, plaintiffs have not carried their burden to show they are likely to succeed on the merits of their case. Demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits is a freestanding requirement. Sherley, 644 F.3d at 393 (internal quotation marks omitted). Failing to meet the burden on this prong “is alone sufficient to defeat” a motion for emergency injunctive relief. Smith v. Henderson, 944 F. Supp. 2d 89, 96 (D.D.C. 2013). The Court need not conclude that plaintiffs will definitely lose on the merits, only that they have not met the demanding burden of showing a clear entitlement to immediate, extraordinary relief. Sweis, 950 F. Supp. 2d at 48. To overcome this burden, plaintiffs must show not merely that success is a “possibility” but that it is “likely.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20-22.
A. Plaintiffs’ Fifth and Eighth Amendment Claims Are Not Likely To Succeed. In their Complaint, plaintiffs allege unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The standard for finding a violation of the Fifth Amendment (for pre-trial detainees) and Eighth
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 15 of 34
Amendment (for post-conviction detainees) is the same: jail officials must have (1) exposed inmates to “an unreasonable risk of serious damage” to the inmates’ health (an “objective factor”), and (2) acted with “deliberate indifference” to posing such a risk (a “subjective factor”). Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993); Young v. District of Columbia, 107 F. Supp. 3d 69, 77 (D.D.C. 2015). Here, plaintiffs have not satisfied either prong.
1. Plaintiffs Fail To Demonstrate That the Risk of Serious Harm to Inmates Violates Contemporary Standards.
The “unreasonable risk” prong of the analysis—the objective factor—“requires a court to assess whether society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 36 (emphasis in the original). DOC does not dispute the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the objective test “requires more than a scientific and statistical inquiry into the seriousness of the potential harm and the likelihood that such injury to health will actually be caused by exposure to” the virus. Id. Plaintiffs “must show that the risk of which he complains is not one that today’s society chooses to tolerate.” Id. They have failed to meet that burden.
The current state of the COVID-19 pandemic exposes everyone to the risk of falling ill. DOC’s response is aligned with the best available medical advice for mitigating the risks associated with the pandemic. See Jordan Decl. ¶ 4 (DOC has implemented response protocols “based on guidance and recommendations from” DOH and the CDC, and consultation with subject matter experts). DOC has implemented the same risk-reduction practices among the inmates that are recommended for the community at-large: providing soap for hand washing, frequently disinfecting high-touch areas, quarantining individuals who may be exposed, restricting large gathering of inmates, limiting inmates’ exposure to members of the community, decreasing movements around the facilities, and screening individuals who enter the facilities for COVID-19
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 16 of 34
symptoms. See Background Section II, above. These practices are precisely the measures deemed capable of reducing the risk of transmission and how “today’s society chooses to tolerate” that risk. Helling, 509 U.S. at 36.
Although complete social distancing and isolation is not possible for each inmate in the DOC facilities, plaintiffs have not shown that the risk posed by DOC’s practices raises plaintiffs’ risk of exposure substantially over the risk experienced by the outside community. See Hines v. Youssef, Civil Action No. 13-00357, 2015 WL 164215, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2015) (“Unless there is something about a prisoner’s conditions of confinement that raises the risk of exposure substantially above the risk experienced by the surrounding communities, it cannot be reasoned that the prisoner is involuntarily exposed to a risk the society would not tolerate.”). Plaintiffs have not shown that inmates’ limited interaction with other residents and staff poses an exceptional level of risk beyond that posed to anyone who shares a living space with others. The evidence now presented by DOC shows that, among other things, all staff, visitors, and new residents are screened before entering DOC facilities, Jordan Decl. ¶ 5; all new residents are quarantined for 14 days as a precaution, id. ¶ 7; every resident who tests positive is isolated from other residents and checked twice daily, id. ¶ 11; common spaces are cleaned every two hours each day, Johnson Decl. ¶ 6; all residents have access to peroxide-based disinfectant to clean their cells, id. ¶ 7; all residents are given soap, towels, and regular access to hot water, id. ¶ 8; and DOC staff have limited resident movement out of their units to reduce resident-staff contact, id. ¶ 11.
It is impossible to eliminate all risk factors for transmission of COVID-19. Nevertheless, the facts DOC has presented here make clear that any risks faced by those inside DOC facilities are comparable to the general risks faced by everyone. Plaintiffs have not met their burden to
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 17 of 34
establish an objectively “unreasonable risk” posed by their confinement inside DOC facilities, see Helling, 509 U.S. at 36, or even that they face more risk than other inmates.
2. Plaintiffs Fail To Establish That DOC Has Acted with Deliberate Indifference.
Plaintiffs have also failed to satisfy the second prong of the legal standard, which requires them to show “that officials had subjective knowledge of the serious medical need and recklessly disregarded the excessive risk to inmate health or safety from that risk.” Baker v. District of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302, 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). The test is subjective, meaning “the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he [or she] must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
DOC is actively apprised of COVID-19’s spread throughout the District. But plaintiffs are simply incorrect that DOC “steadfastly refused” to heed policy and practice guidance from DOH and the CDC. See Pls.’ Mem. in Support of App. for TRO [5-1] at 28. On the contrary, the record demonstrates that DOC heeded those recommendations specifically and continues to do so. On March 11, 2020, the day Mayor Bowser made her public health declarations, DOC imposed a visitor screening policy clearly explaining that it “continue[d] to monitor COVID-19 … and follow guidance from DC Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention” to ensure residents could “continue to safely receive visitors.” See D.C. Department of Corrections, Coronavirus Prevention, available at https://doc.dc.gov/page/coronavirus-prevention. On March 14, when announcing that it was halting all in-person visitations, DOC cited its tracking of “Centers for Disease Control and DC Health guidelines.” Id. DOC’s Medical Director Dr. Beth Jordan specifically attests that “DOC implements operational and medical procedures in response to
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 18 of 34
COVID-19 based on guidance and recommendations from [DOH] and the [CDC],” among others. Jordan Decl. ¶ 4.
Plaintiffs’ allegations reflect, at most, that DOC may have changed some of its practices over time, but that is because recommendations from these very bodies have been changing rapidly. Id. ¶ 15 (DOC medical operations are “review[ed] regularly” and “modif[ied] consistent with guidance and recommendations from DOH and CDC” according to “this guidance and changing conditions”); Johnson Decl. ¶ 14 (DOC operations modified based on recommendations from medical staff and “subject to change or modification based on this guidance and changing conditions”). The record demonstrates that DOC has kept pace with the changing landscape of public health recommendations and relied on the best available information to inform its responses.
Although the “deliberate indifference” inquiry is ultimately subjective, courts may properly go beyond officials’ mental states and also consider “the constraints facing the official[s]” for context. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303 (1991); see Helling, 509 U.S. at 37 (“The inquiry into this factor also would be an appropriate vehicle to consider arguments regarding the realities of prison administration.”). Here, the significant constraints on DOC and the measures they have taken in spite of those constraints preclude a finding of deliberate indifference. See Hines, 2015 WL 164215, at *5 (finding no deliberate indifference when “Plaintiff has failed to show that the policy Plaintiff contends should have been adopted was within the range of policies that the proposed Defendants could reasonably have promulgated.”). For example, DOC lacks enough hand sanitizer to provide a supply for every inmate because the District—and the entire country— is dealing with a shortage of hand sanitizer. See Johnson Decl. ¶ 10. DOC has chosen to marshal these scarce resources to most efficiently mitigate the risk of illness spreading. See, e.g., id. (DOC providing “high-risk staff priority access to its limited supply of hand sanitizer”).
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 19 of 34
The rapidly changing nature of public health recommendations is also significant. When applying the deliberate indifference standard, the official’s state of mind “must be measured by the official’s knowledge at the time in question, not by ‘hindsight’s perfect vision.’” Kulkay v. Roy, 847 F.3d 637, 643 (8th Cir. 2017); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 178 (4th Cir. 2014) (Section 1983 complaint against prison doctor properly dismissed where “hindsight suggests that [his] treatment decisions may have been mistaken, even gravely so”). With each piece of new guidance from DOH, CDC, and outside experts, DOC has adapted its policies to increase the efficacy of its practices in limiting COVID-19’s potential harm to inmates based on the best available knowledge. See Johnson Decl. ¶ 14.
Similarly, the exercise of professional medical judgment cannot constitute deliberate indifference. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 107 (explaining that “the question whether … additional diagnostic techniques or forms of treatment … is indicated is a classic example of a matter for medical judgment”). “[T]he existence of alternative treatment options does not itself render the treatment received unconstitutional.” Perniciaro v. Lea, 901 F.3d 241, 258-59 (5th Cir. 2018). Plaintiffs contend that DOC “fail[ed] to follow established guidelines” by “adopting policies, and failing to adopt others, that would mitigate the risk of harm of the virus.” Pls.’ Mem. at 32. However, as discussed above, DOC’s medical staff has adopted policies and guidelines based on the recommendations of DOH, the CDC, and outside experts. Jordan Decl. ¶ 4. A difference of opinion among medical professionals about the proper approach to medical care does not amount to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Scott v. Benson, 742 F.3d 335, 340 (8th Cir. 2014) (holding that a “mere difference of opinion over matters of expert medical judgment or a course of medical treatment fail[s] to rise to the level of a constitutional violation”).
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 20 of 34
Plaintiffs cannot show they are entitled to a TRO without showing it is “likely,” and not merely “possible,” that their claims will succeed. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20-22. Because they have not done so, their application for a TRO should be denied.
B. Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Seek Most of the Requested Relief. Regardless of the merits of their Fifth and Eighth Amendment claims, the four plaintiffs here are unlikely to succeed because they lack standing to seek most of the relief requested in the Complaint. Every plaintiff in federal court must meet the constitutional minimum for Article III standing by showing an injury, causation and redressability. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The third of these, redressability, requires showing “a likelihood that the requested relief will redress the alleged injury.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998). “[A] plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press and for each form of relief that is sought.” Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 734 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006)). “[I]f a favorable judicial decision is unlikely to correct the alleged wrong, there is no case or controversy within the meaning of Article III.” Brookens v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., 315 F. Supp. 3d 561, 566 (D.D.C. 2018). The Complaint recites twenty items of injunctive relief that plaintiffs seek through “a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction and/or writs of habeas corpus.” Compl. at 34. But the four plaintiffs in this action (no class has been certified) have not pled facts sufficient to show that granting the relief they have requested would remedy any purported individualized injuries they are suffering. There are no allegations that any of the four is serving a misdemeanor sentence as required for release under the COVID-19 Emergency Act, Compl., Requested Relief ¶¶ B.1, 2; that any plaintiff has been deprived of any of the cleaning
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 21 of 34
or personal hygiene implements described, See id. ¶¶ B.3-6, 14; that any plaintiff has come into contact with or otherwise been negatively affected by any staff member lacking adequate personal protective equipment, see id. ¶¶ 7-8; that any plaintiff has been quarantined in a punitive setting, id. ¶ 16; that any plaintiff received an insufficient response to a request for medical care, see id. ¶ 17; or that any plaintiff has been denied remote access to court appearances or meetings with legal counsel, see id. ¶¶ 18-19. Although plaintiffs’ application for a TRO and accompanying exhibits allege some facts specific to them, plaintiffs cannot rely on these allegations or anything else outside of their pleadings to establish standing. See Kingman Park Civic Ass’n v. Gray, 27 F. Supp. 3d 142, 160 n.7 (D.D.C. 2014) (complaint cannot be amended by briefing on motion). If plaintiffs lack standing, they cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits, let alone entitlement to the relief they seek. II. Plaintiffs Fail to Show They Will Suffer Irreparable Harm.
Aside from the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, “failure to demonstrate irreparable harm is grounds for refusing to issue a [TRO], even if the other three factors … merit such relief.” Nat’l Min. Ass’n v. Jackson, 768 F. Supp. 2d 34, 50 (D.D.C. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also CFGC, 454 F.3d at 297 (observing that there is “a high standard for irreparable injury”). “[P]roving irreparable injury is a considerable burden, requiring proof that the movant’s injury is certain, great and actual—not theoretical—and imminent, creating a clear and present need for extraordinary equitable relief to prevent harm.” Power Mobility Coal. v. Leavitt, 404 F. Supp. 2d 190, 204 (D.D.C. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). If a party fails to make a sufficient showing of irreparable injury, a court may deny a motion for preliminary relief without considering the other factors. CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 747 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 22 of 34
Additionally, injunctive relief that “goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo … is particularly disfavored.” Stanley v. Univ. of S. Calif., 13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994). It is a “judicially inflicted injury,” and many circuits therefore make the movant’s already high burden even “more stringent.” O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973, 978 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing cases); see also Sweis, 950 F. Supp. 2d at 47 (where relief requested would change rather than preserve the status quo, plaintiffs must show “extreme or very serious damage” or that they are “clearly entitled” to immediate relief).
Here, because plaintiffs have not pled facts sufficient to show that granting injunctive relief would remedy any purported individualized injuries they are suffering, see Section I.B above, they cannot demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm absent a TRO. Plaintiffs seek extraordinary relief that disrupts DOC’s efforts to combat the health crisis, and the Superior Court has already established a process to adjudicate the potential release of inmates. See Background Section II.E above. As a result, and because plaintiffs fail to make any showing of a specific injury that is not generalized to the inmate population, plaintiffs fail to meet their burden of demonstrating irreparable harm. III. The Balance of Equities and Public Interest Militate Against Preliminary Relief.
Even if plaintiffs could show a likelihood of success on the merits and that irreparable harm would result without a TRO, they must additionally show both that “the balance of equities tips in their favor,” and that “an injunction is in the public interest.” Sherley, 644 F.3d at 392; In re Navy Chaplaincy, 738 F.3d at 428 (plaintiffs cannot use strong showing on some factors to make up for weak showing on others). These two factors “merge when the Government is the opposing party” and are thus analyzed together. Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 920 F.3d 1, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]here the Court
22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 23 of 34
has a less intrusive means” of ensuring legal compliance, “the public interest would weigh towards choosing such options, especially where … the plaintiffs seek a mandatory (‘do this’) rather than prohibitory (‘don’t do this’) injunction.” Garnett v. Zeilinger, 313 F. Supp. 3d 147, 160 (D.D.C. 2018).
DOC does not dispute either the gravity of COVID-19 or its duty to ensure the well-being of the more than 1,500 individuals in its custody during a pandemic. See D.C. Code § 24-211.02(a). But the broad and detailed relief plaintiffs seek here would impose a remarkable level of intrusion on DOC’s day-to-day operations that is simply not warranted under these circumstances. Plaintiffs’ proposed relief would require, among other things, that DOC:
• Abdicate to the Court—and to a court-appointed expert—the agency’s legislativelygranted discretion to determine who should be awarded sentencing credits for expedited release, see Compl. Requested Relief ¶ B.2;
• Provide “all inmates” (all but four of whom are not parties to this case) with hand sanitizer, which is currently in short supply around the country, with specifications down to the percentage content of alcohol, see id. ¶ B.5;
• Take the temperature daily of each of more than 1,500 individuals, regardless of staff capacity, see id. ¶ B.9; and
• “Assess (through questioning) … daily” each of more than 1,500 individuals for possible signs of COVID-19, regardless of staff capacity, id. ¶ B.10.
Aside from the merits of plaintiffs’ legal claims, it is important to note how much of DOC’s autonomy such relief would usurp—on a record that includes contemporaneous, sworn declarations by DOC officials that they are already complying with many of the practices plaintiffs ask this Court to impose. See, e.g., Johnson Decl. ¶ 6 (housing unit common areas cleaned every two hours during the day and twice each night); ¶ 7 (residents provided peroxide disinfectant to clean cells); ¶¶ 8-9 (each resident provided access to hot running water as well as weekly bar of soap, roll of toilet paper, and clean linens); ¶ 10 (hand sanitizer available to residents in CTF
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 24 of 34
despite shortage); ¶ 12 (signs posted to alert residents of COVID-19 prevention measures); Jordon Decl. ¶ 8 (DOC medical staff regularly meet with residents to discuss COVID-19 prevention); ¶ 12 (testing conducted in accordance with DOH guidelines where residents exhibit specified symptoms).
There is a well-established public interest in permitting the government to carry out its authorized functions where doing otherwise would needlessly upend its operations. See Benisek v. Lamone, 138 S. Ct. 1942, 1945 (2018) (finding lower court could have reasonably concluded that ordering redrawing of electoral district map would have contravened public interest where “injunction might have worked a needlessly chaotic and disruptive effect upon the electoral process” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Garnett, 313 F. Supp. 3d at 160 (public interest “would disfavor the Court’s interference” in legal process of administering food stamp benefits “in light of [federal agency’s] expertise and role” in carrying it out). This is especially true in the midst of a public health emergency in which DOC is actively taking part in a District-wide emergency response protocol. See Johnson Decl. ¶ 4.
Although the extent to which COVID-19 will affect the inmates in the District’s correctional facilities is not yet clear, plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the relief they seek will be more effective than the actions DOC is already implementing to keep inmates safe, and the process created by the Superior Court for evaluating requests for inmates’ early release. The balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in DOC’s favor and counsel against granting a TRO. IV. Plaintiffs’ Request for a Court-Appointed Expert and Independent Monitor Should
Be Denied. In seeking a TRO, plaintiffs have asked for a sweeping array of immediate relief from changes to DOC practices in corrections facilities to the Court’s appointment of an expert and
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 25 of 34
monitor. See Pls.’ Proposed Am. TRO Proposed Order (Pls.’ Proposed Order) [16-1] ¶ 1-20.7 As discussed, plaintiffs have fallen well short of meeting their burden to establish grounds for a TRO. They have not shown the likelihood of succeeding on either a Fifth or an Eighth Amendment claim, and they have not shown that the balance of equities or the public interest weighs in their favor. Without making these fundamental showings, this Court should not grant any relief, let alone the specific relief plaintiffs request. See Guedes, 920 F.3d at 10 (plaintiff bears burden of persuasion in motion for preliminary relief).
Additionally, for the reasons explained below, there is no basis to appoint an expert or an independent monitor. See Pls.’ Proposed Order ¶¶ 19-20.
A. Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled to a Court-Appointed Expert. Plaintiffs ask the Court to “[a]ppoint an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 to make recommendations to the Court regarding how many and which class members to order released so as to ensure that the number of prisoners remaining at the CDF and CTF can be housed consistently with CDC guidance on best practices to prevent the spread of COVID-19 ….” Pls.’ Proposed Order ¶ 20. Plaintiffs, however, have only asked for the release of a small subset of DOC residents: those whom it is “within [DOC’s] power” to release, see id. ¶ 1, which amounts only to those who have already been sentenced for misdemeanor offenses. As discussed above, the COVID-19 Emergency Act is DOC’s only pertinent source of legal authority to designate individuals in their custody for release. During an active public health emergency, the law only gives DOC the discretion “to award additional credits … to effectuate immediate release of persons sentenced for misdemeanors”—and only when doing so is “consistent with public safety.” See D.C. Code § 24-

7

On March 31, 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended version of a proposed TRO [16]. DOC

references the proposed amended version.

25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 26 of 34
221.01c(c) (2020). The appointment of an expert would serve no purpose because the named plaintiffs cannot
seek relief for non-parties, and plaintiffs have not explained how an expert would aid the Court in deciding whether to grant relief.
1. None of the Named Plaintiffs Is Eligible for Release. Based on plaintiffs’ own pleadings, none of them is eligible for the release remedy they seek. Plaintiffs Phillips and Smith allege they are “being held in pre-trial custody.” See Compl. ¶¶ 14, 16. And plaintiff Banks alleges he “has pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing.” Id. ¶ 15. Even plaintiff Jackson only pleads that he “is being held post-conviction,” without specifying whether he is being held pre- or post-sentencing, and whether the offense for which he is being held is a misdemeanor or a felony. Id. ¶ 17. An expert would serve no purpose if none of the four named plaintiffs is even eligible for the relief they are seeking. But even if plaintiff Jackson is eligible to receive sentencing credits at DOC’s discretion, he would still be the only resident eligible for relief in this case (at this stage). Although plaintiffs filed this case as a putative class action, “there is no class of plaintiffs before the Court at this time towards whom relief could be directed.” Russell v. Barry, Civil Action No. 87-2072, 1987 WL 15697, at *2 (D.D.C. Jul. 30, 1987). This Court should not grant relief to parties not before it. Zepeda v. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). This applies equally to preliminary injunctive relief and relief from a final judgment. Khatib v. Alliance Bankshares Corp., 846 F. Supp. 2d 18, 25 (D.D.C. 2012). Here, only the four named plaintiffs would be eligible for relief. See Garnett v. Zeilinger, 301 F. Supp. 3d 199, 205 n.4 (D.D.C. 2018) (“[I]t is not clear that
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 27 of 34
the Court can or should issue class-wide injunctive relief without a certified class.”); Dorfmann v. Boozer, 414 F.2d 1168, 1171 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (preliminary injunction “should not have been issued before the action was certified as a class action” where injunction “worked a transfer of money belonging to persons who were not within the jurisdiction of the court”). However, based on the existing record, none of the four plaintiffs has shown that he would be eligible for release.
2. The Appointment of an Expert Would Not Assist the Court or DOC. Even if the Court is inclined to order DOC to make determinations about awarding eligible residents additional good-time credits, this task is straightforward and well within the capability of DOC. As discussed above, DOC has already performed this task numerous times and continues to evaluate residents’ eligibility for release. Although Federal Rule of Evidence 706 provides courts the discretion to designate expert witnesses, this is a “relatively infrequent occurrence.” Carranza v. Fraas, 471 F. Supp. 2d 8, 9 (D.D.C. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 706 Advisory Comm. Note)). Court-appointed experts are generally limited to “exceptional cases in which the ordinary adversary process does not suffice … or when a case presents compelling circumstances warranting the appointment of an expert.” Id. at 9-10 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, courts generally only even consider appointing experts to aid the court in factfinding—not to advise the defendant on complying with a proposed remedy. See, e.g., Carranza, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 10 (rejecting legal malpractice plaintiff’s request for an expert when plaintiffs “made no showing that their malpractice claims are so complex, or that their case presents circumstances so compelling, that the appointment of an expert would aid the court”); Applegate v. Dobrovir, Oakes & Gebhardt, 628 F. Supp. 378, 383 (D.D.C. 1985) (considering but rejecting appointing an expert under Rule 706 to testify as pro se plaintiff’s witness in legal malpractice
27

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 28 of 34
litigation where plaintiff did not present “compelling circumstances”); see also Edmunson v. Magic Diamond Casino, Civil Action No. 06-100, 2007 WL 9710369, at *1 (D. Mont. Nov. 16, 2007) (“[A] court’s appointment of an expert under Rule 706 is generally for the purpose of assisting the court, not to assist a pro se litigant.”).
Plaintiffs ask the Court to order DOC to “take all actions within their power to reduce the inmate population of [CDF] and CTF ….” Pls.’ Proposed Order ¶ 1. Plaintiffs have not explained how a court-appointed expert would assist the Court in interpreting the phrase “all actions within their power” or deciding whether to grant relief. See Carranza, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 10. Nor have they explained how this could even assist DOC. As discussed above, the only tool DOC has to unilaterally release residents is its discretion under the COVID-19 Emergency Act to award additional sentencing credits to those serving misdemeanor sentences to make them eligible for immediate release. DOC has exercised the discretion granted to it by significantly revising its sentencing credit policy to accomplish this in a manner “consistent with public safely.” See D.C. Code § 24-221.01c(c) (2020); DOC Change Notice #19-002 ¶ 2c. Even if the Court believes DOC should further revise its policies and practices, DOC is fully capable of (1) determining who is serving a sentence for a misdemeanor and (2) determining who should receive additional sentencing credits.
It is also worth re-emphasizing that the Superior Court has created a process to allow a judicially-managed release of eligible individuals. See Background Section II.E above. This Court’s intervention is not necessary, nor is the appointment of an expert. Plaintiffs’ request falls well outside the purview of Rule 706 and does not constitute appropriate relief.
B. There Is No Basis To Appoint a Monitor. Plaintiffs are also not entitled to the appointment of an independent monitor. It is only “[i]n
28

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 29 of 34
unusual circumstances” that the appointment of an independent monitor “may be useful to oversee compliance with a court order.” Women Prisoners of District of Columbia Dep’t of Corr. v. District of Columbia (Women Prisoners), 93 F.3d 910, 930 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b) (court-ordered referral to a special master “shall be the exception and not the rule.”); Cook v. Billington, Civil Action No. 82-0400, 2003 WL 24868169, at *7 (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2003) (“It is widely recognized that appointing a Receiver is essentially the remedy of last resort, and therefore, should be undertaken only when absolutely necessary” (alterations adopted) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).).8
In other words, a court should consider whether an independent monitor “is really the only remedy left for the Court.” Dixon v. Barry, 967 F. Supp. 535, 550 (D.D.C. 1997). In so evaluating, “the court should consider whether there were repeated failures to comply with the Court’s orders, whether continued insistence that [the defendant’s] compliance with the Court’s orders would lead only to confrontation and delay, if there is a lack of sufficient leadership to turn the tide within a reasonable time period, whether there was bad faith, … whether resources are being wasted, … [and] whether a receiver can provide a quick and efficient remedy.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
By their formulation, these factors make clear that the appointment of a monitor is simply not appropriate at the outset of a case, without at least providing the defendant an opportunity to

8

Courts analyze the propriety of appointing independent monitors under the standards of

Rule 53. See, e.g., Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Pub. Sch., Civil Action No. 01-C-928, 2009 WL

1615520, at *27 (E.D. Wisc. June 9, 2009), vacated on other grounds by 668 F.3d 481 (7th Cir.

2012) (analyzing propriety of appointing “independent monitor” under Rule 53’s standards for

appointing a “master” on grounds that “[s]ubstantively, the distinction is one without

consequence”). The same is true for appointment of “receivers.” See Cook v. Billington, Civil

Action No. 82-0400, 2003 WL 24868169, at *7 (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2003) (“The circumstances which

justify the appointment of a Special Master … are essentially the same as those for a Receiver.”).

29

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 30 of 34
comply with a court order on its own. Unsurprisingly, in the rare cases in which courts appoint monitors, they are appointed (1) when final judgment has been issued against the defendant, and (2) where there are good grounds to question whether the defendant will comply with courtordered injunctions, i.e., a history of uneven (or no) compliance. See, e.g., Women Prisoners, 93 F.3d at 930 (citing Nat’l Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen, 828 F.2d 536, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1987)) (citing case in which Ninth Circuit “approv[ed] use of monitors to oversee compliance with court order where compliance with past orders has been sporadic”). The District is aware of no cases—and plaintiffs have pointed to none—in which a court has appointed an independent monitor to ensure compliance with a TRO at the outset of a lawsuit. An independent monitor at this juncture would be wholly unwarranted. The Court should deny plaintiffs’ request.
C. Any Relief Must Be Narrowly Tailored If the Court is inclined to grant some form of emergency relief, the well-established rule is that injunctive relief must be “narrowly tailored to remedy the specific harm shown.” Nevada Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 435 F.3d 326, 330 (D.C. Cir. 2006); see also District of Columbia v. USDA, 2020 WL 1236657, *12 (D.D.C. March 13, 2020) (observing that “injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs”) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979)). As discussed above, even leaving aside phrases such as “take all actions within their power,” plaintiffs either lack standing to pursue much of the relief they seek, or they should not receive such relief because DOC has already undertaken those measures. V. The Court’s April 3, 2020 Minute Order In response to the inquiries posed by the Court in its Minute Order issued today, April 3, 2020, DOC responds as follows.
30

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 31 of 34
A. Basis for Opposing Motion To File Amicus Curiae Brief DOC opposes the Motion To File an Amicus Curiae Brief (Amicus Motion) by the Fraternal Order of Police for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections Labor Committee (Labor Committee) because it will not aid the Court in deciding the issues before it. “An amicus curiae … does not represent the parties but participates only for the benefit of the Court.” Jin v. Ministry of State Sec., 557 F. Supp. 2d 131, 136 (D.D.C. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court has full discretion over whether and to what extent to permit amici but should nevertheless “consider the presence of partiality with regard to an amici’s admittance.” Id. Additionally, leave to file a brief should be denied where “it is unlikely that [it] would provide the Court with any ‘unique information or perspective[s].’” Iacangelo v. Georgetown Univ., Civil Action No. 05-2086, 2009 WL 10693231, at *2 (D.D.C. June 11, 2009) (quoting Georgia v. Ashcroft, 195 F. Supp. 2d 25, 33 (D.D.C. 2002)). The Labor Committee’s proposed brief focuses on a number of topics not relevant to the legal issues in this case. See Labor Committee’s Proposed Mem. as Amicus Curiae (Proposed Brief) [23-2]. The Proposed Brief, for example, spends significant time on matters such as laborrelated disputes between the Labor Committee and District officials. See id. at 5-9. More significantly, many of the factual assertions the Labor Committee proposes to add are either devoid of citation, see, e.g., id. at 11, 13; or based on a single declaration purporting to be on behalf of many different individuals—including the attorney filing on behalf of the Labor Committee— frequently failing to state who is attesting to which statements, see, e.g., Proposed Brief Ex. I [2311] ¶¶ 45-51, 53, 65. Many of those statements with attributions are unreliable hearsay statements about what the individual(s) in question heard. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 56, 60, 61, 67. Instead of shedding light on the facts, the Labor Committee’s Proposed Brief injects them
31

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 32 of 34
with unreliable, unattributed, and irrelevant assertions. It is also plainly partisan. The Court should decline to consider the Proposed Brief and deny the Labor Committee’s motion.
B. Plaintiffs’ Motion To Expedite the Hearing. DOC opposes Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Expedite Hearing on Application for a Temporary Restraining Order [23] because it is inconsistent with the deadlines set by the Court on April 1, 2020, and based on the lack of time between plaintiffs’ reply and the proposed merits hearing. Plaintiffs’ reply in support of their application for TRO is due at 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, April 5, 2020, and plaintiffs have proposed that a merits hearing occur the following morning. DOC appreciates the urgency of this matter and is willing to accommodate a compressed schedule, but requests more than the overnight hours of Sunday evening to Monday morning to consult with District personnel regarding plaintiffs’ upcoming filing and to properly prepare for a hearing on plaintiffs’ application for a TRO. Although expedition is important here, too much haste prejudices DOC, by reducing the time it has to respond to the many, complicated arguments and allegations presented and—more importantly—reduces the time for the Court to consider all the evidence and arguments. However, DOC defers to the Court. If the Court decides to hold a hearing on plaintiffs’ application for a TRO on April 6, 2020, DOC requests—as plaintiffs propose—that plaintiffs’ reply in support of a TRO be due Saturday, April 4, 2020, at 5:00 pm. C. COVID-19 Procedures Regarding plaintiffs’ assertion that COVID-19 procedures are not being followed, DOC disputes that the anecdotes described in the declarations are an accurate representation of the COVID-19 response practices currently being implemented. As summarized above, and noted in the declarations of DOC officials, see Background Section II, DOC is taking all available
32

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 33 of 34

precautions to protect inmates from the spread of COVID-19. The specific complaints noted in the declarations do not represent the current practices in DOC facilities (e.g., professional cleaners now clean the common areas daily and cleaning of common areas takes place every two hours), others are mistaken (cleaning supplies are widely available to staff and inmates), and others are the result of unavoidable constraints (e.g., the distribution of masks and other PPE is limited to individuals who have screened positive and DOC staff performing high risk functions, and the ability to practice social distancing is limited). The response has evolved quickly, with everevolving changes and enhancements based on medical guidance and availability of resources.
D. DOC’s Pandemic Plan The plan proffered by plaintiffs is not DOC’s currently operative pandemic response plan and should not have been available to staff (because it is not operative and is confidential). However, that plan clearly shows that DOC regularly updates the plan as the agency has indicated, and DOC is in the midst of an ongoing revision process.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order.

Dated: April 3, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,
KARL A. RACINE Attorney General for the District of Columbia
TONI MICHELLE JACKSON Deputy Attorney General Public Interest Division
/s/ Fernando Amarillas FERNANDO AMARILLAS [974858] Chief, Equity Section
33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25 Filed 04/03/20 Page 34 of 34
/s/ Micah Bluming__ MICAH BLUMING [1618961] PAMELA DISNEY [1601225] Assistant Attorneys General ANDREW J. SAINDON [456987] Senior Assistant Attorney General 441 Fourth Street, N.W., Suite 630 South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-7272 (202) 730-1833 (fax) micah.bluming@dc.gov pamela.disney@dc.gov andy.saindon@dc.gov Counsel for Defendants
34

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25-1 Filed 04/03/20 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-0849 (CKK)

ORDER Upon consideration of plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order (Application), defendants’ opposition, and the entire record, it is this ______ day of _____________, 2020, ORDERED that: The Application is DENIED.

_____________________________________________ THE HONORABLE COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY Judge, United States District Court
for the District of Columbia

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25-2 Filed 04/03/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25-2 Filed 04/03/20 Page 2 of 3
COVID-19 Supply List
Operations Support Manager George Lample

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25-2 Filed 04/03/20 Page 3 of 3
Current COVID-19 Supply List

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25-3 Filed 04/03/20 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25-3 Filed 04/03/20 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25-4 Filed 04/03/20 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT C

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 25-4 Filed 04/03/20 Page 2 of 2

Inmate Count

Location CDF

Indicator

SEX

Adult Male

Adult Total

STSF Male
STSF Total

USMS GB Male

CDF Total CTF

USMS GB Total
Adult Female Adult Male
Adult Total
STSF Female STSF Male
STSF Total
USMS GB Female USMS GB Male

CTF Total Fairview Hope Village IRC
IRC Total Hospital
Hospital Total DOC Total

USMS GB Total
Juvenile Male Juvenile Female
Juvenile Total
Adult Female Adult Male
Adult Male Adult Female
Female Male

03/07/2020 03/08/2020 03/09/2020 03/10/2020 03/11/2020 03/12/2020 03/13/2020 Operating

SAT

SUN

MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI

Capacity

1149
1149

1163
1163

1163
1163

1170
1170

1164
1164

1166
1166

1157
1157

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

127

127

127

129

128

126

131

127 1276
94 300
394
0 17
17
11 132

127 1290
94 300
394
0 17
17
11 132

127 1290
92 286
378
0 17
17
11 132

129 1299
92 291
383
0 18
18
11 130

128 1292
90 293
383
0 16
16
11 130

126 1292
90 288
378
0 20
20
10 129

131 1288
93 295
388
0 19
19
10 128

2164

143
0 0
0 554
3 27
0 0
0
0 2
2 1862

143
0 0
0 554
3 28
0 0
0
0 1
1 1876

143
0 0
0 538
3 28
0 0
0
0 1
1 1860

141
0 0
0 542
3 28
0 0
0
0 0
0 1872

141
0 0
0 542
3 26
0 0
0
0 0
0 1863

139
0 0
0 537
2 26
0 0
0
0 1
1 1858

138
0 0
0 545
2 24
0 0
0
0 1
1 1860

1400 15 45
3624

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 1 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners

v.
QUINCY BOOTH, in their official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

No. 1:20-cv-00849 (CKK)

Defendants-Respondents.

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiffs’ Application for Temporary Restraining Order has only gained in urgency since filing. In just a matter of days, the number of positive cases in DOC custody has more than doubled, and the rate of infection in the DOC now stands over seven times as high as the rate of infection in the District of Columbia generally. In prisons and jails across the country, outbreaks that started only two weeks ago are already killing residents; in one federal facility, for instance, four residents have already died, 18 residents are hospitalized, and several are in the ICU.1 Defendants, having failed both to follow their own policies and to heed the warnings about COVID-19 that began in January, admit that they have inadequate supplies of items like hand sanitizer, masks, and “other PPE,” necessary to follow established guidelines for stopping the spread of the virus, see Dkt. No. 25 (“Defs.’ Br.”), at 18, 33. It is against this backdrop that Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining

1

See 7KPLC, Death Toll Rising at Federal Prison in Oakdale (April 3, 2020, 10:32 PM),

https://www.kplctv.com/2020/04/03/death-toll-rising-federal-prison-oakdale/.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 2 of 25
order that provides, among other forms of relief, rapid downsizing of the DOC’s population — relief that Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Marc Stern advises should urgently be implemented. See Dkt. No. 5-2, Ex. 2 (“Stern Decl.”), at ¶¶ 10-13.
In this emergency, Defendants assure the Court they have the situation under control. Relying on policies and procedures they have disclosed to the Court, see Dkt. Nos. 19-21, Defendants aver that the “DOC has taken and continues to take extensive measures” to protect those in their custody. Defs.’ Br. 2.
Defendants’ reliance on their written policies and procedures runs headlong into Plaintiffs’ direct evidence that those policies and procedures are not being implemented. While Defendants produce no evidence from personal knowledge that their policies have even been made known to staff, let alone that they have been put into practice, Plaintiffs supply evidence from DOC staff members themselves who have been utterly unaware of these policies and who confirm that they are not being followed. These staff members confirm the reports of Plaintiffs and of Public Defender Service (“PDS”) attorneys, who have also witnessed firsthand the failure of DOC to implement their policies. Moreover, even if Defendants’ written policies were followed to a T, Defendants have offered no evidence that the many deficiencies identified by Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Meyer — including a failing ventilation system and grossly insufficient medical equipment, see Dkt. No. 5-2, Ex. 1 (“Meyer Decl.”), ¶ 28(d) — will be corrected in time to save DOC residents’ lives.
This emergency calls for immediate and urgent relief to protect the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and proposed class members. It is clear from the record before the Court that DOC cannot, and is not, meeting its constitutional obligations. The Court should act swiftly and decisively in vindicating those rights by granting the requested relief, and most importantly, by
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 3 of 25
granting writs of habeas corpus to effectuate the rapid downsizing of the DOC to a level at which Defendants can reasonably ensure the constitutional rights of its residents.
I. Plaintiffs’ Evidence Regarding the Nature of COVID-19 and the Facilities at Issue Shows They Have Standing to Seek Each Form of Relief They Request.
Defendants’ attack on Plaintiffs’ standing, see Defs.’ Br. 20-21, is not only misguided, but also emblematic of a bigger problem inherent in Defendants’ arguments: their failure to appreciate how the COVID-19 pandemic poses particular risks in the jail setting that make a comprehensive set of precautions necessary for the protection of everyone in a given facility. Defendants’ argument boils down to the claim that if a proposed aspect of relief does not result in the named Plaintiffs’ release or address a condition they have personally encountered, then they do not have standing to seek it. That contention is both legally and factually wrong.
Plaintiffs’ theory of standing is straightforward: Their injury is the risk of contracting COVID-19, which is a legally cognizable injury under the Eighth Amendment before Plaintiffs themselves are infected. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993). Each of the Plaintiffs is suffering that injury today. This injury is caused by Defendants’ failure to take basic precautionary measures consistent with the D.C. government’s own recommendations for the general public and the guidance of public health experts. And that injury would be redressed by the relief Plaintiffs seek. Plaintiffs need not establish that granting the requested relief would completely obviate the risk that they contract COVID-19; as the Supreme Court has explained, a plaintiff “need not show that a favorable decision will relieve his every injury.” Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 525 (2007) (quoting Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 n. 15 (1982)).
At the outset, Defendants’ attempt to avoid grappling with Plaintiffs’ extensive evidence by limiting the standing analysis to the face of Plaintiffs’ complaint is unavailing. Defendants argue that materials outside the pleadings are irrelevant here, based on a portion of a case analyzing
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 4 of 25
a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Kingman Park Civic Ass'n v. Gray, 27 F. Supp. 3d 142, 160 n.7 (D.D.C. 2014). But standing is a question of subject-matter jurisdiction, which unlike the failure to state a claim may be analyzed based on evidence outside the pleadings. See Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
In any event, Plaintiffs have both pled and proved, via expert declarations that stand entirely unrebutted, that the requested relief would redress their injuries (i.e., mitigate their risk of contracting COVID-19). As Plaintiffs’ complaint explains, they are in custody at DOC correctional facilities, Dkt. No. 1 (Compl.) ¶¶ 14-17; such facilities “are highly susceptible to rapid person-toperson transmission of the virus because cramped conditions place residents and staff in close proximity,” id. ¶ 37; and “COVID-19 will spread rapidly in Defendants’ facilities because of the belated and inadequate policies discussed above and the failures to take other policies that are recommended and required by the CDC and other experts,” id. ¶ 127 (emphasis added) (referring to the inadequacies and failures “discussed above” at ¶¶ 67-95, 115-16). These policies, the Complaint explains, “systemically affect all proposed class members,” id. ¶ 150, because absent proper precautions, COVID-19 can “spread like wildfire” among a detained population in close quarters, id. ¶ 2. The plausibility of these allegations is underscored by the fact that such rapid transmission has occurred in carceral facilities during previous epidemics and already during this one. See id. ¶¶ 39-44.
The declarations of Drs. Meyer and Stern support each of the allegations in detail: how easily COVID-19 is transmitted, see Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 22, 25; why detention facilities in general are dangerously susceptible to the spread of viruses, see Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 9-21; Stern Decl. ¶ 13, and how DOC facilities are particularly dangerous to all who reside there in light of the characteristics and practices documented in Plaintiffs’ evidence, see Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 27-30, 33, 37; Stern Decl.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 5 of 25
¶¶ 9, 10. It logically follows that Plaintiffs are placed at risk equally by precautionary lapses that they have experienced personally and those that they have not: both determine how quickly and widely the disease will spread within the facility. See Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 12, 25, 28(a)(i)-(iii), 28(d), 28(d)(ii) (discussing the importance of various precautionary measures, including ones that Defendants claim Plaintiffs do not have standing to seek — cleaning supplies, personal hygiene implements, personal protective equipment, nonpunitive quarantine, and prompt medical care); Stern Decl. ¶¶ 9, 10, 16(c), 16(e), 16(f) (same). Further, Drs. Meyer and Stern make clear that proximity of detainees to one another is a critical factor that makes jails so dangerous to their inhabitants during a pandemic. See Meyer Decl. ¶ 11; Stern Decl. ¶ 13. Accordingly, downsizing is the experts’ primary recommendation; releasing individuals in custody other than Plaintiffs themselves would diminish the risk to Plaintiffs by enabling Defendants to better implement precautionary measures for those who remain in custody. See Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 34-35; Stern Decl. ¶¶ 10-14. In particular, downsizing will enable individuals in custody to practice appropriate social distancing, a critical precautionary measure. See Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 11, 28(c); Stern Decl. ¶ 13. Defendants provide no rebuttal, logical or evidentiary, to any of this record evidence showing that Plaintiffs’ present injury (the risk of contracting COVID-19) would be redressed by the release of a suitable number of residents, all of whom are members of the putative class of which Plaintiffs are part.
The Supreme Court has recognized that detained persons’ health does not exist in a vacuum but instead can be dramatically affected by the size of the institution’s population. Specifically, in Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011), the Supreme Court considered whether a district court had erred in ordering the release of tens of thousands of inmates in California prisons that were so overcrowded they could not provide the minimum medical or mental health services required by
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 6 of 25
the Eighth Amendment. The Court observed that “[e]ven prisoners with no present physical or mental illness may become afflicted, and all prisoners in California are at risk so long as the State continues to provide inadequate care. . . . Prisoners who are not sick or mentally ill . . . are that system’s next potential victims.” Id. at 531-32.
Defendants’ failure to grasp the basis of Plaintiffs’ standing is part and parcel of Defendants’ failure — both in practice and even now before this Court — to appreciate the interconnected nature of the health of each individual in Defendants’ custody and the precautionary measures required to protect them. This failure is reflected in the Defendants’ sorely deficient response to the crisis, which for the reasons that follow violate Plaintiffs’ Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights.
II. Plaintiffs Have Demonstrated That They are Entitled to a TRO. To prevail in seeking a TRO, Plaintiffs must show that they are “likely to succeed on the merits,” that they are “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” that “the balance of equities tips in [their] favor,” and that “an injunction is in the public interest.” Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 393 (D.C. Cir. 2011). As an initial matter, Defendants wrongly urge the Court to hold Plaintiffs to a stricter standard for a “mandatory injunction,” but the D.C. Circuit has “has rejected any distinction between a mandatory and prohibitory injunction.” League of Women Voters v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Nevertheless, Plaintiffs have met their burden as to each factor, and the Court should enter the requested Order.
a. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiffs have established through declarations from DOC residents, DOC staff, PDS staff and attorneys, and expert reports, that they are exposed to an unreasonable risk of serious — even
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 7 of 25
deadly — harm to their health, and that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference in exposing them to that risk. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Fifth and Eighth Amendment claims.
Defendants’ argument begins by misstating the law, characterizing the Fifth and Eighth Amendment standards as the same. Defs.’ Br. 14-15. In fact, “pretrial detainees (unlike convicted prisoners) cannot be punished at all.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2475 (2015); accord Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979). Pretrial detainees can demonstrate that they have been “punished” if the actions taken against them are either motivated by an intent to punish, Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2473, or are objectively unreasonable, see id. If the Court finds here that the conditions are objectively unreasonable, then the non-convicted Plaintiffs and class members have made out a Fifth Amendment claim regardless of Defendants’ subjective intent. See id.; accord Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 35 (2d Cir. 2017) (“[T]he Due Process Clause can be violated when an official does not have subjective awareness that the official’s acts (or omissions) have subjected the pretrial detainee to a substantial risk of harm.”). In any event, Defendants prevail under both the Fifth and Eighth Amendment standards.
i. Plaintiffs have been exposed to an unreasonable risk of serious damage to their health.
Defendants recognize “the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic.” Defs.’ Br. 15, and do not deny that exposure to a life-threatening substance poses a “risk of serious damage” to health. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993). Nevertheless, they argue that Plaintiffs, who live in confined housing units with upwards of 100 people at a time, are no more likely to be affected by COVID-19 than any other people who “share[] a living space with others,” Defs.’ Br. 15-16, and they claim that DOC residents are able to take the same precautions to prevent the risk of infection
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 8 of 25
as anyone else in society and that the risks Plaintiffs face in DOC facilities “are comparable to the general risks faced by everyone.” Id.
It does not pass the laugh test to compare the living arrangements of D.C. Jail residents, most of whom share cells and live on housing units with upwards of 100 people, with people who share a house or apartment with their families or roommates. And even a cursory glance at District of Columbia’s data disproves Defendants’ arguments on an empirical level: The rate of infection in DOC facilities is over seven times higher than the rate of infection in the District of Columbia community.2
That gross statistical disparity is explained in the expert reports of Drs. Meyer and Stern, which go conspicuously unmentioned in Defendants’ opposition. Dr. Meyer, who reviewed D.C. government reports on the conditions of DOC facilities, concluded in no uncertain terms:
It is my professional judgment that individuals placed in [CDF and CTF] are at a significantly higher risk of infection with COVID-19 as compared to the population in the community and that they are at significantly higher risk of harm if they do become infected. Meyer Decl. ¶ 33. Dr. Stern reaches a similar conclusion: “Institutional settings such as jails, prisons, shelters, and inpatient treatment programs are congregate environments where . . . infections like COVID-19 can spread more rapidly.” Stern Decl. ¶ 13. Both Dr. Meyer and Dr. Stern conclude, contrary to Defendants’ unsupported contrary assertion, that people in DOC are at

2

The government’s data of April 2, 2020, reported 757 positive COVID-19 tests in the

District, and 12 positive COVID-19 tests among DOC residents. See District of Columbia,

Coronavirus Data (last accessed Apr. 4, 2020), https://coronavirus.dc.gov/page/coronavirus-data.

According to Defendants, there were 1580 people in DOC custody as of April 2, 2020, see Dkt.

No. 25-3, and the most recent Census Bureau population estimate for the District of Columbia was

705,749, see U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, QuickFacts – District of Columbia (last accessed Apr. 4,

2020), https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/DC. Therefore, the rate of infection in the District of

Columbia was .10 percent, while the rate of infection in the DOC was .76 percent.

8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 9 of 25
significantly higher risk of contracting COVID-19, and of developing serious injuries as a result, than people in the community.
The reasons why Plaintiffs are at elevated risk should be familiar to Defendants: They are the same reasons identified by Attorney General Racine just two weeks ago: that people detained in jails are forced “together in close quarters, without access to proper hygiene or medical care . . . breathing the same recycled air for up to 23 hours per day.” Karl Racine et al., Joint Statement from Elected Prosecutors on COVID-19 and Addressing the Rights and Needs of Those in Custody 1 (“Joint Statement”) (March 25, 2020), available at https://fairandjustprosecution.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/Coronavirus-Sign-On-Letter.pdf. Dr. Meyer identified those same conditions as factors that elevate the risk of serious injury to Plaintiffs. See Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(c) (crowding in congregate settings increases transmission of infection from person to person); id. (“[v]entilation conditions [in DOC facilities] ... will increase the rate of spread of the virus”); id. ¶ 28(a)(ii) (lack of sufficient hand soap and alcohol-based sanitizers for residents and staff).
Defendants’ second argument — that the DOC has “implemented the same risk-reduction practices among the inmates that are recommended for the community at large,” Defs.’ Br. 15 — is disproven by the record. Defendants provide a list of policies, but as discussed below, those policies exist in name only (if at all). And it is glaring that Defendants omit the single biggest riskreduction practice for mitigating the spread of COVID-19: social distancing. The importance of social distancing is highlighted in both Dr. Meyer’s expert report, see Meyer Decl. ¶ 11 (“[T]he best initial strategy is to practice social distancing.”), and Dr. Stern’s expert report, see Stern Decl. ¶¶ 11-13. The extreme importance of social distancing is also the reason why schools, theaters, sports events, and restaurants are closed, and why the Court’s hearing on this motion will take place by videoconference. Defendants claim blithely that DOC residents have “limited interaction
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 10 of 25
with other residents and staff.” Defs.’ Br. 16. But they ignore the evidence in the record, including from DOC residents themselves, who are still “sit[ting] in plastic chairs in a big group of around 30 people” for hours a day, Jackson Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7, and from DOC staff, including a woman who works on the age-50-and-over unit, who writes that “[s]ocial distancing is not happening in my unit,” Nesbitt Decl. ¶ 14. Because Defendants’ current policies prevent Plaintiffs from practicing one of the preventative measures most strenuously urged by professionals, including Plaintiffs’ experts, they have shown that “the risk of which [they] complain[] is not one that today’s society chooses to tolerate.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 35.
At bottom, Defendants’ conclusion that the risks “faced by those inside DOC facilities are comparable to the general risks faced by everyone,” Defs.’ Br. 16, is belied by commonsense, by Plaintiffs’ experts, and by empirical data. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have shown that they are exposed to an unreasonable risk of serious harm to their health.
ii. Defendants acted with deliberate indifference towards Plaintiffs’ risk.
Subjective deliberate indifference (required only for the Eighth Amendment claim, as noted) occurs where Defendants “ignore a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 33.
Defendants do not contend that they were unaware of COVID-19. See Defs.’ Br. 5. Instead, their central contention — upon which their entire argument rests — is that they have adopted policies appropriate to mitigating the risk. Even assuming that those policies are sufficient, Defendants fail to supply any evidence to contradict Plaintiffs’ extensive documentation that the policies are simply not being implemented, followed, or enforced. Defendants cannot insulate themselves from liability by showing that they have policies on the books when the record overwhelmingly demonstrates that these policies exist in name only.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 11 of 25
First, Plaintiffs’ unrebutted evidence strongly suggests that Defendants have not
communicated their policies to staff and that key DOC officials were not even aware of these
policies. Ms. Deterville — a DOC staff member for over three years, Deterville Decl. ¶ 2 — had
never seen any of the policies provided by Defendants until this litigation. Instead, she took it upon
herself to locate a policy and provide it to DOC leadership, who were previously unaware of it.
See Deterville Decl. ¶¶ 5-8. Further, as discussed in Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion (Dkt. No. 24),
Defendants seem to be navigating COVID-19 based on DOC’s 2009 Flu Pandemic Plan, without
having updated (or finished updating) it since the crisis began, and without looking to the more
recent 2010 version.
Second, whatever the state of Defendants’ policies and staff’s awareness of them, the
record evidence shows undeniably that these policies and procedures are not being implemented:
• Providing soap for hand washing: This is rebutted by three residents, who declare that “[t]he jail gave us a single bar of soap a couple of weeks ago,” Dkt. No. 5-2, Ex. 4, Banks Decl. ¶ 8; that “March 21st was the first time CTF gave me a free bar of soap, and I have been on my unit since February 25th,” Dkt. No. 5-2, Ex. 5, Jackson Decl. ¶ 10; and that “CTF gave us one bar of soap, once,” Dkt. No. 5-2, Ex. 6, Smith Decl. ¶ 8.
• Frequently disinfecting high-touch areas: This is rebutted by members of DOC’s staff, who declare that daily, all staff members “must place their hands on a biometric scanning device”—by definition, a high-touch area—that “is not wiped between uses.” Dkt. No. 24-1, Deterville Decl. ¶ 16; see also Dkt. No. 24-2, Nesbitt Decl. ¶ 13 (describing the lack of cleaning supplies to wipe down a phone used by successive residents without disinfecting between uses). That residents do not have supplies themselves to clean high-touch areas in their own housing units and cells is also reflected in declarations of both DOC residents and staff. See Jackson Decl. ¶ 12 (describing “watered down” cleaning supplies”).
• Quarantining individuals who may be exposed: This is rebutted by DOC staff, who declare that “at least one of the inmates whose test results are pending is in general population.” Dkt. No. 23-11, Hannon Decl. ¶ 56.
• Restricting large gathering[s] of inmates: This is rebutted by DOC residents, who recount gathering in mandatory large groups, see Jackson Decl. ¶ 3, as well as DOC
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 12 of 25
staff, who declare that they witness residents “crowded in” a small room to watch television, Nesbitt Decl. ¶ 14.
• Limiting inmates’ exposure to members of the community: This is rebutted by DOC residents, who describe that they “have many people from outside CTF coming every day,” including “clinicians, people from Narcotics Anonymous, [and] other people who lead programs,” Jackson Decl. ¶ 7.
• Screening individuals who enter the facilities for COVID-19 symptoms: This is rebutted by PDS staff who have been through the screenings and describe the broken thermometer, Naini Decl. ¶ 5(c), as well as DOC staff, who “as recently as April 2, 2020” personally witnessed that the “thermometer is not being used properly.” Hannon Decl. ¶ 52. This is also rebutted by a 12-year-veteran DOC staff member who works in DOC’s “Receiving and Discharge” unit, where DOC “receive[s] new intakes.” Id. ¶ 38. Corporal Reddick claims that Defendants are “not being truthful on how inmates coming into the facilities are processed. Inmates are having their temperatures taken only. No other procedures are in place to screen incoming inmates.” Id.
• Contact tracing to record who may have COVID-19: There have been “at least three DOC staff members who have tested positive and alerted DOC,” but “[n]o contact training has been done for at least one of it not all of these staff members” to determine who they came in contact with. Hannon Decl. ¶ 59.
The record evidence, from DOC residents, DOC staff, and PDS attorneys, all points in one
direction: No matter the policies that Defendants claim are in place, the truth is that those policies
are not being disseminated, followed, or enforced. This conclusion should be as concerning for the
Court as it is for the nearly 1,600 residents who depend on Defendants to keep them safe.
Defendants’ attempt to deflect liability on the basis of unimplemented policies flies in the
face of binding authority. Daskalea v. District of Columbia, 227 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. 2000),
rejected DOC’s position that its “harassment policy” insulated it from liability: “[A] ‘paper’ policy
cannot insulate a municipality from liability where there is evidence, as there was here, that the
municipality was deliberately indifferent to the policy’s violation.” See also Ware v. Jackson Cty.,
150 F.3d 873, 882 (8th Cir. 1998) (“[W]ritten policies of a defendant are of no moment in the face
of evidence that such policies are neither followed nor enforced.”). In Daskalea, the Court found
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 13 of 25
liability where evidence included “not only the continued blatant violation of the policy, but also the fact that the policy was never posted, that some guards did not recall receiving it, that inmates never received it, and that there was no evidence of the training that was supposed to accompany it.” 277 F.3d at 271. That same evidence is before the Court here, and liability should likewise follow. See also Woodward v. Corr. Med. Servs. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 929 (7th Cir. 2004) (“[I]gnoring a policy is the same as having no policy in place in the first place.”).
When confronted with this chasm between Defendants’ policies and Plaintiffs’ declarations showing that COVID-19 procedures are not being followed, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs’ many sworn declarations from DOC residents and staff are “anecdotes” that may not be an “accurate representation” of the current policies. Defs.’ Br. 32. But Defendants offer no evidence, let alone evidence based on personal knowledge, to demonstrate that their current policies are actually being enforced.
Defendants’ sources of evidence for their alleged policies and practices are Warden Lennard Johnson and Medical Director Beth Jordan. But, unlike the many declarants who attest to the lack of implementation, neither Johnson nor Jordan claims to have any personal knowledge of the implementation of their policies. Indeed, neither Dr. Jordan nor Warden Johnson even states the last time they were in the jail or what they observed when they were there. Defendants simply lack any evidence at all that they have made any actual changes to the procedures in their facilities in light of this global pandemic. It is little wonder, then, that DOC staff say that “[v]ery few changes to the daily operations have been implemented in preparation for and in response to COVID-19.” Hannon Decl. ¶ 45.
Defendants suggest that the systematic disconnect between their stated policies and the facts in the record is due to the “rapidly changing nature of public health recommendations.” Defs.’
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 14 of 25
Br. 19. This excuse falls flat. Defendants cannot seriously claim that requiring residents to gather in groups of 30, passing papers and pens amongst each other, was consistent with (some uncited) public health recommendation on March 24, but is now verboten pursuant to updated recommendations. See Jackson Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7. Nor can Defendants say with a straight face that telling staff that “using personal protective equipment . . . could increase [the] risk of contracting the virus,” Deterville Decl. ¶ 10, is consistent with the rapidly changing recommendations from public health bodies, as Defendants claim, Defs.’ Br. 19. More generally, if Defendants’ claim is that Plaintiffs’ evidence from the last two weeks showing non-implementation is now out of date, Defendants must provide evidence documenting the change, rather than airy generalities about the rapidly evolving nature of the crisis.
Defendants’ claim to be rapidly updating their policies is also not reflected in practice. In light of Defendants’ representations that Plaintiffs’ evidence are not an “accurate representation of the COVID-19 response practices currently being implemented (Defs.’ Br. 32), Plaintiffs submit additional declarations from Kamal Dorchy, James Guillory, David Randolph, and Micheal Cohen, III, four DOC residents who all reside on different units, with two at CTF and two at CDF. These declarations, which are current as of today, are attached as Exhibits 1-4, respectively. They collectively cast great doubt on Defendants’ representations about the “practices currently being implemented at the DOC.” They should call the Court to immediate action.
• While Warden Johnson claims that units are cleaned “every two hours,” Johnson Decl. ¶ 6, Mr. Dorchy attests that “[a]s of April 4, 2020, my unit [D4A] has not been cleaned and sanitized in approximately one week.” Dorchy Decl. ¶ 4, Mr. Guillory says that on his unit, D2A, cleaning does not take place, Guillory Decl. ¶ 4, and Mr. Cohen says that even yesterday, the “cleaners had no cleaning solution,” Cohen Decl. ¶ 28.
• While Defendants represented yesterday, without citation, that “professional cleaners now clean the common areas daily,” Defs.’ Br. 33 (emphasis added), Mr. Dorchy says that, as of April 4, 2020, “[n]o professional cleaning staff have come in to clean,” Dorchy Decl. ¶ 20, Mr. Guillory also has “never seen professional cleaners come to clean the unit,”
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 15 of 25
Guillory Decl. ¶ 6, and Mr. Cohen says he has “never seen professional cleaners who were not inmates cleaning,” Cohen Decl. ¶ 39.
• While Warden Johnson claims that “[e]ach resident receives a new bar of soap and a roll of toilet paper every week,” Mr. Guillory says that “[n]o DOC staff has ever offered me soap,” Guillory Decl. ¶ 19, Mr. Randolph says “[t]he DOC has never given me soap,” Randolph Decl. ¶ 14.
• While Dr. Jordan claims that “DOC’s medical staff meets regularly with staff and residents to discuss COVID-19 preventative measures,” Dkt. No. 20-2, Jordan Decl. ¶ 8, Mr. Dorchy says that “[m]edical staff have never come to my unit to discuss coronavirus,” Mr. Guillory says the same, Guillory Decl. ¶ 11, Mr. Randolph says that “[s]ince I got here, the staff tell us nothing about the coronavirus,” Randolph Decl. ¶ 9, and Mr. Cohen says “[n]o one from DOC has ever met with me or my unit to discuss coronavirus,” Cohen Decl. ¶ 4.
• While Warden Johnson claims that “[r]esidents have access to cleaning materials to clean their cells,” Mr. Dorchy says that as of March 20, 2020 cleaning supplies “stopped coming,” Dorchy Decl. ¶ 11, Mr. Guillory says that two days ago, he “asked for a rag to clean [his] cell” but “there were no rags either on our unit or in the supply closet,” Guillory Decl. ¶ 20, and Mr. Cohen says that “COs frequently deny access to the closet when an inmate asks for cleaning supplies,” Cohen Decl. ¶ 32.
• While Warden Johnson claims that “[e]very resident in DOC custody has access to a sink,” Johnson Decl. ¶ 8, Mr. Dorchy says that “[t]here is no sink in my cell and no toilet in my cell. I cannot wash my hands when locked down,” Dorchy Decl. ¶ 18, and Mr. Guillory says that “[t]here is no sink in my cell” and “no soap provided at the unit sinks,” Guillory Decl. ¶ 21.
• While Dr. Jordan claims that “all new residents entering a DOC facility are quarantined for 14 days before they are assigned to their permanent housing unit,” Jordan Decl. ¶ 7, David Randolph, who arrived at CDF on March 19, 2020, was held in intake for only five days. Randolph Decl. ¶ 2.
These four independent accounts, from just today, are shocking. Because of Defendants’ inactions,
DOC residents “think [they] are going to die.” Cohen Decl. ¶ 56. Mr. Dorchy writes: “I believe
that I am going to die in here if I do not get help.” Dorchy Decl. ¶ 28. These accounts, and others
of DOC staff, strongly support Plaintiffs’ request that the Court appoint an expert to ensure
compliance with any injunctive relief that the Court orders. Defendants have demonstrated the
need for such outside accountability. See, e.g., Crawford v. Greater Cleveland Reg'l Transit Auth.,
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 16 of 25
No. 86-cv-2490 (AA), 1991 WL 328037, at *1 (N.D. Ohio July 26, 1991) (appointing outside expert under Rule 706 to ensure compliance with injunctive relief).
Additional evidence also sheds light on DOC staff representations made in their declarations about access to legal calls. (Dkt. No. 21-1). While a system has been put in place, the “limited telephone conversations have not been sufficient to accomplish” the need for “substantive, confidential communications.” Ex. 5, Winters Decl., at ¶ 17. Whether due to facilities constraints or other reasons, the reality is that ensuring the right to counsel is greatly compromised by residents’ continued detention. For Mr. Randolph, this means that he has been unable to talk about his case and his never seen the police report in his case, Randolph Decl. ¶ 16, and he has been detained for over two weeks.
Defendants cite the “constraints facing the official[s]” as important context under this prong. Courts have held that constraints are relevant under this prong, although the case law is clear that budgetary constraints do not absolve prison officials from liability for deliberate indifference. See, e.g., Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). Defendants’ conclusion, however, that they cannot be liable on account of such constraints, is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Plata, affirming a downsizing remedy where the state’s resources disabled it from meeting its constitutional obligations regarding prison medical care. See 563 U.S. at 527-30.
In any event, certain of the “constraints” cited by Defendants as justification for their actions do not add up. Defendants cite a “shortage of hand sanitizer” as a reason why they cannot provide any for DOC residents. Yet the “Current COVID-19 Supply List” produced by Defendants shows that Defendants have ample hand sanitizer, which they have refused to distribute. That list shows Defendants in possession of 864 bottles of foam hand sanitizer (648 liters worth), and 80
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 17 of 25
cases of assorted size Purell. Dkt. No. 25-2. Further, that list shows that Defendants have not used any of those supplies, as the “Original Quantity” and “Quantity as of March 24, 2020” for all of their hand sanitizer is identical. Further, to the extent Defendants are under-resourced, it is because of their own apparent failure to comply with their own 2009 Pandemic Flu Plan, which called on the DOC to stockpile N95 masks and alcohol-based hand sanitizer sufficient for both staff and inmates. See Dkt. No. 22-2. Similarly, Defendants claim to “not have the legal authority to unilaterally release individuals from its custody,” Defs.’ Br. 9, while recognizing at the same time the emergency legislation that gives them the authority to do just that with at least some residents, see D.C. Act 23-247, March 17, 2020.3 Despite the emergency nature of both the pandemic and that legislation, Defendants have released only around 25 percent of the roughly 100 detainees who qualify.
Finally, Defendants also contend that they cannot have acted with deliberate indifference because a doctor from Emory University was “‘highly satisfied’ with what DOC is doing.” Jordan Decl. ¶ 10. But that offers the Court little assurance, as Defendants provide no information as to what information they shared with the Emory University doctor or that they themselves know “what DOC is doing.” Far more persuasive is the analysis offered by Dr. Meyer, who reviewed DOC’s facility specifications, and opined that the capacity of the medical unit to handle the COVID-19 outbreak was grossly insufficient. See Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(d).

3

Defendants do not explain why they understand the emergency legislation to bind their

discretion to effectuate unilateral release. They claim that this discretion “only be exercised

‘consistent with public safety,’” Defs.’ Br. 10 (citing D.C. Code § 24-221.01c(c)), but that caveat

itself does not require DOC to engage in binding consultation with other agencies. Rather, the

emergency nature of the legislation should suggest to DOC that it can and should act quickly in

effectuating the powers granted to it “on an emergency basis.”

17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 18 of 25
In addition to all of the evidence that Defendants policies are largely illusory, Plaintiffs’
evidence also highlights problems that Defendants’ paper policies do not address, even in theory.
Defendants say not one word about the DOC’s documented problems regarding ventilation, the
lack of compliance checks in of DOC medical facilities, the serious shortage of medical equipment,
and the delays in receiving medical care. Dr. Meyer’s expert report stresses these problems:
• “The ventilation conditions described in the District of Columbia’s Auditor’s report is also concerning and will increase the rate of spread of the virus.” Dr. Meyer also noted “DOC’s own conclusion that the ‘current HVAC system has significant design problems that inhibit proper airflow.’” That same Auditor’s Report also notes that DOC’s HVAC system is out of compliance with DOH regulations. As such, Dr. Meyer concludes that the virus will spread “in an airborne state.” Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(c). This concern is highly acute for Plaintiff Smith, who attests that air flows back and forth between his unit and the quarantine unit at CTF. Smith Decl. ¶ 3.
• DOH does not check DOC medical facilities for compliance. Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(d).
• The “single medical isolation space in CTF with negative pressure capacity,” about which Dr. Meyer does not mince words: “To say this is unacceptable is an understatement.” Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(d)(i).
• The multi-day delay to receive medical care, as attested to by four DOC residents, see Eric Smith Decl. ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 5-2, Ex. 7, Phillips Decl. ¶ 4; Ex. 2, Guillory Decl. ¶ 9; Ex 4, Randolph Decl. ¶ 4 (“I have sent about seven medical slips . . . . I have not seen a doctor.”) is evidence that “DOC is seriously ill-equipped and underprepared.” Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(d)(ii).
In addition to Plaintiffs’ own fears that Defendants’ failings put them at risk, see Smith
Decl. ¶ 9; Phillips Decl. ¶ 2, it is telling that a ten-year veteran of the DOC would be “afraid to
come to work — so much so that [she] would have to sit in [her] car for about thirty minutes every
day so [she] could calm [her]self down before entering the building,” because the “nature of our
facility, the lack of protective gear, [her] inability to obtain adequate cleaning supplies” all put her
at risk. Nesbitt Decl. ¶ 3. It speaks volumes that Defendants’ own employees, like Jean Johnson,
who is “scared about [her] ability to afford basic necessit[ies],” would choose to go on unpaid
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 19 of 25
leave than take “the risks to [her] life and health that come from continued work” in DOC facilities. Ex. 3, Jean Johnson Decl. ¶ 3. These extraordinary circumstances — where DOC residents and DOC staff both describe life-threatening conditions that Defendants fail even to mention — comprise deliberate indifference.
b. Plaintiffs meet the remaining TRO factors. Defendants do not contest that the risk of contracting COVID-19 constitutes irreparable harm. They recycle their standing argument, claiming that “[P]laintiffs have not pled facts sufficient to show that granting injunctive relief would remedy any purported individualized injuries they are suffering,” Defs.’ Br. 22, but a motion for a TRO is not a motion to dismiss, and looks to evidence, not pleading. As discussed, Plaintiffs have adduced plentiful evidence showing that Defendants’ failure to implement basic precautions in their facilities places Plaintiffs irreparably “at a significantly higher risk of infection with COVID-19 as compared to the population in the community” and “at a significant higher risk of harm if they do become infected.” Meyer Decl. ¶ 33. Defendants also do not dispute that the benefits to public health and of remedying unconstitutional violations run in favor of Plaintiffs. And Defendants share Plaintiffs’ concerns about “the gravity of COVID-19.” Defs.’ Br. 23. Instead, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs fail to meet the combined third and fourth prongs of the preliminary injunction standards because, in their view, an injunction “would impose a remarkable level of intrusion on DOC’s day-to-day operations that is simply not warranted under these circumstances.” Defs.’ Br. 23. Defendants essentially ask the Court to trust them to continue along the same path that has led them to boast an infection rate over seven times higher than the District of Columbia community.
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 20 of 25
Along similar lines, Defendants assert that there is a “public interest in permitting the government to carry out its authorized functions,” id. at 24. The Supreme Court has recognized that Defendants’ concerns about “intrusion” do not warrant judicial abdication: “Courts may not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison administration.” Brown, 563 U.S. at 511. In fact, this Court, affirmed by the D.C. Circuit, has previously entered an injunction similar to that requested here, rejecting the same argument advanced again by Defendants. In Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F.2d 521 (D.C. Cir. 1978), the Court affirmed a broad injunction imposing a set of conditions with similar particularity (including requiring daily recreation, a regular change of linen and outer clothing, and a minimum amount of space for each prisoner). Id. at 551-52. The Court rejected the position that the injunction’s provisions were unduly intrusive, explaining, “we cannot conceive how they could ever be considered unwarranted intrusions” because the court saw “no alternative if the rights of pretrial detainees are to be respected.” Id. at 552.
III. The Court should appoint an expert to assist it in decreasing the prison population.
The uncontested expert opinions in this case demonstrate—as do the defendants’ admissions about inadequate safety supplies—that the inmate population of the Jail must be swiftly and drastically reduced in order to stem the spread of COVID-19 amongst a vulnerable and helpless population. See Stern Decl. ¶ 13-14; Meyers Decl. ¶ 34-37. Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint an expert who can suggest to the Court—after obtaining input from the relevant stakeholders—the best approaches to quickly reduce incarceration levels, in order to protect the health and safety of the inmates, the correctional and medical staff, and the broader community.
The COVID-19 pandemic is the very type of compelling circumstance that Federal Rule of Evidence 706 is designed to address. Federal Rule of Evidence 706 authorizes courts, within
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 21 of 25
their discretion, to appoint a neutral, independent expert witness. See Fed. R. Evid. 706(a) (“On a party’s motion or its own, the court may order the parties to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed and may ask the parties to submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert that the parties agree on and any of its own choosing.”); Walker v. Am Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999).
Defendants do not dispute the Court’s authority to appoint the requested Rule 706 expert. Instead, Defendants’ argument hinges entirely on a faulty premise: that the viral pandemic sweeping the world, which has interrupted the operations of schools, businesses, and houses of worship, and has mobilized the spending of trillions of government dollars, is simply not compelling. Defendants’ suggestion that these are not the “unusual” or “extraordinary” circumstances justifying the appointment of an expert under Rule 706 is indicative of their dangerous underestimation of this crisis.
Here, Plaintiffs have “present[ed] compelling circumstances warranting the appointment of an expert.” See Carranza v. Fraas, 471 F.Supp. 2d 8, 10 (D.D.C. 2007) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs have documented the inability of DOC to effectively take the measures necessary to stem the spread of the virus in its facilities and have shown the need for a drastic reduction in inmate population; and the Defendants have now admitted that they do not have adequate supply levels to protect the health and safety of the large number of inmates they hold within their walls. In other cases requiring inmate population downsizing courts have employed special masters to fill a similar role. See Brown, 563 U.S. at 511. While some courts are now engaging special masters to aid in emergency reductions of inmate populations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, e.g. Office of the Pub. Def. v. Connor, SCPW-0000200, at 3, 4 (Haw. Apr. 2, 2020) (appointing special master to achieve “a reduction of inmates held within
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 22 of 25
correctional centers and facilities”); Comm. for Pub. Counsel Servs v. Chief Justice of the Trial Ct., SJC-12926, at 7, 26 (Mass. Apr. 3, 2020) (special master appointed to carry out “urgent…reduction in the number of people who are held in custody”), Plaintiffs believe that an expert can fill a similar but more efficient role by aiding the Court with a necessarily rapid reduction of the Jail’s inmate population.
IV. Abstention does not bar relief. The government (wisely) has not invoked the doctrine of equitable restraint established by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) and its progeny. This omission may preclude the Court from considering dismissal based on those authorities. Ford v. Tait, 163 F. Supp. 2d 57, 63–64 (D.D.C. 2001) (noting that courts “cannot invoke [Younger] . . . sua sponte”). Nonetheless, because members of the plaintiff-class face ongoing criminal proceedings, Plaintiffs address this issue briefly to assure the court that Younger does not apply. When a federal court has jurisdiction over an action, its “obligation to hear and decide a case is virtually unflagging.” Sprint Comm’n, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 77 (2013) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Younger marks an exception to this rule and, accordingly, is only properly invoked in “exceptional circumstances.” Bridges v. Kelly, 84 F.3d 470, 476 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For the doctrine to apply, (1) there must be “ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in nature,” (2) “the state proceedings must implicate important state interests,” and (3) “the proceedings must afford an adequate opportunity in which to raise the federal claims.” Hoai v. Sun Ref. & Mktg. Co., 866 F.2d 1515, 1518 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The third prong dooms any abstention claim here. That component of the test requires the ongoing state proceedings to provide the plaintiffs with the ability to obtain “the full relief
22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 23 of 25
requested in connection with [their] federal claims,” Bridges, 84 F.3d at 477. Here, individual class members are involved in Superior Court proceedings such as emergency motions or criminal trials (or appeals therefrom) that could result in their release. But this individualized relief differs markedly from the comprehensive remedies sought by the class — relief that includes the release of a large number of prisoners, the appointment of an independent monitor, and drastic improvements to cleaning protocols at DOC facilities. See Compl., Relief Requested ¶ B. Plaintiffs’ pending Superior Court proceedings are not well-suited to providing such broad remedies, as the D.C. Circuit made clear in Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F.2d 521, 524 (D.C. Cir. 1978)—which rejected the government’s abstention argument in a case involving a class of pretrial detainees challenging overcrowding at the D.C. jail and seeking, among other remedies, the release of prisoners. Id. at 524. As in McGruder, the class relief sought here transcends securing an individual defendant’s release from ongoing or threatened incarceration; a criminal tribunal cannot provide the comprehensive relief they have requested.
Some class members may have filed motions for emergency release with the Superior Court; however, the proceedings on those motions cannot provide full relief either. See Super. Ct. Crim. R. P. 35 (providing authority to “reduce a sentence,” not modify conditions); see also D.C. Code § 23-1321 et seq. (authority regarding to decide whether to detain, not conditions of detention).
The Superior Court’s order governing emergency release motions further demonstrates that such motions are not a proper vehicle for demanding broad reforms. Through that order, the court required “any motion seeking relief from detention based upon the COVID-19 Pandemic” to address seven questions about issues such as the health of the defendant and the likelihood of the defendant causing harm if released. See Order Establishing Procedures, Effective Immediately,
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 24 of 25
For Filing Emergency Motions for Release from Custody Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic (Super. Ct. March 22, 2020) (as amended March 25, 2020) at 1 (hereinafter “Emergency Release Order”).4 None of the questions concerns conditions at the CTF or CDF, and the order does not invite defendants to provide information beyond what it specifically requests. See id. This text indicates that the Superior Court envisions its emergency release proceedings as creating a forum for individualized relief, as opposed to the comprehensive remedy sought here.
Abstention is also improper for an additional reason: The Superior Court is under siege. The COVID-19 crisis has forced the court to drastically curtail its capacities. Only four court rooms remain active. Order at 2 (D.C. Super. Ct. Mar. 18, 2020) (as amended Mar. 19, 2020).5 Only one is reserved for criminal emergencies, id., and it has two judges responsible for adjudicating over 300 applications for emergency release. Ex. 5, Fowler Decl. at ¶¶ 5, 8. If, somehow, a criminal defendant raised the claims at issue here in his or her ongoing proceeding, the burden for resolving them would fall on that single emergency judge. For the Superior Court, this development would add the challenge of managing a complex constitutional case to its already nearly impossible task of adjudicating individual motions.
These burdens mean delays and those delays further demonstrate that Superior Court is not an adequate forum for the claims at issue. A state proceeding is only adequate if it can “timely” adjudicate “the federal issues involved.” Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577 (1973). Because even small delays could be the difference between life and death, see Dkt. No. 24 at 2–3 (noting 71% increase in covid-19 positive tests at DOC facilities over three days), this Court must act where the Superior Court cannot.
4https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/Order-Attachment-PDFs/Standing-orderamended.pdf 5 https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/Order-Attachment-PDFs/Order-3-19-20.pdf
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26 Filed 04/04/20 Page 25 of 25

CONCLUSION These extraordinary circumstances cry out for extraordinary relief, forthwith. Plaintiffs’ overwhelming evidence shows that the conditions they face are dire and the risk is acute. The time to act is now. Plaintiffs’ TRO should be granted.

DATED: April 4, 2020 Washington, D.C.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Steven Marcus
Steven Marcus (D.C. Bar # 1630882) Jonathan Anderson (D.C. Bar # 475306) Jenna Cobb (D.C. Bar # 979506) Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel. 202-824-2524 Fax 202-824-2525 smarcus@pdsdc.org
/s/ Scott Michelman Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar # 1006945) Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar # 235960) Michael Perloff (D.C. Bar # 1601047) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. 202-457-0800 smichelman@acludc.org

25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-1 Filed 04/04/20 Page 1 of 10

/;_,w/-l DECLARATION OF

~IW~ '(

G,-,,{ ?Jo~, 4t . ~nder penalty ofperjury USC. § J 746.

th at

h t e following

statement

is

true

and

, certify correct pursuant

to

28

1. My name is --+h_A-,M_A---=-l~~()~At~/4VL___ _ _ _. I am L/(p I years old. I am currently incarcerated at

f/, in Washington, D.C., in the · /) ~ 4

unit. I have been at this facility since

2. Or1 OY aim.,lf fhadh !3 0-fi?Jce,r /

8nclp tyrter ~ wl/h. & IN//.

my ho~ l'rl

f/htf- SN 1J ~ ur11T

o/J!)to.r, {)f/Ju// Ca41e// /oltl 1/J /fiaf tfce.

~ VIr vJ 1W.&n I ¼£- we-rc /1.¼J

d all_!! pwoudUK-J.

7ht fl1,W pD/,Uf wZ0 ffttll IMrJa/r:<J
3 ~ fl()f ?1/{o~ f._ttNI JH/J1l1l@fo~rr..4/1/tt

i

~hcA~tw~ ~~ ~ ➔ cb ,.1/(,;66p5,-~_.~0/-(vv-J:to1N't-n01CA$"cOndL_l'h-'a'!vn,Y\r.sIsMrvu1h1Lfeo{1\d.--fO-1rw'uJ\i:'2v~t\huw0eat0dme-.1rc--v.<n)(rvIkv1-™?nc0J-t0dMA.hW wd8h&(4-Ili!t39);f-f~ iIa-et11{Ci-v+KtYfKraivlkdN&lKfackal0)L/l.dkr./lMf1D2lJl1-··l,otu(rfcd.SAkWtf)L(ultnk)fIsm,lai:d&v{tZjl_r:!oadefA.;h/datnl}{.IJ-/t(aJN.f2~ d.JcI~ b6atpaJInat-J.ot1On<bJ,NaiFfSAJb-i~ nJ.7lI/ce, orJafyd/uownsC0(61(4d~/Cf/hd;p''0i,Mfff4i,-~/e£2t~tJ(0~h;re10'tµav~hJI;y-VvPJ:&?nLt.a],V1,rD/gtlrfetflUorrqc(b!2N.SY)rfodoyat~ f(Ipv.afv>J}.,11rv.4ie0cP-fmf--ftP/-luMOofhJhlt1/J1,'1t)/(«.(f/tI.ldyJxVf':rl1l;!-'f<\hft//el6•-f

~//

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-1 Filed 04/04/20 Page 3 of 10

,✓ {,

l 1·

I

. I

an • q_ j NCase 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-1 Filed 04/04/20 Page 4 of 10

r+~°~ D~wb- ½ *V, ~-w ~ Io
~ Ii-
js qD1J«/10 )"2.

.Wf~ i~ AJx5~ °~ 1--t9h(v)(wtMW_w~ ,v,Ta- (Q\f!di-fuelJeifJ1.,.ft(&dJVW1[ljluf}mfihbVl0t#t/;C'O1h'JlfA/lJ-BhVtr{YfJ~QJ,/u-'JJ1nivrCoeavcdJi,rkLJrrtt~,,vJo1Y,/;d.yvp1Jc£f1(g JtmlrJlW{I,ov2IwhJVC/o1fG-Yi(~ l->JJhydfHf\@m-tL~!AtJatMJf~S;~ W~ fl)v./l1et!1fD~ Ia~ >l/JtI'flJp·f(p6l½cp+ILY/o(cVhJµ-11/kur}wdkYJ,/hJJ1J 1oV~ l\J1tJ&-9yN1JfsY rtn{f''lW-DmMJ]~ )h{rll!-tJYw,Jf7PcI(.A>tiihtVJ-1{('1pl(JvU1f01ZVCpdp/o@Y~J(/_loo-rlW1)cv~dZi:OJ.~-u~ tfdYfdr~ .ntieJ,f,o

/ (f/f)

~
) ) .

7h?_ wuJe vb ma vcli I ~ Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-1 Filed 04/04/20 Page 5 of 10 :)J)a~

~ 1/V'OC., d-a10j tomM Lffe()!r cfi/4Y

+-ttu_ ) (!UlPp-e-txhv ;em;ntJl"}J us h cku-7

{Yl.Jv te/ts. lhbJc orm~u~

Jhpfd

Q{Jkv J lNaf'. anc1 I fw.c rkJ ~

_CthL JJ iiez .

J11. 14irn.o.H4 t!.1.!111()f Ufc /y;M Jam ·fJ7gv.
JJ. ~ {)I( fl1;l- &ilJc:;17 U/fo1ec% Iv Cli/;~
U\rnrni✓r/CIJ ~b rvt ~nnof tYl:.1i.Y
t,d-va SbOf if we- ~ it tl""1'i1 h;:;tJ-l
I(.p . D () C, dou rw1- cl..,a,h WYh lr2(fv/ ~
~ J fr0Vv3.
17. To~ Cul- tb:Jutf 10:IJ.rn I L .e1u1<.na11r
1--1DIIJJM Mei (ff fflaf we. //1..-au.,{d he
J..eDJyickd Jo OUY Ultr as. s ~

p.ev~ . A /of~ 1r;~(,vJ.c

Io e/Jt.d 1;, wJ/-fJ f/tfJr tel!fhalru.

,n 13.

11-tw
In

·,I Yu) J/nt
my Ge,t1,,. -.,L,,

fhy
f1uJ11tJf

td1 tJnd
Wt?Jh 'ryy

n~ o /-o;J,er

/4'~ fYffa

~
I q_
~ ~ ~ ~ M Zo
sfofo F s/r:16 '2,\ '
~~ u«. w As 7.Jl.

·W1\®T-h0CeJ21iaviG.--h/sneGYe-11N.~:2n,0Is-aLc~ovNlL-,(zC01J0),luoor8U14tn9tW',l-uIrCs(l1IK('JDI)-ct<KJ2vll;JVJvo{t11Dr.)!dol1fv,<c,it(H'lu-JD)}fmt1Y/Uet·lwnientfY(e-2}o}6Idw--w¢1/eD.vIFD,,YDeihle1OdtId(0Ct4Jr/B04{/2/i/01f}dPfalg'eJo6hr·JtoO-fra1J10IYZI(#~ J

Cl rn o.tJrttitf
o ~ ~ r c)w;n- T

Oarm.tt0i f/-ew~fofmef!,JI<O;lJJcf;b,f

neJp
bJdldflJ

r,i in w r z,, ~~ ~~ ~~ 7,,

3.
Lj

.

vvrf1
d'J-0O''.Jh-.2iA.l,-1vao#r(#AnJ-rS-tWvIplJCJ-oV,f,Lrfyr"i;,/yv:,1f-1\'-Y1IlYy~rayf¥.J&- f1'u{(J,Jf,Jmf-c-If/AffL,t.p&ddtI;i'tf.AlaI;tfbr'h{vlf.Ji.///Vl)E}t'/T71fV' O::J

/ /q . 17'1..e(_!}-- If(i;(ttJ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-1 Filed 04/04/20 Page 7 of 10
~o~ ,nn\ra. ~rr11-euppu~]o ~ ~~ -n~ 7"T'_2zl,s7,gAh...-.)\sfo0DJCi?-wT-+J{ftw!JN~f-tmlwDen,(41tivv}QVJ16f-,Jih1flt/sDJ,l.l;e0d1eo-da{Jxi-,n-,ves{(-c1ci1)f-t,f,a,1liVv.trD-1D.,.f,DLeLtr/,YL,J(wliur1Wfl}J)Ua1lFr,.A0rwMrP:1h11,f.e1fmt-IJ1f,rh)nC-uNlhh~iglJi-urlJ./,--e(p{Vfo~/1t.dLdCds,-CJf(d/I(,1J1IYbJ/k o11ybM/,,,?.l/ftlu,Jlf:umf-0.Jf-{!tt}ldff-foI"fn,1'Iv,CJY0r~ CifJ<J@Jdfmf!L0ll}otIetClS-Jvlu&.t-ml--»/-GOJ'-!e>/v'c-lYC4Je,1gIOjJMhl1lYreWqsJk:Y(lm~}fo1)(-'vdJ{-1AlJfJJ(1vf,1iiro,tJ7f'h/fu1/13fh3f'-'~ k-,eo-5'1.--1'J)'e-)!Jmt/~'-7IAeoWf-!'1-o1pk--bY1-iet,o,a2:ov/lvr)Jefrv<-ft.-.1-./ge..fd)" ·'J~ I!"·'
j ~Oi t//1// Z{) .

1
3 o.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-1 Filed 04/04/20 Page 8 of 10
I n ?>o m t''()r) 01-f.D we V\C,(A}"e Jo ~
-P~, ~ Pn b d o,_V'(j t,Jll/eV, ~
awy (\_ Jh9J l/vLV (Avv} cµk ~{p r/D I
c.J.Mn~ ~Uff~. S~f)IUIY ~ aK

t\-{) ~llf)I~ dtfp~
<'S I · m Iv\ ~ CJV T ~ (AO-A/ L --ktYld
+o 1B- l/_ytfJh1VY21hm Pdt OY) ~ ~hor1-l ~ ft-n 0"-hck C::o0 pvb/il'kti UNJJ I om

-9lJO~ I() rt.
3'2. Lo.o-1- () 1'jhl-- Lf )~/ 1~r, {J'e.,,uknonf- J&r'hf(VZI

~L Vre- to ~,&J. r Saffl"r 3ZJ

YY11·V") v4tL) mrd (N('A) h()f- PuzA'J.

3 ~ . b:eo J" ,0 rot r,f. Ar, otfb1 etv fold f1l.L- +hO(Jf-

~ , ~ ~ up ~, cio no!-- J,U t'llL
1n 4-hw fJ1 ~ I ~ 1o ~
~hicy 16)0 _ 'f:>c£J-.. , \-le 1t1avV'l-(__d ~
'V\;Ot- )o ~ }C 1D --t-h~ PVCM d)y h;

\ {};IN '1evJ Ir1 vV> h qaJ,ng1 +-N_ Ud1'/. 2:
c,.,m '1R\t:-1 ~ to yoo vol lfYI1z,i. v, (L'1 a M
b &e) ~ 1.)- =t DD -kov 1-l:ktJi cH,ov,

/{!6/~?o

2 -kav- ~ <vboYJ cbjt6 t i J Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-1 Filed 04/04/20 Page 9 of 10

11

(M'Yn

~ ~ ~nYN!Vvf.

I Cl11 nof llhow 'fk I lU%ltdy 66
~ StvbT) [N_,/'Y)PCV ,~ ~~
t\,\Q_ loe,~ ~ ~ a fY¼JL ti1~

✓'J_ CoJ0 hb,J- ~e h ;r ,fo(J.(,

'.) k Sfa/Jb Dpth it,u/ ~ ~ii . iM.e
~v #-q Ovl rC()J)irq If

:r 37. CJ) nnof- vUtch rn~ la~ Ke_

kes nol- v,tir . ~ °-o.nnot

C__ct\) \r11 rn M ~ p~ . I ha~

t\ sJo-e~ ct d o ~ !w-- h1·m

ro 'r(ag aJv/ no w~ 1o -r¼w

on °'~ -tkN ~ him. 1hir /s M~

~ f'\.QtO v-t.iluA

~ V ) vu--~

y\e-. ls . o.. v-u'J go()d IaVf\,Jev rlhevi

¼ ,'S' )S Yl Ot ~?\) lrl@ C!YJ .

/tf~J/:2<), ,I

I

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-1 Filed 04/04/20 Page 10 of 10

q

Ianddeccloarrereucnt dtoerthpeenbaelsttyooffmpyerkjunroywulneddegre

the laws of and belief.

the

United

States

th at

th e

foregoing

i. s

trt1e

lj Executed on the

day of April 2020, in Washington, D.C.

6Mkal Detcati II Faeilit_;y WQl D Street B£ ~ 5 l lagts , B C lOQf'.lj Correctional Treatment Facility 1901 E Street SE Washington, DC 20003
\

1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-2 Filed 04/04/20 Page 1 of 7

DECLARATION OF :;:hVY\l,~ Gw:\~o ✓~

L

0:l \ v

, certify

us.c. under penalty oifperiury that the § 1746. J

/lowing statement is true and correctpursuant to 28

years old. I am currently incarcerated at

. lam ), v{

in Washington, D.C., in the Da,i\-

unit. I have been at this facility since

1-
'2 ·

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-2 Filed 04/04/20 Page 2 of 7

fur ~ V\lhe,n X.. \i\rOvS \J11JvijVlt- O{JlM

f-VW

~ o/jJ ""-S i\--

fY\"{ U'Y\ I\- Cl Vl

JU v J,rii.d.. n,u... ...T

~ V\CM.d ~ Vv\~1 fa_ci . T aslt.e[JI (,l,VI()()- -j- .

i rt{,t °'~no m '&\" · · · I v\.J..N\.(J

,r1 /)
v ...>f •

M· ~v Y VV\ ,.\-- ~

l/r () (£ii (tdo {f, a.Jf- Ji

-:::r:_ v)ry\_OJ-GJ hrure herev hM

Jo (VlfMJ/cJ.. ,Ae.

c...o tl,\t(, VV\tl (J.

v 1o~ '14- 1v Id frtl...i

ft ~ Ul/J lfcft_

{)i) ul VMS)? .

3. J: h ~ CPO nl:A- ~ 0/CLIJY-J rjo htlni Jat1t/Jw.

hv ti,-t ~t ,;>. l)J'1U,ks vvc hlWG Ja.aA,-i /old -fhtl-

,
If

w-e.

Uft

+00

)
l'on\+1@v

d#-Sr/t'L~

dr1

'1-N Lfv'\ \ ½-- we- IAA1 qJ(A--- )Yl Wuk?\9,

Y· Toy- ~ \oot kw d~ s, +heve- havve 0()/y
b-t·e.-vi etnV\a\M&-~ Jo ~ n ~ vnJlf e~
·3- y hDws. :ChvnoJ·f<l ftrl Stf pvJt.gJ ID ohan
f6°1Y' l,vw,yi ~ ('Q.PI' -Mt ann bUV,{Ltwv,,vt-. 1N.
~ '0~ 111 W,avi YI'\'( v,-, it orf)'j ~ \,,<N'e,,h ~ ·1 r h"{)1~ IP gtf 6l.-f- <1) /1Jetd(5wn_

Y\o l6lw- o»{/vmJ ~¼tr rt M ~

~ 5. ']: lXM J&,\.Q_ of +N. o~v Juys ~

I J. " T~

Ma 1~

~m

~ +• .

JVl) ~~r

& • j:'._ heure. 11\t'.V~v &eh p}\'.rb.eJS lc1/Y\aJI' ~ f1/JA, r ·

C9tN-, JD ~ h --1-fu t/v71-J-,

J~ ~~~

Lf/t-1/:2o T

l . I . . V\ . Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-2 Filed 04/04/20 Page 3 of 7
~ th \'i elre.,v £=um -fN &r ~ VJ ,u·,~., ,-,,,

~ ~ ~ i. ~
~lvum\ -

~):.' V\ ot-
~ CA -h ble)-

Cl.
~

n" I ct:ti

he,i,e. .ii Ie. o-r,___ t,+-f\-t-,
\/V'.U.. ~-I- Y'6J,(J

~ ➔ \Jik.d b~ D'¼av In mtl.4-e(). :r is rJh r

~V\J2.d tJv otA.Y)\17 2.JUU ~

- Uf'[A ,

? ~ , -::t'

0r- JI'\

CA SI CI':'

p .
(i(JJJ_ J j,

3

Sov.vi-ve-ve.:i1dc.S:tyJ?

~
C-fJO

1

0vn o... ~ - -:I+=,
}.ek ~ ~ 6'1Ct. ~ -
~ +he 1nt1n,y1Al'j-

iu't)\L 2 ~ J'9
:r ot1~1\~\,~'t ielttn
I\ <JV

/ 0 - l V\~ c1'Vori,L t)n) Y\UV\ \1'~>- ~ l M Ylt/4j
ho} V J ~ 'm'J 'oKA+-'h1~ r:y n,vy
~h, ~ ST nu vve ~ rJ+- ~ vzl alrJ!JLl:/-
~YlJ(\~ ~ vuJ.
\ \. (\ 1) CJY\J.. ~ YY\.U( l Ca.J- hOi<J ~vt,V lw_¾- Lv+h
\JS \u Ci\ \J ~ l lJVDv\ CAV \ N,$..

CJ) 5: OJ)\JI.& UT }o WMh G\/1{ ht0,o1,o ~

~-

~ +h11::'.) .:!. ~ OJkWA-- Jbt!1.a..€ d ISiz-t ht>'":J

6y '14f\L a_a VLPtPf C1) J9e JfJ an l/v1d 6 ~

.r ~ 1J vv'Nlt-

Tv Jll(;W t7h

~

~~~

'"'\
I 4.

~ JDLd ur 'IJo DtiL Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-2 Filed 04/04/20 Page 4 of 7

O\'U

VIM .fAILV

(J. rJP

S1>C,1 °cU {.A,skit'\li~. 1hftt:.. ore. no Ol{Jyif of~
sl) C,A.a..Q ctu1-r.rri u ~. \M'.... rw.e-, 1" J)vf I vi ovv'
~~\J· A ]b1- d1) ,9enp1£ dh t,+f\4V CJ(} ,t j'YA;0-

Cv\\ m0v~.

15.

I

N~ - <rhy{l1'~I _

s,~
ha

/J'n l'\ffel)

T1'L
a ncL

vvaM.r W-lt- ap.J<t
C.OL-9 hiYE1 I n-h> Lfbvl

i f ~ ~ ,e;\ bow.
\ it, . IV\o.¥ llK- Y)C 6l h{ U

(Jy ll V) VI/\Vl'1 U..,

-to ~ vJ\I\QAA- #t- S'f mrhms t)}y ~ aV/ rtY

[}IL . j: k,o~ Jh.e 9'1 YYJptDl'Y>f fmm vi
fll,0-- at tn'j bi t)l o 8'-{ h t!YJ'\L lM5ik ott G e ~

fY\Sl'Yl S ~ lo.VO- V'-c we\C k/JVv'l~ t?foDvt.}-

U;,lby){X\J. (IA ~ it (). rviwJ JD ~ lrrnte.91

s~_

r-rork 17. :t. h-e.av

fy) vYl"f VV\ll- Ctt(_gh1~ , s ~

~'f)\Q O\l- o1clc. 51ct M..01. cw<{) lid -exa Vn ,h.Q.

~Wl {](1/'{}) +tu y etlJ- nof- ~f- JD ~ , cq:u

13'· s ~ ti) #J. rJv.oZ have- ~~ txhtj f>Ciq)<r .Su il:,

!J~ e!J . ~ +n.o-A-- ~ bl\';\) ""1m ~- TheK ave

Oh CJ\.)( Vh 1l-

l/4DI [).untJ.

~ k '.s

l(/tj/~~

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-2 Filed 04/04/20 Page 5 of 7

T~u,\-eJ- f °'rr ke D IJ..J
~ ~ :c ¥ tr1-,i.AY,

V 1'0- ~.\-
&lYYi vy,,oJ aVU ·

,vVw,X) iD.
!j)Oe S/,,fjJ hM $if

V u tp\£-cl tw_ Jb 0-f• I ' Cito V\-()t- t,YUJV' h.dW .::r:

~ ~ ~CAf° tf I ~ i1-.

""J} IJJ VJ 17 thu vsd.oJj , al. (j.(;N.S 0-go. :r aslc-wl foY
04... ~ hi ~ fW\/ Ud). Wc-e IIVf,\-C- lolo- tD

Fd'rl. 0le.eAn DJf c..tl1J:, fuy vw--rn ivis

T>v-

C__,o ~v;l ~ ~ (/Ve..1'L YID ~ ~1-tNY OY1

1/\Jh u21uv- l.lvY\ '.\-- 0r Ir1 ff\L &'fpIV c_;}JoM

,di

\S ~} I0~ - .1= e ~ Uf vs,~ an old
n rp..eo vy> .ra.q . ,he, v-05 ,ruet I00~ e,,lz@ ii [SFS"h

CA f\tA no+ ~ V' .

th~
SOv\.f>

js YID J\Y
~~

\

~ (;\If

J()
t

f

u

Yh'j
. lf

\

(!_,[J(. ther
tl\t' S1rl<J.

e. 1 s
f-&pl.e

no

'2ha\L. +N-\v ~6WJLO Jt> °'1° &-> ---J-hoct-- we 0J...'n V\(A,VL .S DOv¥> AA -the .:Ji--1 >::-5·

i\r p-u:,p~ CfY\P.. Is ~\ Il \'\j 1(5 MN r-i Ii\ VII/
ho-O,v- ,<l:DY5vi 0vv1nD' . ::r W1e\G bCA&et! C1YJ ~ t

+N- \Y) mttlf,(l howc J,oltt /1)'1(. .J-1,,,eut--

o v \f\YIJJ ,0w\)e.ntr Ql,C, ~ 1Vl metny

oc\oL roY\~ tA- t-

~- .
Uh 1)l

I n d v11, 1-ry

m.ot,·w, sl'Ylu - F,

~ : h V\O --rN ~ \wllrA ,~-
l o..

1I/

Ljf;P,o

~ evr fuo0- <-<>.

D Case \.Jv

1:20-cv-0i0's849-CcKJKd

Document
, ¼J-c-d

26-2
l5Y\

Filetdv0t4M/04p/20

{wPargye,6

of

7n<M"

~ ~ LVvTc bv, nop aur 1UVl~

~v- c;)lcrueJJ. I'. 0. Yh ctJ)m1 "J ,Jo c;I Vi v#-- +N..
~ jt,I'c..e 111 c_a_ae +ktt:. cu,:. vms -

I

2-,'---t ·

When 0.Ds- 0 lf1-t.<:.ze.. 0y hlMA bl'A.Ql l'..l>cf11~'J.,

Y''t' h'D

Or'-t

9~hUv\(J

~Yn

{A)oD-vtft-

,, S wn}'tfJ
+f\e_\y

ttb tJy' +cl¼ ~ Y)')

bv/ VV),)-\-.

·2, S . 1 ~~\ VLuVY\-e.aA. :r \gv\ ,,e,~ T VVll \ ~

LJCW DY\[A V\rVS ~ \9e._ ~ S c c4) --/-1v2_ (!__pry\{J,(_t/lclr-<)

\
IY)

he.,ve -

~ · ('\L4V-h W-<l

t¥ /~ :fz.(, iuVI 6U(

Klo loJ.e O\nJ a,<'. ho} -e._H,e ch"ve_ L om
\tvnw·-;ecJ ~ i-f :=t. ~ c...w- u ha\f\vvs

1~ V\B1,,e., .:r vvi \1 ctlG. :r:- C'.b uLa pvt- ir-i

(:}._ VNW. , CcJ. vt..q L.ttJ'\- i f -r <g-L+- S 1(le_ w I~

L.OvrsY\0-- VI Yl.lS o. hfJ,I. blj +N. t,Vl\Q. a.n y~

~~ h) ~ Oh m~ <>\.i mp b,nJ .r-
w to U ~ ctwuA.

.

7Yre-

1..J.JJ · -1-N

~ mi \~

~ bVJ~
·,s spc\\e.d

v;r !rum
Of'r'd 11,Gt-

~ +tN.. utiil1GiR1.

u.lct • ,-

aha!

fv-tl d thau- ,~f ~ ov,Yrk.- ¼ VY1llt.J2 Wl(J

afnr0 0-l'Yl o. l

hlJV'0'J'

l~('\(Na) l-.\--eW0~,1d-C.)J)_Ir'4".'-U- +t,Cu.l\'Yful td. ThG

~&
d fz:,

.::~t: om~ptii°-koi·

lf/4 I zo

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-2 Filed 04/04/20 Page 7 of 7

.

I declare under penalty of perjury under and correct to the best of my knowledge

the laws of and belief.

the

United

States

that

the

foregoing

is

true

Executed on the

day of April 2020, in Washington, D.C.

0C\VV\:e,0 Gtu {llb v~,

C?5Wml Bel 111i:er-¥a1Mil1>

liOi:

I GE

S)f&s) t ii=8 0 1n1ma,

~ K ~

Correctional Treatment Facility 1901 E Street SE Washington, DC 20003

I

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-3 Filed 04/04/20 Page 1 of 5

DECLARATION OF . D°'lll'e,I )2Ct Jflda(P?'J

I, ,Qu\. U I'o1 1Z Gf ViciO / f h

, certify

under penalty ofperjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28
use.§ 1746.

years old. I am currently incarcerated at

j
. lam d'c)

in Washington, D.C., in the J\I E::.)-

unit. I have been at this facility since

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-3 Filed 04/04/20 Page 2 of 5

z.J * \N--Y----)- en ~--,--, \JVCA/J ~l'Ou9'h-l- ~ hi

Ja i'i '

~ \NMJ on ,ntu\\lQ_ ftv S ~ s. ,A(+ev

~ ~Y\w._l(Q :C \(voLJ k l-2-n fO /VE L . :)J ~ Ck1J V"\ Dt" o~~ ~ha\,O l,AJV\OJ-
9 vzuran-\-lt'\Q, LS . /vD o-KQ ..el,t'.,r tow rr-e..
4-t\D.,;\-- _r \(vOJJ \:iel~ St:p 0trtJ-.-kd {r-(J(Vl
~ ~p\_9. tt> t'Y'°-lie t)U\L -=t:'lf'Yl

hut" CS '-C\c.. .

Y) r hcwc Se,n.\- aloW- kvffl vr-et,(l ~

'z::>\'-'fl~

~ OJ)\.-1

r() S<_o.. kt"-L c;lo ch:::i,' ~ . . f '

sJ m ~ 1mmu~ J\{Slel'YI 1S VY'c'.YKO' Uf· J:' VVIM CAJ9Y'lv_j uip b\ootl fuv ti(YV ~ j

r +{1\0\S wed:-

h£ure nnt-- 6-{'Ch ot

ctootor . :r:: ~ 6-8".t\ kit,':] sick-~

bv.\-- -+0u,j J0k vVtt IlC- facf- fN! .

{_Q) i,.J!)V'\- I'"'CW -P ~\-- \e.81 y S \ Cl:. 01'\1 Vh
e,~,e_s o. hll- ..\f'Ivo o-,-\- h vv+---

ol~, -1) J: QI. V'Y' Io(:)lu..d i'V' V'AY c.611 L3 hO-../lrs- ut
t) rY'Y etll ~ ~ haJ 6L COLffh.

y\C- h.ulJ b-eeh ulSk-lfJ fur +1Y. GtoC!Jfov

/i)

1 I

~I(_I/J._,

'IJ ct ill cl. Jc ~vie!(){ Ph,

I 0t- ¾tu> Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-3 Filed 04/04/20 Page 3 of 5

Y)

(YD CJY\__.Q,

h yY\ .

J ~~ .:c ~~"'.e q

s\'n e..e,
\'\ \\"j IV

IA,\{)uv}-

I<' '
-tfu-

-\-he.-
D:,Y (

sb-(;6 .f{;I
:N) /A\/l'(tfS.

I

0s
0 /1

cf£N'./ +'v, C,(SYcfYLO..lA yJJ

? ~ bJ
ti) .f}v-

\(vb¥$Z.
S~ tj~

Y\.(.WG k\l C).{'('(lL

~ US J~
u f'J.{)¥ J.

d,UY\ l}

n) J: N,;vvG uu-, 1V\V\tW-V 6Y CitH-h (\I\_O\. .

r '

r \i) Jf:yu~\Y..V(JY)),.('V)WNre.o,iyoof~ .~:J nf£Ol;l,C.(VlrJoLro,'Y~\ob,ey~ , Si~ X ~ Re,fj -~.cv;{WiQ ffe{6:.

~ + ~f& 1 J'- CAY'I J\,tA,~ s·,x +leJ.- mlVY1

1h heK

~ I~

I

CJ/'\ly hLtvC S-oetp 1Y'll'Y\Q,l,-\G qi~vl it-

Y\{JlD f\.DN(Y 51\,V\'\

91~ J,.. LO \I\Oi

O,).t

,tu

s~
rN_ . Tvi-e...

ano-rN)
bOL.

!\AL fDLJ-1)- ~j)l)(!

SUD{) la£lt Wute

V

~V\ r ~ ~ s vv r IS~J

:t tPoeelyY\e.
ID C,olr,h ,t-.

CflK£,/
I1-. T'
1(Y\

be- C'.£U,¼)e . l

anitlwwsµc_-o..r(,Jv) i

:t
et

c;t(JYI 1 'm
vo1:1Vn

1

a.
;:,

;1--+h 3 ~eicJ,y. 'j:' l VY\ ut-b"YVvl~ I l 'I'

---

1Vo vttAfLCA rd o /f~ q

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-3 Filed 04/04/20 Page 4 of 5

k_oJ

{}Pl '-1-

~ ~ °D '?,,~<SIct /).nd b£- --1-1'\v-a LAIlVl1 vp/)-"' S~-v1,v-UJ-

1AY\'-{ D¼wV S W\ p\DW1S

UJ y1)

I cA \G ntt- ~cw

CDV6 h IY!J lfV_iJ,IJr

u\, s~ \'r\() l'tm vnhl m'I \ o.,vr¥V i1JL?

~w ~ yY\Q_.

w)I Th·1s 'l5 m 6v1+- nVY"-- ::t- \A()IA;G

vY''/

~(A, fkWWj i'n rf_JJJ_ Iil~ _ l/V-L h twe ro+
rt oJok fO -/-z;d le-- (A, loD--t;A- my cJl.-¥- -I

------

y'\(M_t., \f\aMV }eM'\ VY\~ l{t)Dl ,-u ~ t --

n) f'1
\

G o Ou'rlL~- V\PM~~

m ~ 1;u m tt lJ-- s,c\t . lo rr

t i/V}I
c/;

* {/\U~S CfYl ('(\~ \JV) I-\- ove. CJ)U9h1~

,0clvd1~

CfJlJY ,v'l 'f0_Q_ WI (\QK+- to

.

Y\111~-

\i) -:11 VYl V\D\ cy-,-th~ ~ n.~h~ -=:I:

1 cci)

cA(Y\ ~ 01/1{"., T'vYL

Rel
VYIY

~ Sa/(--klt-

h9h+

1n

in-fctke.

I -told ++t,~rid fNJj dwf nof- f-a~ IYk.

fD IWJj I f.Ct1 (J, rd i,e,-/cJr(21 /D CJ\NC rN. ~ r

'I -

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-3 Filed 04/04/20 Page 5 of 5

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

L--'[.___ Executed on the __

day of April 2020, in Washington, D.C.

0 Cu.A Di f-01- 0 do I<f h
Central Detention Facility 1901 D Street SE Washington, DC 20003
C,...Qiii@@tie I I catmcnt facilit¥ l~l E fJtast SJ; Waskiagmn, el 6l 3QQQJ

I

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-4 Filed 04/04/20 Page 1 of 13

1

t r DECLARATION OF t\, c.,htA\ ~dne,o

I, -1\,c_he...o..,\ C..oht.<"\ :It.,
under penalty ofperjury that the following

statement

is

true

and

, certify
correct pursuant

to

2 8

use.§ 1746.

years old. I am currently incarcerated at

. I am J..\ J_

N£- in Washington, D.C., in the

3

1-1 - 2ot~.

unit. I have been at this facility since

- - ·- -- --

2 . ;I-' t . I ' ~ Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-4 Filed 04/04/20 Page 2 of 13

v\-fe, V %ry\ MtfH'Ylll\ .

v~ 0,.. n ,n h'.1.,let:

v tO...,v--e.. O.. V\ ais¼ ~ Ovtli-tcAc o<l'KZ:>tff-

'3. C&hc_e.. 0.. ~ .

The- -hvr-e ~ vj-\-

T- hecrd O , ~ (!_fj~ vt n.[J r-JC,<.<)

0.,,. ik_ NLlM I.Yl j?-V\J\K.( V1j .

Y · No C7Y\-e kGm DDe htl.s ev-uY YV1et 0- ,+h. YY'<-

av VV\'j VY\\.-\- 't) c}LSC,)..J{)(J C»V/bY')CtvlC-VS W
LOI\ D VV\th l'Y\e. (IV 0-V\'{ 6"\-¼v o~l(,to,'Y)t::,_
S • Nn o-ne._ fM.n UY\\½ ~ I t h Vteto evc,i,•-
~ tt->-Jth VY\.e_ CW VY\ 'j UW\. ~ rtJ oflJ uLA/.J[)

U)\j\i) V\/l~ WV., OV-1/lhy ()~v rti) \ C{&yl{:j .

G. y ~ r- IVWY\lL-k. l7Y\ VY\ 1.ml- 1/v&l,a Ioe.l&zed ·, vrh:, h;J

S'°1sb r C.e\\ ·1 ':) Ct,l\ °'-\oav t- 2 d,.{)'.._y5, et~- He_ VV-Clz> q va ~ vihr1-fd.

\Y\Q.

o\10. Yt6\- \ell VJ o.n~ ft;-, i~ .

bvY\QO- +h·t.s ~ Ci\.n-o~Y lnm.o<.A<. . H-e.

VVCLJ s v s ~ cb hClNI~ c.ovovi ao.ilf:"'vs. I- _

cA.'C) (\DY- ~V\.,OLA) if- m-e..o{L (a). JOA.,,,J h IV'V)_ .I:

J.p rvot \LlryovJ 1f- he (/\;CV)+ tD +he ·,n~r~

-- °' T' ~\t'GV- SJJ;v.J

V\ 'f <W._ ~D I Yl1l) h LS CG {( k:)

rpro\f\Cle_· YN..0t, caJ c.a '--f .

~ + 1. --r\t\.exC- ()...\L -e-+

S

l/,faVti (};\tl- c.oV5 'hi~

~f'e.. On
~ vGnt!A.j .

Vh"f VV11·fNo ~ &vn.,

+N- stvf)b Q-ppro~ ~vn l..\fi'le,l'I ~

;f/J r 'd)
·'!';-J..ft-

LJ-9--2- r?2o

r>~

llCase 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-4 Filed 04/04/20 Page 3 of 13

(:,~Y\. k, lMIL. ~ M dv <0.v:..r -+v--.,_,/r V)'\.,oJtl_J
OY l'\J c:Jtttv ~ ~ l CPJ.UL·
~ . ~I-\ .T V k +1v. pV\/4VU- k, {'fJ..LJ. yr.y (~ (

v-, ~ ,
c5 ~ V

.T hOvVL -\-a S\-z;{ N?J

I I') l'Y\A,\-il:)

I V\_c,\ vcl I ~

0 M rexf -fo
/ Vl Vnc,(,k:J (,(/VW O v<'.-

1

CJ ✓ C,,tn Cln. \,\ \ N1.
0\ . ~-e.- ~V\.~ IJ\J-e VJ<. O.i-e, ru:,J- Ckc,.r1.J2£)1.

SlA.,V"\ \t-\ 2..u,( ~ -eft._uh vJ-e.

p l b • Th-ev<.- -\S Cl \oCl ctu..,

o--\- +-Y\e

'
,

nfi'v

rn°'

~

0'"D ~ ·,\- LA.r-vl\ +ttb.- TIW-L to kx_ J=(_am.

\ I . J:.JC .I ?Ut ,n Cl Sick {!()..J_j_ sl,p J I (;N ,·ll

ho'"' \c,e. ~ \ol-f c:s,c.k c_a__LJ. ~ 2- - .5 cto.,ys
\ 2. :t. ~ ,--V) ++u.. 'c-ch~n. -r ~ ~

~v-s lfvvt) ~ \Y\ +tu- ll,,,l\r~n (!___f!VV1{Jla,~ °1) ~\~ J\Ctt: ()( r-d tr\£k b ~ to ~ intivrno.n1-
0w ~ bl-DY<i.h 75 \rYf)h (Al2{.o ~'{/h '"":I Atrit/1,,r

I Y\ VY\L,l~ (V1 iY\!L k,,tnheh VVUQ S\Lk, lAJ 1¼ fl L)

l,k-£ sympJbYh~- fJ et~v ~ +~m vveA-L ~n ~ o\'C~ ~ 6Y -/-1'-l inAr'J/Y\{)vg , Both

I Y'\ rY\Ol.\-&J ~ \lvdLl ~ I VJ J_tv., /;:: H-c..V\a h

v-M'~ 0)'ul-L

\ ~.

'~
--

_:c }e,,j \
l,A--0-yt_ I

~ o

(

!

J

)
(

A

+-M
VY)

,

t-
\'O

.:t
l_O)

Cl~Vh ~~ D~ <:; l~ ct ·-ID Jjd

h

tAn'f vv~. -the OY'al1 ~ 1D ~+-c:n.A- cf6

jd,-. t;JJ2- c./-'7- 2 o20,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-4 Filed 04/04/20 Page 4 of 13

.

ls r ~ ~ QUl

. \\, Y\1/X)

P· e)I ~ t,f t) ll

.)I {IL

~~ ~ ~~ ().. h

1(\ frtvYW J (J>I ~ ~t.
'i)Jt- 51()(,L,

~ ~ dt> +h9- \YI.f. / ma.'--1 w .sIc~ cod -+fu...

~ ~ I.A_;-e..

i'Y\ h, fu_j s1Cil we- At<--

f'O

~ S\Ql- (JY vv<e

I
fr,t~

PWl\Sh~t-.

) Lj . l'.:1\---Gh-e,h VV\)V¥,tV J ' ol,,,cia vz;t h.vJ-w 4J k:£-1 Vlj j I(_ t:,

(,ti,e. 15 YI t>¥-d . _ln l'Y\lt-le,1 al<'. \IVl)'(t: II) jn J-,1\o-

r k'.-L1-c~YI
0-. IC \,M,

'ro rJ..ovy
~ 'V:, ,Y\

L,JhD (}.,\C Ctll(J h I"'1· V) VY\tx,M
-\--N. la.I \-[,l,\Q,h fO ct.aA( LAJ,to have.

~\_o ens ~ ~ \f'OAr-e, ot10lrv-he.A.-

w~ \ 5.

<AK- now V\'\-tl~I~ hocl 1'r> ~ Cl)F

~ I~~ ~ \tl \--e,\rv1 hY loi)\+) ~D F 0. nd c__,TF.

Ilo . \ I"\

'r:,~!') we o/-'+ ha

{ilY, d,(_

rzl gva,Vs

° ().Y\J)\ <ii\DvW . \f.fe {kJ:) n t- ~ mtulcs. we
W~✓ v-Jh ,\-e., c)o-\"N.D . wt!- ~ ~cit cA Jfeyen \-

CJYV.,D ~ &M1 . s;,~ YlU<) {-he.."1 t,{01 '.f- ~

l\~ -lW>-.\
~

htM,,c.
~

~ l,Nll--0~ ~ sh lf{-:s
(;Ve ~ --l-o fvt- ~l'Yl Ch ~

CJ-.\P..- 011 f1] eJu¼.aLl (J n.tJ o1d hor Ynat 1VJ </..Jee
. °6· pi() w£. ~\-- -yj\Q. l.,\Sh1\-e \?t~h c.,/ ~+fu<J 0)).(...
1'he Cos h)\.£1. rw. \-NJ- ~ ~ ~,,.,..
~ 1\ . \O''l\ ~v-o,Mct> trJ>J.a.Y\ OV\ -\\,v,... wo.,'I IYI h) -ft\JL bu,Idlh
0-\.c1 V\,ot 5 0.'/ wk-1--i-vv ~ I l'lo,ve. -1-v Wice.. q·
5vvvC-u\S- \~ 4o\) pa...u -#1e- s.uv~ you CJ(,t--

/fJ-- .J:--1-7'- 2. OZCJ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-4 Filed 04/04/20 Page 5 of 13

~ ¥ - 1a ~"r' r s BMm J J<ol1>t(.\·fa,V.·O\J~Ah~ e1u.t)~,~ -vU~ ,\\h\~ln-i\()1t\h)ehhtY~lli~J~V,eirlK"\.unv\Cft\1o)\T~ $ GtJ\~ \~~'.-V.nX:-SoS.Iwt.:~ e''r(Ull,e~lvc~ w.til<-Y-t1YAi~ jvdrVt.rcA\v\S~\.,s-)-p-\).n.-\o,I'Tl<ebnn3.bls'j\_h\.+d~ Ymf~v(~iYlY((Ylel;i?Df\\\fP\e1vSSSct's~ Ukt.lh\D:hv~ Stln"1ao,Cep_tbts\-(\figt~tRuvnL.--~a\rn"v:1.cof,C1VvesL·1~urr,l1CltvY(n\o-\jTCW Ilefiluc{VO.}fh,t3Na'io1~ D\t"{C1Yltnp'-Jvv1Y-x-1c-U'4eJer\J-C,1t'-Jvev2-1htVnt--u.e2~su.-{+e~ uASv-~pjNl1t0·h1thJQ,-Ad0l\ViLen-dJ#ol·r-m~ '~lrlv-k5\eY\teVPJl-YlJt_."\IOvvI1~ hl~ \'>tl+CJt-r-'jM OoO-ntc.tAwlJ~Yv(1$J)O~.+\tvVel/tC-v",V ol(u~ LwpJ"l,C+,.llh/."A.c0·Uj.d+Iv"~v/~ \.,(hf1.,fy~ hJ-JY£)VVtoa\\!f'l2r/.l,\\J<v/Hado1~'LnabJtul<Dav -!Je,~u1e_un1f1--r

2-,\.

~ \ \5 ~\~ fJY\.

S~ ~ ~
(:;(:)\/\{b 6--<-vn

hk-- 1/ve 't'N., ru..wr

~
l r \\I-

- ~~ r Y\Ul[{ 6

whok
Gtfvb cllfvi

\N<>Vtdn 'f- Vck. vt'ble_ }o

7Jlfk I Y\ fuy- Yrell\Vl't_ 6l~v}CIY froyr) -hrni~ fh t1ru._

k-l
l-f-

~ 11'
7vl) k- ft

hof clVvi·t"l

~ h) ~ l

J

E..11{). M il c.o~

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-4 Filed 04/04/20 Page 6 of 13

V\lht,Y\ Vvt- ~ \ ~ D..f.r VY"\ ,t h> t,,vu(J-<-,

¼-e o.YC,, ~ll-cJu-c( ln -pe,oplQ lnr"O CAn elevoADY

Q,\'J0v\- Lo kct- VLJ Co ft.et w, 2L..

2_?:,_ ~ IY'VY,.0-AW ey '6~ loVt~ fooc.l \llMjO h

~ vY\\~ +he IY'\m{).,~ CA\L V)Q½- L,vta. vi~ YY\Mjcgv

9n.ub S-~

dct) ntr\- weM- g't:b~ -

1-4. ~ uhJ..& cro not- Vltw<- ~ ro t'YlMkr. s~ML

~ ~h'l \/\ff-A( \t\~\IY\.fA.dL ~lc.s ~

Yt)V'\~ ~ "'-~· . OJ".t ~ m,e,,mbev- oY1
CA uvY\t (:J_ +\t11n~ 'd- Wa.J Sbv+h 1-) VVCVJ ~ V \ ~ (J\ ~ bo.Y\fA.AhP\ bvcf hi:S & i -e_ -Mioiy

\y\C vJh\\e ShrtS, OY)I~ &~ ~ v m4-S}cs:~

•2,5. W'v\e1n \ ~ -OXn,~,\- S"Jmp tDrns ~ l 6\i,.e_
~o\--- \tae,\~ ~Uh cR.iY\Ml'vf dY g,vt,h \vat+-~

~mp~-

·2-,(o. j:' t"}\.e.o.. A c..m.pwdn~ Oh YYlaYL~ 2q, L() 2-D, Q~-J\J(\ -s ~ a l Il'"I~ 19-c,,~ ~ I'\ Sfh--KoL hi YrJy

v,n it. 0-n .,4pvi I 1.. 12 D2.:0J tho Cj nc: Vlln_ee_ l;\,c,a

~ '11) VN.. W1-1h rm rwp~ . 'J:: ~ ~h

ft)

~pvhJ \IllovzA.en \{. L ot.ntkvHn

01'\

~ 8

2 ~/l.,

SN2- hl6 \tY\I.. ~--\- -wht-,Y L-v\,/ I h Dt-- <;,.h-p

.

+rli\Y\ s-kvv'nl:J I tJn ~ 1G-e.--~ vn,+,

I 1/f}·if- .!/-y--zo 20 ( I

I '>. l

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-4 Filed 04/04/20 Page 7 of 13
p ~ \_s V'"Tu yt_.Mff}> ~ J}, \Yul y,~ ,(?e VVI ~

'Y\ ~ , sk so.0 ~~ ~,caJ

~

. Y\e)l) \f\cl-- \'.)lvO, VS ;

<lkp \-l.e\Dl).I\ \1)

~'(l[,{eyf~

\(\,)'y-)(AH.t) ~~ l)V)l'-\:~.
2 7. \J IcteI> \Ai,1-RhaYi ~hn ~\LLJ plutct · ~ (J(LYJ
C!..V'MJ., kl ~ V\cteo w,h~ Ceffl~v. the DaL-
bta.{Jb l'W., VY\bt1r Wht) VVovt:.5 ,Yl -I-tu. VI d a) .
v.s In~ CM'\W s ik> ~Yl'f,\'\ \ 1iv-e.t OlUO mt'.A.1c.1 ~
U\. \J\;:, ,t- Qel.me..- 1\'1 ~01.1n hi rn'/ uVJ, \- o.floµJ~ lAft-ULc;; ~ - \-lL V\fb.(J n,o)- ~v,f1j [JL~

o-..r li\ r0-tA.Jk.
·2._y;. , \t\ ~~ no\- ~ D Q o~ , l:tl.eCA. h C-trYv1 mlSY\ o ~
~ hlJ\,Uw~ ~~ . "]:?omoJeo ~ n o.... -few +.~ Ci

~ M'J

,m..kS\~ +N. so.me cA..@.v.. The. v--rui,o

o\, v h_j Y- °'--o/) ..eo.-ch -h wie Ctie .:C,~~rnl lo.LO QY) O'I

r--o' \ \u o\~ CN\- ~ ena 6b -lCluh dalf Ll<l ihold'h

~ Q\L rt> \Ge. vhl1z.wl #-a. h{J)l\. (Jf)AJ.

1-q. 11v ~n1~ ~ unGY\ Is \<'.hi~ ki~ 4-w_ rula11

~~yj . Tu~ 1) ~ C.. o+atlfv ~ ~ ILr F-1,u._

m \yt>:\\lJD ~ ~ \ . e ~ la.R-6t)',<. {4e._ eA.e,a_11) I~

·\Y\ YY\.IJ.JWl C,W\ cJ ~,,,

b +t&? ln5m ~ L4 ~

9 j J N- \Jy°'f)I'\t- -hi tt-6 ii I , o.'r0 tD VV\o... r\'i °1

~ ~ ~ V\Afi Vl,D cJ.ut VJ I YJ Sb) LJ han

\jeS)eYlUL~.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-4 Filed 04/04/20 Page 8 of 13
' .

3~. LCase 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-4 Filed 04/04/20 Page 9 of 13

nna ~1
·

I-~ \.~/T\r~ ~}\\'yl'?\D0e_~.-~_wu_,~ \~\'Y\y-G,\lDlOn "u,V-\1O[~nDV_-'\d'JtLli~,~ S~ ~[CA!J~ "AD~DY(DV/Y\.¼'~ Q-)1v_U]D~ Lu\~\-C-n.JA~+.vSl\c(tLJv0)AJ~vVJuv&\~ ~ {t'./N-DV1✓,U~ l~ ~ ~ ~-kCC. ,fOYb\DY~ _blJ\~ ~ .w\l--,-s.l+~ o~ aN\Lv..m ,a\NLYl;lR\·~At-~JOvW~,JJ,vo.u.P--JJVIo.s' JU~

:>(5'.

\n ~~ ~~ Q.,\"D\fu.,o \.Y) ~\Y ..Srnk.S CAn.aA

ro, \~-\=-s.
qr,Y\ ~ L'u.,
~1:trh u\;C) ~

~ a o -\--·ro.>r ~~

~

~~ ~f)'\L V\D\- ~ \oLNtk

In
~tllf).

tw,
k~
"I

laurtdh:]
~
~

plm~lu) --\htA:r :r
'\/'J\r...~\A ~ \JK

wa..o ~\_o\ ~
~ \ ~u'(\¢~

0t S~ph .\ nk ~dVl
IY\ ~ ~ -

1

3 Cf.
p+o °b G{b.

~ :C~ ooY~ \~~~ Y6V-\e'\rYbvvpv,~-v'Cje~jv,"Y\s&\Z'v1"~ A"p).pm~~ lmlwYO\~ 'Oj UvIt:'u-u"Y"''i,e»1\/-e)\l,-~ ~ v-&O.vvkb~rr_bo~ j~l &TC11.lTt)U~ JOY~ Vl t.e:\./.VIni\w) ao

lJ\Jv Qh~
4v o, uhC/Y\ ~

vvo.D
m 'l

r-0 vvv,teV tiDw f'\ ~ ~n,~
L.In°,\- , ;), 5 °h 0LaA VV¼r-,

'1 5 °lo wa\ek-.

y ). ~ J:' ~ Y1t>
,.s ~V'd- ~ CAn
n ~ ..etc-c
Sl\ Y'\ , t rl.Qv cA '-5

ClU eSJ r\) ho( nil S- ti h l' ti' <..tl (r. If'"\£¥. ,\- ,L9-v ,~ \.---N_ ~l }c,V\!in b\_}\--

<A\- C--1) 1=.
~ hf{.\1' Wu'-<L

A+ C-TF +he. 1
--6..l\,e__d w{ rh

h,a r d

s\J'ltulce. OA..QO\~ l du.
s- ~ f u 0..'r) \ ~\ 1-..e\r.

Ovo~ &\D 1

\'hS\-c..Qwl al)

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-4 Filed 04/04/20 Page 10 of 13

I l //
u a \ l·

~ Case
:r:_

1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document
CA.o Y\O\- ~\£-Le.,

26-4 ~\

Filed 04/04/20 Page 11

r.r I/\, ... ,

t)uC -

t-rwVJ

of

13

~ Cur> ~ OS\j m~\o '{Y'()\.\-,.c C.0.VY't-el'"S". yl (ffl

=t l-eo..v-~ 0-\oO'v\.\- ru'-I m_pl-u~h c ~~
~ ~~ ca.llA w..\-h I ~ ONCJ. r +t,w1LL

UD c., lU)tD hitk- '(,,Ml.,A) 1,9.e_~ f-N_,~ ~
\ \ ~c.e__ ~\ P &~ LS Y\ ·+ o M ·l)-./J l ~ S\ ctL ~v<-

i5 r\1) ' y ,&t-·
S'D. \\lb °'Nt .\-tAli ~ Wvv;;..l i'J ~'t"fJ m. ~g,,9ns
c¾ M)\- \t~ vs . }:e:=- :S: ~ 1·n \ a ck-~

&Y\d_ hoA..d- loJt TV or phiw_ p"-rv1l~~ ..:C-
.Vvt)V~cl ~ Y1'0 l CA..e.o.. LAJh.a;\-- ~ ~

S ) · '?-eof\L (]Y) m 'l<>o,.$1,. II tj1~ -& Ctoh ol-fv,- h lgY\ 6~' .

~'f)'\u_ ~~I\ UArt- {Arv) o\\t\vit. ~Oh ~~J
-f-o D0- 0.vvJ ~ KVWy- I.on \4-uo. :$ m.trfJ cl.tl n,M\1\.(A.V (\ ~'()\L ~e__ ½-\,~ ol\L VY\<fw&e-.
5 L 7N \'..1 oSJl.- ~ lJv.e. ~ L-()yy,Yn,-Ssft.t ~ ~ \J oJ.Wtus\- h_;\rGV C)_{),(X_ruz_J_ x +-

\voo \/\S1\ol~ e,hv'hj w\l+h ~~VL vpnnli" vv'hih

l-,- ]:_ S'~

-e_o.,_y\v...,v- ~~-

n \ 4$ 3. \'J"D CJY'j- hN) h:>\.J UJ Vv[)\-

\C(_. OJv E,~~-

5' l-(.
'5s.

btl,,uv
Pouv

\f'\~
d\) -t-'W.

ltt~){J~ on
~ s-~

me..
~

w 11") m~ VcCln·1iy-
S'vmm,-\- ,Y)

~ l l\t~h V\OJv-L ~ v~ s . lhe~ ~ hn v_

k> ~ ~ \(V\),tk. ~ ~ \?e.e_n -~\ ck-

h M~i. ::C. S:OJv-J o..LI. fbv.r cl/J ~m ,h --\--h..Q..

Ill...--
~ 'rnO-.DLJ-.\. 'cN,v\Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-4 Filed 04/04/20 Page 12 of 13

S(o · :t -W'nn1c. ::r1rn ~1~ h> o\1-e. ~ .:r

Dv'r'n Mit\~F<- ,~ ~~~K ~ ovn ?JD)~ ro

r C:.un\v-a.,c+- Cn V\(b) tA~cl +ttM-

Ufat l I yettl UC

(\"'fD..s~\'1 'rn1uLupJCLtL \'V\.tdl c_aJ. ca~ . .:c ct w,

ca ~ .r ~ ~ ~ _:c C\ vn ?Jul Yj It) o{
~+-twt\ 5\fi; t"'" a +fW vY¼Y\+h s UlJ Vn y

~ oJJJcl.

Sl. =t a_yY"\ c_QY\a~ ~ -t-'N- ~ l.JI./Vli Jkp

0/yy-,~ . 1'i ~ ~ ~ dn-, it- tgd-

~ ~\/\) ~v -L'f U\f ~ K) ~ Saf;e be1Yj
0.VDlJv7S'I._ VS.

s o...y g-.

"T 'f1. ni)-.A
~~

~ S)-zu'i

Cl> Q V\J\ (M. )1YLRl} s;
/.JJ (:€~ ut.pA{-)- C<Y\O(

v\,/'Q
-l-1vu<

S Y) Ou\_0- Y) 1- ~ ~ A.,~V~'40 cfJ /'f? 0v

~ ~\t_' \V\_{D ~ ~ \)) d...o_.,,{ I Yla{) 0 ~
r <\ o l- hJ II DvVe.JlA - The-\./ u It.: vtti ~ VY\ '--1
\r'\~\~ a_Y\d_ efa.{t~ Qt V-tS\L

'S9 - ~ lM\ I lu & vs olown tx r-Ot \ ~ roif ½-
lruy f'JY'I.sV>~ bl.A- +t~A,{}i~pe~ 1sola,~~

~'f)\Q_ LA./VvfJ 1/VJJv<-- <5 '-I \lh ~\uyY\J -e\i<-h 1-f'lo<Jh

M CM'1-vl 0 Ul,{J-u) kn (/V 1D.

. -

6,C). :r ~,~ :r ~ d,~ lh ytM1- :Il\./4, \oe..th )A ~

r °" 1-l VY\C'A--\'hl' (AM
I:. ~'<" ~ ~ LNvl'

o\A()f- vv
YYDt- \ IVL

Y\ \-- \1::)
Jo~

~ V\~ a\ lv(:_ .
rV\'f J"·Y\,(_

~ CVJVr<.

' I .I •

If,jS

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-4 Filed 04/04/20 Page 13 of 13

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the })A day of April 2020, in Washington, D.C.

Central Detention Facility 190I D Street SE Washington, DC 20003
Csnccticnel T tmcnf I mry l98:J SHCet SE
~iiMlti ; 2 88883

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-5 Filed 04/04/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF JOHN FOWLER SUPERVISING ATTORNEY, PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, John Fowler, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is John Fowler. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am a supervising attorney in the Trial Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (“PDS”) and have worked at the agency since late 2013. Prior to working as a supervising attorney, I was a staff attorney in the Trial Division at PDS. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as a supervising trial attorney at PDS is to represent people in criminal proceedings in the District of Columbia Superior Court and to supervise the practice of PDS’s trial attorneys.
3. Since the Criminal Division of Superior Court began holding emergency hearings in midMarch 2020 as a result of covid-19, I have participated in my own clients’ release hearings and listened to other release hearings on the “emergency calendar.” I have also reviewed the public docket for some proceedings taking place within the Criminal Division during the same time period.
4. To my knowledge, all requests for relief related to the covid-19 pandemic seek release or a reduction in release conditions. To my knowledge, none seek changes to conditions within any Department of Corrections (“DOC”) facility.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-5 Filed 04/04/20 Page 2 of 3
5. To my knowledge, two judges are handling the “emergency calendar” for release requests. One judge screens and reviews pleadings. Another judge sits in courtroom 115 and conducts hearings on these requests.
6. At first, the judge conducting hearings was physically sitting in courtroom 115 while the parties participated largely via WebEx. Now, the judge conducting hearings for courtroom 115 is participating via WebEx, too.
7. The Deputy Presiding Judge of the Criminal Division has handled a number of hearings on the “emergency calendar.” When confronted with evidentiary questions in a few cases—including questions about the conditions of the jail—the Deputy Presiding Judge indicated that the Criminal Division is not able to conduct 300 evidentiary hearings during this emergency.
8. I understood this to mean that the Criminal Division had received at least 300 requests for release.
9. Of my cases in which the Criminal Division has scheduled a release hearing, several days pass from the time I file my pleadings requesting release to the time I receive a decision on statutory grounds at a hearing.
10. In an emergency release hearing before a different Associate Judge, the General Counsel for the Department of Corrections was on the phone. In that case, the Associate Judge also indicated that there would not be an evidentiary hearing. The Associate Judge did not require the General Counsel to make any statements at all. This meant that there was no opportunity to examine a witness on the conditions of the jail.
11. The Deputy Presiding Judge has resolved release questions at these hearings on statutory grounds—that is, under the District’s statutory detention scheme.
12. The Deputy Presiding Judge has indicated that constitutional questions (e.g., conditions of confinement under the Fifth Amendment) would be resolved on the papers, without an evidentiary hearing. The Deputy Presiding Judge indicated that defense attorneys could submit additional materials, such as proffers, to the Criminal Division and that the Criminal Division would resolve the question in a written opinion within 30 days of the defense attorneys’ submissions.
13. Some cases in which pleadings requesting release were filed over 10 days ago still do not have a scheduled hearing at all.
14. The Criminal Division releases a schedule of emergency hearings the afternoon or evening before the hearings take place. Often, this is the only notice that the Criminal Division sends out regarding these hearings. This notice comes either near the close of regular business hours or, more often, after regular business hours.
15. Pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 17, an attorney may serve a subpoena for testimony or records for an upcoming court date. That same rule requires that the subpoena state the time and place for the testimony or production.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-5 Filed 04/04/20 Page 3 of 3
16. In practice, this means that an attorney may have 18 hours or less to subpoena a witness or records for a hearing the following morning. This is not often enough time to secure this type of evidence.
17. On behalf of the DOC, the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia has moved to quash defense subpoenas related to conditions of the DOC facilities served shortly before a hearing based in part on timeliness grounds.
18. The DOC has limited legal phone calls with defense attorneys to 15 minutes at a time. These calls are primarily being made through a case manager’s office; it is my understanding that the case manager is in the room while the attorney and the attorney’s client speak. The other mechanism by which clients may speak with attorneys is through the phones located in DOC facilities’ housing units; it is my understanding that because other individuals are in close proximity to these phones, these phone calls are not confidential, either.
19. On April 4, 2020, the DOC issued a notice that legal visits will be suspended until further notice except for individuals who are “actively in trial.”
20. As far as I am aware, the Criminal Division has suspended all trials during the state of emergency.
21. As such, it is impossible for attorneys to have confidential conversations with their clients either in person or over the phone.
22. It is critical for attorneys to be able to have confidential conversations with their clients to discuss matters and review materials related to conditions of confinement, emergency release motions, ongoing investigation in their cases, discovery, plea offers, preparation for future trials, and other matters. Telephone conversations are not sufficient to accomplish these things.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on April 4, 2020, in Washington, D.C.
________________________
John R. Fowler Supervising Attorney Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20004
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-6 Filed 04/04/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849 (CKK)

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF DOMINIQUE WINTERS

1. My name is Dominique Winters. I am competent to make this declaration and I make these

statements based on personal knowledge.

2. I am the Deputy Trial Chief at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia

(“PDS”). I have held this position since 2017.

3. Prior to becoming Deputy Trial Chief, I was a Supervising Attorney in the Trial Division and

a Staff Attorney in the Trial Division before that.

4. As part of my duties as Deputy Trial Chief, I initiated communications with the District of

Columbia’s Department of Corrections (“DOC”) regarding the availability of legal calls from

the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”) and the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) to

PDS clients during the coronavirus pandemic.

5. Beginning around March 2020, PDS attorneys began reporting to me that there were a backlog

of legal call requests to DOC. Many lawyers had submitted legal call requests to DOC by fax

and/or email, but had not received responses to their requests or calls with their clients.

6. On March 25, 2020, I emailed Charles Akinboyewa, the Chief of Case Management for DOC,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-6 Filed 04/04/20 Page 2 of 3
to improve the procedure for PDS attorneys to be able to have legal calls with clients. 7. Mr. Akinboyewa and I agreed on two procedures that DOC represented would best ensure that
PDS attorneys would be able to have expedited legal calls with their clients. 8. Under the first procedure, I send a list of PDS clients who require legal calls to CTF and CDF
by 9:00 am every morning Monday through Friday. 9. DOC informed me that they will permit 10 legal calls1 from CTF and CDF to take place each
day, and that the calls will take place between 9:00 am and 2:30 pm. 10. Under this procedure, attorneys cannot schedule a time to receive the call, they must be
available when the phone rings. Some lawyers have had to remain available from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm to receive a call only to be permitted to talk to their client for up to 15 minutes. 11. Because DOC limited the number of legal calls that can take place each day, I am not able to submit the complete list of legal call requests for each day. As a result, many lawyers are not able to have timely legal consultation with their clients. And some lawyers have not been able to consult with clients in preparation for court appearances. 12. Beginning on March 30, 2020, I began sending DOC the list of legal calls per day for PDS clients. Even under this agreement, DOC has not been able to complete all legal calls submitted for each day, and legal calls for clients at CTF rarely occur. 13. Outside of in-person legal visits, this procedure is the only way in which PDS attorneys can initiate a legal call with their client. 14. Under the second procedure, DOC agreed to arrange for PDS clients to initiate legal calls with their attorney by calling from a phone located in the common area of their housing unit. 15. The calls are limited to 10-15 minutes.
1 Upon my request, DOC agreed to allow 15 call requests on March 30th, March 31st, and April 1st to try to clear the backlog of outstanding legal call requests.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-6 Filed 04/04/20 Page 3 of 3

16. DOC informed me that at CTF, there are around 3-4 phones per unit, with each unit housing approximately 50-60 residents, and at CDF, there are approximately 4 phones per unit, with each unit housing approximately 100 residents. This arrangement raises obvious privacy and confidentiality concerns due to the public nature of the housing units and the common areas.
17. It is essential for attorneys to be able to have substantive, confidential communications with their clients to provide effective representation. The limited telephone conversations have not been sufficient to accomplish these things.
I, Dominique Winters, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: April 4, 2020

__________________________________ Dominique Winters Deputy Trial Chief Public Defender Service 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004

3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-7 Filed 04/04/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849 (CKK)

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF JEAN JOHNSON

1. My name is Jean Johnson. I am competent to make this declaration and I make these statements

based on personal knowledge.

2. I work as a clerical assistant for the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC) and have an office

in the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF). I have held this position since May 2019.

3. This March, I reported to work all but three days until March 18, 2020. That evening, after

reflecting on the lack of preparedness at the CTF and the way DOC responded to past health

emergencies, I realized that I could not go back to the facility. I began using sick leave on

March 19, 2020. My sick leave expired on March 26, 2020 and I started on unpaid leave that

day. Now that I am not earning income, I am scared about my ability to afford basic

necessitates. But I am more afraid of the risks to my life and health that come from continued

work at the CTF.

4. DOC does not respond well to medical emergencies in the best of times. On three occasions

since December 2019, including two since late January 2020, I saw staff or inmates fall to the

ground from heat, exhaustion, or a medical condition and noticed that they did not receive

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-7 Filed 04/04/20 Page 2 of 3
medical attention for nearly fifteen minutes. 5. The start of the covid-19 crisis did not bring increased urgency. For example, on March 13, I
brought a mask to work to protect myself from the virus. A correctional officer told me not to wear the mask because it might scare the inmates. Before I ceased coming to the facility on March 19, I did not see any other staff or inmates wearing masks or protective gowns. 6. I have concerns about the general hygiene at CTF. The building has a strong odor and mold covers many surfaces. 7. The only individuals I have ever seen clean the facility are inmates and I have never seen them receive any training or instruction on how to sanitize effectively. I have never seen an inmate wear a protective mask or a gown when cleaning. 8. DOC officials have made it difficult for me and my colleagues to contribute to social distancing efforts. On March 31, 2020, I asked my supervisor if I could work from home. My supervisor said that DOC “is not a teleworking agency” and that it would not allow employees in my position to work remotely. 9. My duties consist of entering data and organizing optional programs. Although programmatic work requires me to be at the facility, it is my understanding that DOC has cancelled optional programs in light of the covid-19 crisis. As for the data entry, this work could easily be done from home. It is my understanding that DOC has the technological capacity to allow employees to access administrative systems remotely and has a stockpile of laptops with those systems loaded onto them. If the Department allowed me to borrow such a laptop, or instructed me on how to connect to those systems through my personal computer, I could work from home without any problems. 10. Each time staff members enter the facility, they may bring traces of the virus inside. Those
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 26-7 Filed 04/04/20 Page 3 of 3

particles will spread easily. For example, staff members must place their bare hands on a biometric scanner to clock in when they start work. Walking through corridors often requires passing through a set of secure doors. When staff members pass through one door, they must press a button and wait for a central control to open the second, they often stand in small groups in a narrow space, with little distance between them. Similarly, inmates and staff can only move through individual housing units via three elevators (the staircases are locked), and each elevator is no larger than a queen-sized bed. 11. These and similar features of the facility make it easy to for the virus to spread from person to person and makes DOC’s refusal to allow more employees to work from home deeply disturbing.

I, Michael Perloff, certify that I have read the foregoing to Ms. Johnson and that she affirmed that the foregoing is true and correct on April 3, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: April 4, 2020

/s/ Michael Perloff
Michael Perloff American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, D.C. 20005

3

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 1 of 38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________
EDWARD BANKS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,
Defendants. ____________________________________

No. 1:20-cv-849 (CKK)

REPORT SUBMITTED BY AMICUS CURIAE PURSUANT TO APRIL 9, 2020 CONSENT ORDER

Pursuant to the April 9, 2020 Consent Order issued in the above-captioned matter, Amici, Grace M. Lopes and Mark Jordan, submit the following report for the Court’s consideration.

I. INTRODUCTION On April 9, 2020 amici were appointed to provide specific information to the Court regarding medical services and environmental health and hygiene at two detention facilities operated by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (“DOC”), the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”). In the wake of the order, amici collected and analyzed data obtained from site visits at both facilities; conducted structured interviews with DOC managers, line staff, inmates, and contractors; reviewed electronic health records; and analyzed multiple electronic datasets extracted from information management systems maintained by the DOC or its contract services providers. On April 15, 2020, amici participated in a teleconference with the Court and the parties and provided a preliminary

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 2 of 38
summary of their findings, which are explained in greater detail below. At the conclusion of the teleconference, the Court directed amici to include in this report recommendations regarding issues that amici have identified.
This report describes the methodology amici relied upon to conduct their assessment, the facilities subject to the assessment, and amici’s findings and recommendations related to the questions delineated in the April 9, 2020 order. Throughout this one-week investigation, the defendants have fully cooperated with amici’s requests for information and actively facilitated amici’s work. DOC and contract staff at every level, as well as representatives from the Office of the Attorney General, have made themselves available on short notice, on every day of the week, and well after traditional officer hours. Data reports and other records were produced on abbreviated timelines. Amici acknowledge and appreciate the efforts the defendants have made to cooperate with and expedite their review.
II. METHODOLOGY Following the issuance of the April 9, 2020 order, amici reviewed the documents identified in the order and conducted unannounced and unescorted site visits on multiple shifts at both the CDF and CTF on April 10, 11, and 12, 2020. During the site visits, at both facilities amici visited general population, maximum and medium security housing units, including housing units on isolation or quarantine status, as well as intake, special management, and mental health units. Seven housing units at the CDF (S1, NW1, S2, NE2, N3, NE3, and N2) and five housing units at the CTF (D2A, D1B, C2A, C2B, and C4B) were visited. Observations in housing units included cells, dayrooms, restrooms, and shower facilities. At both facilities,
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 3 of 38
medical units (including the CTF infirmary), visitor entry areas, Command Centers, and the Culinary Unit at the CDF,1 were visited.
Structured in-person interviews were conducted with the DOC Medical Director, the Medical Director and Deputy Medical Director for Correctional Health at Unity Health Care, Inc. (“Unity”),2 the CDF/CTF Warden and his deputies, and dozens of correctional officers assigned to various posts throughout the facilities, including housing unit, environmental, and culinary posts. In-person interviews were also conducted, in groups and individually, with over 100 inmates on isolation and quarantine status as well as in the general population at both facilities.
In addition, amici conducted informal in-person or telephone discussions with Unity staff, including infection control staff and managerial clinical health care providers, to obtain and/or verify information. A range of DOC managers and staff with responsibility for administrative matters, including cleaning, hygiene and medical supplies, data management and analysis, warehouse functions, contractual cleaning services and human resources were also contacted and provided information that is reflected in this report.
In addition to the information collected during site visits and from interviews, amici requested and received access from the DOC to the electronic health records of inmates confined at the CDF and CTF.3 Review and analysis of samples from these records has been conducted
1 The Culinary Unit at the CTF was not operational at the time of the site visits and as a result the Culinary Unit at the CDF has been servicing both facilities. 2 Unity provides medical services on a contractual basis to inmates at the CDF and CTF. 3 Case record reviews were conducted by Janet Maher, an additional member of the team amici assembled. Ms. Maher is an attorney who has extensive experience in working in institutional and health-care settings. Ms. Maher headed the Office of Corporation Counsel's Mental Health Division from 1992 to 2000, worked as Deputy General Counsel and Chief of Staff for the District's Child and Family Services Agency from 2000 to 2007 and as DOJ Compliance Officer at Saint Elizabeths Hospital from 2007 to 2014. From 2013 to her retirement in 2016, she headed the Hospital's Performance Improvement Department. She also has provided consultative services to the Maryland and Pennsylvania behavioral health systems and to the Special Arbiter appointed by the Superior Court in Jerry M. v. District of Columbia, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, C.A. No. 1519-85.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 4 of 38
and the results are described below. The following data were also obtained from the DOC and
analyzed:
 Admissions data for both facilities for the period February 15, 2020 to April 10, 2020;  Daily census data, including inmate housing assignments, for the period February 15,
2020 to April 13, 2020;  Data related to sick call requests for the period February 5, 2020 to April 12, 2020;  Data related to all COVID-19 tests conducted on inmates housed at both facilities
through April 10, 2020;  Data related to all urgent care encounters for the period February 15, 2020 through April
15, 2020;  Inventory data for cleaning supplies as of April 13, 2020;  Inventory data for personnel protective equipment as of April 17, 2020; and  Data related to cleaning supplies and soap deliveries to both facilities for the period
December 31, 2019 to April 13, 2020. Aggregated data related to DOC correctional staffing levels was also reviewed and is
addressed below.
III. BACKGROUND
The CDF is a multi-story, secure detention center. Recent population levels have
hovered near 1020 inmates. The facility has 18 housing units, which are both single and double
celled. Analysis of DOC housing data shows that as of April 13, 2020, 43 percent of the inmates
housed at the CDF were housed in single cells and 56 percent were housed in cells with another
inmate.4 At the time of amici’s site visits, 16 housing units were open and two were closed. Of
the 16 open housing units, two were quarantine units and one was an isolation unit.5 Cellblocks
are divided into two sides, and for most of the facility’s housing units, each side contains two
tiers with 20 cells per tier.6 All cells at the CDF are “wet” cells, i.e., they have toilets and sinks.
4 Ex. 1, Table, Number of Cells Housing One Inmate and Two Inmates at the Central Detention Facility, March 15 – April 13, 2020. Two inmates did not have a recorded cell assignment. 5 The number of quarantine and isolation units is, of course, variable. It is amici’s understanding that since the time of their site visits additional quarantine units have opened. 6 There are two exceptions: N1 is a restrictive housing unit with 72 cells and NE3 is a mental health step down unit with 36 cells.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 5 of 38
Each cellblock tier of 20 cells has two showers, which are shared by inmates housed in the unit
and located in a common area. The CDF Culinary Unit, which is operated by a contractor and up
until April 11, 2020 employed inmate workers, currently supports the food service program for both the CDF and the CTF.7
The CTF, which had a population of approximately 400 inmates at the time of amici’s site visits, has 25 housing units.8 Eighteen have a capacity of 50 beds, four have a capacity of 96
beds, and one has a capacity of 65 beds. There are two additional medical housing units and two
special management units that have varying capacities and are not intended for general
population housing. As of April 13, 2020, 95 percent of the inmates at the CTF were housed in single cells.9 With the exception of eight housing units,10 all of the CTF’s housing units have
wet cells. At the time of amici’s site visits, nine housing units were closed and there were eight
quarantine units and three isolation units. The isolation units and seven of the eight quarantine
units operating at the time of amici’s site visits have wet cells. The CTF also has a 30-room
infirmary with 40 beds. The infirmary serves both facilities.
As of April 16, 2020, the DOC reported that 130 inmates have been tested for COVID-19
and a total of 65 inmates have been confirmed positive, 57 at the CTF and eight at the CDF.
Forty-three have tested negative, 22 are currently on isolation units and forty-three have
recovered. One inmate died while hospitalized and none are currently hospitalized. Data
7 The CTF has a separate Culinary Unit that is responsible for that facility’s food service program. At the time of amici’s site visits, DOC staff reported that the Culinary Unit at the CTF was closed due to a COVID-19 issue. Amici have confirmed that the food service program at the CTF is not operational and that the CDF Culinary Unit is now supporting the food service program at the CTF. Amici have not had an opportunity to confirm the date the CTF Culinary Unit closed, but staff reported it had been up to several weeks before the site visit. The closure of the CTF Culinary Unit has put evident strain on the food service program at the CDF. 8 This total includes two special management units. Inmates are also housed in a limited mobility medical unit and the infirmary. 9 Ex. 2, Table, Number of Cells Housing One Inmate and Two Inmates at the Correctional Treatment Facility, March 15 – April 13, 2020. 10 Three of the eight housings units that do not have toilets and sinks were open during the site visits.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 6 of 38
regarding the number of DOC staff who have tested positive for COVID-19 have not been provided. One member of the DOC correctional staff died earlier this week. Not surprisingly, as evidenced by the findings set out below, the COVID-19 pandemic has presented formidable challenges for the defendants and had a significant impact on operations at both the CDF and the CTF.
IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Amici’s findings and recommendations related to the questions delineated in the April 9, 2020 order are set forth below.
A. MEDICAL Question One: When residents display COVID-19 symptoms, as defined by the CDC, are they seen by medical staff? Question Two: When residents display COVID-19 symptoms are they tested for COVID19? Question Three: Are there requests for a sick call based on suspected COVID-19 symptoms where there is no response? Question Four: Is the response time for sick call requests of suspected COVID-19 symptoms for a resident to be seen by medical staff reasonable (assuming time of request and response time are recorded)?
Questions One through Four address the identification of inmates who display symptoms or who are suspected of having contracted COVID-19 and whether those inmates have access to timely health assessments, services, and COVID-19 testing, as indicated. As discussed below, amici were not able to address Questions One through Four directly because the available healthcare datasets did not enable identification of either the universe or representative samples of inmates displaying symptoms or suspected of having contracted COVID-19. Amici therefore attempted to identify the mechanisms by which inmates with COVID-19 symptoms are identified
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 7 of 38
by medical staff and reviewed a sample of the electronic health records of inmates who had been tested for COVID-19 to assess timeliness and scope of service delivery in those cases.
In order to evaluate DOC performance relative to these questions, amici relied on multiple sources of information including the following: interviews with DOC and contract medical staff, including executive staff; interviews with inmates; interviews with correctional officers; custom data reports from Unity’s electronic health record system, including data regarding sick call requests and encounters and urgent care encounters; data regarding all COVID-19 testing conducted on inmates at the CDF and CTF through April 10, 2020; data regarding all sick call requests and encounters between February 5, 2020 and April 12, 2020; 11 data regarding all urgent care encounters between February 15, 2020 and April 15, 2020; and, two random samples of individual inmate health records, one drawn from the population of inmates tested for COVID-19 through April 10, 2020, and the second from a dataset of all sick call requests submitted between March 1, 2020 and April 12, 2020.12
According to medical staff, the two primary methods by which inmates access health care are through a sick call process, in which inmates complete a written sick call form and insert it into a locked box on their housing units and an urgent care process, whereby an inmate can inform a correctional officer that s/he would like to see medical staff.13 According to medical staff, in these circumstances the correctional officer contacts the medical unit and a nurse, in consultation with a medical provider,14 triages the telephone call and either instructs the
11 In some cases, clinical encounters are recorded as sick call visits, but they do not have an associated written sick call request. Medical staff have explained that when they visit housing units to conduct sick call, they allow inmates who did not submit sick call requests to access services. 12 Records of 28 of the 83 inmates who were tested as of April 10, 2020 were reviewed. In addition, records of 40 inmates who submitted sick call requests during the review period were reviewed. There were no overlapping cases in the two samples. 13 There are also chronic care clinics operating Monday through Friday at both the CDF and CTF for inmates with chronic health conditions. 14 Advanced medical providers are considered to be MDs, DOs, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 8 of 38
correctional officer to have the inmate escorted to the medical suite or schedules the inmate for sick call on the next day.15
Amici initially analyzed sick call request data for the period between February 5, 2020 and April 12, 2020 to assess whether the data could be used to identify sick call requests for CDC-defined COVID-19 symptoms (i.e., fever, cough, and shortness of breath) and thereafter to assess the time from the request to the time of any responsive medical evaluation. The data included a total of 6,840 records.
For two principal reasons, amici determined that these data could not be used as the basis for findings related to identification of inmates with COVID-19 symptoms and assessment of the timeliness of their access to medical services. First, nearly 5,000 of the records did not include a description of the symptoms for which the inmate requested medical care, making it impossible to identify either the universe of or a representative sample of inmates with COVID-19 symptoms.16 Second, amici reviewed data regarding all 83 COVID-19 tests administered to inmates through April 10, 2020 and cross referenced the names of the tested inmates against sick call request records. Of the 83 inmates tested, 69 did not submit a sick call request at any point between February 5, 2020 and the date of their test. Based on a review of a sample of electronic health records of the 13 inmates who tested positive for COVID-19 for whom there was a record of a sick call request between February 5, 2020 and the date of their test, amici found that the sick call request was not associated with COVID-19 symptoms in any of the cases.
15 Triage decisions require symptomatic information from the patient. Medical staff stated that at times the correctional officer will allow an inmate requesting urgent care to speak directly with the nurse and at times the inmate informs the correctional officer of their symptoms and the correctional officer reports that information to the nurse. It is not appropriate to require inmates to disclose health information to correctional staff in order to access medical services. The possibility of doing so could deter inmates from seeking necessary medical care. 16 For example, the relevant data field in many cases recorded “initial visit,” “follow-up visit,” or “SC [sick call] slip.”
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 9 of 38
However, based on amici’s review of data related to inmates tested for COVID-19, it appeared that most inmates displaying symptoms or suspected of having contracted COVID-19 were presenting to medical staff by a method other than through the submission of a sick call request. Managers of the DOC medical program confirmed this impression. One manager stated that the first positive COVID-19 cases were identified after inmates presented to health care staff through the urgent care process. Once they were confirmed positive for COVID-19, the DOC began to quarantine housing units in which the COVID-19 positive inmates were housed as a containment precaution. Medical staff implemented a practice of monitoring quarantined inmates’ temperatures twice daily and reported that this daily surveillance process identified multiple subsequent positive COVID-19 cases, principally at the CTF.
Medical staff members stated that inmates who are not subject to daily monitoring in a quarantine unit also are most likely to be identified as having symptoms of COVID-19 through the urgent care process. Accordingly, amici obtained and analyzed data regarding urgent care encounters at the CDF and CTF for the period February 15, 2020 through April 15, 2020. The data indicate that during that period there were a total of 3,439 urgent care encounters, 2,488 at the CDF and 951 at the CTF.17 In comparison, over approximately the same time period there were a total of 5,244 sick call requests and encounters, 4,360 at the CDF, 525 at the CTF, and 359 at locations that could not be determined from the available data.18 Based on these totals, it appears that during the period reviewed urgent care represented 40 percent of the combined volume of sick call and urgent care encounters, and sick call represented 60 percent of the total.
17 Ex. 3, Chart, Urgent Care Visits at Central Detention Facility and Correctional Treatment Facility, by Day, February 15 – April 15, 2020. 18 Ex. 4, Chart, Sick Call Requests and Encounters, by Day, February 15 – April 12, 2020.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 10 of 38
To assess whether inmates with symptoms of COVID-19 utilize the urgent care process, amici analyzed the urgent care dataset for any references to the term “COVID.” The data indicate that the first reference to COVID-19 in the data was on March 15, 2020 at the CDF (for an inmate who was later ruled out for COVID-19), and March 21, 2020 at the CTF. Beginning on March 26, 2020, there were nearly daily and steadily increasing references to COVID-19 in the urgent care encounter data.19 Thus, it appears that inmates who are not housed in quarantine units are using the urgent care system to present with COVID-19 symptoms to medical staff at the CDF and CTF.
Given time constraints, it was not possible for amici to assess how accessible the urgent care system is to inmates. Available data sources included only records of completed visits and do not reflect attempts to access the system. Numerous factors could impact inmate access to the urgent care system, including the availability of escort staff, willingness of correctional officers to facilitate calls to medical staff while they perform other duties on the unit, and the willingness of inmates to disclose confidential health information when they are within earshot of nonmedical staff.
Notwithstanding the evidence that most inmates with symptoms or who are suspected of having contracted COVID-19 appear to present to medical staff by a method other than sick call, in order to evaluate and to assess the responsiveness of the sick call process more generally, in the instances in which inmates submit sick call requests, amici assessed whether those requests are collected and the inmate is seen by medical staff on a timely basis. Amici selected a random sample of 41 sick call requests submitted by inmates between March 1, 2020 and April 12, 2020
19 Ex. 5, Chart, Urgent Care Medical Encounters With Clinical Summary Descriptions Including the Word “COVID,” by Day, February 15 – April 15, 2020. The data appear to include daily follow-up assessments of isolated inmates, which explains in part the dramatic increase in volume over time.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 11 of 38
and reviewed the individual health records associated with each request. One sick call request was excluded from the analysis.20 Of the 40 requests reviewed, 31 included a date of request recorded by the inmate. Of those 31 requests, 26 included a time stamp reflecting when medical staff collected the form. The time stamp was used to analyze the time that elapsed between the date recorded by the inmate on the sick call request form and the date of pick up. Of those 26 requests, 23 requests, 89 percent, were collected within one day. The remaining three were collected within two, four, and 14 days respectively.
Among the 31 requests that included a date of request recorded by the inmate, review of the corresponding electronic health records indicate that 23 inmates were seen within three days of submitting their request, 74 percent.21 One inmate was seen six days after the request was made.22 In two instances involving the same inmate, the inmate was seen every day for ten days for adult preventative care relating to COVID-19 exposure, but the notes in the electronic health records documenting these encounters do not specifically address the issue reflected in the inmate’s sick call request. The other three requests were scheduled for appointments, but the inmates were not seen.23 Two requests that were recorded as scheduled for appointments were cancelled.24
Amici also assessed whether the issue raised by the inmate in his or her sick call request was addressed by the medical provider. In the 33 cases in which the inmate was seen by a medical provider, the medical provider addressed the specific request made by the inmate in 28
20 One of the cases sampled was excluded because the corresponding written request form was not available for review. 21 In 22 of the 23 cases the inmates were seen within two days and in one case the inmate was seen within three days. 22 The inmate requested treatment for tooth pain. 23 In the three cases, the health record noted that the sick call appointment was cancelled because the inmate was in court, was “unavailable” or was a no show. 24 In one case an inmate indicated he had a “possible” broken finger and in the second the inmate requested fungal cream.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 12 of 38
cases, 85 percent. In some cases the inmate was referred to specialty providers, but in most cases the inmate received interventions intended to provide immediate relief. In a minority of cases the specific intervention requested by the inmate was not provided but the clinical basis for the decision was reflected in the record. Recommendation: In light of the medical surveillance and monitoring that is occurring currently in the quarantine units, defendants should ensure that the triage process associated with sick call requests on the non-quarantine units is expedited and reflects appropriate sensitivity to the wide variety of symptoms associated with COVID-19 disease. Correctional officers and other staff who are in contact with inmates should ensure that the medical staff are promptly informed about inmates who present with symptoms of COVID-19 and medical staff should respond to the housing unit on an expedited basis. Any inmate grievances that include allegations of delay in medical assessment should be prioritized and submitted to the DOC medical director immediately.
Question Five: Are residents suspected of COVID-19 isolated from other people? Health care staff reported that if an inmate is suspected by a medical provider of having
contracted COVID-19, a request for testing is made to the D.C. Department of Health. As of April 10, 2020, all requests for testing made on behalf of DOC inmates had been approved. Heath care staff report that pending the testing results, the inmate is placed on cell restriction in their housing unit.
There is evidence that cell restriction practices are being implemented. The sample of electronic health records of inmates who tested positive for COVID-19 that amici reviewed document cell restriction orders entered by medical staff at the time COVID-19 testing was ordered by the provider. Inmates on isolation status at both facilities reported being placed on
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 13 of 38
cell restriction prior to testing and before being moved to an isolation unit. During site visits amici noted that there were inmates on cell restriction status in some housing units. Correctional officers assigned to housing unit posts who were interviewed by amici reported that inmates who are on cell restriction are not permitted to leave their cells for any reason.
Moreover, health care and facility management staff report that in instances in which an inmate tests positive for COVID-19, the inmate is moved to an isolation unit. According to those staff, only inmates who have tested positive for COVID-19 are housed in isolation units. DOC records indicate that as of April 10, 2020, 82 inmates were tested for COVID-19. Of the 82 inmates, 52 were COVID-19 positive, 26 were negative, and the balance were pending results. Amici reviewed a sample of 28 health records reflecting positives, negatives and pending test results. There were 16 COVID-19 positives in the sample. Amici’s review of DOC housing records for this cohort indicates that all of the 16 inmates in the sample who tested positive were moved from their housing unit to another housing unit within no more than two days, and most within one day of the positive test result. Based on what amici have learned about current DOC business practices, it is likely this cohort was on cell restriction status at the time of testing before being moved to an isolation unit.
Accordingly, although amici have not had an opportunity to conduct a systematic review related to the implementation of cell restriction orders, it appears that inmates suspected of having COVID-19 are placed on cell restriction and isolated from other inmates. Recommendation: If the defendants are not already doing so, they should that ensure that cell restrictions are appropriately monitored, tracked, and corrective action is undertaken on an expedited basis if warranted.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 14 of 38
Question Six: Are new residents who enter DOC quarantined for 14 days? DOC facility executives and medical staff reported a practice of quarantining newly
admitted inmates for a 14-day period prior to moving them to another housing unit. To assess whether this practice was being implemented amici analyzed intake and housing data for the period from March 15, 2020 to April 10, 2020. The data indicate that starting March 25, 2020 the defendants implemented a practice of housing new admissions on SO2, the intake unit at the CDF, for 14 days, or until the inmate was released from custody, if the release occurred prior to the expiration of the 14-day period.
Amici identified six instances after March 25, 2020 in which an inmate was moved out of the intake unit prior to the end of the 14-day period. Five of the six cases involved inmates who were placed on a specialized mental health housing unit before the 14-day quarantine period was completed.25 Amici were not able to determine whether these six inmates were placed on cell restriction after being moved to a non-intake housing unit. Amici alerted Unity’s medical director of these six transfers so that a determination can be made about the propriety of the transfers and any special precautions that should be implemented on the receiving housing units. Recommendation: In instances in which inmates are transferred from the intake unit to a different unit before the 14-day quarantine period expires, defendants should ensure that appropriate housing, surveillance and monitoring is afforded to the inmate in the receiving unit.
25 The sixth case involved an inmate who was moved to a special management housing unit and subsequently to a less restrictive mental health housing unit.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 15 of 38
Question Seven: How frequently do DOC medical staff and/or Unity Health Care staff meet with DOC staff and residents to inform them about COVID-19 symptoms and precautions, and what information is conveyed?
Unity providers and the DOC Medical Director report that they have conducted multiple education sessions on the housing units and during roll call at both facilities. They indicate that these sessions focus on COVID-19 symptoms and infection-control precautions. More extensive individualized education and counseling is provided on the quarantine and isolation units, which are visited at least twice daily by health care providers. Signage explaining COVID-19 symptoms and precautions is displayed in many common areas throughout both facilities. Nevertheless, the need for more intensified education of staff and inmates is apparent. Most, albeit not all, of the correctional staff and supervisors interviewed expressed substantial concerns about working in the facility in light of what they perceive as their increased risk of contracting COVID-19. Virtually all of the inmates interviewed outside of isolation units expressed fear that they would contract the virus and many of those who tested positive expressed fear that they would relapse or become infected again. Recommendation: The defendants should consult with public health professionals regarding strategies that can be implemented to strengthen the COVID-19-related education program for both staff and inmates. Moreover, the defendants should explore appropriate supports that can be provided on an expedited basis to both staff and inmates who are living and working in an extremely stressful and high-risk environment and are at substantial risk of exposure. Question Eight: What visitor screening is conducted? Do the thermometers used for visitor screening work and are they used properly?
Upon entry to the two facilities, all staff and visitors are required to have their temperature checked and to complete a written questionnaire with three questions. The three questions correspond to the CDC-defined symptoms of COVID-19 (i.e., fever, cough, and
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 16 of 38
shortness of breath). An earlier version of the screening questionnaire included questions pertaining to recent travel to areas of the world with known COVID-19 outbreaks and known contacts with individuals with COVID-19. The DOC has updated its visitor and staff screening questionnaire in response to evolving knowledge about COVID-19.
The defendants use non-contact, infrared thermometers at the entrances of both the CDF and the CTF. According to the manufacturer’s instructions the device is calibrated at the factory and calibration by a user is not necessary. One amicus recorded eight temperature readings at the two facilities, five at the CDF and three at the CTF and observed that two of the readings, both on the same night at the CDF, appeared to be inaccurate.26 In both cases, the temperature reading was taken immediately adjacent to an external door and the ambient temperature outside the facility was substantially colder than the temperature inside the facility.
The manufacturer’s instructions for the thermometer indicate that users should “avoid drafts.”27 It seems probable that user error may be resulting in some false temperature readings by the staff who are screening visitors. Medical staff report that they also use non-touch, infrared thermometers in their medical practice at both facilities. Amici have not had an opportunity to determine whether the thermometers used at visitor entry points are the same model of thermometers that are used by the medical staff. However, review of electronic health records also identified a number of questionably low temperature readings.28 Recommendation: Amici recommend that defendants conduct additional staff training on the use of the non-touch, infrared thermometers consistent with manufacturer Guidelines and provide
26 In both instances the temperature registered in the low 90 degrees. After the second apparently incorrect reading, amicus requested that another reading be taken approximately 30 seconds later, and the thermometer registered what appeared to be an accurate temperature reading. 27 The instructions also state that “if there is a significant change in the surrounding temperature, allow the thermometer to adjust to the ‘new’ temperature for at least 15 minutes before use in order to obtain a reliable result.” 28 In reviewing health records, amici also noted several instances of unusually low temperatures recorded on flow sheets or on assessments, with some as low as 93 or 94 degrees.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 17 of 38
guidance to staff regarding what to do when thermometers produce results that appear on their face to be inaccurate.
Nine: How do the conditions of the quarantine housing compare to conditions in nonquarantine housing, and are residents deterred from reporting symptoms?
As explained in detail below, except for the isolation units, quarantine housing units are intended to operate like all other types of housing units except for twice daily monitoring of inmates by medical staff and the use of specified PPE.
A. Daily Monitoring and Specified PPE
While both facilities have different types of specialized housing,29 three broad categories of housing are implicated by Question Nine:
 Quarantine housing;  Isolation housing; and  Non-Quarantine/Non-Isolation housing (i.e., general population or some type of special
housing unit)
The DOC began operating quarantine housing units in March 2020. These units are designated for the following inmates: inmates suspected of having COVID-19 and inmates who are asymptomatic but determined to have been exposed to someone who has tested positive. Health care staff report that when one inmate on a housing unit tests positive, every inmate in the housing is quarantined on the unit. Moreover, staff who have been assigned to the unit are released from duty for a 14-day self-quarantine period. There is a reported practice of maintaining each discrete cohort of quarantined inmates separately. The anecdotal evidence suggests that there may be deviations from this practice; however, amici have not had an
29 For example, both the CDF and CTF have special management units and the CDF has mental health and mental health step down units.
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 18 of 38
opportunity to explore this issue. Additionally, amici have not had an opportunity to confirm the quarantine procedures that are implemented when DOC staff who are assigned to posts with inmate contact test positive for COVID-19 (i.e., whether inmates are quarantined after exposure to a staff member who is known to have contracted COVID-19).
According to the current DOC policy guidance, quarantine housing units should operate like all other housing units except for the isolation units, in all respects except two: 1) inmates housed in quarantine units have their temperatures monitored by medical staff twice daily; and 2) except for inmates -- who are required to have masks -- anyone entering a quarantine housing unit is required to wear gloves and a mask at all times.30 During the site visits amici conducted at multiple quarantine units in both facilities, for the most part the correctional staff wore a variety of masks that they had purchased for themselves. In some instances, the masks were illfitting and in poor condition. As a general matter, the correctional staff were not wearing gloves.
DOC policy requires inmates housed in a quarantine unit to wear masks whenever they are outside of their cells. Many inmates housed in the quarantine units that amici visited had masks, but they were not consistently wearing them nor were they required by the correctional staff to do so. In some instances, the masks were ill-fitting, visibly soiled, and ripped.
In contrast to the quarantine units, inmates and staff on non-quarantine units did not have masks during the site visits amici conducted.31 The defendants did not have sufficient quantities of masks for staff or inmates during March; however, as explained in the next section of this report, the DOC received a shipment on April 10, 2020, and on the next day began issuing masks to staff at roll call. The defendants report that earlier this week, subsequent to amici’s site visits,
30 See §VII. Medical Restrictive Housing Unit (Quarantine), Post Order, dated March 28, 2020. 31 A small number of inmates who indicated that they had serious medical conditions had masks that were obtained from health care providers.
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 19 of 38
they began to replace masks for inmates on a daily basis and are now providing masks to all inmates on all housing units. On April 14, 2020, the defendants reported that they are now requiring all staff and all inmates to wear masks. Amici have not had an opportunity to confirm these representations.
B. Conditions in Quarantine and Other Units Except Isolation 1. Cell Restriction
The defendants implemented a Medical Stay in Place policy directive on April 4, 2020.32 Pursuant to the directive, as of April 4, 2020, inmates housed in quarantine and other housing units, except for isolation units, have been restricted to their cells except for 30 minutes each day for phone calls, showers and cleaning their cells. The directive provides contradictory information regarding out-of-cell time. In relevant part it states that inmates “will largely be restricted to their cells with the exception of a modified recreation schedule, where groups no larger than five are out at any one time.”33 However, the directive also requires staff to “[s]top all group activities and minimize the number of residents participating in recreation on tier (no more than 10 at a time).”34 It also states that inmates are required to “practice social distancing of six feet to the fullest extent possible.”35 According to facility management, at some point after the policy was issued, it was modified to require one hour of out-of-cell time; however, during site visits many correctional staff and inmates amici interviewed were unaware of this change. Indeed, inmates consistently commented that it is not really possible to shower, make one phone call and clean a cell in 30 minutes.
32 Ex.6, Medical Stay in Place, effective April 4, 2020. 33 Id. at 1. 34 Id. at 2. 35 Id. at 1.
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 20 of 38
During site visits to quarantine and non-quarantine units, amici observed the following:
 More than five inmates were consistently out of their cells at one time, and sometimes between 10 and 20 inmates were out of their cells at one time; and
 Social distancing practices were not enforced and there were no attempts by the correctional staff to enforce social distancing even when numerous inmates crowded into a contained area (e.g., to watch television).
The failure to enforce social distancing requirements is a supervision deficit. This appears at least in part to be attributable to significant understaffing of correctional officers and their supervisors at both facilities. According to data obtained from managers at the CDF and CTF, as of April 10, 2020, the CDF had a total staffing complement of 675 correctional staff (493 correctional officers and 182 supervisory staff) and the CTF had a total staffing complement of 283 correctional staff (259 correctional officers and 24 supervisory staff). In response to inquiries from amici, the DOC Human Resources Unit was unable to provide a breakdown of current correctional officer and supervisory staffing levels at the CDF and the CTF, including, for each facility, the number of funded positions that are vacant and the number of staff assigned to the complement who are unavailable for duty for quarantine or some other COVID-19 related status.36 However, management staff in the DOC Human Resources Unit were able to provide aggregate data regarding the agency’s total correctional workforce that provides insight into current staffing level at both facilities. According to these data, the DOC has a current workforce of 994 funded correctional positions, 45 of which are vacant. Of the remaining 949 positions, 281 correctional staff were unavailable for duty as of April 16, 2020.
36 Many categories of leave render staff unavailable for duty, including workers compensation, administrative leave, AWOL status, military leave, leave without pay, and family and medical leave.
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 21 of 38
Thus, approximately one third of the total funded correctional work force is unavailable to work.37
According to DOC managers, the reduction in the size of the workforce that is available for duty has fueled excessive reliance on overtime in order to cover a minimum number of essential posts at both facilities. In response, both facilities converted recently from staffing three eight-hour shifts per day to two, 12-hour shifts per day during weekdays. During this period when the workforce is already stretched thin, there is also an enhanced need for active, direct supervision of inmates to enforce social distancing to mitigate the risk of transmission of the highly infectious novel coronavirus. With fewer available correctional staff and supervisors available to fill essential posts, the DOC has less flexibility to adopt strategies involving increased staff levels to achieve social distancing policies on housing units.
Telephone calls in settings that allow for confidentiality are arranged at both the CDF and CTF by DOC case management staff. DOC staff report that most of the case managers assigned to provide services for inmates at both facilities are either on quarantine status or working remotely. Thus, as a general matter, there has been no access to confidential legal calls for inmates confined on quarantine and non-quarantine housing units. There is some evidence that the defendants recently began to allow scheduled legal calls using the telephones in the housing unit day rooms. These telephones are used by inmates to make monitored telephone calls. Amici have not had an opportunity to determine whether the scheduled legal calls are monitored; however, even if they are not monitored, the telephones in the housing unit day rooms do not afford the confidentiality required to communicate with counsel.
37 In addition to the CDF and CTF, the data the defendants provided indicate that the total workforce includes correctional staff assigned to a transportation unit and to the Central Cell Block.
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 22 of 38
2. Conditions in Isolation Relative to Other Units Inmates housed in isolation units at both the CDF and CTF are restricted to their cells. Inmates in isolation at the CTF are not permitted to use the telephone for any reason, including legal calls. During the site visits amici conducted, inmates in isolation at the CDF were able to make monitored telephone calls from their cells. Amici were recently informed this may no longer be the case; however, we have not had an opportunity to follow up. Medical staff visit inmates in isolation at least twice per day to check temperatures, vital signs, and conduct assessments if indicated. The first cohort of inmates who were isolated for COVID-19 were housed in a special management unit at the CTF. Several inmates in this cohort report that they were handcuffed when escorted to and from the showers. Showers are no longer afforded to inmates in the isolation housing units. To the extent they can bathe, inmates on isolation status must use the sinks in their cells to do so. The supply of towels does not appear adequate. In lieu of showers, the defendants planned to provide inmates on isolation status with body wipes, which were not available until April 14, 2020. The evidence indicates that inmates have spent up to and even over two weeks on isolation status. Analysis of housing assignment data associated with the first 15 inmates who tested positive for COVID-19 shows that the inmates in this sample were housed on isolation status for a minimum of five days. Three inmates in the sample had already spent 12, 14, and 15 days, respectively, in isolation status and remained in isolation as of the date of this analysis. Laundry services for inmates in isolation has been limited. Many inmates reported wearing the same clothes throughout their stays in the isolation units, and in fact most of the inmates amici met wore visibly soiled clothing and reported substantial delays in receiving fresh linens. Most of the inmates amici interviewed in the isolation units stated the conditions are far
22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 23 of 38
too punitive, noting that if they had it to do over again, they would not have reported their symptoms. Deprivation of showers, the absence of any ability to contact family members, the lack of access to legal calls, clean clothing and clean linens are plainly a disincentive and are likely to deter inmates from reporting symptoms of COVID-19.
Recommendation: Amici recommend that the defendants take immediate steps to provide consistent and reliable access to legal calls, personal telephone calls, daily showers, and clean clothing and clean linens to all inmates on isolation status. The defendants should ensure appropriate and consistent implementation of social distancing policies by addressing limitations in current staffing levels, supervisory oversight of line staff, and provide enhanced education related to the importance of social distancing.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & HYGIENE
Question One: What are the quantities of personal protective equipment and cleaning products in the DOC stockpile?
As of April 17, 2020, the DOC reported to amici the following inventory of PPE: Personal Protective Equipment:
 Surgical Mask: 71,680  N95 Respirators: 12,774  Face Shields: 190  Goggles: 200  Gowns: 2,400  Gloves: Total Not Available38  Small PPE Kits: 400
38 DOC representatives provided data indicating that between March 28, 2020 and April 15, 2020, 39,237 pairs of gloves were used.
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 24 of 38
According to the DOC estimates, based on current usage rates, as of April 17, 2020, the defendants had approximately a 32-day supply of masks on hand. The DOC Compliance Officer informed amici that the processing of additional procurement orders was underway.
As of April 13, 2020, the DOC reported to amici that the following inventory of cleaning products was stored on site.
Cleaning Products:  Ecolab Disinfectant: 144, 2.5-gallon cases;39  Ecolab Peroxide Multi Surface Cleaner/Disinfectant: 32, 2-gallon cases;  Ecolab Multi-Quat Sanitizer: 139, 2.5-gallon cases;40  Ecolab Orange Force: 129, 2.5-gallon cases; and  Ecolab Glass Cleaner: 30, 2.5-gallon cases.
Question Two: Are residents provided with a weekly bar of soap? Many inmates amici interviewed reported that they purchase soap through the
commissary. Most explained they had access to soap through the housing unit officers and everyone interviewed at their cells was able to show amici their bars of soap. There were limited supplies of soap available for distribution in a number of the housing units. Inmates housed in special management units are provided with small packets of liquid soap; they are not provided with bars of soap. Question Three: Do staff who interact with visitors and residents have access to, and wear, sufficient personal protective equipment?
Staff who interact with visitors have access to and wear sufficient PPE. Amici observed screening staff posted at the entrances of both the CDF and the CTF wearing PPE consistent with CDC Guidelines.41 Additionally, staff assigned to units housing inmates who are COVID-19
39 This product is dilutable to make larger volumes of solution. 40 This product is dilutable to make larger volumes of solution. 41 CDC Guidelines recommend that staff performing temperature checks on any group of people wear a mask, eye protection, gloves, and a gown or coveralls. See Ex. 7, Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities, March 23, 2020 at 25.
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 25 of 38
positive wore PPE consistent with CDC Guidelines, including N95 respirators, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. None of the correctional staff interviewed who were wearing N95 respirators reported that they had not been fitted for them as required by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration.
The defendants issued post orders for quarantine and isolation housing units on March 28, 2020 that included minimum PPE requirements.42 Nevertheless, as of April 10, 2020, the day of the first unannounced site visit, amici observed that the post orders were not being adhered to and there was no clear, common understanding among the staff amici interviewed regarding what PPE they should wear. Most staff expressed considerable anxiety about not having access to appropriate PPE. Some staff were observed wearing masks that they purchased and brought to the facility themselves, few staff wore gloves, and other staff wore no PPE at all. Multiple staff stated that prior to April 10, 2020, PPE was not widely distributed to correctional officers.
Amici were informed that beginning on April 10, 2020, masks and gloves were being distributed to correctional officers at the start of each shift. Over the course of the three days of site visits, amici observed that PPE was more consistently worn by staff throughout the facilities and staff stated that there was an abrupt increase in the PPE that was distributed to correctional officers. As noted above, the defendants reported that earlier this week, subsequent to amici’s site visits, they began to replace masks for inmates on a daily basis and are now providing masks to all inmates on all housing units. On April 14, 2020, the defendants reported that they are now
42 See supra note 30 regarding the March 28, 2020 DOC policy applicable to quarantine housing units. On the same day the defendants issued a post order for isolation housing units. The PPE requirements in the post order related to the isolation units includes only a mask and gloves, less than the PPE recommended in the CDC Guidelines. As previously noted, however, in practice, in contrast to the observations amici made in the quarantine units, amici observed correctional officers on the isolation units wearing PPE consistent with CDC Guidelines.
25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 26 of 38
requiring all staff and all inmates to wear masks at all times. Amici have not had an opportunity to confirm these representations. Recommendation: Amici recommend that the defendants communicate clear expectations, in writing, to correctional staff about the types of PPE required to perform the various supervision and operational functions that are conducted throughout the facility, including the PPE they should expect to be given on each shift for each specific category of post assignment; the proper donning, doffing and disposal of the PPE; and an explanation of the related rationale. Clear communication to staff regarding differences in risk exposures and providing consistent PPE over time could help lower anxiety levels among staff.
In addition, the defendants should also ensure that all PPE issued is properly fitted. For example, N95 respirators must be properly fitted to ensure that they provide the intended protection. As noted above, during the site visits that amici conducted, none of the correctional staff who were wearing N95 respirators in isolation units reported that they had been fitted for the respirators.
Finally, defendants must ensure that all DOC staff receive instruction on the proper disposal of PPE, and appropriate and accessible receptables for immediate disposal must be readily available. During the site visits, amici observed that receptables for disposal of PPE were not accessible on a consistent basis, including to staff assigned to isolation units at the CTF.
Question Four: Are staff and prisoner-workers given masks and gloves, particularly in food service, and are they instructed to wear that equipment?
Amici toured the Culinary Unit at the CDF on April 11, 2020. At that time, all correctional staff and contractors were wearing masks, hairnets, and gloves. There were no inmate workers in the Culinary Unit during the site visit. They had been replaced by correctional officers. Amici learned that the inmate work detail in the Culinary Unit was suspended because
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 27 of 38
an inmate housed at the CDF, who had been assigned to the detail for at least several months, tested positive for COVID-19 on April 10, 2020. Amici have not had an opportunity to confirm the instructions regarding the use of masks and gloves that DOC staff, contractors, and inmates working in the Culinary Unit receive; however, during the site visit amici observed the consistent use of masks, gloves, and hairnets by the numerous contractors and DOC staff who were working in the food service area.
An interview conducted by amici with a supervisor for the food service contractor, (who reported working in the CDF Culinary Unit since the latter part of 2019), revealed that the contract staff assigned to the CDF did not know why the inmate detail workers were no longer working and had been replaced by correctional officers. In light of the fact that it appeared the detail inmate who tested positive prepared and served food along with the contractor’s staff for at least several months, amici sought to ascertain whether the DOC made any attempt to determine whether the contract staff who worked alongside the detail inmate who tested positive were “close contacts” as defined by the applicable CDC Guidelines.43 According to the Guidelines, “an individual is considered a close contact of a COVID-19 case if they a) have been within approximately 6 feet of a COVID-19 case for a prolonged period of time or b) have had direct contact with infectious secretions from a COVID-19 case (e.g., have been coughed on).”44 The Guidelines further provide that all staff who were a close contact of the inmate, whether employed by DOC or by the contractor,45 should have been placed on self-quarantine status. Specifically, the Guidelines provide that if a staff member or contractor is identified as a close contact of a
43 See Ex. 7 at 3. 44 Id. 45 The CDC Guidelines define staff as “all public sector employees as well as those working for a private contractor within a correctional facility (e.g. private healthcare or food service). Except where noted, “staff” does not distinguish between healthcare, custody, and other types of staff including private facility operators.” Id. at 4.
27

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 28 of 38
COVID-19 case (whether in the facility or in the community) that staff member should selfquarantine at home for 14 days and may return to work if symptoms do not develop after the 14day period.46 It appears that these Guidelines have not been implemented with respect to any contractors who were in close contact with the detail inmate who tested positive for COVID-19.
According to the DOC administrator and staff responsible for the food service contract, on the morning of April 11, 2020, the DOC food contractor was informed that a detail inmate had tested positive and that the contractor’s workers should self-quarantine if they did not feel well. It appears that no effort was made to determine whether any of the contract food service workers were a “close contact” of the detail inmate who tested positive. Indeed, amici contacted the DOC Medical Director, the Unity Medical Director, the Unity Infection Control Specialist, the DOC Deputy Director responsible for the food service contract, the DOC General Counsel, and lead counsel for the defendants in this litigation to inquire about this matter. Based on the responses they provided to amici’s inquiries, it appears that any contact tracing that may have been conducted did not include consideration of whether the food service contractors who worked alongside the detail inmate who tested positive might be deemed a close contact who should have been quarantined for 14 days. Amici’s understanding is that the detail inmate who tested positive was not contacted about any individuals with whom he had close contact. Moreover, it does not appear that any effort was made to contact public health experts at the D.C. Department of Health to receive guidance about this matter. In light of the implications attendant to having a close contact continue to work in the CDF Culinary Unit, promptly after learning about this matter amici alerted counsel for both parties about their concerns.
46 Id. at 12.
28

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 29 of 38
Amici’s inquiries regarding the contact tracing conducted in the wake of the detail inmate’s positive COVID-19 test results revealed that at least in this instance the defendants employed a fractured contact tracing effort that was not centralized nor informed by public health experts.47
Recommendation: If they have not done so in the wake of amici’s inquiries, the defendants should seek immediate guidance from public health professionals about identification of the detail inmate’s close contacts. Moreover, it is important to recognize that the defendants are working in an extremely challenging environment that requires a well-coordinated response to the range of infection control issues that are presented throughout the course of each daily shift. Any individuals who are tasked with conducting contact tracing after a confirmed positive COVID-19 test should have appropriate training and be closely supervised. Question Five: Do residents have access to cleaning supplies in sufficient quantity and concentration, including rags, to clean their cells?
Amici reviewed records of cleaning supply deliveries to the CDF and CTF to assess whether supplies were made available to the facilities. Department of Corrections records indicate that there have been regular deliveries of cleaning supplies to both facilities since December 31, 2019, the start of the dataset reviewed.48 Delivery records reflect that historically
47 The DOC Medical Director informed amici that she had seen email correspondence regarding the issue but had not been involved in advising staff about how to handle this matter. The Medical Director referred amici to the DOC Deputy Director for Administration to determine whether contact tracing related to the contractor’s staff had been conducted. The Deputy Director was contacted and informed amici that the contractor was notified that the contractor’s workers should self-quarantine if they did not feel well. There was no recognition of the fact that food service contract workers may have potentially been close contacts of the detail inmate who tested positive and should have been quarantined regardless of how they felt. Moreover, in response to amici’s inquiries, the manager of Unity’s infection control program at the CDF advised amici that Unity’s involvement was limited to determining the identity of the inmates and health care providers who may have had contact with the detail inmate while he was in the medical unit. 48 Ex. 8, Table, Dates and Quantities of Cleaning Supplies and Soap Delivered to the CDF and CTF, by Date, December 31, 2019 – April 13, 2020.
29

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 30 of 38
three types of cleaning and sanitizing agents were made available to clean housing units and that in mid-March 2020 a fourth, peroxide-based multi-surface cleaner was also made available.49
Observations and interviews with inmates and staff indicated that inmate access to sufficient cleaning supplies on housing units varied from unit to unit. For example, on one unit, all of the cleaning supplies had been depleted.50 Furthermore, on several units that had a supply of cleaning agents, inmates reported that they were unable to access them to clean their own cells. Amici did not observe any inmates with facility-issued rags that could be used to clean their cells. Most inmates who were interviewed reported that they made rags by tearing facilityissued towels or t-shirts, a phenomenon amici observed. For the most part, these make-shift rags were tattered and soiled. Amici observed that paper towels were available for inmates to use for cleaning on a small number of housing units, but this was not common and on one of the units, the inventory of paper towels was extremely low.
Amici could not assess whether the concentrations of disinfecting and sanitizing solutions were mixed in the appropriate concentrations necessary to achieve their intended effects. It was evident that knowledge regarding the appropriate use of the different cleaning and sanitizing agents was generally at a very low level.
Access to cleaning and sanitizing solutions is necessary, but not sufficient. Knowledge of proper mixing and appropriate application of cleaning and sanitizing solutions is also necessary. For example, at least two of the products that the DOC distributes – a concentrated surface cleaner and a concentrated sanitizing solution – have prescribed dilution ranges (i.e., must contain a minimum concentration of the chemical agent, which has implications for how
49 The manufacturer’s product description states that it is “effective against emerging viral pathogens after the CDC has declared an outbreak.” 50 Ex. 9, Photograph of empty cleaning supply containers, Correctional Treatment Facility, Building D, April 12, 2020.
30

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 31 of 38
much water can be added to the concentrate before the agent is no longer effective). One of these products also has specific prescriptions regarding how long the product must remain on a surface for it to reduce pathogens to indicated levels.
The DOC assigns correctional officers to “environmental posts” and these officers are responsible for cleaning and sanitizing assigned zones of the facilities. One environmental officer informed amici that he had never received formal training, but rather reviewed his responsibilities with his supervisor and acknowledged that it had “been a while” since that discussion occurred. The same officer noted that he had begun to mix his own bleach solution to sanitize the areas of the facility he was responsible for and relied on his own judgement regarding the appropriate concentration of bleach solution. Recommendation: There is a critical need for the defendants to strengthen the environmental health and safety program at both the CDF and the CTF. Amici recommend that the DOC immediately retain a registered sanitarian to oversee the environmental health and safety programs at both facilities and provide training so that cleaning tools and products are used properly. A registered sanitarian should bring the appropriate knowledge, oversight, and quality control necessary to mitigate at least some of the critical public health concerns that are evident in both facilities. Question Six: Do housing units, and particularly common spaces such as bathrooms and showers, appear to be sufficiently cleaned?
Cleaning the common spaces in housing units is the responsibility of designated inmate “detail workers” at the CDF and CTF, who are supervised by correctional officers. As indicated in the response to Question Five, several different cleaning, disinfecting, and sanitizing solutions are available on the housing unit of both facilities. Nevertheless, the cleanliness of common spaces was inconsistent from one housing unit to the next. With cleaning responsibilities
31

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 32 of 38
delegated to the inmate level, there is little quality control. Some housing units appeared relatively clean and tidy, others were not. This was especially the case in some of the housing units at the CDF that appeared to have significant inmate management and supervision challenges.51 In addition to the limitations in the cleanliness of some housing units, some cell block corridors had trash on the floor. Moreover, Building D at the CTF includes showers with tiles and in some of those showers there was visible mold growth.52 Recommendation: In addition to engaging a sanitarian, supervisory correctional staff must ensure that housing unit staff properly manage the work performed by the inmate detail workers. In order to accomplish that goal, correctional staff and detail workers require guidance from a sanitarian trained to oversee the facility’s environmental health program. Question Seven: Do professional cleaning crews clean hallways and common areas (not in housing units)? Do inmate details clean the housing units? common spaces?
A professional cleaning contractor was engaged to clean certain common areas on the non-secure side of both facilities on a daily basis in late March 2020. However, there was an apparent misunderstanding about the scope of the contractor’s services and none of the floors in the common areas on the administrative side of both facilities were cleaned, including bathroom floors and floors in the Officer’s Dining Room. The DOC Deputy responsible for the administration of the contract informed amici earlier this week that this limitation is being corrected.
Inmate detail workers clean the common areas in the housing units. They have not been adequately trained and are not appropriately supervised. The detail workers have inconsistent knowledge about the products they use and do not have adequate equipment. For example, they
51 In at least two housing units at the CDF, amici observed food and other refuse scattered on the cellblock floors, including on the floors under stairwells. 52 Ex. 10, Photograph of a Shower in the Correctional Treatment Facility, Building D, April 12, 2020.
32

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 33 of 38
reuse mops and make-shift rags that do not appear to have been appropriately sanitized between uses. As part of the DOC response to COVID-19, detail workers are required to clean all surfaces in the common areas of the housing units at two-hour intervals. This appears to occur on a consistent basis; however, the efficacy of these efforts is undermined by inadequate training, limitations in supervision, the absence of any quality controls, and the apparent limitations in the equipment and possibly in the cleaning and disinfecting agents that they are using.53 Recommendation: In addition to engaging a sanitarian, the defendants should consider contracting for professional cleaning services on the non-secure side of the facility at least until a sanitarian is hired to bolster the existing environmental health and safety program at both facilities. Additionally, proper cleaning supplies that have been sanitized regularly should be immediately provided to each unit, and a schedule for cleaning common areas and cells should be established and enforced. Question Eight: Is hand sanitizer provided, or available to, to residents?
There is no evidence that hand sanitizer is provided to the inmates at either the CDF or the CTF.
Question Nine: Is social distancing possible in common areas in units and in the recreation spaces, and what is the approximate size of common areas?
Amici did not have the opportunity to measure the common areas at the CDF and CTF. However, given the configuration of the physical plant in the housing units, social distancing is possible if inmate out-of-cell time is limited to small groups of inmates at one time. However, as noted elsewhere in this report, the defendants are not enforcing social distancing requirements.
53 On some housing units the detail workers expressed concerns that the cleaning agents they were using had been inappropriately diluted; on others, inmates complained about fumes associated with the apparent strength of the cleaning products the detail inmates were using.
33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 34 of 38
Enforcing social distancing requires consistent, direct observation by staff. Ensuring that correctional officers carry these functions out requires active supervision by mid-level managers, who must provide both oversight to correctional officers and support (i.e., by ensuring officers get appropriate relief for breaks over the course of their 12-hour shifts). Amici observed numerous instances in which correctional officers assigned to housing units left their posts without relief, leaving housing units short staffed. It appears that the DOC does not have sufficient line and supervisory staff available to appropriately enforce social distancing policies. Recommendation: The defendants should reduce the extent to which common spaces encourage inmates to congregate in close quarters (e.g., around a single television in a small enclosed area, or next to one another in order to use telephones that are mounted closer than six feet apart). The effectiveness of this strategy would increase if the defendants were to consistently apply their stated policy of allowing no more than small groups of inmates out of their cells at any given time. Whatever strategies the defendants adopt, increased active and direct supervision will be required by both housing unit correctional officers and the midlevel managers responsible for overseeing and supporting the correctional officers assigned to housing units. Enforcing social distancing standards as a public health measure is a new responsibility for correctional staff and they must be supported as they adjust to this new role. Moreover, the defendants should assess whether any additional security staff are needed to provide appropriate supervision, on a unit-by-unit basis, taking into consideration the layout of the housing units, the number of inmates housed on the units, and the security designation of the unit, in order to enforce social distancing policies.
34

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 35 of 38
Question Ten: Approximately how many residents share a cell, and what is the approximate size of the cell?
Amici analyzed individual-level inmate housing data for the period between March 15, 2020 and April 13, 2020. At the CDF, as of April 13, 2020, 586 inmates, 56 percent of the population, shared a cell.54 At the CTF, as of April 13, 2020, 22 inmates, five percent of the population, shared a cell.55
A representative-sized cell was measured at each of the two facilities. The selected cell at the CDF measured 85.6 square feet and the selected cell at the CTF measured 72.4 square feet.
Question Eleven: Do all residents have access to sinks, soap, and toilets in their cells? As noted above, at the CDF, all cells include sinks and toilets. At the CTF, the housing
units in the portion of the facility known as Building D contain cells without sinks and toilets. Inmates assigned to housing units in Building D share common sinks and toilets. On each housing unit there are two, double-tiered corridors of cells. Each tier of each corridor is comprised of eight cells. Inmates housed in the eight cells share two sinks, two toilets, and a shower. The cell doors in Building D, by design, do not lock in order for inmates housed in the cells to access the sink and toilet without the intervention of a correctional officer. Amici identified multiple sinks and toilets in housing units in Building D that were not functional or out of service at the time of the site visit.
Representatives of the DOC stated that every inmate receives a facility-issued bar of soap each week. Every inmate that amici spoke with indicated that they possessed at least one bar of soap. Some inmates verified that soap was distributed to them weekly; however, others stated that they had purchased their soap from the commissary and that soap was not distributed
54 See Ex. 1, supra note 4. 55 See Ex. 2, supra note 9.
35

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 36 of 38
weekly. There were multiple reports that inmates sometimes use their bars of soap to clean their clothes in the shower and under those circumstances a single bar of soap does not last an entire week.
V. Conclusion Communicable disease outbreaks in locked facilities such as jails and prisons where individuals live in close proximity can spread rapidly through a population if not addressed quickly with appropriate prevention, detection, and management systems. The current novel coronavirus pandemic, which is already present within both the CDF and the CTF, poses a serious risk to the health and safety of inmates and staff alike. This report describes certain efforts undertaken by the DOC to respond to the current public health emergency. DOC staff and Unity’s contract providers should be commended for performing essential public health and safety functions while knowingly exposing themselves to significant health risks on a daily basis. In light of the limitations identified in this report, substantial effort must be undertaken to ensure that the DOC manages its response to COVID-19 in a manner that ensures conformity with CDC Guidelines. This will require active on-site support at both facilities from public health professionals. For example, contact tracing must be strengthened, staff and inmate education on relevant public health considerations must be intensified, and business processes must be refined to ensure inmates and staff presenting with symptoms potentially consistent with COVID-19 are quickly identified, tested and isolated. Moreover, on an expedited basis, the defendants must provide inmates in isolation who have tested positive for COVID-19 with access to showers, clean clothing, clean laundry, personal telephone calls and legal calls.
36

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 37 of 38
Amici’s investigation reveals that there is an equally urgent need for the DOC to substantially bolster the agency’s environmental health program in the immediate and longer term. A professional sanitarian with appropriate health and safety credentials should be charged with organizing and managing the DOC’s environmental health program to ensure, among other matters, appropriate cleaning and sanitizing practices are implemented, regular facility inspections are conducted, and corrective actions are undertaken to resolve systemic risks. In the immediate term, the defendants should ensure that they have a sufficient number of both line level and supervisory staff throughout both facilities to promote appropriate supervision and enforce the altered operational policies adopted to address the contagion during this public health crisis.
As amici were in the process of finalizing this report, defendants provided counsel for plaintiffs and amici with a copy of an April 27, 2020 memorandum from the DOC Director, Quincy Booth, to all DOC employees and contractors.56 The memorandum addresses COVID19 policies and procedures, including updated policies and procedures that appear to be intended to respond to the matters addressed during the April 15, 2020 teleconference. In light of the current filing deadline, amici have not had an opportunity to consider the content of the memorandum, but have included it in the appendix to this report so that the Court can be promptly apprised of the most current information that the defendants have provided.
Amici recognize the substantial challenges that confront both parties and are available to answer any questions the Court or the parties have about the matters addressed in this summary report.
56 Ex. 11, Memorandum from Quincy L. Booth, Director, to All DOC Employees and Contractors, April 17, 2020, Reminders and Updated COVID-19 Policies and Procedures.
37

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47 Filed 04/19/20 Page 38 of 38

April 18, 2020 Washington, D.C.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/_Grace M. Lopes_______ Amicus Curiae Grace M. Lopes Bar No. 358650 Executive Director Rising for Justice 901 4th Street, N.W., Suite 6000 Washington, D.C. 20001 202-607-2224 gmlopes@risingforjustice.org
Mark Jordan mark@markjordan.consulting 1220 19th Street, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-525-6732

38

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 1 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 2 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 3 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 4 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 5 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 6 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 7 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 8 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 9 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 10 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 11 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 12 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 13 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 14 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 15 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 16 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 17 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 18 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 19 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 20 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 21 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 22 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 23 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 24 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 25 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 26 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 27 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 28 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 29 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 30 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 31 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 32 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 33 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 34 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 35 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 36 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 37 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 38 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 39 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 40 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 41 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 42 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 43 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 44 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 45 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 46 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 47 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 48 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 49 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 50 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 51 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 52 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 53 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 47-1 Filed 04/19/20 Page 54 of 54

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29 Filed 04/06/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs-Petitioners,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants-Respondents.

: : : : : No. 1:20-cv-849 : : : :

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF J. MICHAEL HANNON, ESQ. On this 6th day of April, 2020, I, J. Michael Hannon, Esq., do hereby declare: 1. This supplemental declaration is based on my personal conversations with officers of the FOP/DOC Labor Committee since April 2, 2020. My observations regarding the provision of medical services to inmates at DOC is based on my experience as general counsel for the FOP/DOC Labor Committee since 2006. 2. Corrections officers at the Jail continue to work without Personal Protective Equipment, to include masks, even though the CDC on April 3, 2020, recommended all persons wear masks when out in public. Although the DOC has represented to the Court that corrections officers are provided face masks, the inventory of PPE filed by DOC with the Court shows there are no masks in its inventory. (Exhibit A, attached). We have confirmed that, with a few exceptions for officers working in the quarantine unit, faces masks are not provided to corrections officers. Those that are provided are kept under lock and key by supervisory officers. 3. On the other hand, at her press conference on April 3, 2020, the Mayor reported that the City has an inventory of PPE designated for “first responders” (including DOC)

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 4
consisting of 34,060 face masks, 58,650 pairs of gloves, and 10,346 gowns. (Exhibit B at 9). No explanation is given by DOC or the Mayor as to why this PPE is not being provided to the corrections officers.
4. On April 2, 2020, HANNON LAW GROUP notified the DOC and its attorneys with the Office of the Attorney General that HLG had located a supplier of PPE in Virginia which reports an inventory of PPE available on April 7 of: 23.7 million bottles of hand sanitizer, 50 million surgical masks, 100 million pairs of gloves, 11 million N95 respirators, and 50 million surgical masks. (Exhibit C). The next day, DOC indicated the information was being forwarded to the Office of Contracts and Procurement’s vendor vetting team. No further information has been provided as of the date of this declaration whether this supply has been confirmed or ordered.
5. On the morning of April 3, 2020, the DOC announced that inmates will be placed on a modified “lockdown” schedule, with limited time out of their cells. In addition, the DOC for the first time is requiring distancing among inmates in the Jail. (Exhibit D).
6. Also on April 3, 2020, DOC Director Quincy Booth ordered that all DOC corrections officers shall begin 12-hour shifts on Sunday, April 5, 2020. (Exhibit E). During the evening shift on April 5, 2020, the D.C. Jail was understaffed by corrections officers. In the CTF, only one officer was present on each Housing Unit. In CDF, only two officers were present in each Housing Unit. Some officers had to work a second shift because no one relieved them.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29 Filed 04/06/20 Page 3 of 4
7. On April 3, 2020, at 7:33 p.m., the DOC finally sent a response to HANNON LAW GROUP’S March 19, 2020, request for information. (Exhibit F). A review of this letter confirms that DOC does not provide masks and gloves to DOC officers unless they are on a quarantine or COVID positive unit. The contracted cleaning services are only provided in “roll call room, ODRs, locker rooms, and elevators, as well as facilities entrances and the Inmate Reception Center.” (Exhibit F at 2). Cleaning on Housing Units continues to be the responsibility of inmates.
8. The Shift Report for Shift 2 on April 5, 2020, for the CDT covers the time period of 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Exhibit G). The full complement for this shift is 160 officers. Only 74 scheduled officers were available to work. 18 officers were “drafted” to work compulsory overtime, and 15 officers volunteered to work overtime. The total shortfall of officers for this shift was 53.
9. The Log for Shift 2 on April 5, 2020, for CDT notes that at 11:00 a.m. “COVID 19 Sanitation Team Enters the Facility for Cleaning.” Then the Log notes at 11:41 a.m. “COVID 19 Sanitation Team Exits the Facility at this Time.” (Exhibit G). No other entries indicate any outside sanitization team entering the CDT.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT:
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29 Filed 04/06/20 Page 4 of 4

I HEREBY SWEAR under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

s/ J. Michael Hannon Dated: April 6, 2020

Respectfully submitted,
HANNON LAW GROUP, LLP
/s/J. Michael Hannon J. Michael Hannon, #352526 333 8th Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Tel: (202) 232-1907 Fax: (202) 232-3704 jhannon@hannonlawgroup.com Attorneys for Fraternal Order of Police/Department of Corrections Labor Committee

4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 259-21 Filed 04/036/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 259-21 Filed 04/036/20 Page 2 of 3
COVID-19 Supply List
Operations Support Manager George Lample

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 259-21 Filed 04/036/20 Page 3 of 3
Current COVID-19 Supply List

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 1 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 21
Where We Are Today
April 3, 2020

New and CCausme 1u:2l0a-ctvi-v00e84C9-COKKVIDDoc-u1m9eCnt a29s-2esFialend d04/I0n6/t2e0 rvPaegne t3ioof n21s District of Columbia

Mayor’s Order to Establish the Consequence
Management Team Structure and Executive Leadership
DC Emergency Operations Center
activated

First confirmed COVID-19 case in DC
1M Contingency Cash Reserve
Fund Public Health Emergency
Declared
DC Health Advisory: No gatherings >1000
District Response Plan Implemented
Washington Convention Center Closure

DC Health Rulemaking: No gatherings >250
Distance Learning at Schools
Mayor’s Order: No gatherings >50 or >10
in vulnerable pops.
Mayor’s Order: Restaurants/Bars can’t
seat patrons
April 3, 2020

DPR Sites Closed Nightclubs, gyms, spas, massage, theaters closed
Emergency COVID-19 Bill Passes Council
Tidal Basin Closure

Mayor’s Order: Non-essential services
closed
Mayor’s Order: Social distancing requirements for essential businesses
Mayor’s Order: No gatherings >10

Mayor’s Order: Stay-at-
home order issued

District Response Org Chart Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 4 of 21

JIC L. Foster
Planning C. Osborn EOC Red Team D. Lucas EOC Blue Team
J. Shackleford	  

Finance J. Reed

Mayor Bowser
Exec Policy Group
CA Young, COS Falcicchio, 	  
DCA Donahue,
L. Nesbitt, C. Rodriguez	  
Incident Commander C. Rodriguez

Operations C. Geldart

Health & Med P. Ashley
P Works & Infrastr
T. Spriggs	  

Human Services J. Brown
Public Safety H. Gil

Resilience K. Bush
Support Functions Various
Cost Recovery R. Gardner

Daily Govt Ops DCA Donahue

Mission Support &
Mod. Govt Ops	  
J. Melder	  

Facilities K. Anderson

Technology L. Parker

Procurement G. Schutter

HR & People V. Gibson

March 24, 2020

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 5 of 21
COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020

KEY LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PUBLIC BENEFITS & PROTECTIONS FOR RESIDENTS
SUPPORT FOR LOCAL BUSINESSES
CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS

SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS •  Extends unemployment compensation to those unemployed due to COVID-19
•  Prohibits evictions of residential and commercial tenants as well as late fees, and prohibits utility shut-oﬀs for non-payment.
•  Extends public beneﬁt programs such as the Healthcare Alliance, TANF, and SNAP. Places limits on price gouging and stockpiling.
•  Creates a small business grant program to assist nonproﬁt organizations and small contractors. •  Allows for delivery and carry-out sales by restaurants of beer/wine, if sold along with prepared
food. •  Delays retail sales tax payments to the government by stores, restaurants, and other businesses.
•  Extends deadlines/expirations of corporate tax ﬁlings, drivers licenses, professional licenses, etc. •  Allows the Council to meet virtually. •  Provides meeting ﬂexibility to ANCs, boards, and commissions. •  Allows ﬂexibility in FOIA and Open Meetings. •  Delays the submission date for the Mayor’s budget to May 6.

Regional Outlook As of April 1 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 6 of 21
April 3, 2020

Washington, DC As of April 2 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 7 of 21

120	  

100	  

80	  

60	  

40	  

20	  

0	   0-­‐18	   19-­‐30	   31-­‐40	   41-­‐50	   51-­‐60	   61-­‐70	   71-­‐80	   81+	  

Female	  

Male	  

April 3, 2020

Increased TestingCase 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 8 of 21

Testing has increased from about 300 tests per 1 million persons (March 18) to about 4,000 tests per 1 million persons (March 28).

Friday, April 3 is the ﬁrst day of
drive-thru testing at United
Medical Center. Testing is for:
•  DC residents with symptoms who are 65years and older;
•  DC residents with symptoms who have underlying health conditions;
•  Individuals with symptoms who work in a health care provider or facility in DC; and
•  First responders with symptoms who work for District Government.
	  

April 3, 2020

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 9 of 21
Local First Responder PPE Supply

PPE	  Item	  

Total	  Ordered	   Total	  Received	  

Out	  to	  First	   Responders	  

On	  Hand	  

Burn	  Rate	  per	   Month	  

Need	  Through	   August	  

N-­‐95	  Masks	  

275,440	  

275,440	  

205,440	   70,000	  

55,000	  

275,000	  

Surgical	  Masks	  

500,000	  

51,010	  

16,950	   34,060	  

106,000	  

530,000	  

Gowns/Coveralls	   Face	  Shields	   Gloves	  (Pair)	  

20,893	   62,000	   603,870	  

13,918	   1107	  
150,890	  

3,578	   10,340	   119	   988	  
92,240	   58,650	  

5,583	   21,720	   212,000	  

27,912	   108,600	   1,060,000	  

Who this Supply Serves:
DC’s First Responders: •  MPD & FEMS
•  DOC & DYRS •  DBH St. Elizabeths & CPEP •  DHS Homeless Services •  CFSA •  DPW •  DDOT

Local Health Provider PPE Supply

PPE	  Item	  

Total	  Ordered	   +	  SNS	  

Total	  Received	  

Out	  to	  Providers	  On	  Hand	  

Burn	  per	   Month*	  

Need	  thru	   August*	  

N-­‐95	  Masks	  

692,901	  

214,341	  

65,542	   148,799	  

93,000	  

Surgical	  Masks	   5,157,620	  

557,623	  

187,660	   369,963	   1,486,656	  

Gowns	  

86,837	  

86,837	  

26,837	   60,000	  

195,000	  

Face	  Shields	  

66,515	  

66,515	  

1,415	   65,100	  

52,200	  

Gloves	  (Pair)	  

603,870	  

514,400	  

14,400	   500,000	   6,000,000	  

*Burn rate and need for supply calculated at 60% of total, system-wide usage for COVID-19

372,000	   7,433,280	  
840,000	   208,800	   24,000,000	  

Who this Supply Serves: DC’s Healthcare Providers: •  Hospitals •  Primary Care •  Private Providers
•  Long-Term Care •  Dialysis Facilities •  Home Health Agencies •  Clinics

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 10 of 21
Where We Are Headed: Medical Surge
April 3, 2020

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 11 of 21
COVID-19 Conﬁrmed Positive Cases and
Estimated Actual Case Projections

100000	   90000	   80000	   70000	   60000	   50000	   40000	   30000	   20000	   10000	   0	   3/1/2020	  

586	  
4/1/2020	  

5/1/2020	  

93,676	  

6/1/2020	  

7/1/2020	  

EsKmated	  InfecKons	  

8/1/2020	  

9/1/2020	  

Conﬁrmed	  Cases	  

10/1/2020	   11/1/2020	   12/1/2020	  
Based	  on	  CHIME	  model	  

April 3, 2020

Loss of Life

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 12 of 21

As of April 3, 15 DC residents have passed away due to COVID-19. Tragically, our model projects that loss of life will continue.

Mild Estimate Moderate Estimate Severe Estimate

Estimated cumulative number of deaths

220

440

>1,000 Preliminary estimate

Do your part to save lives: stay home.
Based	  on	  CHIME	  model	  

April 3, 2020

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 13 of 21
CHIME vs. IHME: Resources Needed

Acute Care Beds

Date peak

No. of acute care beds needed at peak

ICU Beds

Beds needed Date peak

No. of ICU beds needed at peak

Ventilators

Beds needed

No. of ventilators needed at peak

Ventilators needed

CHIME Scenario
6/28 2,992 1,806 6/30 – 7/1 2,792 2,705
1,453 1,030

IHME Model
4/16 754 None 4/16 134 47
107 None

April 3, 2020

CHIME ScenarioCase 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 14 of 21

6-DAY DOUBLING, 31% REDUCTION IN CONTACT

Number	  

4,500	   4,000	   3,500	   3,000	   2,500	   2,000	   1,500	   1,000	  
500	  
87	  
0	  

2,992	   2,792	  

1186	  

Projected	  Census	  of	  	  Covid-­‐19	  PaTents	  (Acute	  Beds)	   Date	  Projected	  Census	  of	  COVID-­‐19	  PaTents	  Requiring	  ICU	  

N	  Acute	  Beds	  Available	  as	  of	  3/29/2020	  

Adult	  ICU	  Beds	  Available	  as	  of	  3/29/2020	  

April 3, 2020

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 15 of 21
Our Hospitals and Health Care Providers are Answering the Call
On Wednesday: hospitals directed to create additional capacity (125% of current beds).
As of April 2, over three-quarters of additional capacity identiﬁed.
Others stepping up: Bridgepoint and Psychiatric Institute of Washington.
April 3, 2020

Meeting the Surge Demand: 5,500 Beds Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 16 of 21
1.  Increase Hospital Space. Postpone elective procedures.
2.  Maximize Hospital Space. Expand capacity in existing healthcare facilities by using other available space and adding beds.
3.  Reopen Facilities. Open furloughed healthcare facilities with USACE help.
4.  Add New Beds. Establish alternate care sites outside of hospitals.
5.  Add Staff. Coordinating with DCNG and FEMA for necessary workforce.
April 3, 2020

Meeting the Surge Demand: Supplies & Equipment Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 17 of 21

What We’ll Need to Support 5,500 Hospital Beds
	  

Ventilators

1000

N-95 Masks

600,000

Surgical Masks

5.6 million

Gowns

1.4 million

Face Shields

350,000

Gloves

40 million

April 3, 2020

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 18 of 21
Everyone Has a Role to Play in
Flattening the Curve
April 3, 2020

Social Distancing is a Social Responsibility Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 19 of 21
April 3, 2020

Seek the Advice of a Medical Professional if You Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page Feel 20 of 21 Ill
April 3, 2020

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 21 of 21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-3 Filed 04/06/20 Page 1 of 1
Free Shipping on all orders for Surgicial Masks Please email orders to missy.lanz@srpcompanies.com

Customer/Location: Right at Home

Ship To:

PO#

Account #:

Item #

DESCRIPTION

UPC

TGS-020504 Candy Scented Hand Sanitizer TGS-967959 2 oz Instant Hand Sanitizer - Assorted

TGS-968130 4 oz Instant Hand Sanitizer - Assorted

TGS-000170 8 oz Instant Hand Sanitizer - Assorted

BIO-BMHCT20 BIOMIRACLE HAND CLEANSER 20 CT

BIO-BMHCG BIOMIRACLE HAND CLEANSING GEL 75ML

TGS-967911 N95 Face Masks - Assorted Brands and Styles

TGS-968123 Digital Infrared no touch thermometers

TGS-968093 Exam Gloves SM‐XL ASSORTED

TGS-012454 TGS-968147

Surgical Face Masks ‐ Assorted Brands and Styles KN95 Face Masks - Assorted Brands and Styles

641585020504 648748967959 648748968130 672008801936 810004102118 810004102125 648748967911 648748968123 648748968093 20885380012454 648748968147

SIZE
2oz 2oz 4oz 8oz 20ct 2.65oz NA NA SM-XL One Size NA

Notes:

Contact Information: Bill Teufel , VP Business Development
O (267) 223-8906 m (215) 356-7982 e bill.teufel@srpcompanies.com w srpcompanies.com 4 Neshaminy Interplex Drive|Suite 301|Trevose, PA, 19053
Cancel Date:

UNITS PER CASE

UNIT PRICE

CASE PRICE

Cases Ordered

144

$2.75 $396.00

$

24

$3.00 $72.00

$

48

$3.50 $168.00

$

12

$4.25 $51.00

$

12

$3.00 $36.00

$

12

$3.00 $36.00

$

20

$5.00 $100.00

$

1 $100.00 $100.00

$

100

$0.20 $20.00 50 $

50

$2.00 $100.00 100 $

20

$3.25 $65.00

$

Totals: 150 $

Total
1,000.00 10,000.00 11,000.00

Date of Availability April 20, 2020 April 7, 2020 April 7,2020 April 7,2020 April 7,2020 April 7,2020 April 14, 2020 April 14, 2020 April 1, 2020 April 1, 2020 April 7, 2020

Qty Available
50,000 250,000 350,000 75,000 150,000 150,000 200,000 100,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 350,000

Country of origin China China China Canada Korea Korea China China China China China

4/4/2020

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKKHanDnooncLuawmGeronutp 2M9ai-l 4- FwdF: iNleotdific0at4io/n0to6F/2O0P Page 1 of 1
Ann-Kathryn So <akso@hannonlawgroup.com>

Fwd: Notification to FOP
1 message

Olubasusi, Benjamin R. (DOC) <benjamin.olubasusi@dc.gov>

Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:36 PM

To: Ann-Kathryn So <akso@hannonlawgroup.com>, "J. Michael Hannon" <jhannon@hannonlawgroup.com>

Cc: "Johnson, Jannease (DOC)" <jannease.johnson@dc.gov>

Please read immediately

From: Johnson, Paulette (DOC) <paulette.johnson@dc.gov> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020, 7:11 PM To: Olubasusi, Benjamin R. (DOC) Subject: Fwd: Notification to FOP
Hello Chairman Olubasusi, This is an official notification to the DOC Fraternal Order of Police Union of the below important information.
Sent from my iPhone

1) Effective at 12:01 am we are adjusting to a medical stay in place (essentially lockdown) for inmates.
2) Effective April 5-6,we are transitioning to a 12hr shift, this evening we are disseminating the revised schedules to staff
3) The Official Time for the FOP Executive Board members and Chief Shop Stewards, will no longer be authorized during the DC State of Emergency
4) This is an advance notice that there will be forthcoming emergency and essential designation of Case Managers
Thank you and best regards, Paulette Hutchings Johnson, Labor Relations Liaison

For the latest information on the District Government’s response to COVID-19 (Coronavirus), please visit coronavirus.dc.gov.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=bca2c1a3fc&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1663000236889930349&simpl=msg-f%3A166300023688… 1/1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-5 Filed 04/06/20 Page 1 of 2
D.C. Department of Corrections

Office of the Director

Open Letter to All Employees From Director Quincy L. Booth
DOC-OL20-07: April 3, 2020 (Schedule Modification-COVID-19)

In these unprecedented times, DOC appreciates you and your ongoing dedication, professionalism and support of the mission. Due to COVID-19, and in anticipation of the upcoming critical weeks, we are at critical juncture for staffing. Therefore, effective Sunday, April 5, 2020, DOC will transition to 12 hours for the majority of Correctional Officers. Initiating a 12-hour shift will allow for more coverage to secure the facility without drafting staff to work an additional eight (8) hours of overtime following their normal shift.
In making this transition, DOC will make the best effort to ensure that most Officers will continue on their same post assignments. Additionally, DOC will try to make the best effort to ensure your placement on a shift that best accommodates your needs. You will receive your modified schedule no later than Friday, April 3rd. Any questions or concerns regarding your schedule should be forwarded to the Deputy Warden of your assigned facility (CDF- Deputy Warden K. Landerkin and CTF- Deputy Warden M. Jones). Please see the attached Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for more information regarding the schedule modification.
Under the current circumstances, DOC is aware that caregiver duties especially child care are of upmost concern. To that end the District is offering free childcare for first responders. The details are as follows: Bright Horizons (various locations) or Shaw Community Center located at 1701 11th Street NW. These are programs for children ages 5-14.
1. All the adults are cleared through DCHR for MPD and FBI and cleared through CFSA for the CPR.
2. There is 1 adult to every 4 children and no more than 8 children in any one room at one time (we have worked extensively on cleaning and social distancing protocols to minimize risk.).

The D.C. Department of Corrections’ vision is to be a benchmark correction agency. To become benchmark agency, we will serve with pride, passion and professionalism in caring for human lives.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-5 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 2
3. The program is free to government employees. 4. The hours are from 7:30am – 6:00 pm and children can be dropped off/picked-up
between those hours. 5. Breakfast and lunch will be provided for the child. 6. The program will support academic and enrichment throughout the day. 7. The provider is using their own facilities but has a contract with a cleaning
company for enhanced cleaning. 8. Additional protocols will be shared by the provider upon confirmation of
enrollment as slots are limited.
Interested employees should contact: a. Shaw Community Center https://dcgov.seamlessdocs.com/f/ShawCommunityCenter b. Bright Horizons email: lstreet@brighthorizons.com phone: 202-887-8433
Please continue to practice health and safety precautions that will help us to keep our DOC facilities, staff, and residents safe and healthy. Follow the guidance below on how to reduce your risk of infection and slow its spread.
• Thoroughly wash your hands for at least 20 seconds multiple times a day. • Avoid close contact with people who are sick. • Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth. • Sanitize your equipment. • Follow the safety protocols in place at each of the DOC facilities. • If you are sick, contact your healthcare provider and request sick leave through
your supervisor.
Thank you for your continued commitment to serving our city and our neighbors.
For more information about COVID-19, visit: https://coronavirus.dc.gov/ https://dchealth.dc.gov/coronavirus https://cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019- ncov/index.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories.html/
PLEASE READ AT ALL ROLL CALLS FOR SEVEN (7) CONSECUTIVE DAYS AND POST ON ALL APPROPRIATE BULLETIN BOARDS
The D.C. Department of Corrections’ vision is to be a benchmark correction agency. To become benchmark agency, we will serve with pride, passion and professionalism in caring for human lives.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-6 Filed 04/06/20 Page 1 of 4
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Office of the Director
April 3, 2020
Cpl. Benjamin Olubasusi Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), Chairman 1901 D Street, SE Washington, DC 20003
RE: Request for Information
Dear Mr. Olubasusi:
I want to begin by emphasizing Management’s strong appreciation to staff for their professionalism and dedication in ensuring the safety and well-being of their fellow colleagues and the residents. We are always available to talk to staff and listen to their concerns as we work together to respond to this unprecedented pandemic. I appreciate the sense of duty all our staff exhibits each day they serve our residents and protect our city.
On March 5, 2020, the DC Department of Corrections activated the Incident Command Team (ICT) in anticipation of coronavirus (COVID-19). The ICT is composed of Operations/Planning, Human Resources, Logistics and Supplies, Communication, and Medical staff. At the same time that we activated the ICT, we decided to initiate an enhanced cleaning effort of all areas and facilities on a two-hour basis. Further, plans were made and immediately implemented to conduct medical screenings (a questionnaire and temperature checks) of all individuals entering DOC’s facilities. As the COVID-19 situation further evolved and it became clear there was substantial community spread of the virus, we took immediate action to limit public access to DOC facilities, halting all visitors and volunteers with the exception of legal visits.
As soon as the District activated its Emergency Operation Center (EOC) on March 6, DOC began working closely with the EOC to obtain additional custodial supplies and personal protective equipment (PPE) to ensure we had a replenishable inventory. As you know, as the situation continued to evolve, DOC kept staff apprised of the actions we were taking through the use of daily open letters and having medical staff attend roll calls to address any staff concerns. We are committed to keeping our staff fully informed with timely and accurate information. Since the activation of the ICT, communication to staff regarding the prevention and mitigation of COVID19 has been disseminated daily, as well as posted throughout all areas of the DOC facilities. Based on Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, DOC worked with Human
2000 14th St., NW – 7th Floor | Washington, DC 20009| Telephone: 202-673-7316| Fax: 202-332-1470

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-6 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 4
Resources to identify staff members considered high risk and took appropriate action to reduce the potential of their coming in contact with COVID-19.
For the past several weeks, DOC has increased its custodial and PPE supplies. However, as we have seen happening in cities across the country, procuring additional PPE supplies is a very significant challenge. DOC is following the guidelines from the CDC and DC Health, and is providing PPE to staff working isolation and quarantine units, as well as staff who provide escort and/or transport of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases. DOC also provides PPE to the laundry, screening, and cleaning staff.
Additionally, DOC has procured medical-grade cleaning supplies which are disseminated to staff upon supervisors’ request. We know that disinfectant wipes have been in great demand, both within our facilities as well as throughout the city. As we receive new supplies of disinfectant wipes, we distribute them to staff. We have also allowed staff to bring in their own personal supply of disinfectant wipes. The nationwide demand for hand sanitizer has presented a challenge in our efforts to supply sufficient quantities. We believe the District Government’s creative solution in using local distilleries and other small businesses to manufacture hand sanitizer will help meet the high demand for its resupply. We will continue to allow staff to bring in their own 3 oz. bottles of hand sanitizer.
As you have undoubtedly seen every two hours, DOC has janitorial staff clean and wipe down common areas such as the roll call room, ODRs, locker rooms, and elevators, as well as facilities entrances and the Inmate Reception Center. Every two hours, public address system announcements remind staff to wash their hands and wipe down their work areas. We remain committed to ensuring our workplace is as safe and clean as possible to ensure the health of our staff and our residents.
Attached are responses to the questions you raised. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns. My staff and I are always available to assist.
Sincerely,
/s/ Quincy L. Booth______ Quincy L. Booth Director
2000 14th St., NW – 7th Floor | Washington, DC 20009| Telephone: 202-673-7316| Fax: 202-332-1470

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-6 Filed 04/06/20 Page 3 of 4
Please describe DOC’s efforts in partnering and/or sharing information with criminal justice partners? DOC’s Director and General Counsel regularly meet with our criminal justice partners to share information regarding the impact of COVID-19 on our operations and our responses.
Are daily updates continuing to be sent via emails to the staff regarding COVID-19? Can you please make those available? Yes, COVID-19 updates are regularly sent to the agency’s staff and posted on the agency’s website.
Have DOC employees (officers and medical staff) been provided appropriate protective devices/material/training? Are staff members knowledgeable on and adequately equipped to prevent transmission, minimize spread and protect themselves and the inmate population from contacting COVID-19? PPE is available to staff, training is ongoing and continuous, and signage has been posted throughout the facilities instructing staff and residents on how to prevent transmission and minimize the spread of the virus.
Is DOC working in close connection with the DC Health? What medical support does the Agency have specifically for the virus? DOC and its medical contractor, Unity Healthcare, are in constant communication with DC Health.
Are all incoming inmates, staff and other individuals with access to the DOC facilities questioned as to their level of risk? Yes, every person entering DOC’s facilities are screened for possible COVID-19 exposure and flu-like symptoms.
What is the procedure for processing all new inmates to the facilities? All new intakes will be housed on S2 for a 14-day quarantine while undergoing enhanced monitoring by medical staff.
What is the procedure for assessing the risk to existing inmates? DOC uses CDC and DC Health guidelines to screen residents with questions about possible exposure to COVID-19, flu-like symptoms they may be experiencing, and temperature checks. This is done across all facilities receiving arrestees and resident, and is done every time there is an entry into the facilities. For example, if a resident leaves for court or medical appointments, they will receive the screening upon their return regardless of how long their length of stay has been.
What testing is being offered to confirm a diagnosis of COVID-19? DOC and Unity Healthcare share patient medical information with DC Health, which makes the decision on COVID-19 testing.
What procedures are in place if an inmate is symptomatic? DOC staff and medical staff are provided masks and gloves when they are in close proximity to an isolated or quarantined resident.
2000 14th St., NW – 7th Floor | Washington, DC 20009| Telephone: 202-673-7316| Fax: 202-332-1470

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-6 Filed 04/06/20 Page 4 of 4
What procedures are in place if an inmate tests positive? Upon receiving notification that a resident has tested positive for COVID-19, the resident is given a mask. The resident is then placed in isolation for the duration of time recommended by CDC, while receiving medical attention. DOC staff and medical staff are provided masks and gloves when working in the area housing residents in isolation.
What procedures are in place for quarantines? DOC residents suspected of having COVID-19 are placed in quarantine units where they are monitored by DOC’s medical staff. DOC staff and medical staff working in the quarantine units are provided masks and gloves, and the residents are provided with masks. As of today, there are 125 residents in quarantine units.
Asymptomatic inmates currently housed at any of the facilities who are at high-risk for contracting COVID-19? DOC is following CDC and DC Health guidelines, which does not include testing of asymptomatic individuals.
Symptomatic inmates currently housed at any of the facilities? If so, what actions are being taken with regard to those individuals? DOC’s medical staff conducts rounds for identification of symptomatic residents. If the medical staff notices a symptomatic resident during their rounds, the resident is brought to medical for examination.
Inmates currently housed at any of the facilities who have tested positive for COVID-19? As of today, 12 residents have tested positive and all are in isolation per CDC and DC Health guidelines. Notably, these residents are presently stable. However, if their conditions warrant, they will be promptly transported to a local hospital so they may receive any needed care that cannot be provided onsite.
What is being done to track any inmates, visitors, staff, or other individuals with access to any of the facilities who have been at any DOC facility within the past two weeks, including any individuals who were held and released or transferred? DOC is utilizing the screening forms for tracking purposes. And, as you know, tracking of arrestees and resident is a regular and routine DOC business practice.
What is the impact of the Agency’s response to the Mayor's Order 2020-048: Prohibition on Mass Gatherings During Public Health Emergency - Coronavirus (COVID-19)? In compliance with Mayor’s Order 2020-04 and as part of its efforts to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in its facilities, DOC has suspended all non-legal counsel visits and halted most resident off-unit movement and activities.
2000 14th St., NW – 7th Floor | Washington, DC 20009| Telephone: 202-673-7316| Fax: 202-332-1470

a • Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Docume~.nt 29~ -7 Filed 04/06/20 GO~ENTOF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBI CENTRAL DETENTION FACILITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 1901 D. STREET S.E. WASHINGTON D.C. 20003

Page 1 of 33

OVERTIME JUSTIFICATION
C SHIFT SUPERVISOR: ANTOINE COBB

SHIFT: NUMBER TWO SHIFT CENTRAL DETENTION FACILITY

DATE: FRIDAY, APRIL 05, 2020

COMPLEMENT BREAKDOWN

A B C

ROSTER POST ADDED POST OFFICERS ON DUTY

li=Eii,or lEi
 om s rvl

om s

TOTAL SHIFT COMPLEMENT

01 00 . OFFICERS ASSIGNED

74 12

VACANCIES

D

SHUTDOWN/CLOSED POST

43 00

ASSIGNED DAYS OFF

81 02


E POST TO COVER (A+B-C-D=E) 41 00 # FROM YOUR SHIFT IN MHU 03 00


TOTAL DRAFTED

18 00

ANNUAL LEAVE.

04 01


TOTAL VOLUNTEERED

15 00

SICK LEAVE

25 01


.

LWOP

04 00


OVERTIME HOURS

229.00

ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE 18 00


TOTAL COMP TIME HOURS

00.00

BEREAVEMENT

00 00


AWOL

05 00


ADDED POST BREAKDOWN

PAID FAMILY LEAVE

03 00


MHU

JURy DUTY

00 00


COVID-19 SANITATION 1

TRAINING

00 00


CULINARY

FAMILY LEAVE

03 00


NOI-S01­

MILITARY

00 00


SUSPENSION

00 00


,, ,

.

WORKMEN COMP DETAILED

02 00

! 00 00


MAJORSIGNATURE:

~_ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

_

The highlighted areas are not to be changed or altered unless approved by a Major or above.
,
Revised on 11/212018.f,
~

• • Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 33

This report was printed

Overtime Report

by Cobb, Antoine on 4/5/20

Date: April 05, 2020

at 3:19 pm

Central Detention Facility

S-2

Overtime
Name

Duration

Hours Reason·

Agbara, Theodore

8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Akpobasa, Raphael

8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Amegnran, Kokouvi

7:30 AM to 3:30 PM

Ayodele, Femi

8:00 AM to ·4:00 PM

Azubike, Emeka

7:30 AM 10 4:00 PM

Becketts, pavid

7:30 AM to 4:00 PM

Briscoe, Susan

7:30 AM to ·4:00 PM

Butler, Ricky

8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Carr, Jerry

8:00 AM 10 4:00 PM

Coates, Joseph

8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Davis, Joseph

8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Dosumu, Hawa

8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Ewanlen, Inegbenoise 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Green, Renee

8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Hart, Hazel .

7:30 AM to 4:00 PM

Ibeaw,uchi, Uchendu

8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Igbal~jobi, Oluwamodupe 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Jam,Is, Raymond

7:30 AM to 4:00 PM

Metuge, Roseline

7:30 AM to 4:00 PM

Morgan, Paulette

8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Mshimba, John

8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Ngwatancho, Ngoh

8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Nkafu, Collins

8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Nwaizugbo, Livinus

7:30 AM to 4:00 PM

Olarinde, Dariene

8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Ososanya, Kehinde

8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Shand, Leroy

7:30 AM to 4:00 PM

Smith, Douglas

7:30 AM to 3:30.PM

Thigpen, Robert

8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Washington, Kevin

7:30 AM to 3:30 PM

7.5.0 Admin Leave 7.50 FMLA 7.50 Admin Leave 7.50 Paid Family Leave 8.00 Paid Family Leave 8.00 Paid Family Leave 8.00 AWOL 7.50 Admin Leave 7.50 Paid Family Leave 7.50 Admin Leave 7.50 AWOL 7.50 Paid Family Leave 7.50 Admin Leave 7.50 LWOP 8.00 .Med. Out. MPD Takeover 7.50 LWOP 7.50 Admin Leave 8.00 Other 8.00 Paid Family Leave 7.50 Med. Out. MPD Takeover 7.50 Paid Family Leave 7.50 • Paid Family Leave 7.50 Paid Family Leave 8.00 AWOL 7.50 FMLA 7.50 Admin Leave 8.00 Supervisor Coverage 7.50 Bereavement 7.50 Med. Out. MPD Takeover 7.50 LWOP

l

Location
, 2-{)24 Southeast 2 OIC
2-043 Northeast 2

2-02.1 Northwest 1 OIC

2-102 Culina'ry

2-105 Culinary OIC

S2-04 Supervisor

Added Security

2-{)29 Southwest 2

2-059 South 3

2-023 South Two

2-{)39 Northwest 2 OIC

. 2-051 Southwest 3 Ole

2-031 North 2 OIC

2-081 IRC R&D Cont OIC

Medical Holding Unit

2-114 Environmental

2-041 Northeast 2 OIC

2-073 ERT 2-062 Northeast Three

I

Medical Holding Unit

2-051 Southwest 3 OIC

2-054 North Three OIC

2-112 Culinary

2-046 South Three OIC

2-{)93 Infirmary Control

2~071 Southwest 2

S2-02 Supervisor

2-078 IRC Male Processing

Medical Holding Unit

2-113 Perimeter

·f

• • Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 3 of 33
Summary by Location

Overtime Total

!

.

I 2-021 Northwest 1 OIC

2-023 South Two

2-024 Southeast 2 OIC

2-029 Southwest 2

2-031 North 2 OIC

2-039 Northwest 2 OIC

2-041 Northeast 2 OIC

2-043 Northeast 2

2-046 South Three OIC

2-051 Southwest 3 OIC

2-054 North Three OIC

2-059 South 3

2-062 Northeast Three

. 2-071 Southwest 2
2-073 ERT

2-078 IRC Male Processing

2-081 IRC R&D Cont OIC

2-093 Infirmary Control

2-102 Culinary

2-105 Culinary OIC

2-112 Culinary

2-113 Perimeter

2-114 Environmental

Added Security

Medical Holding Unit

S2-02 Supervisor

S2-04 Supervisor

Total

Hours 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 8.00 15.00 7.50 7.50 8.00 7.50 8.00 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50
,8.00
7.10 7.50 7.50 8.00
23.00
8.00 8.00 229.00 229.00

Ho. • .ToCtaalsOev1e:2rt0im-cev-00849-CKK229D.0o0cum.e. nt 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 4 of 33
t


• • Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 5 of 33
Summary by Reason

Overtime

Admin Leave AWOL Bereavement FMLA LWOP Med. Out. MPD Takeover Other Paid Family Leave Supervisor Coverage

Hours
52.50 23.50
7.50 1500
 . 22.50
 23.00 8.00 69.00 8.00

Total

229.00

Total

229.00

f

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 6 of 33 CENTRAL DETENTION FACILITY SHIFT REPORT

•
J
•

SHiFf: SHIFf COMMANDER:
ADJUSTMENT BOARD

#TWO
(P ANTOINE COBB ~ SECURITY

CLOSED

CLOSED

ZONE ONE LT. D. FAISON

OFFICER STATUS

OFF SUP

SHIFT COMPLEMENT

235

14

ASSIGNED

222

14

VACANCIES AUTHORIZED POSTS

13

00

160

00

POSTREQ.O.T.

41

00

ON DUTY

74

12

OFF DUTY

81

02

ANNUAL SICK

04

01

25

01

ADMIN LEAVE

18

00

AWOL

05

00

LWOP

04

00

BEREAVEMENT

00

00

WORKMAN'S COMP

02

00

COMPTIME

02

00

DETAILED

00

00

FMLAlPFMA

03

00

MIIU

03

00

TRAINING

00

00

SUSPENSION

TOTAL

i•

OVERTIME I

00

00

222

14

MEDICAL TRIPS

00.00 0.0

ADDED SECURITY

229.00 0.0

OTHERILATE RELIIRC

0.0 0.0

TOTAL

229.00 0.0

COMPTIME

00.00 0.0

BUILDING INSPECTIhN TOWER SOT!E. HULL
INNERFAC SOT: J. ROSSER CLTHISSUE CLOSED
LAUNDRY CLOSED STAIRWELL CPL. L. LACEY STAIRWELL2 CLOSED LAUNDRY CLOSED YARD AREA CLOSED

COMMAND CENTER OFFICER(S) CPL. M. LEWIS

VISITING BREAKDOWN

I

VHl VB2 VB3 TOTAL

CLOSED S. EGGLESTON (00) CLOSED
(00)

BUS
BOP BOP

TIME IN
N/A N/A

TIMEOUT
N/A N/A

ZONE TWO LT. I. SHAND

ZONE THREE
SGT. L. SHAND LT. D. FAISON

OPENING DATE: .!:AP~R1=L~0":5,-2"~0~20!!..-

_

CLOSING DATE: !:.AP~R1~L~0,"5,-2"~0~20!!..-

_

ZONE FOUR

OPER. CAPT/ADMIN LT

LT. D. BECKETTS

CAPT. A. COBB

RECREATION HOUSING UNITS

BEGAN ENDED UNITS

CLOSED DUE TO THE JAIL BEING ON MODIFIED RECREATION

ADULT MALES ADULT FEMALES JUVMALES JUVFEMALES OUTPOST TOTAL

OPEN 1083 00 00 00
OM-OF 1083

CLOSE 1083 00 00 00 OM-OF
1083

TIME 7:30AM

REMARKS RELIEVED #1 SHIFT CPL. A. MATTHEWS AND CPL. S. DAWKINS
OF ALL DUTIES. ALL EQUIPMENT CHECKED AND ACCOUNTED FOR: (2) FIRE EXTINGUISHER, (6) C/C KEYS, (I) FIRST AID KIT, (I) CELL PHONE, (2) RADIOS, (2) BATTERIES, (2) BATTERY CHARGERS, (I) CAMERA, (2) PHENOM PEPPER BALL GUN SERIAL #0067650 AND 0061637, ORANGE SEAL TAG #0011522 AND 0011557, (2) SPEED LOADERSIW140 PEPPER BALL, (2) 400Z AIR CYLINDERS & (I) MEGAPHONE.

ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS ARE FOLLOWED:
 RISK FACTORS AND WARNING SIGNS; EVERY TWO HOURS HOUSIN'
 UNITS ARE CALLED TO CHECK FOR SMOKE DETECTION,
 SANITATION ANNOUNCEMENT MADE EVERY TWO HOURS. JAIL
 ON MODIFIED RECREATION


CULINARY STAFF CPL. E. AZUBIKE CPL.AYODLE CPL.KAFU
TOTAL N/A N/A

8:00 AM 8:10 AM 8:20AM 8:35 AM 8:40 AM 8:50AM 9:15 AM

COMMAND CENTER HAS MADE THE DAILY SANITATON
 ANNOUNCEMENT
 SGT. E. HULL CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF THE TOWER,
 ALL AREAS REPORTED SECURE
 SGT. J. ROSSER CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF STAFF
 ENTRANCE; ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE
 SGT. P. CHASE CALLED IN SECURITY INSPECTION OF MHU, UMC,
 HUH, WHC, ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SE~URE COMMAND CENTER PLACED CALL TO HOUSING UNITS TO CHECK
 LT. D. BECKETTS NOTIFIED COMMAND CENTER THAT THE 8AM
 INSTITUTIONAL COUNT HAS CLEARED WITH (1083)
 SGT. L. SHAND CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF ZONE TWO,
 ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE





PAGE I OF2

e SHIFf COMMANDER: ANTOINE COBB

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 7 of 33
CLOSING DATE:

APRIL 05, 2020

9:25AM LT. D. FAISON CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF ZONE ONE, ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE

9:37 AM SGT. E. HULL CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF THE TOWER, ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE

10:00 AM COMMAND CENTER PLACED A CALL TO ALL HOUSING UNITS TO CHECK FOR SMOKING IN THE UNIT

XXX

COMMAND CENTER HAS MADE THE DAILY SANITATON ANNOUNCEMENT

10:15 AM SGT. L. SHAND CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF ZONE THREE, ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE

10:30 AM SGT. E. HULL CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF THE TOWER, ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE

10:40 AM LT. D. FAISON CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF ZONE ONE, ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE

10:45 AM SGT. L. SHAND CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF ZONE THREE. ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE

10:55 AM SGT. P. CHASE CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF MHU, HUH, WHC, UMC, ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE

11:00 AM COVID-19 SANITATION TEAM ENTERS THE FACILITY FOR CLEANING; BEING ESCORTED BY CPL. M. DAVIS

•


11:05 AM 11:15AM Il:30AM 11:40 AM 11:41 AM 12:00 PM

CPL. E. AZUBIkE NOTIFIED COMMAND CENTER FEEDING BEGAN WITH BREAD, SALAMI, CHEESE, JUICE AND COOKIES. SGT. L. SHANIj CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF ZONE TWO, ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE SGT. J. ROSSEll- CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION STAFF ENTRANCE; ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE. CAPT. A. COBB HAS POSTED THE NUMBER TWO SHIFf DRAFf LIST. COVID-19 SANITATION TEAM EXITS THE FACILITY AT THIS TIME CPL. R GREEN CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF THE IRC, ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE

1
\

12:15 PM COMMAND CENTER PLACED A CALL TO ALL HOUSING UNITS TO CHECK FOR SMOKING IN THE UNIT

XXX

COMMAND CENTER HAS MADE THE DAILY SANITATON ANNOUNCEMENT

12:20 PM SGT. E. HULL CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF THE TOWER, ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE.

12:35 PM SGT. L. SHAND CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF ZONE THREE, ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE

12:45 PM SGT. P. CHASE CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF MHU. HUH, WHC, UMC, ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE

1:05 PM SGT. E. HULL CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF THE TOWER, ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE

1:25PM LT. D. BECKETTS SHAND CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF ZONE FOUR, ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE

1:45 PM LT. D. FAISON CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF ZONE ONE, ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE

2:00 PM COMMAND CENTER PLACED A CALL TO ALL HOUSING UNITS TO CHECK FOR SMOKING IN THE UNIT

I

XXX

COMMAND CENTER HAS MADE THE DAILY SANITATON ANNOUNCEMENT

2:10 PM CAPT. L. JOHNSON CENTERS THE FACILITY FOR THE NUMBER THREE SHIFf TOUR OF DUTY.

2:16 PM LT. H. CRAWLEY ARRIVES TO THE FACILITY FOR THE NUMBER THREE SHIFf TOUR OF DUTY.

2:32 PM CPL. AYODLE NOTIFITED COMMAND CENTER THAT FEEDING IS COMPLETE

2: PM

LT. A. CARTER ARRIVES TO THE FACILITY FOR THE NUMBER THREE SHiFf TOUR OF DUTY

•


2:40 PM 2:45 PM 3:00PM 3:08PM 3:30 PM

COMMAND CENTER ANNOUNCED FOR ALL STAFF TO PREPARE FOR 3PM OFFICIAL INSTITUTIONAL COUNT SGT. E. HULL CALLED IN A SECURITY INSPECTION OF THE TOWER, ALL AREAS WERE REPORTED SECURE. COMMAND CENTER A1\'NOUNCED FOR ALL HOUSING UNITS TO CONDUCT AND CALL IN THEIR 3PM OFFICIAL INSTITUTIONAL COUNT LT. D. BECKETIS NOTIFIED COMMAI\'D CENTER THE 3PM OFFICIAL INSTITUTIONAL COUNT CLEARED WITH (1083) INMATES NUMBER THREE SHIFf SUPERVISORS DEPART COMMAND CENTER ENROUTE TO ROLL CALL FOR NUMBER THREE SHIFf TOUR OF DUTY.

4:00 PM

NUMBER TWO SHIFf RELIEVED OF ALL COMMAND CENTER DUTIES BY THE NUMBER THREE SHIFf
I

PAGE20F2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 8 of 33

Central Detention Facility
-_-- .. _..

- --
-.• Emp~o>:e~ _

---- ---r -- -r - ---- -- - Work Schedule ~--

Apr 5, 202-0 •-­Apr 5, 2020

I

Start

End

Notes

P7:30·16:00 #2 Shift 6430 I 986.0 I 4760


01 South 1

,l-'Uf&i£>tam

-; $@j

~f\lb66eRE

§; ...


2-001 South 1 OIC
01_South 1 2-002 South 1
• 101 South 1 2-003 South 1
02_South East 1

Melton, Dante'

07:30

16:00


Palle. Dangustard

~
"
" 07:30

".,
,

" "
>

16:00

~

"

Q

lGamble, Devonne

"07;30 "


"I> 16:00

.",


, -

JEluwa, Obipnaya :!J15:30

9116'00

9JvOL OYER


2-012 Southeast One


02_South East 1 2-013 Southeast One


'I

02_South East 1

2-014 Southeast 10lC

•

03_South West 1 2-006 Southwest One OIC
03- South West 1
2-008 Southwest 1
03_South West 1 2-011 Southwest 1

~

""

Pailin. James

~

""

$@
~06:00
•
•
• " "
~
~
~

~~:JsE1 "


Q 16:00
"

"

I>

"


"

"


"

"

"

<,

"

Q

".

~

"

~

...J
....­

.

-

04_North 1 2-004 North 1

I
~,...y.Ma~

- -Ioz·=:
" 07:30

II: 11J

-,
II: I

"16:00

"

=

~

"

"

= .­
I

Page 1 of 14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 9 of 33

Central Detention Facility

I

-----
Location

04_North 1 2-007 North 1

Employee
,':i.arw<:l~d, D~!!1~<m

r Work Schedule
I; '~Start-- --- --EIlCl-li- ­

or

07:30 " 16:00 .- --'. "'=',---~---- --~--

~-'-~r--=-----"

-.-~-~-- 0 -

Apr 5, 2020 - Apr 5, 2020 Notes
-.----"-'=-=-'

~,......""M ~~

~

I

;

.~.

~

'1" I04_North 1Harrison-~ray,Deveda ",07:30 ,

16:00

Q

•

2-009 North 1 OIC
05_North East 1 2-016 Northeast One OIC

~~~:::::~ ~oe

9

,

q

Walker, Infiniti

'" 07:30 .... _" . <} 16:00

'"


. I

~~COi~n:O!3Q_~:=t~~ --?-~~=----. ~nJ

2-018 Northeast 1

] r---·--··_~- ':~'-'~~---'.-':' "-_".~-----_._-

06_North West 1

)

2-021 Northwest 1 OIC

l~n-;:Uiam6iJdg ~
IAmegoran, Kokoyvj "1107:30 "

~~

e.,.

~

I:

J

~ '11~ , ~~O-"'VE="R::-:T="'!M:"":'='E-"'YC=Q""'L~'-~--"

• 'I-0I-6-_-N-or-th-W-e-s-t1-----~a~i I aMm85 ~:fo:@

2-028 Northwest 1


[Adesuyi, Ad~eb.ayg

•
-,>-q7,:30

~ ~ ""

jl
~- --' A[16:00

'"
--~~-- -~=--~-'~--

."l


06_North West 1 2-032 Northwest 1
07_South 2 2-019 South 2 OIC

07_South 2 2-022 South 2
I1
07 South 2

.-."i't---"..--"-::..:...

-f- .,

~~~-~~----=---
."

Benavide.s, Miri~n

" ---'
_" 07:39_~

Fatokimi~Oluw~f;mi--<>07:30-

t,: ;--' --,-, .--,~.

---"~- --"----.

-4r-,16-":00 ".: . _.. -~-

'::'t"--,=~-,----,:"",,_ ...

,

-

~

~

(,II ­

:


- '" . '

"IjD~R-AF:T-ED-:-==----"J,




Page 2 of 14

............

~

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 10 of 33

Central Detention Facility 07 South 2 2-023 South Two
07_South 2 2~927 South 2

•

08_South East 2 2-024 Southeast 20lC

Work Schedule

Apr 5, 2020 - Apr 5, 2020

Start

I End I

Notes

--it ­ ~__ ___ __ -~ -------~ -- ~",--- - -~- _.~~~~--~~----~------~~--~-----~-~:_--~- --"---- ,-"

,

I

-<>

----? --­

"H._-a-.rt, A. i.-k- hi.m.

<>
<>0--7:30

I

_ _ _~ _ _

-1 16:00 - - -1-- -- -­

ilW~paote<1Jo812.\f::_~=---mjo=-4I.1@REQ

lk1=~.Deon- =-:$'1 7~: :~ =:::·;;<i~b~! - _o---z

It

~

-- ... -

-- -- --_. "".

: _ct
=--.
~~-.....,--

08_Soutt. East 2


2-033 Southeast Two


i

I

08_South East 2

- F~~~~ _l. --- --~~"~--~~ ,-J~---:-

n

Pugh, Antoine

_~07:30_

__~>1_5:3~ ----4~ _ ___

~_I

12-034 Southeast 2 '09_South West 2

~Qn...Sm1ir.i# -= ~

~ '~ : -_ :::

~
­

2-029 Southwest 2
• ;~;:I=;:;Th""b'=:-.:~:o;~;~: ~L~~i"~~ ~~==-~~.~ ~~=.::-j :907~~;:~'::::
L;=C::~;QQ_ ~1'!:,O~,"aAFTEDQVEB ~ 110_""1" 2
2-031 North20lC

-

_

JfI" I08:00 - ~ 1~16'OQ ~DRAETE-D

OyER

-

,
'1

:;00
tMa]ll1fig,-Natt:lalJe_ _ '=1r07~

... u~6;OO 'RAFTED QY!'R u qltOO ~_ =- -

~
un
..
~ -1

1;~03~~~~h\W~ - n_b:s;:~=~e-~~, gj ~ _ -­

Page 3 of 14


 


~.>t- ..... _~""
~

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 11 of 33

Central Detention Facility

I

Location

11_North East 2 2-041 Northeast 2 OIC
I
I 11_North East 2 2-042 Northeast 2

• I11_North East 2
2-043 Northeast 2

II

Emolovee

I I

Jones, Chastity

Ngwe, Shiri

Work Schedule

I:

Start

I End j:

07:30
Q
Q07:30

~ 0

_0 __

,...

0­

l) __ on

Q

Apr 5, 2020 - Apr 5, 2020 Notes

rr1WlfuQs;t:Je:1\Jan~ ~ ~ ~::.~~~~~~~;

!I.

12_North West 2 2-039 Northwest 2 OIC

J
12_North West 2

-­

2-047 Northwest 2

•

12_North West 2 2-048 Northwest 2

12_North West 2 2-121 Northwest 2
13_South 3

'"

- ----'-­ _0.- -=:~_ ~_ ~ i

_-. - -- - ­~. Q
IN;~izygbq, UyjnyS 1J07:30

-~

- ~ - ~.~ <:' - - - ~

-~=U16;OO ilvOh OyER

0-. ,

-

2-046 South Three OIC

[

-

~ -

•• Q • -

~=

-~r-

Q

~

!13_South 3 2-057 South 3

r[Wilson, Dinah N

rP7:30

i 16:00

Q

T

I13_South 3

~CaeL Jerry

:t~Jo8:00

''1 ~ 6 : 0 0 '~DRAFTER

"Ij

Page 4 of 14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 12 of 33

Central Detention FaCility
I13_South 3

2-059 South 3
 113 South 3
 2-124 South 3

14 South Ea st 3 ­
2-044 Southeast Three OIC
• 14_South East 3' 2-052 Southeast '3
2-053 Southeast 3 15_South West 3 2-051 Southwest 3 OIC

Employee

Work Schedule

I;

Start

,-- End II

Apr 5, 2020 - Apr 5, 2020 Notes

Mendez, Juan

,;07:30 ~ ,~_. - -"r16:00-­

•0

.

'Jf

Q
;
G

lAryee, Samuel .

07:30

-.t;I

-

,it 15:30

(.

"

Clark, Antoinette. .:0~:3~.. -

1"16:00

•
q

. . . - J S_mith,-M.O$~s ..n..... -.~~ 7:39_ ... _... ' !?i90"~-'~Q' __'~~~~~~"_~_~~'~
[n .. .. ..:: .~.n _. . . .. .. ~Ef

t'C~ar-Fan -- :tC17~= ~ :W:O~"

..

[OoSUm\h HflWiit

4108:09

.,h6:00

9JDMFTsD_ ..

,

lK$TmPit;Jtiij:-;: .11P"B;oe~$7Ut.6W~<.:!Jf5lD\mD1

15_South West 3 2-056 Southwest 3

" ,lAsekomhe, Umoru

07:30

; 16:00

~CiRw.~F.ar-r-;m- <: -' "10'7~- ~1:§iO:o:::::::~:r

':J

• 16_North 3

..;:
-~)~ :;:l3tl~ Wi~ ~E
~~Goer:EF ~:::

'"

~

~~-,-::.' :;~ Q'.
_.. ~~4 .

±;
-=_.

~ .
. ~ ~

2-054 North Three OIC 16_North 3


)NOWatancho, N90h
Sa~~ders: Shuey' .

~M011PRAFrEp :d 4108:00

e

n

_"

••

--.

t; . - ~ . "()07:3.. .0. ~

· 0"?

-T

n

_.

~

2-068 North 3


LAWl'e " - . . ,42atler.~ll:_e~:~=;=-aI.- Q:ts ;w_--. =~ :1'6; -O."~d'

=-

. :

-.~

Page 5 of 14

-


Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 13 of 33

Central Detention Facility
I
, 17_North East 3 2-061 Northeast Three

17 North East 3 • 12-062 Northeast Three-

II
·17_North East 3 2-064 Northeast Three OIC
,

"

I 41_Staff Entrance

2-086 Staff Entran (N) OIC

41_Staff Entrance 2-087 Staff Entrance (N)
• : 41_Staff Entrance

2-090 Staff Entrance (N)

:
41_Staff Entrance 2-117 Staff Entran (0) 41_Staff Entrance 2-118 Staff Entran (0)
Page 6 of 14

Work Schedule

.1.r----=-Em-p""':'"lo-y-ee-- 11

.

.

Start

.l End 1f

I

I

._.

_

r~Bl'6ea <= __ -~ ~

o ~

......
~
1
i~

_
~
./jl

Lewis, LaQuisha

, .0.7:30-

.,!. 16:00

q

----I Apr 5, 2020 - Apr 5, 2020
--NOtes --
-.

r-=:s:~ ;trrn@'o=:-<:~:fI\'lOl;QVER< d~ I

LInHarris-KassimL<;harl-el-]---~OI-:-~-O- _m_

-"--_-....="- =~-:~r--6..:QQ..:. .-. ~-.~-t-b

-

-

-~

-_~_'-=.---

~
__

=---=;
__

__ -~

_0
.

~~~ ---~=~--'-- -J=

~%sim~ ;;:' .·---::4~--~-------- 1

___ -- ---. - - _ n­

~._---_.

07:30

.1

6

:

0

0

-

-_._-~--~-~-~---~-Jj

~~~ ~--.~u ~ -~

1

,?

..

Lacey, Latisha

•07:30 _____~~_liI16:00

Q

~ __ ~~

__

u__

_

u_

--Q

D.-.a. vis-,...M. e_l.i_s.s...:a:. :. _~._= -..=. I'>07.:. 30

I

_

_

_~ .'

__ _

~~ ~ Q~ ~ n_"-_• .:.......:.. __ ------!;- _ '

<l


. 16:00

, ,-=---

-

--·-:--1

" ' - l ~___-
~.-'

;

~~ ~.__~.~.. ~~§§~§~~'!

_~ ._~-~-~

"=:,,,- _ _ ". __ . . . . __ ..;

-_.-_-

•

"' _

.. .:._..

..

... , __ •

__

. .,-~,..---o

---:; ---_-. - - - - - -- -..... _­
,

~

--(,


~




Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 14 of 33

Central Detention Facility
---_ .. _.,

Work Schedu.le--

-­

Apr 5, 2020 - Apr 5, 2020

Employee

Start

End

Notes

41_Staff Entrance


~

Q

-",

2-119 Staff Entran (0) OIC
 Command Center


Lewis. Melissa

~
07:30

• 16:00

"

2-108 Command Center
Command Center
•
2-110 Command Center OIC Command Center 2-159 Command Center CP4
Culinary

"'RE _ fcrz,;j

lii

e ~

IAvodele, Femj

1}08:00

~~:i ~--::.

­

-­

,:i1

3)16'00

" .
1!DRAFTED

I ,

­

I2-102 Culinary
i Culinary

l
lAZybjke Emeka

.al
.Jl07:30

;fl .
-U16,OO

9.)~YOL OyER

1
,

,
C2-u10li5naCruyl
inary OIC

wtra ;::;; ~ ~

~-:::t;::::;:~=~:::::::::::::§~-~ .

2-112 Culinary


~]

if]

,f

•
Detailed Officers Added Security

Detailed Officers
 Internal Affairs

IDetailed Officers
K9 Unit

Detailed Officers

IOther DOC Facility
 Detailed Officers Reeves

08:00

..-J 6:00

- LDR-A-F-LD-

1


rm.:PumAiL<n 1~~$~hi-i-g-<-;ffa(lClOiY:j-iifl@$¥¢ismR:<IH~k'liSRKnrr<. 1


.•

"

"

0

"

'"

0

"

"

"

'i';:

"

~

'"

"


"

"


"

0

'/

"

IDetailed Officers

l

"­

"

"

I

Page 7 of 14

-


Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 15 of 33

Central Detention Facility Detailed Officers Training Academy
Environmental ,2-104 Infimary Environmental
I Environmental 2-111 Environmental
Environmental • 12-114 Environmental
Environmental 2-116 Culinary Environmental

"

:Floor Control

2-097 Floor Control 1

Floor Control 2-098 Floor Control 2
• Floor Control 2-099 Floor Control 3
General 2-010 Fire Protection Speciali
I!~~::ro" Office,
2-095 School Officer General
I2·100 C&P .Office, r,
Page 8 of 14

----l­ --_. Work Schedule
I~~--=E=-m-p--Clo-y-e-e~-Ir-_,-_ ~Start~'

E~~--=J-'

Apr 5, 2020 - Apr 5, 2020 Note~~~ ~-:

-~ --_._._- --- - --'

~

---o,fi -, ." - -- -

,
1" ~= --- --'-'---=-- .:._-....:-:.-- - - _. ­

o

~,

IRo~e~s.Tonya

"
'07:30

T
,~

.,

16:00

l , [ ' 'lbeaw..uch-L_U.chen. du 'IQ8:00

"
"16:00

~..: PRAFJEp 0YFR

~

I

1

~-

. . ...

_.

.

-

--­

I~ - _u .. _ ... _ .n.

~

. . ~-=-.

~h~ler,".:Jam~~~-iO:7~_

:~

:

,

~-- ==~~~---=---

-'---~~-~--

-.. \

,~
"
" "
"
.. "- - --. -4·

.~
r
-
~-------~r=_____~

"
• .,
­" ~
- -= 01'-~~- -.--'-. - _. ---'

--<r-

~--- ---"'--lr" ."- . ':':'_--"_. -_._~_:....- _...: --_.-=---_.-

[:~~-_ ~ ~. •••..•• ...

..~.. ~ ,t--- --'-­ _._~~-_.-?

.-.~-".

••

--~ t-­

r~.

,;

,:

_. --.-;
i

~.,

?
+

L I ­

_

:..
J
I
-- -1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 16 of 33

Central Detention Facility
':-:~-I Location
2-103 Chapel.

L_ __ _Work Schedule ~_~:::e~ ~ ~:~ =:~_ Jri __End

Apr 5. 2020 - Apr 5, 2020
N~t~S_~

;

'.

~J

rtB. ai~Clevelaf:1d".:---'lb.i3.o===:T=:s=l'[~':"":­ :"==-.-- --_-------=----=-­

:

!.

.

- . .&.

-

l~

-v

.. - .. ­

---

General 2-107 Radio Control Room

r- -." 'IBerry,Belinda
r - '. r -'.

"07:30
~
-"

rr.--- - 1116:00 "

r --, .

~
"

~:G-e-n-e-ra-'--------,IWash\ngto;;:Keyjn - 1107:30'

-'115"30

31yOLOyE'B '_n

,

2-113 P e r i m e t e r r - : ~-

~ ;C-. .":. .

.n.~

. tDi.~SJ~.. t:ewt~'1Z;;la::: ~~q

~

I t .. . ... . '. - ,----1r----~-----J . - - - - ­

t"a~-,

II

'

1

2-115 Law Library

l. .

_

-Q~-~~~-'
I'

General

T"

_. -

- -tOo"

;

,

(i'

-~

i

2-128 Basement Security

[__no - - . - --- ....

"

.0".

General
• I2-151 Catwalk , Infi rm ary 2-060 Mental Health Officer
,

1-
r'

i
~

T 'r . ' - .'"" .

.'--.-- - - " - [ . _
r~-

~

T_ . " . . -
... --~-l---'----------<f---~'-'

.--- ---­

_. --- .---. f~--~~~---- ~-:>:--= -~- .-.. ~f ---:r~~ -=~~~ ~ ~ -=

I,Frost, Ada
r-- --'. - .... ~

- 07:30
~~~~~"-"-

~Jl16:00

. ~~~. ...-- ..-. -~--_

'Infirmary

[Antwine. Sharmain;"-:07:~0 ·)16~o6------~"~-_-.-- --.--- -"­

2-091 Infirmary Sergeant'

.

.."

~..

~

(i. _.

[KinSey, Goldman

07:30

1.16:00

------

Page 9 of 14

-


Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 17 of 33

Central Detention Facility

Work Schedule

r t
 -/- Employee

Ii

Start..

End

-r ---·11------,, -r r'~-~0-fi9-r;-:-i7-k-c-a-I-1------[-,-'-_--------- :---

Apr 5, 2020 - Apr 5, 2020

Notes

,

\


_--~-~-

IOlarjnde.Darlene ;:108:00

2-093 Infirmary Control

r -, - , , - - -- , -

:-::---If -­ 1~~~7~~R~e~:~t~~; ~~:::~ingf ----- ,-'~~:- - -- ,

L _'_ _ - t - - < r -- I Inmate Reception Center
• ---1[ --" ,2-077 IRC Male Processing

r~~~ o o - --oo- -

:. _- - -

e

c.-

- :11116":00 3DTRAF-TEP-
-:~-~ .L~ ~~~-~=-

--~ ~

-~~_-

,on

-

-

---,.

,­

:I


..r'

­

Iinmate Reception Center
(~~~~~:~~~~;~;~'C
I
'Inmate Reception Center

·l1i2- ml.l.LD.U...

-::----­
U H YOl dlY· ·'·S·?-

~~--'I-d-'"..P-'bioi,

I:
,r . ,.-,

.o.c.t.'.:..'-..' .X-•.-v.

"-... •..

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

-=J.oO==;==:~ _:OJ;3L
-~ ,~ ;
)
----or -: -- - oon

--11:.
 ---'-- 1..l 


-

t 2-080 IRC Male Processing OIC

_

_: - -_.

_' [ ' __''; '_


• Inmate Reception Center ,2-081 IRC R&D Cont OIC I Inmate Reception Center




- . _ : L , " _ jGreen, Renee

1]08:00

lr _
 1ih6:00

~]t;

v

t~-

~~~-~_=~~--::--:--:-~:~-~~~---:-n--=-

'r--: _ ' -- .-- 2-082 IRC R&D Control

Inmate Reception Center

h-=-:-~-~-------' F~~=:=::::~=;=--

-_::~-==-

~-083 IRC Countbook

,

!Jackson,
I'

Kanesha
' - ... -'-

,

-

-

"07
-G--"'- ,

:
-

3
---

0
--

'" --
-- -

.--c'·-ht 6-:-0,0,----~cr------




_c

--~

­

r - - " - - I Inmate Reception Center~AdebiYi,Adedejl
2-084 IRC R&D Control

:.____ !' - ;;1-08:ilO -

, ~r 16:00 - ,

J: DRAFTED

~

J


Page 100114
-

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 18 of 33

Central Detention Facility
---_.. _- .
Inmate Reception Center 2-085 IRC Movement Contol
Inmate Reception Center 2-130 IRC Inmate Properly 1
Inmate Reception Center 2-131 IRC Inmate Property 2

. • [K-9/ERT 2-072 ERT
IK-9/ERT 2-073 ERT
. / ~_~9;::;T
~

Employee

Work Schedule

­ .----~----l'

I Start

'

End

II

Apr 5, 2020 -Apr 5, 2020
- - - - .. - ._.
Notes

~ ---

(- .._._--

"I

(~ ..

~-

,


"

"

"


f

."

"

v

'"

" i

v

"

'I

"

ISanchez, Esteban

--
,,07:30

"

"


; 16:00

"

r _- . [

~7RaVm06@-'-~S='~<::1~;--;

~

~r

~ - ~"1




r=-:- .:-= -J::::::-: --_.. ----.­ IThO~-;;.~,.Leo~~rd :07:3L~'-

~16:00=-:-·-·---- -.-.


• I;K-~9/:ER:T~::~;I~U"I;t~'i:rlr!! .Ir!i:eir!till_- __ ..1

Medical Holding Unit

,Harville, Markila

07:30

16:00


2-MHU13
rMedical Holding Unit

' If-iunt, Ronald

~
.-_-.:. :07:30

~

._--~




:j6:00: ~__

~ ._~ _ •


12-MH U19
IMedical Holding Unit
2-MHU2
I Medical Holding Unit

I

.'_


~G(jbStiii'iec: ::ta:z;m= = ~4 '""

r .~

~s~eade~.t\JPfiO'EiSqo~3O:_ ~~4::::

=~ '?-.---}--1




­

~HU27

[

,

Page 11 of 14
-

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 19 of 33

-

Central Detention Facility ~ --- - - - Location - -
i Medical Holding Unit 2-MHU3

,I Medical Holding Unit
2-MHU4
S2 Relief Officers
• 2-063 Relief Officer S2 Relief Officers 2-089 Relief Officer ~-~9~e~:~~~~~~sr I
-/- ~-~9~e~:~~~~~r
l--~ S2 Relief Officers
2-104 Hospital Relief
S2 Relief Officers 2-122 Relief Officer
S2 Relief Officers
• 2-123 Relief Officer S2 Relief Officers' 2-124 Relief Officer
IS2ReliefPooi
I
S2 Relief Pool 2·RP02 Relief Pool 2
S2ReliefPooi 2-RP03 Relief Pool 3
IS2 Relief Pool
Page 12 of 14
-

-- -(

Employee

IMorman, Vaughn

J -- l' Work Schedule

Start-

End

_:07:30

__ ";"~_6:00___

1
,/e,'e

Apr 5, 2020 - Apr 5, 2020 Notes -- ­
_


r~..~.ffi=StlMJrc::g ~

~ ' q-=~=~~~~§~.J
1

I

"

"

"

---~_._- - - . { j r - - - - - -

l ,,- - .----------"----------- -------- '---l r ~~ ~--,---- -.~ o. w__

~~=~ -.u

- - - - - - - - - - - : ; . - - - - - - - - - _ . - "":" --~ - -~---

G...

.__ -----.[f---- .

·_.

w~ _

r----.- -- - -------(~- -~---- 'f-- >-- - - - - - - --

----

------­

-, --­ L_~ ~ :~~- -~~~=_-: _~=~=_-=-_~=

i


--------

I
[

" " • I 'e [T


I

"

:r


"
•
•

•

/ _ _ ~;.-_ _

_'l- _

•
v

,

_

;

_ _

S~~Ra~_Jnz;;3a-~~- =:--
B Wy~~~FEr<aaIiblSl'131-1=o=~;: 1 ~ 0~~~,.,..~ --~-. _-~

~' __ ]
'~ t- -' 1

F¥GeFFY =;~; ~it§~<:t '"

~
~

'~

ta:~!;l1li;:::Sugei-Je -'" ~ :foii[ g;;;:~Ug;J- -.

:

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 20 of 33

Central Detention Facility S2 Relief Pool , 2-RP04 Relief Pool 4

152 Relief Pool 12-RP05 Relief Pool 5


--1 Work Schedule
j""---"E"'m-p"IO-ye-e--C- Start-
=: •


Apr 5, 2020 - Apr 5, 2020
n_ _ uJ End~-'r----- -NOtes

S2 Relief Pool

"i:;


2-RP06 Relief Pool 6


•

S2 Shift Commander operation:r(CObb, Antoine S2 Shift Commander Operations

S2 Shift Major Operations

t

~
07:30
G
,.

I'

G

16:00

"

G

"

"

Major Operations

- ---- --- -,,;.. -- - - - "

[,---- --,-- --,

. --

_,
"~c-_,,_

-, ---~~;- ~
""

"
G ' - - .. - - , - - - - - - ,--- --- - - - - - - - - - - ­

IS2 Supervisor
S2-01 Supervisor
"-l"/ S2 Supervisor

[rs1iiiiEGEfitii;-~~q~s;:([1i6W.JEB:_ :--~----:--, 1Faison, Delron
[-- - -- ~-- " -~

07:30 : "" .

'

' 16:00
 " , ' -- <~ -- -- - - ,-----­

S2-02 Supervisor
"'~I S2 Supervisor
S2-03 Supervisor
• , 'S2 Supervisor S2-04 Supervisor
,




tr-~-=C:i=R..WlSiSdkCn:f.@::

'~

. - ~,,~4" =-

' 1


~Iwaters, Marcy
ilS~Qaljj(r::

c 07:30

~ 16:0,0

~

r;

(/

'"


I

1Rti't3ff----=-'--d~<::fLvQJ;;Q.'IlE-R ;;,;

~







-

~ [" ,_ - DiaFTRa~ ~ :

,

"

~ S ,4' J§~ ¢:q
I

~ ~ " 1
 1

'

i S2 Supervisor ,S2.05 WC Supervisor
'S2 Supervisor

IDowery, Darrell

,. 07:30

[ -"",

,,~-

! '---

-- ~

S2-06 Juvenile Unit Supervisor [

.

~

~

! TowerlSallyport/Loading Dock .
2-109 Tower OIC

'"


:' 16:00

------(e
" "
"
G

G G

... ~-
- -- - v
~
"




Page 13 of 14
-

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 21 of 33

Central Detention Facility

--

..

­

2-109 Tower OIC

Work Schedule

f

Start

I End I'

Apr 5, 2020 - Apr 5, 2020 Notes

Visiting HalisfAdmins 2-030 Admin Module 1
Visiting HallsfAdmins 2-035 Admin Module 3
• IVisiting HallsfAdmins
2-101 Admin Module 2
Visiting HalisfAdmins .2-106 Visiting Hall 2

/

L" -­

•

'­

-
Page 140114

• • • Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 22 of 33

,Leave Report
i

Shift 2
<

i~u-nd-ay .Ap-r"5, .20.20. ~-

No.

Leave

!' EmpJpyee

Unit i

Post' 1\ Notes I

---- r ­ 1 'DayO f f 'Abosede, O~bunmi

2 ,'Day Off

Ademola,Olajumoke

5·2 Cl 14

5-2 Cl 14

I

3 '.Oay Off
·
I 4 ,'OayOff
5 'Day Off
~.
6 l'Day Off ,
~y Off

'Allen, A/meada
I
,Almonor, Hemnann
IAnan-i,l-abitey. Artis, Tammie I IAyoola, Abayomi

5-2 Cl 05
_5-2 Relef Pool t.--:---._-~-----
--..5- ·2 C- l 25 - ­ 5-2Five Day Posl
 ' . 5·2 MHU

_~ayOff

,BalI,Fel~

5-2 Cl22 J2.110 Command Cen~er OIC

9 'Day Off
~'DaYOff

BaI1le, Julian :BaysmOle, Marie

5-2 Relef Pool '5-2 ReiefPool

11 ,'Day Off, 12 :'Day Off

8eckells, Oavil :Bivens, CilI1?s

5-2 Supervisor S2-Q4 Supervisor
•5-2 Co~d Untt ) • '-.

VOl OV- ER -

13 'Day Off
_14_,_'D~ ay Off 15 ,'Day Off 16 ,•'Day Off
~ 7 ,'Day Off __

,Briscoe, Susan
.
tB- risc- oe, -Su- san Briscoe, Susan ,f Broo~ns, JalT)'d
:BI1lW11, Rasheeda

S-2 Cl 04 S-2Cl04

3-096 VISI~9 Hal 2
~--
Added Se-cur'iy

5-2 Cl 04

'Added Security

. 5-2 Fi. ve Day" Post 3-040 Northwest 2

5-2Five oaYTOSI

VOLUNTEER OVERTI...-­
covid screen~9..- des- k .. VOlUNTEER OVERn...
I

18 ,'DayOff

Bruce, Tocana

S-2 Supervisll(

•

I

'

19 .'Oay Off

BUrlon, Nenitlo

S-2 MHU

--r-~""---

-1

~y Off _

~ynum, R~Phael

S-2 MHU

I

._

21 'Day Off
•
22 ,'Day Off

Byrd, Ricoie
!
ICanol, laTonia

t= 5-2 Relief Pool
i
S-2 MHU

23 'Day Off
--+--'
24 ·,'Day Off

Clar\(, Er'G
I
,.C~yd, Joseph

25 'Day Off

Coates, TI8Ia

"26':DayOff
---+--

+Cooper, Kimberly
+-- -- -

27 'OayOffCuny,Sta~

28 ''DayOff
29 'Day Off
- - - .. _ .
30 ,'Day Off 31 'Day Off
__
E...'Day~____

:oay, Marshal
Oe~, Christian
I
,Dyson, Anthony
Ells, laurrile
I
pans, Jonath~

33 'Day Off
~~ ''DayOff

FerlCiano, Jovani ;Fortune, Andre

S-2 MHU

-

.---­

S-2 Cl 01
 ~

1

S-2 Five Day Posl

S-2 ~l 19

!

I

1-,- - - - - - - _ - - - - ­

S-2 Cl01

2-<101 South 1 OIC

NOT HERE

~~-2iive O~ Post 1

__

S-2 Cl 17

I

~_.

,5
 -2Five Day Posl

S·2 Cl 20

+ S-2Five ~ay Pos~

- - _ . - - - - ­

1 5-2 Five Day Post 1
·S.2~~

35 'Day Off - - ..- --36 .'Day Off

Founta~, Keith ------t------
,Freeman, Toussa~t

S-2 Cl 21 .•S-2 Cl 06

I
,

,----­

37 'DayOff

:Gambie, Mar\(

S·2 Cl 08

,


r-,
to
\

, •
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-,7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 23 of 33 ,

,No.~ __Le~V!__~_ ._!mp!>y~~ ,_ ,'. U~_,_1;..._"p~st

. Notes 1

-38-'-Oay-Of-f - - .

I:Geollle, Loreiza

-

-

S-2 Five
~

Day

Post

:3-083 Inlimary Control • ·VOLlINTEEROVERTL .

I

-----­

-~-:~:;~: ------r~~:~-oha-nnes----~i.}~:C ~--j.---.--'----- -I

41 ''OayOO

!Green, Galheme _

'S-2Five Oay~,

_~. _

3. ,'Oay?!!... ,

~ms,Kjmberly.__ ,_~2-~~y~~s~'_I-----..

~

, _,

43 I'Oay Off

iHa~ Benard

S-2 CL 04

-~- -~:;-~:- ----'--~:-":-a:~_a_~d-- '{~~~;-oa-yP-o~-t-.lJ7-3 44'OayOff,

IHarrell, Termika ~ 5-2 Five Day Post --

E-R-T----:-----VOLO-VER---- ­

_4_7_''O_ay_o~_ ~~_n,c_a~

'5-_2~_eO_~~

I

_48 ,):Oa~

. , .. ~~~nson, Jannease,__,,Elive Day-"~:!....~_

,

49 'Oay Off

,Jones, Darien

5-2 Five Day Post

50 ''OayOff '

IJones, Land~

'5-2 Reief Pool

'sl.·OaYOff

!Kome9~Y, Nalasha

5-2 Five Day Post '

,

-:;-:~:~: - - -.-'_ Ir~~:::~ --,-{~ : : i:i=r~~- ---.- -52 ;iY-Off- -------··le~, O~-~'------.s~-cL-03--'--1--------- -~--.----~ ---------·'-1

~
_~~ 'OayOff

,
,Mak~s,Carlelte

+---- , •

I ,

'

5·2 CL 11 __

_•

-1- -.----.. --57--'.D-ay-Off' - ,-. -,--'-rMa-k'~s-, O-~n-ne---- --,5--2-Five-Day P-o-st ,Added Security

58 :OayOff

IMarlinez, Michael

.5-2 CL 12

_~ _'_O_ayOff

~e~~~o_enz~

5-_2_Re_ie_P f ~

,VO-L OV-ER - . - ­
, ._

.-60 'OayO- ff -I--

.,iM_ ira.n_da.,"Eddy_ _ •

5-2 ..• j.-- Relief Pool -1.__ . •..

._.

-+-__•..

__

.~

61 'Oay Of

,Nivens, E~anor

5·2 CL 10


=_':; ·~i:;N::,"-=-~~~"~=_ :--= J 62 ''OayOff

IOlubasusi, Benjamin

---- ---------r---' --- --I ,-~.-~-:-;-%,:----,------------'-----i!:-:-::r~:::k

5-2 ReUe! Pool 1

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

I
-~---. ---------I

1
I

- __ :;J~~~: ~=-_-~:~;70~ -~- 67 'OayOff .,

Rose, Marsha

=-;~5·2

:C;L:09~:~:::~

~I--

--~~-.-

-.~

--

--

~
-'1­

70 ;'OayOff

IShumake,Gre90IY _

.5-2 SupelV~or

.


. .-.- _... _.-. --' --j _7_1__'O•ayOff ..

I'Smilh, Akeem

5·2 Five Day Post

~~-~:~~:-'-,·--li:~;::~:o~- -·---:~:FR:~~~~~~s;------'

..

,1


74 'Day Off ,

!Taylor, Dwayne

5-2Five Day Post

i

~: ~~::~: -~-~-=l:~~;~~:t~ette -~~ '::i ~~e2~ay !:~I T=-=-~==-=----~~~--=l

,

',r.\

I

I

t,

• • Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 24 of 33

•No..'.... , Leave ~ 77 ,'Day Off

._+: Employe_e _. _ Unit·..

~_.

_~

~_

~

Iwa~er,Angela

S·2Five Day Posl •

Po_st ....... _N.- o__te.
 s' M_~ __

-76- ..'D-ay. Off-.~---..-t:W. a-~e-r~, -G~n-na_rt!.-

S·2Five Day Post _.~ -- -- -_.

79 'DayOff

. Iwa~er, Indlara

. 5·2 CL 03

---_

-­

,

60 'Day Off
_6.1-. ..'D-ay.. O-ff
62 :Day Off

,,Wa~er, Sharon

5·2 Relief Pool

.. _ _ ._- -----_W. aDe_ r, D+ aw~ n --_._-5- -2 F- ~e-Da- y P: ost:-+---- ----~

_.~-

jWannamaker, Ruby

5·2 CL 20

-6-3 -'D-a'y-O-ff -----+,--,-Wi-lia'm-s,-Lo-nneD

5-2 MHU
----.--+-~-----------__1

-6_4. .'D.ay.O-ff

1,W-;,-de-a-r,-M-d.-lael .~-----5--.2.._CL -24 ---"--

. ..----+,

~-

65 AI - Absent w/o LeaveAliinseye, Aki1del!

5-2 Relef Pool 2·RPOS Relief Pool 5

i

It·

1

•

--'-'-. - _-_ _-_._- . _ - ­ 66 AI- Absent w/o Leave
------
- - - 67 AI- Absent wlo Leave
-_._~.- --.-..,

'Champkm, Ebony
I

5-2 CL 13

2-lJ62
----t

NoI1heasl.Th=ree : - - - - - - - - - - 1

------- Green, Tokiflla

' 5-2 CL 01

2{)04 NoI1h 1

---~ --~-

...

..

66 AI - Absent wlo Leave

,Rodliiue~ Pablo

5·2 CL 07

.69 AI- Fam~ Leave wlo Pay ,Vau9hn, Antomette

5-2 _ CL=-:2:::.3_· +

---1

-- -- -9-0 -A,I·-L-ea-ve-wl-o -Pay -,F-el-i::ia-no-, Jovani...._...- _._5--2 F-~-e_D.ay P--os-t _._-

.. . -_.__ - - ­

91 AI· Leave w/o Pay ,

Lisonge, Wiiam
I

5-2 Relief Pool

92 AI - Leave w/o Pay

Nelson, Tyrone

5-2 CL 06

2-lJ39 NoI1hwesl 2OIC

I

I

-1- .--_.- --- ------- - -"­ .9493 AI - Leave w/o Pay

Uwadiae, Amos

5-2 Reief Pool

'AI'-P;ij F;;;ti"L~--'ad, eye-m-i,-ade-b. a-i,---·-·i2-Reier pO:Oi

2·RP06 Rer~f Pool 6

.

95 AI - Paij Famitt Leave

Mbarga, Catheri1e

5-2 CL 12

- . . , - - - - - - - - -...,. - -

96 AI - Paij Family Leave

Obiorah, Hyg~us

5-2 CL 02

..•. -1""-'- • .- - " -

'---1- ---

----.~ .<~

2-lJ56 Southwesl 3

I

2-007 North 1

•. ,

--

-

-

_..

... • , -

-_.

97 AI· Womnen Compensation Bonds. Eugene

I

I

96 AI - Womnen Compensation Dysen, GerTY - - - - - - - · - - - - 0 - 1----..

49_9.

NU
~~

-- Annua.l.Leave

T-a-ke-n

Bro\\l1, Dianna
·--'1·' . - - -

.. _.---. . -

100 NU - S~k Leave Taken

Becton, L;'VIOOd

_~,N - Adm~ Leave Pay

I ,Men, Alneada

5-2 Relief Pool 2·RP04 Rer~f Pool 4

•

I

5-2 Relief Pool 2-RP03 Relief Pool 3

I

5-2 SupelVlsor S2-lJ4 Superv~or

-.~ -

.. -- - '-f - -

-

-

-.----.--- -

' 55-·22 CSULp0el5I V~-o-r-----IS2-lJ3 Superv~or

.

-­
-_ •• '-' ••
~

102
-~

UN
~-

--Ad-m~

Lea_v.e -Pa-y----

--toAshme-ade-, -Alphonse

~

103 UN - Adm;' Leave Pay

Ayode~, Patience

j

I

104 UN - Adm;' Leave Pay

IBaley, McC~veland

.;5--2....MHU S·2-CL 14
•]
S'2jCL 21

2-MHU27
of
2-O6l1 North 3
-l_._..I 10:::.3.C..h
=apec.:::..1

_ . - - ,- -

- ..

1

.

-<

-105 ...U.N-.-.A.dm.~ Leave- P..ay-- --.. ,B-ay.s.m.o..re, Marie -_...- ---5--2.-R-.ele-f -P-ool --Ii
 ...~.-,.... .. ---.. - -.. _... -- ...­

106 UN - Adm~ Leave Pay I

Carter, Fanrah
I

5·2 CL 11

2-lJ51 Southwesl 3OIC

!

h

107 UN - Adm~ Leave Pay
----------.

Carter, Farrah
I -

5·2 CL 11

-2-jlJ-56-So-ut-hw-es-t 3------.--. - - - - 1

I
 .1. 06-.UN· Adm~ Lea-ve..P..ay

.- ... tCh-a-nd~r,.-J.ame.s-

- .....-- ....-5-2 C.L. 20 '--- -

2-lJ97 Floor Control 1

j " - " ... -" -

.. -- .---

109 UN· Adm~ Leave Pay

,Cloyd, Joseph

5·2 CL 01

. - - -.


110 UN - Adm;' Leave Pay

Ellis, Laurrile

- - - -.....--..

I --

111 UN· Adm~ Leave Pay

Ihezue, China

'112 ·UN:Adm~Leav~Pay-- ..-- l~n;s,Deon- ..

113 UN - Adm~ Leave Pay

--.-.

114 UN .. Adm~ Leave Pay

.'""!"

•••••• -~

115 UN - Adm~ Leave Pay

,

IJones, Deon

I

Manning, Nathalie

!._....

--

N~ens, E~anor

5-2 CL 20
.. •.
5-2 CL 15
.. 'S-2CLOS'
•
5-2 CL 05

5-2 CL 07

._~.

-_

5·2 CL 10

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

3-lJ32 Southwest 2 -'-'2~24S~u~;a~"201C-"'- - ...

I

. 3-lJ16 NoI1heast One OIC

I

-.--

2-lJ31 North 20lC

~·I--~·
i

• . . . .-

_.

--­ ---­

l


• • Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 25 of 33

~C!.'" .• _le!!e

I
~_. .J!11pl~Yl!!

..
ynjL r'

.,.J--.I­
Post _. -~. _.- ll~!.

116 UN -Admil Leave Pay

,Parker,Andra

S-2Five Day Post_+_.

_I l1L,~~~ ~rn~ Leav:~! ... smith,S~an:~

....__._5-2 CL~1... .. ~. i~~Re~~~ol __ .

.

-~---i
.' I

116 .uN - Admil Leave Pay . IWynn, Pamatto

S-2 CL 05

?2 Re~f Pool

.

: -- ------. ------..
 ~~N •Annual Leave Sellad IESSlam, Peter

S-2.Five Day Post 12-137 V~eo V~tlati:Jn

__.

_

:~~,~~ ~~~:: ~;~-~::·-l~::~c::~~ .~ ~'-f.:%~ ~;- --,i:~:-~::;~;C

t

•

•

I

_122 _~~Annual Leave Selled Robinso~, Shan~

S.25L 06

?-o29 Southwest 2

~

12~ ,UN .:..Fam~_Sci L~~_ch.~~yeS!Ruby._

___,5-2_~:oor!~_·_I~Rp'~~~r!OOI3

.

124 UN - Sick Leave UnSell

IAdams, Tam~a

5·2 CL 06

:2.(J28 Northwest 1

-.-

I

.

1

125 UN· Sa Leave UnSell :Akpan, Godsli'ne

5·2 MHU

. :2-M_HU,--2_ _ 


r-n,_U.,N,--..:-5d- Le-ave.U-nS.e-ll......--IA~lle.n,_D.ex-ter- '- ..----. --,.5-·2- C-L-1-6----. --112--0-39-- N-o-rth-w-e-st 2-O-IC
 - - - -

12T ,UN' Sa Leave UnSell

IBaIl,Fel~

5·2 CL 22

~2-110 Command Cenler OIC

.!~~_Si:k Leave UnSell

,Barkley, Kayla

S~2 CL 13

13-036 North Two'--

---- ...-- ----­
_

~

,1.2_9-.U_N_· S. a-Le-ave Un--Sel-l-

,Benson,
.--I-----~-

D-i-a-mon-d-

..------.....-5·2.CL 05--'-""!21'()21'-N'o-rthw--e.sl-l -OI,C,_._--,--

----... ­

130 UN· Sa Leave UnSell
t

'I'Corprew, Romona

5-2 Five Day Posl '2-142 V~eo V~ilation OIC

.

I

'


131 UN· Sa Leave UnSell :Crowel, Domini:

5·2 CL 03

'2-047 Northwest 2


--I 132 UN· Sa Leav~UnSdi

'crump, KhaJid .

5-2 CL 12 . 13-008 N o r t h l - - - - · · '

133':UNS--~-L~;~;UnS~"- ~D~k~~Sjr, Le";;'- .. ­ ---:s-2i:L2'3------- i2-1i3-p~;;;-ter .------:----------

134 UN - Sa L:~..l!IlSeII ron, Sharon .._

5·2 MHU

i2-MHU4

I

-1-35.,U.N..-.S.c·,i·Le.av·e·-U-nS-e-ll. ·----HaIu-se-r-G·a-lla-n-d,-M·aya - - - '5-2 CL 10---"I:2'-Q4-8 Northw.es't 2­

136 •UN - Sci Leave UnSdi IHj, Marlena

. 5-2 CL 03

12'()13 Southeast One

SEl

.!.3T UN· Sa,Leave UnSdi __._IJonese,Kevonna.

S.2 C~~__.~.()90 Sta!!.Entra.~ce(N_l

I

-1-38.-U-N-- S-ci Lea,v,e-U-nSe.ll.. -iJ+ ones,-Ty-rone- ·_··.-._·-+5·_2 C·L-0.3.........--1,2-'().1.1-S-o-ut·hw...e-sll ----- .. ----.--...

139 UN'- Sick Leave UnSell iKelsaw, Ja[!Oda

5-2 CL 18

12.()BT Staff Entrance (N)

..!.40.....UN • Sick.!:.:a~:ynSeII -_l':.~~, Marion

5·2 CL 09

,2-043 Northeast 2

I

.1.4.1.,U' N - Si:-k Leave UnSd-i .. -tiO-s·bom..e, -All-antr-a _ _- -,--5---2--C-L 23 - 1i2·-1·12--Cuin-a-ry

~-

142 ,UN - Si:k Leave UnSell

100bome,Allantra

S-~CL 23
"

i3-095 Cufr1ary OIC

'1

143 UN - Sick Leave UnSell ,Powell, Breea

5- CL 13

12-061 Northeasl Three

,---.-----..

1

..

- - - - - - - - ; - - - - - - - - - . -••----.-.---~

144 UN· Sci Leave UnSell

-

-- - - _ •••• - •••_- - - r

-­

iIR-idley-,S-h_ad..o-n-_na..

.

.-5·_2.-.CL

26-2- --.1,. 'I0.-B-

Command
•. ;-­

Cenler

145 UN - S~k Leave UnSell • ,Simmons,De'Monlaz

5-2 CL 09

?-042 Northeast 2

~~_U~_.:.~~ Leave UnSell

IStevenson, Joseph

5-2_~~ _ _;~~.NOrth:~Three O!.___

I

..1.4.T..,U-N. · S-ci L-.e..ave--UnS.e.ll-- - ,,S. winson., Sha-nnon _.... _...5-·-2 C-L- 1-9- 3....-...018--2'"Sci_Ca.D _ .


148 UN - Sci Leave UnSell

iwa~er, Indiara

.5.2 CL 03

!


---r ~--..---- r---- ----.- - I

1.50 ....

-----'-T-I-- - -- - ---._... , ....., --

-- - - -I

,·----.--·----i------ 1--· 151

I

:

~~-154' -....' ----r .- .- - - --- .. ---. ... -- .. 1-'- --- .-- -. - --

I
.-l

i


,"
I

I
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 26 of 33

I

J

•

saloN

• •

• • Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 27 of 33

.Time and Atten,dance Report

1 SHIFT2 I

,,

.Sunday

Apr
'

5,

2020

-----'.---­

!

j"..~-~.

-

._~--

No.' Last Name
. - - - ~, >-""""!

-F.ir-st .N·am-e----S.ta.rt-D-al.e..,..E-nd-D-a-te·-TSta-rt-Time---E-n~d-T.im..e...

Leave

N--ot-es- -"_.

1 Abdul

O\\ll~bi. Apr 5, 2020 I Apr 5, 2020 07:30 16:.:::::00,-;-._ _,

_

_2Abdui - - - -~~bL jlPi'S,,2020 l-Ap~,~20_ ~ 1~00_ ~_ OO:0L.- VOLUN1!E~OVE~TlME _ ._.

.3!.A.l.xlAseddae~.

,olubunmi Tamika

Apr 5, 2020 Apr 5,2020

,
I

AApprr6J, ,20}2O0~ ~i :030:O00

,

00:00 16:00

,DIO', ' JIQJ. _.

_

~ jldemo~

O~iull19!e

L Aprj, ~~ jlpr!, ~020 _ 00:00 ~ 00:0.Q.. _1!0~

,

6 Adenuga Adewale

Apr 5, 2020 Apr 5, 2020 '07:30 16:00

•
I iJldenug~ _~~dewale

ApJr , 2020

+ 8 AdesuyiAdebavo

Apr 5, 2020

I' '9 Adesu~---~Ade~vo--Ais,2020

I

•

.-JIprJ! 2020 16:00 00:00

Apr 5, 2020 ~7:3O , 16:00

Apr5,20iQ-1 16:00 20:00

1
VOLUNTEER OVERTIME
, .mLUNTEEROVERTIME­

-- !QJ~eyei!'!..- - adebaVO- - - - -

-t-:--+--. :

!!..adeyemi__jdeb.?vo_.. --.J.P!.§, 2020 ...JIp~,2020 _l_JL3Q--,-l!~ .!F~T

,_

12 Ajango

Ajah

I

r 13 Ak~ye__~i~!Ie AP!:~, ~O.!..+.~pr5,102Q..l 07:3O~ ~§,oo }'!IOL

__ _

14}11e11

AIm!ad,i _~.JIprJ,~~O_~'_~p!..3O,1Q2Q.+-JL3O__ 16~_ADLUS

_ . _ _


15 Allen

Akneada

Apr 5, 2020 Apr 6,2020 I 00:00 00:00 0/0'


16 Allen

),ex!er

Aprj2020. Apr5,2~0 __ ~.....QL~_~16:oo_:SIQJ __'

,


~~ =-. : - -. ~::~~ ---Apr5,20201'APi's,202ol-07:30-, -16:00 -+O/Qo-~------ ----­

t' !LAnani __ ,~b!eY

Aprj, 2020 jlpr 6, 202L+ __00:00 _. _00.:QO 0/0'

20 Ansari

,'!uhammad __Apr~, ~029 Apr 5, 2020 _~ ~:3Q -+- ~2~

.

.

. _


._ _ _ .


21 AnOOne

Sharmaine Apr 5, 2020 Apr 5, 2020 07:30 16:00


- - _ . _ - - _ . -22
23

A-rtis-
Aryee..

-

-

-Tammie
Samue_l_

Apr 5, 2020 I Apr 6, 2020 00:00' 00:00: 010'

}P!:- 5,20_ 2i1. .- U_ pr. 5,2_ 92Q- ...- L ~~ 7:~

---
__ 1510

-

-
.

_

_

'
 .

, . __,

24 Aryee

,Samuel

j Apr 5, 2020 Apr 6, 2020 ' 16:00 , 00:00 ,

VOLUNTEER OVERTIME

~~A~e~ _'_I~atience _ _ ~pr5,~020_f.-JIprJ,2020__-W.7:~ _+ J§.:0Il......~LUS

_ _ _.

,_

~6}ailey_ _'c.McCle~e~nd _AP!..5,~O~_t ~prJ,2020 t .Q.7:3Q..._1§:QQ....l0L)!S

. l " 2~78Ba.ll ..~_.,_Fe)b~

..JIP!:.5,2020 A~5,.2~20-l-.07:3O: 1~L...S0K1U0' .

+ ~ ~:: - -- -~~:~~~ -~APr5, 2020 Apr6, 2020j15:3ii ~ OO:OO-~SKU- ~ - -

.

__

.

_

. - - -- -­

~ Bal1le_ _ _ Man
32 Ba~re . _ ~Marie
33 Baysmore Marie

Ap!..5,~020 ! }p!'6,202~-i_00~00_" .00PL0!9'
J Apr 1, 2~0 ~pr ~O, 2~iL.~ Y30 ~ ..16:00_}.Q!.US_ _ I Apr 5, 2020 Apr 7, 2020 '08:00 00:00 0/0'

. _

34 Becketts

David . Apr 5, 2020 , Apr 5, 2020 : 07:30 ' 16:00 '010' VOL OVER

:- ~~~:~::~es ·~~~[:d·=-1:;--},~~ft -~~~:~~i~- ~;::- -~ 1:~:- ~LI-_~~_ --- -

. _ _ __
--.


37 Benson

Diamond

I Apr 5, 2020 Apr 5, 2020 I 07:30 16:00 'SKU

., ,rr
\


• • Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 28 of 33

No.' Last Name First Name Start Dale End Date Start Time End Time 'Leave

Notes

I

~.
~Bell'/__ Belnda

ApJr , 2020 Apr 5,2020 07:30.: 16:00 :

.39_~ivens __ ,"~C~.!..-~prJ~020 __ ~~6, 2020 __OQ:!....~ _~:oo ,D/O'

._ _~
J .__ .• _ _ _

~ Blakes

Sepedra

Apr 5, 2020 Apr 6, 2020

•
41 BOBOYE

I
ADEBISI

Apr 5,2020 Apr 6,2020 .

42 Bonds

Eugene

_ _ _ • __.__ -t--

----

Apr 5, 2020 Apr 5,2020

I

- -- -

--

~-

43 Briscoe

Susan

Apr 5, 2020 Apr 5,2020

•
~}nscoe

I'

Susan

~prJ, 2020 Apr 6,2020

23:30' I
15:30 I
I
07:30 I
07:30,
•
15:30

08:00 I

j

I

'

00:00 !

VOLUNTEER OVERTIME j

i

16:00 WKCP· ---

-

-

.
'-

"

-

-

--

.

·

-

-

"

1 ;

16:00 D/O' covid saeenillg desk

t

'.'

I

00:00 0/0' VOLUNTEER OVERTIME j

·45 Briscoe --. --Sus-an-.- --Ap-r 5, 2-020- ..-Ap-r6,2-020 --15-:3-0-' - -00:00-0-/0'-'-VO"LUN-TEE.R-OV-E.R-T-IM-EC-O-V-lD-S1...1


46 Brookins lJarryd 'Apr 5, 2020 Apr 6, 2020 . 15:30 " 00:00 0/0'

.

47'Bro\\l1

'Delo~e •

.

:

'.

I

~~\\11

,Dianna "_ _..Apr...s. 2020 1-Ap~, 2020 07:30 ,~"OQ.....& T~_ ._.

J .__•....

49 Bro\\l1

Kimberi)'

:

~

i

50 'Bro\\l1

'Rasheeda' Apr 5, 2020 I Apr 6, 2020 00:00; 00:00 '0/0'

i

~...Bruce

}ocarra

Aprj,2020 -CAprJ~2020 ~O:OO_~ __IlI1:.oo. .QIO: __._. __...

oj

52 •Byrd

Ricole

Apr 5, 2020 ' Apr 6, 2020 00:00; 0000 .D/O· .

j

53 Cain·Rogers Aisha

Apr 5, 2020 -~_.

-A-pr 6-, 20-20­

15:30: 00:00 :

-54 -Campbel ,I-nga-----.--.. --.---- --.. - -.,,--..--

55 Cannedy Jammy

Apr 5, 2020 Apr 5, 2020 06:00' 14:30 '

~

"

1

'

56 Cannedy Tammy

Apr 5, 2020 Apr 6, 2020 15:30 00:00

~_C~.!..~_Ja;a~~=--'_ Apr~:202~_ - Ap~~,~~2L .07':'~.~16:00-,ADLUS_

,
:- - - Ii 

;
:
__ -J

58 Champion Elxmy

Apr 5, 2020 Apr 5, 2020 07:30, 16:00 AWOL

59 'Chandler

'James

'Aprj 2020~Ap~,2020 07:30 J 16:00 'ADLUS

_

'

-1 6601CC~lra'r'!!-

--.- ~Atn~tionin~eltttee-

--A~Ap5r ,5, 22002200·I-~AApprr5,62,0.20202'01067::3000-

~' -

16:00
00:00

~.-;- -'-VOLUNTEERoVERTIME - -

i

62 CloyiL. Josep!!....._ _Aprj 2020 Apr 30, 2020 06:00 14:30 ADLUS

:

-63-Cloyd- .. ---'"Joseph----- -Ap-r 5,-20-20, ,1---Ap-r 6, 2-020_. 0-0:-00.'. -00-:00-"D-/O-' -"

.. ----.-.-,;

64 Coates Uiara

Apr 5, 2020 I Apr 7, 2020 '00:00 00:00 D/O'

'

_ . -f· _~'Cobb_
~ .~:r

__~I{'A:n:I:OLine~:p-r~5~~,:2~0~2~0'fI{:~;p~~§:,'2i0i2oO

i

07:30 :. 16:00
~~::-; ~::

:

'.

•

~/O;-'-- -'.-.---------j

I ~698_C~Or~mwe~Jess3ic~amo~__Aprj~Q.20j._
Ap!.5,~~L!. 1~::!O _;_ 2J:OQ. _2~U_._ .._. ,.....

70.Crowel

,Domini<:

Apr 5, 202~ I Apr 5,2020 07:30 , 16:00 ,SKU




~
;


71 Crump

Khaid

J2 Cu;ry~.- ,_,S~.

Apr 5,2020..J.....Apr 6, 2020 16:00 00:00 SKU
II' 1 j0:?02~ A~.5,~02O ~07:3O ._ l~:oo~:Oio; __.NQT_HERE

.
 ..


73 Davis

Meissa

Apr 5, 2020 Apr 5, 2020 07:30 16:00,


74 'Day

Marshal

75 De~_ .' __ . _,~hristi~n

76 nickensjr Lellis

Apr5,2020 I Apr6,2020 00:00 1 00:00 '0/0'

.j.i5, 2020 "jl __AP~'~~2O ..1 00:00 _._ ~:OQ. .D/O• ..• _ .

Apr 5, 2020 , Apr 5, 2020 07:30. 16:00 SKU

- - ~ -)

.,
I•,I
\


Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-.'7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 29 of 33

__ • _. • . ... ------

-------- ­

-1 No, Last Name First Name Start Dale End Date Start Time End TIme Leave

Notes

17 'Dopyns
78 Dowery 79 Dunn
~yson

-'Darius . - A~j 2020 T Apjr ~02O : 15:30 . 00:00_'~'_ _

•KDea~rrel _. - -

AApprr-55, ,;2~;0~ 2j01A~pprr

5, 6,

2020 2020

,07:30 ; 15:30

.

16:00 -00:00· .

Anthony

All!.5, J020 I Ap!.!i, 2020 -' 00:00 . --.-QO:oo DID'


------I
... J

81 Dyson 82.Egglesion -

Gerry
~Satonya-'- -

Apr5,2020rApr5,2020 : 07:30 16:00
Apr 5, 2020 l Apr 5, 2020 ~ 07:30 - 16:00

WK-CP-------·


j

83 Ellis

Laurrine

JJ Apr 1, 2020 Apr 30, 2020 I 07:30 16:00 ADLUS

--

·---1

84 EII~ 85 .Essiam

Laurrine
~Peter

r Apr 5, 2020 Apr 7, 2020 . 00:00 00:00 DID'
Apr 5, 2020-' Apr 5, 2020 i3:3O 22:00' "Mis


86 Evans

Jonathan

Ap! 5,2020 ApJr i.~~1 00:00 00:00 DID'

~






I 87 Fai~npe~n . _}pr 5, 2020 . Apr 5, 2020 ~ 07:]) 16:00

88 Falokimi

OkrtYafemi

Apr 5, 2020 i Apr 5, 2020 07:30 16:00


.,'


89 Fatokimi

I OkrtYa~~prJ, 2020 AprJ 2020 16:00 00:00

VOLUNTEER OVERTIME


00 ~eliciano

)!,vani. Feb 12, 2020 -1' Apr 30, 2020 ! 07:30 16:00 .\..!VOP.. _.


91 Feociano Jovani

i Apr 5, 2020 Apr 6, 2020 00:00 00:00 DID'


92 Ford 93 Fortune

AMn Andre

I --c-:---i'f----:-:-:-:-~_,_c___--
Apr 5, 2020 Apr 6, 2020 : 00:00 00:00 DID'


94 Founlain
~5lr~~an
96 Frost 97 Gamble
98 George
99 GW' -

Keith

Apr 5, 2020 1, Apr 6, 2020 :, 00:00 00:00 DID'


Toussaint

Ap! 5, ~prji, 2020 I 00:00 00:00 0/0'

_


~

Ada Malt Loreiza

Apr 5, 2020 ! Apr 5, 2020 : 07:30
I ' Apr 5,2020 Apr 6, 2020': 00:00 1 Apr 5, 2020 Apr 6, 2020 15:30

16:00 00:00 DID'
 00:00 DID'

VOLUNTEER OVERTIME


)l1er

Ais,20io; -Apr6,~2020 : 00:00 00:00,0/0'


100 Ginnu
)~@~n

Yohannes
I
Amber

102 Green . -iCatherine

Apr 5, 2020 I'
 Apr 6, 2020 00:00 00:00 DID'
 I

Ap!'?, 2Q2~~~prJ 2",02,--0--.-;:.----'-'16-".:00'------_00.:.:.:.:.:.00
Apr 5, 2020 i Apr 6, 2020 _~ 00:00 00:00 DID'


103 Green 104 Grooms

I!. TKoi~mtbhearlj~J.pAr.pr~5,.202~~0~Ip~rprji5,,22002200

,07:30 : 00:00 _

16:00 ,AWOL

oo:OQ DID'

105 Hakler . ,Patricia

Apr 5, 2020 j Apr 5, 2020 : 07:30 16:00


106 Hal 107'HaM .

Benard

I,


Bena~

AprJ,202.Q. i_3P!.5, ~~ __ O~~ __ ~:iJ!l DID'


_

- - - - - ,,


108 Hannie

Jeremy

Apr 5, 2020 ,,. Apr 6, 2020 15:30 . 00:00


109 Harrel

Daquez

Apr 5, 2020 i Apr 6, 2020 15:30 00:00

110 Hamel

Tennika

111 Harris-Kassim Chal1ene

AprJ, ~_20_:_.3p!.!i' 20_20_; 00:00 _00:110_0/_0'
Apr 5,2020 I Apr5,202O ,07:30 16:00

112 Harrison-Gray Deveda TI

1-13 H-art - - -A-i-khim'

114 Hart

Aikhim.~

115 HarloOOd Damian

Apr 5, 2020 ;. Apr 5,2020 - 07:30 16:00'

,

Apr 5,.20-2-0 -1I -Ap-r 5, -20-20- _, . 0-7:-30-16-:0-0- - - - - - - - - - - - ­

Apr 5, 2020 i Apr 6, 2020 16:00 00:00

OVERTIME VOL

.,

Apr 5, 2020 : Apr 5,2020 I 07:30 16:00

i

I


• • Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 30 of 33

No~, .-~L~ast Name -~ ~F.i.l.s.i-N..a-m-e .-.-.S-la.rt-D-a-te--r.- -End-Da-te . -Sla-r-t-T-u.ne'-E-n-d'T-im-e-,-"L-e-av~e'--'-----' -N-o-t.es- --.

.

1
I

!1.~H~u_ser-9~~"!I_., M.a~

Ap'r 5, 202U_~Ef_~_~0~~_~7:~L_l~:QO...~ .

,

.

j

117,HiL _ ._ yar1ena . ~ .~ A~r5, 2020 LApr 5,2020: 07:30. 16:00.SKU __ . }E1

118Hull ,Edllin

i Apr 5,2020 i Apr 5,2020 07:30 . 16:00 ' .

~~.. ~.. ..' ,

~ 11~HuL_~_..!~~~_-lEf..5, 202U Apr 6, ~~_16:iJil. __ J~:O'~

.1QL~[rE.~~oy_~T!f>!~

i

go Igbalajobi. . . 'Oluwamodupe. ~pr5,202o.. L_~pr ~,20!O: ._08:00..__ 1~~~ ._ ...._. ... __ .. __ .... _. :

1211gbalajobiOluwamodupe Apr5,2020! Apr5,2020 : 08:00 16:00

DRAFTED OVER

•

:f:t:2 ·::i: !::::i :: :: . 1ilgbajaiobi _....;Q..~I11O<!up~_·_A.Pr5,2020 LApr6,2020 L13:3O_~'_O~:QL~__ ~_":'

,!:~-

.~~....

.. j,


-'-------.-..,-------.. --t-------.-. ~--------.~- -_. _.-.~ -_ -.-.- "--,

126 Jackson

Kanesha

Apr 5,2020 : Apr 6,2020 ,16:00 00:00

VOLUNTEER OVERTIME :

.-. -_. . . . . _ . . . . • . • . • . " •• - .

. . . .__. . . . •-.

-..•. t· --.

-

• " . • .•. - - - .•. -.- .--

.•.. - -... -... . - - _.. .

. •t

127 James

Raymond

Apr 5, 2020 i Apr 5,2020 : 07:30 16:00 010' VOL OVER

:

128'JamesonCarl
'~-'-'------""

...

__

...

_.._-A-p_r5-,2-02-0_

..

~ : A-p-r6-,2-0_20...

:
~-

~00.:.00---._-00_:0.0..

-'-0«10'...._

.._--_ ..

--_... : ----_._-~

129 JeffefS(in_ ,Robert. Apr 5, 2020 l.Apr 5, 202~: 07:30. 16:00 .ANS __. _

.,.. :

130,Johnson

Jannease ,Apr 5, 2020 i Apr 6, 2020 : 00:00 00:00 010'

1.31 Joh~son__._._, ..Laretta

~pr 5,101tl_~6,2Q2Ll-.15:,39_, ....JO:OO

.'

132 Johnson

.L. .av. .el.a. . . . . . . . . . . ~

Apr 5, 2020 ~

'ii··A.p.r6,2.0.20

'15. :30

-

00:00

- --- -- ~ ".. -... ~.-,


133 JonesChaslity, Apr 5,2020 I Apr 5,2020 : 07:30 , 16:00


134·JQ.nesQa~§!I. __.__Apr ~,~2_0_L~~~1~~Ll .. 09:oo-'----OO:00)tp·..._ ..

_

~.


135Jones

.Deon ....Apr5,2020 jApr5,2020; 07:3O. __~. 16:00 .ADLUS

136 JonesOeon

Apr 5, 2020 i Apr 5,2020 • 15:30 16:00 ADLUS

!:IT Jo~~ ... ...:peo~

Apr

5,

•

I

"

2~1~_L_~p~6!1010--:_!6:'OO-,

_JQ:OL

.__._

138 Jones. .Kevonna .._ Apr 5,2020 i Apr 5,2020 : 07:30 .. 16:00 . SKU...

139 Jones

:Landle

Apr 5, 2020 ! Apr 6,2020 • 00:00 00:00 010'


140})h~ ... ·T~l1.e

~3101o.j--A.P!.1.2Q1L 07:30 !6~ODK_U

..

.

. .:t

. '

...".. _,


141 Men
142.KALU
.1~_Kayo~e
144 Kelsaw

•S.he.lby .

-: I . : .... ", . 


..,

,ENDLESS.

i

,

i

LTo~n . ~ 1.. _~ ~ _~ __ 16:00-SKU- - ---- --..--. -__..J

... . Jarroda _ Apr 5,2020 : Apr 5,2020 .: 07:30


145 Kent·Trout Aton

Apr 5, 2020 ~ Apr 5,2020 I 07:30 16:00


! ; 
 -14_6'K.i.n_g._-_..._...._'.Kh_ a. n~ di- s_.._----.-..--.-t"-.. _._--..... -..-" "--_....- .~._-_.._..-----_._------.- ---._­

i 147 ~nsey

GO~lllan _ A~r 5, 2020 Apr 5, 2020. ; 07:30 .. ,16:00 .


148Kornegay Natasha

Apr 5, 2020 : Apr 6, 2020 00:00 00:00 010'


149 Kwene

Vila6s

i,


lsO-L~~y------Latisha ... .. Apr 5,2020 --i-Ap;5.i020-~07:30-16:00 - .. -----~~---,,--~~--., _ ....c

151Laltisaw laShawn . Apr 5, 2020 ; Apr 6,2020 ,
-1_52L_e~Yli_.s~-Oa"n"i"e'l-~'--'--A-p. r 5-,2'020__.i+_. A_ pr~6.,2.0_20

153 LeYlis ..Julian

Apr 5, 2020 'Apr 6,2020

154LeYlis

LaQuisha

Apr 5, 2020 i Apr 5, 2020

: 15:30 00:00
I
'00:0-0 _~ -,_0.0.:-00 00:00. ,,00:00
07:30 16:00


D_ID._'
._.._- ._-_._-_.._----- .._--­ DID'


• • Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 31 of 33

No, Last Name FilS! Name Start Date End Date Start Time End Time Leave

Notes




155 Lellis

Meissa

Apr 5, 2020 I Apr 5,2020 07:30 16:00

-,~,- - - _ . - -

.

-

r----~-->

........ -

- - - _.~-

~--'

156 Linlon

,Ash~y

Apr 5, 2020 I Apr 6, 2020 00:00 00:00 DID'

157 Lisonge

Wilam

Apr " 2020 ' Apr 30,2020 07:30 16:00 LWOP

!.58.lisonge_ _Wil~

Apr5,2020_ ~ Apr7,2Q.20-, _08:00 00:00_ ~O'

_

159 Logan
160.Ma~ns

Marion Caootte

Apr 5, 2020 Apr 5, 2020 07:30 1
Apr 5,2020 ,, Apr 6, 2020 '00:00

16:00 SKU 00:00 DID'


16-1_Ma.~.ns

_

-

-

-Dion~ ne

-

-

-

Apr
-

5,

2020

+I

Apr 5, 20.20

.,,..

07-:00

-

1.4.:00_D-ID-' ­

. 162 Makins' , Dionne

Apr 5, 2020 ,I Apr 5, 2010 07:30 14:00 DID'

VOL OVER
 VOL OVER

163 Manning

Nathaie

Apr 5,2020 1 Apr 5,2010 07:30 16:00 AoLUS

+ ,
16!Martinez _

Mi~hiHil •_ __. Apr 5,}0~O_ I }pr 7, 2020 _~ OQ:oo _ 00:0~ _DID' , __ . _ _ _

_.

165 Mayes

Ruby

Apr 5,2020 Apr 5, 2020 07:30 16:00 FMSKS

166 MbargaCathertne

Apr 5,2020 1 Apr 5,2020 07:30 16:00 'PFLT

1~7.Mcdermott _ Denzil

Aprg,2020 ;Apr6,202~ 00:00 00,:,00 _OLD'

.

_

168 Menon

Dante'

Apr 5,2020 ! Apr 5,2020 I 07:30 16:00

169 Mi~s

170 Miranda

--

-~

171 Montgomery

172 Mose~y

James

Apr 5,2020 I Apr 5,2020 ,06:00 14:30

I

,

Eddy

Apr 5, 2020 '

... - - _ . -

··t·

Apr

6, 2020 -

--+-

00:00 _ .00:00 -_D.ID'

Janice

Apr 5, 2020 • Apr 5,2020 , 13:30 22:00

I

'

Sherrie

Apr 5,2020 Apr 5,2020 10:30 19:00

-1-73 Neb-o

-

-

Nyanti
,

-.

-

--

- ,.

-~

174 Nelson

.Tyrone

Apr5,2020 ,Apr5,2020 07:30

16:00 LWoP

175 N9we

Shin

Apr 5, 1010 Apr 5, 2010 07:30 16:00

176 Niven-s - -E,~anor - - -Ap-r 1, 2010 +--Apr 30, 1-01.0_. 07:30

177 Nivens

•E~anor

Apr 5, 1010 j Apr 6,1010 00:00

16:00 ADLLlS 00:00 DID'

178 Nwachukw.i Chidi

Apr 5, 1010 Apr 6,1010 15:30 00:00

VOLUNTEER OVERTIME

179 Nwa~ugbo

- --

-

180 Nwa~ugbo

-- Livinus •

Apr 5, 1010

't-· -

-

rI- Apr 5-,2-020 , -

07:-30

-

16:00
~

Livinus

Apr 5, 2010 1 Apr 5, 1020 07:30 16:00

-­
VOL OVER

181 Nyuma . Eric

j 181 obiorah

Hyginus

Apr 5, 2020 , Apr 5, 2010 07:30 16:00 PFLT

-~

.-

.'

. -- -

. _. . --.. -+

......

- - - --- _.

183 ogbeide

.Ceaser

Apr 5, 2010 , Apr 5, 2020 07:30 16:00 ANS

184 Ogungberni .18.5- O~ba.su~ 186 Oni
187 Osbome

Musibau

Apr 5, 1020 I

- Benja-min~

--

-Apr 5, 1010

'
~

Ade~ye

I

A1anlla

Apr 5, 2010 I

Apr 6, 1020 Apr 6, 1010 -~
Apr 5, 1010

15:30
00:00 -
07:30

00:00 00:00 DID'
_ .. -
16:00 SKU

- .. - - - ­

188 Osborne 189 Pale 190 Parker 191 Parker 191 Peck 193 Powell

Alanlla

Apr 5, 2010 ' Apr 6, 1010

. - - - - - -!'...

oanguslard Apr 5, 1010 Apr 5, 1010

15:30 . 00:00 . _S. KU- . ~
07:30 16:00

Andra

Apr 1, 1010 Apr 30, 1020 06:00 14:30 AoLUS

Andra __ _}pr 5, 2020 , _ Apr 6, 1020 _ 00:00 - - 0.0-:0-0­ DID'

Fredrick

Apr 5, 1020 Apr 6, 2020 00:00 00:00 DID'

Breea

Apr 5,1010 Apr 5,2020 07:30 16:00 SKU

• • Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-.7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 32 of 33

No. Last Name First Name

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

194 Pug~

,Antoine

195 Pugh .. .Ant~ine

Start Dale End Dale Start Time End Time Leave

- ~- ;:--1-

-

T

" - - ~----~.,..

.... _. -

.1 Noles
-.


Aprj, 2020 -1-}prJ,2020 I 07:30 _ 15:3O~_ _ 


Apr 5,2020 j. Apr 5, 2020 i 16:00 • ~o.:.OO_ _. _.vO~~NTEER OVERTIME


196 Reavis 197'Reddick )98 Rklkly . _. 199 Roberts 200 Robinson

Kenneth
lhLaawdaon~dna a
Jacks Joshua

~~

_Ai - Apr 5,2020
.. Apr 5, 2020

Apr 65~,22002200

_~I

16:00 07:30

00:00
 16=:00-S-KU­

I '

Aprj!10:01~Aprj2020 _ 07:30 _ 16:00

---,


201 Robinson 202.Robinson
~03 Robinson

Nathaniel

Apr 5, 2020 Apr 6, 2020 ; 00:00 00:00 DID'

-r . -

-

-.

.-:

~

-</

- - -'.

•

-- -

,Robe~
Shana

L _ '

'.

AJII5,2020.J.prj 2020 O~ 16:00 ANS

2~4 RodriqueL,Pabk>

Apr 1, 2020 . Ai13O, 2020 I y~ . _16jlO .~W.OL

-

1I

:

I

20SRodriquez ,Pabk>

Apr 5, 2020 Apr 6, 2020 [00:00 00:Q0 DID'

206 Rogers

Tonya

Aprj 2020 _Aprj 2020+QUO_ J!.OO

207 Rose

Marsha

208:Rosser

John

r Apr 5, 2020 Apr 6, 2020 00:00 00:00 DID'


Apr 5,2020 Apr 5,2020 07:30 . 16:00"

. -., -

i
·1


~:!.:::~_ ::-:1: ImE::: = -209-Ru-sh +- Elon

Ap-r 5-, 20-20 Ap_r 6..,..2-020 . 00:00 00:00 DID'


_~ 


213Shel,Avon

214 Shumake Greso'Y

215 Simmons 21SSmith

Oe'Montaz Akeem

22117 8Sm'itShmithOouOogu~g~ss

219 Smith

.o;ug~s.

220.Smith

Shaneka

~21 Stevenson JoseJl!i.

222 Sumter

Tiffany

223S"";nson 'Shannon

224 Takwe

Pascal

225 Tayklr

Andre.

226 Ta)'llr

Brandon

?P

.
Ta)'llL.

_

_Owayne

228 Thomas

Leonard

229 Thompson -LaToya

230 Thoml~_ Kabn

231 Tibbs

Daniel

232 Umeh

"8acky

Apr5,2OWApr6,2020 _ 00:00 . 0000 _DID'


Apr 4, 2020 I Apr 6, 2020 00:00 00:00 DID'


1. Apr5, 2020
i Ai5, 2020

Apr5,2020 '07:30 16:00 Ap;6, 2020---00:00'-- 00:00

0SK/0U"
-'--------~.




Apr 5,2020 Apr 5,2020 07:30 15:30
Apr 5, 2020 I Apr5,2020 ,07:30 15:30

_.:.:VO~LO::.:.V~ER,--

.
 _


Apr-5: 2020 TAP;G,2020.. 15:30 . 00:00--'


Apr 5, 20201Apr 5, 2020 I 07:30

Ap!.§, 2020 Aprj~01L._07:3O

i

I


Apr 5,2020 1 Apr6,202O + 16:00

16:00 AOLUS
 f~:00 S::,::KU,--_

00:00 SKU


._.._-

---_._------.-­ _____

--_...I


Apr 5, 2020 Apr 6,/020 00:00. 00:00 DID'

Apr 5, 2020 Apr 6, 2020 00:00 00:00 DID'

I

I Ap!.§, 2020-+'}PJ:6, ~ 0000_ 00:00 ~Ol-,,-O'_~___ _
Apr 5, 2020 Apr 5, 2020 I 07:30 16:00

_

Apr 5, 2020 I Apr 5, 2020 I 10:30 19:00

.."

Aprj~~L.L. }pr 5, ~~o..; J!.:~
Apr 5, 2020 I Apr 6, 2020 _ 0000
1


16:00______ __ _ 00:00 DID'


. _


I


• _e ,,--
Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 29-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 33 of 33

...-,-

mNo:! Last Name First Name Start Dale End Date Start Time End Time Leave

Uwadiae

Amos ~~pr 5, 20}~~pr 5, 20.1_LL07:30 ~ 16:00 LWOP

Notes .

.- ~~~:~~~~- ---~~~~::: ·-1:~-~: ~~~~il-'7:r~'i~~~0 J ~~:~ r-~~~~ - ~~6·VI-. '.--_.---.---... -_. --'1

.136 .Wa~erAngl e~ ' Aps~pr 6,2020

{

,

00:00. 00:00 0/0'

-

.~__.J

.13JWa~~_ _.~~n~~__. A.IJf~L.10.1L _. }pi§,2~2LL 00:00......QO,OUQ'__ __ ___.__ __ __ ._1

238Wa~er·

;Indiara

l . Aprl,2020 Apr30,2020 07:30 : 16:00 ,SKU

j

-- - 239 WaI<er
~~.::::;

--_:!~nd~i~ar~an-'~-1:~~Ap:r~5~, 2~0~20

_~pr 7, 2020 !
-.i-1:~~~~~%-·i·

00:00 .
~~:~--:

00:00 _0/0'

. -

:--J

~~:~~·:D/o:---'-----'·-----·--l




------=-=-==-1 242 Waler

Dawn

Apr 5, 2020 Apr 6,2020 I 00:00 I 00:00 010'

j

.143_\V..annam~ker- _}ubL___ ~AP;..5, ~Q20__ ' ._Ap~~,~.1Q.. _ OO~oo_:_ OO~O -·DIO-'--~=.

244 Waters

Marcy

Apr 5, 2020 Apr 5, 2020 07:30 16:00,

i

245'Whitehead 'Chnstina. Apr 5, 2020 r6, 2020 16:00; 00:00 i
.=:__ .1:16 Wiftia.!'1s_ -__ )e!fOtrice _ __ .APi-5,~02Q. I_Apr~,2Q~ . 07:30-._ !6,OQ----i-._...:-. __
I 247WilsonDinah N . Apr 5, 2020 Apr 5, 2020 07:30, '16:00 ;

!
-:..~_=~~-.-_~
j

248 Wilson

Dinah N lIlr 5, 2020 Apfj,2020 16:00. 00:00 '_.

!

249'!Vindea!, ._,Mich~e~
250 Wortham Donnise

I : . .Ap~5,}Q.1Q.. .J.P~7~0:Oo.. .__ .QO:OL,pIQ'

251'Wynn

falmatto ~__~!?)020 Ar5,.1020 07:30" 16:00 ADLUS

. __ .___ __ ---I
j
I

_ _ _.--. ~~J'o1!"ge! _. :~~aro~

·jl- . __ ~ III. - i • .:--~---.. -.. - -

~ ---

,

I

I

- l :_ . .. :=-1-" .-- . 22~5~54~5=-:--~.,i --.=•_-.--~-._-._--

, I I

,

:'

.!. - --~=-=~·····=~=~.·~~---~-l

:

J

~:~= ~_ ------.::-~~=~.=b=-1.~~.---- ~-=~_ ___._ .__ 258

I

·'-"--1--- _.. ----. -.•' -+. ---.--- •

I 259

.!

.

'

·1I ··-- . - ., - I

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

'

!

:
·i
1

i

262

I

~~

. I

.

_•

.LI __

1
._~_.___

. _ _.__._ _.__._

26.L .~_... __~

. __ . _.__ __.. .L

265.

t.

.I

266

I

.I

_. -._.. : ~7~-=~~["--=--=~-~'=~~~-_-T

i- ----- ---; •.---

_. 1,

'1
_+ . _._ ...•_-.~~~-==-_

I 2 6 8 !

. . 2~~9

_.-~~ __

.

:
:

.. _.....j --J--=--.~~=.~-'~-._~

1
,-~_.~-=-J

V1

I

.

I

\

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 48 Filed 04/19/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs v.
QUINCY L. BOOTH, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 20-849(CKK)

ORDER (April 19, 2020)
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is, this 19th day of April, 2020, hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ [5] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Court ORDERS the following relief:
In light of the medical surveillance and monitoring that is occurring currently in the quarantine units, Defendants shall ensure that the triage process associated with sick call requests on the non-quarantine units is expedited and reflects appropriate sensitivity to the wide variety of symptoms associated with COVID-19 disease. Correctional officers and other staff who are in contact with inmates should ensure that the medical staff are promptly informed about inmates who present with symptoms of COVID-19 and medical staff should respond to the housing unit on an expedited basis. Any inmate grievances that include allegations of delay in medical assessment should be prioritized and submitted to the DOC medical director immediately. Additionally, in light of the fact that the DOC is relying on inmates to self-report symptoms of COVID-19, Defendants shall provide better documentation as to the dates and times of sick calls and urgent care calls, the inmates’ reported symptoms, the dates and times the inmates are seen by medical professionals, and the outcomes to allow for better tracking of the response to inmates’ complaints of COVID-19 symptoms.
If the Defendants are not already doing so, they shall that ensure that cell restrictions are appropriately monitored, tracked, and corrective action is undertaken on an expedited basis if warranted.
In instances in which inmates are transferred from the intake unit to a different unit before the 14-day quarantine period expires, Defendants shall ensure that appropriate housing, surveillance and monitoring is afforded to the inmate in the receiving unit.
Defendants shall consult with public health professionals regarding strategies that can be implemented to strengthen the COVID-19-related education program for both staff and inmates. Moreover, Defendants shall explore appropriate supports that can be provided on an expedited basis to both staff and inmates who are living and working in an extremely stressful and highrisk environment and are at substantial risk of exposure.

1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 48 Filed 04/19/20 Page 2 of 3
Defendants shall conduct additional staff training on the use of the non-touch, infrared thermometers consistent with manufacturer guidelines and provide guidance to staff regarding what to do when thermometers produce results that appear on their face to be inaccurate.
Defendants shall take immediate steps to provide consistent and reliable access to legal calls, personal telephone calls, daily showers, and clean clothing and clean linens to all inmates on isolation status.
Defendants shall ensure appropriate and consistent implementation of social distancing policies by addressing limitations in current staffing levels, supervisory oversight of line staff, and provide enhanced education related to the importance of social distancing.
Defendants shall communicate clear expectations, in writing, to correctional staff about the types of PPE required to perform the various supervision and operational functions that are conducted throughout the facility, including the PPE they should expect to be given on each shift for each specific category of post assignment; the proper donning, doffing and disposal of the PPE; and an explanation of the related rationale. Clear communication to staff regarding differences in risk exposures and providing consistent PPE over time could help lower anxiety levels among staff.
In addition, Defendants shall also ensure that all PPE issued is properly fitted. For example, N95 respirators must be properly fitted to ensure that they provide the intended protection. During the site visits that amici conducted, none of the correctional staff who were wearing N95 respirators in isolation units reported that they had been fitted for the respirators.
Defendants shall ensure that all DOC staff receive instruction on the proper disposal of PPE, and appropriate and accessible receptables for immediate disposal must be readily available. During the site visits, amici observed that receptables for disposal of PPE were not accessible on a consistent basis, including to staff assigned to isolation units at the CTF.
There is a critical need for the defendants to strengthen the environmental health and safety program at both the CDF and the CTF. It is recommended that the DOC immediately retain a registered sanitarian to oversee the environmental health and safety programs at both facilities and provide training so that cleaning tools and products are used properly. A registered sanitarian should bring the appropriate knowledge, oversight, and quality control necessary to mitigate at least some of the critical public health concerns that are evident in both facilities.
In addition to engaging a sanitarian, supervisory correctional staff must ensure that housing unit staff properly manage the work performed by the inmate detail workers. In order to accomplish that goal, correctional staff and detail workers require guidance from a sanitarian trained to oversee the facility’s environmental health program.
In addition to engaging a sanitarian, the defendants shall consider contracting for professional cleaning services on the non-secure side of the facility at least until a sanitarian is hired to bolster the existing environmental health and safety program at both facilities. Additionally, proper cleaning supplies that have been sanitized regularly shall be immediately provided to each unit, and a schedule for cleaning common areas and cells shall be established and enforced.
Defendants shall reduce the extent to which common spaces encourage inmates to congregate in close quarters (e.g., around a single television in a small enclosed area, or next to one another in order to use telephones that are mounted closer than six feet apart). The
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 48 Filed 04/19/20 Page 3 of 3
effectiveness of this strategy would increase if Defendants were to consistently apply their stated policy of allowing no more than small groups of inmates out of their cells at any given time. Whatever strategies Defendants adopt, increased active and direct supervision will be required by both housing unit correctional officers and the midlevel managers responsible for overseeing and supporting the correctional officers assigned to housing units. Enforcing social distancing standards as a public health measure is a new responsibility for correctional staff and they must be supported as they adjust to this new role. Moreover, Defendants shall assess whether any additional security staff are needed to provide appropriate supervision, on a unit-by-unit basis, taking into consideration the layout of the housing units, the number of inmates housed on the units, and the security designation of the unit, in order to enforce social distancing policies.
Finally, Defendants shall ensure that all inmates, including those on isolation, have access to confidential, unmonitored legal calls of a duration sufficient to discuss legal matters.
As relief, the Court has adopted in general the recommendations set out by the amici in their final report. The Court has not set out each detail in the report which supports these recommendations. However, the Court expects Defendants to address those specific deficiencies set out in the final report, which support the recommendations, and to rectify those deficiencies.
SO ORDERED. /s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge
3

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 1 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs v.
QUINCY L. BOOTH, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 20-849(CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION (April 19, 2020)
This case is brought by various inmates of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections (“DOC”) detained in the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”). Plaintiffs bring claims against Quincy Booth, in his official capacity as Director of the DOC, and Lennard Johnson, in his official capacity as Warden of the DOC. Plaintiffs’ claims are brought pursuant to the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution relating to the conditions of their confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ [5] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), which is opposed. Upon consideration of the pleadings,1 the relevant legal authorities, and the record for purposes of this motion, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ [5] Motion. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest favors

1 The Court’s consideration has focused on the following documents: • Pls.’ App. For a Temp. Restraining Order (“Pls.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 5; • Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ App. For a Temp. Restraining Order (“Defs.’ Opp’n”), ECF No. 25; and • Pls.’ Reply Brief in Support of App. For a Temp. Restraining Order (“Pls.’ Reply”), ECF No. 26.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 2 of 31
injunctive relief. However, as will be further explained below, the Court concludes that some of the relief requested by Plaintiffs is not appropriate at this time.
I. BACKGROUND Prior to proceeding through the procedural background of this case, the Court notes that the hearings held in this matter have been conducted either telephonically or through video conferencing. Due to the restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia postponed all civil hearings to occur before June 1, 2020. In Re: Extension of Postponed Court Proceedings in Standing Order 20-9 and Limiting Court Operations in Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic, Standing Order No. 20-19 (BAH), April 1, 2020. As such, in compliance with the standing order and recommended precautionary measures, the Court has conducted these emergency matters virtually. On March 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this matter. That same day, Plaintiffs also filed a Motion to Certify a Class of all persons confined or to be confined in DOC facilities, a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order—the motion currently before the Court, and a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. ECF Nos. 3, 5, 6. On March 31, 2020, the Court ordered that a teleconference be held to discuss scheduling for Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for a TRO. March 31, 2020 Minute Order. During the hearing, the Court ordered Defendants to provide specific, relevant information to the Court over the following two days. For example, the Court ordered Defendants to provide a list of the names of the approximately 94 inmates who have been sentenced to misdemeanors and who could be released; the numbers of people who had been tested for COVID-19 and a break-down of the identities of those individuals (such as inmates, visitors, etc.) and the results of those tests; the date on which Defendants began testing people coming into the jails; the number and a breakdown of the results of COVID-19 tests which had been done on those who were
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 3 of 31
incarcerated prior to the date on which Defendants began testing all incoming inmates; all relevant written procedures and practices concerning COVID-19; and Defendants’ process which is in place or will be put in place to allow legal counsel to communicate with their clients electronically or by other means. April 1, 2020 Minute Order. The Court also ordered Defendants to provide Declarations about the processes and procedures in place and the current conditions of DOC facilities in light of COVID-19. Id. The Court further set a briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO and stayed Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Complaint, and Motion for Class Certification pending the resolution of the TRO. Id. A court reporter was present at the hearing and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 18.
On April 1, 2020 and April 2, 2020, Defendants filed Responses to the Court’s Order. ECF Nos. 19, 20, 21.
On April 2, 2020, the Fraternal Order of Police for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections Labor Committee filed for leave to submit an amicus curiae brief in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO. ECF No. 23. After considering Defendants’ opposition, the Court granted the motion, finding that the amicus brief could assist the Court in its analysis of certain, relevant issues. April 3, 2020 Minute Order.
On April 3, Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion to Expedite the Hearing on the Application for a TRO. ECF No. 24. In consideration of Plaintiffs’ arguments, the Court scheduled a videoconference on the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO for April 7, 2020. April 3, 2020 Minute Order.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 4 of 31
Prior to the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO on April 3, 2020, and Plaintiffs filed their Reply in support of their Motion on April 4, 2020. ECF Nos. 25, 26.
On April 7, 2020, the court conducted a two-hour video conference on the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO. A court reporter was present and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 37. Also, on that day, the Court conducted a second teleconference with the parties. The parties determined that they would confer and propose names for an amicus of the Court to inspect the conditions of CTF and CDF. April 8, 2020 Minute Order.
On April 8, 2020, the Court again conducted a teleconference with the parties to ascertain their proposed amicus of the Court. The parties ultimately agreed to the appointment of Grace Lopes and Mark Jordan as amici of the Court to provide information on the actual conditions of CTF and CDF and to make findings on Defendants’ responses to COVID-19. A court reporter was present and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 33. On April 9, 2020, the Court issued a consent order appointing Ms. Lopes and Mr. Jordan as amici. ECF No. 34.
The amici reviewed records from the DOC facilities and conducted unannounced and unescorted site visits on multiple shifts at both CDF and CTF on April 10, 11, and 12, 2020. Defendants cooperated with amici in providing them with necessary materials and in providing them access to the facilities, staff, and inmates during their visits.
On April 15, 2020, the Court held a telephone conference at which the amici presented their oral preliminary findings and both parties as well as the Court asked questions. A court reporter was present and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 45.
On April 18, 2020, the amici submitted their final written report. Attachment 1. The Court incorporates that report into this Memorandum Opinion. The Court has excerpted portions
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 5 of 31
of the report in this Memorandum Opinion, focusing on the issues which are most exigent and most relevant to the resolution of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO.
The Court further notes that on April 17, 2020, following the amici’s oral presentation of their preliminary findings, Mr. Booth provided a memorandum to all DOC employees and contractors entitled “Reminders and Updated COVID-19 Policies and Procedures.” Exhibits to Report Submitted by Amicus Curiae, Attachment 2, Ex. 11. In this memorandum, Mr. Booth addresses some of the deficiencies identified by the amici. The Court commends Defendants for their prompt response. However, the Court has no record evidence that the updates discussed in Mr. Booth’s memorandum have been implemented. Accordingly, in resolving Plaintiff’s Motion for a TRO, the Court relies on the record evidence as it currently stands, including the findings in the amici’s final report.
In consideration of the above information, the materials which have been provided, and the present factual record, the Court now issues its decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO.
II. LEGAL STANDARD A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary form of relief. An application for a TRO is analyzed using factors applicable to preliminary injunctive relief. See, e.g., Gordon v. Holder, 632 F.3d 722, 723-24 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (applying preliminary injunction standard to district court decision denying motion for TRO and preliminary injunction); Sibley v. Obama, 810 F. Supp. 2d 309, 310 (D.D.C. 2011) (articulating TRO elements based on preliminary injunction case law). Preliminary injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)); see also Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam) (“[A] preliminary injunction is an
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 6 of 31
extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). A plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief “must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1038 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Sherley, 644 F.3d at 392 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20) (alteration in original; internal quotation marks omitted)). When seeking such relief, “the movant has the burden to show that all four factors, taken together, weigh in favor of the injunction.” Abdullah v. Obama, 753 F.3d 193, 197 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1292 (D.C. Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The four factors have typically been evaluated on a ‘sliding scale.’” Davis, 571 F.3d at 1291. Under this sliding-scale framework, “[i]f the movant makes an unusually strong showing on one of the factors, then it does not necessarily have to make as strong a showing on another factor.” Id. at 1291-92.
The Court notes that it is not clear whether the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s (“D.C. Circuit”) sliding-scale approach to assessing the four preliminary injunction factors survives the Supreme Court's decision in Winter. See Save Jobs USA v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 105 F. Supp. 3d 108, 112 (D.D.C. 2015). Several judges on the D.C. Circuit have “read Winter at least to suggest if not to hold ‘that a likelihood of success is an independent, free-standing requirement for a preliminary injunction.’” Sherley, 644 F.3d at 393 (quoting Davis, 571 F.3d at 1296 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring)). However, the D.C. Circuit has yet to hold definitively that Winter has displaced the sliding-scale analysis. See id.; see also Save Jobs USA, 105 F. Supp. 3d at 112. In light of this ambiguity, the Court shall consider each
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 7 of 31
of the preliminary injunction factors and shall only evaluate the proper weight to accord the likelihood of success if the Court finds that its relative weight would affect the outcome.
III. DISCUSSION The Court will proceed to analyze each of the requirements for granting a TRO. However, first, the Court will address a preliminary issue—standing. A. Standing As a threshold matter, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs do not have standing to seek the requested relief. Four named Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit. D’Angelo Phillips is currently in the custody of DOC at CDF where he is being held pre-trial. Edward Banks is currently in the custody of DOC at CDF awaiting sentencing. Eric Smith is currently in the custody of DOC at CTF where he is being held pre-trial. Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 14-16. Keon Jackson was in the custody of DOC at CTF where he was awaiting sentencing; but, he has since been released from custody and is no longer party to this suit. April 7, 2020 Tr., ECF No. 37, 38: 22-24. In order to meet the requirements for standing, a plaintiff must plead an injury, causation, and redressability. “[A] plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press and for each form of relief that is sought.” Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 733-34 (2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have failed to show that their injuries are redressable by certain forms of requested relief which would flow to inmates other than Plaintiffs. To begin, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify a class consisting of all persons confined or to be confined by DOC in CDF or CTF. ECF No. 3. However, at this point in the litigation, the Court has not ruled on Plaintiffs’ Motion to certify the class. As such, Defendants contend that the standing analysis should focus only on the named Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs do not dispute this assertion.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 8 of 31
Considering only the named Plaintiffs, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have pled an injury which was caused by Defendants and is redressable by the relief requested. Plaintiffs’ claimed injury is the risk of contracting COVID-19. The Court finds that the risk of contracting a disease is a legally cognizable risk for purposes of standing. Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905, 915 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (explaining that pleading an increased risk of foodborne illness is sufficient for standing). Additionally, Plaintiffs have pled that they have an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 due to Defendants’ failure to take appropriate precautionary measures. Finally, Plaintiffs have pled that their injury of an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 would be redressed by the requested relief.
Plaintiffs have produced unrebutted expert declarations positing that the requested relief would redress the claimed Plaintiffs’ injuries by reducing their risk of contracting COVID-19. “The risk posed by infectious diseases in jails and prisons is significantly higher than in the community, both in terms of the risk of transmission, exposure, and harm to individuals who become infected.” Dec. of Jaimie Meyer, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 9. The risk of infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, is higher in jails and prisons because they are congregate settings which “allow for rapid spread of infectious diseases that are transmitted person to person.” Id. at ¶ 11. In settings such as these, it is often difficult to appropriately socially distance and many facilities are poorly ventilated which allows disease to spread faster. Id.
Due to the unique posture of jails and prisons, steps taken to reduce the risk of infection among any inmates, such as reducing the inmate population or providing adequate cleaning supplies, would also reduce the named Plaintiffs’ risk of contracting COVID-19. Additional precautions which directly affect inmates who are not a party to this suit also affect the named Plaintiffs by reducing the risk that the disease will spread amongst the population and eventually
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 9 of 31
infect the named Plaintiffs. See Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 531-32 (2011) (explaining that all prisoners, even those that remain detained, benefit from the release of some inmates to counter overcrowding because the detained inmates “are that system’s next potential victims”).
For these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have stated an injury—an increased risk for contracting COVID-19—which is caused by Defendants’ untimely and insufficient precautions and would be remedied by the requested relief. As such, Plaintiffs have standing to request a TRO.
B. Plaintiffs Establish a Likelihood of Success on the Merits Moving to the standards for granting a TRO, first the Court considers whether or not
Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits. In order to meet this first requirement, Plaintiffs must show that they have a likelihood of success on the merits of their Fifth Amendment claim for pre-trial detainees and of their Eighth Amendment claim for postconviction detainees. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing.
It is undisputed that the proper avenue for relief for pre-trial detainees, such as Plaintiffs Phillips and Smith, is the Fifth Amendment due process clause and the proper avenue for relief for post-conviction detainees, such as Plaintiff Banks, is the Eighth Amendment. However, the parties dispute whether or not the standards for sustaining a claim under the different Amendments are the same. Defendants state that the standard for sustaining a claim under the due process clause and Eighth Amendments are the same. Defendants contend that to show a violation of either Amendment, jail officials must have (1) exposed inmates to an unreasonable risk of serious damage to their health and (2) acted with deliberate indifference in posing such a risk. Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 25, 14-15. Plaintiffs agree that Defendants have stated the correct standard for an Eighth Amendment claim by post-conviction detainees, but they argue that the
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 10 of 31
standard for a due process claim for pre-trial detainees is different. Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 26, 7. Under the due process clause, Plaintiffs argue that they need only show that the Defendants knew or should have known that the conditions posed an excessive risk to the health of the inmates. The main difference being that the due process clause analysis does not require a finding of deliberate indifference.
The rights of pre-trial detainees are different than the rights of post-conviction detainees. Because pre-trial detainees are presumed innocent, they are “entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322 (1982). “While a convicted prisoner is entitled to protection only against ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment [under the Eighth Amendment], a pretrial detainee, not yet found guilty of any crime, may not be subjected to punishment of any description.” Hardy v. District of Columbia, 601 F. Supp. 2d 182, 188 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Hill v. Nicodemus, 979 F.2d 987, 991 (4th Cir. 1992)).
In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S.Ct. 2466 (2015), the United States Supreme Court considered the differences between pre-trial and post-conviction detainees in deciding that, to state an excessive force claim, a pre-trial detainee need only show that the use of force was objectively unreasonable. 135 S.Ct. at 2473-74. The officers’ subjective state of mind in using the force was irrelevant. Id. While Kingsley relates to excessive force rather than prison conditions, in making its decision, the Kingsley court relied on Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), a case pertaining to prison conditions. According to the Kingsley court, “as Bell itself shows (and as our later precedent affirms), a pretrial detainee can prevail by providing only objective evidence that the challenged governmental action is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective or that it is excessive in relation to that purpose.” Id. Together
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 11 of 31
Kingsley and Bell provide persuasive authority that a pre-trial detainee need only show that prison conditions are objectively unreasonable in order to state a claim under the due process clause.
The parties did not cite and the Court could not find a D.C. Circuit case interpreting Kingsley in the context of a claim for deficient prison conditions. However, many circuit courts have extended Kingsley’s objective standard to apply to other due process claims by pre-trial detainees. For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that, following Kingsley, in the context of challenged prison conditions for pre-trial detainees, “the Due Process Clause can be violated when an official does not have subjective awareness that the official’s acts (or omissions) have subjected the pretrial detainee to a substantial risk of harm.” Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 35 (2d 2017); see also Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying Kingsley standard to failure to protect claims by pretrial detainees); Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816, 823 (7th Cir. 2019) (finding that “Kingsley’s objective inquiry applies to all Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims brought by pretrial detainees”). And, at least one district court within this Circuit has also applied Kingsley’s objective standard to due process claims brought by pre-trial detainees. See United States v. Moore, Case No. 18-198-JEB, 2019 WL 2569659, *2 (D.D.C. June 21, 2019) (explaining that a pretrial detainee could prevail on a due process claim “if she either introduces evidence of a subjective intent to punish or demonstrates that a restriction is objectively unreasonable or excessive relative to the Government’s proffered justification”).
Based on the pertinent reasoning of Kingsley and the persuasive authority of other courts, the Court concludes that pre-trial detainee Plaintiffs Phillips and Smith do not need to show deliberate indifference in order to state a due process claim for inadequate conditions of
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 12 of 31
confinement. As such, under the due process clause, pre-trial detainee Plaintiffs Phillips and Smith are likely to succeed on the merits by showing that the Defendants knew or should have known that the jail conditions posed an excessive risk to their health. And, under the Eighth Amendment, post-conviction detainee Plaintiff Banks must show that the jail conditions exposed him to an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his health and that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference in posing such a risk.
Despite recognizing that pre-trial detainee Plaintiffs need not demonstrate deliberate indifference to show a likelihood of success on their due process claims, the Court will also analyze the deliberate indifference prong as such a showing is still required for post-conviction Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim.
1. Unreasonable risk to Plaintiffs’ Health Now that the Court has determined the standards under the due process clause and the Eighth Amendment, the Court will assess whether or not Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success in proving that they have been exposed to an unreasonable risk of damage to their health. Determining whether or not Plaintiffs have been exposed to an unreasonable risk is an objective analysis which “requires a court to assess whether society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993) (emphasis in original). In sum, Plaintiffs “must show that the risk of which [they] complain[] is not one that today’s society chooses to tolerate.” Id. Both parties and the Court recognize the seriousness of the threat posed by COVID-19. Despite the seriousness of the threat, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed in establishing that they have been exposed to an unreasonable risk to their health. Specifically,
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 13 of 31
Defendants ague that Plaintiffs “have not shown that the risk posed by DOC’s practices raises plaintiffs’ risk of exposure substantially over the risk experienced by the outside community.” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 25, 16. Defendants further argue that, for the most part, Plaintiffs are able to take the same precautions to prevent infection as those not detained. The Court disagrees.
As an initial matter, the data for COVID-19 infection rates decries Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs’ risk of infection is the same as that of the outside community. It is undisputed that, as of April 4, 2020, the infection rate in DOC facilities was over seven times the infection rate of the District of Columbia at large. Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 26, 8. This statistical data is also supported by Plaintiffs’ unrefuted expert declaration. In her Declaration, Dr. Jaimie Meyer, who reviewed reports on conditions in DOC facilities, posited that “individuals placed in [CDF and CTF] are at a significantly higher risk of infection with COVID-19 as compared to the population in the community and that they are at significantly higher risk of harm if they do become infected.” Dec. of Jaimie Meyer, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 33.
Additionally, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that they cannot take the same precautions as those who are not detained. There are many precautionary policies which Defendants contend are in place and are disputed by Plaintiffs. However, one of the most important risk-reduction policies which has not been adequately addressed by Defendants is social distancing. Plaintiffs have provided expert evidence that social distancing is a crucial part of containing the spread of COVID-19. Dec. of Marc Stern, ECF No. 1-1, ¶ 13. With the closures of schools, theaters, and restaurants, governments across the nation have emphasized social distancing as a way to slow the spread of the disease. In the District of Columbia, Mayor Muriel Bowser has implemented an order for social distancing which requires “[m]aintaining at least six (6)-foot social distancing from other individuals.” Stay Home DC Order,
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 14 of 31
https://coronavirus.dc.gov/stayhome (March 30, 2020). However, Defendants have produced no evidence that Plaintiffs are able to comply with social distancing precautions.
Plaintiffs have produced uncontroverted evidence that social distancing was slow to be instituted and has not been fully operationalized in CTF or CDF. Plaintiffs have submitted a declaration from a DOC inmate stating that, as of April 4, 2020, “[n]o one from DOC has ever told us about social distancing. There are no signs about social distancing.” Dec. of James Guillory, ECF No. 26-2, ¶ 14. And, Plaintiffs have also submitted a declaration from a DOC staff member who works in the age-50-and-over unit asserting that, as of April 3, 2020, “[s]ocial distancing is not happening in my unit.” Dec. of Lennette Nesbitt, ECF No. 24-2, ¶ 14.
During the April 7, 2020 hearing, Defendants asserted that they have recently implemented new social distancing practices, such as limiting the number of inmates who can use the recreation areas at the same time. April 7, 2020 Tr., ECF No. 37, 40:2-41:11. However, Defendants have yet to submit any evidence that these practices are being implemented. Nor, have Defendants provided specifics such as the number of inmates who can use the common areas at the same time or the steps that are being taken to ensure that individuals maintain a suitable distance when in a shared space.
When the amici of the Court visited the DOC facilities, they reported that, in defiance of social distancing regulations, “[m]ore than five inmates were consistently out of their cells at one time, and sometimes between 10 and 20 inmates were out of their cells at one time.” Report Submitted by Amicus Curiae, Atch. 1, 20. Additionally, the amici reported that “[s]ocial distancing practices were not enforced and there were no attempts by the correctional staff to enforce social distancing even when numerous inmates crowded into a contained area.” Id. The amici attributed the failure to enforce social distancing, at least in part, to an understaffing of
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 15 of 31
correctional officers and their supervisors. Id. The DOC has a current workforce of 994 funded correctional positions, of which 45 positions are vacant. Of the 949 filled positions, 281 correctional staff were unavailable for duty as of April 16, 2020. Id. Understaffing during a crisis situation such as the COVID-19 pandemic makes it difficult to enact and enforce the necessary precautionary measures.
The Court recognizes that Defendants’ response to this sudden and unprecedented pandemic is ongoing. Additionally, the Court recognizes that additional evidence will likely be provided as litigation proceeds. But, based on the current record, the Court finds Defendants’ argument that the risk of infection experienced by Plaintiffs is equivalent to that experienced by the general population is disputed by statistical evidence, Plaintiffs’ expert evidence, the declarations of DOC inmates and staff, and the amici report. Accordingly, based on the limited record before the Court, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood that they will be able to show that they have been exposed to an unreasonable risk of damage to their health.
Before the Court proceeds to analyzing deliberate indifference, the Court notes that based on the unreasonable risk to Plaintiffs’ health, pre-trial detainee Plaintiffs Phillips and Smith have already established a likelihood of success on the merits of their due process claim. Nevertheless, the Court will proceed to analyze deliberate indifference.
2. Deliberate Indifference The Court will next determine whether or not Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success in establishing Defendants’ deliberate indifference. A showing of deliberate indifference requires “that officials had subjective knowledge of the serious medical need and recklessly disregarded the excessive risk to inmate health or safety from that risk.” Baker v. District of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302, 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In order to establish deliberate indifference,
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 16 of 31
“the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
There does not appear to be any dispute that Defendants are aware of the threat that COVID-19 poses to the health of Plaintiffs. Instead, the only dispute appears to be whether or not Defendants have recklessly disregarded the risk to Plaintiffs’ health.
In analyzing this standard, the Court recognizes that COVID-19 poses an unprecedented challenge and that the precautionary measures taken by Defendants are rapidly evolving. As evidence of COVID-19 precautions, Defendants have provided the Declarations of Lennard Johnson, the Warden of the DOC, and Beth Jordan, the Medical Director and Health Services Administrator for the DOC. ECF Nos. 20-1, 20-2. Both declarations outline policies designed to combat the threat of COVID-19. For example, Mr. Johnson claims that residents have access to proper cleaning materials, that residents receive a free bar of soap each week, and that the common areas in DOC facilities are cleaned regularly. Dec. of Lennard Johnson, ECF No. 20-1, ¶¶ 6-12. And, Ms. Jordan claims that everyone entering a DOC facility is screened for symptoms using a thermometer and a survey, that all new inmates are quarantined for 14 days before they are assigned to a housing unit, and that the DOC medical staff meets regularly with staff and residents to discuss preventative measures. Dec. of Beth Jordan, ECF No. 20-2, ¶¶ 5-8.
However, it is not clear whether or not these declarations are based on Mr. Johnson and Ms. Jordan’s personal observations of the conditions at the facilities. Both declarations state that the information is based on personal knowledge “including information provided to me by other District of Columbia employees in the course of my official duties.” ECF No. 20-1, ¶ 1; ECF No. 20-2, ¶ 1. As such, there is some uncertainty as to whether these declarations are based on
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 17 of 31
policies which are on the books or the actual conditions of the facilities. And, Plaintiffs have submitted the declaration of at least one DOC staff member strongly suggesting that, as of April 2, 2020, Defendants’ written policies have not been adequately communicated to DOC staff for operationalization. See Dec. of Doreen Deterville, ECF No. 24-1, ¶¶ 5-8.
To compound this uncertainty, Plaintiffs have also submitted numerous declarations from inmates and DOC staff rebutting that Defendants’ policies are being fully implemented. For example, Plaintiffs have submitted declarations stating that they have not been given free bars of soap. Dec. of Edward Banks, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 8; Dec. of Keon Jackson, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 10; Dec. of Eric Smith, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 8. And, Plaintiffs have submitted declarations stating that inmates do not receive adequate cleaning supplies. Dec. of Keon Jackson, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 12. And, Plaintiffs have submitted declarations stating that not all new inmates are properly screened and quarantined when transferred between units. Dec. of Michael Cohen II, ECF No. 26-4, ¶ 18. Having a written policy in place but not fully implemented cannot protect Defendants from a finding of deliberate indifference. Daskalea v. District of Columbia, 227 F.3d 433, 442 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (explaining that “a ‘paper’ policy cannot insulate a municipality from liability where there is evidence, as there was here, that the municipality was deliberately indifferent to the policy’s violation.”).
The written findings of the amici support some of these declarations. In conducting their visits, the amici determined that “the need for more intensified education of staff and inmates [about COVID-19] is apparent.” Report Submitted by Amicus Curiae, Atch. 1, 15. Amici further noted that access to cleaning supplies varied from unit to unit. Id. at 30. In some units, cleaning supplies were depleted and, in other units, inmates could not access the supplies to clean their cells. Id. Additionally, no inmates had facility-issued rags for cleaning their cells. Instead, many
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 18 of 31
inmates used “tattered and soiled” rags that they made by tearing facility issued towels or tshirts. Id. Moreover, “[i]t was evident that knowledge regarding the appropriate use of the different cleaning and sanitizing agents was generally at a very low level.” Id. Challenges with cleanliness persisted outside the inmates’ cells, with the cleanliness of common spaces inconsistent among housing units with little quality control. Id. at 31-32.
The Court further notes that, while amici reported that Defendants screened all staff and visitors at the entrances to both CDF and CTF, there are issues with the screening procedures. On entering DOC facilities, all visitors and staff are questioned as to whether or not they have experienced COVID-19 symptoms. Id. at 15-16. And, all visitors and staff have their temperatures checked with a non-contact infrared thermometer. Id. at 16. However, amici reported that two out of eight reported temperature readings appeared to be inaccurate, registering in the low 90 degrees. Id. Amici posit that the inaccurate temperature readings are caused by user error and inadequate training with the thermometer. Id. While it is not is not clear if the medical staff use the same type of thermometer to measure the temperatures of inmates in the medical unit, amici indicated that a “review of electronic health records also identified a number of questionably low temperature readings.” Id.
Additionally, there are certain precautionary steps that Defendants do not address. For example, as already explained, social distancing is one of the most crucial precautionary measures in slowing the spread of COVID-19. However, Defendants’ declarations make little to no mention of social distancing measures. During the hearing, Mr. Bluming stated, “pre-COVID19, we had 80 people in the recreational area together. At the end of last week, we were down to half that, so 40 people at a time.” April 7, 2020 Tr., ECF No. 37 41: 7-11. Mr. Bluming further
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 19 of 31
stated that, the DOC’s website indicated that they may be allowing no more than 10 individuals in the recreational area at a time. Id. at 41: 1-3.
The Court notes that, besides counsel’s argument, there is no record evidence that these procedures are being implemented. As recently as April 4, 2020, an inmate stated that “[p]eople on my unit still give each other high fives. People still eat and drink each other’s food and beverage bottles. Staff do not warn people these things are unsafe.” Dec. of Michael Cohen II, ECF No. 26-4, ¶ 51. Additionally, as per Defendants’ own argument, three weeks into the COVD-19 pandemic, Defendants were still allowing 40 inmates to congregate in the recreation yard. Given the spread of infection at DOC facilities, such a delayed response is not a sufficient or a timely response to the risk posed to Plaintiffs’ health. And, as previously discussed, in their review of the facilities, the amici determined that, as recently as April 12, 2020, as many as 10 to 20 inmates were out of their cells at one time and correctional staff were not able to implement or enforce social distancing practices. Report Submitted by Amicus Curiae, Atch. 1, 20.
Additionally, while Defendants’ declarations addressed screening for new inmates and isolation for those who test positive for COVID-19, it remains unclear what steps are being taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19 by those inmates who already reside in DOC facilities and have not yet tested positive for infection. This is especially concerning as Defendants primarily rely on inmates to self-report symptoms in order to determine who may be infected. Id. at 9. Plaintiffs have submitted an unrebutted declaration that “at least three DOC staff members … have tested positive and alerted DOC” but “[n]o contact tracing has been done for at least one if not all of the staff members with regard to whether inmates or other staff should be quarantined.” Dec. of Michael Hannon, ECF No. 23-11, ¶ 59. Additionally, amici reported one case in which an inmate who worked in the Culinary Unit tested positive for COVID-19. Report Submitted by
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 20 of 31
Amicus Curiae, Atch. 1, 26-27. While that inmate was placed in isolation, the DOC did not attempt to determine whether the contract staff who had worked with that inmate in the Culinary Unit were close contacts of the inmate and should self-quarantine at home for 14 days. Id. at 2728. Additionally, it appeared that “the detail inmate who tested positive was not contacted about any individuals with whom he had close contact.” Id. at 28.
Plaintiffs have also presented unrebutted evidence that Defendants are slow to respond to those inmates who display symptoms of COVID-19. Multiple PDS attorneys and investigators have reported that their clients display COVID-19 symptoms such as coughs and fevers which have not been adequately addressed by the medical unit. Dec. of Rachel Cicurel, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 6(b); Dec. of Katherine Kuenzle, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 4. And, inmates who have requested medical aid for COVID-19 symptoms report long waits for medical care, testing, or separation from the general population. Dec. of D’Angelo Phillips, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 4 (stating that “it takes days before you get a visit from anyone from the medical unit”); Dec. of Eric Smith, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 5 (“It takes days before anyone can get medical staff to come see them, even if you say you are having trouble breathing”). According to Plaintiffs’ expert, “[t]he failure of these facilities to adequately manage single individuals in need of emergency care is a strong sign that they will be seriously ill-equipped and under-prepared when a number of people will need urgent care simultaneously, as would occur during a COVID-19 epidemic.” Dec. of Jaimie Meyer, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 28(d)(ii).
Plaintiffs have also presented evidence that the quarantine unit is not properly sealed off from the general population. An inmate next to the unit explained that air could travel freely between his cell and the quarantine unit. Dec. of Eric Smith, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 3. And, Plaintiffs have submitted evidence that those in the general population share a television remote control
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 21 of 31
with those in the quarantine unit. Id. at ¶ 4. The lack of separation for those in quarantine is especially concerning due to Plaintiffs’ evidence that “[t]he ventilation conditions described in the District of Columbia’s Auditor’s report … will increase the rate of the spread of the virus.” Dec. of Jaimie Meyer, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 28(c).
In addition to the quarantine unit not being properly secluded, the amici identified several other issues with both the quarantine and isolation units. Anyone entering a quarantine housing unit, except for inmates, is required to wear gloves and a mask at all times. Report Submitted by Amicus Curiae, Atch. 1, 18. Despite this requirement, most of the correctional staff in the quarantine unit wore a variety of masks which they purchased for themselves and were often illfitting and soiled. And, generally, correctional staff did not wear gloves. Id. Inmates housed in quarantine units are also required to wear masks outside their cells. However, the amici found that the inmates were not consistently wearing their masks and many of the masks did not fit and were soiled. Id. Amici did note an abrupt increase the personal protective equipment distributed to correctional officers over the course of their multiple visits. Id. at 25. However, this delayed response in providing protective equipment to those working and living in quarantine units is notable.
Amici also highlighted the conditions for inmates living in isolation units. Some inmates have already spent 12 to 15 days in isolation units. Those in the isolation units are not permitted to shower. Id. at 22. And, laundry services for inmates in isolation have been limited with some inmates wearing the same soiled clothes for the duration of their stay in isolation. Id. Some inmates with sinks in their cells can use those for cleaning, and, as of April 14, 2020, the DOC intended to provide inmates in isolation with body wipes. Id. However, these punitive conditions for those in isolation are not acceptable. Additionally, inmates in isolation at CTF are not
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 22 of 31
permitted to use the telephone for any reason, including legal calls. Id. It was unclear whether or not inmates in CDF are permitted to use the telephone. Id. As the DOC is primarily relying on inmates to self-report symptoms of COVID-19, the punitive conditions of isolation make it more likely that inmates will hide their symptoms to avoid the potential for isolation and continue to infect others in the general population.
The Court will address one other deficiency highlighted by amici—lack of access to confidential legal calls. As the Court already stated, it appears that individuals in isolation units have no access to telephones. Id. And, this issue persists for those in other housing units. Telephone calls in confidential settings are generally organized by DOC case management staff; however, most of those staff are either on quarantine or working remotely. Id. at 21. “Thus, as a general matter, there has been no access to confidential legal calls for inmates confined on quarantine and non-quarantine housing units.” Id. Some inmates have been able to make calls using telephones in the day rooms; however, these calls are monitored and do not afford the confidentiality required to communicate about legal issues with counsel. Id.
Based on the current record, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that Defendants are aware of the risk that COVID-19 poses to Plaintiffs’ health and have disregarded those risks by failing to take comprehensive, timely, and proper steps to stem the spread of the virus. Again, the Court acknowledges that additional development of the record may show that Defendants are taking sufficient precautions and that Defendants’ response continues to evolve. However, on the current record, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success in showing deliberate indifference.
C. Plaintiffs Show Irreparable Harm Next, the court considers whether or not Plaintiffs have made a showing of irreparable
harm. “[P]erhaps the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary 22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 23 of 31
injunction is a demonstration that if it is not granted the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm before a decision on the merits can be rendered.” Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 990 F. Supp. 2d 9, 38 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948.1 (2d ed.2013)). “[P]roving irreparable injury is a considerable burden, requiring proof that the movant’s injury is certain, great and actual—not theoretical—and imminent, creating a clear and present need for extraordinary equitable relief to prevent harm.” Power Mobility Coal. v. Leavitt, 404 F. Supp. 2d 190, 204 (D.D.C. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original).
Plaintiffs’ theory of irreparable harm rests on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the resulting health complication. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ risk of contracting COVID-19 and the resulting complications, including the possibility of death, is the prototypical irreparable harm. See Harris v. Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles County, 366 F.3d 754, 766 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding irreparable harm from pain, infection, and possible death due to delayed treatment from the reduction of hospital beds). “Facing requests for preliminary injunctive relief, courts often find a showing of irreparable harm where the movant’s health is in imminent danger.” AlJoudi v. Bush, 406 F. Supp. 2d 13, 20 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing Wilson v. Group Hosp. & Med. Servs., Inc., 791 F. Supp. 309, 314 (D.D.C. 1992) (granting preliminary injunction where cancer patient's “health and future remain[ed] in serious doubt” and insurance would not pay for lifesaving treatment)).
Defendants do not appear to contest that the risk of contracting COVID-19 constitutes irreparable harm. Instead, Defendants contend that, “because Plaintiffs fail to make any showing of a specific injury that is not generalized to the inmate population, plaintiffs fail to meet their burden of demonstrating irreparable harm.” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 25, 22. However, Defendants
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 24 of 31
cite no authority for the proposition that, because the threat of COVID-19 infection is widespread among the inmate population, Plaintiffs’ threat of irreparable harm is somehow diminished. And, Plaintiffs have produced expert evidence that they are “at a significantly higher risk of infection with COVID-19 as compared to the population in the community” and “at a significantly higher risk of harm if they do become infected.” Dec. of Jaimie Meyer, ECF No. 52, ¶ 33. The fact that many other inmates face this same risk does not diminish the risk faced by Plaintiffs.
Defendants, as well as society at large, are facing an unprecedented challenge. The risks of contracting COVID-19 are very real for those both inside and outside DOC facilities. However, Plaintiffs have produced evidence that inadequate precautionary measures at DOC facilities have increased their risk of contracting COVID-19 and facing serious health consequences, including death. The Court further notes that the number of inmates testing positive for COVID-19 is growing daily. Given the gravity of Plaintiffs’ asserted injury, as well as the permanence of death, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement of facing irreparable harm unless injunctive relief is granted.
D. The Balance of Hardships and the Public Interest Weigh in Plaintiffs’ Favor The Court moves to the final factors to be considered in granting a temporary restraining
order—the balance of the equities and the public interest. In this case, where the government is a party to the suit, the harm to Defendants and the public interest merge and “are one and the same, because the government’s interest is the public interest.” Pursuing America’s Greatness v. FEC, 831 F.3d 500, 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original). The Court finds that the public interest weighs in favor of granting injunctive relief.
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 25 of 31
First, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood that they will prevail on the merits of their due process and Eighth Amendment claims. And, “[i]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Simms v. District of Columbia, 872 F. Supp. 2d 90, 105 (D.D.C. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no harm to the Government when a court prevents unlawful practices.
Additionally, granting injunctive relief which lessens the risk that Plaintiffs will contract COVID-19 is in the public interest because it supports public health. No man’s health is an island. If Plaintiffs contract COVID-19, they risk infecting others inside the DOC facilities. Plaintiffs also risk infecting DOC staff members who work inside DOC facilities but also live in the community, thus increasing the number of people vulnerable to infection in the community at large. Additionally, if Plaintiffs contract COVID-19 and experience complications, “they will be transported to community hospitals— thereby using scarce community resources (ER beds, general hospital beds, ICU beds).” Dec. of Marc Stern, ECF No. 1-1, ¶ 13. As such, ordering Defendants to take precautions to lower the risk of infections for Plaintiffs also benefits the public.
And, the Court finds that the relief which will be granted, to be detailed below, does not impose an undue burden on Defendants. The Court begins by noting that the D.C. Circuit “has rejected any distinction between a mandatory and prohibitory injunction.” League of Women Voters of United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Declarations by DOC officials claim that Defendants are already complying with much of the requested relief. See, e.g., Dec. of Lennard Johnson, ECF No. 2-1, ¶ 6 (housing unit common areas cleaned every two hours during the day and twice each night); ¶ 7 (residents provided proper material to clean cells); ¶¶ 8-9 (each resident provided access to hot running water as well as weekly bar of soap, roll of toilet
25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 26 of 31
paper, and clean linens); ¶ 10 (hand sanitizer available to residents in CTF despite shortage); ¶ 12 (signs posted to alert residents of COVID-19 prevention measures); Dec. of Beth Jordon, ECF No. 20-2, ¶ 8 (DOC medical staff regularly meet with residents to discuss COVID-19 prevention); ¶ 12 (testing for those with specified symptoms). And, the Court does not order Defendants to take precautions that are not already being undertaken by the majority of the population. Moreover, in lessening the number of inmates infected with COVID-19, Defendants actually lessen the healthcare burden that they will be facing in the weeks and months to come.
The Court acknowledges the public interest in permitting the government discretion to carry out its authorized functions. However, “[c]ourts may not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison administration.” Brown, 563 U.S. at 511. The D.C. Circuit has previously authorized injunctive relief against correctional facilities, even where the injunctive relief imposes a particular set of conditions. See Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F.2d 521, 551-52 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (finding specific conditions not unduly intrusive because there was “no alternative if the rights of pretrial detainees are to be respected”).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in favor of granting injunctive relief.
E. Specific Relief Granted While the Court has concluded that, on the current factual record, Plaintiffs are entitled to
some injunctive relief, the Court is not granting the totality of the relief requested. The Court is not ordering the release of any inmates currently detained in DOC facilities.
In addition to the many individual release petitions which are currently being filed by DOC inmates, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia has granted District law enforcement the
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 27 of 31
discretion “to release an individual not otherwise eligible for release … upon approval of the prosecuting authority.” See Superior Court of the District of Columbia Order, March 16, 2020, available at http://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/Order_3-16-20.pdf. Additionally, based on the authority granted to the DOC by the COVID-Emergency Act amended Section 24221.0(c) “during a period for which a public health emergency has been declared …, [DOC] shall have discretion to award additional credits” to those serving misdemeanor sentences “to effectuate immediate release of persons sentenced for misdemeanors…consistent with public safety.” See D.C. Code § 24-221.01c(c) (2020). DOC has since doubled the maximum number of monthly sentencing credits which a misdemeanant may receive from 10 to 20. See DOC Change Notice #20-002, March 18, 2020 [19-2], ¶ 2c.
Since beginning these practices, all but nine misdemeanants have been released from custody. April 15, 2020 Tr., ECF No. 45, 72: 22-23. Eight of those misdemeanants have been considered for release and denied, and one misdemeanant has not requested release. Id. 72: 2473: 3. Based on the actions of D.C. Superior Court, Plaintiffs agree that the release of misdemeanants is no longer at issue in this case. Id. at 73: 15-18. As such, the Court does not find that injunctive relief on this ground is appropriate at this time. For this same reason, and due to ongoing processes for assessing individual inmates for release, the Court is not granting Plaintiffs’ request for an expert in prison population reduction at this time.
However, the Court does grant the following injunctive relief, in line with the amici recommendations. In light of the medical surveillance and monitoring that is occurring currently in the quarantine units, Defendants shall ensure that the triage process associated with sick call requests on the non-quarantine units is expedited and reflects appropriate sensitivity to the wide variety of symptoms associated with COVID-19 disease. Correctional officers and other staff
27

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 28 of 31
who are in contact with inmates should ensure that the medical staff are promptly informed about inmates who present with symptoms of COVID-19 and medical staff should respond to the housing unit on an expedited basis. Any inmate grievances that include allegations of delay in medical assessment should be prioritized and submitted to the DOC medical director immediately. Additionally, in light of the fact that the DOC is relying on inmates to self-report symptoms of COVID-19, Defendants shall provide better documentation as to the dates and times of sick calls and urgent care calls, the inmates’ reported symptoms, the dates and times the inmates are seen by medical professionals, and the outcomes to allow for better tracking of the response to inmates’ complaints of COVID-19 symptoms.
If the Defendants are not already doing so, they shall that ensure that cell restrictions are appropriately monitored, tracked, and corrective action is undertaken on an expedited basis if warranted.
In instances in which inmates are transferred from the intake unit to a different unit before the 14-day quarantine period expires, Defendants shall ensure that appropriate housing, surveillance and monitoring is afforded to the inmate in the receiving unit.
Defendants shall consult with public health professionals regarding strategies that can be implemented to strengthen the COVID-19-related education program for both staff and inmates. Moreover, Defendants shall explore appropriate supports that can be provided on an expedited basis to both staff and inmates who are living and working in an extremely stressful and highrisk environment and are at substantial risk of exposure.
Defendants shall conduct additional staff training on the use of the non-touch, infrared thermometers consistent with manufacturer guidelines and provide guidance to staff regarding what to do when thermometers produce results that appear on their face to be inaccurate.
28

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 29 of 31
Defendants shall take immediate steps to provide consistent and reliable access to legal calls, personal telephone calls, daily showers, and clean clothing and clean linens to all inmates on isolation status.
Defendants shall ensure appropriate and consistent implementation of social distancing policies by addressing limitations in current staffing levels, supervisory oversight of line staff, and provide enhanced education related to the importance of social distancing.
Defendants shall communicate clear expectations, in writing, to correctional staff about the types of PPE required to perform the various supervision and operational functions that are conducted throughout the facility, including the PPE they should expect to be given on each shift for each specific category of post assignment; the proper donning, doffing and disposal of the PPE; and an explanation of the related rationale. Clear communication to staff regarding differences in risk exposures and providing consistent PPE over time could help lower anxiety levels among staff.
In addition, Defendants shall also ensure that all PPE issued is properly fitted. For example, N95 respirators must be properly fitted to ensure that they provide the intended protection. During the site visits that amici conducted, none of the correctional staff who were wearing N95 respirators in isolation units reported that they had been fitted for the respirators.
Defendants shall ensure that all DOC staff receive instruction on the proper disposal of PPE, and appropriate and accessible receptables for immediate disposal must be readily available. During the site visits, amici observed that receptables for disposal of PPE were not accessible on a consistent basis, including to staff assigned to isolation units at the CTF.
There is a critical need for the defendants to strengthen the environmental health and safety program at both the CDF and the CTF. It is recommended that the DOC immediately
29

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 30 of 31
retain a registered sanitarian to oversee the environmental health and safety programs at both facilities and provide training so that cleaning tools and products are used properly. A registered sanitarian should bring the appropriate knowledge, oversight, and quality control necessary to mitigate at least some of the critical public health concerns that are evident in both facilities.
In addition to engaging a sanitarian, supervisory correctional staff must ensure that housing unit staff properly manage the work performed by the inmate detail workers. In order to accomplish that goal, correctional staff and detail workers require guidance from a sanitarian trained to oversee the facility’s environmental health program.
In addition to engaging a sanitarian, the defendants shall consider contracting for professional cleaning services on the non-secure side of the facility at least until a sanitarian is hired to bolster the existing environmental health and safety program at both facilities. Additionally, proper cleaning supplies that have been sanitized regularly shall be immediately provided to each unit, and a schedule for cleaning common areas and cells shall be established and enforced.
Defendants shall reduce the extent to which common spaces encourage inmates to congregate in close quarters (e.g., around a single television in a small enclosed area, or next to one another in order to use telephones that are mounted closer than six feet apart). The effectiveness of this strategy would increase if Defendants were to consistently apply their stated policy of allowing no more than small groups of inmates out of their cells at any given time. Whatever strategies Defendants adopt, increased active and direct supervision will be required by both housing unit correctional officers and the midlevel managers responsible for overseeing and supporting the correctional officers assigned to housing units. Enforcing social distancing standards as a public health measure is a new responsibility for correctional staff and they must
30

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 49 Filed 04/19/20 Page 31 of 31
be supported as they adjust to this new role. Moreover, Defendants shall assess whether any additional security staff are needed to provide appropriate supervision, on a unit-by-unit basis, taking into consideration the layout of the housing units, the number of inmates housed on the units, and the security designation of the unit, in order to enforce social distancing policies.
Finally, Defendants shall ensure that all inmates, including those on isolation, have access to confidential, unmonitored legal calls of a duration sufficient to discuss legal matters.
As relief, the Court has adopted in general the recommendations set out by the amici in their final report. The Court has not set out each detail in the report which supports these recommendations. However, the Court expects Defendants to address those specific deficiencies set out in the final report, which support the recommendations, and to rectify those deficiencies.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ [5] Motion for a TRO is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the balance of the hardships and the public interest weigh in their favor. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to the injunctive relief which is detailed above. However, the Court finds that some of the relief requested by Plaintiffs, such as the immediate release of inmates and the appointment of a downsizing expert, is inappropriate at this time on the current factual record. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge
31

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-00849 (CKK)

NOTICE IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S APRIL 1, 2020 ORDER Pursuant to the Court’s Order of March 31, 2020 and the Minute Order of April 1, 2020, defendants provide the following information and documents: 1. [A] list of the names of the approximately 94 inmates who have been sentenced to misdemeanors and who Defendants are considering for release. Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledged, in an email last evening, that they had received that list in coordination with Judge McKenna’s Order issued in In re Sentenced Misdemeanants, No. 2020 CNC 000120 (Super. Ct. of D.C.). Because this is a public filing, that list will not be attached here. Attached is the Department of Corrections (DOC) Good Time Credits Policy 4341.1B (as updated by Change Notice on March 18, 2020 and April 1, 2020). On March 18, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020, DOC doubled the number of good time credits (GTC) eligible residents could receive each month from 10 to 20 credits. See March 18, 2020 Change Notice. Eligible residents could receive a maximum of 6 GTCs for good behavior and 14 GTCs for participation in rehabilitation programs, work details, and special projects. See id. Then, on March 30, 2020, DOC again modified its GTC policy to allow eligible residents to

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19 Filed 04/01/20 Page 2 of 4

receive the maximum 20 GTCs each month simply for good behavior. See April 1, 2020 Change
Notice.
2. [T]he numbers of people who have been tested for COVID-19 and a breakdown of the identities of those individuals (such as inmates, visitors, etc.) and the results of those tests; the date on which Defendants began testing people coming into the jails; the number and a breakdown of the results of COVID-19 tests which have been done on those who were incarcerated prior to the date on which Defendants began testing all incoming inmates.
DOC began screening inmates on March 13, 2020, and began testing inmates on March 15,
2020. DOC does not test visitors or staff. New residents are not tested upon entry to DOC’s
facilities consistent with World Health Organization (WHO), Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
and Department of Health (DOH) guidelines of not testing individuals unless they are
symptomatic. Six inmates have tested positive, 2 negative, and DOC is awaiting the results of 9
tests.
3. [A]ll relevant written procedures and practices concerning COVID-19; and Defendants[’] process which is in place or will be put in place to allow legal counsel to communicate with their clients electronically or by other means.
Attached are the COVID-19 protocols of Unity Health Care (DOC’s contractor); DOC’s
COVID-19 screening protocol; Unity Health Care and DOC’s Pandemic Policy (2018, currently
being revised); DOC’s Pandemic Flu Plan (2009, currently being revised)1; and written guidance
to DOC’s Medical Director received from an epidemiologist at DOH on March 30, 2020. DOC
also provides regular updates on its website regarding COVID-19 measures. See
https://doc.dc.gov/page/coronavirus-prevention.
To facilitate the legal calls of the residents in DOC’s custody, DOC’s case management
team allows residents to use their desk phones to make legal calls. Case management also entered
into an agreement with the Public Defender Service (PDS) regarding its residents’ legal calls. Each

1

This document is marked “Confidential,” so will be filed subsequently under seal.

2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19 Filed 04/01/20 Page 3 of 4

weekday morning, by 9:00 am, the case management office receives a list of requested legal calls

from PDS’s Deputy Trial Chief. The case management office then has all of the residents available

for their legal calls. Last Friday, however, DOC developed a new telephone system with its

telecommunication partners, where each resident is allowed to make a free, unrecorded and

unmonitored 10-minute call, each day, to the registered number of their attorney of record. The

new system removes the case management office from the process except for verifying the

attorneys’ numbers and ensuring that the numbers are uploaded into the new system. The case

management office has been uploading private attorneys’ numbers to the new system as they

receive them. On Tuesday, March 31, 2020, DOC learned that PDS’s list of attorney names and

numbers would not be ready until Friday, April 3, 2020. Despite this new process, the case

management office is making reasonable efforts to ensure that all inmates have access to legal

calls.

With regard to video conferencing, DOC is hosting video/teleconferenced hearings in three

different areas for three different courts. DOC hosts hearings for the D.C. Superior Court, the U.S.

District Court for the District of Columbia, and the Maryland District Court. In accordance with a

meeting DOC had last week with Chief Judge Howell, each court has its own

video/teleconferencing module at DOC where residents can video conference with the court and

call their attorneys before and after their hearings. At times, there have been technology issues and

delays as facility staff have adjusted to new processes but, overall, DOC has transitioned from no

video or telephone court hearings in its facilities to three different areas with minimal problems.

DOC’s IT and operations staff are committed to increasing this capability.

Dated: April 1, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

KARL A. RACINE Attorney General for the District of Columbia

3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19 Filed 04/01/20 Page 4 of 4
TONI MICHELLE JACKSON Deputy Attorney General Public Interest Division /s/ Fernando Amarillas FERNANDO AMARILLAS [974858] Chief, Equity Section /s/ Andrew J. Saindon ANDREW J. SAINDON [456987] Senior Assistant Attorney General MICAH BLUMING [1618961] PAMELA DISNEY [1601225] Assistant Attorneys General 441 Fourth Street, N.W., Suite 630 South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6643 (202) 730-1470 (f) andy.saindon@dc.gov micah.bluming@dc.gov pamela.disney@dc.gov Counsel for Defendants
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-1 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 3

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
CHANGE NOTICE

EFFECTIVE DATE:
OPI: REVIEW DATE:
Approving Authority

April 1, 2020 Page 1 of 3
OPERATIONS September 14, 2020
Quincy L. Booth Director

SUBJECT:
NUMBER: Attachments:

GOOD TIME CREDITS – 4341.1B
Change Notice #19-002
PP 4341.1 Good Time Credit - Attachment 1

APPROVED:

Signature on File

____________________________ Quincy L. Booth, Director

_3/30/2020_________ Date Signed

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-1 Filed 04/01/20 Page 2 of 3

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE:

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CHANGE NOTICE

SUPERSEDES: REVIEW DATE:

SUBJECT:

GOOD TIME CREDITS – 4341.1B

NUMBER:

Change Notice # 19-002

Attachments:

PP 4341.1 Good Time Credit - Attachment 1

April 1, 2020
None September 14, 2020

Page 2 of 3

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE. The Department of Corrections (DOC) may award Good Time Credits (GTC) to eligible misdemeanants for good behavior and successful participation in rehabilitative programs, work details, and special projects.

2. POLICY
a. It is DOC policy to award GTC to inmates consistent with DC Code § 24221.01, et seq. and as amended in §§ 24-221.03 c(c)) (March 26, 2016).
b. GTC shall be applied to the person’s minimum term of imprisonment to determine the date of eligibility for release.
c. No inmate shall receive more than a total of twenty (20) GTC per calendar month for good behavior.
d. Once GTC are awarded, they are vested and cannot be forfeited.
e. When found guilty of one or more Class I or Class II offenses as defined in PM 5300.1, GTC that were given at sentence computation for good behavior may be forfeited.
f. Good Time Credits forfeited or withheld because of disciplinary violations may be restored in accordance with this directive.

3. APPLICABILITY
This policy shall apply to every inmate of a District of Columbia correctional institution who is serving a sentence for a misdemeanor pursuant to section 3(b) of An Act to Establish a Board of Indeterminate Sentence and Parole for the District of Columbia (DC Official Code § 24-221.01, et seq. and as amended in § 24221.03c(c)) (March 26, 2016).

AUTHORITY
a. DC Code § 24-211.02, Powers; Promulgation of Rules
b. DC Code §§ 24-221-.01c(c), District of Columbia Good Time Credits Act of 1986, effective May 17, 2011, is amended by adding a new Section 601.02.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-1 Filed 04/01/20 Page 3 of 3

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE:

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CHANGE NOTICE

SUPERSEDES: REVIEW DATE:

SUBJECT:

GOOD TIME CREDITS – 4341.1B

NUMBER:

Change Notice # 19-002

Attachments:

PP 4341.1 Good Time Credit - Attachment 1

April 1, 2020
None September 14, 2020

Page 3 of 3

c. DC Code § 24-101, et seq., Transfer of Prison System to Federal Authority.

d. COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES. Pursuant to COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020, Sec. 313, Good Time Credits, the below changes will apply to GTC for 180 days effective upon signing of this change notice.
The number of GTC that can be earned is changed as follows:
Section 10 “General Rules” (c) is amended by striking the number ten “10” and inserting the number twenty “20” in its place.
Section 11 “Applying Good Time Credit” (a1) is amended by striking the number three “3” and inserting the number twenty “20” in its place.
Section 11 “Applying Good Time Credit” (b.2) “Rehabilitative Program, Work Detail and Special Projects” is amended by striking section 11b
NEW VERBIAGESection 2 “Policy” (c). No inmate shall receive more than a total of twenty (20) GTC per calendar month for good behavior and positive participation in rehabilitative programs, details or special projects.
Section 10 “General Rules” (c). An inmate shall not earn more than twenty (20) GTC per full calendar month.
Section 11 “Applying Good Time Credit” (a.1) An inmate sentenced for a misdemeanor and whose conduct complies with institutional rules shall be eligible to receive GTC of up to twenty (20) credits per calendar month for good behavior.
Section 11 “Applying Good Time Credit” (b.2) “Rehabilitative Program, Work Detail and Special Projects” is amended by striking section 11b
ACTION. File this Change Notice in front of “Good Time Credits” dated January 17th, 2017.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-2 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 4

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
CHANGE NOTICE

EFFECTIVE DATE:
OPI: REVIEW DATE:
Approving Authority

March 18, 2020

Page 1 of 4

OPERATIONS

September 14, 2020

Quincy L. Booth Director

SUBJECT:
NUMBER: Attachments:

GOOD TIME CREDITS – 4341.1B
Change Notice #20-002
PP 4341.1 Good Time Credit - Attachment 1

APPROVED:

Signature on File

Quincy L. Booth, Director

3/18/20___________________ Date Signed

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-2 Filed 04/01/20 Page 2 of 4

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE:

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CHANGE NOTICE

SUPERSEDES: REVIEW DATE:

SUBJECT:

GOOD TIME CREDITS – 4341.1B

NUMBER:

Change Notice # 19-002

Attachments:

PP 4341.1 Good Time Credit - Attachment 1

March 18, 2020
None September 14, 2020

Page 2 of 4

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE. The Department of Corrections (DOC) may award Good Time Credits (GTC) to eligible misdemeanants for good behavior and successful participation in rehabilitative programs, work details, and special projects.
2. POLICY
a. It is DOC policy to award GTC to inmates consistent with DC Code § 24221.01, et seq. and as amended in §§ 24-221.03 c(c)) (March 26, 2016).
b. GTC shall be applied to the person’s minimum term of imprisonment to determine the date of eligibility for release.
c. No inmate shall receive more than a total of twenty (20) GTC per calendar month for good behavior and positive participation in rehabilitative programs, details or special projects.
d. Once GTC are awarded for successful program participation, work details or special projects, they are vested and cannot be forfeited.
e. When found guilty of one or more Class I or Class II offenses as defined in PM 5300.1, GTC that were given at sentence computation for good behavior may be forfeited and credits for successful programming that have not yet been awarded, may be withheld.
f. Good Time Credits forfeited or withheld because of disciplinary violations may be restored in accordance with this directive.
3. APPLICABILITY
This policy shall apply to every inmate of a District of Columbia correctional institution who is serving a sentence for a misdemeanor pursuant to section 3(b) of An Act to Establish a Board of Indeterminate Sentence and Parole for the District of Columbia (DC Official Code § 24-221.01, et seq. and as amended in § 24221.03c(c)) (March 26, 2016).

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-2 Filed 04/01/20 Page 3 of 4

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE:

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CHANGE NOTICE

SUPERSEDES: REVIEW DATE:

SUBJECT:

GOOD TIME CREDITS – 4341.1B

NUMBER:

Change Notice # 19-002

Attachments:

PP 4341.1 Good Time Credit - Attachment 1

March 18, 2020
None September 14, 2020

Page 3 of 4

AUTHORITY
a. DC Code § 24-211.02, Powers; Promulgation of Rules
b. DC Code §§ 24-221-.01c(c), District of Columbia Good Time Credits Act of 1986, effective May 17, 2011, is amended by adding a new Section 601.02.
c. DC Code § 24-101, et seq., Transfer of Prison System to Federal Authority.
d. COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES. Pursuant to COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020, Sec. 313, Good Time Credits, the below changes will apply to GTC for 180 days effective upon signing of this change notice.
The number of GTC that can be earned is changed as follows:
Section 10 “General Rules” (c) is amended by striking the number ten “10” and inserting the number twenty “20” in its place.
Section 11 “Applying Good Time Credit” (a1) is amended by striking the number three “3” and inserting the number six “6” in its place.
Section 11 “Applying Good Time Credit” (b.2) “Rehabilitative Program, Work Detail and Special Projects” is amended by striking the number seven “7” and inserting the number fourteen “14” in its place.
NEW VERBIAGESection 2 “Policy” (c). No inmate shall receive more than a total of twenty (20) GTC per calendar month for good behavior and positive participation in rehabilitative programs, details or special projects.
Section 10 “General Rules” (c). An inmate shall not earn more than twenty (20) GTC per full calendar month.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-2 Filed 04/01/20 Page 4 of 4

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE:

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CHANGE NOTICE

SUPERSEDES: REVIEW DATE:

SUBJECT:

GOOD TIME CREDITS – 4341.1B

NUMBER:

Change Notice # 19-002

Attachments:

PP 4341.1 Good Time Credit - Attachment 1

March 18, 2020
None September 14, 2020

Page 4 of 4

Section 11 “Applying Good Time Credit” (a.1) An inmate sentenced for a misdemeanor and whose conduct complies with institutional rules shall be eligible to receive GTC of up to six (6) credits per calendar month for good behavior.

Section 11 “Applying Good Time Credit” (b.2) No more than a total of fourteen (14) credits shall be applied for each calendar month of participation in a combination of programs, work details and/or special projects.

ACTION. File this Change Notice in front of “Good Time Credits” dated January 17th, 2017.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-3 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 4 UNITY HEALTH CARE, INC.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HEALTH CENTER
CORONAVIRUS PROTOCOL

SUBJECT: Coronavirus (COVID-19)

PURPOSE: To provide guidelines for early identification and to prevent the spread of coronavirus (COVID-2019) in the central detention facility (CDF and the correctional treatment facility (CTF).

POLICY:

All detainees entering the Central Detention Facility (CDF) or Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) shall be appropriately screened, evaluated and treated as clinically indicated for coronavirus at the time of intake.

PROCEDURE:

I.

Coronavirus

Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are known to cause illness ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as Severe Acute Respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). A novel (new) coronavirus (COVID-19) is a new strain of coronavirus that has not been previously identified in humans. The COVID-19 is the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness first detected in Wuhan, Hubei province, China. There have been cases of community spread of COVID19 reported in several states. Community spread means spread of an illness for which the source of infection is unknown. It spreads from person-to-person. At this time, however, most people in the United States will have little immediate risk of exposure to this virus. Information on coronavirus disease 2019 remains limited but CDC has published clinical criteria for assessment of patients in healthcare settings.

II. Screening and Symptoms

A. All inmates shall be screened for coronavirus at intake.

B. All intakes shall be screened for symptoms, history and contacts.

Screening Questions:

1. Have you traveled outside of the US within the past 14 days? (Areas of concern currently are China, Iran, Italy, Japan or South Korea and areas of widespread community transmission both abroad and the US – please refer to the CDC website as these areas are being updated daily)
2. Have you had contact in the past 14 days traveled from an area with widespread or ongoing community spread of COVID-19?
3. Have you had contact in the past 14 days with a person who has confirmed COVID-19 (Coronavirus infection)?
4. Do you have any of the following symptoms? Fever (subjective or confirmed T≥100.4°F) or cough or shortness of breath?

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-3 Filed 04/01/20 Page 2 of 4 Symptoms may appear 2-14 days after exposure:
Close contact is defined as— a) being within approximately 6 feet (2 meters) of a COVID-19 case for a prolonged period of time; close contact can occur while caring for, living with, visiting, or sharing a healthcare waiting area or room with a COVID-19 case – or – b) having direct contact with infectious secretions of a COVID-19 case (e.g., being coughed on)
III. Management
A. Inmates answering “yes” to one or more of the screening questions shall be evaluated by a provider. The provider shall: i. Don a facemask with eye protection and gloves ii. Assess for fever or symptoms of lower respiratory illness (e.g. cough or shortness of breath)
B. Inmates found to have both exposure and illness present, the provider shall: i. Place a facemask over the inmate’s nose and mouth ii. Isolate the inmate in a private room or a separate area. Room doors should be kept closed except when entering or leaving the room, and entry and exit should be minimized.
C. Healthcare providers should immediately notify their infection control personnel 202698-0403 and then contact DC Health immediately in the event of suspected infection for 2019-nCoV by calling 202-576-1117 (during business hours) or 844-4932652 (after business hours). DC Health will determine if testing for COVID-19 is needed and give instruction on how to do this.
D. If the case does not meet the current case definition but is highly suspicious, please contact DC Health for consultation.
E. Treatment is supportive to help relieve symptoms. No specific antiviral is recommended.
F. Dedicated equipment should be used for patient care. G. All non-dedicated, non-disposable medical equipment used for patient care should
be cleaned and disinfected according to manufacturer’s instructions and agency policies. H. Inmate care that involves being within 6 feet of patients should be managed using standard, contact and airborne precautions and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) (gloves, gown, N95 respirator, eye protection – goggles or face shield) until transmissible infectiousness is ruled out.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-3 Filed 04/01/20 Page 3 of 4
IV. Containment A. Inmates suspected of having coronavirus shall be given a facemask and housed on a designated unit for patients suspected of having COVID-19 (Coronavirus infection). Monitoring efforts will be followed per instructions from DC Health. If an inmate becomes ill while on a regular housing unit, the correctional officer will call medical urgent care for further instructions. Patients MUST MEET THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S CRITERIA FOR A SUSPECTED CASE OF COVID-19 INFECTION in order to be housed on the unit designated for suspected COVID-19 infection.
B. If the patient suspected of having COVID-19 was on a housing unit, that unit shall then QUARANTINED (current recommendations are for 14 days). Medical will work closely with the DC DOH in this case regarding monitoring and ongoing recommendations for management. Discontinuing these efforts will be made on a case-by-case basis, in consultation with DC Health.
C. Inmates shall be instructed to cover coughing and sneezing with a tissue and throw away in the regular trash after use; maintain good hand hygiene by washing hands with soap and water; avoid touching eyes, nose or mouth without clean hands; avoid sharing personal items; and to report the first sign of illness to the officer / medical.
D. Attending staff and security, as well as medical, must use standard, contact and airborne precautions and wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) (gloves, gown, N95 respirator, eye protection – goggles or face shield protection) until transmissible infectiousness is ruled out.
E. The DC DOH should be contacted regarding any medical staff or security staff who are considered to have a moderate or high-risk exposure to an inmate suspected of having or confirmed to have COVID-19. Exposure classifications can be found at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/riskassessment.html
V. Infection Control A. Environmental cleaning and disinfection: Cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces are important components of routine infection control in healthcare facilities. Environmental cleaning and disinfection for coronavirus follows the same general principles used in other healthcare settings. i. Dedicated equipment should be used for patient care of ill individuals. Then routine cleaning of the equipment shall be done along with cleaning of the room or area used. ii. All non-dedicated, non-disposable medical equipment used for patient care should be cleaned and disinfected according to manufacturer’s instructions and agency policies. iii. After patient is discharged/transferred, the room(s) or area used shall be closed off prior to cleaning for a minimum of 4 hours and up to 24 hours (if possible) to minimize potential for exposure to respiratory droplets. If possible, open doors and windows to increase circulation in the area. iv. Use of EPA-registered disinfectant according to manufacturer’s instructions for routine cleaning of surfaces, frequently touched areas (elevator buttons, tabletops, doors, doorknobs, handles, desks, toilets, faucets, sinks, common areas where staff/others provide services and objects).

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-3 Filed 04/01/20 Page 4 of 4
v. Dirty surfaces should be cleaned first with soap and water then with the EPA-registered disinfectant.
vi. Staff cleaning should wear disposable gloves and gowns for all tasks in the cleaning process, including handling trash, and use of eye protection when deemed necessary. Upon completion of cleaning, gloves and gowns should be removed carefully to avoid contamination of the wearer and the surrounding area.
vii. Handwashing should be performed after removing gloves. viii. Follow facility procedures for regular cleaning of patient occupied cells.
Patient cells/areas shall be cleaned at least daily and prior to another patient moving into the cell with the CDC approved disinfecting agent.
REFERENCES:
I. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html

Case 1:20-cv-00F8lo4w9c-hCaKrtKProDceosscuafmteer npat t1ie9n-t4ansFwileerds “0Y4E/S0”1t/o20 Page 1 of 2 TRAVEL TO CHINA OR CLOSE CONTACT WITH a person known to have Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Question by DOC/MA/Nurse

Provider gets alert from DOC/MA/Nurse about a patient who has traveled to a high risk area OR was in close contact with a
known person with Coronavirus
Travel Screening Questions
Have you traveled to China, Iran, Italy, Japan or South Korea in the past 14 days?
Have you had known close contact in the past 14 days with a person who travelled to China, Iran, Italy, Japan or South Korea or a person under investigation for COVID-19?
Have you had contact in the past 14 days with a person who has known or suspected COVID-19, or has had symptoms of COVID-19?
Have you had contact in the past 14 days traveled from an area with widespread or ongoing community spread of COVID-19?
Symptom Screening Question
Have you experienced any of these symptoms in the past 14 days: SUBJECTIVE/Confirmed Fever T≥100.4°F or cough or shortness of breath?

 Provider dons facemask with eye protection and

gloves

 Provider assesses for fever or symptoms of lower respiratory illness (e.g. cough or shortness of breath (SOB))

Health Services Administrator (HSA), Medical Director, and Director of Infection Prevention:

 Provider confirms both exposure and illness are present
 Provider confirms patient is wearing a mask

 Coordinates process with provider  Lists all staff exposed to patient  Documents all exposed contacts

 Contacts DC Health Department

Travel history confirmed with Travel Screening Questions on left

 Calls DOC Medical Director  Contacts Shift Supervisor  Instructs further actions on site

including staff and patient

YES

Notify HSA, Medical Director, and

Director of Infection Prevention

or Designee

movement  Ascertains room is isolated and not
used until cleaned per protocol

Symptom screening question POSITIVE
NO
Assess patient temperature with non-contact thermometer

YES

 Keeps log

Do a

 Writes incident report

Rapid

Influenza

Test

Flu test

- Provider places

positive.

facemask on patient

Evaluate

- Isolate patient in

and treat.

private room or a

separate area

YES Coronavirus

- Wear the appropriate PPE

Temperature 100.4 or above OR Cough or Shortness of breath

Suspected

NO: Coronavirus NOT Suspected
Assess level of risk per boxes below

Report/Monitor Asymptomatic patients with high-, some, or lowrisk exposures in the past 14 days to DC Health Department. Patient temperature, SOB and other symptoms to be monitored twice daily; Notify Provider if symptomatic.

See reverse side of this form for CDC classifications of risk as of March 5, 2020.

Healthcare providers should immediately notify their infection control personnel 202-698-0403 and then contact DC Health immediately in the event of a PUI for 2019-nCoV by calling 202-576-1117 (during business hours) or 844-493-2652 (after business hours).
If the case does not meet the current case definition but is highly suspicious, please contact DC Health for consultation.

Case 1:20-cvC-0D0C84c9la-CssKifKicaDtioocnusmoefnrtis1k9-a4s oFfilMeda0rc4h/051,/22002P0a. ge 2 of 2 All exposures apply to the 14 days prior to assessment and recommendations apply until 14 days after the exposure event.

High-Risk
-Living in the same household as, being an intimate partner of, or providing care in a non-healthcare setting (such as a home) for a person with symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection without using recommended precautions for home care and home isolation --The same risk assessment applies for the above-listed exposures to a person diagnosed clinically with COVID-19 infection outside of the United States who did not have laboratory testing. -Travel from Hubei Province, China

Medium Risk
-Close contact with a person with symptomatic laboratoryconfirmed COVID-19 infection, and not having any exposures that meet a high-risk definition. --The same risk assessment applies for close contact with a person diagnosed clinically with COVID-19 infection outside of the United States who did not have laboratory testing. --On an aircraft, being seated within 6 feet (two meters) of a traveler with symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection; this distance correlates approximately with 2 seats in each direction -Living in the same household as, an intimate partner of, or caring for a person in a non-healthcare setting (such as a home) to a person with symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection while consistently using recommended precautions for home care and home isolation -Travel from mainland China outside Hubei Province AND not having any exposures that meet a high-risk definition

Low Risk
-Being in the same indoor environment (e.g., a classroom, a hospital waiting room) as a person with symptomatic laboratoryconfirmed COVID-19 for a prolonged period of time but not meeting the definition of close contact -On an aircraft, being seated within two rows of a traveler with symptomatic laboratoryconfirmed COVID-19 but not within 6 feet (2 meters) AND not having any exposures that meet a medium- or a high-risk definition

No Identifiable Risk
-Interactions with a person with symptomatic laboratoryconfirmed COVID-19 infection that do not meet any of the high-, medium- or low-risk conditions above, such as walking by the person or being briefly in the same room.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-5 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 1
Hello Beth,
Thank you for your email. Based on CDC’s guidance, an individual is considered a close contact if they have been within approximately 6 feet of COVID-19 case for a prolonged period of time or have had direct contact with infectious secretions from a COVID-19 case (e.g. have been coughed on). Close contact can occur while caring for, living with, visiting or sharing a common space with a COVID-19 case. Data to inform the definition of close contact are limited. Considerations when assessing close contact include the duration of exposure (e.g. longer exposure time likely increases exposure risk) and the clinical symptoms of the person with COVID-19 ( e.g. coughing likely increases exposure risk, as does exposure to a severely ill patient).
If workforce is an issue at the DOC, as mentioned in my previous email dated March 27th, the following CDC guidance for Healthcare workers(HCW) can be adapted for staff at your facility:
o "Facilities could consider allowing asymptomatic HCP who have had an exposure to a COVID-19 patient to continue to work after options to improve staffing have been exhausted and in consultation with their occupational health program. These HCP should still report temperature and absence of symptoms each day prior to starting work. Facilities could have exposed HCP wear a facemask while at work for the 14 days after the exposure event if there is a sufficient supply of facemasks. If HCP develop even mild symptoms consistent with COVID-19, they must cease patient care activities, don a facemask (if not already wearing), and notify their supervisor or occupational health services prior to leaving work."
o The above guidance can be applied to the staff, where they can continue working until they develop symptoms. If they develop symptoms at work, to leave the facility and reach out to their healthcare provider. The healthcare provider will work with DC Department of Health to coordinate testing for symptomatic staff members
Lastly, officers who have had close contact with officers exposed to the positive case have no identifiable risk at this time. However if they develop symptoms, then your facility sick policies should be implemented. It is critical to implement some everyday measures like performing verbal screening at the beginning of the shift for staff, temperature checks if possible OR self-monitoring of symptoms consistent with COVID-19 to reduce the spread of this virus in your facility.
Please refer to CDC’s guidance on correctional and detention facilities for more information: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctionaldetention.html
Thank you,
Best,
Shreya
Shreya Khuntia, MBBS,MPH Epidemiologist- Influenza and COVID-19 response Center for Policy, Planning and Evaluation (CPPE)
shreya.khuntia@dc.gov 899 North Capitol St NE, 6th Fl, Washington, DC 20002 dchealth.dc.gov

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-6 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 12

.--) lJJ(00 UNITY HEALTH CAR'

.•.

~ ..

UNITY HEALTH CARE, INC .

DEPARTMENT:
CENTRAL DETENTION AND CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FAClllTES HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION REVIEWED BY:
P4Jo.A ~, Mf,)
APPROVED BY CMO:

TITLE:
MEDICAL PLAN FOR PANDEMIC INFLUENZA

POllCY#: CF 210
PAGE: 1 of 11

EFFECTIVE DATE:

DATE/S) REVISED:

April 15, 2011

April 10, 2008

May 30, 2014

July 31,2016

October 1 2018

OVED BY CEO:

1j/l~,/1

PURPOSE: POLICY:

Unity Health Care (UHC) and DC Department of Corrections (DOC) recognize the importance of establishing an action plan for the identification and management of a pandemic influenza outbreak. The plan shall provide guidance and direction to staff in managing seasonal and pandemic influenza at the DOC Central Detention Facility (CDF) and Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF).
It is the policy of Unity Health Care at the DOC implement a strategic approach for screening and preventing the transmission of pandemic influenza, should patients become ill with influenza. The plan provides general guidance and is intended to be consistent with Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). All employees are to comply with the guidelines and any related changes from CDC.

BACKGROUND:

I. Influenza is a highly infectious viral illness that causes yearly seasonal epidemics. The complications of influenza can cause death. Influenza virus is transmitted in most cases by droplets through coughing and sneezing of infected persons but it can be transmitted by direct contact. An annual influenza vaccination is the best method of protection against influenza.

II. Influenza viruses are unique in their ability to cause sudden infection in all age groups on a global scale. A flu pandemic occurs when a new virus appears that people have not been exposed to before. The new virus would spread as easily as normal seasonal flu, through coughing and sneezing. Since the virus is new, the human immune system will have no pre-existing immunity against it. People who are infected by the new virus may become more seriously ill than if they have the normal seasonal flu.

III. A pandemic influenza is a global outbreak of a new influenza A that is very different from the current and recently circulating human seasonal influenza A viruses. Pandemics occurs when new (novel) influenza A viruses emerge which are able to infect people easily and spread from person to person in an efficient and sustained way. Can occur in waves, with each wave having the ability to last for several weeks, with the possibility of widespread infections in each wave

CF 210 - Medica! Plan for Pandemic InfluenzB

1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-6 Filed 04/01/20 Page 2 of 12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-6 Filed 04/01/20 Page 3 of 12

simultaneously in different parts of the world. This will cause disruptions to daily life and essential services, as well as high levels of illness, death, social disruptions and economic loss. An influenza pandemic has a greater potential to cause rapid increases in illness and death than virtually any other health threat.

IV. The occurrence of a pandemic cannot be determined. However, the impact of the next pandemic could have a devastating effect on the health and well being of the American public. A pandemic event will strain resources needed to minimize disruption of the government and community. In the event of a pandemic, special requirements for surveillance, rapid delivery of vaccines and antiviral drugs, allocation of limited medical resources, and expansion of health care service to meet a surge in demand for care.

V. Clinical presentation - The reported symptoms of influenza-like illness (Ill) have ranged from typical seasonal influenza-like symptoms (e.g., fever, chills, cough, sore throat, fatigue and muscle aches) to eye infections (conjunctivitis), pneumonia, acute respiratory distress, viral pneumonia, and other severe and life-threatening complications.

VI. Influenza is primarily transmitted from person to person via large droplets that are generated when an infected person coughs or sneezes; these large droplets can then settle on the mucosal surfaces (mouth or nose) of the upper respiratory tracts of susceptible persons who are within 3 6 feet of an infected person. Less often, a person might also get the flu by touching a surface or object that has flu virus on it and then touching their own mouth or nose. Adults can spread influenza to others from the day before getting symptoms to approximately 5 - 7 days after illness onset. However, the amount of virus shed, and presumably infectivity, decreases rapidly by 3 - 5 days after onset in an experimental human infection model. Young children also might shed virus several days before illness onset, and children can be infectious for 10 or more days after onset of symptoms. Severely immunocompromised persons can shed virus for weeks or months.
DEFINITIONS:

I. SEASONAL (OR COMMON) FLU - is a contagious respiratory illness caused by influenza viruses that can be transmitted person to person. Most people have some immunity, and a vaccine is available.

II. PANDEMIC FLU - occurs where a non-human novel influenza virus gains the ability for efficient and sustained human-to-human transmission then spreads easily from person to person worldwide. For example, avian influenza A (H5N1) and avian influenza H7N9.

III. MEDICAL ISOLATION - separation or restricted movement of ill persons with a contagious disease; housed in a separate room with a separate toilet, handwashing facility, soap, and singleuse towels, and with appropriate accommodations for showering.

IV. QUARANTINE - separation or restricted movement of well persons presumed to have been exposed to a contagion, while they are in the incubation period.

PROCEDURES:

I. Precautions:

A. In the era of re-emerging communicable disease, basic infection control precautions are the cornerstone of the approach to prevent transmission of communicable diseases in health care facilities. The basic level of infection control precautions (standard precautions), when used

CF 210 - Medical Plan for Pandemic Influenza

2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-6 Filed 04/01/20 Page 4 of 12

appropriately will be effective in preventing transmission of most communicable diseases in health care facilities. Facilitating compliance with these basic precautions will be emphasized.

B. Available evidence suggests that transmission of human influenza viruses occurs through multiple routes including large droplets, direct and indirect contact, and droplet nuclei. However, observational studies conducted in heallh care facilities suggests that droplet transmission is the major mode of transmission in that setting and standard precautions plus droplet precautions are recommended for the care of patients infected with seasonal influenza or Ill. The following serves as a guide.

C. Standard precautions - strict hand hygiene and the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is essential to the prevention of infection. To minimize transmission, the following shall be followed:

1. Cover mouth and nose with a tissue when coughing or sneezing and dispose of used tissue in waste container.
2. Use a surgical mask if coughing is persistent, when a mask can be tolerated. 3. After contact with respiratory secretions wash hands with soap and water or use an
alcohol-based hand rub. Avoid touching eyes, nose and mouth without cleaning hands. 4. If hands are visibly dirty or soiled with blood or other body fluids or if broken skin might
have been exposed to potentially infectious materials, hands should be washed thoroughly with soap and water. 5. Staff should use gloves and change them often. 6. Wash hands before putting on the gloves and after removing the gloves. Gloves should be changed between patient contacts. 7. Stand, sit at least 3 - 6 feet from the other person, or avoid contact if possible. 8. Staff should utilize PPE such as a properly fitted mask, gowns, and goggles while engaging in any activities that may potentiate exposure to splashes or sprays of any body fluids. Staff should remove a soiled gown as promptly as possible and wash hands to avoid transfer of microorganisms to staff, or to other patients or environments. 9. Masks worn by medical staff shall comply with National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) standard N-95 or better, and shall be individually fit tested per Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. 10. All disposable items such as masks, gloves, goggles, and gowns shall be disposed of accordance with policy CF202 (Infection Prevention and Control). 11. Heavily soiled waste must be placed in a red bag and disposed. When transporting soiled linens use gloves followed by hand hygiene. Laundry personnel should use standard precautions and perform hand hygiene after removing PPE that has been in contact with soiled linen/laundry. Linens only require normal washing in hot water and detergent. 12. When possible, staff should ensure that reusable eating utensils/items be washed in a dishwasher with detergent at the recommended water temperature. If dishwashers are not available, detergent and water shall be used. Rubber gloves shall be used if washing with hand washing. 13. Disposable items shall be discarded with other general waste.

D. Droplet precautions - droplets are generated primarily during coughing, sneezing, and talking. Transmission occurs when infectious droplets are propelled through the air onto another person but due to their large size can only travel distances of 3 feet or less. To minimize transmission, the following shall be followed:

1. Infected patients must wear a surgical mask when in direct contact with other individuals. 2. Maintain 3 - 6 feet distance from infected individuals.

CF 210 - Medical Plan for Pandomic Influenza

3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-6 Filed 04/01/20 Page 5 of 12
3. The movement and transport of patients outside the isolations room/area should be for essential purposes only. The receiving area should be informed as soon as possible prior to the patient's arrival so the precautions should be instituted.
4. The use of surgical masks shall be used by pandemic influenza infected patients and should be worn by suspected or confirmed pandemic influenza infected patients during transport or when care is necessary outside of the isolation room/area. The patient should perform hand hygiene after contact with respiratory secretions.
5. If a mask cannot be tolerated the patient may cover his/her mouth and nose with a tissue during coughing or sneezing. The patient should perform hand hygiene after coughing or sneezing.
II. Suspected or confirmed cases:
A. Early identification and isolation (when clinically indicated) of infectious diseases is essential. Medical staff shall inquire about any infectious diseases or signs and symptoms of III upon intake into the DOC.
B. Any patient suspected by medical staff to have III during incarceration shall wear a surgical mask and be immediately transported to the medical unit or if possible the patient shall be seen in their housing unit sick call room in order to limit patient movement. The patient will be tested for Influenza A and B, then treated as clinically indicated.
C. For patients confirmed to have Ill, the patient shall be placed in a single cell in the housing unit or monitored on the medical unit as medically indicated. If single cell rooms are not available, patients infected with the same organisms may be cohorted (share rooms).
D. Patients that present without symptoms but report having contact with influenza or suspected influenza shall be quarantined by restricting the patient's movement until medical staff is able to determine that the person can be cleared to the general population.
E. Patients identified by medical personnel as being high risk for the developing influenza shall be afforded the opportunity to receive the vaccination when vaccine is available by Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and according to the guidelines. Management of influenza shall be the sole province of the providers caring for the patient population. Care should focus on fever reduction, hydration, and comfort measures as well as prevention and containment strategies.
III. Environmental cleaning and disinfection:
A. Patient cells/areas shall be cleaned at least daily and prior to another patient moving into the cell with the CDC approved disinfecting agent or 10% solution of bleach (1 part bleach and 9 parts cold water).
B. In addition to daily cleaning of floors and other horizontal surfaces, special attention should be given to cleaning and disinfecting frequently touched surfaces to at least include doors, doorknobs, bed rails, sinks, and televisions. Isopropyl (rubbing alcohol) 70% and ethyl alcohol 60% are disinfectants to be used on smooth metal surfaces, tabletops, and other surfaces on which bleach cannot be used. Note: These cleaning agents are flammable and toxic. To be used in well-ventilated areas. Avoid inhalation. Keep away from heat sources, electrical equipment, flames and hot surfaces. Allow it to dry completely. Surface disinfecting wipes are also a suitable substitute.

CF 210 - Medical Plan for Pandemic Influenza

4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-6 Filed 04/01/20 Page 6 of 12

C. Care must be taken to only utilize damp rather than dry dusting or sweeping so to limit the possibility of airborne exposure to infected material. Dust horizontal surfaces by moistening a cloth with a small amount of disinfectant.
D. Mop heads shall be changed and laundered daily and dried thoroughly before storage or reuse.
IV. Handling of patient care equipment - handle used patient-care equipment soiled with blood, body fluids, secretions, or excretions in a manner that prevents skin and mucous membrane exposures, contamination of clothing, and transfer or microorganisms to other staff, patients, or environments. Ensure that reusable equipment is not used for the care of another patient until it has been cleaned and reprocessed appropriately.
V. Management of staff
A. Although influenza cannot be prevented studies have shown that vaccination can limit the possibility of developing illness. Staff especially health care workers are encouraged to receive the influenza vaccination. According to scientists the vaccine will not be available until 4 to 6 months after the onset of the pandemic flu and be available in limited supplies. Antiviral medication could be given as a prevention strategy but is also limited in supply and CDC guidelines will direct the medical community who should receive this medication under a triage system.
B. Surveillance and management of all UHC and DOC staff working on the quarantine/isolation units, especially health care workers caring for pandemic influenza infected patients, shall include:
1. Health care workers reporting any III exposures to the supervisor. 2. Health care workers who have a fever and/or are symptomatic notify his/her supervisor
and will be instructed to seek medical attention. 3. If diagnosed with Ill, return to work only after cleared to do so by their treating health care
provider. 4. Check temperature daily and monitor for symptoms of influenza-like illness (cough, sore
throat, difficulty breathing) for 10 days after possible influenza exposure. Health care staff shall have temperature checked once per shift. The UHC Infection Prevention Specialist or designee will work with a correctional liaison from CDF/CTF to designate "FluManagers" who shall orchestrate this process and be responsible for monitoring temperature and symptoms. 5. In the event of a fever (over 100AF) or the development of Ill, staff must immediately limit their interactions with others, exclude themselves from public areas, and notify their supervisor and provider that they are symptomatic and that they may be infected with influenza.
VI. Management in the event of a pandemic influenza within the facility
A. General guidelines
1. Once medical staff confirm a case of Ill, the UHC Medical Director or designee shall immediately notify the facility Warden, DOC Medical Director, and DC Health.
2. Standard, airborne, and droplet precautions as described above shall be instituted immediately and the patient shall be isolated.

CF 210 - Medical Plan for Pandemic Influenza

5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-6 Filed 04/01/20 Page 7 of 12

3. Full infection control barriers to include standard, contact, and droplet precautions (plus eye protection if sprays/splashes of secretions are anticipated) are MANDATORY and shall remain in place for seven days after lhe resolution of the fever.
4. Appropriate signage shall be placed on lhe patient's cell where it is visible by all staff. 5. Slaff members having direcl conlact with any individual shall use a NIOSH -certified N-95
particulate respirator after being fit-lested. If an N-95 respirator is not immediately available lhen a tightly-fitling surgical or procedure mask should be used. 6. In lhe event that there is one case of pandemic influenza within lhe: a. Community:
I. Education regarding III and infection prevenlion and conlrol should be reinforced and immediately report ILL
ii. Health care workers, officers, and patients should be encouraged to adhere to good hygiene habits such as hand hygiene, respiratory/cough etiquetle, and avoid louching eyes, nose, and moulh.
iii. Increase environmental cleaning and disinfecting frequently touched surfaces 10 at leasl include doors, doorknobs, beds, rails, sinks, and televisions.
iv. Begin to conduct surveillance of III wilhin the facility at intake and sick call. b. Facility:
I. Immediately isolate (or cohort) patients with III in the patient's cell or housing unit. ii. Patienls will be screened al sick call to identify palients with ILI or as medically
indicated.
iii. Upon direclion from lhe Facilily Warden, all visitations shall be ceased and the facility shall go under lock down status. No movemenl inside or outside of the facility shall take place until restrictions are lifted by lhe Warden. Visitation restrictions will last the duralion of the pandemic wave, which may be up to eighl weeks.
7. The Depuly Warden of Operations shall inform the patient population of the pandemic plan and actions being taken to reduce the amounl of patients and possible exposure to lhe virus.
8. Medical staff are expeeled 10come to work and will be told to stay home if they are sick with "Ill." It can be expected lhat large percentage of the UHC and DOC staff will not arrive to work. Staff will mainlain contact with their supervisors.
9. It will be the responsibility of the Health Services Administrator to assess and plan accordingly. Essential slaff (all direcl care providers (including discharge planners), managers, directors, procuremenl clerk, infection prevention specialisl, pharmacy staff, driver, and one administralive assislanl) will be expecled to report to work as scheduled and staff my be required to work in another departmenl as needed to provide essential services.
10. Only essential services will lake place during lock down 10 include: a. Providing medical care and medicalion administration. b. Removal and disposal of garbage. c. Food preparation and distribution. d. Laundry operations. e. Patienls will be allowed 10 shower 3 limes per week.

B. Organizalional roles and responsibililies:

1. Health Service Administrator

a. Notifies DOC.

b. Recommends activalion of the pandemic flu plan in lhe event of a confirmed case of

pandemic flu.

c. Helps 10 determine isolalion, quarantine, and social dislancing measures.

d. Requests Medical Director to request vaccines, antivirals and medical supplies.

CF 210 - Medical Plan for Pandemic Influenza

6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-6 Filed 04/01/20 Page 8 of 12

e. Activates immunization or medication clinics and other UHC activities.

f. Ensures availability of and training for communications equipments 2. Medical Director

a. Advises the Health Service Administrator regarding policy decisions.

b. Coordinates and ensures the assignment of health care staff roles. 3. Infection Prevention Specialist

a. Available as liaison as assigned.

b. Provides logistical support to departmental activities.

c. Maintains communication with hospitals and first responders. d. Provides backup to Director of Nursing.

4. Director of Nursing

.

a. Coordinates training and assigns duties for staff and reassigned staff.

b. Help to coordinate the implementation of immunization or antiviral medication distribution.

C. Patient housing:

1. Housing determinations will largely depend on the location of patients infected with the pandemic flu virus. Correctional officers or other staff will be trained and may need to assist medical with routine tasks (Le. pushing hydration. monitoring status, alerting you to breathing difficulties or sis of pneumonia.
2. All patients who were housed in the same unit as the infected individual but are asymptomatic shall remain in that unit for 10 days after the infected individual was moved to the housing unit, or any other designated area. This measure shall be instituted to limit the possibility of contamination into other units.
3. In the event that the number of confirmed pandemic flu cases exceeds the number of beds available in isolated/quarantined housing unit(s), the North 3 (CDF) and C4B (CTF) Units shall be authorized by the Warden to serve as housing for infected individuals.
4. Infected patients shall be given surgical masks which will be exchanged every 24 hours or sooner if needed. They will also be given 10% bleach solution to be used to clean all surfaces of their cells.

D. Patients requiring hospitalization:

1. It is the assumption that hospitals will be ill-equipped to respond to a pandemic. Within a

short time of the onset of the disease in the population, hospitals will be overwhelmed by

the influx of patients and high absenteeism of staff. This leads the DOC facilities to

prepare to care for the ill patients with the flu.

2. Any patient sick with the flu virus and develops severe respiratory syndromes with low

oxygen levels and are in need of respirator, will be transported to an acute care hospital

for treatment.

.

E. Keep-On-Person (KOP) medications shall be modified - in a pandemic, the demands upon the medical staff members' time will be great. As soon as practical, the time consumed by medication rounds must be reduced as much as possible. KOP medications will be distributed for 10 days at a time (increasing from 7 days) and sick call medication packet quantity will be doubled. In addition, as many patients as possible shall be placed on KOP, carried out as set forth in CF402 (Medication Services). Self medication will reduce demand upon staff time and aid in reducing possibility of cross contamination. Self medication will be utilized to the greatest extent possible, with each medication considered case by case.

F. Handling of food - standard precautions are recommended for handling dishes and eating

utensils used by a patient with known or possible pandemic influenza:

CF 210 - Medical Plan for Pandemic Influenza

7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-6 Filed 04/01/20 Page 9 of 12

1. Wash reusable dishes and utensils in a dishwater with recommended water temperature. 2. Disposable dishes and utensils (e.g., used in an alternative care site set-up for large
numbers of patients) should be discarded with other general waste. 3. Wear gloves when handling patient trays, dishes, and utensils.

G. Environmental cleaning and disinfection:

1. Cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces are important components of routine infection control in healthcare facilities. Environmental cleaning and disinfection for pandemic influenza follow the same general principles used in other healthcare settings.
2. Cleaning and disinfection of patient-occupied cells: wear gloves in accordance with facility policies for environmental cleaning and wear a surgical or procedure mask in accordance with droplet precautions. Gowns are not necessary for routine cleaning of an influenza patient's cell.
3. Keep areas around the patient free of unnecessary supplies and equipment to facilitate daily cleaning.
4. Use any EPA-registered detergent-disinfectant. Follow manufacturer's recommendations for use-dilution (i.e., concentration), contact time, and care in handling. A 10:1 water to bleach mixture may be substituted.
5. Follow facility procedures for regular cleaning of patient occupied cells. Give special attention to frequently touched surfaces (e.g., bedrails, tables, call buttons/bells, telephones, lavatory surfaces including safety/pull-up bars, doorknobs, commodes) in addition to floors and other horizontal surfaces.
6. Clean and disinfect spills of blood and body fluids in accordance with current recommendations for isolation precautions.

H. Cleaning and disinfection after patient discharge or transfer - follow standard facility procedures for post-discharge cleaning of an isolation room or cell of an infected patient.

1. Clean and disinfect all surfaces that were in contact with the patient or might have become contaminated during patient care. No special treatment is necessary for window curtains, ceilings, and walls unless there is evidence of visible soiling.
2. Do not spray (i.e., fog) occupied or unoccupied cells with disinfectant. This is a potentially dangerous practice that has no proven disease control benefit.

I. Handling of laundry - standard precautions are recommended for linen and laundry that might be contaminated with respiratory secretions from patients with pandemic influenza:

1. Place soiled linen directly into a laundry bag in the patient's cell. Contain linen in a manner that prevents the linen bag from opening or bursting during transport and while in the soiled linen holding area.
2. Wear gloves and gown when directly handling soiled linen and laundry (e.g., bedding, . towels, personal clothing) as per standard precautions. Do not shake or otherwise handle soiled linen and laundry in a manner that might create an opportunity for disease transmission or contamination of the environment.
3. Wear gloves for transporting bagged linen and laundry. 4. Perform hand hygiene after removing gloves that have been in contact with soiled linen
and laundry. 5. Wash and dry linen according to routine standards and procedures.

J. Intake - when pandemic conditions are declared, a member of the medical staff shall be

present in the intake area at any time patients are processed into the facility. At intake, newly

CF 210 - Medical PIa" for Pandemic Influenza

8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-6 Filed 04/01/20 Page 10 of 12

committed patients shall be directed into either quarantine or isolation as their history and/or symptoms dictate.

K. Reporting - in the event of a rapidly spreading airborne viral infection, such as influenza, accurate reporting of cases is essential to the mounting of appropriate public health responses. All lab results will be reviewed by the Medical Director, or designee. Any confirmed cases will be reported to DC Health as required by law. The UHC Medical Director, or designee, will be notified of any suspected cases and communicate with the Warden and the DOC Medical Director as to cases needing quarantine or isolation.

L. Release and discharge - in the event that an patient's sentence has been completed, the following shall serve as guidelines for releasing an patient back to the community:

1. If an patient is being quarantined and not positive for influenza or display signs/symptoms of flu, the patient will be released and sent home.
2. If an patient is positive for influenza or display signs/symptoms of flu and has a home, medical shall notify the Health Department.
3. If an patient is positive for influenza or display signs/symptoms of flu and does not have a home to go to, the Discharge Planning Coordinator and DOC Medical Director shall contact DC Health or his/her designee to arrange for appropriate medical housing in the community as per the District of Columbia's pandemic flu plan.
M. Care of the deceased:

1. In the event of an patient or staff death within the facility and the remains can not be immediately removed for any reason, the remains shall be treated as if infectious. Full personal protective equipment (mask, face shield, gown and gloves) shall be worn at all times when handling remains.
2. The body shall be fully sealed in an impermeable body bag prior to any transfer. The exterior of the body bag should remain clean and dry.
3. The Department of Corrections shall provide a temporary refrigerated morgue truck vehicle number 47 to hold up to forty bodies. Overflow refrigeration will be provided by DOC in their walk-in freezer box 23. All deceased bodies will be held in temporary refrigeration until arrangements are made for pick up by the D.C. morgue.

N. Procurement and positioning of equipment and supplies:

1. The medical department shall compile a list of supplies and equipment, both durable and

consumable, required to sustain operations for a minimum of four weeks. This shall

include a room of supplies to enable care for patients with severe illness from influenza

and, at a minimum, shall include:

a. A store of disposable specification N-95 respirators in assorted styles and sizes (9,000

minimum)

b. A saccharine fit test kit with quantity of consumable components sufficient to perform 1000 test

c. 2400 Disposable exposure control gowns in assorted sizes from medium to extra large

d. 36 eighteen gauge intravenous catheters, intravenous administration sets, Tegoderm

bandages and other consumable supplies sufficient for the placement of 400 IV's

e IV fluids (5% Dextrose in Yz Normal Saline (192 liters) and Yz Normal Saline (48 liters)

to be ordered immediately upon pandemic announcement

f. 5000 electronic thermometer probe covers

g. 4000 disposable tab type oral thermometer (e.g. NEXTEMP or equivalent) for patient self screening

CF 210 - Medical Plan for Pandemic Influenza

9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-6 Filed 04/01/20 Page 11 of 12

h. A minimum of 100 Rapid Test Kits for Influenza AlB I. Viral culture transport media sufficient for 400 tests J. A minimum of 50 courses of treatment of Tamiflu k. 2 box (50 per case) of disposable eye shields I. 16 liters of alcohol based hand sanitizer (available in two liter pump style containers) to
provider refill capability
m. 40 eight ounce containers of alcohol based hand sanitizer to be positioned in all work spaces
n. 40 two ounce containers of alcohol based hand sanitizer for medical staff to carry on person
o. 24 containers germicidal wipes (e.g. SANI-CLOTH or equivalent) p. 50 large size sharps disposal containers q. 200 large size bio-hazard waste disposal bags r. 100 body bags (impermeable) s. 400 pairs of safety glasses t. 4 cases (4000) Disposable surgical masks u. 4 cases (200) nasal oxygen administration cannulas 2. These numbers more than likely will change, depending upon DC Health. 3. The Medical Department shall also formulate a plan to ensure an uninterrupted supply of medications for patients, and shall execute a plan to provide influenza immunizations to all patients, and staff members (if needed). Patients taking prescription medication shall be placed on self-medication contracts to the greatest extent feasible, consistent with current medical treatment guidelines. 4. When the start of pandemic is announced, the Medical Department shall assess current supply of oxygen concentration units, filled portable oxygen cylinders, electronic thermometers, the I.V. fluids described above and pulse oximeters and facilitate ordering and purchasing as needed.

VII. Training:

A. All staff members shall receive annual training in influenza. Additionally, all staff shall receive
training in the selection and use of personal protective equipment, cough etiquette and hand hygiene.

B. Medical staff members shall receive additional training in infection control precautions, and shall demonstrate knowledge and competence in medical treatment guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of influenza.

C. Patients shall be provided with educational materials regarding cough etiquette and hand hygiene, and influenza.

VIII. Sources - the sources and contacts for the supplies and equipment required by the medical department are as follows:

A. For all pharmaceuticals:

DOC pharmacy services Beth Mynett (beth.mynett@dc.gov) (202) 594-6298 (202) 698-3281 (fax)

B. Diagnostic laboratory equipment and supplies:

CF 210 - Medical Plan for Pandemic Influenza

10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 19-6 Filed 04/01/20 Page 12 of 12
Laboratory Corporation of America (LABCORP) Acct # 08550105 (703)399-5180
C. All other medical equipment and supplies:
Physician Sales and Service (PSS) Erika Miller Acc t# 331938688 (800) 321-4313 (customer service) (703) 593-0775 (cell phone)
Moore Medical Mike Beardsly Acct # 21231862 (800) 234-1464 ext 5693 (860) 463-4684
REVIEW - this plan shall be reviewed annually and updated as necessary.
REFERENCES:
I. www.cdc.gov
II. www.pandemicflu.gov
) III. National Commission on Correctional Health Care (2018). Standard for Health Care Services in Jails, Infection Control Program, J-B-02.

CF 210 - Medical Plan for Pandemic Influenza

11

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 20 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-00849 (CKK)

NOTICE IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S APRIL 1, 2020 ORDER

Pursuant to the Court’s Order of March 31, 2020 and the Minute Order of April 1, 2020,

defendants attach declarations from the following Department of Corrections employees, provided

in support of defendants’ forthcoming Opposition to plaintiffs’ Application for Temporary

Restraining Order:

1. Lennard Johnson, Warden

2. Dr. Beth Jordan, Medical Director and Health Services Administrator

Additional declarations will be filed later today.

Dated: April 2, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

KARL A. RACINE Attorney General for the District of Columbia

TONI MICHELLE JACKSON Deputy Attorney General Public Interest Division

/s/ Fernando Amarillas FERNANDO AMARILLAS [974858] Chief, Equity Section

/s/ Andrew J. Saindon ANDREW J. SAINDON [456987]

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 20 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 2 Senior Assistant Attorney General MICAH BLUMING [1618961] PAMELA DISNEY [1601225] Assistant Attorneys General 441 Fourth Street, N.W., Suite 630 South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6643 (202) 730-1470 (f) andy.saindon@dc.gov micah.bluming@dc.gov pamela.disney@dc.gov Counsel for Defendants
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 20-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 20-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 20-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 20-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 4 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 20-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 20-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 20-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 20-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 4 of 4

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 21 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-00849 (CKK)

SECOND NOTICE IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S APRIL 1, 2020 ORDER

Pursuant to the Court’s Order of March 31, 2020 and the Minute Order of April 1, 2020,

defendants attach declarations from the following Department of Corrections employees, provided

in support of defendants’ forthcoming Opposition to plaintiffs’ Application for Temporary

Restraining Order:

1. Camile Williams, Deputy Director, Programs and Case Management

2. Kathleenjo Landerkin, Deputy Warden, Correctional Treatment Facility

Dated: April 2, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

KARL A. RACINE Attorney General for the District of Columbia

TONI MICHELLE JACKSON Deputy Attorney General Public Interest Division

/s/ Fernando Amarillas FERNANDO AMARILLAS [974858] Chief, Equity Section

/s/ Andrew J. Saindon ANDREW J. SAINDON [456987] Senior Assistant Attorney General MICAH BLUMING [1618961]

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 21 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 2 PAMELA DISNEY [1601225] Assistant Attorneys General 441 Fourth Street, N.W., Suite 630 South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6643 (202) 730-1470 (f) andy.saindon@dc.gov micah.bluming@dc.gov pamela.disney@dc.gov Counsel for Defendants
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 21-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-00849 (CKK)

DECLARATION OF CAMILE WILLIAMS Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Camile Williams, declare and state as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years, competent to testify to the matters contained in this declaration, and testify based on my personal knowledge and information, including information provided to me by other District of Columbia employees in the course of my official duties. 2. I am the Deputy Director, Programs and Case Management of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC). In this role, my duties include the overall management and oversight of programs and case management services. I have worked for DOC since August of 2018. 3. I provide this declaration to inform the Court about efforts by DOC to ensure that the agency’s residents have legal calls with their attorneys. 4. Recently, as a result of the COVID-19 virus, legal visits to DOC’s correctional facilities have decreased drastically and the agency has received an unprecedented number of requests for legal calls from attorneys representing residents in DOC’s custody.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 21-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 2

5. To facilitate the legal calls of the residents in DOC’s custody, DOC’s case management team has coordinated legal calls between its residents and their attorneys and allowed the residents to use their unrecorded, unmonitored desk phones to make legal calls.
6. DOC’s Case Management also entered into an agreement with the Public Defender Service of the District of Columbia (DC PDS) regarding legal calls to their clients. Notably, each weekday morning, by 9:00 am, Case Management receives a list of requested legal calls from DC PDS’s Deputy Trial Chief. Case Management then has all of the requested residents made available for their legal calls.
7. On Friday, March 27, 2020, DOC developed a new telephone system with its telecommunication partners, whereby each resident is allowed to make a free, unrecorded and unmonitored 10-minute call, each day, to the registered number of their attorney of record. The new system removes Case Management from the process except for verifying the attorneys’ numbers and ensuring that the numbers are uploaded into the new system. Case Management has been uploading private attorneys’ numbers to the new system as they receive them.
8. On Tuesday, March 31, 2020, DOC was informed that DC PDS’s list of attorney names and numbers would not be ready until Friday, April 3, 2020.
9. Despite this new process, Case Management is making all reasonable efforts to ensure that all inmates can have access to legal calls.
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Executed on April 2, 2020

__________________________ CAMILE WILLIAMS

2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 21-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-00849 (CKK)

DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN JO LANDERKIN

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C . § 1746, I, Kathleen Jo Landerkin, declare and state as follows:

1. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years, competent to testify to the matters

contained in this declaration, and testify based on my personal knowledge and information,

including information provided to me by other District of Columbia employees in the course of

my official duties.

2. I am the Deputy Warden with the District of Columbia the District of Columbia

Department of Corrections' (DOC) Central Detention Facility (CDF). In this role, I am responsible

for the care and well-being of all residents housed in DOC's CDF. I am also responsible for the

supervision of all DOC uniformed staff at the CDF. I have worked for DOC since January 2018 .

3. I provide this declaration to inform the Court of DOC ' s videoconference

capabilities with the court.

4.

Presently, DOC is hosting video/teleconferenced hearings in three different areas

for three different courts. Notably, DOC host hearings for the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia, the United States District Court for Maryland and the Superior Court of the

District of Columbia.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 21-2 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 2

5. In accordance with a meeting DOC had last week with Chief Judge Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, each court has its own video/teleconferencing module at DOC where residents can video conference with the court for hearings and call their attorneys before and after their hearings.
6. At times there have been technology issues and delays as facility staff have adjusted to new processes but, overall, over the last month, DOC has gone from having no video or telephone court hearings in our facilities to three different areas for hearings with minimal problems. DOC ' s IT and operations staff are committed to increasing the capabilities for these hearings.
7. Also, as of the date of the is declaration, there are 125 residents quarantined in DOC' s facilities.
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Executed on ~ )I ;oJo

)4~)4~
KATHLEEN JO LANDERKIN

2

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 31 Filed 04/06/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-849 (CKK)

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________

NOTICE REGARDING ADDITIONAL COVID-19 CASES IN DOC CUSTODY Plaintiffs file this notice to update the Court with the latest information about the number
of positive COVID-19 tests among people in Defendants’ facilities. According to information shared by the Department of Corrections, as of April 6, 2020, at
1:12 PM, 20 DOC residents have tested positive for COVID-19, and an additional 14 residents were recently tested.
In the week since Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, the number of reported positive cases has quadrupled from five (see Dkt. No. 1, at ¶ 1), to 20.

DATED: April 6, 2020 Washington, D.C.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Steven Marcus Steven Marcus (D.C. Bar # 1630882) Jonathan Anderson (D.C. Bar # 475306) Jenna Cobb (D.C. Bar # 979506) Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel. 202-824-2524

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 31 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 2 Privileged & Confidential – Attorney Work Product – DRAFT Fax 202-824-2525 smarcus@pdsdc.org Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar # 1006945) Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar # 235960) Michael Perloff (D.C. Bar # 1601047) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. 202-457-0800 smichelman@acludc.org Counsel for Plaintiffs-Petitioners
2

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 46 Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-849-CKK

RESPONSE BY THE UNITED STATES TO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO JOIN THE UNITED STATES AS A NECESSARY PARTY
The United States, by its undersigned attorneys and pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order entered on April 15, 2020, hereby advises the Court and the parties that it does not oppose the District of Columbia Defendants’ motion [R. 44] to join the United States as a defendant in the above-captioned civil action. Although the United States does not operate or have authority over the District of Columbia Central Detention Facility and Correctional Treatment Facility (together, the “D.C. Jail”) , and so cannot address or alter inmates’ conditions of confinement at those District of Columbia facilities, the District of Columbia Defendants correctly point out that ordering the release of a significant number of the individuals currently confined in the D.C. Jail – the relief sought by Plaintiffs in this action – would primarily affect proceedings brought or authorized by the United States. Accordingly, if the Court is inclined to consider a reduction of the inmate population at the D.C. Jail, or the release of inmates generally, the United States has an obvious interest in the imposition of any such remedies, and should be permitted to articulate and defend that interest in this case. In that connection, the United States can also provide the Court with information about the other legal avenues by which inmates currently confined at the D.C. Jail
-1-

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 46 Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 2

may seek release in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; the United States’s current approach

when determining whether to seek detention in the first instance or to oppose a motion for release

from a criminal defendant who has already been ordered detained; and the steps that the United

States is taking to help reduce the prisoner population at the D.C. Jail.

In the event that the Court grants the District of Columbia Defendants’ joinder motion, the

United States requests that it be permitted to file a response to Plaintiffs’ pending motions for

interim injunctive relief, and that such response be due two business days after Plaintiffs have

joined the United States as a party defendant.

Respectfully submitted,

TIMOTHY J. SHEA, D.C. Bar #437437 United States Attorney

DANIEL F. VAN HORN, D.C. Bar #924092 Chief, Civil Division

/s/ Johnny H. Walker JOHNNY H. WALKER, D.C. Bar #991325 Assistant United States Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 252-2575 Email: johnny.walker@usdoj.gov

Dated: April 17, 2020

Attorneys for the United States

-2-

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 50 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs v.
QUINCY L. BOOTH, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 20-849(CKK)

ORDER (April 19, 2020)
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is, this 19th day of April, 2020, hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ [5] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Court ORDERS the following relief:
In light of the medical surveillance and monitoring that is occurring currently in the quarantine units, Defendants shall ensure that the triage process associated with sick call requests on the non-quarantine units is expedited and reflects appropriate sensitivity to the wide variety of symptoms associated with COVID-19 disease. Correctional officers and other staff who are in contact with inmates should ensure that the medical staff are promptly informed about inmates who present with symptoms of COVID-19 and medical staff should respond to the housing unit on an expedited basis. Any inmate grievances that include allegations of delay in medical assessment should be prioritized and submitted to the DOC medical director immediately. Additionally, in light of the fact that the DOC is relying on inmates to self-report symptoms of COVID-19, Defendants shall provide better documentation as to the dates and times of sick calls and urgent care calls, the inmates’ reported symptoms, the dates and times the inmates are seen by medical professionals, and the outcomes to allow for better tracking of the response to inmates’ complaints of COVID-19 symptoms.
If the Defendants are not already doing so, they shall that ensure that cell restrictions are appropriately monitored, tracked, and corrective action is undertaken on an expedited basis if warranted.
In instances in which inmates are transferred from the intake unit to a different unit before the 14-day quarantine period expires, Defendants shall ensure that appropriate housing, surveillance and monitoring is afforded to the inmate in the receiving unit.
Defendants shall consult with public health professionals regarding strategies that can be implemented to strengthen the COVID-19-related education program for both staff and inmates. Moreover, Defendants shall explore appropriate supports that can be provided on an expedited basis to both staff and inmates who are living and working in an extremely stressful and highrisk environment and are at substantial risk of exposure.

1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 50 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 3
Defendants shall conduct additional staff training on the use of the non-touch, infrared thermometers consistent with manufacturer guidelines and provide guidance to staff regarding what to do when thermometers produce results that appear on their face to be inaccurate.
Defendants shall take immediate steps to provide consistent and reliable access to legal calls, personal telephone calls, daily showers, and clean clothing and clean linens to all inmates on isolation status.
Defendants shall ensure appropriate and consistent implementation of social distancing policies by addressing limitations in current staffing levels, supervisory oversight of line staff, and provide enhanced education related to the importance of social distancing.
Defendants shall communicate clear expectations, in writing, to correctional staff about the types of PPE required to perform the various supervision and operational functions that are conducted throughout the facility, including the PPE they should expect to be given on each shift for each specific category of post assignment; the proper donning, doffing and disposal of the PPE; and an explanation of the related rationale. Clear communication to staff regarding differences in risk exposures and providing consistent PPE over time could help lower anxiety levels among staff.
In addition, Defendants shall also ensure that all PPE issued is properly fitted. For example, N95 respirators must be properly fitted to ensure that they provide the intended protection. During the site visits that amici conducted, none of the correctional staff who were wearing N95 respirators in isolation units reported that they had been fitted for the respirators.
Defendants shall ensure that all DOC staff receive instruction on the proper disposal of PPE, and appropriate and accessible receptables for immediate disposal must be readily available. During the site visits, amici observed that receptables for disposal of PPE were not accessible on a consistent basis, including to staff assigned to isolation units at the CTF.
There is a critical need for the defendants to strengthen the environmental health and safety program at both the CDF and the CTF. It is recommended that the DOC immediately retain a registered sanitarian to oversee the environmental health and safety programs at both facilities and provide training so that cleaning tools and products are used properly. A registered sanitarian should bring the appropriate knowledge, oversight, and quality control necessary to mitigate at least some of the critical public health concerns that are evident in both facilities.
In addition to engaging a sanitarian, supervisory correctional staff must ensure that housing unit staff properly manage the work performed by the inmate detail workers. In order to accomplish that goal, correctional staff and detail workers require guidance from a sanitarian trained to oversee the facility’s environmental health program.
In addition to engaging a sanitarian, the defendants shall consider contracting for professional cleaning services on the secure side of the facility at least until a sanitarian is hired to bolster the existing environmental health and safety program at both facilities. Additionally, proper cleaning supplies that have been sanitized regularly shall be immediately provided to each unit, and a schedule for cleaning common areas and cells shall be established and enforced.
Defendants shall reduce the extent to which common spaces encourage inmates to congregate in close quarters (e.g., around a single television in a small enclosed area, or next to one another in order to use telephones that are mounted closer than six feet apart). The effectiveness of this strategy would increase if Defendants were to consistently apply their stated
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 50 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 3
policy of allowing no more than small groups of inmates out of their cells at any given time. Whatever strategies Defendants adopt, increased active and direct supervision will be required by both housing unit correctional officers and the midlevel managers responsible for overseeing and supporting the correctional officers assigned to housing units. Enforcing social distancing standards as a public health measure is a new responsibility for correctional staff and they must be supported as they adjust to this new role. Moreover, Defendants shall assess whether any additional security staff are needed to provide appropriate supervision, on a unit-by-unit basis, taking into consideration the layout of the housing units, the number of inmates housed on the units, and the security designation of the unit, in order to enforce social distancing policies.
Finally, Defendants shall ensure that all inmates, including those on isolation, have access to confidential, unmonitored legal calls of a duration sufficient to discuss legal matters.
As relief, the Court has adopted in general the recommendations set out by the amici in their final report. The Court has not set out each detail in the report which supports these recommendations. However, the Court expects Defendants to address those specific deficiencies set out in the final report, which support the recommendations, and to rectify those deficiencies.
SO ORDERED. /s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs v.
QUINCY L. BOOTH, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 20-849(CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION (April 19, 2020)
This case is brought by various inmates of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections (“DOC”) detained in the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”). Plaintiffs bring claims against Quincy Booth, in his official capacity as Director of the DOC, and Lennard Johnson, in his official capacity as Warden of the DOC. Plaintiffs’ claims are brought pursuant to the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution relating to the conditions of their confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ [5] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), which is opposed. Upon consideration of the pleadings,1 the relevant legal authorities, and the record for purposes of this motion, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ [5] Motion. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest favors

1 The Court’s consideration has focused on the following documents: • Pls.’ App. For a Temp. Restraining Order (“Pls.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 5; • Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ App. For a Temp. Restraining Order (“Defs.’ Opp’n”), ECF No. 25; and • Pls.’ Reply Brief in Support of App. For a Temp. Restraining Order (“Pls.’ Reply”), ECF No. 26.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 31
injunctive relief. However, as will be further explained below, the Court concludes that some of the relief requested by Plaintiffs is not appropriate at this time.
I. BACKGROUND Prior to proceeding through the procedural background of this case, the Court notes that the hearings held in this matter have been conducted either telephonically or through video conferencing. Due to the restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia postponed all civil hearings to occur before June 1, 2020. In Re: Extension of Postponed Court Proceedings in Standing Order 20-9 and Limiting Court Operations in Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic, Standing Order No. 20-19 (BAH), April 1, 2020. As such, in compliance with the standing order and recommended precautionary measures, the Court has conducted these emergency matters virtually. On March 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this matter. That same day, Plaintiffs also filed a Motion to Certify a Class of all persons confined or to be confined in DOC facilities, a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order—the motion currently before the Court, and a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. ECF Nos. 3, 5, 6. On March 31, 2020, the Court ordered that a teleconference be held to discuss scheduling for Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for a TRO. March 31, 2020 Minute Order. During the hearing, the Court ordered Defendants to provide specific, relevant information to the Court over the following two days. For example, the Court ordered Defendants to provide a list of the names of the approximately 94 inmates who have been sentenced to misdemeanors and who could be released; the numbers of people who had been tested for COVID-19 and a break-down of the identities of those individuals (such as inmates, visitors, etc.) and the results of those tests; the date on which Defendants began testing people coming into the jails; the number and a breakdown of the results of COVID-19 tests which had been done on those who were
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 31
incarcerated prior to the date on which Defendants began testing all incoming inmates; all relevant written procedures and practices concerning COVID-19; and Defendants’ process which is in place or will be put in place to allow legal counsel to communicate with their clients electronically or by other means. April 1, 2020 Minute Order. The Court also ordered Defendants to provide Declarations about the processes and procedures in place and the current conditions of DOC facilities in light of COVID-19. Id. The Court further set a briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO and stayed Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Complaint, and Motion for Class Certification pending the resolution of the TRO. Id. A court reporter was present at the hearing and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 18.
On April 1, 2020 and April 2, 2020, Defendants filed Responses to the Court’s Order. ECF Nos. 19, 20, 21.
On April 2, 2020, the Fraternal Order of Police for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections Labor Committee filed for leave to submit an amicus curiae brief in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO. ECF No. 23. After considering Defendants’ opposition, the Court granted the motion, finding that the amicus brief could assist the Court in its analysis of certain, relevant issues. April 3, 2020 Minute Order.
On April 3, Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion to Expedite the Hearing on the Application for a TRO. ECF No. 24. In consideration of Plaintiffs’ arguments, the Court scheduled a videoconference on the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO for April 7, 2020. April 3, 2020 Minute Order.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 4 of 31
Prior to the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO on April 3, 2020, and Plaintiffs filed their Reply in support of their Motion on April 4, 2020. ECF Nos. 25, 26.
On April 7, 2020, the court conducted a two-hour video conference on the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO. A court reporter was present and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 37. Also, on that day, the Court conducted a second teleconference with the parties. The parties determined that they would confer and propose names for an amicus of the Court to inspect the conditions of CTF and CDF. April 8, 2020 Minute Order.
On April 8, 2020, the Court again conducted a teleconference with the parties to ascertain their proposed amicus of the Court. The parties ultimately agreed to the appointment of Grace Lopes and Mark Jordan as amici of the Court to provide information on the actual conditions of CTF and CDF and to make findings on Defendants’ responses to COVID-19. A court reporter was present and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 33. On April 9, 2020, the Court issued a consent order appointing Ms. Lopes and Mr. Jordan as amici. ECF No. 34.
The amici reviewed records from the DOC facilities and conducted unannounced and unescorted site visits on multiple shifts at both CDF and CTF on April 10, 11, and 12, 2020. Defendants cooperated with amici in providing them with necessary materials and in providing them access to the facilities, staff, and inmates during their visits.
On April 15, 2020, the Court held a telephone conference at which the amici presented their oral preliminary findings and both parties as well as the Court asked questions. A court reporter was present and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 45.
On April 18, 2020, the amici submitted their final written report. Attachment 1. The Court incorporates that report into this Memorandum Opinion. The Court has excerpted portions
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 5 of 31
of the report in this Memorandum Opinion, focusing on the issues which are most exigent and most relevant to the resolution of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO.
The Court further notes that on April 17, 2020, following the amici’s oral presentation of their preliminary findings, Mr. Booth provided a memorandum to all DOC employees and contractors entitled “Reminders and Updated COVID-19 Policies and Procedures.” Exhibits to Report Submitted by Amicus Curiae, Attachment 2, Ex. 11. In this memorandum, Mr. Booth addresses some of the deficiencies identified by the amici. The Court commends Defendants for their prompt response. However, the Court has no record evidence that the updates discussed in Mr. Booth’s memorandum have been implemented. Accordingly, in resolving Plaintiff’s Motion for a TRO, the Court relies on the record evidence as it currently stands, including the findings in the amici’s final report.
In consideration of the above information, the materials which have been provided, and the present factual record, the Court now issues its decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO.
II. LEGAL STANDARD A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary form of relief. An application for a TRO is analyzed using factors applicable to preliminary injunctive relief. See, e.g., Gordon v. Holder, 632 F.3d 722, 723-24 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (applying preliminary injunction standard to district court decision denying motion for TRO and preliminary injunction); Sibley v. Obama, 810 F. Supp. 2d 309, 310 (D.D.C. 2011) (articulating TRO elements based on preliminary injunction case law). Preliminary injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)); see also Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam) (“[A] preliminary injunction is an
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 6 of 31
extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). A plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief “must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1038 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Sherley, 644 F.3d at 392 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20) (alteration in original; internal quotation marks omitted)). When seeking such relief, “the movant has the burden to show that all four factors, taken together, weigh in favor of the injunction.” Abdullah v. Obama, 753 F.3d 193, 197 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1292 (D.C. Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The four factors have typically been evaluated on a ‘sliding scale.’” Davis, 571 F.3d at 1291. Under this sliding-scale framework, “[i]f the movant makes an unusually strong showing on one of the factors, then it does not necessarily have to make as strong a showing on another factor.” Id. at 1291-92.
The Court notes that it is not clear whether the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s (“D.C. Circuit”) sliding-scale approach to assessing the four preliminary injunction factors survives the Supreme Court's decision in Winter. See Save Jobs USA v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 105 F. Supp. 3d 108, 112 (D.D.C. 2015). Several judges on the D.C. Circuit have “read Winter at least to suggest if not to hold ‘that a likelihood of success is an independent, free-standing requirement for a preliminary injunction.’” Sherley, 644 F.3d at 393 (quoting Davis, 571 F.3d at 1296 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring)). However, the D.C. Circuit has yet to hold definitively that Winter has displaced the sliding-scale analysis. See id.; see also Save Jobs USA, 105 F. Supp. 3d at 112. In light of this ambiguity, the Court shall consider each
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 7 of 31
of the preliminary injunction factors and shall only evaluate the proper weight to accord the likelihood of success if the Court finds that its relative weight would affect the outcome.
III. DISCUSSION The Court will proceed to analyze each of the requirements for granting a TRO. However, first, the Court will address a preliminary issue—standing. A. Standing As a threshold matter, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs do not have standing to seek the requested relief. Four named Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit. D’Angelo Phillips is currently in the custody of DOC at CDF where he is being held pre-trial. Edward Banks is currently in the custody of DOC at CDF awaiting sentencing. Eric Smith is currently in the custody of DOC at CTF where he is being held pre-trial. Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 14-16. Keon Jackson was in the custody of DOC at CTF where he was awaiting sentencing; but, he has since been released from custody and is no longer party to this suit. April 7, 2020 Tr., ECF No. 37, 38: 22-24. In order to meet the requirements for standing, a plaintiff must plead an injury, causation, and redressability. “[A] plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press and for each form of relief that is sought.” Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 733-34 (2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have failed to show that their injuries are redressable by certain forms of requested relief which would flow to inmates other than Plaintiffs. To begin, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify a class consisting of all persons confined or to be confined by DOC in CDF or CTF. ECF No. 3. However, at this point in the litigation, the Court has not ruled on Plaintiffs’ Motion to certify the class. As such, Defendants contend that the standing analysis should focus only on the named Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs do not dispute this assertion.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 8 of 31
Considering only the named Plaintiffs, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have pled an injury which was caused by Defendants and is redressable by the relief requested. Plaintiffs’ claimed injury is the risk of contracting COVID-19. The Court finds that the risk of contracting a disease is a legally cognizable risk for purposes of standing. Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905, 915 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (explaining that pleading an increased risk of foodborne illness is sufficient for standing). Additionally, Plaintiffs have pled that they have an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 due to Defendants’ failure to take appropriate precautionary measures. Finally, Plaintiffs have pled that their injury of an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 would be redressed by the requested relief.
Plaintiffs have produced unrebutted expert declarations positing that the requested relief would redress the claimed Plaintiffs’ injuries by reducing their risk of contracting COVID-19. “The risk posed by infectious diseases in jails and prisons is significantly higher than in the community, both in terms of the risk of transmission, exposure, and harm to individuals who become infected.” Dec. of Jaimie Meyer, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 9. The risk of infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, is higher in jails and prisons because they are congregate settings which “allow for rapid spread of infectious diseases that are transmitted person to person.” Id. at ¶ 11. In settings such as these, it is often difficult to appropriately socially distance and many facilities are poorly ventilated which allows disease to spread faster. Id.
Due to the unique posture of jails and prisons, steps taken to reduce the risk of infection among any inmates, such as reducing the inmate population or providing adequate cleaning supplies, would also reduce the named Plaintiffs’ risk of contracting COVID-19. Additional precautions which directly affect inmates who are not a party to this suit also affect the named Plaintiffs by reducing the risk that the disease will spread amongst the population and eventually
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 9 of 31
infect the named Plaintiffs. See Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 531-32 (2011) (explaining that all prisoners, even those that remain detained, benefit from the release of some inmates to counter overcrowding because the detained inmates “are that system’s next potential victims”).
For these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have stated an injury—an increased risk for contracting COVID-19—which is caused by Defendants’ untimely and insufficient precautions and would be remedied by the requested relief. As such, Plaintiffs have standing to request a TRO.
B. Plaintiffs Establish a Likelihood of Success on the Merits Moving to the standards for granting a TRO, first the Court considers whether or not
Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits. In order to meet this first requirement, Plaintiffs must show that they have a likelihood of success on the merits of their Fifth Amendment claim for pre-trial detainees and of their Eighth Amendment claim for postconviction detainees. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing.
It is undisputed that the proper avenue for relief for pre-trial detainees, such as Plaintiffs Phillips and Smith, is the Fifth Amendment due process clause and the proper avenue for relief for post-conviction detainees, such as Plaintiff Banks, is the Eighth Amendment. However, the parties dispute whether or not the standards for sustaining a claim under the different Amendments are the same. Defendants state that the standard for sustaining a claim under the due process clause and Eighth Amendments are the same. Defendants contend that to show a violation of either Amendment, jail officials must have (1) exposed inmates to an unreasonable risk of serious damage to their health and (2) acted with deliberate indifference in posing such a risk. Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 25, 14-15. Plaintiffs agree that Defendants have stated the correct standard for an Eighth Amendment claim by post-conviction detainees, but they argue that the
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 10 of 31
standard for a due process claim for pre-trial detainees is different. Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 26, 7. Under the due process clause, Plaintiffs argue that they need only show that the Defendants knew or should have known that the conditions posed an excessive risk to the health of the inmates. The main difference being that the due process clause analysis does not require a finding of deliberate indifference.
The rights of pre-trial detainees are different than the rights of post-conviction detainees. Because pre-trial detainees are presumed innocent, they are “entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322 (1982). “While a convicted prisoner is entitled to protection only against ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment [under the Eighth Amendment], a pretrial detainee, not yet found guilty of any crime, may not be subjected to punishment of any description.” Hardy v. District of Columbia, 601 F. Supp. 2d 182, 188 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Hill v. Nicodemus, 979 F.2d 987, 991 (4th Cir. 1992)).
In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S.Ct. 2466 (2015), the United States Supreme Court considered the differences between pre-trial and post-conviction detainees in deciding that, to state an excessive force claim, a pre-trial detainee need only show that the use of force was objectively unreasonable. 135 S.Ct. at 2473-74. The officers’ subjective state of mind in using the force was irrelevant. Id. While Kingsley relates to excessive force rather than prison conditions, in making its decision, the Kingsley court relied on Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), a case pertaining to prison conditions. According to the Kingsley court, “as Bell itself shows (and as our later precedent affirms), a pretrial detainee can prevail by providing only objective evidence that the challenged governmental action is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective or that it is excessive in relation to that purpose.” Id. Together
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 11 of 31
Kingsley and Bell provide persuasive authority that a pre-trial detainee need only show that prison conditions are objectively unreasonable in order to state a claim under the due process clause.
The parties did not cite and the Court could not find a D.C. Circuit case interpreting Kingsley in the context of a claim for deficient prison conditions. However, many circuit courts have extended Kingsley’s objective standard to apply to other due process claims by pre-trial detainees. For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that, following Kingsley, in the context of challenged prison conditions for pre-trial detainees, “the Due Process Clause can be violated when an official does not have subjective awareness that the official’s acts (or omissions) have subjected the pretrial detainee to a substantial risk of harm.” Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 35 (2d 2017); see also Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying Kingsley standard to failure to protect claims by pretrial detainees); Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816, 823 (7th Cir. 2019) (finding that “Kingsley’s objective inquiry applies to all Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims brought by pretrial detainees”). And, at least one district court within this Circuit has also applied Kingsley’s objective standard to due process claims brought by pre-trial detainees. See United States v. Moore, Case No. 18-198-JEB, 2019 WL 2569659, *2 (D.D.C. June 21, 2019) (explaining that a pretrial detainee could prevail on a due process claim “if she either introduces evidence of a subjective intent to punish or demonstrates that a restriction is objectively unreasonable or excessive relative to the Government’s proffered justification”).
Based on the pertinent reasoning of Kingsley and the persuasive authority of other courts, the Court concludes that pre-trial detainee Plaintiffs Phillips and Smith do not need to show deliberate indifference in order to state a due process claim for inadequate conditions of
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 12 of 31
confinement. As such, under the due process clause, pre-trial detainee Plaintiffs Phillips and Smith are likely to succeed on the merits by showing that the Defendants knew or should have known that the jail conditions posed an excessive risk to their health. And, under the Eighth Amendment, post-conviction detainee Plaintiff Banks must show that the jail conditions exposed him to an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his health and that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference in posing such a risk.
Despite recognizing that pre-trial detainee Plaintiffs need not demonstrate deliberate indifference to show a likelihood of success on their due process claims, the Court will also analyze the deliberate indifference prong as such a showing is still required for post-conviction Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim.
1. Unreasonable risk to Plaintiffs’ Health Now that the Court has determined the standards under the due process clause and the Eighth Amendment, the Court will assess whether or not Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success in proving that they have been exposed to an unreasonable risk of damage to their health. Determining whether or not Plaintiffs have been exposed to an unreasonable risk is an objective analysis which “requires a court to assess whether society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993) (emphasis in original). In sum, Plaintiffs “must show that the risk of which [they] complain[] is not one that today’s society chooses to tolerate.” Id. Both parties and the Court recognize the seriousness of the threat posed by COVID-19. Despite the seriousness of the threat, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed in establishing that they have been exposed to an unreasonable risk to their health. Specifically,
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 13 of 31
Defendants ague that Plaintiffs “have not shown that the risk posed by DOC’s practices raises plaintiffs’ risk of exposure substantially over the risk experienced by the outside community.” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 25, 16. Defendants further argue that, for the most part, Plaintiffs are able to take the same precautions to prevent infection as those not detained. The Court disagrees.
As an initial matter, the data for COVID-19 infection rates decries Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs’ risk of infection is the same as that of the outside community. It is undisputed that, as of April 4, 2020, the infection rate in DOC facilities was over seven times the infection rate of the District of Columbia at large. Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 26, 8. This statistical data is also supported by Plaintiffs’ unrefuted expert declaration. In her Declaration, Dr. Jaimie Meyer, who reviewed reports on conditions in DOC facilities, posited that “individuals placed in [CDF and CTF] are at a significantly higher risk of infection with COVID-19 as compared to the population in the community and that they are at significantly higher risk of harm if they do become infected.” Dec. of Jaimie Meyer, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 33.
Additionally, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that they cannot take the same precautions as those who are not detained. There are many precautionary policies which Defendants contend are in place and are disputed by Plaintiffs. However, one of the most important risk-reduction policies which has not been adequately addressed by Defendants is social distancing. Plaintiffs have provided expert evidence that social distancing is a crucial part of containing the spread of COVID-19. Dec. of Marc Stern, ECF No. 1-1, ¶ 13. With the closures of schools, theaters, and restaurants, governments across the nation have emphasized social distancing as a way to slow the spread of the disease. In the District of Columbia, Mayor Muriel Bowser has implemented an order for social distancing which requires “[m]aintaining at least six (6)-foot social distancing from other individuals.” Stay Home DC Order,
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 14 of 31
https://coronavirus.dc.gov/stayhome (March 30, 2020). However, Defendants have produced no evidence that Plaintiffs are able to comply with social distancing precautions.
Plaintiffs have produced uncontroverted evidence that social distancing was slow to be instituted and has not been fully operationalized in CTF or CDF. Plaintiffs have submitted a declaration from a DOC inmate stating that, as of April 4, 2020, “[n]o one from DOC has ever told us about social distancing. There are no signs about social distancing.” Dec. of James Guillory, ECF No. 26-2, ¶ 14. And, Plaintiffs have also submitted a declaration from a DOC staff member who works in the age-50-and-over unit asserting that, as of April 3, 2020, “[s]ocial distancing is not happening in my unit.” Dec. of Lennette Nesbitt, ECF No. 24-2, ¶ 14.
During the April 7, 2020 hearing, Defendants asserted that they have recently implemented new social distancing practices, such as limiting the number of inmates who can use the recreation areas at the same time. April 7, 2020 Tr., ECF No. 37, 40:2-41:11. However, Defendants have yet to submit any evidence that these practices are being implemented. Nor, have Defendants provided specifics such as the number of inmates who can use the common areas at the same time or the steps that are being taken to ensure that individuals maintain a suitable distance when in a shared space.
When the amici of the Court visited the DOC facilities, they reported that, in defiance of social distancing regulations, “[m]ore than five inmates were consistently out of their cells at one time, and sometimes between 10 and 20 inmates were out of their cells at one time.” Report Submitted by Amicus Curiae, Atch. 1, 20. Additionally, the amici reported that “[s]ocial distancing practices were not enforced and there were no attempts by the correctional staff to enforce social distancing even when numerous inmates crowded into a contained area.” Id. The amici attributed the failure to enforce social distancing, at least in part, to an understaffing of
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 15 of 31
correctional officers and their supervisors. Id. The DOC has a current workforce of 994 funded correctional positions, of which 45 positions are vacant. Of the 949 filled positions, 281 correctional staff were unavailable for duty as of April 16, 2020. Id. Understaffing during a crisis situation such as the COVID-19 pandemic makes it difficult to enact and enforce the necessary precautionary measures.
The Court recognizes that Defendants’ response to this sudden and unprecedented pandemic is ongoing. Additionally, the Court recognizes that additional evidence will likely be provided as litigation proceeds. But, based on the current record, the Court finds Defendants’ argument that the risk of infection experienced by Plaintiffs is equivalent to that experienced by the general population is disputed by statistical evidence, Plaintiffs’ expert evidence, the declarations of DOC inmates and staff, and the amici report. Accordingly, based on the limited record before the Court, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood that they will be able to show that they have been exposed to an unreasonable risk of damage to their health.
Before the Court proceeds to analyzing deliberate indifference, the Court notes that based on the unreasonable risk to Plaintiffs’ health, pre-trial detainee Plaintiffs Phillips and Smith have already established a likelihood of success on the merits of their due process claim. Nevertheless, the Court will proceed to analyze deliberate indifference.
2. Deliberate Indifference The Court will next determine whether or not Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success in establishing Defendants’ deliberate indifference. A showing of deliberate indifference requires “that officials had subjective knowledge of the serious medical need and recklessly disregarded the excessive risk to inmate health or safety from that risk.” Baker v. District of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302, 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In order to establish deliberate indifference,
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 16 of 31
“the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
There does not appear to be any dispute that Defendants are aware of the threat that COVID-19 poses to the health of Plaintiffs. Instead, the only dispute appears to be whether or not Defendants have recklessly disregarded the risk to Plaintiffs’ health.
In analyzing this standard, the Court recognizes that COVID-19 poses an unprecedented challenge and that the precautionary measures taken by Defendants are rapidly evolving. As evidence of COVID-19 precautions, Defendants have provided the Declarations of Lennard Johnson, the Warden of the DOC, and Beth Jordan, the Medical Director and Health Services Administrator for the DOC. ECF Nos. 20-1, 20-2. Both declarations outline policies designed to combat the threat of COVID-19. For example, Mr. Johnson claims that residents have access to proper cleaning materials, that residents receive a free bar of soap each week, and that the common areas in DOC facilities are cleaned regularly. Dec. of Lennard Johnson, ECF No. 20-1, ¶¶ 6-12. And, Ms. Jordan claims that everyone entering a DOC facility is screened for symptoms using a thermometer and a survey, that all new inmates are quarantined for 14 days before they are assigned to a housing unit, and that the DOC medical staff meets regularly with staff and residents to discuss preventative measures. Dec. of Beth Jordan, ECF No. 20-2, ¶¶ 5-8.
However, it is not clear whether or not these declarations are based on Mr. Johnson and Ms. Jordan’s personal observations of the conditions at the facilities. Both declarations state that the information is based on personal knowledge “including information provided to me by other District of Columbia employees in the course of my official duties.” ECF No. 20-1, ¶ 1; ECF No. 20-2, ¶ 1. As such, there is some uncertainty as to whether these declarations are based on
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 17 of 31
policies which are on the books or the actual conditions of the facilities. And, Plaintiffs have submitted the declaration of at least one DOC staff member strongly suggesting that, as of April 2, 2020, Defendants’ written policies have not been adequately communicated to DOC staff for operationalization. See Dec. of Doreen Deterville, ECF No. 24-1, ¶¶ 5-8.
To compound this uncertainty, Plaintiffs have also submitted numerous declarations from inmates and DOC staff rebutting that Defendants’ policies are being fully implemented. For example, Plaintiffs have submitted declarations stating that they have not been given free bars of soap. Dec. of Edward Banks, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 8; Dec. of Keon Jackson, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 10; Dec. of Eric Smith, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 8. And, Plaintiffs have submitted declarations stating that inmates do not receive adequate cleaning supplies. Dec. of Keon Jackson, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 12. And, Plaintiffs have submitted declarations stating that not all new inmates are properly screened and quarantined when transferred between units. Dec. of Michael Cohen II, ECF No. 26-4, ¶ 18. Having a written policy in place but not fully implemented cannot protect Defendants from a finding of deliberate indifference. Daskalea v. District of Columbia, 227 F.3d 433, 442 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (explaining that “a ‘paper’ policy cannot insulate a municipality from liability where there is evidence, as there was here, that the municipality was deliberately indifferent to the policy’s violation.”).
The written findings of the amici support some of these declarations. In conducting their visits, the amici determined that “the need for more intensified education of staff and inmates [about COVID-19] is apparent.” Report Submitted by Amicus Curiae, Atch. 1, 15. Amici further noted that access to cleaning supplies varied from unit to unit. Id. at 30. In some units, cleaning supplies were depleted and, in other units, inmates could not access the supplies to clean their cells. Id. Additionally, no inmates had facility-issued rags for cleaning their cells. Instead, many
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 18 of 31
inmates used “tattered and soiled” rags that they made by tearing facility issued towels or tshirts. Id. Moreover, “[i]t was evident that knowledge regarding the appropriate use of the different cleaning and sanitizing agents was generally at a very low level.” Id. Challenges with cleanliness persisted outside the inmates’ cells, with the cleanliness of common spaces inconsistent among housing units with little quality control. Id. at 31-32.
The Court further notes that, while amici reported that Defendants screened all staff and visitors at the entrances to both CDF and CTF, there are issues with the screening procedures. On entering DOC facilities, all visitors and staff are questioned as to whether or not they have experienced COVID-19 symptoms. Id. at 15-16. And, all visitors and staff have their temperatures checked with a non-contact infrared thermometer. Id. at 16. However, amici reported that two out of eight reported temperature readings appeared to be inaccurate, registering in the low 90 degrees. Id. Amici posit that the inaccurate temperature readings are caused by user error and inadequate training with the thermometer. Id. While it is not is not clear if the medical staff use the same type of thermometer to measure the temperatures of inmates in the medical unit, amici indicated that a “review of electronic health records also identified a number of questionably low temperature readings.” Id.
Additionally, there are certain precautionary steps that Defendants do not address. For example, as already explained, social distancing is one of the most crucial precautionary measures in slowing the spread of COVID-19. However, Defendants’ declarations make little to no mention of social distancing measures. During the hearing, Mr. Bluming stated, “pre-COVID19, we had 80 people in the recreational area together. At the end of last week, we were down to half that, so 40 people at a time.” April 7, 2020 Tr., ECF No. 37 41: 7-11. Mr. Bluming further
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 19 of 31
stated that, the DOC’s website indicated that they may be allowing no more than 10 individuals in the recreational area at a time. Id. at 41: 1-3.
The Court notes that, besides counsel’s argument, there is no record evidence that these procedures are being implemented. As recently as April 4, 2020, an inmate stated that “[p]eople on my unit still give each other high fives. People still eat and drink each other’s food and beverage bottles. Staff do not warn people these things are unsafe.” Dec. of Michael Cohen II, ECF No. 26-4, ¶ 51. Additionally, as per Defendants’ own argument, three weeks into the COVD-19 pandemic, Defendants were still allowing 40 inmates to congregate in the recreation yard. Given the spread of infection at DOC facilities, such a delayed response is not a sufficient or a timely response to the risk posed to Plaintiffs’ health. And, as previously discussed, in their review of the facilities, the amici determined that, as recently as April 12, 2020, as many as 10 to 20 inmates were out of their cells at one time and correctional staff were not able to implement or enforce social distancing practices. Report Submitted by Amicus Curiae, Atch. 1, 20.
Additionally, while Defendants’ declarations addressed screening for new inmates and isolation for those who test positive for COVID-19, it remains unclear what steps are being taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19 by those inmates who already reside in DOC facilities and have not yet tested positive for infection. This is especially concerning as Defendants primarily rely on inmates to self-report symptoms in order to determine who may be infected. Id. at 9. Plaintiffs have submitted an unrebutted declaration that “at least three DOC staff members … have tested positive and alerted DOC” but “[n]o contact tracing has been done for at least one if not all of the staff members with regard to whether inmates or other staff should be quarantined.” Dec. of Michael Hannon, ECF No. 23-11, ¶ 59. Additionally, amici reported one case in which an inmate who worked in the Culinary Unit tested positive for COVID-19. Report Submitted by
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 20 of 31
Amicus Curiae, Atch. 1, 26-27. While that inmate was placed in isolation, the DOC did not attempt to determine whether the contract staff who had worked with that inmate in the Culinary Unit were close contacts of the inmate and should self-quarantine at home for 14 days. Id. at 2728. Additionally, it appeared that “the detail inmate who tested positive was not contacted about any individuals with whom he had close contact.” Id. at 28.
Plaintiffs have also presented unrebutted evidence that Defendants are slow to respond to those inmates who display symptoms of COVID-19. Multiple PDS attorneys and investigators have reported that their clients display COVID-19 symptoms such as coughs and fevers which have not been adequately addressed by the medical unit. Dec. of Rachel Cicurel, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 6(b); Dec. of Katherine Kuenzle, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 4. And, inmates who have requested medical aid for COVID-19 symptoms report long waits for medical care, testing, or separation from the general population. Dec. of D’Angelo Phillips, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 4 (stating that “it takes days before you get a visit from anyone from the medical unit”); Dec. of Eric Smith, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 5 (“It takes days before anyone can get medical staff to come see them, even if you say you are having trouble breathing”). According to Plaintiffs’ expert, “[t]he failure of these facilities to adequately manage single individuals in need of emergency care is a strong sign that they will be seriously ill-equipped and under-prepared when a number of people will need urgent care simultaneously, as would occur during a COVID-19 epidemic.” Dec. of Jaimie Meyer, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 28(d)(ii).
Plaintiffs have also presented evidence that the quarantine unit is not properly sealed off from the general population. An inmate next to the unit explained that air could travel freely between his cell and the quarantine unit. Dec. of Eric Smith, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 3. And, Plaintiffs have submitted evidence that those in the general population share a television remote control
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 21 of 31
with those in the quarantine unit. Id. at ¶ 4. The lack of separation for those in quarantine is especially concerning due to Plaintiffs’ evidence that “[t]he ventilation conditions described in the District of Columbia’s Auditor’s report … will increase the rate of the spread of the virus.” Dec. of Jaimie Meyer, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 28(c).
In addition to the quarantine unit not being properly secluded, the amici identified several other issues with both the quarantine and isolation units. Anyone entering a quarantine housing unit, except for inmates, is required to wear gloves and a mask at all times. Report Submitted by Amicus Curiae, Atch. 1, 18. Despite this requirement, most of the correctional staff in the quarantine unit wore a variety of masks which they purchased for themselves and were often illfitting and soiled. And, generally, correctional staff did not wear gloves. Id. Inmates housed in quarantine units are also required to wear masks outside their cells. However, the amici found that the inmates were not consistently wearing their masks and many of the masks did not fit and were soiled. Id. Amici did note an abrupt increase the personal protective equipment distributed to correctional officers over the course of their multiple visits. Id. at 25. However, this delayed response in providing protective equipment to those working and living in quarantine units is notable.
Amici also highlighted the conditions for inmates living in isolation units. Some inmates have already spent 12 to 15 days in isolation units. Those in the isolation units are not permitted to shower. Id. at 22. And, laundry services for inmates in isolation have been limited with some inmates wearing the same soiled clothes for the duration of their stay in isolation. Id. Some inmates with sinks in their cells can use those for cleaning, and, as of April 14, 2020, the DOC intended to provide inmates in isolation with body wipes. Id. However, these punitive conditions for those in isolation are not acceptable. Additionally, inmates in isolation at CTF are not
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 22 of 31
permitted to use the telephone for any reason, including legal calls. Id. It was unclear whether or not inmates in CDF are permitted to use the telephone. Id. As the DOC is primarily relying on inmates to self-report symptoms of COVID-19, the punitive conditions of isolation make it more likely that inmates will hide their symptoms to avoid the potential for isolation and continue to infect others in the general population.
The Court will address one other deficiency highlighted by amici—lack of access to confidential legal calls. As the Court already stated, it appears that individuals in isolation units have no access to telephones. Id. And, this issue persists for those in other housing units. Telephone calls in confidential settings are generally organized by DOC case management staff; however, most of those staff are either on quarantine or working remotely. Id. at 21. “Thus, as a general matter, there has been no access to confidential legal calls for inmates confined on quarantine and non-quarantine housing units.” Id. Some inmates have been able to make calls using telephones in the day rooms; however, these calls are monitored and do not afford the confidentiality required to communicate about legal issues with counsel. Id.
Based on the current record, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that Defendants are aware of the risk that COVID-19 poses to Plaintiffs’ health and have disregarded those risks by failing to take comprehensive, timely, and proper steps to stem the spread of the virus. Again, the Court acknowledges that additional development of the record may show that Defendants are taking sufficient precautions and that Defendants’ response continues to evolve. However, on the current record, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success in showing deliberate indifference.
C. Plaintiffs Show Irreparable Harm Next, the court considers whether or not Plaintiffs have made a showing of irreparable
harm. “[P]erhaps the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary 22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 23 of 31
injunction is a demonstration that if it is not granted the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm before a decision on the merits can be rendered.” Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 990 F. Supp. 2d 9, 38 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948.1 (2d ed.2013)). “[P]roving irreparable injury is a considerable burden, requiring proof that the movant’s injury is certain, great and actual—not theoretical—and imminent, creating a clear and present need for extraordinary equitable relief to prevent harm.” Power Mobility Coal. v. Leavitt, 404 F. Supp. 2d 190, 204 (D.D.C. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original).
Plaintiffs’ theory of irreparable harm rests on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the resulting health complication. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ risk of contracting COVID-19 and the resulting complications, including the possibility of death, is the prototypical irreparable harm. See Harris v. Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles County, 366 F.3d 754, 766 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding irreparable harm from pain, infection, and possible death due to delayed treatment from the reduction of hospital beds). “Facing requests for preliminary injunctive relief, courts often find a showing of irreparable harm where the movant’s health is in imminent danger.” AlJoudi v. Bush, 406 F. Supp. 2d 13, 20 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing Wilson v. Group Hosp. & Med. Servs., Inc., 791 F. Supp. 309, 314 (D.D.C. 1992) (granting preliminary injunction where cancer patient's “health and future remain[ed] in serious doubt” and insurance would not pay for lifesaving treatment)).
Defendants do not appear to contest that the risk of contracting COVID-19 constitutes irreparable harm. Instead, Defendants contend that, “because Plaintiffs fail to make any showing of a specific injury that is not generalized to the inmate population, plaintiffs fail to meet their burden of demonstrating irreparable harm.” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 25, 22. However, Defendants
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 24 of 31
cite no authority for the proposition that, because the threat of COVID-19 infection is widespread among the inmate population, Plaintiffs’ threat of irreparable harm is somehow diminished. And, Plaintiffs have produced expert evidence that they are “at a significantly higher risk of infection with COVID-19 as compared to the population in the community” and “at a significantly higher risk of harm if they do become infected.” Dec. of Jaimie Meyer, ECF No. 52, ¶ 33. The fact that many other inmates face this same risk does not diminish the risk faced by Plaintiffs.
Defendants, as well as society at large, are facing an unprecedented challenge. The risks of contracting COVID-19 are very real for those both inside and outside DOC facilities. However, Plaintiffs have produced evidence that inadequate precautionary measures at DOC facilities have increased their risk of contracting COVID-19 and facing serious health consequences, including death. The Court further notes that the number of inmates testing positive for COVID-19 is growing daily. Given the gravity of Plaintiffs’ asserted injury, as well as the permanence of death, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement of facing irreparable harm unless injunctive relief is granted.
D. The Balance of Hardships and the Public Interest Weigh in Plaintiffs’ Favor The Court moves to the final factors to be considered in granting a temporary restraining
order—the balance of the equities and the public interest. In this case, where the government is a party to the suit, the harm to Defendants and the public interest merge and “are one and the same, because the government’s interest is the public interest.” Pursuing America’s Greatness v. FEC, 831 F.3d 500, 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original). The Court finds that the public interest weighs in favor of granting injunctive relief.
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 25 of 31
First, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood that they will prevail on the merits of their due process and Eighth Amendment claims. And, “[i]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Simms v. District of Columbia, 872 F. Supp. 2d 90, 105 (D.D.C. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no harm to the Government when a court prevents unlawful practices.
Additionally, granting injunctive relief which lessens the risk that Plaintiffs will contract COVID-19 is in the public interest because it supports public health. No man’s health is an island. If Plaintiffs contract COVID-19, they risk infecting others inside the DOC facilities. Plaintiffs also risk infecting DOC staff members who work inside DOC facilities but also live in the community, thus increasing the number of people vulnerable to infection in the community at large. Additionally, if Plaintiffs contract COVID-19 and experience complications, “they will be transported to community hospitals— thereby using scarce community resources (ER beds, general hospital beds, ICU beds).” Dec. of Marc Stern, ECF No. 1-1, ¶ 13. As such, ordering Defendants to take precautions to lower the risk of infections for Plaintiffs also benefits the public.
And, the Court finds that the relief which will be granted, to be detailed below, does not impose an undue burden on Defendants. The Court begins by noting that the D.C. Circuit “has rejected any distinction between a mandatory and prohibitory injunction.” League of Women Voters of United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Declarations by DOC officials claim that Defendants are already complying with much of the requested relief. See, e.g., Dec. of Lennard Johnson, ECF No. 2-1, ¶ 6 (housing unit common areas cleaned every two hours during the day and twice each night); ¶ 7 (residents provided proper material to clean cells); ¶¶ 8-9 (each resident provided access to hot running water as well as weekly bar of soap, roll of toilet
25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 26 of 31
paper, and clean linens); ¶ 10 (hand sanitizer available to residents in CTF despite shortage); ¶ 12 (signs posted to alert residents of COVID-19 prevention measures); Dec. of Beth Jordon, ECF No. 20-2, ¶ 8 (DOC medical staff regularly meet with residents to discuss COVID-19 prevention); ¶ 12 (testing for those with specified symptoms). And, the Court does not order Defendants to take precautions that are not already being undertaken by the majority of the population. Moreover, in lessening the number of inmates infected with COVID-19, Defendants actually lessen the healthcare burden that they will be facing in the weeks and months to come.
The Court acknowledges the public interest in permitting the government discretion to carry out its authorized functions. However, “[c]ourts may not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison administration.” Brown, 563 U.S. at 511. The D.C. Circuit has previously authorized injunctive relief against correctional facilities, even where the injunctive relief imposes a particular set of conditions. See Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F.2d 521, 551-52 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (finding specific conditions not unduly intrusive because there was “no alternative if the rights of pretrial detainees are to be respected”).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in favor of granting injunctive relief.
E. Specific Relief Granted While the Court has concluded that, on the current factual record, Plaintiffs are entitled to
some injunctive relief, the Court is not granting the totality of the relief requested. The Court is not ordering the release of any inmates currently detained in DOC facilities.
In addition to the many individual release petitions which are currently being filed by DOC inmates, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia has granted District law enforcement the
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 27 of 31
discretion “to release an individual not otherwise eligible for release … upon approval of the prosecuting authority.” See Superior Court of the District of Columbia Order, March 16, 2020, available at http://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/Order_3-16-20.pdf. Additionally, based on the authority granted to the DOC by the COVID-Emergency Act amended Section 24221.0(c) “during a period for which a public health emergency has been declared …, [DOC] shall have discretion to award additional credits” to those serving misdemeanor sentences “to effectuate immediate release of persons sentenced for misdemeanors…consistent with public safety.” See D.C. Code § 24-221.01c(c) (2020). DOC has since doubled the maximum number of monthly sentencing credits which a misdemeanant may receive from 10 to 20. See DOC Change Notice #20-002, March 18, 2020 [19-2], ¶ 2c.
Since beginning these practices, all but nine misdemeanants have been released from custody. April 15, 2020 Tr., ECF No. 45, 72: 22-23. Eight of those misdemeanants have been considered for release and denied, and one misdemeanant has not requested release. Id. 72: 2473: 3. Based on the actions of D.C. Superior Court, Plaintiffs agree that the release of misdemeanants is no longer at issue in this case. Id. at 73: 15-18. As such, the Court does not find that injunctive relief on this ground is appropriate at this time. For this same reason, and due to ongoing processes for assessing individual inmates for release, the Court is not granting Plaintiffs’ request for an expert in prison population reduction at this time.
However, the Court does grant the following injunctive relief, in line with the amici recommendations. In light of the medical surveillance and monitoring that is occurring currently in the quarantine units, Defendants shall ensure that the triage process associated with sick call requests on the non-quarantine units is expedited and reflects appropriate sensitivity to the wide variety of symptoms associated with COVID-19 disease. Correctional officers and other staff
27

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 28 of 31
who are in contact with inmates should ensure that the medical staff are promptly informed about inmates who present with symptoms of COVID-19 and medical staff should respond to the housing unit on an expedited basis. Any inmate grievances that include allegations of delay in medical assessment should be prioritized and submitted to the DOC medical director immediately. Additionally, in light of the fact that the DOC is relying on inmates to self-report symptoms of COVID-19, Defendants shall provide better documentation as to the dates and times of sick calls and urgent care calls, the inmates’ reported symptoms, the dates and times the inmates are seen by medical professionals, and the outcomes to allow for better tracking of the response to inmates’ complaints of COVID-19 symptoms.
If the Defendants are not already doing so, they shall that ensure that cell restrictions are appropriately monitored, tracked, and corrective action is undertaken on an expedited basis if warranted.
In instances in which inmates are transferred from the intake unit to a different unit before the 14-day quarantine period expires, Defendants shall ensure that appropriate housing, surveillance and monitoring is afforded to the inmate in the receiving unit.
Defendants shall consult with public health professionals regarding strategies that can be implemented to strengthen the COVID-19-related education program for both staff and inmates. Moreover, Defendants shall explore appropriate supports that can be provided on an expedited basis to both staff and inmates who are living and working in an extremely stressful and highrisk environment and are at substantial risk of exposure.
Defendants shall conduct additional staff training on the use of the non-touch, infrared thermometers consistent with manufacturer guidelines and provide guidance to staff regarding what to do when thermometers produce results that appear on their face to be inaccurate.
28

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 29 of 31
Defendants shall take immediate steps to provide consistent and reliable access to legal calls, personal telephone calls, daily showers, and clean clothing and clean linens to all inmates on isolation status.
Defendants shall ensure appropriate and consistent implementation of social distancing policies by addressing limitations in current staffing levels, supervisory oversight of line staff, and provide enhanced education related to the importance of social distancing.
Defendants shall communicate clear expectations, in writing, to correctional staff about the types of PPE required to perform the various supervision and operational functions that are conducted throughout the facility, including the PPE they should expect to be given on each shift for each specific category of post assignment; the proper donning, doffing and disposal of the PPE; and an explanation of the related rationale. Clear communication to staff regarding differences in risk exposures and providing consistent PPE over time could help lower anxiety levels among staff.
In addition, Defendants shall also ensure that all PPE issued is properly fitted. For example, N95 respirators must be properly fitted to ensure that they provide the intended protection. During the site visits that amici conducted, none of the correctional staff who were wearing N95 respirators in isolation units reported that they had been fitted for the respirators.
Defendants shall ensure that all DOC staff receive instruction on the proper disposal of PPE, and appropriate and accessible receptables for immediate disposal must be readily available. During the site visits, amici observed that receptables for disposal of PPE were not accessible on a consistent basis, including to staff assigned to isolation units at the CTF.
There is a critical need for the defendants to strengthen the environmental health and safety program at both the CDF and the CTF. It is recommended that the DOC immediately
29

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 30 of 31
retain a registered sanitarian to oversee the environmental health and safety programs at both facilities and provide training so that cleaning tools and products are used properly. A registered sanitarian should bring the appropriate knowledge, oversight, and quality control necessary to mitigate at least some of the critical public health concerns that are evident in both facilities.
In addition to engaging a sanitarian, supervisory correctional staff must ensure that housing unit staff properly manage the work performed by the inmate detail workers. In order to accomplish that goal, correctional staff and detail workers require guidance from a sanitarian trained to oversee the facility’s environmental health program.
In addition to engaging a sanitarian, the defendants shall consider contracting for professional cleaning services on the secure side of the facility at least until a sanitarian is hired to bolster the existing environmental health and safety program at both facilities. Additionally, proper cleaning supplies that have been sanitized regularly shall be immediately provided to each unit, and a schedule for cleaning common areas and cells shall be established and enforced.
Defendants shall reduce the extent to which common spaces encourage inmates to congregate in close quarters (e.g., around a single television in a small enclosed area, or next to one another in order to use telephones that are mounted closer than six feet apart). The effectiveness of this strategy would increase if Defendants were to consistently apply their stated policy of allowing no more than small groups of inmates out of their cells at any given time. Whatever strategies Defendants adopt, increased active and direct supervision will be required by both housing unit correctional officers and the midlevel managers responsible for overseeing and supporting the correctional officers assigned to housing units. Enforcing social distancing standards as a public health measure is a new responsibility for correctional staff and they must be supported as they adjust to this new role. Moreover, Defendants shall assess whether any
30

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51 Filed 04/20/20 Page 31 of 31
additional security staff are needed to provide appropriate supervision, on a unit-by-unit basis, taking into consideration the layout of the housing units, the number of inmates housed on the units, and the security designation of the unit, in order to enforce social distancing policies.
Finally, Defendants shall ensure that all inmates, including those on isolation, have access to confidential, unmonitored legal calls of a duration sufficient to discuss legal matters.
As relief, the Court has adopted in general the recommendations set out by the amici in their final report. The Court has not set out each detail in the report which supports these recommendations. However, the Court expects Defendants to address those specific deficiencies set out in the final report, which support the recommendations, and to rectify those deficiencies.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ [5] Motion for a TRO is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the balance of the hardships and the public interest weigh in their favor. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to the injunctive relief which is detailed above. However, the Court finds that some of the relief requested by Plaintiffs, such as the immediate release of inmates and the appointment of a downsizing expert, is inappropriate at this time on the current factual record. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge
31

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-849 (CKK)

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________

REPORT SUBMITTED BY AMICUS CURIAE PURSUANT TO APRIL 9, 2020 CONSENT ORDER*
Pursuant to the April 9, 2020 Consent Order issued in the above-captioned matter, Amici,
Grace M. Lopes and Mark Jordan, submit the following report for the Court’s consideration.

I. INTRODUCTION
On April 9, 2020 amici were appointed to provide specific information to the Court
regarding medical services and environmental health and hygiene at two detention facilities
operated by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (“DOC”), the Central Detention
Facility (“CDF”) and the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”). In the wake of the order,
amici collected and analyzed data obtained from site visits at both facilities; conducted structured
interviews with DOC managers, line staff, inmates, and contractors; reviewed electronic health
records; and analyzed multiple electronic datasets extracted from information management
___________________________ * This filing corrects two typographical errors that appear in the version of this report that was submitted to the Court and the parties on April 18, 2020 by deleting the word “not” in line three on page 25 and substituting the word “secure” for “non-secure” in line eight on page 33.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 38
systems maintained by the DOC or its contract services providers. On April 15, 2020, amici participated in a teleconference with the Court and the parties and provided a preliminary summary of their findings, which are explained in greater detail below. At the conclusion of the teleconference, the Court directed amici to include in this report recommendations regarding issues that amici have identified.
This report describes the methodology amici relied upon to conduct their assessment, the facilities subject to the assessment, and amici’s findings and recommendations related to the questions delineated in the April 9, 2020 order. Throughout this one-week investigation, the defendants have fully cooperated with amici’s requests for information and actively facilitated amici’s work. DOC and contract staff at every level, as well as representatives from the Office of the Attorney General, have made themselves available on short notice, on every day of the week, and well after traditional officer hours. Data reports and other records were produced on abbreviated timelines. Amici acknowledge and appreciate the efforts the defendants have made to cooperate with and expedite their review.
II. METHODOLOGY
Following the issuance of the April 9, 2020 order, amici reviewed the documents identified in the order and conducted unannounced and unescorted site visits on multiple shifts at both the CDF and CTF on April 10, 11, and 12, 2020. During the site visits, at both facilities amici visited general population, maximum and medium security housing units, including housing units on isolation or quarantine status, as well as intake, special management, and mental health units. Seven housing units at the CDF (S1, NW1, S2, NE2, N3, NE3, and N2) and five housing units at the CTF (D2A, D1B, C2A, C2B, and C4B) were visited. Observations in housing units included cells, dayrooms, restrooms, and shower facilities. At both facilities,
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 38
medical units (including the CTF infirmary), visitor entry areas, Command Centers, and the Culinary Unit at the CDF,1 were visited.
Structured in-person interviews were conducted with the DOC Medical Director, the Medical Director and Deputy Medical Director for Correctional Health at Unity Health Care, Inc. (“Unity”),2 the CDF/CTF Warden and his deputies, and dozens of correctional officers assigned to various posts throughout the facilities, including housing unit, environmental, and culinary posts. In-person interviews were also conducted, in groups and individually, with over 100 inmates on isolation and quarantine status as well as in the general population at both facilities.
In addition, amici conducted informal in-person or telephone discussions with Unity staff, including infection control staff and managerial clinical health care providers, to obtain and/or verify information. A range of DOC managers and staff with responsibility for administrative matters, including cleaning, hygiene and medical supplies, data management and analysis, warehouse functions, contractual cleaning services and human resources were also contacted and provided information that is reflected in this report.
In addition to the information collected during site visits and from interviews, amici requested and received access from the DOC to the electronic health records of inmates confined at the CDF and CTF.3 Review and analysis of samples from these records has been conducted
1 The Culinary Unit at the CTF was not operational at the time of the site visits and as a result the Culinary Unit at the CDF has been servicing both facilities. 2 Unity provides medical services on a contractual basis to inmates at the CDF and CTF. 3 Case record reviews were conducted by Janet Maher, an additional member of the team amici assembled. Ms. Maher is an attorney who has extensive experience in working in institutional and health-care settings. Ms. Maher headed the Office of Corporation Counsel's Mental Health Division from 1992 to 2000, worked as Deputy General Counsel and Chief of Staff for the District's Child and Family Services Agency from 2000 to 2007 and as DOJ Compliance Officer at Saint Elizabeths Hospital from 2007 to 2014. From 2013 to her retirement in 2016, she headed the Hospital's Performance Improvement Department. She also has provided consultative services to the Maryland and Pennsylvania behavioral health systems and to the Special Arbiter appointed by the Superior Court in Jerry M. v. District of Columbia, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, C.A. No. 1519-85.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 4 of 38
and the results are described below. The following data were also obtained from the DOC and
analyzed:
 Admissions data for both facilities for the period February 15, 2020 to April 10, 2020;  Daily census data, including inmate housing assignments, for the period February 15,
2020 to April 13, 2020;  Data related to sick call requests for the period February 5, 2020 to April 12, 2020;  Data related to all COVID-19 tests conducted on inmates housed at both facilities
through April 10, 2020;  Data related to all urgent care encounters for the period February 15, 2020 through April
15, 2020;  Inventory data for cleaning supplies as of April 13, 2020;  Inventory data for personnel protective equipment as of April 17, 2020; and  Data related to cleaning supplies and soap deliveries to both facilities for the period
December 31, 2019 to April 13, 2020. Aggregated data related to DOC correctional staffing levels was also reviewed and is
addressed below.
III. BACKGROUND
The CDF is a multi-story, secure detention center. Recent population levels have
hovered near 1020 inmates. The facility has 18 housing units, which are both single and double
celled. Analysis of DOC housing data shows that as of April 13, 2020, 43 percent of the inmates
housed at the CDF were housed in single cells and 56 percent were housed in cells with another
inmate.4 At the time of amici’s site visits, 16 housing units were open and two were closed. Of
the 16 open housing units, two were quarantine units and one was an isolation unit.5 Cellblocks
are divided into two sides, and for most of the facility’s housing units, each side contains two
tiers with 20 cells per tier.6 All cells at the CDF are “wet” cells, i.e., they have toilets and sinks.
4 Ex. 1, Table, Number of Cells Housing One Inmate and Two Inmates at the Central Detention Facility, March 15 – April 13, 2020. Two inmates did not have a recorded cell assignment. 5 The number of quarantine and isolation units is, of course, variable. It is amici’s understanding that since the time of their site visits additional quarantine units have opened. 6 There are two exceptions: N1 is a restrictive housing unit with 72 cells and NE3 is a mental health step down unit with 36 cells.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 5 of 38
Each cellblock tier of 20 cells has two showers, which are shared by inmates housed in the unit
and located in a common area. The CDF Culinary Unit, which is operated by a contractor and up
until April 11, 2020 employed inmate workers, currently supports the food service program for both the CDF and the CTF.7
The CTF, which had a population of approximately 400 inmates at the time of amici’s site visits, has 25 housing units.8 Eighteen have a capacity of 50 beds, four have a capacity of 96
beds, and one has a capacity of 65 beds. There are two additional medical housing units and two
special management units that have varying capacities and are not intended for general
population housing. As of April 13, 2020, 95 percent of the inmates at the CTF were housed in single cells.9 With the exception of eight housing units,10 all of the CTF’s housing units have
wet cells. At the time of amici’s site visits, nine housing units were closed and there were eight
quarantine units and three isolation units. The isolation units and seven of the eight quarantine
units operating at the time of amici’s site visits have wet cells. The CTF also has a 30-room
infirmary with 40 beds. The infirmary serves both facilities.
As of April 16, 2020, the DOC reported that 130 inmates have been tested for COVID-19
and a total of 65 inmates have been confirmed positive, 57 at the CTF and eight at the CDF.
Forty-three have tested negative, 22 are currently on isolation units and forty-three have
recovered. One inmate died while hospitalized and none are currently hospitalized. Data
7 The CTF has a separate Culinary Unit that is responsible for that facility’s food service program. At the time of amici’s site visits, DOC staff reported that the Culinary Unit at the CTF was closed due to a COVID-19 issue. Amici have confirmed that the food service program at the CTF is not operational and that the CDF Culinary Unit is now supporting the food service program at the CTF. Amici have not had an opportunity to confirm the date the CTF Culinary Unit closed, but staff reported it had been up to several weeks before the site visit. The closure of the CTF Culinary Unit has put evident strain on the food service program at the CDF. 8 This total includes two special management units. Inmates are also housed in a limited mobility medical unit and the infirmary. 9 Ex. 2, Table, Number of Cells Housing One Inmate and Two Inmates at the Correctional Treatment Facility, March 15 – April 13, 2020. 10 Three of the eight housings units that do not have toilets and sinks were open during the site visits.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 6 of 38
regarding the number of DOC staff who have tested positive for COVID-19 have not been provided. One member of the DOC correctional staff died earlier this week. Not surprisingly, as evidenced by the findings set out below, the COVID-19 pandemic has presented formidable challenges for the defendants and had a significant impact on operations at both the CDF and the CTF.
IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Amici’s findings and recommendations related to the questions delineated in the April 9, 2020 order are set forth below.
A. MEDICAL Question One: When residents display COVID-19 symptoms, as defined by the CDC, are they seen by medical staff? Question Two: When residents display COVID-19 symptoms are they tested for COVID19? Question Three: Are there requests for a sick call based on suspected COVID-19 symptoms where there is no response? Question Four: Is the response time for sick call requests of suspected COVID-19 symptoms for a resident to be seen by medical staff reasonable (assuming time of request and response time are recorded)?
Questions One through Four address the identification of inmates who display symptoms or who are suspected of having contracted COVID-19 and whether those inmates have access to timely health assessments, services, and COVID-19 testing, as indicated. As discussed below, amici were not able to address Questions One through Four directly because the available healthcare datasets did not enable identification of either the universe or representative samples of inmates displaying symptoms or suspected of having contracted COVID-19. Amici therefore attempted to identify the mechanisms by which inmates with COVID-19 symptoms are identified
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 7 of 38
by medical staff and reviewed a sample of the electronic health records of inmates who had been tested for COVID-19 to assess timeliness and scope of service delivery in those cases.
In order to evaluate DOC performance relative to these questions, amici relied on multiple sources of information including the following: interviews with DOC and contract medical staff, including executive staff; interviews with inmates; interviews with correctional officers; custom data reports from Unity’s electronic health record system, including data regarding sick call requests and encounters and urgent care encounters; data regarding all COVID-19 testing conducted on inmates at the CDF and CTF through April 10, 2020; data regarding all sick call requests and encounters between February 5, 2020 and April 12, 2020; 11 data regarding all urgent care encounters between February 15, 2020 and April 15, 2020; and, two random samples of individual inmate health records, one drawn from the population of inmates tested for COVID-19 through April 10, 2020, and the second from a dataset of all sick call requests submitted between March 1, 2020 and April 12, 2020.12
According to medical staff, the two primary methods by which inmates access health care are through a sick call process, in which inmates complete a written sick call form and insert it into a locked box on their housing units and an urgent care process, whereby an inmate can inform a correctional officer that s/he would like to see medical staff.13 According to medical staff, in these circumstances the correctional officer contacts the medical unit and a nurse, in consultation with a medical provider,14 triages the telephone call and either instructs the
11 In some cases, clinical encounters are recorded as sick call visits, but they do not have an associated written sick call request. Medical staff have explained that when they visit housing units to conduct sick call, they allow inmates who did not submit sick call requests to access services. 12 Records of 28 of the 83 inmates who were tested as of April 10, 2020 were reviewed. In addition, records of 40 inmates who submitted sick call requests during the review period were reviewed. There were no overlapping cases in the two samples. 13 There are also chronic care clinics operating Monday through Friday at both the CDF and CTF for inmates with chronic health conditions. 14 Advanced medical providers are considered to be MDs, DOs, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 8 of 38
correctional officer to have the inmate escorted to the medical suite or schedules the inmate for sick call on the next day.15
Amici initially analyzed sick call request data for the period between February 5, 2020 and April 12, 2020 to assess whether the data could be used to identify sick call requests for CDC-defined COVID-19 symptoms (i.e., fever, cough, and shortness of breath) and thereafter to assess the time from the request to the time of any responsive medical evaluation. The data included a total of 6,840 records.
For two principal reasons, amici determined that these data could not be used as the basis for findings related to identification of inmates with COVID-19 symptoms and assessment of the timeliness of their access to medical services. First, nearly 5,000 of the records did not include a description of the symptoms for which the inmate requested medical care, making it impossible to identify either the universe of or a representative sample of inmates with COVID-19 symptoms.16 Second, amici reviewed data regarding all 83 COVID-19 tests administered to inmates through April 10, 2020 and cross referenced the names of the tested inmates against sick call request records. Of the 83 inmates tested, 69 did not submit a sick call request at any point between February 5, 2020 and the date of their test. Based on a review of a sample of electronic health records of the 13 inmates who tested positive for COVID-19 for whom there was a record of a sick call request between February 5, 2020 and the date of their test, amici found that the sick call request was not associated with COVID-19 symptoms in any of the cases.
15 Triage decisions require symptomatic information from the patient. Medical staff stated that at times the correctional officer will allow an inmate requesting urgent care to speak directly with the nurse and at times the inmate informs the correctional officer of their symptoms and the correctional officer reports that information to the nurse. It is not appropriate to require inmates to disclose health information to correctional staff in order to access medical services. The possibility of doing so could deter inmates from seeking necessary medical care. 16 For example, the relevant data field in many cases recorded “initial visit,” “follow-up visit,” or “SC [sick call] slip.”
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 9 of 38
However, based on amici’s review of data related to inmates tested for COVID-19, it appeared that most inmates displaying symptoms or suspected of having contracted COVID-19 were presenting to medical staff by a method other than through the submission of a sick call request. Managers of the DOC medical program confirmed this impression. One manager stated that the first positive COVID-19 cases were identified after inmates presented to health care staff through the urgent care process. Once they were confirmed positive for COVID-19, the DOC began to quarantine housing units in which the COVID-19 positive inmates were housed as a containment precaution. Medical staff implemented a practice of monitoring quarantined inmates’ temperatures twice daily and reported that this daily surveillance process identified multiple subsequent positive COVID-19 cases, principally at the CTF.
Medical staff members stated that inmates who are not subject to daily monitoring in a quarantine unit also are most likely to be identified as having symptoms of COVID-19 through the urgent care process. Accordingly, amici obtained and analyzed data regarding urgent care encounters at the CDF and CTF for the period February 15, 2020 through April 15, 2020. The data indicate that during that period there were a total of 3,439 urgent care encounters, 2,488 at the CDF and 951 at the CTF.17 In comparison, over approximately the same time period there were a total of 5,244 sick call requests and encounters, 4,360 at the CDF, 525 at the CTF, and 359 at locations that could not be determined from the available data.18 Based on these totals, it appears that during the period reviewed urgent care represented 40 percent of the combined volume of sick call and urgent care encounters, and sick call represented 60 percent of the total.
17 Ex. 3, Chart, Urgent Care Visits at Central Detention Facility and Correctional Treatment Facility, by Day, February 15 – April 15, 2020. 18 Ex. 4, Chart, Sick Call Requests and Encounters, by Day, February 15 – April 12, 2020.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 10 of 38
To assess whether inmates with symptoms of COVID-19 utilize the urgent care process, amici analyzed the urgent care dataset for any references to the term “COVID.” The data indicate that the first reference to COVID-19 in the data was on March 15, 2020 at the CDF (for an inmate who was later ruled out for COVID-19), and March 21, 2020 at the CTF. Beginning on March 26, 2020, there were nearly daily and steadily increasing references to COVID-19 in the urgent care encounter data.19 Thus, it appears that inmates who are not housed in quarantine units are using the urgent care system to present with COVID-19 symptoms to medical staff at the CDF and CTF.
Given time constraints, it was not possible for amici to assess how accessible the urgent care system is to inmates. Available data sources included only records of completed visits and do not reflect attempts to access the system. Numerous factors could impact inmate access to the urgent care system, including the availability of escort staff, willingness of correctional officers to facilitate calls to medical staff while they perform other duties on the unit, and the willingness of inmates to disclose confidential health information when they are within earshot of nonmedical staff.
Notwithstanding the evidence that most inmates with symptoms or who are suspected of having contracted COVID-19 appear to present to medical staff by a method other than sick call, in order to evaluate and to assess the responsiveness of the sick call process more generally, in the instances in which inmates submit sick call requests, amici assessed whether those requests are collected and the inmate is seen by medical staff on a timely basis. Amici selected a random sample of 41 sick call requests submitted by inmates between March 1, 2020 and April 12, 2020
19 Ex. 5, Chart, Urgent Care Medical Encounters With Clinical Summary Descriptions Including the Word “COVID,” by Day, February 15 – April 15, 2020. The data appear to include daily follow-up assessments of isolated inmates, which explains in part the dramatic increase in volume over time.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 11 of 38
and reviewed the individual health records associated with each request. One sick call request was excluded from the analysis.20 Of the 40 requests reviewed, 31 included a date of request recorded by the inmate. Of those 31 requests, 26 included a time stamp reflecting when medical staff collected the form. The time stamp was used to analyze the time that elapsed between the date recorded by the inmate on the sick call request form and the date of pick up. Of those 26 requests, 23 requests, 89 percent, were collected within one day. The remaining three were collected within two, four, and 14 days respectively.
Among the 31 requests that included a date of request recorded by the inmate, review of the corresponding electronic health records indicate that 23 inmates were seen within three days of submitting their request, 74 percent.21 One inmate was seen six days after the request was made.22 In two instances involving the same inmate, the inmate was seen every day for ten days for adult preventative care relating to COVID-19 exposure, but the notes in the electronic health records documenting these encounters do not specifically address the issue reflected in the inmate’s sick call request. The other three requests were scheduled for appointments, but the inmates were not seen.23 Two requests that were recorded as scheduled for appointments were cancelled.24
Amici also assessed whether the issue raised by the inmate in his or her sick call request was addressed by the medical provider. In the 33 cases in which the inmate was seen by a medical provider, the medical provider addressed the specific request made by the inmate in 28
20 One of the cases sampled was excluded because the corresponding written request form was not available for review. 21 In 22 of the 23 cases the inmates were seen within two days and in one case the inmate was seen within three days. 22 The inmate requested treatment for tooth pain. 23 In the three cases, the health record noted that the sick call appointment was cancelled because the inmate was in court, was “unavailable” or was a no show. 24 In one case an inmate indicated he had a “possible” broken finger and in the second the inmate requested fungal cream.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 12 of 38
cases, 85 percent. In some cases the inmate was referred to specialty providers, but in most cases the inmate received interventions intended to provide immediate relief. In a minority of cases the specific intervention requested by the inmate was not provided but the clinical basis for the decision was reflected in the record. Recommendation: In light of the medical surveillance and monitoring that is occurring currently in the quarantine units, defendants should ensure that the triage process associated with sick call requests on the non-quarantine units is expedited and reflects appropriate sensitivity to the wide variety of symptoms associated with COVID-19 disease. Correctional officers and other staff who are in contact with inmates should ensure that the medical staff are promptly informed about inmates who present with symptoms of COVID-19 and medical staff should respond to the housing unit on an expedited basis. Any inmate grievances that include allegations of delay in medical assessment should be prioritized and submitted to the DOC medical director immediately.
Question Five: Are residents suspected of COVID-19 isolated from other people? Health care staff reported that if an inmate is suspected by a medical provider of having
contracted COVID-19, a request for testing is made to the D.C. Department of Health. As of April 10, 2020, all requests for testing made on behalf of DOC inmates had been approved. Heath care staff report that pending the testing results, the inmate is placed on cell restriction in their housing unit.
There is evidence that cell restriction practices are being implemented. The sample of electronic health records of inmates who tested positive for COVID-19 that amici reviewed document cell restriction orders entered by medical staff at the time COVID-19 testing was ordered by the provider. Inmates on isolation status at both facilities reported being placed on
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 13 of 38
cell restriction prior to testing and before being moved to an isolation unit. During site visits amici noted that there were inmates on cell restriction status in some housing units. Correctional officers assigned to housing unit posts who were interviewed by amici reported that inmates who are on cell restriction are not permitted to leave their cells for any reason.
Moreover, health care and facility management staff report that in instances in which an inmate tests positive for COVID-19, the inmate is moved to an isolation unit. According to those staff, only inmates who have tested positive for COVID-19 are housed in isolation units. DOC records indicate that as of April 10, 2020, 82 inmates were tested for COVID-19. Of the 82 inmates, 52 were COVID-19 positive, 26 were negative, and the balance were pending results. Amici reviewed a sample of 28 health records reflecting positives, negatives and pending test results. There were 16 COVID-19 positives in the sample. Amici’s review of DOC housing records for this cohort indicates that all of the 16 inmates in the sample who tested positive were moved from their housing unit to another housing unit within no more than two days, and most within one day of the positive test result. Based on what amici have learned about current DOC business practices, it is likely this cohort was on cell restriction status at the time of testing before being moved to an isolation unit.
Accordingly, although amici have not had an opportunity to conduct a systematic review related to the implementation of cell restriction orders, it appears that inmates suspected of having COVID-19 are placed on cell restriction and isolated from other inmates. Recommendation: If the defendants are not already doing so, they should that ensure that cell restrictions are appropriately monitored, tracked, and corrective action is undertaken on an expedited basis if warranted.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 14 of 38
Question Six: Are new residents who enter DOC quarantined for 14 days? DOC facility executives and medical staff reported a practice of quarantining newly
admitted inmates for a 14-day period prior to moving them to another housing unit. To assess whether this practice was being implemented amici analyzed intake and housing data for the period from March 15, 2020 to April 10, 2020. The data indicate that starting March 25, 2020 the defendants implemented a practice of housing new admissions on SO2, the intake unit at the CDF, for 14 days, or until the inmate was released from custody, if the release occurred prior to the expiration of the 14-day period.
Amici identified six instances after March 25, 2020 in which an inmate was moved out of the intake unit prior to the end of the 14-day period. Five of the six cases involved inmates who were placed on a specialized mental health housing unit before the 14-day quarantine period was completed.25 Amici were not able to determine whether these six inmates were placed on cell restriction after being moved to a non-intake housing unit. Amici alerted Unity’s medical director of these six transfers so that a determination can be made about the propriety of the transfers and any special precautions that should be implemented on the receiving housing units. Recommendation: In instances in which inmates are transferred from the intake unit to a different unit before the 14-day quarantine period expires, defendants should ensure that appropriate housing, surveillance and monitoring is afforded to the inmate in the receiving unit.
25 The sixth case involved an inmate who was moved to a special management housing unit and subsequently to a less restrictive mental health housing unit.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 15 of 38
Question Seven: How frequently do DOC medical staff and/or Unity Health Care staff meet with DOC staff and residents to inform them about COVID-19 symptoms and precautions, and what information is conveyed?
Unity providers and the DOC Medical Director report that they have conducted multiple education sessions on the housing units and during roll call at both facilities. They indicate that these sessions focus on COVID-19 symptoms and infection-control precautions. More extensive individualized education and counseling is provided on the quarantine and isolation units, which are visited at least twice daily by health care providers. Signage explaining COVID-19 symptoms and precautions is displayed in many common areas throughout both facilities. Nevertheless, the need for more intensified education of staff and inmates is apparent. Most, albeit not all, of the correctional staff and supervisors interviewed expressed substantial concerns about working in the facility in light of what they perceive as their increased risk of contracting COVID-19. Virtually all of the inmates interviewed outside of isolation units expressed fear that they would contract the virus and many of those who tested positive expressed fear that they would relapse or become infected again. Recommendation: The defendants should consult with public health professionals regarding strategies that can be implemented to strengthen the COVID-19-related education program for both staff and inmates. Moreover, the defendants should explore appropriate supports that can be provided on an expedited basis to both staff and inmates who are living and working in an extremely stressful and high-risk environment and are at substantial risk of exposure. Question Eight: What visitor screening is conducted? Do the thermometers used for visitor screening work and are they used properly?
Upon entry to the two facilities, all staff and visitors are required to have their temperature checked and to complete a written questionnaire with three questions. The three questions correspond to the CDC-defined symptoms of COVID-19 (i.e., fever, cough, and
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 16 of 38
shortness of breath). An earlier version of the screening questionnaire included questions pertaining to recent travel to areas of the world with known COVID-19 outbreaks and known contacts with individuals with COVID-19. The DOC has updated its visitor and staff screening questionnaire in response to evolving knowledge about COVID-19.
The defendants use non-contact, infrared thermometers at the entrances of both the CDF and the CTF. According to the manufacturer’s instructions the device is calibrated at the factory and calibration by a user is not necessary. One amicus recorded eight temperature readings at the two facilities, five at the CDF and three at the CTF and observed that two of the readings, both on the same night at the CDF, appeared to be inaccurate.26 In both cases, the temperature reading was taken immediately adjacent to an external door and the ambient temperature outside the facility was substantially colder than the temperature inside the facility.
The manufacturer’s instructions for the thermometer indicate that users should “avoid drafts.”27 It seems probable that user error may be resulting in some false temperature readings by the staff who are screening visitors. Medical staff report that they also use non-touch, infrared thermometers in their medical practice at both facilities. Amici have not had an opportunity to determine whether the thermometers used at visitor entry points are the same model of thermometers that are used by the medical staff. However, review of electronic health records also identified a number of questionably low temperature readings.28 Recommendation: Amici recommend that defendants conduct additional staff training on the use of the non-touch, infrared thermometers consistent with manufacturer Guidelines and provide
26 In both instances the temperature registered in the low 90 degrees. After the second apparently incorrect reading, amicus requested that another reading be taken approximately 30 seconds later, and the thermometer registered what appeared to be an accurate temperature reading. 27 The instructions also state that “if there is a significant change in the surrounding temperature, allow the thermometer to adjust to the ‘new’ temperature for at least 15 minutes before use in order to obtain a reliable result.” 28 In reviewing health records, amici also noted several instances of unusually low temperatures recorded on flow sheets or on assessments, with some as low as 93 or 94 degrees.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 17 of 38
guidance to staff regarding what to do when thermometers produce results that appear on their face to be inaccurate.
Nine: How do the conditions of the quarantine housing compare to conditions in nonquarantine housing, and are residents deterred from reporting symptoms?
As explained in detail below, except for the isolation units, quarantine housing units are intended to operate like all other types of housing units except for twice daily monitoring of inmates by medical staff and the use of specified PPE.
A. Daily Monitoring and Specified PPE
While both facilities have different types of specialized housing,29 three broad categories of housing are implicated by Question Nine:
 Quarantine housing;  Isolation housing; and  Non-Quarantine/Non-Isolation housing (i.e., general population or some type of special
housing unit)
The DOC began operating quarantine housing units in March 2020. These units are designated for the following inmates: inmates suspected of having COVID-19 and inmates who are asymptomatic but determined to have been exposed to someone who has tested positive. Health care staff report that when one inmate on a housing unit tests positive, every inmate in the housing is quarantined on the unit. Moreover, staff who have been assigned to the unit are released from duty for a 14-day self-quarantine period. There is a reported practice of maintaining each discrete cohort of quarantined inmates separately. The anecdotal evidence suggests that there may be deviations from this practice; however, amici have not had an
29 For example, both the CDF and CTF have special management units and the CDF has mental health and mental health step down units.
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 18 of 38
opportunity to explore this issue. Additionally, amici have not had an opportunity to confirm the quarantine procedures that are implemented when DOC staff who are assigned to posts with inmate contact test positive for COVID-19 (i.e., whether inmates are quarantined after exposure to a staff member who is known to have contracted COVID-19).
According to the current DOC policy guidance, quarantine housing units should operate like all other housing units except for the isolation units, in all respects except two: 1) inmates housed in quarantine units have their temperatures monitored by medical staff twice daily; and 2) except for inmates -- who are required to have masks -- anyone entering a quarantine housing unit is required to wear gloves and a mask at all times.30 During the site visits amici conducted at multiple quarantine units in both facilities, for the most part the correctional staff wore a variety of masks that they had purchased for themselves. In some instances, the masks were illfitting and in poor condition. As a general matter, the correctional staff were not wearing gloves.
DOC policy requires inmates housed in a quarantine unit to wear masks whenever they are outside of their cells. Many inmates housed in the quarantine units that amici visited had masks, but they were not consistently wearing them nor were they required by the correctional staff to do so. In some instances, the masks were ill-fitting, visibly soiled, and ripped.
In contrast to the quarantine units, inmates and staff on non-quarantine units did not have masks during the site visits amici conducted.31 The defendants did not have sufficient quantities of masks for staff or inmates during March; however, as explained in the next section of this report, the DOC received a shipment on April 10, 2020, and on the next day began issuing masks to staff at roll call. The defendants report that earlier this week, subsequent to amici’s site visits,
30 See §VII. Medical Restrictive Housing Unit (Quarantine), Post Order, dated March 28, 2020. 31 A small number of inmates who indicated that they had serious medical conditions had masks that were obtained from health care providers.
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 19 of 38
they began to replace masks for inmates on a daily basis and are now providing masks to all inmates on all housing units. On April 14, 2020, the defendants reported that they are now requiring all staff and all inmates to wear masks. Amici have not had an opportunity to confirm these representations.
B. Conditions in Quarantine and Other Units Except Isolation 1. Cell Restriction
The defendants implemented a Medical Stay in Place policy directive on April 4, 2020.32 Pursuant to the directive, as of April 4, 2020, inmates housed in quarantine and other housing units, except for isolation units, have been restricted to their cells except for 30 minutes each day for phone calls, showers and cleaning their cells. The directive provides contradictory information regarding out-of-cell time. In relevant part it states that inmates “will largely be restricted to their cells with the exception of a modified recreation schedule, where groups no larger than five are out at any one time.”33 However, the directive also requires staff to “[s]top all group activities and minimize the number of residents participating in recreation on tier (no more than 10 at a time).”34 It also states that inmates are required to “practice social distancing of six feet to the fullest extent possible.”35 According to facility management, at some point after the policy was issued, it was modified to require one hour of out-of-cell time; however, during site visits many correctional staff and inmates amici interviewed were unaware of this change. Indeed, inmates consistently commented that it is not really possible to shower, make one phone call and clean a cell in 30 minutes.
32 Ex.6, Medical Stay in Place, effective April 4, 2020. 33 Id. at 1. 34 Id. at 2. 35 Id. at 1.
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 20 of 38
During site visits to quarantine and non-quarantine units, amici observed the following:
 More than five inmates were consistently out of their cells at one time, and sometimes between 10 and 20 inmates were out of their cells at one time; and
 Social distancing practices were not enforced and there were no attempts by the correctional staff to enforce social distancing even when numerous inmates crowded into a contained area (e.g., to watch television).
The failure to enforce social distancing requirements is a supervision deficit. This appears at least in part to be attributable to significant understaffing of correctional officers and their supervisors at both facilities. According to data obtained from managers at the CDF and CTF, as of April 10, 2020, the CDF had a total staffing complement of 675 correctional staff (493 correctional officers and 182 supervisory staff) and the CTF had a total staffing complement of 283 correctional staff (259 correctional officers and 24 supervisory staff). In response to inquiries from amici, the DOC Human Resources Unit was unable to provide a breakdown of current correctional officer and supervisory staffing levels at the CDF and the CTF, including, for each facility, the number of funded positions that are vacant and the number of staff assigned to the complement who are unavailable for duty for quarantine or some other COVID-19 related status.36 However, management staff in the DOC Human Resources Unit were able to provide aggregate data regarding the agency’s total correctional workforce that provides insight into current staffing level at both facilities. According to these data, the DOC has a current workforce of 994 funded correctional positions, 45 of which are vacant. Of the remaining 949 positions, 281 correctional staff were unavailable for duty as of April 16, 2020.
36 Many categories of leave render staff unavailable for duty, including workers compensation, administrative leave, AWOL status, military leave, leave without pay, and family and medical leave.
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 21 of 38
Thus, approximately one third of the total funded correctional work force is unavailable to work.37
According to DOC managers, the reduction in the size of the workforce that is available for duty has fueled excessive reliance on overtime in order to cover a minimum number of essential posts at both facilities. In response, both facilities converted recently from staffing three eight-hour shifts per day to two, 12-hour shifts per day during weekdays. During this period when the workforce is already stretched thin, there is also an enhanced need for active, direct supervision of inmates to enforce social distancing to mitigate the risk of transmission of the highly infectious novel coronavirus. With fewer available correctional staff and supervisors available to fill essential posts, the DOC has less flexibility to adopt strategies involving increased staff levels to achieve social distancing policies on housing units.
Telephone calls in settings that allow for confidentiality are arranged at both the CDF and CTF by DOC case management staff. DOC staff report that most of the case managers assigned to provide services for inmates at both facilities are either on quarantine status or working remotely. Thus, as a general matter, there has been no access to confidential legal calls for inmates confined on quarantine and non-quarantine housing units. There is some evidence that the defendants recently began to allow scheduled legal calls using the telephones in the housing unit day rooms. These telephones are used by inmates to make monitored telephone calls. Amici have not had an opportunity to determine whether the scheduled legal calls are monitored; however, even if they are not monitored, the telephones in the housing unit day rooms do not afford the confidentiality required to communicate with counsel.
37 In addition to the CDF and CTF, the data the defendants provided indicate that the total workforce includes correctional staff assigned to a transportation unit and to the Central Cell Block.
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 22 of 38
2. Conditions in Isolation Relative to Other Units Inmates housed in isolation units at both the CDF and CTF are restricted to their cells. Inmates in isolation at the CTF are not permitted to use the telephone for any reason, including legal calls. During the site visits amici conducted, inmates in isolation at the CDF were able to make monitored telephone calls from their cells. Amici were recently informed this may no longer be the case; however, we have not had an opportunity to follow up. Medical staff visit inmates in isolation at least twice per day to check temperatures, vital signs, and conduct assessments if indicated. The first cohort of inmates who were isolated for COVID-19 were housed in a special management unit at the CTF. Several inmates in this cohort report that they were handcuffed when escorted to and from the showers. Showers are no longer afforded to inmates in the isolation housing units. To the extent they can bathe, inmates on isolation status must use the sinks in their cells to do so. The supply of towels does not appear adequate. In lieu of showers, the defendants planned to provide inmates on isolation status with body wipes, which were not available until April 14, 2020. The evidence indicates that inmates have spent up to and even over two weeks on isolation status. Analysis of housing assignment data associated with the first 15 inmates who tested positive for COVID-19 shows that the inmates in this sample were housed on isolation status for a minimum of five days. Three inmates in the sample had already spent 12, 14, and 15 days, respectively, in isolation status and remained in isolation as of the date of this analysis. Laundry services for inmates in isolation has been limited. Many inmates reported wearing the same clothes throughout their stays in the isolation units, and in fact most of the inmates amici met wore visibly soiled clothing and reported substantial delays in receiving fresh linens. Most of the inmates amici interviewed in the isolation units stated the conditions are far
22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 23 of 38
too punitive, noting that if they had it to do over again, they would not have reported their symptoms. Deprivation of showers, the absence of any ability to contact family members, the lack of access to legal calls, clean clothing and clean linens are plainly a disincentive and are likely to deter inmates from reporting symptoms of COVID-19.
Recommendation: Amici recommend that the defendants take immediate steps to provide consistent and reliable access to legal calls, personal telephone calls, daily showers, and clean clothing and clean linens to all inmates on isolation status. The defendants should ensure appropriate and consistent implementation of social distancing policies by addressing limitations in current staffing levels, supervisory oversight of line staff, and provide enhanced education related to the importance of social distancing.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & HYGIENE
Question One: What are the quantities of personal protective equipment and cleaning products in the DOC stockpile?
As of April 17, 2020, the DOC reported to amici the following inventory of PPE: Personal Protective Equipment:
 Surgical Mask: 71,680  N95 Respirators: 12,774  Face Shields: 190  Goggles: 200  Gowns: 2,400  Gloves: Total Not Available38  Small PPE Kits: 400
38 DOC representatives provided data indicating that between March 28, 2020 and April 15, 2020, 39,237 pairs of gloves were used.
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 24 of 38
According to the DOC estimates, based on current usage rates, as of April 17, 2020, the defendants had approximately a 32-day supply of masks on hand. The DOC Compliance Officer informed amici that the processing of additional procurement orders was underway.
As of April 13, 2020, the DOC reported to amici that the following inventory of cleaning products was stored on site.
Cleaning Products:  Ecolab Disinfectant: 144, 2.5-gallon cases;39  Ecolab Peroxide Multi Surface Cleaner/Disinfectant: 32, 2-gallon cases;  Ecolab Multi-Quat Sanitizer: 139, 2.5-gallon cases;40  Ecolab Orange Force: 129, 2.5-gallon cases; and  Ecolab Glass Cleaner: 30, 2.5-gallon cases.
Question Two: Are residents provided with a weekly bar of soap? Many inmates amici interviewed reported that they purchase soap through the
commissary. Most explained they had access to soap through the housing unit officers and everyone interviewed at their cells was able to show amici their bars of soap. There were limited supplies of soap available for distribution in a number of the housing units. Inmates housed in special management units are provided with small packets of liquid soap; they are not provided with bars of soap. Question Three: Do staff who interact with visitors and residents have access to, and wear, sufficient personal protective equipment?
Staff who interact with visitors have access to and wear sufficient PPE. Amici observed screening staff posted at the entrances of both the CDF and the CTF wearing PPE consistent with CDC Guidelines.41 Additionally, staff assigned to units housing inmates who are COVID-19
39 This product is dilutable to make larger volumes of solution. 40 This product is dilutable to make larger volumes of solution. 41 CDC Guidelines recommend that staff performing temperature checks on any group of people wear a mask, eye protection, gloves, and a gown or coveralls. See Ex. 7, Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities, March 23, 2020 at 25.
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 25 of 38
positive wore PPE consistent with CDC Guidelines, including N95 respirators, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. None of the correctional staff interviewed who were wearing N95 respirators reported that they had been fitted for them as required by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration.
The defendants issued post orders for quarantine and isolation housing units on March 28, 2020 that included minimum PPE requirements.42 Nevertheless, as of April 10, 2020, the day of the first unannounced site visit, amici observed that the post orders were not being adhered to and there was no clear, common understanding among the staff amici interviewed regarding what PPE they should wear. Most staff expressed considerable anxiety about not having access to appropriate PPE. Some staff were observed wearing masks that they purchased and brought to the facility themselves, few staff wore gloves, and other staff wore no PPE at all. Multiple staff stated that prior to April 10, 2020, PPE was not widely distributed to correctional officers.
Amici were informed that beginning on April 10, 2020, masks and gloves were being distributed to correctional officers at the start of each shift. Over the course of the three days of site visits, amici observed that PPE was more consistently worn by staff throughout the facilities and staff stated that there was an abrupt increase in the PPE that was distributed to correctional officers. As noted above, the defendants reported that earlier this week, subsequent to amici’s site visits, they began to replace masks for inmates on a daily basis and are now providing masks to all inmates on all housing units. On April 14, 2020, the defendants reported that they are now
42 See supra note 30 regarding the March 28, 2020 DOC policy applicable to quarantine housing units. On the same day the defendants issued a post order for isolation housing units. The PPE requirements in the post order related to the isolation units includes only a mask and gloves, less than the PPE recommended in the CDC Guidelines. As previously noted, however, in practice, in contrast to the observations amici made in the quarantine units, amici observed correctional officers on the isolation units wearing PPE consistent with CDC Guidelines.
25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 26 of 38
requiring all staff and all inmates to wear masks at all times. Amici have not had an opportunity to confirm these representations. Recommendation: Amici recommend that the defendants communicate clear expectations, in writing, to correctional staff about the types of PPE required to perform the various supervision and operational functions that are conducted throughout the facility, including the PPE they should expect to be given on each shift for each specific category of post assignment; the proper donning, doffing and disposal of the PPE; and an explanation of the related rationale. Clear communication to staff regarding differences in risk exposures and providing consistent PPE over time could help lower anxiety levels among staff.
In addition, the defendants should also ensure that all PPE issued is properly fitted. For example, N95 respirators must be properly fitted to ensure that they provide the intended protection. As noted above, during the site visits that amici conducted, none of the correctional staff who were wearing N95 respirators in isolation units reported that they had been fitted for the respirators.
Finally, defendants must ensure that all DOC staff receive instruction on the proper disposal of PPE, and appropriate and accessible receptables for immediate disposal must be readily available. During the site visits, amici observed that receptables for disposal of PPE were not accessible on a consistent basis, including to staff assigned to isolation units at the CTF.
Question Four: Are staff and prisoner-workers given masks and gloves, particularly in food service, and are they instructed to wear that equipment?
Amici toured the Culinary Unit at the CDF on April 11, 2020. At that time, all correctional staff and contractors were wearing masks, hairnets, and gloves. There were no inmate workers in the Culinary Unit during the site visit. They had been replaced by correctional officers. Amici learned that the inmate work detail in the Culinary Unit was suspended because
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 27 of 38
an inmate housed at the CDF, who had been assigned to the detail for at least several months, tested positive for COVID-19 on April 10, 2020. Amici have not had an opportunity to confirm the instructions regarding the use of masks and gloves that DOC staff, contractors, and inmates working in the Culinary Unit receive; however, during the site visit amici observed the consistent use of masks, gloves, and hairnets by the numerous contractors and DOC staff who were working in the food service area.
An interview conducted by amici with a supervisor for the food service contractor, (who reported working in the CDF Culinary Unit since the latter part of 2019), revealed that the contract staff assigned to the CDF did not know why the inmate detail workers were no longer working and had been replaced by correctional officers. In light of the fact that it appeared the detail inmate who tested positive prepared and served food along with the contractor’s staff for at least several months, amici sought to ascertain whether the DOC made any attempt to determine whether the contract staff who worked alongside the detail inmate who tested positive were “close contacts” as defined by the applicable CDC Guidelines.43 According to the Guidelines, “an individual is considered a close contact of a COVID-19 case if they a) have been within approximately 6 feet of a COVID-19 case for a prolonged period of time or b) have had direct contact with infectious secretions from a COVID-19 case (e.g., have been coughed on).”44 The Guidelines further provide that all staff who were a close contact of the inmate, whether employed by DOC or by the contractor,45 should have been placed on self-quarantine status. Specifically, the Guidelines provide that if a staff member or contractor is identified as a close contact of a
43 See Ex. 7 at 3. 44 Id. 45 The CDC Guidelines define staff as “all public sector employees as well as those working for a private contractor within a correctional facility (e.g. private healthcare or food service). Except where noted, “staff” does not distinguish between healthcare, custody, and other types of staff including private facility operators.” Id. at 4.
27

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 28 of 38
COVID-19 case (whether in the facility or in the community) that staff member should selfquarantine at home for 14 days and may return to work if symptoms do not develop after the 14day period.46 It appears that these Guidelines have not been implemented with respect to any contractors who were in close contact with the detail inmate who tested positive for COVID-19.
According to the DOC administrator and staff responsible for the food service contract, on the morning of April 11, 2020, the DOC food contractor was informed that a detail inmate had tested positive and that the contractor’s workers should self-quarantine if they did not feel well. It appears that no effort was made to determine whether any of the contract food service workers were a “close contact” of the detail inmate who tested positive. Indeed, amici contacted the DOC Medical Director, the Unity Medical Director, the Unity Infection Control Specialist, the DOC Deputy Director responsible for the food service contract, the DOC General Counsel, and lead counsel for the defendants in this litigation to inquire about this matter. Based on the responses they provided to amici’s inquiries, it appears that any contact tracing that may have been conducted did not include consideration of whether the food service contractors who worked alongside the detail inmate who tested positive might be deemed a close contact who should have been quarantined for 14 days. Amici’s understanding is that the detail inmate who tested positive was not contacted about any individuals with whom he had close contact. Moreover, it does not appear that any effort was made to contact public health experts at the D.C. Department of Health to receive guidance about this matter. In light of the implications attendant to having a close contact continue to work in the CDF Culinary Unit, promptly after learning about this matter amici alerted counsel for both parties about their concerns.
46 Id. at 12.
28

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 29 of 38
Amici’s inquiries regarding the contact tracing conducted in the wake of the detail inmate’s positive COVID-19 test results revealed that at least in this instance the defendants employed a fractured contact tracing effort that was not centralized nor informed by public health experts.47
Recommendation: If they have not done so in the wake of amici’s inquiries, the defendants should seek immediate guidance from public health professionals about identification of the detail inmate’s close contacts. Moreover, it is important to recognize that the defendants are working in an extremely challenging environment that requires a well-coordinated response to the range of infection control issues that are presented throughout the course of each daily shift. Any individuals who are tasked with conducting contact tracing after a confirmed positive COVID-19 test should have appropriate training and be closely supervised. Question Five: Do residents have access to cleaning supplies in sufficient quantity and concentration, including rags, to clean their cells?
Amici reviewed records of cleaning supply deliveries to the CDF and CTF to assess whether supplies were made available to the facilities. Department of Corrections records indicate that there have been regular deliveries of cleaning supplies to both facilities since December 31, 2019, the start of the dataset reviewed.48 Delivery records reflect that historically
47 The DOC Medical Director informed amici that she had seen email correspondence regarding the issue but had not been involved in advising staff about how to handle this matter. The Medical Director referred amici to the DOC Deputy Director for Administration to determine whether contact tracing related to the contractor’s staff had been conducted. The Deputy Director was contacted and informed amici that the contractor was notified that the contractor’s workers should self-quarantine if they did not feel well. There was no recognition of the fact that food service contract workers may have potentially been close contacts of the detail inmate who tested positive and should have been quarantined regardless of how they felt. Moreover, in response to amici’s inquiries, the manager of Unity’s infection control program at the CDF advised amici that Unity’s involvement was limited to determining the identity of the inmates and health care providers who may have had contact with the detail inmate while he was in the medical unit. 48 Ex. 8, Table, Dates and Quantities of Cleaning Supplies and Soap Delivered to the CDF and CTF, by Date, December 31, 2019 – April 13, 2020.
29

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 30 of 38
three types of cleaning and sanitizing agents were made available to clean housing units and that in mid-March 2020 a fourth, peroxide-based multi-surface cleaner was also made available.49
Observations and interviews with inmates and staff indicated that inmate access to sufficient cleaning supplies on housing units varied from unit to unit. For example, on one unit, all of the cleaning supplies had been depleted.50 Furthermore, on several units that had a supply of cleaning agents, inmates reported that they were unable to access them to clean their own cells. Amici did not observe any inmates with facility-issued rags that could be used to clean their cells. Most inmates who were interviewed reported that they made rags by tearing facilityissued towels or t-shirts, a phenomenon amici observed. For the most part, these make-shift rags were tattered and soiled. Amici observed that paper towels were available for inmates to use for cleaning on a small number of housing units, but this was not common and on one of the units, the inventory of paper towels was extremely low.
Amici could not assess whether the concentrations of disinfecting and sanitizing solutions were mixed in the appropriate concentrations necessary to achieve their intended effects. It was evident that knowledge regarding the appropriate use of the different cleaning and sanitizing agents was generally at a very low level.
Access to cleaning and sanitizing solutions is necessary, but not sufficient. Knowledge of proper mixing and appropriate application of cleaning and sanitizing solutions is also necessary. For example, at least two of the products that the DOC distributes – a concentrated surface cleaner and a concentrated sanitizing solution – have prescribed dilution ranges (i.e., must contain a minimum concentration of the chemical agent, which has implications for how
49 The manufacturer’s product description states that it is “effective against emerging viral pathogens after the CDC has declared an outbreak.” 50 Ex. 9, Photograph of empty cleaning supply containers, Correctional Treatment Facility, Building D, April 12, 2020.
30

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 31 of 38
much water can be added to the concentrate before the agent is no longer effective). One of these products also has specific prescriptions regarding how long the product must remain on a surface for it to reduce pathogens to indicated levels.
The DOC assigns correctional officers to “environmental posts” and these officers are responsible for cleaning and sanitizing assigned zones of the facilities. One environmental officer informed amici that he had never received formal training, but rather reviewed his responsibilities with his supervisor and acknowledged that it had “been a while” since that discussion occurred. The same officer noted that he had begun to mix his own bleach solution to sanitize the areas of the facility he was responsible for and relied on his own judgement regarding the appropriate concentration of bleach solution. Recommendation: There is a critical need for the defendants to strengthen the environmental health and safety program at both the CDF and the CTF. Amici recommend that the DOC immediately retain a registered sanitarian to oversee the environmental health and safety programs at both facilities and provide training so that cleaning tools and products are used properly. A registered sanitarian should bring the appropriate knowledge, oversight, and quality control necessary to mitigate at least some of the critical public health concerns that are evident in both facilities. Question Six: Do housing units, and particularly common spaces such as bathrooms and showers, appear to be sufficiently cleaned?
Cleaning the common spaces in housing units is the responsibility of designated inmate “detail workers” at the CDF and CTF, who are supervised by correctional officers. As indicated in the response to Question Five, several different cleaning, disinfecting, and sanitizing solutions are available on the housing unit of both facilities. Nevertheless, the cleanliness of common spaces was inconsistent from one housing unit to the next. With cleaning responsibilities
31

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 32 of 38
delegated to the inmate level, there is little quality control. Some housing units appeared relatively clean and tidy, others were not. This was especially the case in some of the housing units at the CDF that appeared to have significant inmate management and supervision challenges.51 In addition to the limitations in the cleanliness of some housing units, some cell block corridors had trash on the floor. Moreover, Building D at the CTF includes showers with tiles and in some of those showers there was visible mold growth.52 Recommendation: In addition to engaging a sanitarian, supervisory correctional staff must ensure that housing unit staff properly manage the work performed by the inmate detail workers. In order to accomplish that goal, correctional staff and detail workers require guidance from a sanitarian trained to oversee the facility’s environmental health program. Question Seven: Do professional cleaning crews clean hallways and common areas (not in housing units)? Do inmate details clean the housing units? common spaces?
A professional cleaning contractor was engaged to clean certain common areas on the non-secure side of both facilities on a daily basis in late March 2020. However, there was an apparent misunderstanding about the scope of the contractor’s services and none of the floors in the common areas on the administrative side of both facilities were cleaned, including bathroom floors and floors in the Officer’s Dining Room. The DOC Deputy responsible for the administration of the contract informed amici earlier this week that this limitation is being corrected.
Inmate detail workers clean the common areas in the housing units. They have not been adequately trained and are not appropriately supervised. The detail workers have inconsistent knowledge about the products they use and do not have adequate equipment. For example, they
51 In at least two housing units at the CDF, amici observed food and other refuse scattered on the cellblock floors, including on the floors under stairwells. 52 Ex. 10, Photograph of a Shower in the Correctional Treatment Facility, Building D, April 12, 2020.
32

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 33 of 38
reuse mops and make-shift rags that do not appear to have been appropriately sanitized between uses. As part of the DOC response to COVID-19, detail workers are required to clean all surfaces in the common areas of the housing units at two-hour intervals. This appears to occur on a consistent basis; however, the efficacy of these efforts is undermined by inadequate training, limitations in supervision, the absence of any quality controls, and the apparent limitations in the equipment and possibly in the cleaning and disinfecting agents that they are using.53 Recommendation: In addition to engaging a sanitarian, the defendants should consider contracting for professional cleaning services on the secure side of the facility at least until a sanitarian is hired to bolster the existing environmental health and safety program at both facilities. Additionally, proper cleaning supplies that have been sanitized regularly should be immediately provided to each unit, and a schedule for cleaning common areas and cells should be established and enforced. Question Eight: Is hand sanitizer provided, or available to, to residents?
There is no evidence that hand sanitizer is provided to the inmates at either the CDF or the CTF.
Question Nine: Is social distancing possible in common areas in units and in the recreation spaces, and what is the approximate size of common areas?
Amici did not have the opportunity to measure the common areas at the CDF and CTF. However, given the configuration of the physical plant in the housing units, social distancing is possible if inmate out-of-cell time is limited to small groups of inmates at one time. However, as noted elsewhere in this report, the defendants are not enforcing social distancing requirements.
53 On some housing units the detail workers expressed concerns that the cleaning agents they were using had been inappropriately diluted; on others, inmates complained about fumes associated with the apparent strength of the cleaning products the detail inmates were using.
33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 34 of 38
Enforcing social distancing requires consistent, direct observation by staff. Ensuring that correctional officers carry these functions out requires active supervision by mid-level managers, who must provide both oversight to correctional officers and support (i.e., by ensuring officers get appropriate relief for breaks over the course of their 12-hour shifts). Amici observed numerous instances in which correctional officers assigned to housing units left their posts without relief, leaving housing units short staffed. It appears that the DOC does not have sufficient line and supervisory staff available to appropriately enforce social distancing policies. Recommendation: The defendants should reduce the extent to which common spaces encourage inmates to congregate in close quarters (e.g., around a single television in a small enclosed area, or next to one another in order to use telephones that are mounted closer than six feet apart). The effectiveness of this strategy would increase if the defendants were to consistently apply their stated policy of allowing no more than small groups of inmates out of their cells at any given time. Whatever strategies the defendants adopt, increased active and direct supervision will be required by both housing unit correctional officers and the midlevel managers responsible for overseeing and supporting the correctional officers assigned to housing units. Enforcing social distancing standards as a public health measure is a new responsibility for correctional staff and they must be supported as they adjust to this new role. Moreover, the defendants should assess whether any additional security staff are needed to provide appropriate supervision, on a unit-by-unit basis, taking into consideration the layout of the housing units, the number of inmates housed on the units, and the security designation of the unit, in order to enforce social distancing policies.
34

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 35 of 38
Question Ten: Approximately how many residents share a cell, and what is the approximate size of the cell?
Amici analyzed individual-level inmate housing data for the period between March 15, 2020 and April 13, 2020. At the CDF, as of April 13, 2020, 586 inmates, 56 percent of the population, shared a cell.54 At the CTF, as of April 13, 2020, 22 inmates, five percent of the population, shared a cell.55
A representative-sized cell was measured at each of the two facilities. The selected cell at the CDF measured 85.6 square feet and the selected cell at the CTF measured 72.4 square feet.
Question Eleven: Do all residents have access to sinks, soap, and toilets in their cells? As noted above, at the CDF, all cells include sinks and toilets. At the CTF, the housing
units in the portion of the facility known as Building D contain cells without sinks and toilets. Inmates assigned to housing units in Building D share common sinks and toilets. On each housing unit there are two, double-tiered corridors of cells. Each tier of each corridor is comprised of eight cells. Inmates housed in the eight cells share two sinks, two toilets, and a shower. The cell doors in Building D, by design, do not lock in order for inmates housed in the cells to access the sink and toilet without the intervention of a correctional officer. Amici identified multiple sinks and toilets in housing units in Building D that were not functional or out of service at the time of the site visit.
Representatives of the DOC stated that every inmate receives a facility-issued bar of soap each week. Every inmate that amici spoke with indicated that they possessed at least one bar of soap. Some inmates verified that soap was distributed to them weekly; however, others stated that they had purchased their soap from the commissary and that soap was not distributed
54 See Ex. 1, supra note 4. 55 See Ex. 2, supra note 9.
35

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 36 of 38
weekly. There were multiple reports that inmates sometimes use their bars of soap to clean their clothes in the shower and under those circumstances a single bar of soap does not last an entire week.
V. Conclusion Communicable disease outbreaks in locked facilities such as jails and prisons where individuals live in close proximity can spread rapidly through a population if not addressed quickly with appropriate prevention, detection, and management systems. The current novel coronavirus pandemic, which is already present within both the CDF and the CTF, poses a serious risk to the health and safety of inmates and staff alike. This report describes certain efforts undertaken by the DOC to respond to the current public health emergency. DOC staff and Unity’s contract providers should be commended for performing essential public health and safety functions while knowingly exposing themselves to significant health risks on a daily basis. In light of the limitations identified in this report, substantial effort must be undertaken to ensure that the DOC manages its response to COVID-19 in a manner that ensures conformity with CDC Guidelines. This will require active on-site support at both facilities from public health professionals. For example, contact tracing must be strengthened, staff and inmate education on relevant public health considerations must be intensified, and business processes must be refined to ensure inmates and staff presenting with symptoms potentially consistent with COVID-19 are quickly identified, tested and isolated. Moreover, on an expedited basis, the defendants must provide inmates in isolation who have tested positive for COVID-19 with access to showers, clean clothing, clean laundry, personal telephone calls and legal calls.
36

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 37 of 38
Amici’s investigation reveals that there is an equally urgent need for the DOC to substantially bolster the agency’s environmental health program in the immediate and longer term. A professional sanitarian with appropriate health and safety credentials should be charged with organizing and managing the DOC’s environmental health program to ensure, among other matters, appropriate cleaning and sanitizing practices are implemented, regular facility inspections are conducted, and corrective actions are undertaken to resolve systemic risks. In the immediate term, the defendants should ensure that they have a sufficient number of both line level and supervisory staff throughout both facilities to promote appropriate supervision and enforce the altered operational policies adopted to address the contagion during this public health crisis.
As amici were in the process of finalizing this report, defendants provided counsel for plaintiffs and amici with a copy of an April 27, 2020 memorandum from the DOC Director, Quincy Booth, to all DOC employees and contractors.56 The memorandum addresses COVID19 policies and procedures, including updated policies and procedures that appear to be intended to respond to the matters addressed during the April 15, 2020 teleconference. In light of the current filing deadline, amici have not had an opportunity to consider the content of the memorandum, but have included it in the appendix to this report so that the Court can be promptly apprised of the most current information that the defendants have provided.
Amici recognize the substantial challenges that confront both parties and are available to answer any questions the Court or the parties have about the matters addressed in this summary report.
56 Ex. 11, Memorandum from Quincy L. Booth, Director, to All DOC Employees and Contractors, April 17, 2020, Reminders and Updated COVID-19 Policies and Procedures.
37

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 38 of 38

April 19, 2020 Washington, D.C.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/_Grace M. Lopes_______ Amicus Curiae Grace M. Lopes Bar No. 358650 Executive Director Rising for Justice 901 4th Street, N.W., Suite 6000 Washington, D.C. 20001 202-607-2224 gmlopes@risingforjustice.org
Mark Jordan mark@markjordan.consulting 1220 19th Street, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-525-6732

38

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 4 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 5 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 6 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 7 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 8 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 9 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 10 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 11 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 12 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 13 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 14 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 15 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 16 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 17 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 18 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 19 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 20 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 21 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 22 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 23 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 24 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 25 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 26 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 27 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 28 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 29 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 30 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 31 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 32 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 33 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 34 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 35 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 36 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 37 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 38 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 39 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 40 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 41 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 42 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 43 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 44 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 45 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 46 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 47 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 48 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 49 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 50 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 51 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 52 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 53 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 51-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 54 of 54

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 52 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Petitioners
v.
QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

No. 1:20-cv-00849 (CKK)

Defendants-Respondents.

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO JOIN UNITED STATES AS A NECESSARY PARTY
The Court should deny the Defendants’ motion to join the United States as a necessary party. The United States, which does not seek to join the action but does not oppose Defendants’ motion, avers that its only interest in this case is a potential future order from this Court directing Defendants to release certain inmates. Because the United States “does not operate or have authority over the . . . D.C. Jail,” the sole federal interest that either the District or the United States contend justifies such participation is the possibility that the Court will release of a portion of the jail population. Dkt. No. 46 at 1; Dkt. No. 44-1 (“Defs’ Mot’n”), at 4.
Yet Plaintiffs seek release of a portion of the jail population only under the federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242 and binding Supreme Court precedent, the only proper respondent in a federal habeas case is the immediate physical custodian of the inmate. That the United States has legal control, or some measure of legal control, over some jail residents is irrelevant. Under basic principles of habeas corpus law, it is not a necessary party.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 52 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 7
It is true that plaintiffs’ conditions claims arise under Section 1983 also, but these are not
the claims for release; if they were, plaintiffs would have asked to convene a three-judge court,
which they have not. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(B) (requiring three-judge court for “any civil
action in Federal court with respect to prison conditions”); cf. id. § 3626(g)(2) (defining “civil
action with respect to prison conditions” to exclude habeas proceedings).
The Defendants’ argument, that the United States is a necessary party and must be joined
under Rule 19 because “[m]ost of [the inmates] housed in DOC facilities are there under the
authority of the United States,” Defs’ Mot’n 4; see also id. at 5, flies in the face of the decisions
of this Court, this Circuit, and the Supreme Court. As this Court has recognized, in the “context
of a habeas action brought by a prisoner challenging his present physical confinement, it is beyond
cavil that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held, not
the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official.” Nken v. Napolitano, 607 F. Supp.
2d 149, 154 (D.D.C. 2009) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (quotations omitted).
The Court’s analysis in Nken demonstrates the fatal flaw in the Defendants’ motion to join
the United States as a party with respect to this habeas case:
The federal habeas statute provides that the proper respondent to a habeas petition is “the person who has custody over [the petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also id. § 2243 (“The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained.”). As the Supreme Court has held, “[t]he consistent use of the definite article in reference to the custodian indicates that there is generally only one proper respondent to a given prisoner’s habeas petition.” [Rumsfeld v.] Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004). “This custodian, moreover, is ‘the person’ with the ability to produce the prisoner’s body before the habeas court.” Id. For more than 100 years, courts have understood that “these provisions contemplate a proceeding against some person who has the immediate custody of the party detained, with the power to produce the body of such party before the court or judge, that he may be liberated if no sufficient reason is found to the contrary.” Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574 (1885)). The Supreme Court, in its decision in Padilla, confirmed “that in habeas challenges to present physical confinement—‘core challenges’—the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held, not
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 52 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 7
the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official.” Id. (most alterations in original).
Accordingly, is it well settled that, in the typical prisoner context, a “habeas petitioner . . . cannot properly bring suit against such officials as the Attorney General. . . . Rather, the proper defendant in federal habeas cases is the warden.” Chatman–Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 811 (D.C. Cir. 1988); see also Stokes v. United States Parole Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (reaffirming immediate custodian rule). Moreover, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla, the D.C. Circuit has made clear that the immediate custodian rule is not simply one of expedience that may be modified for policy reasons, but rather the default rule that must be applied by district courts in determining whether it has jurisdiction over a prisoner’s habeas petition. See Stokes, 374 F.3d at 1238 (rejecting prisoner’s argument that the immediate custodian rule is a policy rule rather than a hard and fast limitation, concluding that “[if] this theory was once viable, it clearly is not after Padilla ”).
Nken, 607 F. Supp. 2d at 154–55.
Under Padilla, the United States cannot be a respondent in a federal habeas action:
As the Supreme Court observed, the habeas statute indicates that there is only one proper respondent to a given habeas petition and that is the person with the ability to produce the prisoner’s body before the habeas court. [Padilla, 542 U.S. at 434– 35], 124. Indeed, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected any argument that a prisoner may bring a habeas petition challenging his present physical custody against a government official who—although not his immediate custodian—exercises the “legal reality of control” over the petitioner. Id. at 439.
Nken, 607 F. Supp. 2d at 156 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court concluded in Padilla:
In challenges to present physical confinement, we reaffirm that the immediate custodian, not a supervisory official who exercises legal control, is the proper respondent. If the “legal control” test applied to physical-custody challenges, a convicted prisoner would be able to name the State or the Attorney General as a respondent to a § 2241 petition. As the statutory language, established practice, and our precedent demonstrate, that is not the case.
Padilla, 542 U.S. at 439–40.
The precedent and reasoning for the immediate custodian rule are so clear that this Court
has held that even where a non-prisoner immigration detainee “[p]etitioner is challenging
something more than just his present physical custody,” the rule must apply. Nken, 607 F. Supp.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 52 Filed 04/20/20 Page 4 of 7
2d at 156. Specifically, in Nken this Court held that the fact that the petitioner was challenging his imminent deportation and alleged due process violations in an immigration program did not render the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security the proper respondent. Id. Although the Homeland Security Secretary had legal authority and thus could control the petitioner’s release, the “proper respondent [was] the person responsible for maintaining—not authorizing—the custody of the prisoner.” Id. at 157 (citations omitted). Therefore, because the petitioner was held at a facility in Maryland when he filed his petition and the proper respondent was therefore located in Maryland, this Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the matter. Id. at 162.
The Court’s analysis in Nken remains a correct statement of the law today. In 2017, the D.C. Circuit again reiterated Padilla’s holding that the only proper respondent in a federal habeas proceeding is the petitioner’s immediate physical custodian. Day v. Trump, 860 F.3d 686, 689– 90 (D.C. Cir. 2017). And, just last year, the United States successfully opposed a Rule 19 motion seeking to add various federal parties as respondents in an immigration case in the United States District Court in New Jersey by arguing that the only necessary party was the warden of a state facility. Tahir G. v. Ahrendt, No. 18-CV-17175 (ES), 2019 WL 6712344, at *2 n.2 (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2019). There, the petitioner sought to add additional parties, including the Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, to his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action. Id. (Dkt. No. 36-1 at 1). The petitioner argued that the parties should be joined pursuant to Rule 19 because “the claims asserted by Petitioner necessarily implicate these additional Respondents, since they are the parties that would need to take action in order for him to be scheduled for and appear at a custody review hearing, as he has requested in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.” (Id. at 1). The United States opposed the motion, citing, inter alia, Padilla. Id. (Dkt. No. 39 at 1). It argued that warden of the Bergen County Jail was “the only proper Respondent[.]” Id. (emphasis added).
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 52 Filed 04/20/20 Page 5 of 7
The joinder motion was denied. Id. at 2 n.2; see also Alafyouny v. Chertoff, No. 3:06-CV-204 (ICR), 2006 WL 1581959, at *5 (N.D. Tex. May 19, 2006) (granting the United States’ motion to be dismissed as a respondent in a Section 2241 habeas petition brought by a federal immigration detainee where the federal government “argue[d] that the only proper respondent for this habeas action is the Warden of the Rolling Plains Detention Center”). Indeed, the United States has also urged this Court to dismiss it as respondent in a habeas petition involving a federal detainee held in a state facility, arguing that the only proper respondent is the warden of the state facility confining the petitioner. See Zhenli Ye Gon v. D.C. Office of Atty. Gen., 825 F. Supp. 2d 271, 277 (D.D.C. 2011) (“The [United States] has taken the consistent position throughout this litigation that the only proper respondent for the habeas petition is the warden of the Virginia jail where petitioner is confined.”), aff'd sub nom. Zhenli Ye Gon v. Sloane, 496 F. App’x 90 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Having argued for years that the United States is not a proper respondent in habeas cases like these, the Court should not countenance the United States’ change of position.
It is therefore entirely clear that “the only proper respondent” to a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is “the warden of the [] facility in which he was incarcerated at the time he filed the petition.” Stokes, 374 F.3d at 1238 (emphasis added). The fact that many members of the proposed class may be held in DOC custody “under the ultimate authority of the U.S. Attorney General,” Defs’ Mot’n 5, does not make the United States a proper party to this action with respect to the potential release of residents. Indeed, if it did, the United States would be a proper party in every habeas corpus action properly brought against the warden of a prison or jail on behalf of a federal prisoner or detainee. But as this Court explained in Gon, were the United States a proper habeas respondent in every case in which the United States was “the source of the original order of detention,” that would “facilitate unprecedented and unseemly forum shopping by D.C. prisoners
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 52 Filed 04/20/20 Page 6 of 7
housed in institutions all over the country.” 825 F. Supp. 2d at 276 n.3. And as this Court explained in Nken, in this precise procedural posture, the United States is not a proper party even when it has ultimate authority over the prisoner. Nken, 607 F. Supp. 2d at 156.
Lewis v. District of Columbia, 324 F.R.D. 296 (D.D.C. 2018), is not to the contrary for the simple reason that it was not a habeas corpus action. It was a Section 1983 suit challenging the District’s practices for processing arrestees, and “any ruling the Court makes in this case will necessarily impact the operations of the U.S. Attorney’s office because it will impact the papering, i.e., processing, of arrestees charged with offenses prosecuted by that office.” Id. at 298.
Nor can Defendants classify the United States as a necessary party based on the speculative possibility that they will incur inconsistent obligations in the United States’ absence. The risk that a habeas order would conflict with other duties imposed on the District remains wholly hypothetical given Defendants’ failure to define the obligations a release order could undermine or even identify the specific contractual or statutory provisions that impose potentially competing mandates. See Defs’ Mot’n 4; see also FDIC v. Bank of N.Y., 479 F. Supp. 2d 1, 12 (D.D.C. 2007) (concluding that the risk of “being subject to multiple or inconsistent obligations must be real, and not a mere possibility” for a nonparty to be necessary under Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(ii) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). In any event, even if the District had justified its position, the law remains clear that the United States cannot be a respondent in a habeas action for the release of individuals not in its custody and therefore cannot be a required party in this lawsuit. The District cannot rely on vague concerns to escape the clear legal rule that the Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit, and this Court have applied, and which the United States itself has endorsed.
Defendants’ motion to join the United States pursuant to Rule 19 should be denied.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 52 Filed 04/20/20 Page 7 of 7

DATED: April 20, 2020 Washington, D.C.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Steven Marcus
Steven Marcus (D.C. Bar # 1630882) Jonathan Anderson (D.C. Bar # 475306) Jenna Cobb (D.C. Bar # 979506) Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel. 202-824-2524 Fax 202-824-2525 smarcus@pdsdc.org
/s/ Scott Michelman Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar # 1006945) Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar # 235960) Michael Perloff (D.C. Bar # 1601047) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. 202-457-0800 smichelman@acludc.org

7

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 50 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs v.
QUINCY L. BOOTH, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 20-849(CKK)

ORDER (April 19, 2020)
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is, this 19th day of April, 2020, hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ [5] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Court ORDERS the following relief:
In light of the medical surveillance and monitoring that is occurring currently in the quarantine units, Defendants shall ensure that the triage process associated with sick call requests on the non-quarantine units is expedited and reflects appropriate sensitivity to the wide variety of symptoms associated with COVID-19 disease. Correctional officers and other staff who are in contact with inmates should ensure that the medical staff are promptly informed about inmates who present with symptoms of COVID-19 and medical staff should respond to the housing unit on an expedited basis. Any inmate grievances that include allegations of delay in medical assessment should be prioritized and submitted to the DOC medical director immediately. Additionally, in light of the fact that the DOC is relying on inmates to self-report symptoms of COVID-19, Defendants shall provide better documentation as to the dates and times of sick calls and urgent care calls, the inmates’ reported symptoms, the dates and times the inmates are seen by medical professionals, and the outcomes to allow for better tracking of the response to inmates’ complaints of COVID-19 symptoms.
If the Defendants are not already doing so, they shall that ensure that cell restrictions are appropriately monitored, tracked, and corrective action is undertaken on an expedited basis if warranted.
In instances in which inmates are transferred from the intake unit to a different unit before the 14-day quarantine period expires, Defendants shall ensure that appropriate housing, surveillance and monitoring is afforded to the inmate in the receiving unit.
Defendants shall consult with public health professionals regarding strategies that can be implemented to strengthen the COVID-19-related education program for both staff and inmates. Moreover, Defendants shall explore appropriate supports that can be provided on an expedited basis to both staff and inmates who are living and working in an extremely stressful and highrisk environment and are at substantial risk of exposure.

1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 50 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 3
Defendants shall conduct additional staff training on the use of the non-touch, infrared thermometers consistent with manufacturer guidelines and provide guidance to staff regarding what to do when thermometers produce results that appear on their face to be inaccurate.
Defendants shall take immediate steps to provide consistent and reliable access to legal calls, personal telephone calls, daily showers, and clean clothing and clean linens to all inmates on isolation status.
Defendants shall ensure appropriate and consistent implementation of social distancing policies by addressing limitations in current staffing levels, supervisory oversight of line staff, and provide enhanced education related to the importance of social distancing.
Defendants shall communicate clear expectations, in writing, to correctional staff about the types of PPE required to perform the various supervision and operational functions that are conducted throughout the facility, including the PPE they should expect to be given on each shift for each specific category of post assignment; the proper donning, doffing and disposal of the PPE; and an explanation of the related rationale. Clear communication to staff regarding differences in risk exposures and providing consistent PPE over time could help lower anxiety levels among staff.
In addition, Defendants shall also ensure that all PPE issued is properly fitted. For example, N95 respirators must be properly fitted to ensure that they provide the intended protection. During the site visits that amici conducted, none of the correctional staff who were wearing N95 respirators in isolation units reported that they had been fitted for the respirators.
Defendants shall ensure that all DOC staff receive instruction on the proper disposal of PPE, and appropriate and accessible receptables for immediate disposal must be readily available. During the site visits, amici observed that receptables for disposal of PPE were not accessible on a consistent basis, including to staff assigned to isolation units at the CTF.
There is a critical need for the defendants to strengthen the environmental health and safety program at both the CDF and the CTF. It is recommended that the DOC immediately retain a registered sanitarian to oversee the environmental health and safety programs at both facilities and provide training so that cleaning tools and products are used properly. A registered sanitarian should bring the appropriate knowledge, oversight, and quality control necessary to mitigate at least some of the critical public health concerns that are evident in both facilities.
In addition to engaging a sanitarian, supervisory correctional staff must ensure that housing unit staff properly manage the work performed by the inmate detail workers. In order to accomplish that goal, correctional staff and detail workers require guidance from a sanitarian trained to oversee the facility’s environmental health program.
In addition to engaging a sanitarian, the defendants shall consider contracting for professional cleaning services on the secure side of the facility at least until a sanitarian is hired to bolster the existing environmental health and safety program at both facilities. Additionally, proper cleaning supplies that have been sanitized regularly shall be immediately provided to each unit, and a schedule for cleaning common areas and cells shall be established and enforced.
Defendants shall reduce the extent to which common spaces encourage inmates to congregate in close quarters (e.g., around a single television in a small enclosed area, or next to one another in order to use telephones that are mounted closer than six feet apart). The effectiveness of this strategy would increase if Defendants were to consistently apply their stated
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 50 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 3
policy of allowing no more than small groups of inmates out of their cells at any given time. Whatever strategies Defendants adopt, increased active and direct supervision will be required by both housing unit correctional officers and the midlevel managers responsible for overseeing and supporting the correctional officers assigned to housing units. Enforcing social distancing standards as a public health measure is a new responsibility for correctional staff and they must be supported as they adjust to this new role. Moreover, Defendants shall assess whether any additional security staff are needed to provide appropriate supervision, on a unit-by-unit basis, taking into consideration the layout of the housing units, the number of inmates housed on the units, and the security designation of the unit, in order to enforce social distancing policies.
Finally, Defendants shall ensure that all inmates, including those on isolation, have access to confidential, unmonitored legal calls of a duration sufficient to discuss legal matters.
As relief, the Court has adopted in general the recommendations set out by the amici in their final report. The Court has not set out each detail in the report which supports these recommendations. However, the Court expects Defendants to address those specific deficiencies set out in the final report, which support the recommendations, and to rectify those deficiencies.
SO ORDERED. /s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge
3

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs-Petitioners, v.
QUINCY BOOTH, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

No. 1:20-cv-00849 (CKK)

AMENDED MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Rule 65.1, Plaintiffs hereby move for the issuance of a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants (along with their respective successors in office, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and anyone acting in concert with them) from continuing to violate the Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs and all members of the class they seek to represent by failing to take necessary measures to protect them against infection with the COVID-19 virus and the likely resulting serious illness or death. Specifically, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter a preliminary injunction appointing an expert to make recommendations regarding how many and which class members to order released so as to ensure that the number of prisoners remaining at the CDF and CTF can be housed consistently with CDC guidance. Plaintiffs also request that the Court require Defendants to take certain steps regarding sanitation, access to legal counsel, facility-wide testing, and staff shortages, and to do so within five days of the Court’s order. This motion is based on the memorandum of points and authorities, declarations, and other evidence submitted herewith, and such oral arguments and evidence as may be presented at a hearing on the motion. The grounds for this motion are that Defendants’ actions and inactions are

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 2

violating, and unless enjoined, will continue to violate, Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if the Defendants are not enjoined; that Defendants will not be injured if a preliminary injunction issues; and that the public interest favors the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

DATED: May 15, 2020 Washington, D.C.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Steven Marcus Steven Marcus (D.C. Bar # 1630882) Jonathan Anderson (D.C. Bar # 475306) Jenna Cobb (D.C. Bar # 979506) Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel. 202-824-2524 Fax 202-824-2525 smarcus@pdsdc.org
/s/ Scott Michelman Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar # 1006945) Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar # 235960) Michael Perloff (D.C. Bar # 1601047) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. 202-457-0800 smichelman@acludc.org

2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 43

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs-Petitioners, v.
QUINCY BOOTH, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

No. 1:20-cv-00849 (CKK)

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR AMENDED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT On March 30, 2020, when Plaintiffs filed for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order, there were five positive COVID-19 cases among residents in Department of Corrections’ (“DOC”) care. Despite Defendants’ assurances that “DOC has taken and continues to take extensive measures to ensure that the District’s incarcerated population remains safe and secure amid this pandemic,” Dkt. No. 25 at 2, the facts on the ground tell a different story. Today, there are 180 confirmed positive COVID-19 cases in DOC facilities — more than a twenty-five fold increase. The rate of infection in DOC facilities is over thirteen times greater than the rate of infection in the District of Columbia. One DOC resident died due to COVID-19, and another is on life support. Five DOC residents are in the hospital. This dire situation need not have been the outcome. Just across the Potomac River, the Arlington County Detention Center (a high-traffic jail facility with around 500 residents) has recorded zero COVID-19 cases. In Arlington, the chief prosecutor, together with the county sheriff and the public defender, decreased the jail population by nearly a third, ensuring the space and

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 43

staffing levels to implement social distancing.1 By contrast, the DOC resident population has been reduced by just one sixth (or half as much as Arlington’s) since this lawsuit was filed.
Rather than acting swiftly and decisively to prevent, and then to contain, a COVID-19 outbreak, Defendants moved slowly in responding to the global pandemic. As this Court concluded in issuing a temporary restraining order on April 19, 2020, DOC “fail[ed] to take comprehensive, timely, and proper steps to stem the spread of the virus.” Dkt. No. 51 (“TRO Op.”) at 22. In so concluding, the Court expressed significant doubts over whether DOC “policies are being fully implemented,” noting that “access to cleaning supplies varied,” that social distancing was not being enforced in part due to understaffing, and that “COVID-19 symptoms such as coughs and fevers” were not quickly attended to by medical staff. Id. at 17-20. The Court issued a temporary restraining order requiring Defendants immediately to remedy the unconstitutional conditions in their facilities. See Dkt. No. 50 (“TRO Order”).
Although nearly a month has passed since this Court’s order, many of the dangerous conditions that the Court ordered improved remain substantially unchanged. Amici Grace Lopes and Mark Jordan provided the Court with an oral report detailing just how little progress has been made. See Dkt. No. 69 (“Amici Oral Report”).

The Court’s April 19th TRO

Amici’s May 11th Report

Sick call responses: “Correctional officers Amici reported a “lack of unimpeded access to

and other staff who are in contact with inmates [sick-call] forms,” that officers “were unable

should ensure that the medical staff are to consistently produce the [sick-call] forms

promptly informed about inmates who present readily,” and that due to “significant

with symptoms of COVID-19 and medical correctional officer staffing shortages,”

staff should respond to the housing unit on an residents have greatly reduced opportunities

expedited basis.” TRO Order at 1.

“to submit sick-call request forms to medical

staff.” Amici Oral Report at 16-17.

1 ARLNow.com, Some Arlington Inmates Freed Amid Coronavirus Concerns, May 7, 2020, 3:45 p.m., https://www.arlnow.com/2020/05/07/some-arlington-inmates-freed-amid-continuedcoronavirus-fears/

2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 43

The Court’s April 19th TRO

Amici’s May 11th Report

Social distancing: “Defendants shall ensure Amici observed that social distancing appropriate and consistent implementation of “certainly is not prevalent, certainly not during social distancing policies by addressing our site visits,” and cited “staffing limitations,” limitations in current staffing levels, which “undercut the ability to staff to enforce supervisory oversight of line staff, and provide [social distancing].” Amici Oral Report at 43. enhanced education related to the importance of social distancing.” TRO Order at 2.

Sanitation: “[P]roper cleaning supplies that have been sanitized regularly shall be immediately provided to each unit, and a schedule for cleaning common areas and cells shall be established and enforced.” TRO Order at 2.

Amici reported that sanitation is “clearly especially deficient at the jail,” that residents are given “four or five paper towels,” that availability of cleaning supplies remains variable from housing unit to housing unit, and that residents “continue to rely upon the ripped towels and the ripped T-shirts” to clean their cells. Amici Oral Report at 41.

Conditions on isolation units: “[D]efendants shall take immediate steps to provide consistent and reliable access to legal calls, personal telephone calls, daily showers, and clean clothing and clean linens to all inmates on isolation status.” TRO Order at 2.

Amici’s report noted that due in part to “staffing limitations,” some residents on isolation units “hadn’t been allowed to shower within the past couple of days,” that some jail residents on one corner of the isolation unit did not have reliable access to a phone, and that residents are locked in their cells for days on end. Amici Oral Report at 30, 34, 36.

Access to legal calls: “[D]efendants shall ensure that all inmates . . . have access to confidential, unmonitored legal calls of a duration sufficient to discuss legal matters.” TRO Order at 3.

Amici reported that “legal calls that are scheduled [by an attorney] are being conducted in the offices of case managers with the case manager present” and that other residents are only allowed to use the phone “at 1:00, 2:00, and 3:00 a.m.” Amici Oral Report at 33-34.

In sum, Defendants have responded to the Court’s Order in the same way they did to this global

pandemic: slowly and insufficiently. The results of Defendants’ action and inaction are seen

starkly in the data, which show that infections continue to climb in facilities that still house around

1,325 residents.2

2 When the Court issued its TRO on April 19, 2020, there were around 1400 residents in DOC facilities.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 43
In light of the imminent threat to the health of the proposed class of DOC residents and Defendants’ lackluster performance both before and after the issuance of the TRO, greater relief is necessary to protect the health and safety of DOC residents. Accordingly, Plaintiffs urge the Court to join other federal courts around the country by implementing a process to safely transition a portion of DOC residents to community supervision. Faced with comparably less severe outbreaks in Ohio, California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, federal judges have established procedures to ensure that vulnerable incarcerated people are carefully transferred out of unsafe correctional institutions and safely into supervised home confinement. See Martinez-Brooks v. Easter, No. 20-cv-569 (MPS), 2020 WL 2405350 (D. Conn. May 12, 2020); Wilson v. Williams, — F. Supp. 3d —, No. 20-cv-794 (JSG), 2020 WL 1940882 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 22, 2020), aff’d, Wilson v. Williams, No. 20-3447 (6th Cir. May 4, 2020); Rivas v. Jennings, — F. Supp. 3d —, No. 20-cv-2731 (VC), 2020 WL 2059848 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2020); Savino v. Souza, — F. Supp. 3d —, No. 20-cv-10617 (WGY), 2020 WL 1703844 (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2020).
In accord with those other federal courts, this Court should adopt Plaintiffs’ proposed preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs ask the Court not only to extend and expand its relief concerning conditions Plaintiffs face, but also to appoint an expert to assist the Court in carefully identifying and granting tailored petitions for habeas corpus that would permit a portion of DOC residents to be freed from their dangerous confinement and supervised instead in the community. This Court has the authority to improve the health and safety of proposed class members by using the writ of habeas corpus to transition supervision of some DOC residents to the community, or by using the legal tool known as “enlargement” to do so. Because COVID-19 presents a severe risk to the health and safety of the proposed class and because Defendants continue to act with deliberate
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 5 of 43
indifference to that risk in a manner that has led to a tragically high rate of infection, the Court should begin that process now.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND As the Court knows, and as Defendants do not dispute, COVID-19 has caused a worldwide global pandemic and poses a serious risk of harm. At the time this case was filed, on March 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) estimated that there were 638,146 confirmed cases, 30,039 confirmed deaths, and 203 countries, areas, or territories affected. Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”), at ¶ 20. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) estimated that as of March 30, 2020, there were 122,653 confirmed cases and 2,112 confirmed deaths in the United States. Id. ¶ 21. Plaintiffs predicted in their initial filing that, due to the highly contagious nature of COVID-19, data and statistical modeling show that absent intervention, cases of COVID-19 will continue to grow exponentially. Id. ¶ 23 That prediction was unfortunately correct. As of May 15, 2020, the WHO estimates that there are 4,347,935 confirmed cases, 297,241 confirmed deaths, and 216 countries, areas, or territories affected.3 The CDC estimates that as of May 15, 2020, there are 1,384,930 confirmed cases and 83,947 confirmed deaths in the United States, with cases and deaths in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.4 People in all age brackets are at risk of serious illness and death from COVID-19. Reviewing data collected by the CDC, Dr. Marc Stern — an expert on correctional health care and a board-certified internist — explains:
3 See WORLD HEALTH ORG., Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Pandemic (last visited May 15, 2020, 5:00 PM), https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019. 4 See CTRS. DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, Cases in U.S. (last visited May 15, 2020, 5:00 PM), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 6 of 43
Early reporting on the impacts of COVID-19, based in part on preliminary data emerging from China, seemed to indicate that the virus’ impact would remain relatively mild for younger people. Recent data released by the CDC suggests that this initial narrative is incorrect, and that adults aged 20-44 also face a risk of experiencing severe health outcomes as a result of contracting the disease. See Dkt. No. 1-1 (“Stern Decl.”) at ¶ 14. Nearly 40 percent of people requiring hospitalization due to COVID-19 were between the ages of 20 and 54. Id. For people who contract COVID-19, the symptoms can be extremely severe. Dr. Meyer writes that “[s]erious illness occurs in up to 16% of cases, including death.” Dkt. No. 5-2, Ex. 1 (“First Meyer Decl.”), at ¶ 23. COVID-19 can cause intense pain, and recent research suggests that, in addition to the short-term risk of death posed by COVID-19, contracting the virus can lead to other serious long-term medical conditions, including cardiovascular disease. Compl. ¶ 27. One respiratory physician explained that the lungs “become filled with inflammatory material” and “are unable to get enough oxygen to the bloodstream.” Id. ¶ 25. The available data from the CDC to date shows that, in total, 20.7 to 31.4 percent of people who tested positive for COVID-19 require hospitalization; 4.9 to 11.5 percent require admission to the ICU; and 1.8 to 3.4 percent die. Compl. ¶ 29. By way of comparison, the WHO estimates that the COVID-19 mortality rate is between three and four percent, while the mortality rate of seasonal influenza is well below 0.1 percent. Id. ¶ 30. Unlike the flu, however, there is no vaccine or cure for COVID-19. Id. ¶ 32.
ARGUMENT A. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits.
The Court already found, in granting a temporary restraining order, that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their constitutional claims. Developments since the TRO was entered confirm that conclusion. As the number of DOC residents and staff who have tested positive for
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 7 of 43
COVID-19 continues to rise, and additional evidence sheds light on the unsanitary and unsafe conditions in Defendants’ facilities, it is all the more clear that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Fifth and Eighth Amendment claims.
1. Plaintiffs and proposed class members are likely to prevail on the merits of their constitutional claims.
Plaintiffs raise Fifth Amendment due process claims regarding pretrial detainees and Eighth Amendment claims regarding post-conviction detainees. To prevail under the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiffs must show that (1) prison conditions pose “an unreasonable risk of serious damage” to a prisoner’s health (an objective test) and (2) prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to the risk posed (a subjective test). Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33-35 (1993). As this Court explained, a post-conviction Plaintiff “must show that the jail conditions exposed him to an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his health and that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference in posing such a risk.” TRO Op. at 12.
To prevail under the Fifth Amendment, this Court has recognized, pretrial Plaintiffs “do not need to show deliberate indifference in order to state a due process claim for inadequate conditions of confinement.” Id. at 11 (applying Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015)). A pretrial Plaintiff need only show that “Defendants knew or should have known that the jail conditions posed an excessive risk to their health.” Id. at 12.
a. The Court correctly found that Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits.
In granting the TRO, the Court found that Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits of their constitutional claims. First, the Court found that Plaintiffs were likely to show that “they have been exposed to an unreasonable risk of damage to their health.” Id. at 12. COVID-19 infection rates in DOC custody and the expert declaration of Dr. Jaimie Meyer both supported the
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 8 of 43
conclusion that Plaintiffs face an elevated risk of contracting COVID-19. Id. at 13. The Court also found that Plaintiffs cannot practice social distancing — “one of the most important riskreduction policies” — in DOC facilities. Id. at 14. Citing amici’s first inspection report, the Court recognized that the failure to enforce social distancing was due, “at least in part, to an understaffing of correctional officers and their supervisors.” Id. at 14-15. In light of the statistical evidence, Plaintiffs’ expert evidence, the declarations of DOC inmates and staff, and the amici report, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs likely “will be able to show that they have been exposed to an unreasonable risk of damage to their health.” Id. at 15. That finding alone was sufficient to establish likelihood of success on the Fifth Amendment claim. Id.
The Court also found a likelihood of success on Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim. As Defendants were aware of the health threat posed by COVID-19, the central question before the Court was whether “Defendants have recklessly disregarded the risk to Plaintiffs’ health.” Id. at 16. The Court found that they had, citing a wealth of evidence casting doubt on whether precautionary measures contained in DOC policies were being implemented. See id. at 17-22. The Court relied on amici’s findings that “access to cleaning supplies varied from unit to unit,” that many residents relied on “rags that they made by tearing facility issued towels or t-shirts,” and that “cleanliness of common spaces [was] inconsistent among housing units.” Id. at 17-18. The Court took note of DOC’s failures to implement contact tracing and poor conditions on isolation units that discouraged residents from voluntarily self-reporting COVID-19 symptoms. Id. at 1920. Finally, the Court’s conclusion regarding Defendants’ deliberate indifference was also supported by uncontested allegations (supported by independent audits) of the poor ventilation of DOC facilities, the lack of prompt access to medical attention, and the lack of access to confidential legal calls. Id. at 20-22. In sum, the Court concluded that “Defendants are aware of the risk that
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 9 of 43
COVID-19 poses to Plaintiffs’ health and have disregarded those risks by failing to take comprehensive, timely, and proper steps to stem the spread of the virus.” Id. at 22.
b. Even after this Court’s Order, Defendants continue to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
The TRO, entered on April 19, directed the DOC to make several changes to the implementation of policy and procedure to rectify the unconstitutional conditions identified by the Court. Nearly a month later, however, it is clear from the statistical evidence, from amici’s followup report, from Plaintiffs’ declarations, from evidence presented in Superior Court, and from information from DOC staff members, that conditions in DOC facilities do not satisfy constitutional standards or this Court’s order. Many of the problems identified by the Court in its April 19, 2020 Order, including access to medical care, enforcement of social distancing, understaffing, and sanitation remain seriously deficient and are arguably worse than before the Court’s Order.
Expert Jaimie Meyer agrees. Having reviewed amici’s oral report from May 11, 2020, as well as amici’s written report from April 18, 2020 and declarations from DOC residents, Dr. Meyer “reaffirm[s] that people living and working in DC DOC facilities remain at risk of serious harm due to COVID-19 infection.” Ex. 1, Supp. Meyer Decl. ¶ 3. Dr. Meyer identifies “major and pervasive system-level deficits” that, as described below, put Plaintiffs’ and proposed class members’ lives at risk. Id.
i. Medical care First, inconsistent access to medical care continues to pose a risk of serious harm to all DOC residents. The Court recognized in April that residents who “have requested medical aid for COVID-19 symptoms report long waits for medical care, testing, or separation from the general population.” TRO Op. at 20. Accordingly, the Court required that the “process associated with
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 10 of 43
sick call requests on the non-quarantine units is expedited and reflects appropriate sensitivity to the wide variety of symptoms associated with COVID-19 disease.” TRO Order at 1.
In spite of the Court’s order, amici found in their follow-up investigation that medical access on non-quarantine units is plagued by a host of problems. To request medical care, residents must submit a sick-call request form, and those forms are maintained by housing unit correctional staff. Amici Oral Report at 16. Residents can get a form only by requesting one from a correctional officer. Id.
This system suffers from several systemic flaws that result in the ineffective provision of medical care. To begin, while the system relies on residents being let out of their cell to obtain a sick call request slip from a housing staff member, amici have reported that “two to three days can elapse between an inmate’s release for their hour out-of-cell time.” Id. at 17. Further, staff training on this system is minimal: When amici inspectors themselves asked correctional officers for a form, “officers were unable to consistently produce the forms” and “[i]n one case, an officer upon request gave us the wrong form.” Id.
Even when a resident is able to obtain and submit a sick call slip, additional days can elapse before a medical staff person follows up on the request for help. In a third of slips analyzed by amici, it took three or more days after a resident requested help for medical staff to respond. Id. at 19. One resident was made to wait over a week after submitting a request for medical help before he was seen. Id. Of particular concern, amici documented this pattern of delay for COVID19-related symptoms, including coughing, shortness of breath, loss of taste, and fever; two-thirds of those requests were not responded to until over two days after they were submitted. Id. at 20. Two residents who requested care for COVID-19 related symptoms were not seen until “four [and five] days after the request was submitted,” and one subsequently tested positive. Id. There is no
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 11 of 43
way to know how many residents were infected with COVID-19 in the four days while that resident awaited constitutionally-mandated care.
Each of amici’s concerns about the sick call process are echoed in the declarations of DOC residents. Brian Thomas was admitted to the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) on April 27th, and since that date, “there have been 4-5 days that [he is] not allowed out of [his] cell.” Ex. 2, Thomas Decl. ¶ 16; see also Ex. 3, Jenkins Decl. ¶ 10 (“I would go several days [between April 13 and May 1] without being allowed out of my cell for my one hour of recreation time.”). Even when residents are allowed out of their cell, obtaining a sick call form can be impossible. “Last week they ran out of sick slips on Northwest-2,” so no residents of that entire housing unit were able to use the sick call system. Ex. 4, Perry Decl. ¶ 8; see also Ex. 30, Knight Decl. ¶ 5 (“Sick call slips and Inmate Grievance Procedure forms were not . . . available on my unit between the dates of April 23, 2020 and May 12, 2020.”). The problem is not limited to the CDF; the C2B block at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”), which houses residents over 50 years old, “had no sick call slips or inmate request slips available” for “the entire week of May 4, 2020.” Ex. 5, Stankavage Decl. ¶ 15. Even when residents are let out of their cells, and even when there are sick call slips available, residents face another hurdle to accessing medical care, because staff do not reliably collect the sick call slips that are submitted. On one unit at CTF, “nobody picked up sick call slips that inmates submitted” between March 26 and April 24. See Ex. 6, Jaggers Decl. ¶ 13. In sum, residents face obstacles both in obtaining sick call slips and in submitting them, and even when residents overcome those systemic obstacles, they face significant delays in actually obtaining care.
This broken system has surely led to, and will continue to lead to, increased spread of the virus within DOC facilities. LeDauntae Perry’s experience is representative. Mr. Perry began
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 12 of 43
exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19 in early April 2020; he put in a sick call request and was given an inhaler and antibiotics for what a doctor described as a “sinus infection.” Ex. 4, Perry Decl. ¶ 4. His symptoms did not improve, and he requested “to see a doctor three times by submitting a sick slip.” Id. ¶ 7. Although he put the slips in the right box, he “didn’t see correctional officers or anyone else empty the sick slip boxes,” and no medical staff responded to his requests. Id. When another resident on his housing unit tested positive, his unit became a “quarantine unit,” and nurses came to check residents’ temperatures. Id. ¶ 9. For weeks, Mr. Perry “repeatedly tried to get medical attention by asking corrections officers and the nurses who took [his] temperature for help.” Id. ¶ 13. “I was asking every day for help. There were no sick slips for me to put in a request for medical attention.” Id. Finally, on May 4 —after weeks of symptoms — Mr. Perry was tested for COVID-19 and his results came back positive on May 7. Id. ¶¶ 14, 17. During the weeks Mr. Perry begged daily for help, he shared a cell with another resident. Id. ¶ 16.
Mr. Perry’s experience closely parallels that of Romiel Hightower, who was housed on a different housing unit than Mr. Perry. Mr. Hightower’s cellmate tested positive on April 10, and Mr. Hightower requested a test that day but was denied. Ex. 7, Hightower Decl. ¶ 4. Shortly after his cellmate tested positive, Mr. Hightower began exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19 and put in “three medical requests and a grievance but was never taken for a test.” Id. ¶ 5. He asked “every medical staff who came by and all the guards for a COVID test, [but] no one gave me one.” Id. Remarkably, and in violation of CDC guidelines and DOC policy, Defendants returned Mr. Hightower’s cellmate to his cell. It was only after a Superior Court judge ordered DOC to test Mr. Hightower (remarking that returning Mr. Hightower’s positive cellmate to his cell is “not compliant with the CDC” guidelines) that Mr. Hightower was tested. See Ex. 8, Hightower Transcript at 26. His test came back positive. Ex. 7, Hightower Decl. ¶ 7.
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 13 of 43
Residents who are on quarantine units — that is, residents who are presumed to have been exposed to COVID-19 — fare little better. Residents on those units have their temperatures checked daily, but otherwise must rely on the sick call system to report medical issues; residents are not tested or offered treatment during the temperature check. For instance, Eric Cooper was having “trouble breathing” and was “coughing a lot,” but despite putting in “multiple sick call requests,” the only medical staff he saw was for his temperature check. Ex. 10, Cooper Decl. ¶ 8. “That person only checked my temperature but did not do anything else to help me.” Id.; see also Ex. 4, Perry Decl. ¶ 9 (“Nurses come around our unit twice a day to check every inmate’s temperature. I would tell the nurses that I feel sick. The nurses would say my temperature is fine and they didn’t help me get seen by a doctor.”). Another resident “was complaining for days” that he was feeling ill before he was given a test. Ex. 31, Rezeine Transcript at 21. That resident was later found sweating profusely in his cell and required emergency transportation to the hospital. Id. at 20.
Dr. Meyer explains the critical, and potentially fatal, flaw in this system. It is “highly problematic” to use “fever [as] the sole trigger for testing,” because “people infected with COVID19 may exhibit a wide range of symptoms which, according to the CDC include: cough, shortness of breath,” and other symptoms. Ex. 1, Supp. Meyer Decl. ¶ 5; see also Ex. 9, K. Johnson Decl. ¶ 5 (reporting that medical staff refused to “test anyone for COVID-19 who didn’t have a temperature over 100 degrees”). In other words, as Dr. Meyer explains, by not testing residents who present with symptoms other than fever, the DOC is keeping many infected residents on housing units where they can easily spread the virus to others.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 14 of 43
ii. Enforcement of social distancing Second, the DOC’s failure to enforce social distancing continues to contribute to the rapid spread of the virus in Defendants’ facilities. The Court explained in granting the TRO that “one of the most important risk-reduction policies which has not been adequately addressed by Defendants is social distancing.” TRO Op. at 13. Social distancing is a “crucial part of containing the spread of COVID-19,” as evinced by both expert reports and the dramatic transformation of our society. Id. Since the Court’s April 19th Order, the DOC has made little progress towards fully implementing social distancing. Although amici recognized that there is “increased evidence of social distancing,” amici concluded that social distancing “is not prevalent” and “certainly [was] not during [their] site visits.” Amici Oral Report at 42. As they observed with their initial inspection report, amici noted that “staffing limitations . . . undercut the ability of staff to enforce [social distancing] when there are an insufficient number of staff on the housing units.” Id. at 43. Reports from DOC residents confirm amici’s evaluation. Brian Thomas entered the DOC on April 27, and since he has been at the CDF, “nobody told [him] to social distance [him]self from other people. Nobody has told [him] to stay six feet away from other people.” Ex. 2, Thomas Decl. ¶ 17. Tony Horne, who is housed on a different unit, explains that on his unit, “more than 5 people are being let out of their cells at a time. Sometimes more than 10 people are let out of their cells at one time.” Ex. 11, Horne Decl. ¶ 9. Officers do not enforce “when people are supposed to be allowed out of their cells,” resulting in residents who “are out for multiple hours at a time.” Id. ¶ 10. Video footage from DOC facilities also confirm amici’s evaluation. Footage from CDF shows around ten residents are seen out of their cells at a given times; residents are seen clustering
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 15 of 43
closely together near telephones (which are not spaced six feet apart); and residents are seen interacting with DOC staff members in close groups. See Ex. 32, Photos.
Conditions in DOC facilities also force residents into violating basic social distancing rules. On May 12, 2020, DOC staff crammed a dozen “residents from various units” into an elevator at CTF to take the residents to the medical unit. Ex. 5, Stankavage Decl. ¶ 3. When they arrived at the medical unit, approximately 15 to 20 residents were waiting in a small room to be seen by medical staff. Id. ¶ 6. The next day, on May 13, 2020, at least 10 residents were waiting in that same room. Id. ¶ 9. Whether by dint of facility design or lack of enforcement, DOC residents are forced to violate social distancing rules that are fundamental to curbing the spread of the virus.
Compounding the risk associated with DOC’s failures regarding social distancing is DOC’s evident difficulty complying with CDC guidelines regarding quarantining and isolating residents who have tested positive. In addition to erroneously returning a resident who tested positive to Mr. Hightower’s cell, as discussed above, DOC has also failed to ensure that residents who could be positive are isolated from other residents. For instance, people who are tested for COVID-19 (who, per DOC policy, have exhibited symptoms of COVID-19) are supposed to be isolated until their test results are available. However, on the Northeast 1 unit at CDF, correctional officers have on multiple occasions let those residents awaiting test results out of their cells at the same time as residents who were not symptomatic. Ex. 12, D. Johnson Decl. ¶ 14. In fact, one resident of the Northeast 2 unit himself explains that he was tested for COVID-19 on April 16, and while awaiting the result of the test, the next day (in violation of DOC policy) was “allowed out of [his] cell even though [he] was supposed to be on quarantine.” Ex. 33, Swint Decl. ¶ 11; see also Ex. 34, Banks Decl. ¶¶ 11-12 (recounting that around May 5, “[w]hile awaiting the results of his COVID-19, [an] individual remained on the unit like everyone else and I saw this individual
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 16 of 43
participate in recreation.”). Other times, correctional officers let residents awaiting test results out of their cells and then failed to clean any of the common areas or showers after those residents used them. Ex. 12, D. Johnson Decl. ¶ 15.
This problem is not isolated to Northeast 1. Anthony Robertson, housed on Northwest 2, was tested for COVID-19 on April 20 and was moved to a single cell, but he was let out for recreation “with everyone else” while awaiting the results of his (positive) COVID-19 test. Ex. 13, Robertson Decl. ¶ 6. Nor is the problem limited to CDF; on the C2B block at the CTF — the block for people age 50 and older — eight to ten people have been let out at a time, and residents sit next to each other or stand together near the microwave, and staff members do not attempt to enforce or inform residents about social distancing. Id. ¶ 6. On the D2B block at CTF, “five or six people” crowd into the TV room, but staff do “not say anything or attempt to enforce social distancing.” Ex. 14, Ingraham Decl. ¶ 43.
In a particularly concerning case, DOC staff reported encountering a resident on Northwest 1 who had tested positive for COVID-19 the previous day, and through some administrative error, had not been moved to the isolation unit until the next day, when correctional officers encountered that resident “laying on his bunk sweating profusely.” See Ex. 15 (“DOC Docs.”), at 1. The resident was immediately transported to the hospital by ambulance. See id. In other words, this symptomatic and positive resident remained on his general population housing unit for nearly an entire day because he was not taken to the isolation unit. This problem is not an isolated occurrence, as another DOC resident reported that he tested positive for COVID-19 but was not moved to the isolation unit until the following day. Ex. 13, Robertson Decl. ¶ 7. When he told a doctor that he had tested positive and needed to be transferred to the isolation unit, the doctor responded that he “couldn’t be positive because [he] would have been moved already.” Id.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 17 of 43
Further, despite DOC’s assurances that residents in isolation are returned to the general population if their COVID-19 symptoms are decreasing, the DOC has released residents from isolation who are clearly still symptomatic. For instance, Anthony Robertson was told his “time [was] up” on the isolation unit and that he would be moved back to the general population, even though he had “coughed up blood that morning.” Ex. 13, Robertson Decl. ¶ 18. Another resident on the isolation unit “was still experiencing symptoms of COVID-19” when he was told that the DOC was “going to send [him] back to the general population because they needed the cell for other inmates who had tested positive.” Ex. 11, Horne Decl. ¶ 4.
The dangerous combination of DOC’s failure to enforce social distancing and its errors regarding quarantine and isolation — specifically, failing to isolate residents who have tested positive and should not be returned to the general population, and failing to separate residents who are symptomatic and/or awaiting test results from non-symptomatic residents — has resulted in, and will continue to result in, the rapid spread of the virus throughout DOC’s facilities. “Given that COVID-19 is a highly contagious virus spread by droplets within close contact, the disease will continue to spread in facilities where social distancing is not enabled.” Ex. 1, Supp. Meyer Decl. ¶ 8.
iii. Sanitation Amici and the Court agreed that there “is a critical need for the defendants to strengthen the environmental health and safety program at both the CDF and the CTF.” TRO Order at 2. The need to improve sanitation in DOC facilities was so great that amici and the Court recommended that DOC “immediately retain a registered sanitarian to oversee the environmental health and safety programs at both facilities and provide training so that cleaning tools and products are used properly.” Id. at 2.
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 18 of 43
No sanitarian has been retained, and the sanitation program has not improved. In April, residents used “tattered and soiled rags that they made by tearing facility issued towels or t-shirts.” Id. at 18 (quotation marks omitted). Today, residents “continue to rely upon the ripped towels and the ripped T-shirts” for cleaning. Amici Oral Report at 41. Amici emphasized that this problem was “[a]bout the same” as previously reported. Id. at 44. In April, amici reported that “access to cleaning supplies varied from unit to unit.” TRO Op. at 17. Today, amici report that the availability of cleaning supplies is “not uniform from housing unit to housing unit.” Amici Oral Report at 41. Amici concluded that appropriate sanitation is a “continuing issue at both facilities” and “clearly especially deficient at the [CDF].” Id.
Residents’ reports confirm that sanitation is clearly deficient. The DOC opened the North 2 housing unit at CDF as an isolation unit for the increasing number of CDF residents who test positive for COVID-19. That unit “had not been used to house inmates for years,” and when COVID-19-positive residents were moved to the unit, it was “noticeably filthy,” with “feces stains on the walls.” Ex. 16, Burl Decl. ¶ 6; see also Ex. 17, Ex. 17, Quarles Decl. ¶ 6 (“The floor is extremely dirty. There is trash on the floor that inmates toss onto the tier through the food slot in their doors.”). The showers on multiple housing units are dirty. See, e.g., Ex. 35, A. Jackson Decl. ¶ 4 (“I saw there was blood and mold throughout the shower area.”); Ex. 13, Robertson Decl. ¶ 15; Ex. 2, Thomas Decl. ¶ 15. Multiple housing units lack cleaning supplies. See, e.g., Ex. 14, Ingraham Decl. ¶ 47 (“On April 27, our unit [D2B] ran out of cleaning supplies.”); Ex. 16, Burl Decl. ¶ 8 (“I have not been provided any cleaning supplies to clean myx cell on N2.”); Ex. 12, D. Johnson ¶ 5 (“During the period from April 22, 2020 to May 8, 2020 I did not have access to any chemicals to clean my cell.”); Ex. 18, Toran Decl. ¶ 9 (“I am not provided supplies to clean sinks
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 19 of 43
or toilets.”); Ex. 17, Quarles Decl. ¶ 17 (“I have received no cleaning solution since my transfer to the medical unit on March 11, 2020.”).
The conditions for residents who are confined to safe cells5 are even more concerning. Those residents are supplied with no running water whatsoever: “Feces and other bodily waste remain in the toilet until the Correctional Officers come in to flush it manually,” which can take several hours. Ex. 20, Doe Decl. ¶ 6.6 Residents in a safe cell are “not allowed out of [their] cell,” are left in their cells with lights on full brightness for 24 hours a day, are allowed to shower roughly once a week, and lack any access to any supplies to clean their cell with. Id. ¶¶ 3, 4, 16.
Residents lack access to effective cleaning supplies. Residents are cleaning with “Oasis Pro Laundry Fresh Room Refresher,” see Ex. 20, Warren Decl. ¶ 7, a product that Dr. Meyer explains does “not have activity against and is not approved for disinfection for COVID-19. Ex. 1, Supp. Meyer Decl. ¶ 11. Incredibly, residents are using that product — which is more akin to a scented room spray than a hygienic product — to clean and decontaminate cells of residents who tested positive for COVID-19. See Ex. 20, Warren Decl. ¶ 21 (“When I cleaned the contaminated cells, I was only provided with the cleaner I always use (“Oasis Pro Laundry Fresh Room Refresher”)).
When residents do have access to cleaning supplies, they still are not informed about what kind of cleaning agents should be used and how to use them. Dkt. No. 49-1, (“Amici Initial Report”), at 30 (“It was evident that knowledge regarding the appropriate use of the different cleaning and sanitizing agents was generally at a very low level.”); accord Ex. 14, Ingraham Decl. ¶ 44 (“Since April 19, my unit has not received any instructions on which cleaning chemicals to
5 Safe cells house residents who are placed on suicide watch. 6 For fear of retaliation, this declarant did not want to supply his real name or cell number, but would consider doing so upon request.
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 20 of 43
use on which surfaces.”); K. Johnson Decl. ¶ 18 (“Since April 19, no verbal presentations or town hall meetings have occurred addressing COVID-19.”). Nor are officers — whether due to understaffing or other reasons — supervising cleaning. While detail residents are supposed to clean common areas twice daily, “detail inmates would actually clean the common areas between 2-3 times a week, as opposed to twice a day.” Ex. 35, A. Jackson Decl. ¶ 8.
The poor sanitation at the jail contributes in myriad ways to the spread of the virus. Without proper cleaning products, the virus lingers on surfaces, allowing it to spread rapidly in confined environments like the D.C. jail. Ex. 1, Supp. Meyer Decl. ¶ 11. “Cleaning and disinfecting practices can mitigate this risk of disease transmission but remains inadequate in the DC DOC.” Id. By failing to retain a sanitarian immediately or hire professional cleaners to clean the secure side of the jail, and by failing to provide adequate and appropriate cleaning supplies and instruction, Defendants have increased the risk that residents will contract COVID-19.
iv. Punitive conditions on isolation units This Court recognized that “punitive conditions for [residents] in isolation are not acceptable,” not just because they are unconstitutional themselves, but also because they “make it more likely that inmates will hide their symptoms to avoid the potential for isolation and continue to infect others in the general population.” TRO Op. at 21-22. The Court, therefore, ordered Defendants to “provide consistent and reliable access to legal calls, personal telephone calls, daily showers, and clean clothing and clean linens to all inmates on isolation status.” TRO Order at 2. But conditions on the isolation unit at CDF are still punitive, discouraging residents from self-disclosing COVID-19 symptoms for fear of being sent to the unit. Reports from that unit are disturbing, to say the least. The unit features “feces stains on the walls” of the common areas and in cells. Ex. 16, Burl Decl. ¶ 6; see also Ex. 13, Robertson Decl. ¶ 9 (“[W]hen I got to my isolation
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 21 of 43
cell on N2, it had not been cleaned and was still dirty from the previous person.”). There is no hot water in the sinks, see Ex. 7, Hightower Decl. ¶ 9, and food on the unit is “often served hours after regular mealtimes,” Ex. 16, Burl Decl. ¶ 7, or not at all, see Ex. 13, Robertson Decl. ¶ 12 (reporting that residents on the isolation unit sometimes missed meals altogether). As the amici report, residents in isolation do not have consistent access to showers, with some going days without access. Amici Oral Report at 34; accord Ex. 9, K. Johnson Decl. ¶ 10 (“I went six days [on the isolation unit at CTF] without being permitted to shower.”); Ex. 7, Hightower Decl. ¶ 9 (“I had many fewer opportunities to shower [on the isolation unit at the jail], only once every three or four days after lots of complaining.”); Ex. 13, Robertson Decl. ¶ 10 (“Between April 23rd and April 28th [on the isolation unit at CDF], I was not able to shower.”). Access to the phone on the isolation units is also sporadic. See Ex. 7, Hightower Decl. ¶ 9 (“I . . . couldn’t use the phones every other day or third day [on the isolation unit at the jail].”); Amici Oral Report at 30 (explaining that the rolling phone cart for residents on the isolation unit “were not available to inmates on one segment of the housing unit”).
Poor sanitation and lack of access to cleaning supplies also deters some residents from identifying symptoms for fear of being sent to the isolation unit. One resident who spent 14 days on an isolation unit reports that “[d]uring the 14 days in [isolation], [he] did not receive any soap” or “clean clothes.” Ex. 33, Swint Decl. ¶¶ 18-19. Nor are residents in isolation allowed to use the mail. Id. ¶ 22.
Defendants are also not disinfecting materials that pass between isolation units and general population units, fueling the spread of the virus in the facility. Kenard Johnson, a 54-year-old resident at CTF, tested positive for COVID-19 on April 12, 2020, and was instructed to take his “sheets, mattress, and clothes with [him]” from his housing unit into the isolation unit. Ex. 9, K.
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 22 of 43
Johnson Decl. ¶ 10. A week later, Mr. Johnson was returned to his same housing unit, and he “took [the] same sheets, mattress, and clothing with [him] from isolation to [his housing unit],” even though they “had still not been washed since [he] had tested positive for COVID-19.” Id. ¶ 12. Weeks later, he is still using the same sheets since he tested positive. Id.
These conditions not only spread the virus themselves, they also discourage residents from reporting symptoms for fear of transfer to a punitive housing unit. Without improved conditions in the housing units for residents who test positive, some residents will avoid seeking help when they need it, putting not only themselves but also their cellmates and their entire housing unit at risk. In spite of this Court’s April 19 Order, DOC has not taken the necessary steps to improve conditions on isolation units.
v. Legal call access The Court ordered Defendants to “ensure that all inmates . . . have access to confidential, unmonitored legal calls of a duration sufficient to discuss legal matters.” TRO Order at 3. As amici and residents report, that has not happened. Residents have two options to speak to their lawyer: they can call their attorney from a phone on their housing unit, or their attorney can prearrange a legal call that is provided from a housing correctional officer’s phone. Neither mechanism complies with the Court’s order.7 First, before residents can make a call from the housing unit phone, they have to be let out of their cells. But as amici observed, residents are frequently locked in their cells for days at a time without any ability to use the housing unit phone. Amici Oral Report at 17 (“[I]nmates do not receive an hour out of their cells daily.”); see also, e.g., Ex. 3, Jenkins Decl. ¶ 10 (“While I was
7 Amici report that some residents on isolation status have access to a rolling cart that does permit those residents to make an unmonitored legal call from their cell. See Amici Oral Report at 29-30.
22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 23 of 43
on South 2 [between April 13 and May 1], I would go several days without being allowed out of my cell.”); Ex. 34, Banks Decl. ¶ 5 (resident declaring on May 13 that “this week, I received one hour of recreation on May 10, 2020. I have not had another day of recreation this week yet.”). Even when residents are let out of their cells, as amici report, they are often let out in the middle of the night when a legal call (or any call at all) is not feasible. See Amici Oral Report at 33; see, e.g., Ex. 10, Cooper Decl. ¶ 13 (“Sometimes I am not let out for my hour of recreation time. Sometimes when they do let me out it is done at 3:00 in the morning so I cannot call my family or attorney.”); Ex. 22, Phillip Decl. ¶ 5 (“When we are let out of our cells for an hour it is often in the middle of the night.”). On top of that, calls from the housing unit phone are not confidential and are overheard by other jail residents and staff on the housing unit. See Ex. 10, Cooper Decl. ¶ 20 (“If I am able to make a call from the unit phone, it is not a private, confidential call. Other inmates on the unit and the guards can all hear my half of the conversation.”).
The second mechanism — calls initiated by attorneys and placed in the case managers’ offices — also do not comply with the Court’s order, because they are not confidential. Amici confirm that calls “are being conducted in the offices of case managers with the case manager present.” Amici Oral Report at 33; see also, e.g., Ex. 9, K. Johnson Decl. ¶ 16 (“On April 27, 2020, I had a legal call in the case manager’s office. The case manager was sitting right there during the legal call and could hear the conversation.”). Access to these calls is also spotty, because, as the Court noted in its order, “[t]elephone calls in confidential settings are generally organized by DOC case management staff; however, most of those staff are either on quarantine or working remotely.” TRO Op. at 22.
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 24 of 43
Simply put, Defendants are not complying with the Court’s Order of April 19 requiring Defendants to “ensure that all inmates . . . have access to confidential, unmonitored legal calls of a duration sufficient to discuss legal matters,” TRO Order at 3.
vi. Understaffing Underlying nearly all of the above deficiencies — in enforcing social distancing, in providing medical care, in scheduling legal calls, in sanitation — is the chronic and severe understaffing of DOC facilities. Amici’s initial report revealed that understaffing across DOC posts was a significant hindrance to the effective implementation of policies and procedures to contain and treat COVID-19. Amici reported that “[t]he failure to enforce social distancing requirements is a supervision deficit . . . [that] appears at least in part to be attributable to significant understaffing of correctional officers and their supervisors at both facilities.” Amici Initial Report at 20. The implementation of the “urgent care system” also depends on “the availability of escort staff [and] willingness of correctional officers to facilitate calls to medical staff while they perform other duties on the unit.” Amici Initial Report at 10. The Court agreed, explaining that “[u]nderstaffing during a crisis situation such as the COVID-19 pandemic makes it difficult to enact and enforce the necessary precautionary measures,” TRO Op. at 15, and ordering Defendants to “address[] limitations in current staffing levels [and] supervisory oversight of line staff,” TRO Order at 2. In spite of the Court’s Order, understaffing persists. Amici observed, consistent with staff and managers’ reports, “that [DOC is] currently staffing lower than the levels that they normally staff at because they do not have sufficient staff.” Amici Oral Report at 23. Housing units that “normally have five or even six correctional officers . . . have three or four correctional officers” staffing the entire housing unit. Id. As noted above, in addition to affecting the enforcement of
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 25 of 43
social distancing, these “significant correctional officer staffing shortages” also pose a barrier to accessing medical care, as residents rely on housing unit correctional officers to pass out and collect sick call slips. See id.at 17. Dr. Meyer explains how chronic understaffing can be deadly for DOC residents. “Even the most comprehensive protocols and policies that are informed by science are totally meaningless if not implemented, enforced, and continuously monitored. Implementation will be challenging if not impossible in DC DOC, which is strained by severe understaffing.” Ex. 1, Supp. Meyer Decl. ¶ 12.
Reports from DOC staff members themselves reveal just how dire the staffing situation is. On May 3, 2020, one housing unit at CDF had just one officer working on the housing unit. See Ex. 15, DOC Docs. at 10. Staff members report working unconscionably long shifts — over 24 hours — during which they cannot possibly complete all of their job responsibilities. See id. at 6 (reporting that two officers were on duty “for 25 hours” and requesting relief “as soon as possible because we are very tired and exhausted”); id. at 4-5 (listing six correctional officers who worked over 24-hour shifts on April 26); see also id. at 8 (officer reporting that he had worked over a 16hour shift on a housing unit without a single break). On May 4, an officer worked a 22-hour shift without relief, collapsed on the floor of the housing unit, and was rushed to the hospital. Id. at 13.
The chronic understaffing in DOC facilities, which would be a crisis in any context, creates particularly dangerous conditions for DOC residents now. Residents who are positive for COVID19 rely on frequent checks from correctional officers to ensure that their symptoms do not rapidly escalate — a crucial function, as the CDC advises that “some patients . . . rapidly deteriorate one week after illness onset.”8 Nevertheless, residents report a critical lack of staffing on units housing
8 CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) (2020), https://www.cdc.gov/ coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html.
25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 26 of 43
positive residents: “On May 2, 2020 I was having difficulty breathing. I tried to get the attention of a correction officer for multiple hours. No one walked the unit and no one came to check on me.” Ex. 11, Horne Decl. ¶ 3(m).9
Residents who have medical conditions other than COVID-19 also face severe health risks because of understaffing. Residents are routinely told that medical issues that are not directly related to COVID-19 cannot be addressed during the pandemic. One resident’s “tonsils started hurting in April,” with the “pain as a 4 on a scale of 1-10.” Ex. 23, Randolph Decl. ¶ 8. Medical staff informed him that his tonsils needed to be removed, but they could not perform the operation “because of COVID-19.” Id. ¶ 8. Now, weeks later, the pain is a “10,” Mr. Randolph “cannot sleep because of the pain,” and it “hurts to speak.” Id. “I am almost in tears right now because of how much it hurts to speak.” Id. Other chronic conditions, such as kidney disease, have been ignored while medical resources are stretched too thin. See Ex. 24, Miller Decl. ¶¶ 3-4 (a resident with “sharp pains near [his] kidneys” was removed from the list of residents who needed to see medical staff because “there were too many people” on the list); see also Ex. 36, Howard Decl. ¶ 13 (“[M]edical told me I needed teeth pulled but that they would not be able to pull my teeth until after COVID-19 was over.”). One man who had an MRI related to a diabetic condition on March 20 was completely unable to see his physician for a month following the MRI. Ex. 6, Jaggers Decl. ¶ 14.
Dr. Meyer explains that neglecting conditions other than COVID-19 actually increases the risk of death or serious illness when residents contract COVID-19. Not only does understaffing
9 This problem is compounded by correctional officers’ fear of contracting the virus: “Some correctional officers refuse to come near me and other inmates who have tested positive for COVID-19. A female correctional officer ordered me and other inmates to stay away from her and stated, ‘stay away, y’all got that shit’ in a dehumanizing fashion.” Ex. 16, Burl Decl. ¶ 10.
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 27 of 43
“result in undue negative health outcomes related to chronic health conditions, but also increased risk of complicated COVID-19 infections for people living with underlying health conditions like diabetes, chronic lung disease, heart disease, and kidney disease.” Ex. 1, Supp. Meyer Decl. ¶ 13.
Understaffing may also contribute to disciplinary issues between residents and staff. As amici report, and DOC officers confirm, officers are tired and forced to work overtime — factors that contribute to disturbances in the facility. Amici Oral Report at 37. Disturbances, in turn, can impede access to medical care. See id. at 25 (noting times when “an incident . . . precluded the [medical] provider from entering the unit”). These incidents also result in the use of mace against residents, which contributes to violent coughing. DOC officers used mace to resolve “an argument with a CO over toilet paper,” Ex. 13, Robertson Decl. ¶ 16; when they perceived a resident as talking on the phone too long, Ex. 25, Barksdale Decl. ¶ 7; and when they perceived a shower as taking too long, Ex. 26, Lucas Decl. ¶ 6. The use of mace on quarantine units, where some residents have been exposed to COVID-19, is commonplace. See, e.g., Ex. 27, Moseley Decl. ¶ 9 (“On April 27, 2020, corrections officers used mace on an inmate in the quarantine unit who was also positive for COVID-19. On April 30, the day I was released, eight people got maced, including myself.”); Ex. 28, P. Johnson Decl. ¶ 8 (“On or about May 1, 2020, a person was maced on my unit. I could smell the mace for days. It had me coughing and makes my nose and throat scratchy.”). The use of mace on isolation units, where residents are positive for COVID-19 and already facing respiratory challenges, is also concerning. See Ex. 11, Horne Decl. ¶ 3(n) (“On April 30, 2020, correctional officers sprayed mace in the [isolation] Unit, which made it even harder to breathe.”); Ex. 33, Swint Decl. ¶ 27 (officers used mace on resident of isolation unit who “asked a correctional officer for tissues”).
27

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 28 of 43
The consistent use of mace as a disciplinary tool is contributing to the spread of COVID19 among residents and staff. Dr. Meyer explains that mace “may actually facilitate disease transmission” because “inhaled irritants disrupt the mucous membranes of the nose, throat, and upper respiratory system that can increase risk of COVID-19 infection if exposure occurs. The irritants also cause people to cough, thereby increasing potential disease transmission.” Ex. 1, Supp. Meyer Decl. ¶ 10.
The continued understaffing in DOC puts residents at serious risk. Residents who may have COVID-19 cannot access medical care unless a housing unit officer is available to let them out of their cells, provide them a sick call form, collect that form, and transmit it to the medical staff. Residents who are confirmed positive rely on correctional officers to regularly observe them for the rapid onset of symptoms requiring emergency treatment. Without an appropriate number of officers in DOC facilities, residents continue to be at grave risk of serious injury or death.
vii. Structural problems in the facilities Several problems identified by Plaintiffs were beyond amici’s charge to investigate but nevertheless persist. These structural features of DOC facilities were identified by Dr. Meyer, and cited by the Court, as contributing to the “rapid spread” of COVID-19 in Defendants’ facilities. Specifically, Dr. Meyer identified the lack of “negative pressure rooms” for the treatment of infected persons to ensure that the virus is not transmitted “through droplets to others” and the lack of sufficient ventilation, which “promotes highly efficient spread of diseases through droplets.” Dkt. No. 5-2 (“First Meyer Decl.”), at ¶ 28(c). In this Court’s opinion granting a temporary restraining order, the Court explained that “the quarantine unit is not properly sealed off from the general population,” and expressed particular concern that the “ventilation conditions described in the District of Columbia’s Auditor’s report . . . will increase the rate of the spread of the virus.”
28

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 29 of 43
TRO Op. at 21 (quoting First Meyer Decl. ¶ 28(c)). There is no indication that the DOC has addressed the significant ventilation challenges that promote the spread of the virus in the D.C. jail. Accordingly, Dr. Meyer “reaffirm[s] [that] the deficiencies identified in [her] earlier declaration regarding poor ventilation and insufficient medical facilities to control the spread of COVID-19” continue to pose risks of serious injury to DOC residents. Ex. 1, Supp. Meyer Decl. ¶ 3.
B. Plaintiffs and proposed class members face irreparable harm. This Court has already held that “Plaintiffs’ risk of contracting COVID-19 and the resulting
complications, including the possibility of death, is the prototypical irreparable harm.” TRO Op. at 23. The Court so concluded because Plaintiffs demonstrated that they are “at a significantly higher risk of infection with COVID-19 as compared to the population to the community” and “at a significantly higher risk of harm if they do become infected.” Id. at 24. “Given the gravity of Plaintiffs’ asserted injury, as well as the permanence of death, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement of facing irreparable harm unless injunctive relief is granted.” Id.
Plaintiffs and proposed class members continue to be at risk of irreparable harm. Weeks after the Court’s Order, DOC residents are nearly fourteen times more likely to contract COVID19 than other District of Columbia residents.10 And as amici’s report and declarations from DOC residents make clear, access to medical care in DOC facilities remains troublingly inconsistent.
10 The government’s data of May 15, 2020, reported 6,871 positive COVID-19 tests in the District, and 180 positive COVID-19 tests among DOC residents. See District of Columbia, Coronavirus Data (last accessed May 15, 2020), https://coronavirus.dc.gov/page/coronavirus-data. As of May 15, 2020, there were around 1,325 people in DOC custody, and the most recent Census Bureau population estimate for the District of Columbia was 705,749, see U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts - District of Columbia (last accessed May 15, 2020), https://www.census.gov/ quickfacts/DC. Therefore, the rate of infection in the District of Columbia was 0.97 percent, while the rate of infection in the DOC was 13.58 percent.
29

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 30 of 43
See, e.g., Amici Oral Report at 18-19 (reporting that 12 percent of sick call requests from the CTF were collected over two weeks after they were submitted); Ex. 4, Perry Decl. ¶ 8 (reporting that a housing unit “ran out of sick slips” for a week). This factor continues to support injunctive relief.
C. The balance of hardships and the public interest weigh in Plaintiffs’ favor. This Court previously held that “the public interest weighs in favor of granting injunctive
relief.” TRO Op. at 24. As the Court explained, there could be “no harm to the Government when a court prevents unlawful practices,” id. at 25, like those Plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing. The Court also credited the public interest in safeguarding public health by reducing the risk of infection to DOC residents, and found that the requested relief “does not impose an undue burden on Defendants.” Id.
Here again, the balance of hardships and the public interest continue to favor Plaintiffs. Because Plaintiffs remain likely to prevail on the merits, the balance of hardships and the public interest in preventing unconstitutional harm weigh in favor of granting injunctive relief. Moreover, as Dr. Stern explains, downsizing the population of the jail will “help to ‘flatten the curve’ overall — both within the jail setting and without.” Stern Decl. ¶ 14. That is because, given the churn of people — residents, staff, visitors — through Defendants’ facilities, the outbreak of COVID-19 in the jail will be impossible to confine to DOC facilities. Compounding the problem, Dr. Stern explains, is that “vulnerable populations are at the highest risk of severe complications from COVID-19, and . . . when they develop severe complications they will be transported to community hospitals — thereby using scarce community resources (ER beds, general hospital beds, ICU beds).” Id. ¶ 13. Accordingly, these two factors remain in Plaintiffs’ favor.
30

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 31 of 43
D. The Court should join other federal courts and expand the requested relief to safely transition a portion of DOC residents into community supervision. To avert the horrific consequences of the unmitigated spread of COVID-19, federal courts
around the country have granted class-wide relief, through the use of the writ of habeas corpus, to ensure the health and safety of incarcerated people. That relief has taken the form of a courtestablished “process by which inmates would be evaluated promptly for transfer to home confinement,” Martinez-Brooks, 2020 WL 2405350, at *2 n.1; see also Wilson, 2020 WL 1940882, at *10-11 (same); or an outright order of release of vulnerable residents, see Thakker v. Doll, No. 20-cv-480 (JEJ), 2020 WL 2025384, at *12 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2020). A federal court in California directed a facility to provide it with the “names, ages, any health vulnerabilities, and any criminal information” regarding each confined person, so that the Court, “likely with the assistance of several Magistrate Judges,” could “implement a system for considering individual bail applications” over a two-week period, Rivas, 2020 WL 2059848, at *3; that court is currently considering those applications and granting, deferring, and denying release on an aggregate basis. See, e.g., Bail Order No. 4, Dkt. No. 115, Rivas, 20-cv-2731 (JC) (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2020) (denying one bail request without prejudice, deferring three bail requests, and granting two bail requests with particular conditions). The Rivas court modeled its procedure on one adopted by the District of Massachusetts, which “relied on its inherent authority expeditiously to review bail applications for all of the detainees in the class, one by one, and released almost a third of them to house arrest under strict conditions.” Savino v. Souza, No. 20-cv-10617 (WGY), 2020 WL 2404923, at *1 (D. Mass. May 12, 2020).
These diverse federal courts have recognized that where plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that they “face a grave risk of serious illness or death due to COVID-19,” and where they are likely to succeed in showing that “prison officials knew of and disregarded an
31

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 32 of 43
excessive risk to inmate health or safety,” urgent and decisive action is needed. Martinez-Brooks, 2020 WL 2405350, at *31 (cleaned up). Each court established processes for the transition of incarcerated people into safer community settings, doing so in even less dire circumstances than those here. For instance, in Martinez-Brooks, the Court used its habeas authority to establish a structured release mechanism after 69 out of around 1,000 residents tested positive, see 2020 WL 2405350, at *4 — about half the rate of positive tests in Defendants’ facilities. In Wilson, the Court relied on its habeas power to do the same after 59 out of around 2,500 residents tested positive. See 2020 WL 1940882, at *2. And in Thakker, where 40 residents, out of around 250, had confirmed cases (a rate closer to the rate of infection in DOC facilities), the Court granted outright release on a class-wide basis. See 2020 WL 2025384, at *8.
The spreading pandemic at the D.C. Jail calls urgently for the kind of relief that these courts have ordered. As described by amici and confirmed by DOC residents and staff, Defendants either will not, or cannot, comply with the Court’s temporary restraining order. Chronic understaffing undermines the implementation of the Court’s clear directives to “ensure appropriate and consistent implementation of social distancing policies,” to “ensure that the triage process associated with sick call requests on the non-quarantine units is expedited,” and to “ensure that all inmates . . . have access to confidential, unmonitored legal calls,” to name just a subset of areas described above where Defendants have fallen short. TRO Order at 2-3. Having demonstrated that DOC cannot implement Court-ordered reforms over a timespan of four weeks, while the number of positive cases in their facilities rises rapidly, Defendants cannot be entrusted with the health and safety of its residents. Greater action is necessary.
That greater action should include reducing the population of DOC residents. Plaintiffs’ experts and other federal courts agree that reducing the confined population is the most important
32

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 33 of 43
step to ensure the health and safety of DOC residents and the community. As Dr. Stern explained, downsizing the population of the jail will “help to ‘flatten the curve’ overall — both within the jail setting and without.” Stern Decl. ¶ 14. “Downsizing jail populations serves two critical public health aims: (1) targeting residents who are at elevated risk of suffering from severe symptoms of COVID-19; and (2) allowing those who remain incarcerated to better maintain social distancing and avoid other risks associated with forced communal living.” Id. ¶ 13. After specifically reviewing the particular outbreak in, and conditions at, DOC facilities, Dr. Stern was “even more firmly convinced that downsizing the inmate population as much as possible will reduce the risk of contraction and transmission of COVID-19 — and the attendant risks of serious harm and death — within DOC facilities and the communities around them.” Id. ¶ 11. Dr. Meyer agrees that “[r]educing the size of the population in jails and prisons is crucially important to reducing the level of risk both for those within those facilities and for the community at large.” Meyer Decl. ¶ 34. From a “public health perspective,” Dr. Meyer is “strongly of the opinion that individuals who are already in those facilities should be evaluated for release.” Id. at ¶ 35; see also Basank v. Decker, No. 20-cv-2518 (AT), 2020 WL 1481503, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. March 26, 2020) (“[P]ublic health and safety are served best by rapidly decreasing the number of individuals detained in confined, unsafe conditions.”).
Having reviewed amici’s findings, the Court’s Order, and the record, Dr. Meyer is even more firmly convinced that release is necessary to improve the conditions in DOC facilities:
Reduction in the size of the prison population is a public health strategy that supports all of the above infection prevention and control efforts. When people inside the facility have the physical space to socially distance and the inmate population is small enough for the staff to enforce social distancing and proper sanitation, there is reduced disease transmission. A reduced inmate population also results in the greater availability of adequate medical attention. Finally, it improves safety because appropriate supervision is assured.
33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 34 of 43
Ex. 1, Supp. Meyer Decl. ¶ 14. Through the writ of habeas corpus, the Court has the authority to ensure residents’ safety and to implement the clear recommendations of public health officials.
i. The Court can, and should, grant release as a remedy for unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
This Court’s power to order relief for constitutional violations using the writ of habeas corpus is both substantial and flexible. “Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008). It exists to allow prisoners to challenge “the fact or duration of [their] confinement,” and, as provided in both the U.S. Constitution and federal law, empowers federal courts to rectify wrongful confinement. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2243. The Supreme Court has made clear that habeas corpus is “above all, an adaptable remedy.” Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 779 (2008). The writ “is not now and never has been a static, narrow, formalistic remedy; its scope has grown to achieve its grand purpose — the protection of individuals against erosion of their right to be free from wrongful restraints upon their liberty.” Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 243 (1963).
Consistent with the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on the flexibility and breadth of the habeas remedy, the D.C. Circuit has explicitly held that release is a proper remedy for conditions of confinement claims. In Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014), the Court held that Circuit “precedent establishes that one in custody may challenge the conditions of his confinement in a petition for habeas corpus.” Id. at 1032. The Aamer Court went on to explain that as a remedy for a habeas petition challenging conditions of confinement, “a court may simply order the prisoner released unless the unlawful conditions are rectified, leaving it up to the government whether to respond by transferring the petitioner to a place where the unlawful conditions are absent or by eliminating the unlawful conditions in the petitioner's current place of confinement.” Id. at 1035; see also id. at 1036 (“Where the specific detention abridges federally protected
34

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 35 of 43
interests — by placing petitioner in the wrong prison, denying him treatment, imposing cruel and unusual punishment, impeding his access to the courts, and so on — it is an unlawful detention and habeas lies to release the petitioner therefrom.”).
Applying Aamer and other circuit cases holding the same, “many courts have found that insufficient jail action in light of the virus can serve as a basis for release.” Cristian R. v. Decker, No. 19-cv-20861 (SDW), 2020 WL 2029336, at *2 (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2020) (collecting cases). Thus, the Court can — and should — exercise its habeas authority to release DOC residents who can be safely supervised outside of the dangerous D.C. jail.
ii. The Court can also order release without granting habeas petitions at this juncture by temporarily enlarging Plaintiffs-Petitioners’ custody.
Even if the Court is not prepared to grant writs of habeas corpus at this stage, the Court can still effectuate release by temporarily “enlarging” Plaintiffs’ custody. District courts have authority, when habeas petitions are pending, to “enlarge” the custody of petitioners. Enlargement is a provisional remedy that modifies custody by expanding the site in which it takes place. Enlargement is not release; the person remains in custody, even as the place of custody is changed, or enlarged, from a particular prison to a hospital, halfway house, a person’s home, or another setting.
The D.C. Circuit (and others) have recognized the inherent authority of district courts to enlarge the custody of habeas petitioners during the pendency of a habeas proceeding. Baker v. Sard, 420 F.2d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 1969), held that “[w]hen an action pending in a United States court seeks release from what is claimed to be illegal detention, the court's jurisdiction to order release as a final disposition of the action includes an inherent power to grant relief pendente lite, to grant bail or release, pending determination of the merits.” Id. at 1343; see also United States v. Kelly, 790 F.2d 130, 139 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (recognizing in a habeas proceeding that a district court can
35

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 36 of 43
order interim bail or release before a final ruling on the merits); accord Woodcock v. Donnelly, 470 F.2d 93, 94 (1st Cir. 1972) (per curiam).
This Court has applied a two-prong test in determining whether to grant enlargement while a habeas petition is pending. Plaintiffs must show “that (1) the [habeas] petition is based on a substantial claim of law, and (2) the motion for bail is based on exceptional circumstances deserving of special treatment.” Meskel v. United States, No. 04-cr-53 (RMU), 2005 WL 1903375, at *2 (D.D.C. July 13, 2005). Plaintiffs meet both requirements.
First, the petitions here are based on substantial claims of law. As this Court has already held, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing Fifth and Eighth Amendment violations. TRO Op. at 9. And these violations are of the most serious kind: that Defendants are deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of death or serious harm that Plaintiffs face in light of a global pandemic. It is not surprising, then, that other courts that have granted enlargement have recognized that deliberate indifference to COVID-19 is a substantial claim of law. Hernandez v. Decker, No. 20-cv-1589 (JPO), 2020 WL 1547459, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020); see also Coronel v. Decker, — F. Supp. 3d —, No. 20-cv-2472 (AJN), 2020 WL 1487274, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020) (same); Savino, 2020 WL 1703844, at *8 (same); Wilson, 2020 WL 1940882, at *4 (same); Clark v. Hoffner, No. 16-cv-11959 (VAR), 2020 WL 1703870, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 8, 2020) (same).
As to the second prong of the enlargement inquiry, there can be no doubt that COVID-19 presents exceptional circumstances warranting special treatment. Serious threats to health are the quintessential exceptional circumstances justifying enlargement. See, e.g., Lucas v. Hadden, 790 F.2d 365, 367 (3d Cir. 1986) (explaining that risk to a habeas petitioner’s health is an “extraordinary circumstance that may justify a grant of bail prior to the disposition of the habeas
36

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 37 of 43
petition”). Even the United States has conceded, in other cases, that “health complications” are the type of extraordinary circumstances warranting bail prior to a final determination in a habeas proceeding. Kiadii v. Decker, 423 F. Supp. 3d 18, 21 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).
The myriad federal courts that have implemented procedures to effectuate release have relied on enlargement to do so. The Court in Wilson explained that it had “inherent authority to grant enlargement to a defendant pending a ruling on the merits of that defendant's habeas petition.” 2020 WL 1940882, at *4. Because of the “exceptional circumstances at [FCI] Elkton”— a rate of infection that is less severe than that at the D.C. Jail — “and the Petitioners’ substantial claims, that are likely to succeed at the merits stage,” the Court held that enlargement was the necessary and proper remedy. Id. So too in Rivas did the Court rely on the “extraordinary” nature of the COVID-19 pandemic to exercise its “authority to release detainees on bail while their habeas cases are pending.” 2020 WL 2059848, at *3.
Plaintiffs here face even more dire circumstances than the facilities in which courts have exercised inherent authority to enlarge plaintiffs’ custody. See supra at 29. Without swift relief from this Court, Plaintiffs will continue to face unconstitutional risk to their health and well-being.
iii. The PLRA does not bar release as a remedy. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) does not preclude the relief requested here. By its terms, the PLRA excludes from its requirements all “habeas corpus proceedings challenging the fact or duration of confinement in prison.” 18 U.S.C. § 3826(g)(2). Plaintiffs’ suit here challenges the fact of Plaintiffs’ confinement in the D.C. Jail; it is that fact of confinement in a facility where a pandemic is spreading that poses a significant risk of death or serious injury for Plaintiffs and proposed class members. As the Sixth Circuit explained, in holding that the PLRA did not bar habeas relief in analogous circumstances, “Petitioners’ proper invocation of § 2241
37

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 38 of 43
also forecloses any argument that the PLRA applies given its express exclusion of ‘habeas corpus proceedings challenging the fact or duration of confinement in prison’ from its ambit.” Order at 3, Wilson v. Williams, No. 20-3447 (6th Cir. May 4, 2020) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(2)); see also Martinez-Brooks, 2020 WL 2405350, at *16 -17 (rejecting the application of the PLRA to a class action seeking habeas relief under § 2241).
Nor does the PLRA regulate enlargement at all. As relevant here, the PLRA regulates only “prisoner release order[s].” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3). Enlarging Plaintiffs’ custody is plainly not a “release order,” because Plaintiffs would still remain in custody, albeit custody of a different form. See Wilson, 2020 WL 1940882, at *10 (holding PLRA does not prevent enlargement because it is not release). This comports with the general rule that a transfer from one form of custody to another does not comprise a “prisoner release order” as defined by the PLRA. See, e.g., Reaves v. Dep't of Correction, 404 F. Supp. 3d 520, 522 (D. Mass. 2019).
iv. Appointing an expert is the best way to release residents consistent with public health and public safety.
This Court need not embark on a process of assessing individuals’ fitness for release or enlargement alone. In Wilson and Martinez-Brooks, courts established a process to assess fitness for release that involved input from corrections professionals to “evaluate inmates with COVID19 risk factors for home confinement and other forms of release that is . . . clearly focused on the critical issues of inmate and public safety.” Martinez-Brooks, 2020 WL 2405350, at *1. Plaintiffs ask the Court to appoint an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 or as an amicus curiae who can assist the Court in creating such a process.
Plaintiffs have asked one potential expert — Vincent Schiraldi — to provide the Court with a more detailed understanding of the role that this expert could play. Mr. Schiraldi is the former Director of the District of Columbia’s Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services and the former
38

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 39 of 43
Commissioner of New York City’s Department of Probation. Ex. 29, Schiraldi Decl. ¶¶ 1-2. He explains that the Court’s expert would
work with relevant agencies to create and implement release policies . . . in order to reduce the population so that there is (a) more room to allow for greater separation of inmates in the jail and, when necessary, medical separation and (b) fewer inmates to allow the thinning complement of correctional officers and other staff to adequately implement COVID-19 related policies, as well as secure and provide health care and programming for the reduced population. Id. ¶ 14. Mr. Schiraldi proposes “[u]tilizing the [Pretrial Services Agency]’s risk assessments” to determine the level of supervision appropriate for released residents. Id. ¶ 18. The expert would also, in partnership with the relevant agencies, “oversee the implementation of these release mechanisms, monitor outcomes, [and] report results to the Court on a regular basis.” Id. ¶ 25.
iv. At a minimum, the Court should maintain the requirements of the TRO and make some of its recommended measures from the prior order mandatory.
Whatever the Court orders regarding reducing the population confined in DOC facilities, it should require that Defendants improve conditions at its facilities — and do so immediately. To achieve this result, Plaintiffs ask that the Court to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction after modifying it to require that Defendants take concrete steps to address the ongoing deficiencies that amici identified in the May 11 hearing.
Converting the TRO into a preliminary injunction is necessary because the risks that the TRO sought to address remain and have even worsened in the weeks since the TRO issued. It is still the case that “individuals placed in [CDF and CTF] are at a significantly higher risk of infection with COVID-19 as compared to the population in the community and that they are at significantly higher risk of harm if they do become infected.” TRO Op. at 13 (quoting First Meyer Decl. ¶ 33; alteration in original); see Ex. 1, Supp. Meyer Decl. ¶ 3. It also remains the case that Plaintiffs “cannot take the same precautions as those who are not detained,” TRO Op. at 13; see
39

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 40 of 43
also Amici Oral Report at 43 (“[T]here still isn’t a prevalence of social distancing” at the CTF and CDF). These facts led the Court to issue the TRO and their persistence justifies extending it.11
Other conditions motivating the TRO remain unaddressed as well. For example, while the Court ordered Defendants to ensure that “medical staff are promptly informed about inmates who present with symptoms of COVID-19,” TRO Order at 1, inmates who complain of those symptoms still wait days for medical attention — if they receive any at all. See Amici Oral Report at 20 (in two-thirds of randomly sampled sick calls involving COVID-19 conditions at the CDF, inmates were seen a minimum “of two days after the request was submitted”); Ex. 3, Jenkins Decl. ¶ 7 (stating that, despite concerns of having COVID-19 symptoms, resident placed three sick calls and did not receive treatment). The Court also ordered Defendants to allow inmates to “have access to confidential, unmonitored calls,” “immediately” provide inmates “proper cleaning supplies,” and “take immediate steps to provide . . . daily showers . . . to all inmates on isolation status.” TRO Order at 2-3. However, nearly a month after the order, many inmates still cannot call their lawyers in private, Amici Oral Report at 32, do not have sufficient cleaning supplies to clean their cells, id. at 41, and go days without showering, id. at 34; Ex. 2, Thomas Decl. ¶ 16. The need for these reforms has only increased with time, see Ex. 1, Supp. Meyer Decl. ¶ 3, and the Court should demand that Defendants make them.
The Court also should go further. Defendants’ track record justifies a “more comprehensive order to insure against the risk of inadequate compliance.” Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 687
11 Even if Defendants had successfully eliminated these risks—which they have not—the court would retain power to grant injunctive relief. Its authority to do so “survives discontinuance of illegal conduct, and because the purpose is to prevent further violations, injunctive relief is appropriate when there is a cognizable danger of recurrent violation.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Daniel Chapter One, 89 F. Supp. 3d 132 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953)), aff’d, 650 F. App’x 20 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
40

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 41 of 43
(1978). So too do the observations of amici and the professional opinion of Dr. Meyer, which demonstrate that crucial safeguards remain unimplemented. See, e.g., Amici Oral Report at 16-21 (discussing delays in obtaining medical attention); Ex. 1, Supp. Meyer Decl. ¶ 3. For example, whereas the TRO recommended that Defendants “retain a registered sanitarian to oversee the[ir] environmental health and safety programs,” TRO Order at 2, the preliminary injunction should require Defendants to do so. To Plaintiffs’ knowledge, Defendants have not hired such an expert; perhaps as a result, inmates continue to lack cleaning supplies and fresh linens. Ex. 2, Thomas Decl. ¶ 16; Ex. 3, Jenkins Decl. ¶ 16. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction should require Defendants to take the step that the TRO suggested and retain a sanitarian.
The Order should also add specificity to the TRO’s mandates. For instance, in order to ensure access to confidential legal calls, the Court should require that Defendants provide every inmate with a cell phone. The Court has asked Defendants to address the confidential legal call issue since the very first hearing in this matter more than six weeks ago. Dkt. No. 18 at 35. Ordering cell phones for inmates — an idea the Court proposed, Dkt. No. 33 at 54 — would address the legal-call issue by allowing inmates to contact their attorneys from their cells. Defendants expressed openness to this idea at the most recent hearing, stating that they had begun “looking at” cell phones. Amici Oral Report at 46. The preliminary injunction should require they provide them.
Regarding medical care, the Court should mandate that Defendants create a 24-hour medical hotline that inmates can contact using the tablets that Defendants currently possess or cell phones to be provided. The existing system for requesting medical attention simply does not work. And the delays it causes not only prolong the time inmates suffer without medical attention but
41

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 42 of 43

also increase the risk that individuals who have contracted the virus will spread it. A direct line

between inmates and the medical unit would mark a significant advance in addressing these issues.

Finally, the Order should include specific timelines and safeguards to ensure compliance.

Specifically, within five days of the Court’s order, Defendants should be required to purchase the

cell phones, establish the medical hotline, and provide a status update on its plan for implementing

the other actions covered in the order. The Court should further direct the parties to confer within

10 days of the order to develop an information-sharing arrangement that allows Plaintiffs to take

discovery and confirm Defendants’ ongoing adherence to the Court’s commands.

“To incarcerate, society takes from prisoners the means to provide for their own needs.

Prisoners are dependent on the State for food, clothing, and necessary medical care. . . . Just as a

prisoner may starve if not fed, he or she may suffer or die if not provided adequate medical care.”

Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 510-11 (2011). Since this crisis began, Defendants have had the

responsibility to take appropriate precautions to protect the Plaintiffs in their care. For nearly a

month, that constitutional duty has taken concrete form in this Court’s TRO. Yet conditions at the

D.C. Jail remain dire, and the number of residents and staff who have tested positive for COVID-

19 cases continue to rise. In the face of Defendants’ unwillingness or inability to meet their

constitutional requirements, this Court should impose requirements commensurate with the

seriousness of the crisis and the risks to Plaintiffs’ lives.

CONCLUSION

The Court should grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

DATED: May 15, 2020 Washington, D.C.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Steven Marcus
Steven Marcus (D.C. Bar # 1630882) Jonathan Anderson (D.C. Bar # 475306)

42

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 43 of 43
Jenna Cobb (D.C. Bar # 979506) Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel. 202-824-2524 Fax 202-824-2525 smarcus@pdsdc.org /s/ Scott Michelman Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar # 1006945) Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar # 235960) Michael Perloff (D.C. Bar # 1601047) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. 202-457-0800 smichelman@acludc.org
43

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-2 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-2 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 5
Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jaimie Meyer
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1746, I hereby declare as follows:
1. I am Dr. Jaimie Meyer, an Assistant Professor of Medicine at Yale School of Medicine and Assistant Clinical Professor of Nursing at Yale School of Nursing in New Haven, Connecticut. I am a physician who is board certified in Infectious Disease, Addiction Medicine, and Internal Medicine, with expertise in infectious diseases in prisons and jails. I previously submitted a Declaration in this case dated March 29, 2020 along with a copy of my CV.
2. To prepare this Supplemental Declaration, I reviewed the following reports and declarations: • Report submitted by amicus curiae pursuant to April 9, 2020 consent order, dated April 18, 2020, including Exhibits 1-11; • Transcript of proceedings in US v. Brown (Docket number 2019 CF3 012779), dated April 29, 2020; • Declaration of Brian Thomas, dated May 7, 2020; • Declaration of Anthony Jenkins, dated May 6, 2020; • Declaration of Craig Barksdale, dated May 6, 2020; • Declaration of Delonte Johnson, dated May 12, 2020; • Declaration of Jarvis Burl, dated May 11, 2020; • Declaration of Ladaunte Perry, dated May 7, 2020; • Declaration of Romiel Hightower, dated May 11, 2020; • Declaration of Tony Horne, dated May 11, 2020; • Declaration of Elijah Warren, dated May 14, 2020; • Transcript of telephone conference in Banks v. Booth (Civil Action No. 20-CV00849), dated May 11, 2020; I also listened to portions of this telephone conference on May 11, 2020; • Redacted emails provided from the FOP/DOC Labor Union.
3. Based on my review of these materials and my knowledge and expertise in infectious diseases and public health, I reaffirm that people living and working in DC DOC facilities remain at risk of serious harm due to COVID-19 infection. Despite clear efforts made by DC DOC to be responsive to concerns by generating updated policies, a number of key problem areas persist as detailed further below. I also reaffirm the deficiencies identified in my earlier declaration regarding poor ventilation and insufficient medical facilities to control the spread of COVID-19. The rapid increase in the number of identified cases over the past several weeks reflects major and pervasive system-level deficits.
4. The biggest threat to DC DOC’s ability to contain the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak is under-recognition of and limited testing for COVID-19 disease. Residents in nonquarantine units who experience symptoms consistent with COVID-19 must rely on a sick call request system to access medical care. Although most sick call requests are

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-2 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 5
processed within 1-2 days, site evaluations and resident declarations describe that some requests take over 1 week to process. These delays in medical attention may result in worsening of the disease and ongoing spread of COVID-19, when those who are infected but not isolated remain on the general housing unit. Many requests for medical care appear to have come through an ad hoc urgent care mechanism, rather than the sick call request system. Urgent care should not serve as an alternate channel for accessing medical care because it does not allow clinical care providers to triage the urgency of the issue or appropriately plan for staffing and space. Increased reliance on urgent care mechanisms suggest challenges to accessing medical care and that the sick call request system is failing to address the medical needs of people in the DC DOC.
5. According to declarants, people who are afebrile but exhibiting other symptoms of COVID-19 (including shortness of breath, cough, and difficulty breathing) are not tested. This suggests fever is the sole trigger for testing. This is highly problematic because people infected with COVID-19 may exhibit a wide range of symptoms which, according to the CDC include: cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, fever, chills, muscle pain, sore throat, new loss of taste or smell, or gastrointestinal symptoms like nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. Moreover, many people with COVID-19 do not have symptoms at all. Limited testing will result in people who are infected with COVID-19 remaining on housing units and likely transmitting the disease to others.
6. DC DOC policy appropriately dictates that “people under investigation” (PUI) for COVID-19 who have tests pending are placed on cell restriction until they either: a) are confirmed positive and moved to medical isolation; or b) are confirmed negative and can return to the general population. Yet declarations confirm that cell restriction for PUI is inconsistent and people who are later confirmed to be COVID+ are interacting with others, including cellmates, while tests are pending. In this way, disease transmission will continue unabated.
7. Testing is critical for disease containment because it allows people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 to be medically isolated. This is beneficial for the individual who is infected in terms of receiving increased medical attention and for the population writ large in terms of reducing transmission. One solution to the problem of limited testing is to conduct facility-wide surveillance and test all residents and staff at least once. Surveillance testing (and, ideally retesting), enables a clinical and public health response that is informed by real data.
8. Social distancing policies are meaningless if not enforced. While protocols call for fewer than 10 individuals out of cell at a time for recreation, showers, and phone calls, and kept six feet apart during that time, declarants and surveillance video depict otherwise. In DC DOC facilities that are experiencing severe staffing shortages, it will be difficult if not impossible to ensure adequate custodial supervision to allow for social distancing. Given that COVID-19 is a highly contagious virus spread by droplets within close contact, the disease will continue to spread in facilities where

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-2 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 5
social distancing is not enabled.
9. When social distancing is not possible, personal protective equipment (PPE) can help provide a barrier to reduce person-to-person disease transmission. Again, PPE protocols are essentially meaningless if not implemented and enforced. Site visits describe inconsistent use of PPE observed among staff and residents in quarantine units, limited availability of PPE, and few receptacles available for safe PPE disposal.
10. In the setting of understaffing and growing anxiety, there have been disruptions to safety and security described inside DC DOC facilities. In usual circumstances, mace or capsaicin spray may be used to facilitate extractions by dedicated teams and mitigate unrest. When these techniques are used in the context of a COVID outbreak, however, they may actually facilitate disease transmission. These inhaled irritants disrupt the mucous membranes of the nose, throat, and upper respiratory system that can increase risk of COVID-19 infection if exposure occurs. The irritants also cause people to cough, thereby increasing potential disease transmission within the unit.
11. COVID-19 is primarily transmitted from person to person via respiratory droplets, but transmission also occurs through contaminated surfaces. Cleaning and disinfecting practices can mitigate this risk of disease transmission but remains inadequate in the DC DOC. The cleaning materials shown in amici Exhibits are among those approved by the EPA as having activity against COVID-19, but only at specific concentrations (Please see EPA website: https://cfpub.epa.gov/giwiz/disinfectants/index.cfm). Activity against COVID-19 is reduced when cleaning supplies are repeatedly diluted, as is described in the DC DOC. Education, training, and supervision are necessary to ensure that supplies are being used properly (for instance, if a chemical agent needs to sit for an hour before it is wiped away), or in proper concentrations. Moreover, some declarants describe other cleaning products that are being used, including Ecolab Laundry Fresh Room Refresher, that do not have activity against and is not approved for disinfection for COVID-19.
12. COVID-19 is a serious problem for detention settings everywhere and this is no less true in the DC DOC. But this is not a problem that can be protocolled away. Even the most comprehensive protocols and policies that are informed by science are totally meaningless if not implemented, enforced, and continuously monitored. Implementation will be challenging if not impossible in DC DOC, which is strained by severe understaffing. When staff are not adequately equipped, trained, or supported, health and safety of everyone inside the facility will suffer.
13. In the DC DOC, as in health systems everywhere, COVID-19 has become the top priority for healthcare providers. Yet when attention is devoted exclusively to COVID-19 and medical staff are stretched thin during an outbreak, limited resources remain for the management of chronic diseases. As declarants note, care for nonCOVID conditions has suffered in the DC DOC since the start of the outbreak. This may result in undue negative health outcomes related to chronic health conditions, but also increased risk of complicated COVID-19 infections for people living with

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-2 Filed 05/15/20 Page 5 of 5
underlying health conditions like diabetes, chronic lung disease, heart disease, and kidney disease. Inadequate responses to medical issues within DC DOC place inmates at an increased risk of death or serious harm from COVID-19 and other diseases.
14. Reduction in the size of the prison population is a public health strategy that supports all of the above infection prevention and control efforts. When people inside the facility have the physical space to socially distance and the inmate population is small enough for the staff to enforce social distancing and proper sanitation, there is reduced disease transmission. A reduced inmate population also results in the greater availability of adequate medical attention. Finally, it improves safety because appropriate supervision is assured.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
_______________________ Dr. Jaimie Meyer
May 14, 2020 Wilton, Connecticut

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-3 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-3 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF BRIAN THOMAS
1. My name is Brian Thomas. I am 31 years old. I am currently incarcerated at the CDF on the unit S2 in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I was admitted to CDF on April 27th, 2020.
3. Between April 27th and May 1st, nobody did my laundry.
4. Between April 27th and May 1st, I was only given one mask.
5. Between April 27th and May 1st, I was not given any cleaning liquid, towels, sponges, extra soap, or other cleaning materials with which to clean my cell.
a. Between April 27th and May 7th, I have been given cleaning materials with which to clean my cell 2-3 times.
6. Between April 27th and May 1st, I saw up to twelve people let out of their cells at a time on my unit.
7. There is no set time of day when I am allowed out of my cell. Sometimes I am only let out of my cell at 3:00 am.
8. On May 1st, I could see four other CDF residents outside their cells without masks on.
9. On May 1st, I saw a CO passing out soap without wearing gloves.
10. Between April 27th and May 7th, I did not get any toilet paper.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-3 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3
11. Between April 27th and May 7th, I was only given one bar of soap. 12. Between April 27th and May 7th, there was no hand sanitizer on my unit. 13. Between April 27th and May 7th, I did not see anybody clean my unit’s common areas. 14. Between April 27th and May 7th, I did not see anybody clean the showers in my unit. 15. Between April 27th and May 7th, the showers on my unit looked very dirty. There is scum
and hair in the showers. 16. I do not get to shower every day. I get to shower whenever I am let out of my cell for rec
time. Since April 27th, there have been 4-5 days that I am not allowed out of my cell for rec time and therefore cannot shower. 17. Between April 27th and May 7th, nobody told me to social distance myself from other people. Nobody has told me to stay six feet away from other people. 18. When making phone calls from my unit, I am within six feet of the other residents making phone calls. 19. When making phone calls, I am too close to other people to discuss confidential legal matters with my attorney. I, Katherine Rees, certify that I have read the foregoing to Brian Thomas and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 7th, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 7th 2020.
_________________________ Katherine Rees Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-4 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-4 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARARION OF ANTHONY JENKINS
1. My name is Anthony Jenkins. I am forty-one years old, I am currently incarcerated at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”) on the C-3B unit in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I was detained at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) on April 13th, 2020.
3. I have been in the unit C-3B since Friday May 1st, 2020. Prior to that I was on the unit South 2 at CDF from April 13th until May 1st.
4. While on South 2, I had a cellmate that had a strange cough. I asked every day I was on South 2 to have the officers test me for COVID-19. I was told by the officers they would not test me until I started to show symptoms of COVID-19. To my knowledge, my cellmate with the cough was not tested either.
5. While I was on South 2, all the officers would do for me was have the nurse come around to take my temperature each day.
6. I have asked the officers three times if I could get a multi vitamin but I was told that CDF does not offer those.
7. I put in a sick call request three times when I was at CDF. One time a nurse or doctor came to the unit to tell me that they would not give me a COVID-19 test. I was never seen by another doctor or nurse.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-4 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3
8. I was scared for my health the whole time I was on the South 2 with the cellmate with the cough.
9. I was not sleeping because I was so scared for my health while on South 2. 10. While I was on South 2, I would go several days without being allowed out of my cell for
my one hour of recreation time. 11. On the days that I was allowed out, I would only have enough time for a shower and
would not always be able to use the phone. 12. Since my arrival on April 13th, my outer clothes have not besen washed. 13. Since my arrival on April 13th, my outer clothes have not been changed. 14. Since my arrival on April 13th, my underwear has not been washed. 15. Since my arrival on April 13th, my underwear has not been changed. 16. Since my arrival on April 13th, my bed sheets have not been washed. 17. Since my arrival on April 13th, my bed sheets have not been changed. 18. Since my arrival on April 13th, I have not had a hot meal. Any time the officers bring me
a hot meal it is ice cold. I, Edward McDermitt, certify that I have read the foregoing to Anthony Jenkins and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 6, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 6, 2020.
__E__d__w__a_r_d___M___c_D__e__r_m__i_tt________
Edward McDermitt Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-5 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-5 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF LEDAUNTAE PERRY
1. My name is LeDauntae Perry. I am 36 years old. I am currently incarcerated at the CDF on the North-1 in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I was moved to North-1 today May 7, 2020. Before that I was on Northwest-2.
3. In early April, 2020, while on Northwest-2, I started to feel very unwell. I had shortness of breath and headaches.
4. I put in a sick call and saw a doctor on or about April 12. The doctor told me I had a sinus infection. I was given an inhaler and antibiotics.
5. The doctor ordered me to be seen by a doctor again in 48 hours. That didn’t happen.
6. Shortly after April 12 our unit was put on “quarantine.” We were only let out of our cells for one hour a day. During that time we had to shower, clean our cells, and call our families.
7. After April 12, I requested to see a doctor three times by submitting a sick slip. I wasn’t seen by a doctor. The sick slips are submitted into a box. I didn’t see correctional officers or anyone else empty the sick slip boxes so I don’t know if the medical requests are being acted on.
8. Last week they ran out of sick slips on Northwest-2 so I wasn’t able to submit any more sick requests.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-5 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 4
9. Nurses come around our unit twice a day to check every inmate’s temperature. I would tell the nurses that I feel sick. The nurses would say my temperature is fine and they didn’t help me get seen by a doctor.
10. We have not been given any chemicals to clean our cells. The only thing we can use to clean our cells is the bar of soap we are given once a week.
11. About two weeks ago the water fountain on Northwest-2 broke. The corrections staff did not provide us with water. The only thing we had to drink was the milk we got with our meals. Sometimes the inmates on the cleaning detail passed out small pouches of water. This water must last us all day. The corrections staff did nothing to help us get drinking water.
12. Since I saw the doctor on or about April 12 I continued to feel worse and worse. In addition to shortness of breath and headaches, my entire body was aching and I lost my senses of taste and smell. It felt like someone was sitting on my chest. I have no appetite and have been going to the bathroom much more than usual.
13. I repeatedly tried to get medical attention by asking corrections officers and the nurses who took my temperature for help. I was asking every day for help. There were no sick slips for me to put in a request for medical attention. Since I have been moved, I believe there are now sick slips on Northwest-2.
14. On or about Monday May 4 I was tested for Covid-19. I again told a corrections officer about my symptoms and that I couldn’t smell or taste anything. This corrections officer told a nurse about my symptoms and the nurse tested me for Covid-19.
15. After I was tested on or about Monday May 4, they moved my cellmate out of my cell on Northwest-2.
16. The whole time I was having symptoms, I had a cell mate.
17. On Thursday May 7, I was told I had tested positive for Covid-19. I was moved to North-1.
18. I am afraid I will die at CDF. I am afraid I will not get the medical attention I need because of my experiences over the last month.
I, Todd Kowalski, certify that I have read the foregoing to LeDauntae Perry and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 7, 2020.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 7, 2020
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-5 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 4 _________________________ Todd Kowalski Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-6 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-6 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH STANKAVAGE
1. My name is Joseph Stankavage. I am 57 years old. I am currently incarcerated at the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) on unit C2-B (the 50 and over block) in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I suffer from multiple underlying chronic medical issues, including a form of cancer.
3. On May 12, 2020, I was taken to the medical unit at CTF with approximately 10 to 11 other residents from various units. All of us—myself, the 10 to 11 residents, and the correctional officer escorting us—were all made to ride the same elevator at one time to the medical unit. It was not possible for us to stand six feet apart in the elevator. Staff did not indicate we needed to stand six feet apart.
4. While we were in the elevator on May 12, one of the residents took off his mask to show his beard. I was one of only two people wearing gloves in the elevator.
5. At the medical unit on May 12, the 10 to 11 residents from the elevator were put into a single bullpen-style waiting room. When the 10 to 11 residents entered that room, there were already at least five residents waiting in the room.
6. After my medical appointment on May 12, I went into the bullpen to wait to be taken back to my unit. When I entered the bullpen, there were approximately 15 to 20 men already in the room. The bullpen is one room approximately the size of about three cells. There are 14 non-detachable chairs attached to the floor and a few stackable plastic chairs in the room. The non-detachable chairs are about one foot apart from one another. With 15 to 20 residents in that room, people could not be six feet apart. Groups were clustered

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-6 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 4
near the door and close to the TV. The door was closed and locked. Staff did not indicate that people had to stand six feet apart.
7. Of the 15 to 20 men in the bullpen on May 12, I was one of only two or three people wearing gloves.
8. After my visit on May 12, I was escorted back to my unit with about four other residents and a correctional officer. We were all taken in the elevator together. We dropped different residents off at different units before going back to my unit.
9. On May 13, 2020, I went to the medical unit and waited in line for my medical visit. While I was waiting, I witnessed men from different units enter the bullpen. There were at least 10 people in the bullpen at one time on May 13. Staff did not direct or require the men in the bullpen to be socially distanced from one another.
10. On May 13, the staff member in the medical unit directing residents to different treatment rooms was only wearing a surgical mask, but no gloves, face shield, or other PPE.
11. The officer who escorted me back to my unit on May 13 had a plastic facial shield in his hand, but was not wearing it. The officer stated it was too warm to wear it.
12. I have noticed a lack of consistency with staff members wearing facial shields. It seems that some choose to wear the shields and others do not. For example, on May 13, the correctional officer on my unit whose shift began at 8:00 am wore a facial shield on and off throughout the day. However, the correctional officer on my unit whose shift began at 8:00 pm did not wear a facial mask.
13. Since March 2020, our personal hygiene has suffered. We have not been given an opportunity to shave or have our haircut. I had to put in a sick call request to use nail clippers about one to two weeks ago. It had been six weeks since I had been given the opportunity to clip my nails. Yesterday, when I went to the medical unit, medical staff had a group of individuals sitting at the end of the hallway on the medical unit clipping their nails onto the floor. The area was not sanitized or sterilized.
14. About one month ago, I was asked by a nurse to clean the medical room on my unit. The room was filthy and appeared to not have been cleaned in years. There were hand sanitizer containers in the room, but they were all empty. There was a paper towel holder in the medical room, but no paper towel. To date, there is still no hand sanitizer and no paper towel in the medical room.
15. For the entire week of May 4, 2020, our unit had no sick call slips or inmate request slips available. The week of May 4 was not the only week in the past month that our unit has been out of sick call slips and inmate requests slips. I have put in multiple requests for these slips, but case manager availability to refill these slips has been very sporadic.
I, Rachel Cicurel, certify that I have read the foregoing to Joseph Stankavage and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 14th, 2020.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-6 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 4 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 14th, 2020. _________________________ Rachel Cicurel Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-7 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-7 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 4
DECLARATION OF GARY JAGGERS
I, Gary Jaggers, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Gary Jaggers. I am fifty-six years old. I was incarcerated at the Correctional Treatment Facility in Washington, D.C. on the C2A unit from March 26, 2020 to April 28, 2020.
2. On March 26, 2020, I was moved within CTF, from unit C2B to unit C2A. Starting on March 26, 2020, unit C2A became a quarantine block. Inmates on C2A could not leave the unit until April 24, 2020, when every inmate on C2A demonstrated a consistent body temperature reading. There were approximately fifty-four inmates on unit C2A, with approximately six two-cell cells occupied by two inmates. The rest of the inmates on C2A were housed in single cells.
3. For approximately one week beginning on March 26, 2020, inmates on unit C2A were confined to their cells for twenty-four hours a day. I was not allowed out of my cell for recreation, to shower, or to place personal or legal phone calls for the first week that C2A was placed on quarantine status. Correctional officers did not deliver mail to me or any other inmates on C2A and did not provide clean laundry to me or any other inmates for roughly one week starting on March 26, 2020. There were not case managers present on C2A for approximately one week starting on March 26, 2020.
4. Approximately one week after unit C2A first went into quarantine on March 26, 2020, inmates on C2A were locked in their cells for twenty-three hours per day with one hour allotted for recreation time. In that one hour, I had to choose whether I wanted to shower, make personal and legal phone calls, or gather cleaning supplies. One hour was not sufficient time to do all three of these things—all of which I needed to do on a daily basis.
5. On or around April 2, 2020, several inmates on C2A tested positive for COVID-19. I feared that more inmates on our unit would test positive for the virus as well.
6. Cleaning supplies were first brought to unit C2A on April 16, 2020. Inmates could gather the cleaning supplies they needed to bring to their cells during our one hour of recreation time. Inmates were never provided paper towels or clothes to wipe down their cells, so I would use my bath towel or clothes to wipe down my cell with cleaning solution. Cleaning supplies were provided once per week. The cleaning supplies generally ran out after three days, so for the next four days, no inmates on unit C2A were able to clean their cells until more supplies were delivered.
7. The showers on unit C2A are shared by all of the inmates. No one was cleaning the showers, so I would have to personally clean the shower with cleaning solution and wipe it down with my bath towel if I wanted to take a shower.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-7 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 4
8. The number of inmates let out for recreation at one time was subjective and dependent on which correctional officers were on duty. Some correctional officers would let out as many as fifteen or twenty people at a time, which made social distancing impossible to practice. If correctional officers let out too many people with me on my recreation hour, I would stay in my cell and forego making calls or showering because I was scared to get infected.
9. From my cell, I could see how many inmates were out for recreation on the unit. After April 19, 2020, there were at least six occasions on which I saw supervising correctional officers come to our unit and not enforce social distancing.
10. I never once observed correctional officers enforce social distancing by encouraging inmates to keep away from each other during recreation time.
11. Face masks were first passed out on unit C2A on April 15th. From April 15th to April 28th, the day of my release, I used and reused one face mask.
12. Medical staff would come to unit C2A twice per day to hand out medications. While medical staff were present on the unit, I tried to ask questions about non-COVID medical issues I was dealing with. I am diabetic and suffer from hypertension. The medical staff would pass out medical and insulin but ignored my questions.
13. Prior to March 26, 2020, inmates followed the normal procedure for submitting sick call slips by submitting their slips in a box, which medical staff would pick up and respond to within twenty-four hours. Between March 26, when C2A was placed on quarantine status, and April 24, when C2A was placed on isolation status, nobody picked up sick call slips that inmates submitted.
14. On March 20th, 2020, I underwent an MRI. Following the MRI procedure, I made numerous requests to see my primary care physician, Dr. Mitchell. I never once saw Dr. Mitchell after March 20th. I submitted several Inmate Grievance Procedure forms (IGPs), the last of which I submitted on April 21st. I never received a response to any of these IGPs. In the time that I was on unit C2A, the IGP coordinator never came to the unit.
15. For the last three weeks I was incarcerated at CTF, I lived in tremendous fear. I was scared to death that even if I was not infected with COVID-19, my underlying medical conditions would deteriorate and there was nobody at CTF who would see or help me.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 14th day of May 2020, in Washington, D.C.
___/s/______ Gary Jaggers
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-7 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 4 _____________________________ Kiran Bhatt Investigator for Mr. Jaggers Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-8 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-8 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3
DECLARATION OF ROMIEL HIGHTOWER
I, Romiel Hightower, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Romiel Hightower. I am twenty-nine years old. I am currently incarcerated at the Central Detention Facility in Washington, D.C. I have been at the jail since January, 2020. I have a history of asthma.
2. My first placement at CDF was on unit Southwest 2. I was placed in Northeast 1 in late January, 2020. In March I was placed in quarantine for five days because I had been to Court when a Marshal who tested positive was there, but I was not tested for COVID before, during or after the quarantine.
3. On NE1, I was housed in a two-man cell, occupied by myself and another inmate.
4. On April 10, 2020 the guards came and told me my cellmate had tested positive for COVID. The guards made me clear out his stuff from the cell over my protest without giving me any protective gear or cleaning supplies. I also asked for a new cell or at lease to have my cell cleaned. Both requests were denied.
5. After that day, I started feeling some symptoms of COVID, headaches and a dry scratchy throat at night. I put in three medical requests and a grievance but was never taken to for a test. I also asked every medical staff who came by and all the guards for a COVID test, no one gave me one. A female deputy warden promised she would come and deal with the situation but never did.
6. They also never provided me any cleaning materials for my cell. I was given an occasional bar of soap, but because I had to use it for everything, it would quickly be used up.
7. On April 22, 2020 they returned my cell mate even though he still had symptoms of COVID.
8. At a hearing on April 23, 2020 the judged ordered the jail to provide a COVID test for me which came back positive.
9. I was then placed in quarantine where it was nasty and dirty and nothing was cleaned and it was very rare anyone came by to check on me. I didn’t have hot water. I had many fewer opportunities to shower, only once every three or four days after lots of complaining, and couldn’t use the phones every other day or third day.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-8 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3 Executed on the __11th__ day of May 2020, in Washington, D.C. _________/s/______________________ Romiel Hightower Correctional Detention Facility 1901 D Street SE Washington, DC 20003 I, Jason Tulley, certify that the following was read to Romiel Hightower and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 11, 2020 _______/s/_________________ Jason Tulley Attorney for Mr. Hightower
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 33
EXHIBIT 8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 33
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL DIVISION SEALED TRANSCRIPT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

:

:

vs.

:

:

ROMIEL TYRONE HIGHTOWER,

:

:

Defendant.

:

:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

Docket Number: 2019 CF1 016426
Thursday, April 23, 2020 Washington, D.C.

The above-entitled action came on for a hearing before the Honorable DANYA A. DAYSON, Associate Judge, in Courtroom Number 115.
APPEARANCES: On Behalf of the Government: SHEHZAD AKHTAR, Esquire Assistant United States Attorney On Behalf of the Defendant: JASON D. TULLEY, Esquire Washington, D.C.

20-01987
Deposition Services, Inc.
12321 Middlebrook Road, Suite 210 Germantown, MD 20874
Tel: (301) 881-3344 Fax: (301) 881-3338 info@DepositionServices.com www.DepositionServices.com

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1

P R O C E E D I N G S

2

THE DEPUTY CLERK: Romiel Hightower, Mr.

3 Hightower's wife is on the line.

4

THE COURT: Okay. Good morning everyone. Mr.

5 Hightower are you there, sir?

6

MR. HIGHTOWER: Yes, Your Honor.

7

THE COURT: Okay. So, we're here today on the

8 motions that have been filed. And that is emergency

9 motions that were filed for release that were filed on

10 March 16th and on the 24th, the Government's opposition

11 there to. The petition for habeas and supplement on

12 April 7th, the opposition filed thereto. An update on

13 the emergency motion, a notice of filing on April 20th,

14 which include the TRO for, for the District Court in the

15 Banks case, as well as the transcripts of the report of

16 the monitor. Was there anything else I have missed with

17 respect to this case, Mr. Tulley?

18

MR. TULLEY: No, Your Honor, that's all.

19

THE COURT: Okay.

20

MR. AKHTAR: Your Honor, there was a ruling

21 that Judge Edelman made this matter, which was filed

22 denying the defense motions. The ruling was, it was a

23 written order which was filed on April 17th. There's, I

24 believe, I did email that to your clerk. I believe, you

25 should have that.

2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1

THE COURT: Hold on just one moment. I

2 believe, hold on just a second. I have the note that it

3 was denied. I don't think I have the written order.

4 Well, let me just go up and see.

5

THE DEPUTY CLERK: Your Honor, I apologize.

6 This is one of the courtroom clerks. Could we get the

7 webex time stamp?

8

THE COURT: Oh sorry. Chris, can you send me

9 the webex time stamp? 1:32:30. All right, give me just

10 a moment.

11

MR. AKHTAR: Your Honor, would you like me to

12 email it to your Clerk? Or no.

13

THE COURT: Give me just one moment please.

14

MR. AKHTAR: Yes, Your Honor.

15

THE COURT: Yeah, you can just go ahead and

16 email it again so I can take a look at it.

17

MR. AKHTAR: All right, Your Honor, I just sent

18 it.

19

THE COURT: Has not come in yet, counsel.

20

MR. AKHTAR: Just one moment. Your Honor, it

21 is an 11-page order which Judge Edelman wrote for you

22 information. It has been sent out of my out box.

23

THE COURT: Okay, can you just reply to the

24 email that he sent you?

25

MR. AKHTAR: Your Honor, I did.

3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 5 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1

THE COURT: Oh.

2

THE DEPUTY CLERK: Can you sent it again? Can

3 you do it again?

4

MR. AKHTAR: You want me to do it again?

5

THE COURT: Yeah.

6

MR. AKHTAR: Okay.

7

THE DEPUTY CLERK: Okay, never mind, we got it.

8

MR. AKHTAR: Okay.

9

THE COURT: And now, I’m waiting on it.

10

MR. AKHTAR: Okay.

11

THE COURT: There we go, I got it. All right

12 give me just a moment please. Oh, I have received this

13 and, and I'm looking, specifically, at the ruling, the

14 factual basis for the ruling on, contained on page 2 of

15 the, of the order. And the remaining order is addressing

16 the Constitutional issues. And so, I do see that there

17 was this denial that was issued. I believe it was

18 actually issued by Judge, in Judge Edelman's case.

19

All right, so, in light of that to the extent

20 that you are asking to renew that, Mr. Tulley, that, to

21 renew that order. Or renew the motion is what I'm, I'm

22 assuming that you're asking by the supplemental filings.

23 Is that correct?

24

MR. TULLEY: Yes, Your Honor.

25

THE COURT: Okay.

4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 6 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1

MR. AKHTAR: Your Honor, if I may. That order

2 was filed after all of, with the exception of the motions

3 filed on Sunday by defense counsel and the motion filed

4 on April 19th was related to the class action transcript

5 and the result of the class action. Locked up so the

6 motion filed before that was on April 15th by defense

7 counsel. And the order came down April 17th, which,

8 meaning that the Court was aware of the lack of findings

9 that defense counsel made on April 15th. Where he was

10 stating the defendant had potential symptoms of Covid, as

11 well as sharing a cell with cell mate who was

12 subsequently.

13

MR. TULLEY: That's actually, that's actually

14 in, that's actually incorrect, Your Honor. Because Judge

15 Edelman's order lists what motions had been filed and the

16 Government's order in the sentence says March 18th, March

17 23rd and April 7th motions.

18

MR. AKHTAR: Well.

19

MR. TULLEY: And so, he doesn't list April 15th

20 because I don't think he had seen the April 15th by the

21 time he wrote this two days later on April 17th. So,

22 that's, that's not true.

23

THE COURT: So, with respect to that, to that

24 filing, however, it does seem to me, Mr. Tulley, that,

25 again, that really goes to the conditions issue, not to a

5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 7 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 statutory basis or relief in this case. I mean, to the

2 extent that there are issues that are related,

3 specifically, to Mr. Hightower's medical issues, which

4 I'm, I think we do need to address, and we can do that in

5 just a moment. I will ask Mr. Bryant to be ready to

6 address those issues. The underlying statutory basis for

7 the hold, still remains.

8

MR. TULLEY: I understand that, Your Honor.

9 Our position is that, given the information about the way

10 Mr. Hightower has been treated by the jail and by the

11 monitor's report and the Judge's order, the written

12 report that came out over the weekend after Judge

13 Edelman's order. And the several District Court Judges'

14 TRO, Your Honor should revisit the hold decision. I

15 understand it if Your Honor decides to maintain the hold

16 decision. Then, there are other conditions that we will

17 discuss.

18

THE COURT: Okay. And I am going to maintain

19 the hold decision. I think that, with respect to the

20 Constitutional, the conditions of release, the order lays

21 out the analysis of the challenge regarding the

22 conditions of release. And I believe there's still,

23 there's the cell mate issues that are raised are still

24 addressed properly in the bench decision, as frankly,

25 have been noted in the TRO that was filed as a

6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 8 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 supplement.

2

With respect to Mr. Hightower's specific

3 issues, while I do not see this as a basis of release, I

4 am prepared to address concerns that were raised with

5 regard to remediation of, of his specific allegations

6 regarding --

7

MR. TULLEY: Okay, Your Honor, if I may then.

8

THE COURT: Yeah.

9

MR. TULLEY: Okay, so just to set the, the

10 stage for Your Honor. On, on April the 10th, which was a

11 Friday, Mr. Hightower's cell mate was remove Northeast 1

12 and placed in, what I think was quarantine. Mr.

13 Hightower was told that his cell mate had tested positive

14 for Covid. And then, Mr. Hightower was required himself

15 to go back into the cell where he had spent the last

16 several days, and I think even more than that, with a man

17 who was just tested positive for Covid and clean out that

18 person's stuff. Which is, frankly, outrageous.

19

After he did that over his protest and asked

20 for himself not to have to stay in that cell, the jail

21 personnel put him back in that cell. Where he stayed in

22 that cell, which is where a person had just had Covid.

23 He started developing symptoms himself. He started

24 getting headaches. He started getting issues with his

25 throat and during this, and the evenings and at night.

7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 9 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1

He's put in three medical requests that have

2 gone unheard. He's put in a grievance form. And the

3 behavior of the jail, even in the last several days since

4 the order, has maintained a dangerous, deadly and

5 insufficient situation for him. That his present needs

6 are going to the Judge and Federal Court found that the

7 jail is disregarding the risks to Mr. Hightower's health

8 and safety, his death. They're disregarding those risks

9 by failing to take apprehensive time and the proper

10 steps.

11

So, in the last several days, a few other

12 things have happened. His cell mate had returned

13 yesterday. They put the cell mate right back in with Mr.

14 Hightower, saying the cell mate had, his symptoms had

15 abated. And so, they were returning him to the

16 population. The cell mate's concern that they had taken

17 the long Q-tip, stuck it very far up his nose and he

18 tested positive for Covid. It is insane that the jail

19 would put this man right back in a cell, having still had

20 Covid, when he's, rightly a carrier. And certainly, the

21 medical personnel have no studies to think that he's

22 going to be fine and not pass along the virus.

23

The jail continues, despite the TRO on Sunday,

24 that was issued to provide insufficient cleaning

25 materials. Mr. Hightower, I requested in emails after

8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 10 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 this came up on the 10th and have got no response. Mr.

2 Hightower, himself, has also requested that they do more

3 in terms of cleaning his cell, which is likely infected.

4 Use the proper cleaning materials, bring in a

5 professional, even some cleaner to you, to use the

6 cleaning materials so they're, so they properly disinfect

7 that cell. They're not giving them new rags or towels.

8 They're not giving him even sufficient soap. He hasn't

9 had a new bar of soap in a week and a half. And that is

10 not sufficient, given the amount of cleaning that needs

11 to go on.

12

So, given all of these barriers by the jail,

13 and especially in light of the fact that the jail for

14 weeks before that was saying. We have been social

15 distancing. It's fine. We've been providing cleaning

16 materials. We have been providing the proper medical

17 care. And now, we know from the monitor's report that

18 all those statements that this Court has relied on for

19 weeks and different judges, your colleagues, Your Honor,

20 has relied on in making decisions denying release, were

21 not true. Mr. Hightower reports that they're still

22 letting people out for rec, up to 10 or 12 people at a

23 time. Contrary to the TRO's orders and the monitor's

24 recommendations.

25

We're asking for a few things. First of all,

9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 11 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 an immediate test for Mr. Hightower, which he's been

2 begging for, not just in the medical forms. So, when COs

3 come by, the Deputy Warden has ignored request. They are

4 just taking his temperature. That's all they do. They

5 come by and take his temperature. They do not check his

6 heart rate. They, when, when, I know, Your Honor, other

7 claims have talked about the vitals. They're not taking

8 his vitals, other than his temperature. They're not

9 checking his symptoms when the, when the PA has come by,

10 and he said I've got these symptoms, I want the test.

11 They have not further asked questions. They've ignored

12 those requests.

13

So, we ask, Your Honor, and I, I, to order them

14 to test him within 24 hours and give him a test. We ask,

15 Your Honor, secondly, to order a new, clean cell, to have

16 him put in a different cell. It could be a single cell.

17 It could be a double cell. But a cell that is cleaned

18 and disinfected. And frankly, because he's been in

19 contact with some infested positive, I think it should be

20 a single cell. So that the virus doesn't spread further

21 through the jail. That's our second request.

22

And the third request is, we ask that the Court

23 order the jail to provide him sufficient soap. And it's,

24 it's a little ridiculous that I have to go such minutia

25 to ask for soap, but they are just not doing it. And I

10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 12 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 know some of that, the how to house people and the soap

2 issues, in particular, Your Honor, has, I've heard

3 arguments on, calling for 115 earlier in the week about

4 how well that's going to duplicate the Federal Court's

5 order.

6

And to some degree maybe, although this is

7 something that's more specific. But also, the jail is

8 not responding the Federal Court's order. So, to say,

9 well, we're going to leave it to the Federal Court,

10 maybe, another Judge is ordering it in more specific

11 ways, will actually help get things done. And I don't, I

12 think there can be overlap. I don't think the jail is so

13 paralyzed that it's going to cause confusion if Your

14 Honor orders a few remedial things in a situation where

15 the jail has completely fallen down in their obligations

16 to care for someone in their custody.

17

But, I think, Your Honor should be disturbed by

18 the way the jail has acted in this and other cases. And

19 I'd ask that those three specific orders, test within 24

20 hours, a new cell, clean, single cell within 24 hours,

21 sufficient soap.

22

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bryant can

23 we hear from you with respect to, the first issue, I

24 guess, I would like to address. And, I mean, it does

25 seem, frankly, to be something that I am prepared to

11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 13 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 address is this request for a test within 24 hours.

2 Given the fact that Mr. Hightower is complaining of

3 symptoms himself, given the fact that his cell mate

4 tested positive and given the fact that he has asthma.

5 Is there some reason in light of the fact that, frankly,

6 the Covid, the Covid-19 symptoms are, in large part,

7 self-reported symptoms?

8

I mean, yes, there are objective things, like

9 temperature that you can see, but other symptoms are,

10 they, they all are based on self-reported symptoms. So,

11 to the extent that he's self-reporting symptoms that are

12 consistent, he has been with, he has been housed with

13 somebody who tested positive, and he has this underlying

14 issue, I'm trying to understand the basis for refusing to

15 give him a test.

16

MR. BRYANT: Your Honor, this is the first I've

17 heard that he has symptoms. Our records indicate that

18 he's receiving the daily temperature checks and visit

19 from the Covid medical team. As far as him having

20 symptoms, that's not something that I have in the

21 records, but I don't have records that are through today.

22

MR. TULLEY: There's part of the problem.

23 Sorry, that's part of the problem, Your Honor, is that

24 there is insufficient records been by the personnel at

25 the jail, in terms of the notes that people --

12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 14 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1

MR. BRYANT: No, that's not what I said.

2

MR. TULLEY: I have emailed Mr. Glover.

3

THE COURT: Do not talk over each other. In

4 this, I don't like it when we're in Court and in this

5 atmosphere, it is completely, you might as well be

6 whistling. I can't hear anything. So, if anybody's

7 been, so, please don't do that.

8

MR. BRYANT: Your Honor, the record I have ends

9 on April 20th. The DOC is still taking medical records.

10 My records end on April 20th.

11

MR. TULLEY: May I, Your Honor?

12

THE COURT: Yes.

13

MR. TULLEY: This is part of the problem.

14 There's insufficient record keeping about what's going on

15 in the jail. I have emailed Eric Glover about this on

16 April 16th and got no response. I filed it in a motion.

17 This had been that same day or the next day. I served

18 the OAG and still nobody knows anything that he's had

19 these symptoms. When I put it in paper work and he has

20 told people and written it on medical slips.

21

That's part of the systemic problem and why

22 Your Honor needs to step in and order relief.

23

THE COURT: Well, which is why, I guess, my

24 next question, Mr. Bryant, is. Whether or not it's

25 reflected in the records that you have, given the fact

13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 15 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 that there are, that there is a record being made of that

2 he is self-reporting these symptoms and all of the other

3 things that I laid out. Is there any reason I should not

4 be ordering a test within 24 hours?

5

MR. BRYANT: Your Honor, DOC's position is that

6 the daily temperature checks meeting with the Covid

7 medical team is adequate.

8

THE COURT: Well, okay, well, I, I don't --

9

MR. BRYANT: I don't have records.

10

THE COURT: Right. Well, given, given the fact

11 that there are a myriad of symptoms Covid-18 of which a

12 fever is one and that many of the other symptoms rely on

13 self-reporting. Symptoms like headaches, nausea,

14 shortness of breath. These are not things that can

15 always be objectively measured or viewed. I mean, yes,

16 if someone's throwing up, you know they're nauseous. But

17 that doesn't mean if they're not throwing up, they're not

18 nauseous. If something is wheezing and clutching their

19 chest, they have shortness of breath. If they are not

20 wheezing and clutching their chest, that does not mean

21 that they do not have shortness of breath.

22

So, to the extent that these are things that

23 are being self-reported, that are consistent with

24 symptoms and to the extent that Mr. Hightower has been

25 housed with someone who has tested positive, I'm going to

14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 16 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 order that he be tested for Covid within 24 hours.

2

MR. TULLEY: Thank you, Your Honor.

3

THE COURT: So, the other issue with regard to

4 the housing and cleaning, so, let me just say that the

5 issue with regard, the systemic issue that you're

6 discussing, is included in the TRO. I think all of those

7 things have to be addressed. Those are part of the

8 systemic issues that are being addressed with regard to

9 that.

10

In this case, specifically, I think it's

11 different in different cases, whether or not we're

12 addressing how folks are, are being housed. But Mr.

13 Bryant in this case, can you address the housing

14 situation?

15

MR. BRYANT: Your Honor, this position, you

16 would not have a cell mate returning if a bunch of his

17 cell mate have gone through the 14-day quarantine and was

18 no longer symptomatic.

19

THE COURT: Could, is that what, I'm sorry.

20 When did he test, when did the cell mate test positive?

21

MR. TULLEY: Well, he, he, he was removed on

22 Friday, the 10th and he was brought back on the 22nd.

23 So, that's 12 days.

24

THE COURT: Okay. So, Mr. Bryant.

25

MR. BRYANT: I'm going to have to get more

15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 17 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 information about that.

2

MR. TULLEY: Well, I'd ask him to just order

3 him to move to a new cell. I mean, I have facts. I have

4 proffered facts. Your Honor, can ask Mr. Hightower about

5 it if she wants, if you want. But these are the facts

6 about the, the, where the folks are. And, and, I mean,

7 the idea that they are, they're delaying and keeping him

8 in a cell with someone who can potentially infect him

9 while they take the time to figure out, as opposed to

10 just ordering him to do something about it, object to

11 that.

12

THE COURT: Mr. Bryant.

13

MR. BRYANT: Your Honor, I would just like to

14 gather more information about his cell mate status before

15 I respond.

16

THE COURT: That's fine. You couldn't, I'll

17 have, you can look at that over lunch and we'll recall

18 this at 2:00. I mean, I'll give you time to look at it,

19 but I don't, I don't want to have this keep going. So,

20 we'll recall this matter at 2 o'clock.

21

MR. TULLEY: Thank you, Your Honor.

22

THE COURT: In the meantime, I'm, I'm denying

23 the issue with regard to the soap. Not because I don't

24 think it's something that should be happening. But

25 because it does seem duplicative of, of the TRO order.

16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 18 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 But I am ordering the, the 24-hour test. Okay, we'll

2 recall this at 2 o'clock to deal with the issue of where

3 Mr. Hightower is going to be.

4

MR. TULLEY: Thank you, Your Honor.

5

THE COURT: Okay, thank you.

6

MR. AKHTAR: Thank you, Your Honor.

7

(Thereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

AFTERNOON SESSION

17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 19 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1

MR. HIGHTOWER: Hello.

2

THE COURT: Yes. Is this Mr. Hightower?

3

MR. HIGHTOWER: Yes, this is him.

4

THE COURT: Okay, thank you.

5

THE DEPUTY CLERK: Recalling United States v.

6 Romiel Tyrone Hightower, 2019 CF1 16426. Government for

7 the record.

8

MR. AKHTAR: Shehzad Akhtar, good afternoon.

9

THE COURT: Mr. Tulley.

10

MR. TULLEY: Jason Tulley from the Public

11 Defender's Service for Mr. Hightower. Good afternoon.

12

THE COURT: Good afternoon. Okay, folks.

13 We're here again on this motion. And Mr. Copeland, Mr.

14 Bryant, I've asked this morning for Mr. Bryant to look

15 into this issue, there -- I don't know to what extent,

16 that he let you know what was going on.

17

MR. COPELAND: I'm, I'm up to date. Yes, I'm

18 aware of what happened this morning and I'm prepared to

19 address the question.

20

THE COURT: Okay, thank you.

21

MR. COPELAND: So, Mr. Hightower was seen by

22 Dr. O'Donovan on the lunch break. And whenever he,

23 whenever he's been seen twice daily. So, Dr. O'Donovan

24 said Mr. Hightower reported that he had a sore throat.

25 And they took him for strep. He does not have strep.

18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 20 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 And based on the existence of, not that there was a

2 clinical symptom that could be associated with Covid, he

3 is going to be tested now.

4

THE COURT: Okay.

5

MR. COPELAND: So, Dr. O'Donovan and Dr. Jordan

6 were very adamant that we, that No. 1 that he that we're

7 not facing a Covid infectious person. And so, first was

8 not. And that the, that the testing, that the all points

9 are test, they approximately he got it on. Instead, is

10 based upon whether or not the person is symptomatic.

11 And, you know, to the extent that Court, that Your Honor,

12 or any of her colleagues on the bench want medical

13 information as to how these decisions area made. Dr.

14 Jordan is happy to facilitate a question and answer

15 session for that, the sort of clinical decisions can be

16 fully appreciated.

17

THE COURT: Okay. So, this not making this

18 morning the representation that was made, I don't want to

19 spend a whole lot of time on this. But I had already

20 ordered that he be tested for Covid so -- appropriate.

21 The issue, the representation that had been made this

22 morning was as follows.

23

Mr. Hightower indicated that he was self-

24 reporting symptoms that were, were consistent with Covid.

25 He indicated, I'm not, I’m not making finding with regard

19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 21 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 to whether he did or not in the past, but he was now. He

2 was housed with someone who was in a cell with someone

3 who had tested positive for Covid and he has asthma. The

4 representations that were made this morning was. Well,

5 they are taking the temperature twice a day and that is

6 sufficient.

7

And what I was saying was that seems

8 insufficient if someone is self-reporting that symptoms

9 are consistent with Covid and they have been in direct

10 contact with someone who has tested positive for Covid.

11 It sounds like, common sense, relying on common sense and

12 here's these medical folks have come into alignment. So,

13 I don't think there's much more to talk about.

14

MR. TULLEY: Your Honor, while I appreciate you

15 ordering the test, I think we can move on to the issue of

16 housing.

17

THE COURT: Thank you. So, with regard to the

18 housing issue, can I hear that? Mr. Copeland.

19

MR. COPELAND: Yes. Mr. Hightower is in a

20 housing unit and he, and the question is about the, he

21 has a cell mate. And who had been tested who tested

22 positive, but who has recovered. And according to CDC

23 guidelines, he, that person has recovered. And he has

24 been more concerned with the CDC guidelines, so, had an

25 extra day for recovery. But the recovered person is

20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 22 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 capable of being, has appropriately been moved back into

2 general population.

3

THE COURT: I think that the question.

4

MR. COPELAND: So, that's what happened.

5

THE COURT: Right, so, this is the, I'm sorry.

6 I don't mean to cut you off. But I just want to make

7 sure that while, okay. I understand that he tested

8 positive. I understand that he was isolated or taken out

9 of a cell at that time. My question is, when you say

10 recovered, you mean a, asymptomatic, plus X number of

11 days? Do you mean quarantined after some period of time?

12 What does that mean?

13

MR. COPELAND: He is asymptomatic, plus I can't

14 remember if it was four or five days. But it was one day

15 more that the CDC guideline. There is no symptom, plus

16 the time. And you don't leave isolation to go back to

17 the quarantine, you leave isolation to go back to the,

18 the population.

19

THE COURT: Okay, and so, that's what I, that's

20 what I was trying to get at. So, when you, what you're

21 saying is that when he was placed back into the cell, he

22 had been yet with, without symptoms for four days.

23 Because the CDC says, the CDC says without symptoms for

24 three days, preliminarily seven days after symptoms

25 appear, whichever one is longer. And so, my question is

21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 23 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 can you tell me what the dates are that you can. So, so,

2 that there can be a record that is either, that is in

3 compliance. And I'm sorry, Mr., Mr. Tulley, if you have

4 different information about what the CDC recs are, you

5 can let me know. But that's my little bit of

6 information.

7

MR. TULLEY: So, I, I will if I do, Your Honor.

8

THE COURT: So, Mr. Copeland, can you just make

9 representations please about the, the date that he tested

10 positive and then the date on which he became

11 asymptomatic?

12

MR. COPELAND: Yes, Your Honor. I'm pulling

13 those records up.

14

THE COURT: Thank you.

15

MR. COPELAND:

16

MR. TULLEY: While he's doing that, Your Honor,

17 can I talk to my client for a moment?

18

THE COURT: You mean hang up and then call back

19 in?

20

MR. TULLEY: I don't need to hang up. I can

21 use a separate phone and this time I'm. I still have a

22 quick question for him about this issue.

23

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Can I ask the

24 jail PSE if he could have Mr. Hightower quickly call Mr.

25 Tulley please?

22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 24 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1

MR. TULLEY: It'll be short Judge.

2

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Tulley, don't

3 forget to put this one on mute. Last time.

4

MR. TULLEY: I won't, yes, I won't forget.

5

THE COURT: Okay.

6

MR. HIGHTOWER: So, you want me to hang up and

7 call back?

8

THE COURT: Yes, call Mr. Tulley and then call

9 us back, please.

10

MR. HIGHTOWER: Okay.

11

MR. TULLEY: Your Honor.

12

THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Tulley.

13

MR. TULLEY: I'm waiting for the call. But Mr.

14 Copeland could email the, email me the records so I could

15 take a look at them, that'd be helpful.

16

THE COURT: He's not going to email you

17 somebody else's record. I've asked him to, I've asked

18 him to --

19

MR. TULLEY: Well.

20

THE COURT: I mean, that's.

21

MR. TULLEY: Well, if there's some, if there's

22 a document that's being used in Court for

23 representations, usually, all sides involved get a chance

24 to look at it. I can be under a protective order, oral

25 protective order not to disclose it.

23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 25 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1

THE COURT: I mean, I can have him send you a

2 redacted one thereafter if you want. But I'm not going

3 to, or we're actually going to have to look. I'll, I'll

4 reach out to whoever his cell mate's attorney is to have

5 representations. It's one thing for me to order them to

6 turn over your own client's record, medical records.

7 With respect to, I'm fine to ask on the record about the

8 days. Especially because they are not being, the

9 person's not being identified in the record. But I'm not

10 going to order any without his attorney being able to

11 weigh in on it, his medical records to be turned over to

12 a third party.

13

MR. TULLEY: All right, so, we'll try to figure

14 out who is, you know, we'll ask for a redacted copy after

15 the hearing or we'll figure out who is attorney is then.

16

THE COURT: That's fine.

17

MR. TULLEY: Okay.

18

THE DEPUTY CLERK: Your Honor, while we wait, I

19 had a question. Earlier, the hearing earlier this

20 morning was sealed. Will be sealing this person's

21 hearing as well?

22

THE COURT: Mr. Tulley, are you asking for this

23 portion to be sealed as well? Mr. Tulley is not with us.

24 Yes, I am actually going to order it to be sealed.

25

THE DEPUTY CLERK: Okay.

24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 26 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1

MR. COPELAND: Your Honor, we come prepare when

2 Mr. Tulley returns.

3

THE COURT: Thank you.

4

MR. TULLEY: And I'm back, Your Honor.

5

THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Do we have Mr.

6 Hightower back?

7

MR. TULLEY: I don't think he's back yet, but I

8 just got off the phone with him a moment ago.

9

THE COURT: While I'm waiting for Mr.

10 Hightower, I've received -- in James Cooper, 2019 CMD

11 7702 the order. I approved that. Do we have Mr.

12 Hightower back?

13

MR. HIGHTOWER: Yes, I'm here.

14

THE COURT: Oh, thank you. All right, yes, I’m

15 sorry, Mr. Copeland, could you proceed please?

16

MR. COPELAND: Sure, the other, the other

17 resident which tested, tested positive on April 10th.

18 And so, and there are no separate -- but there is and it

19 seems to be April 17th. But he was not discharged from

20 the installation until the 23rd. The last recorded

21 symptom on the record is on is a misdemeanor.

22

MR. TULLEY: Your Honor, may I?

23

THE COURT: Yes.

24

MR. TULLEY: Well, now, that we've actually

25 looked at the records, it apparently, they've not

25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 27 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 conformed with what Mr. Copeland had said earlier. Which

2 I guess I shouldn't be surprised then. When he said it

3 was always four to five days, but the last symptom was on

4 the 20th and he actually was, according to Mr. Hightower,

5 brought back to the cell yesterday, which is the 22nd.

6 That's only two days in between, not four days, not five

7 days, not an extra day more than the CDC recommends.

8

And while Mr. Hightower, when he called me, we

9 had a chance to talk to his cell mate, who has not been

10 tested a second time. And who says he still has the

11 following symptoms, headaches, sore throat and loss his

12 sense of smell. Given those facts and not just

13 representations that turn out to be incorrect when we

14 look at the records, I reiterate my request to have Mr.

15 Hightower moved from out of that cell to a single cell

16 that is professionally or properly cleaned.

17

THE COURT: Mr. Copeland. I mean, Mr.

18 Copeland, based on, based on your representation then,

19 it's three days after, not on the third day after. So,

20 even I, putting aside what Mr. Tulley just said. If that

21 is the case, that's not compliant with the CDC recs.

22 Right? And so, in light of that what is your position

23 with respect to the request being made to, I would say a

24 different cell? It doesn't necessarily need to be a

25 single cell, but a different cell.

26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 28 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1

MR. COPELAND: Well, Your Honor, I think that

2 the, it sounds what the Court is ordering then, of

3 course, we would see were unsolvable. I think if the

4 Court, if you think there's an issue herein terms of, in

5 terms of the Department, there's, on the one hand we have

6 given the process of leave related to when people are

7 seen, when people are answering specific calls, brings us

8 back to the back side, in terms of who and what we can

9 see. And yet, in this context, if the Court is then

10 asked to, you know, issue findings that more may not.

11 And so, I, I, if the Court is ordering us to place him in

12 a cell alone, then, yes, we would do that.

13

THE COURT: I'm ordering not, I'm ordering you

14 not to place him with a person who was returned on the

15 23rd, when his last symptoms were on the 20th. That's

16 what I want.

17

MR. COPELAND: Okay.

18

THE COURT: And I'm ordering that --

19

MR. COPELAND: Well, Your Honor, he's going to

20 be tested. But I, I, I, in fact, I don't know whether

21 it's more aggressive, but it seems to me that the medical

22 decision in the absence of clinical information is not.

23

THE COURT: Mr. Copeland, did you hear what,

24 did you hear what I said? So, at the beginning of this

25 hearing, this is why I went back and revisited this.

27

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 29 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 What I said was I want to make a finding about whether or

2 not in the past there have been self-reported symptoms.

3 There are, the CDC has given guidance with respect to

4 when testing should take place. I mean, that's the CDC

5 guidance. I'm not making medical decisions.

6

So, for instance, yesterday, when there was a,

7 a decision about, you know, using certain medical

8 interventions and whether or not that was appropriate in

9 a specific case, but in a specific diagnosis. I'm not

10 second guessing that. I don't have any problem with

11 that. But what I'm saying is when someone has met the

12 guidelines for CDC testing and has an underlying medical

13 issue, I don't know why DOC is taking the position that

14 the only, I mean, and I understand that you're not taking

15 this position this morning.

16

What I was trying to tell you was that this

17 morning the position that was being taken by the OAG is

18 that the only thing that matters is the twice a day

19 testing. We do twice a day testing and that's

20 sufficient. And what I am saying is that when somebody

21 is self-reporting symptoms of CDC, that the CDC says are

22 symptoms consistent with Covid and that person has been

23 in a cell with someone who has tested positive. That

24 under the CDC guidelines, that seems to suggest testing

25 is appropriate. I'm not, I'm not trying to make up the

28

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 30 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 medical, I'm not trying to be a doctor. I'm just trying

2 to read. And when I read something and it can't tell me

3 why the word shouldn't be efficient that way, I, I have

4 to confess being confused.

5

I'm not trying to start to second guess medical

6 issues. If you want to tell me that the CDC doesn't

7 recommend that, then, then, point me to the point, part

8 of the CDC's guidelines, specifically, for folks in

9 detention. That says that that's not an appropriate time

10 for testing.

11

MR. COPELAND: I'm not trying to confuse, Your

12 Honor.

13

THE COURT: Right, I'm sorry.

14

MR. COPELAND: I was saying I’m not trying to

15 confuse Your Honor, and I apologize if I'm doing so.

16 What I am told by D.C. medical is that the custody comes

17 by the symptom. That is why people are checked twice

18 daily.

19

THE COURT: So, Mr. Copeland, let me stop you.

20 Because I can hear you talking very slowly. I, I, I

21 don't need you to slow down because I understand the

22 words that you are saying. What I am saying is that

23 symptom does not only mean fever. So, when somebody is

24 saying to me in Court that they are reporting I have

25 symptoms. I have a sore throat, which is one of the

29

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 31 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 symptoms that is listed in the CDC. That is why, that is

2 why it is appropriate, since they were with somebody in a

3 cell that was tested for Covid, to test for Covid. You

4 don't have to slow down for me. Because what I was

5 trying to say to you was that you were saying was

6 different from what was being this morning.

7

This morning the question I asked is. If

8 someone is self-reporting symptoms and they have been

9 housed with someone who tested positive, why shouldn't I

10 be testing? Why shouldn't I be ordering a test? Why

11 shouldn't they be testing? And the answer was because we

12 are taking twice a day, temperatures and that's

13 sufficient. A fever is a symptom. It is the dispositive

14 symptom. It's the only symptom.

15

So, I, I just don't believe, you're not saying

16 to me the same thing over and over. That does not seem

17 to address my issue. Especially, when I know doctors are

18 saying he has said he had a symptom and he was with

19 someone who tested positive. Therefore, we should be

20 testing. So, I'm not, I, I don't understand exactly what

21 you're arguing with because they said exactly what I

22 ordered this from.

23

MR. COPELAND: I’m not arguing with Your Honor,

24 and I will make sure that the lawyers who are on this

25 call that I present correct information. And I apologize

30

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 32 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1 this morning that the representation was made that we be

2 on see a fever. We check for symptoms and ask people

3 what their symptoms are.

4

THE COURT: Okay, that's all I, that was the

5 reason that I said that. Because I wanted you to be

6 aware that that representation was made this morning.

7 So, to the extent that is not accurate, you should know

8 that that was the representation that was made.

9

MR. COPELAND: Thank you, Your Honor. I will

10 make sure that does not --

11

THE COURT: Thank you. All right, so.

12

THE DEPUTY CLERK: Your Honor, if I could

13 please.

14

THE COURT: Yes.

15

THE DEPUTY CLERK: If I briefly remind people

16 to mute their lines. I'm hearing a separate conversation

17 at the end.

18

THE COURT: Thank you. Everyone mute your

19 lines. All right, is there anything else then at this

20 point, Mr. Tulley?

21

MR. TULLEY: No, Your Honor, thank you.

22

THE COURT: Anything else Mr. Copeland?

23

MR. COPELAND: No, Your Honor.

24

THE COURT: Anything else on behalf of the

25 Government?

31

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-9 Filed 05/15/20 Page 33 of 33

BS

SEALED TRANSCRIPT

1

MR. AKHTAR: No, Your Honor, thank you.

2

THE COURT: All right, thank you.

√ Digitally signed by Bernadette Smith

ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE I, Bernadette Smith, transcriber, do hereby certify that I have transcribed the proceedings had and the testimony adduced in the case of UNITED STATES V. ROMIEL TYRONE HIGHTOWER, Case No. 2019 CF1 016426 in said Court, on the 23rd day of April 2020. I further certify that the foregoing 31 pages constitute the official transcript of said proceedings as transcribed from audio recording to the best of my ability. In witness whereof, I have hereto subscribed my name, this 1st day of May 2020.

Transcriber

32

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-10 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-10 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF KENARD JOHNSON
1. My name is Kenard Johnson. I am 54 years old. I am currently incarcerated at the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) on unit C2-B (the 50+ block) in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I have hypertension and take medication for hypertension.
3. I began experiencing COVID-19 symptoms around March 24 or 25, 2020.
4. When my symptoms first started, I felt dizzy and weak. I could not eat and tried to lay down and rest to get better. I put in a sick call request, but was not called to medical.
5. A day or two later, before I went to sleep on the evening of March 25, 2020, I was still feeling weak, I had not eaten, and I felt dizzy. I woke up at 2:00 am on what I believe was March 26, 2020, because the stomach pain was unbearable. I was throwing up, had diarrhea, had a headache, and was having cold sweats. My body temperature kept getting warm. I went to medical around 2:00 am when I woke up. When I went to medical, I saw either a PA or a doctor, and she gave me a shot called Phenergan that is used for nausea. I had a temperature of 99.6 degrees. However, at that time, medical told me they would not test anyone for COVID-19 who didn’t have a temperature over 100 degrees. The medical staff sent me back to the unit with Maalox. They did not put me on cell restriction or quarantine.
6. I went back to the medical unit a few hours later on March 26 when the nausea shot was not working. I was still dizzy and too weak to walk on my own, so a correctional officer held me up by my arms while we walked to medical. During this second visit on March 26, medical staff gave me Tylenol, Benadryl, and nausea medication in pill form. I told them I thought I might have COVID, but they did not test for me COVID-19 at that time.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-10 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 6
The nurse that typically hands out the Suboxone in the evening was in the medical unit during this visit, and told the medical provider treating me that I was probably just going through withdrawal from the Suboxone. I told them I had stopped taking Suboxone on my own about 10 days prior so I did not think my symptoms were from withdrawal. However, they sent me back to the unit without any further treating or testing me for COVID-19. I was not put on cell restriction or quarantine. I was too weak to walk back to the unit, so a correctional officer took me back to the unit in a wheelchair.
7. I remained sick for at least a week after my symptoms started. The weekend after I first saw the doctor, I continued to throw up and have diarrhea, and I was still weak and not eating. However, I did not receive any medications over the weekend of March 27-29, 2020. Each time the nurse came to my unit over the weekend, the nurse indicated that she did not have a prescription for my medications. I submitted a very detailed sick call request over that weekend because, as my symptoms progressed, I was very scared that I had COVID.
8. I saw Dr. Nguyen either Monday or Tuesday the following week. Dr. Nguyen gave me more of the same prescriptions. At that time, I still had no appetite. I was weak and in pain. During this visit, Nurse Shelton told me I was weak from not eating and indicated to Dr. Nguyen that my symptoms were from Suboxone withdrawal. Again, I told the medical staff that I did not think my symptoms were from Suboxone withdrawal because I had stopped taking it on my own about 10 days prior to getting sick. However, I was not tested for COVID-19. I was sent back to my unit. I was not on cell restriction or quarantine.
9. I remained sick until the following Thursday or Friday. During that time, I remained dizzy and weak. If I walked 10 yards outside of my cell, I would get dizzy and just go back to my cell. I also had pain in my legs. When I tried to eat, I would throw it back up. The following Thursday was the first time I was able to hold something in my stomach.
10. I was tested for COVID-19 on April 12, 2020. On April 15, 2020, I was told I had tested positive and was taken to C4-A for isolation. I was not given a shower before going into isolation and I took my sheets, mattress, and clothes with me. These were the same sheets and clothing I had been using when I took the COVID test on April 12. While in isolation, I was not given clean clothing or sheets. I went six days without being permitted to shower.
11. On, April 19, 2020, staff took me back to C2-B with no cell restriction. I have underlying health conditions and am older and was therefore concerned about going back to my unit so quickly. They told me they had monitored my blood pressure and I did not have shortness of breath so I was going back to the unit.
12. I went back to C2-B on Sunday, April 19. I took my same sheets, mattress, and clothing with me from isolation to C2-B. My sheets and clothes had still not been washed since I had tested positive for COVID-19. I was not given clean clothes or linens until the following Thursday, April 23, 2020. I had been using the same sheets since April 9, 2020.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-10 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 6
13. Since April 19, the conditions at CTF have not changed.
14. On April 20, 2020, I tried to call my attorney, David Richter. He is a CJA lawyer. Although we were told that the phones on the unit allowed for free legal calls, the phones only went through to PDS and the federal defender. I could not make a call to Mr. Richter, even though he was on my call list.
15. On April 24, 2020, I was called to the case manager’s office. The case manager told me that my attorney had requested a legal call. The case manager remained in the room during the entire legal call.
16. On April 27, 2020, I had a legal call in the case manager’s office. The case manager was sitting right there during the legal call and could hear the conversation. I thought it seemed like an indirect way to make residents not be forthcoming with their attorneys. Mr. Richter was asking about conditions at CTF, and while I do not fear the case managers and was being honest with Mr. Richter, some residents do fear the case managers and would not likely tell their lawyers what conditions are really like in here in front of the case managers.
17. I also had legal calls in the case manager’s office on May 11, 2020, and May 12, 2020. The case manager remained in the room during both of those legal calls, as well. On May 12, the case manager in the room during my legal call was not wearing gloves. The case manager was not wearing eye protection on either May 11 or May 12.
18. Since April 19, no verbal presentations or town hall meetings have occurred addressing COVID-19. While there are posters up about how to wash your hands that have been up throughout the pandemic, there are still guys on the unit who cannot read and the written instructions are not helpful to them. There are no posters up about how to properly clean or how to properly wear or dispose of masks. No new procedures seem to have been put in place since April 19.
19. Since April 19, we have not received any verbal instruction on how to properly clean the unit or our cells. We have not received any instruction or additional information about which chemicals to use for which purpose. We have not received any rags or other materials to clean the unit. The detail unit is still using their own rags made of ripped tshirts and towels to clean the unit.
20. On April 28, 2020, a member of the detail unit on C2-B was cleaning the pull-up bar with a rag that should have been white but was brown. It looked like the rag had been dipped in coffee. The detail member using this rag told me that he washes the rag out himself in his cell using soap in his cell.
21. Two or three weeks ago, officers were occasionally spraying our cells with a yellow chemical that residents are not allowed to use on their own. I believe that the yellow
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-10 Filed 05/15/20 Page 5 of 6
chemical has bleach in it. However, it has been two to three weeks since officers sprayed the yellow chemical in our cells.
22. Since April 19, I have not seen any professional cleaning services at CTF and I have only seen staff cleaning on one occasion, which was limited to staff wiping down surfaces. Staff do not require residents to wipe down the unit phones between uses.
23. At some point in April, residents began receiving a bar of soap per week. Residents in my unit were not receiving a bar of soap per week until April. Ms. Williams, the Health Care Administrator, told me that inmates without soap could wash their hands with just water. Ms. Williams later told me that it did not matter if the soap provided to inmates was antibacterial.
24. Prior to April 19, we were not given any instructions on how to properly wear masks or how to properly dispose of them, and this has not occurred since April 19, either. There is no designated trash or area to throw away used masks on the unit. There does not seem to be concern about how or if residents dispose of used masks. Residents are not required or encouraged to obtain clean masks every day or even every week. It is up to residents if they want to get a clean mask.
25. Residents are not required to clean their cells or shower regularly.
26. Since April 19, staff are not consistently enforcing social distancing.
27. On April 23, 2020, eight to ten people on my unit were out at once. Residents were sitting next to each other in the chairs by the TV. People were standing together near the microwave and in line for linen exchange. Staff did not say anything to residents or attempt to make them spread apart that day or any other day that week.
28. On April 27, multiple people were on the phone and at the microwave at once. Staff did not say anything to the residents on that day or any other day that week about separating.
29. To date, the staff are continuing not to enforce social distancing. Residents are still near one another during rec and staff are still failing to make the residents spread apart.
30. About a week ago, on two different days, residents were asking correctional officers in my unit for more time on rec because they were not able to shower, make calls, and do what they needed in the one-hour time allotted. Two different correctional officers on two different days replied that we are locked in because we, the inmates, had filed a lawsuit whining and crying about the fact that they do not give us cleaning supplies.
I, Rachel Cicurel, certify that I have read the foregoing to Kenard Johnson and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 12th, 2020.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-10 Filed 05/15/20 Page 6 of 6 Executed on May 12th, 2020. _________________________ Rachel Cicurel Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-11 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-11 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF ERIC COOPER
1. My name is Eric Cooper. I am 26 years old. I am currently incarcerated at the D.C. Jail’s Central Detention Facility on the Northwest 2 unit in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I have been diagnosed with asthma for many years and am currently prescribed Albuterol and Advair. I also have a mental health condition for which I receive medication.
3. In the middle of March I began feeling sick. I was coughing frequently and sneezing often. I was also having chest pains and difficulty breathing.
4. On March 15th, 2020, I was diagnosed with an “Upper Respiratory Tract Infection, Viral Syndrome.” I was concerned about coronavirus and asked DOC staff whether I could be tested and was told “no.”
5. Over the next two weeks I continued to feel the same symptoms. I put in sick call requests but was not seen by medical again until March 20th, 2020. I was given no new medication besides my asthma prescriptions and over the counter Nasonex. I was getting extremely worried about coronavirus and again asked to be tested but was told “no.”
6. On March 28th, 2020 I was moved into a segregated housing unit, South One. I was placed in a cell by myself. I was in the cell for twenty-three hours a day, and only allowed out for one hour each day. On some days I did not get let out of my cell at all.
7. On March 30th, 2020 I was tested for COVID-19. I was seen by medical for follow up visits on March 31th, 2020 and April 2, 2020. I was told that sick call came for me on April 1, 2020, but I was not there because of court. They did not come back to see me later that day.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-11 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 4
8. On April 4, 2020 I found out that my COVID-19 test was negative. However, I continued to feel sick. I had trouble breathing and was still coughing a lot. I put in multiple sick call requests but nobody came to see me. I did not see any medical personnel again for a couple of weeks. I only got to see someone after I filed a grievance on April 17, 2020 and was not seen for an office visit until April 19, 2020. The only medical staff I saw over those two weeks was for a temperature check on April 18, 2020. That person only checked my temperature but did not do anything else to help me.
9. I do not recall any disturbances on my unit that would have prevented medical staff from seeing patients. I also have never refused a medical visit or a temperature check.
10. I also have a problem with my shoulder, but I am not able to get help or treatment with this problem. I put in about three medical requests for help with my shoulder pain. It took about a week for them to respond. They did not take me to medical but a nurse came to my cell to talk about it. She came back a week later with some Tylenol. I asked for an x-ray because I thought the shoulder might be dislocated, and they told me I could not have an x-ray because of the coronavirus. They said I would have to wait until it is over.
11. Starting in April, I began experiencing severe pain from dental problems. A few days ago the doctor told me that I needed a tooth extracted, but that they cannot do it until the coronavirus problems are over.
12. Before coronavirus, the medical staff would regularly evaluate my asthma to make sure it was not getting worse. They would have me do tests to make sure things were okay. That was done once a month. I think the last time they did this was back in January. I am concerned that my asthma is getting worse and it is not being treated.
13. I am currently housed on NW2. The jail tells me that this is a quarantine unit, but I am not able to self-isolate in my cell. I am not able to there is a second person in my cell. The last person I shared a cell with tested positive of coronavirus. I have to stay in my cell for 23 hours each day. Sometimes I am not let out for my hour of recreation time. Sometimes when they do let me out it is done at 3:00 in the morning so I cannot call my family or attorney.
14. I am responsible for cleaning the inside of my cell. The guards are not passing out cleaning products to clean my cell. The only way to get cleaning products for my cell is to ask the guards when I am let out for rec time. I do not think the product I am given is a disinfectant. I am not given rags or cloths to clean with. I have to rip up old t-shirts or towels to wipe down my cell.
15. I have not been given hand sanitizer. The only way to get hand sanitizer is when I am let out of my cell for rec time. However the hand sanitizer dispenser in my unit is broken. The hand sanitizer dispenser has been broken since mid-April.
16. I am getting soap to wash with less often than before. I are not given soap every week. Last week I ran out of soap and did not get any more soap for about five days.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-11 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 4
17. I have put in three or four requests for new boxers, t-shirts, thermals, and socks but have not been given any new ones. The only way for me to wash my clothes is to do it while in the shower. I have not gotten any new or freshly laundered clothing since February.
18. The water fountain on my unit does not work. The sink in my cell works but the water is disgusting and has a bad smell and flavor. It is often brown or has black spots in it. The guards are only bringing water in the morning or at lunch time. That water runs out quickly and then they do not bring more. I am thirsty all day long.
19. The food I am being given is terrible. I am being given cold food like sandwiches for dinner. This used to be done only at lunch but now it is done at dinner too. I have been given food that smells spoiled and have gone without food because the food I was given was not good enough to eat.
20. I received a letter from my attorney describing a process for making legal calls directly from my unit. However, I do not have access to the phone I need to make these calls. I am only out of my cell for one hour each day, and sometime I go several days without being let out of my cell. When I do get out it is often in the middle of the night or very early in the morning when I cannot reach my family or my attorney. If I am able to make a call from the unit phone, it is not a private, confidential call. Other inmates on the unit and the guards can all hear my half of the conversation.
21. Sometimes the case manager on my unit will come get me from my cell and tell me that I have a legal call. They take me to their office and call my lawyer for me. During these calls there are other people in the room. Both the case manager and the corrections officer on my unit can hear my half of the conversation.
22. I am worried about being able to speak with my lawyer because I have a trial coming up soon. I am unable to have any confidential conversations with my lawyer about my case. My lawyer has body worn camera video that I need to watch but there is no way for me to watch it. I do not feel like I am able to prepare for my trial because I cannot meet with or speak to my attorneys about my case.
I, Katherine Rees, certify that I have read the foregoing to Eric Cooper and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 14, 2020.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 14, 2020.
_________________________ Katherine Rees Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-12 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-12 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF TONY HORNE
1. My name is Tony Horne. I am 38 years old. I am currently incarcerated at CDF on the SW-2 Unit in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I have been diagnosed with hypertension (high blood pressure). I take Norvasc and Hydrochlorothiazide for my hypertension. On April 22, 2020, I tested positive for COVID-19 and I was moved from the SW-2 Unit to the N-2 Unit, which is an isolation unit. I was moved back to SW-2 on the evening of May 5, 2020.
3. I was on N-2 from April 22, 2020 to May 5, 2020. During that time, there were a number of problems on the unit, including the following:
a. The tier had not been properly cleaned;
b. My cell had not been cleaned;
c. The DOC never provided me with a rag or cloth to clean my cell; instead, I was using a makeshift rag made out of sheets.
d. I was not provided with new sheets until May 2, 2020. My old sheets were never washed.
e. DOC provided a single bottle of disinfectant for everyone in the unit, which quickly ran out.
f. I was not allowed to shower for the first five days that I was on N-2, from approximately April 22 to April 27.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-12 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 4
g. There was not hot water in the showers until around April 29, 2020.
h. One day between, April 22, 2020 and April 27, 2020, I woke up and I could not breathe, I was yelling for assistance and waiving my orange shirt through the cell, but no one came to help me;
i. I had not received any hot meals between April 22, 2020 and April 27, 2020.
j. The unit phone is pulled from cell to cell on a string and we were not provided with anything to clean the phone.
k. I was not provided a tablet, a book, or any reading material while in my cell on N2.
l. Correctional officers have indicated that they do not want to enter the unit for fear of catching COVID-19.
m. On May 2, 2020 I was having difficulty breathing. I tried to get the attention of a correction officer for multiple hours. No one walked the unit and no one came to check on me. I submitted an Inmate Grievance Procedure form in reference to this incident.
n. On April 30, 2020, correctional officers sprayed mace in the N-2 Unit, which made it even harder to breathe. After spraying us with mace, the correctional officers did not bring us any dinner.
o. Between April 22, 2020 and May 5, 2020, I reported to the medical staff every day that I was experiencing difficulty breathing; however, it does not appear that my reports were always included in my medical records.
p. When DOC medical staff took my blood pressure reading, they would frequently check my blood pressure multiple times but only write down one reading. On May 4, 2020 and May 5, 2020, the DOC medical staff took my blood pressure reading approximately 5 times each time the DOC medical staff checked on me. I asked the DOC medical staff to record every reading in my medical records and they said the usually only record the lowest reading.
4. As of May 4, 2020, I was still experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 (shortness of breath, loss of smell, muscle pain, and fatigue). However, one of DOC’s medical staff said that they were going to send me back to the general population because they needed the cell for other inmates who had tested positive.
5. On May 5, 2020 I was moved back to SW-2. I asked a nurse if I could be tested again before I was returned to general population. The nurse told me that they would not test me again because they knew the Coronavirus was still in my system for a least 2 more weeks.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-12 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 4
6. I was taking acetaminophen the entire time that I was on N-2. I received a packet containing 12 pills every two days.
7. When I moved from N-2 back to SW-2, I was still experiencing weakness and fatigue and I needed assistance moving my belongings. The Emergency Response Team assisted me.
8. On SW-2 I have not been provided with a rag or other materials to clean my cell. 9. On SW-2, more than 5 people are being let out of their cells at a time. Sometimes more
than 10 people are let out of their cells at one time. 10. Correction officers are not enforcing when people are supposed to be allowed out of their
cells, so some people are not able to come out at all while others are out for multiple hours at a time. 11. When I moved back to SW-2, I was in a single cell for two days. I was told by Sargent Barlow and Lieutenant Beckley at the time I was moved back to SW-2 that I was supposed to be in a single cell for two weeks. I was moved to a two-person cell with another person on May 7, 2020. 12. I am scared and worried about my condition. I do not think DOC is taking actions to protect me. I, Phoebe Mesard, certify that I have read the foregoing to Tony Horne and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 11, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 11, 2020
_________________________ Phoebe Mesard Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-13 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-13 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF DELONTE JOHNSON
1. My name is Delonte Johnson. I am 27 years old. I am currently incarcerated at the CDF on the NE1 unit in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. Although a hand sanitizer dispenser was installed on mu unit on April 19th, there was no sanitizer in the dispenser for a week after its installation.
3. During the period from April 22, 2020 to May 8, 2020 I did not have access to any chemicals to clean my cell.
4. I have been using the same rags over and over to clean my cell. The rags turn brown from the dirt.
5. Every Sunday, before COVID-19 began, cleaning crews used to come around and bleach the cells. No crews have come around to bleach the cells since February or March 2020.
6. I have not been provided with gloves at any point.
7. There are people on my unit who have tested positive for coronavirus.
8. On April 22, 2020 there was one person who was moved to my unit after this person tested positive.
9. A relative of mine was one of the first people at the jail who tested positive for coronavirus. This person returned to my unit on April 22, 2020. This person told me that he was still feeling sick.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-13 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3
10. On April 22, 2020 there were multiple people on my unit displaying symptoms of Covid19 including a lack of taste or smell.
11. There was one person who was removed from my unit and brought to an isolation unit because he had symptoms of COVID-19. This person said he tested positive for COVID19. This person returned to my unit approximately 4 days after this person was removed from my unit.
12. When people on my unit display symptoms, those people are moved to individual cells but remain on my unit until they get their test results back.
13. The people who are in individual cells are not supposed to be let out at the same time as everybody else for recreation time.
14. Multiple times, prior to April 22, 2020, the COs have let everybody out for recreation time at once.
15. Multiple times, prior to April 22, 2020, the COs have let the people who are supposed to be isolated out for recreation time first and then let everybody else out afterward without cleaning the common areas in between.
16. Approximately 4 or 5 people were in individual cells on my unit on May 12, 2020 because of the virus.
17. On May 9, 2020 I was eating food from commissary, from a company called Fish Catch, and I found a bug in my food. The bug was at least an inch long and Lieutenant Goodwin took a photo of the bug. I had the bug in my mouth before realizing what it was. It did not appear that this bug was a bug that could have come from anywhere in the DC region. I had asked to see medical right away. I was not taken to medical until about 24 hours later.
I, Phoebe Mesard, certify that I have read the foregoing to Delonte Johnson and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 12, 2020.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 12, 2020
_________________________ Phoebe Mesard Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-14 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-14 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF ANTHONY ROBERTSON

1. My name is Anthony Robertson. I am 41 years old. I am currently incarcerated at the Central Detention Facility in Washington, D.C., in the NW2 unit. I have been at the jail since February 26th.
2. On April 16th, 2020, a CDF resident that had tested positive for COVID was moved to NW2.  I filed an IGP when he was brought to my unit because I feared for my safety. I did not receive a response to my IGP until April 30th.
3. On April 17th, the CDF resident mentioned above went to the hospital and NW2 was quarantined.
4. On April 18th, COs took our temperatures using both touch and non-touch thermometers.
5. On April 18th, I started experiencing COVID symptoms and reported this to COs.

6. On April 20th, I was given a nasal COVID test.  I was moved to a cell by myself on NW2 after taking the test, but was let out for recreation with everyone else.
7. On April 22nd, I found out I had tested positive for COVID.  That evening, I expressed my concerns to a doctor that was passing by, and the doctor said that I couldn’t be positive because I would have been moved already.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-14 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 4

8. On the morning of April 23rd, I was moved to the isolation unit.

9. On April 23rd, when I got to my isolation cell on N2, it had not been cleaned and was still dirty from the previous person.

10. Between April 23rd and April 28th, I was not able to shower.

11. Between April 23rd and April 28th, sheets and towels were not changed.

12. Between April 23rd and April 28th, two meals were not served.

13. CDF residents have to catch a CO passing by in order to get soap or a new mask. They are not given out consistently.

14. From 8:00PM until the morning, COs do not walk around. During this time we are stuck in our cells without access to water.

15. After a standoff on April 27th, COs said that an inmate detail will be allowed to clean the showers.  I have not seen the showers being cleaned. They are still very dirty.

16. On April 27th, a CDF resident was sprayed with mace after getting into an argument with a CO over toilet paper.  So much mace was sprayed that it affected the whole unit.

17. When deciding to send guys back to their original unit after being in insolation, medical staff goes by the number of days guys have been in isolation, not by symptoms.

18. On May 5th, I was told by a nurse that I would be moved from N2 back to general population because my “time is up” even though I still had a headache and had coughed up blood that morning.

19. From May 11th to May 13th, I called out to every CO that passed by because my migraine symptoms have gotten much worse and I have coughed up blood multiple times within the past couple of weeks.



As of May 13th, those concerns have not been addressed.

I, Omari Lemmie, certify that I have read the foregoing to Anthony Robertson and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 13th, 2020.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 13th, 2020.

2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-14 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 4 ___________________ Omari Lemmie Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-15 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 7
EXHIBIT 14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-15 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF DELONTE INGRAHAM
1. My name is Delonte Ingraham. I am 31 years old. I am currently incarcerated at the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) on the unit D2-B in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I have several heart conditions, including essential hypertension, pulmonary arteriovenous malformation, and left ventricular hypertrophy. I have also been diagnosed with obesity, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder.
3. To date, I have not been tested for COVID-19.
4. I began experiencing flu-like symptoms on March 20, 2020.
5. On March 20, I felt feverish and my body was aching. I had the chills, could not eat, and could not smell. I informed the officer who was working on my unit and she got me on the list to go up to medical. I told medical all of my symptoms and told them I was worried that I had coronavirus because someone on my unit had been quarantined and staff kept moving him on and off the unit. However, medical staff did not test me for COVID-19. Medical staff did not take my temperature either, but told me I did not have a fever. After the visit, they sent me back to my unit. I was not on cell restriction and my unit was not under quarantine.
6. My attorney informed me that my medical records claim that on March 20, I denied any symptoms other than feeling hot. My attorney informed me that March 20 medical records specifically claim that I denied having the chills or joint pain. This is not correct. On March 20, I reported to medical staff that I had the chills and that my body ached, in addition to reporting my other symptoms.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-15 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 7
7. On March 22, 2020, I woke up sick. My head was hurting, I had a cough and shortness of breath, and my body was aching terribly. I could not eat anything, I did not have a sense of smell, and I could not move. I told a correctional officer in the morning, but nothing happened during the day. I was finally called up to medical at 7:00 or 8:00 pm. I told medical about my symptoms and that there were some guys on my unit that I thought had coronavirus. Everyone on my unit was sick. That night, medical took my temperature and told me I did not have a fever. They did a flu test, but they did not test me for COVID-19.
8. Although I was told by medical on March 22 that I did not have a fever, my attorney informed me that my records indicate that I had a fever of 99.8 degrees on March 22.
9. My attorney informed me that my medical records from March 22 state I was given a facemask and was advised on how to protect others from my cough. However, the facemask was only given to me during the visit and was taken away by medical before the visit ended. Medical staff told me that I did not need the mask anymore and said they would throw it away for me. At that time, no residents on the unit had masks, and I was under the impression that residents could not have masks. Additionally, medical staff did not tell me how to protect others from my cough. They said I was fine and that they would check up on me in a few days to see how I was doing. I told medical that I worked in the kitchen. At the end of the visit on March 22, they did not tell me not to work and did not put me on cell restriction or quarantine. My unit was not on quarantine at that time. Medical staff did not give me a mask to work in the kitchen or suggest I wear one.
10. My attorney informed me that my medical records from March 22 state that the medical staff were not concerned that I had COVID-19 because I allegedly lacked any COVID risk factors. This is not true. I have heart conditions including hypertension, pulmonary arteriovenous malformation, and left ventricle hypertrophy, and I have long dealt with obesity. It is my understanding that each of these conditions are risk factors for COVID19. These conditions are all listed in my medical records and prior to the coronavirus pandemic, staff had taken me to Howard Hospital to be treated for my heart conditions.
11. My attorney informed me that my medical records claim I denied having chronic pulmonary disease on March 22. This is also not true. As previously stated, I have several chronic heart conditions.
12. Between March 22 and March 30, 2020, I made three or four written sick call requests.
13. On March 30, 2020, I was called to medical. I still had a cough and the chills. When I was called into medical on March 30, I was seated in a waiting room with David Stevens, another resident on my unit, at around 3:05 pm. While Mr. Stevens and I were waiting, two correctional officers brought a third resident into the same waiting room. That resident was wearing a mask. This was the first time I saw a resident wearing a mask so Mr. Stevens and I were asking the correctional officers about this resident’s status, why he had a mask on, if he was sick, and why they had been saying we could not have masks but then brought a masked resident into the room with us. The correctional officers did not answer us. After a few minutes, the nurses saw this masked resident in the room with us and told the correctional officers to take him down the hall and put him in isolation.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-15 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 7
14. Later that night, I put in a grievance about having been put in the room with someone who was sick. To date, I have not received any information in response to this grievance.
15. Although I was in the waiting room on March 30, I never actually got called in for my medical visit that day. My temperature was not taken, I was not asked about my symptoms, and I was not tested for COVID-19. I was sent back to my unit without meeting with a nurse or doctor.
16. My attorney informed me that my medical records claim that I was surprised to be seen by medical on March 30. I was not surprised to be called for a medical visit on March 30 because I had been putting in sick call requests for a week prior. However, since I was never called out of the waiting room for my medical visit, I never spoke to medical on March 30 to indicate whether I was or was not surprised.
17. My attorney informed me that my March 30 medical records claim I reported feeling well and that all of my prior symptoms had resolved completely. My attorney also informed me that my medical records claim that on March 30, I specifically denied having a fever, the chills, a cough, or any other symptom. None of this is true. As I already stated, I was never called out of the waiting room for a medical visit on March 30. I never spoke to a nurse or doctor about my symptoms on March 30 and never told them that all my symptoms had resolved. To the contrary, I still had a cough and the chills on March 30, which is why I wanted a medical visit.
18. My attorney told me that my medical records claim that I had a low blood pressure reading and a normal temperature on March 30. However, my vitals were not taken on March 30. My temperature was not taken and my blood pressure was not tested.
19. My attorney told me that my medical records from March 30 claim I was wearing a facemask. This is not true. I was not wearing a facemask on March 30; the only resident I saw wearing a facemask on March 30 was the person who the nurses sent to be isolated.
20. Even though I was not seen by a doctor on March 30, the visit was never rescheduled. I made several sick call requests the following week regarding my continuing chest pains.
21. On April 6, 2020, I was called to the medical unit after repeatedly complaining of chest pains. However, no correctional staff ever came to escort me to medical and I was therefore never permitted to go to this visit. The visit was not rescheduled.
22. On April 10, 2020, my unit was put on quarantine. My unit was told that being on quarantine just meant that residents had to wear masks and have their temperatures taken every two hours. Otherwise, we were told that no changes to our movement or schedule would occur as a result of being on quarantine.
23. On April 10, I was seen by a nurse on my unit. I had a cough and shortness of breath, and had been having chest pains for days. Medical staff said they would not test me for COVID-19, and they did not test me. They gave me muscle rub and Tylenol. They did not put me on cell restriction.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-15 Filed 05/15/20 Page 5 of 7
24. During my April 10 medical visit, medical staff said I would be called up to the medical unit to have my temperature taken and my blood pressure read. However, this did not happen. During this visit, medical staff also said I would be getting three days of blood pressure checks. None of these checks happened.
25. My attorney told me that my medical records indicate that I had a second, separate medical visit on April 10 during which I allegedly reported feeling well, seemed asymptomatic, and denied having a cough, fever, chills, or shortness of breath. However, this second visit never happened and none of the information reported from that second visit is accurate.
26. The only other interaction I had with medical staff on April 10 was when our entire unit’s temperatures were taken. My temperature was 93.3 degrees. The nurse recorded this temperature and did not retake it.
27. On April 13, 2020, my temperature was taken as a part of being on a quarantine unit. My temperature was taken as 93.3 degrees. Medical staff did not take it again and moved on.
28. On April 14, 2020, my temperature was around 96 degrees. Medical did not retake it.
29. On April 20, 2020, I put in a second medical grievance regarding the incident in the waiting room on March 30. However, my medical grievance was not picked up that day or anytime that week. The April 20 grievance was not picked up until April 27, 2020. To date, I have not received a response to either my March 30 or April 20 grievances.
30. On April 24, 2020, my temperature was taken as a part of being on a quarantine unit. My temperature read 96.7 degrees. Medical staff wrote this down and did not retake it.
31. Around April 26, 2020, I was experiencing severe chest pains. I put in another sick call request.
32. On April 29, 2020, I was called to medical. I told medical staff that I was having chest pains and shortness of breath. I told them I was coughing and feeling lethargic. The medical staff person remarked that I had been sick the last time medical saw me. She told me that I might have had coronavirus but she did not know. She also told me that my symptoms could be aftermath from having COVID-19, or I could have pulled a muscle in my chest. The nurse said she would order me ibuprofen and call me back in a week. I was not tested for COVID-19. I was not put on cell restriction. Since my unit was no longer on quarantine on April 29, I was sent back into general population after my visit. I was never called back to be checked on.
33. My attorney informed me that my medical records are missing copies of all of my written sick call requests between March 20 and today.
34. On May 2, 2020, I verbally complained to correctional staff that I had the chills. The nurse came to my unit to check my temperature. I was not tested for COVID-19. I have not seen medical staff since this day.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-15 Filed 05/15/20 Page 6 of 7
35. Since April 19, 2020, conditions at CTF have not changed.
36. On April 20, 2020, I tried to get a legal call when Case Manager Stewart came by the unit. I went to Case Manager Stewart’s office and asked for a confidential legal call. Case Manager Stewart told me that since I could call my attorney on the monitored unit phones, he was not allowed to give me a legal call. Case Manager Stewart was not wearing gloves or a mask while I was in his office on April 20.
37. On April 21, 2020, someone from my quarantine unit left the unit to work at the commissary during the day and came back later on. He was wearing a mask, but I am not sure whether or not he wore gloves while he was working outside our quarantined unit.
38. On April 23, 2020, a number of residents were not wearing masks outside their cells. Not all staff made residents wear their masks on rec. On April 23, I did not see any staff wearing eye protection.
39. Since April 19, my unit has not received trainings or information about properly wearing or disposing of masks. There is not a designated place on my unit to dispose of masks.
40. Since April 19, social distancing has not been enforced.
41. On April 20, people were on top of one another to use the phone. More than five people were out of their cells at a time, and no rules were announced regarding social distancing. Correctional staff did not try to separate people or keep residents six feet apart when they were out of their cells, especially when they were talking on the phones.
42. On April 23, while I used the phone, all three phones were being used at once in addition to other residents who were close by at the same time. The phones are only about two feet apart. That same day, a number of people were standing close to one another near the microwave on the unit. Staff did not make or attempt to make the group disperse or separate.
43. On April 27, 2020, five or six people were in the TV room at once and all of the phones were being used at the same time, but staff did not say anything or attempt to enforce social distancing.
44. Since April 19, my unit has not received any instructions on which cleaning chemicals to use on which surfaces. We have not received any rags or sponges. Detail workers still use makeshift rags from ripped t-shirts and towels to clean the unit. My unit has not received rags to clean our cells.
45. Since April 19, I have not seen any staff cleaning the facility. I have not seen any professional cleaning services in the facility. All cleaning has been done by residents. The cleaning since April 19 has continued to be unsupervised.
46. On April 24, 2020, specifically, staff did not supervise detail workers cleaning the unit.
47. On April 27, our unit ran out of cleaning supplies.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-15 Filed 05/15/20 Page 7 of 7
48. On April 28, 2020, one of the toilets on D2-B was fixed after having been broken for approximately two weeks. The broken toilet was on a tier with only two toilets; as such, the residents on that tier had all been sharing a single toilet for about two weeks.
49. On April 24, mail had not been picked up since April 19. 50. To date, mail in my unit has not been picked up since Friday, May 8, 2020. I, Rachel Cicurel, certify that I have read the foregoing to Delonte Ingraham and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 12, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 12, 2020. _________________________ Rachel Cicurel Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-16 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 15
EXHIBIT 15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-16 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-16 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 15

At approximately 10am Inmate

was transported to the Infirmary on a gurnery where he received medical

treatment until the paramedics arrived. At 11:04 am Ambulance 19 entered the facility.

At 11:41am Inmate

was escorted to a local area hospital accompanied by armed Officers Private M.

Ogungbemi and Cpl. N. Oneal.

Inmate

was conscious and responsive when he departed the facility.

No foul play is suspected in this incident.

Records Specialist Mrs. Ahmadu reported that Inmate

is Not a Federal Inmate.

At the time of this notification Inmate

was still at the Hospital receiving treatment.

Notification of this incident was made to Major A. Miles.

Incident Tracking#00572-2020-CDF was assigned to this incident.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-16 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 15
Laretta Johnson Administrative Captain DC Department of Corrections Central Detention Facility Number Two Shift 1901 D. Street S.E. Washington, DC 20003 W: (202) 523-7007 C: (202) 549-6759 email: laretta.johnson@dc.gov
For the latest information on the District Government’s response to COVID-19 (Coronavirus), please visit coronavirus.dc.gov.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-16 Filed 05/15/20 Page 5 of 15
From: Chase, Pam (DOC) <pam.chase@dc.gov> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:40 AM To: Chase, Pam (DOC) <pam.chase@dc.gov> Subject: Re: MHU Outpost - Cri cal Staﬃng Hours
The (6) below listed 24hr staﬀ arrived back to the jail at 9:00am Sgt. Pamela Chase D.C. Department Of Corrections (202) 523-7262

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-16 Filed 05/15/20 Page 6 of 15
Received this informa on from #01 Shi for mandatory relief of staﬀ on various outpost for 24hrs.
24hrs Cpl. H. Okpara Pvt. S. Dixon Cpl. M. Olibrun Pvt. V. Morman Cpl. I. Kamara Cpl. F. Eghan
19hrs Cpl. R. Bynum Cpl. S. Dixon Sgt. Pamela Chase D.C. Department Of Corrections (202) 523-7262
For the latest information on the District Government’s response to COVID-19 (Coronavirus), please visit coronavirus.dc.gov.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-16 Filed 05/15/20 Page 7 of 15
From: Olibrun, Mariane (DOC) <mariane.olibrun@dc.gov> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 5:19 AM To: Ford, Lewis (DOC) <lewis.ford@dc.gov>; Chase, Pam (DOC) <pam.chase@dc.gov>; Talley, Nora (DOC) <nora.talley@dc.gov>; Craig, Delonda (DOC) <delonda.craig@dc.gov>; Landerkin, Kathleenjo (DOC) <Kathleenjo.Landerkin@dc.gov>; Johnson, Lennard (DOC) <lennard.johnson@dc.gov>; Miles, Antuine e M. (DOC) <Antuinette.Miles@dc.gov>; Dorsey, Rhonda (DOC) <Rhonda.Dorsey@dc.gov> Subject: A en on It is illegal to work 24 with a gun/ weapon
Good morning Management, Corporal Olibrun and Corporal Norman have been on Medical Holding Unit post at Washington Hospital Center/ ICU room 3H8 for 25 hours sitting on inmate
that is tested positive for COVID-19. We are still waiting for our reliefs. It is illegal for an officer to work 24 hours straight carrying a conceal weapon. We are tired and exhausted. It is a wrong method to apply for your employees because it puts our health at risk/ danger . Please please send two officers to relieve us as soon as possible because we are very tired and exhausted. I need som rest. Sincerely, Mariane Olibrun Corporal/Correctional Officer DC Department of Corrections Central Detention Facility 1901 D Street Washington, DC 20003

4/27/2020

Case 1:20-cv-008Ha4n9no-Cn LKawKGroDupoMcauilm- Fewn: At t7te0nt-io1n6It is Filleilgealdto0w5or/k1254/w2i0th a gPuan/gweea8ponof 15

For the latest information on the District Government’s response to COVID-19 (Coronavirus), please visit coronavirus.dc.gov.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=7a2ff56da2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1665081918403289180%7Cmsg-f%3A1665081918403289180&simpl=msg-f%3A1665081918403289180&… 2/2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-16 Filed 05/15/20 Page 9 of 15
Ricky.Butler@dc.gov> Date: May 3, 2020 at 2:09:26 PM EDT To: "Johnson, Jannease (DOC)" <jannease.johnson@dc.gov> Subject: Pass 16hr
Good a ernoon Sergeant Johnson, I'm emailing you to inform you that im s ll on post from last night in north one due to a last mine dra . I was supposed to have been gone at 12pm but im s ll here and now its 2:05pm. I need to know what can be done about this and what will be done about it because they are not supposed to keep us pass 16hr. Not to men on I didn't get one single break from either shi at all. Also the sent relief for other units but not us in north one.
For the latest information on the District Government’s response to COVID-19 (Coronavirus), please visit coronavirus.dc.gov.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-16 Filed 05/15/20 Page 10 of 15
From: "Pugh, Antoine (DOC)" <antoine.pugh@dc.gov> Date: May 4, 2020 at 6:31:41 PM EDT To: "Johnson, Jannease (DOC)" <jannease.johnson@dc.gov> Subject: Re: Working off days I was the only officer working in south east 2 from 8pm-11:30pm I then was relieved by Cpl Linder and another officer at 11:30pm. Cpl Mompoy from the command center had to leave the command center and come to my unit and count my unit for the 10pm count and then she left and went back to the command center. Sent from my iPhone
On May 3, 2020, at 10:52 PM, Johnson, Jannease (DOC) <jannease.johnson@dc.gov> wrote: What do you mean you’re the only officer in the unit Sergeant Jannease Johnson Adjustment Board Chairman Executive Secretary FOP/DOC Labor Committee DC Department of Corrections Office: 202-523-7043

5/4/2020

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK DHaoncnounmLaewnGtro7u0p -M1a6il - FFwdil:eWdor0kin5g/1of5f d/a2y0s Page 11 of 15
Cell: 202-436-1952
On May 3, 2020, at 10:41 PM, Pugh, Antoine (DOC) <antoine.pugh@dc.gov> wrote:

I was drafted today for 4hr on the 8pm-8am Shift and I am only one oﬃcer in the unit South East 2
Antoine Pugh, CCS Correctional Officer Number Two Shift D.C. Department of Corrections 1901 D. Street SE, Washington, DC 20003 Office: (202) 523 7231 Cell: (240)217-2016 Antoine.Pugh@dc.gov www.doc.dc.gov
From: Johnson, Jannease (DOC) <jannease.johnson@dc.gov> Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 4:12 PM To: Pugh, Antoine (DOC) <antoine.pugh@dc.gov> Cc: Olubasusi, Benjamin R. (DOC) <benjamin.olubasusi@dc.gov> Subject: Re: Working oﬀ days
Noted
Sergeant Jannease J. Johnson Adjustment Board Chairman DC Department of Corrections Executive Secretary FOP/DOC Labor Committee Phone: 202-230-9635 Office: 202-523-7043 Email: Jannease.Johnson@dc.gov
On May 3, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Pugh, Antoine (DOC) <antoine.pugh@dc.gov> wrote:
Good Evening,
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=7a2ff56da2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1665801223871106611%7Cmsg-f%3A1665801223871106611&simpl=msg-f%3A1665801223871106611&m… 2/3

5/4/2020

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK DHaoncnounmLaewnGtro7u0p -M1a6il - FFwdil:eWdor0kin5g/1of5f d/a2y0s Page 12 of 15
Just now Capt Wilson is calling all the units and telling us we have to come in on one of our oﬀ days and work per the warden. Not to mention they had 8pm-8am shift working pass 12pm today.
Antoine Pugh, CCS Correctional Officer Number Two Shift D.C. Department of Corrections 1901 D. Street SE, Washington, DC 20003 Office: (202) 523 7231 Cell: (240)217-2016 Antoine.Pugh@dc.gov www.doc.dc.gov
For the latest information on the District Government’s response to COVID-19 (Coronavirus), please visit coronavirus.dc.gov.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=7a2ff56da2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1665801223871106611%7Cmsg-f%3A1665801223871106611&simpl=msg-f%3A1665801223871106611&m… 3/3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-16 Filed 05/15/20 Page 13 of 15
Phone: 202-699-2198
From: Olubasusi, Benjamin R. (DOC) Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 5:47 PM To: Booth, Quincy (DOC) <quincy.booth@dc.gov> Cc: Stewart-Ponder, Gitana (DOC) <gitana.stewart-ponder@dc.gov>; Johnson, Lennard (DOC) <lennard.johnson@dc.gov> Subject: Issues at the Jail
Good Evening Director,

5/5/2020

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK DHaoncnounmLaewnGtro7u0p -M1a6il - FFwdil:eIsdsu0es5a/t1th5e/J2a0il Page 14 of 15

It seems that you are not paying a en on to what is happening within your agency. Since introduc ons of the twelve hours (12) shi , Oﬃcers had been stuck at work for up to twenty-seven (27) hours on duty post before been relieved. Yesterday, CPL Salako was stuck on duty post in southwest two for about twenty-two (22) hours without relief before he collapses and passed-out on the ﬂoor of the Unit. He was later rushed out on 911 emergency. Today, oﬃcers that came to work at 7.30 pm yesterday were not relieved un l 3.49 pm this evening. They are also expected to return to work this evening by 7.30 pm.

Deputy Director Pa ern and Deputy Warden Landerkin instructed the shi commanders to call oﬃcers and mandated them to report to work on their oﬀ days. You know this will not be possible; Staﬀ can come to work on their oﬀ days; it must be voluntary, not mandatory.

Can’t you see that the twelve hours shi is not working? Don’t you think maybe we should go back to our Eight hours shi before the jail is empty? At least, let’s talk about it, say by Tuesday, May 6, 2020.

Against the CDC guideline, staﬀ members that are sixty-ﬁve (65) years or older are being called to return to work against their wishes. Contrary to the CDC, Mayor and the City guideline on COVID-19, D.D Pa ern and D.W Landerkin are forcing their opinions and desires on the agency; they care-less if it’s working or not.

Sir, you need to come in now before it’s too late, else our Union will be pushed to act again.

Sincerely
Benjamin Olubasusi Chairman Fraternal Order Of Police DC Department Of Corrections Labor Committee 711 4th Street, NW Washington DC 20001 Phone: 202-699-2198

For the latest information on the District Government’s response to COVID-19 (Coronavirus), please visit coronavirus.dc.gov.
--
Ann-Kathryn So
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=7a2ff56da2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1665862241967145295%7Cmsg-f%3A1665862241967145295&simpl=msg-f%3A1665862241967145295&… 2/3

5/5/2020

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK DHaoncnounmLaewnGtro7u0p -M1a6il - FFwdil:eIsdsu0es5a/t1th5e/J2a0il
HANNON LAW GROUP, LLP 333 8th Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 (202) 745-6888, Direct (202) 232-3704, Facsimile

Page 15 of 15

The informa on contained in this e-mail is intended only for the personal and conﬁden al use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an a orney-client communica on and as such is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby no ﬁed that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemina on, distribu on, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communica on in error, please no fy us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
The informa on contained in this e-mail is intended only for the personal and conﬁden al use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an a orney-client communica on and as such is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby no ﬁed that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemina on, distribu on, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communica on in error, please no fy us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=7a2ff56da2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1665862241967145295%7Cmsg-f%3A1665862241967145295&simpl=msg-f%3A1665862241967145295&… 3/3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-17 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-17 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3
DECLARATION OF JARVIS BURL
I, Jarvis Burl, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Jarvis Burl. I am nineteen years old. I am currently incarcerated at the Central Detention Facility in Washington, D.C., in the North 2 unit. I have been at the jail since March 10, 2020. I am asthmatic.
2. My first placement at CDF was on unit Southwest 3 (SW3). On SW3, I was housed in a two-man cell, occupied by myself and another inmate. In the coming weeks, no fewer than ten inmates on SW3 tested positive for COVID-19.
3. From my cell on SW3, I could hear an inmate in the cell directly above my cell coughing constantly. The inmate in the cell above mine who was coughing ultimately tested positive for COVID-19.
4. The day after I first noticed the inmate above me coughing, I began experiencing chills and fever. A nurse took my temperature, which was recorded at approximately 98 degrees. On Sunday, April 19, I was tested for COVID-19. On Monday, April 20, I learned that the test came back positive for COVID-19.
5. On April 20, I was moved to another unit—North 2 (N2), an isolation unit for inmates who have tested positive for COVID-19.
6. I learned from correctional officers that N2 had not been used to house inmates for years, and the unit was noticeably filthy. There were feces stains on the walls of N2 and in the cell on N2 that I was made to occupy. Correctional officers ordered me to bring my mattress and bedlinens from SW3 to N2. This mattress and these bedlinens were not cleaned or laundered since I first began experiencing COVID-19 symptoms.
7. The slots of each cell are N2 are open. There is no hot water in the sink of my cell on N2. The food brought to N2 is cold and is often served hours after regular mealtimes. Clean laundry is not provided to inmates on N2. Inmates on N2 are not able to leave their cells to shower.
8. In the first four days that I spent on N2, I did not observe anyone—inmates assigned to detail or correctional officers—cleaning anything on N2. I have not been provided any cleaning supplies to clean my cell on N2. I was given one mask upon my arrival to N2, which was not replaced after my first four days on N2.
9. To make a legal call N2, correctional officers move a rolling phone from cell to cell. This rolling phone is not cleaned in between uses by different inmates.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-17 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3
10. Some correctional officers refuse to come near me and other inmates who have tested positive for COVID-19. A female correctional officer ordered me and other inmates to stay away from her and stated, “stay away, y’all got that shit” in a dehumanizing fashion.
11. Multiple calls with my lawyers have been cut short after fifteen minutes when I have things about my case and my health that I need to talk with my attorneys about.
12. I have developed a bad tooth infection in the last three days, my face is swollen, and I have not been provided a sick call slip to request a sick call. I have asked the guards on the unit for a sick call and sick call slips, to just to bring me to medical, they have not done so.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed on the 11th day of May 2020, in Washington, D.C.
________/s/_______________________ Jarvis Burl Correctional Detention Facility 1901 D Street SE Washington, DC 20003 I, Kiran Bhatt, certify that the following was read to Craig Barksdale and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 11, 2020
_____________________________ Kiran Bhatt Investigator for Mr. Burl Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-18 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-18 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849 (CKK)

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF MANNIN QUARLES

1. My name is Mannin Quarles. I am over 18 years old and am competent to make this

declaration.

2. Currently, I am a prisoner in the District of Columbia Central Treatment Facility (CTF). I

reside on Medical Unit 82.

3. I have an Achilles injury that makes it extremely painful for me to walk. The only way I can

do so is to use a walker or a wheelchair.

4. On March 24, 2020, a medical official with D.C Department of Corrections yanked my

walker from my hands, causing me to fall to the ground. The medical provider took the

walker away from me and I have not had access to a walker since.

5. As a result, the only way I have been able to move throughout the tier is by sliding on the

floor on my bottom.

6. The floor is extremely dirty. There is trash on the floor that inmates toss onto the tier through

the food slot in their doors.

7. My current floor is a medical isolation unit.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-18 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 4
8. I was transferred to the unit on March 11, 2020. 9. I did not have any COVID-19 symptoms when I was first transferred to the unit. 10. Around the end of March, DOC began housing people who tested positive for COVID-19 on
my tier. 11. After several weeks of living on the same tier as COVID-19 patients, and sliding on the floor
on which they walked and threw their trash, I started to experience COVID-19 symptoms myself, including loss of taste, smell and fatigue. 12. On or around April 24, 2020, I received a COVID-19 test. 13. The test came back negative; however, because I have symptoms of COVID-19, DOC medical providers informed me that the test was a false negative and that I actually have the virus. 14. In late April 2020, I wanted to make a phone call. An officer rolled the cart to my door and I started to make the call. As I did so, a different officer, Officer Robinson, disconnected the phone. I tried to make the call two more times and she unplugged the phone both times. After doing so, Officer Robinson shouted that the inmates on the tier were “corona motherfuckers,” she called us niggers, and made clear that she blamed us for the risks of contracting the virus that she faced due to her work at DOC. 15. On April 24, 2020, a corrections officer slammed the food slot on my hand, injuring it. I saw a medical provider and requested an x-ray. However, I was not called for an x-ray until May 10 or May 11. When the nurse came to take me to the x-ray, she did not have a wheelchair for me, so I was unable to have my hand examined. I still have not received adequate treatment for my injury. 16. There have been three days when I have not had access to hot water during May 2020.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-18 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 4

17. I have received no cleaning solution since my transfer to the medical unit on March 11, 2020.

18. I have received no rags since my transfer to the medical unit on March 11, 2020.

19. As a result, I do not have resources to adequately clean my cell. I have started using Irish

Spring soap and toothpaste to clean my walls and floor because I don’t know what else to do.

I, Michael Perloff, certify that the following was read to Mannin Quarles and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 14, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: May 14, 2020

/s/ Michael Perloff Michael Perloff American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, D.C. 20005

3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-19 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-19 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF GREGORY TORAN
1. My name is Gregory Toran. I am 37 years old. I am currently incarcerated at the CDF on the unit NE1 in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I have previously been diagnosed with chronic aphasia. I also arrived at the jail with a broken arm. I should be on the medical unit because of these conditions.
3. I had a cast on my broken arm when I arrived at the jail. However, I had to remove it because it became fetid and was having a negative impact on my relationship with my cellmate.
4. Everyone on my unit uses the same phones to make calls. This includes inmates who have tested positive for COVID-19.
5. Everyone on my unit, including those who have tested positive, use the same dirty showers.
6. DOC staff started spraying phones with disinfectant around April 29, 2020, but are not wiping the phones down.
7. Yellow spray used as disinfectant has been irritating people’s skin.
8. DOC staff will not permit me to clean the phone before I use it.
9. I am not provided supplies to clean sinks or toilets. I use soap that I purchased from the commissary as well as toilet paper or an old towel that I ripped up.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-19 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 4
10. On April 22, 2020, I had a seizure in my cell. My cellmate was able to get the attention of DOC staff, who indicated that someone would come to my aid, but no one ever did.
11. I voided my bowels as a result of this seizure. I was not able to shower afterward.
12. I put in a sick call after this seizure but did not see anyone for a few weeks.
13. I also had a seizure on May 5, 2020, my cellmate again got the attention of a DOC staff member, who said that someone from medical would come to my cell, but no one ever did.
14. Yesterday, I went to the medical unit to see someone regarding the seizures. This was the first time I saw a medical professional about both of my seizures.
15. The medical provider told me the seizures were my fault since my levels were low. She indicated that I had not been taking my medication and that is why I had seizures.
16. I have questions regarding medication I am receiving and my general healthcare regimen, however, I am not able to see a doctor regarding this. The medical provider I saw yesterday was not willing to answer these questions.
17. I am unable to wipe and clean myself properly after I use the bathroom due to my broken arm.
18. I did not have cast on my broken arm for three weeks. I got one on May 5, 2020.
19. DOC staff refuse to provide me a plastic bag or other covering for my cast when I shower.
20. DOC staff tried to administer me Tylenol and Motrin, despite their knowledge that I am allergic to them. I would have had a serious allergic reaction had I taken those medications.
21. My cellmate was pepper-sprayed on March 30, 2020. His name is Wayne Jones.
22. Inmates’ temperatures are taken every day, except on weekends. Sometimes DOC staff do not tell inmates what their temperature is.
23. On one occasion, after a nurse took my temperature, I asked her what my name is. She refused to respond. I believe that medical staff are not concerned about accurately recording temperatures but are simply going through the motions.
24. Nurses act as if they do not want to be near inmates.
25. DOC staff started handing out masks around April 28, 2020. Before that, inmates had to steal masks out of the trashcan if they wanted one.
26. Inmates now receive a new mask every couple of days.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-19 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 4
27. Laundry of jumpsuits and personal clothes is supposed to happen every week but it has not been done in three weeks.
28. Informational posters regarding COVID-19 were put up when it first hit the jail. There was not any new information provided until yesterday, when they handed out informational packets about COVID-19.
29. There are no social distancing rules enforced during recreation time. Right now, there are two other inmates on the phone sitting on the bench next to me. Both of them are within six feet of me.
30. I am scared to be around people who may have the virus. I do not think DOC is taking actions to protect me.
31. I am also scared because of my limited ability to protect myself due to my broken arm. I fear that I may be targeted because of the aforementioned medical issues, my bowel issue and fetid cast.
32. I did not receive my seizure medication last night or this morning. I am supposed to get it twice a day.
I, Patrick Kirby, certify that I have read the foregoing to Gregory Toran and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 14, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 14, 2020
_________________________ Patrick J. Kirby Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-20 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-20 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF BRANDON FIGURES-MORMON
1. My name is Brandon Figures-Mormon. I am 25 years old. I am currently incarcerated at the Central Detention Facility on the South-1 unit in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. On or about April 29, 2020, the toilet in my cell flooded. Toilet water was all over the floor of my cell. I put in an IGP.
3. I was not given any cleaning products to clean my cell or the toilet water which was all over it. When the cell flooded I was not given a mop or wash rags to clean it up. I repeatedly asked for cleaning supplies but I didn’t get any.
4. No one came to fix the toilet on April 29. The toilet was filled with urine and feces. I could not flush the toilet because it would overflow again.
5. On April 30, no one came to fix the toilet but the warden came to the unit to do rounds. I told the warden by toilet was broke and showed him the toilet was filled with feces. I left my cell and when I came back around 5:00 PM someone had unclogged the toilet. The water was still running constantly at a low pressure.
6. On the evening of April 30 and morning of May 1 the toilet was constantly running. As a result they cut off all water to my cell on May 1. Until the middle of the week of May 4 the only way I would have water in my cell is if a corrections officer turned the water on.
7. On or about May 1, 2020, an inmate stuck their hand through the slot of the door to the cell. The unit was placed on lockdown. Staff stopped taking people’s temperatures and handing out medication. No one had their temperature taken until the next shift. Inmates missed out on their medication that morning.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-20 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3
8. People in their cells try to get the attention of correctional officers. The correctional officers stay in the bubble or in the front of the unit. The correctional officers ignore people in the cells and do not respond for requests for help.
9. We used to receive legal mail in the envelopes that the lawyer sent it to us in. Now, we only receive the contents of the legal mail and not the contents that it came in. The correctional officers now take the legal out of the envelopes, which means they can potentially read our legal documents.
I, Todd Kowalski, certify that I have read the foregoing to Brandon Figures-Mormon, and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 14, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 14, 2020.
_________________________ Todd J. Kowalski Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-21 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-21 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF JOHN DOE
1. I am currently incarcerated at the Central Detention Facility in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I am currently incarcerated in a Safe Cell where I have been since around March 28, 2020.
3. I am not allowed out of my cell. I am locked inside of my cell 24-hours a day.
4. The lights in my cell are left on 24 hours a day, at full brightness.
5. I do not have access to running water.
6. The only water available in my cell is the water in the toilet. The toilet in my cell does not flush. Feces and other bodily waste remain in the toilet until the Correctional Officers come in to flush it manually. The COs often take several hours (often 2-3 hours) to come in and flush the toilet. There are no chemical agents provided to clean the toilet.
7. I do not have access to toilet paper. I have to ask the COs for toilet paper when I need it and they come and give me toilet paper off of a roll. I do not get the toilet paper as soon as I need it, I have to wait until the guards go retrieve it and bring it back.
8. I have only been allowed to shower twice in the 10 days that I have been in the Safe Cell.
9. The COs do not clean the shower.
10. I am not allowed to make any phone calls to my family.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-21 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 4
11. I am not allowed to call my lawyer whenever I want. I have only spoken to my lawyer twice, including this call.
12. I do not have underwear, socks, or shoes. 13. I have only a dirty smock to wear, which I describe as dingy, smelly, with stains on it. 14. I do not have access to soap. 15. I do not have access to hand sanitizer. 16. I was not provided anything to clean my cell with. 17. The Correctional Officers do not do routine suicide checks on my cell. 18. The mattress in my cell is on a hard plastic block in the middle of the cell. The mattress
itself is dingy, ripped open with foam hanging out, and covered in stains. The mattress is what is known as a Suicide Mattress. 19. I have not been getting my Sunni Muslim meals. I have instead been brought the regular trays from the dining hall which include preservatives and other items that my faith does not allow me to consume. 20. I do not have access to forks or knives so I have to eat with my hands. 21. I had to leave my religious items, including my Koran and prayer rug, in my cell in the North 1 Unit. 22. I do not have access to books or anything to read. 23. The COs do nothing to ensure that I, or any other inmate, wear a face mask.
I, Jeremy Gordon, certify that I have read the foregoing to Kavonte Richardson and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 8, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 11, 2020.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-21 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 4
_________________________ Jeremy Gordon Investigative Specialist Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-22 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-22 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF ELIJAH WARREN
1. My name is Elijah Warren. I am 27 years old. I am currently incarcerated at the Central Detention Facility (CDF) on the NE2 unit in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I work on the cleaning detail on the NE2 unit.
3. I have been on the NE2 unit for approximately 2 and a half months.
4. I began working the cleaning unit on NE2 at the end of March, 2020.
5. My responsibilities as part of the cleaning detail during the COVID-19 pandemic include wiping down things throughout the unit such as phones, tray slots, door knobs, and railings.
6. To wipe these things down I have been provided with an individual spray bottle which I refill from a 2 gallon jug of cleaner.
7. The cleaning product I have been given to continually refill the bottle, is a green liquid labeled “Oasis Pro Laundry Fresh Room Refresher” made by ECOLAB.
8. I was instructed to spray certain areas and items with the cleaner.
9. I was not instructed whether or not to dilute the cleaner.
10. I was not instructed on how much cleaner to use.
11. I was not instructed on how to wipe down surfaces.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-22 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3
12. Sometimes, I am given paper towels to use to wipe down surfaces after spraying. Sometimes instead of paper towels, I am given a rag to wipe down surfaces. The rag appears to be a part of a towel, such as a bath towel, that has been ripped into smaller parts.
13. When I am using a rag to wipe down surfaces, I am only provided one rag and I will use the same rag on multiple surfaces before discarding the rag.
14. Two people who work the cleaning detail with me have tested positive for COVID-19.
15. People who test positive for COVID-19 are removed from my unit and taken to an isolation unit.
16. People who have tested positive and been moved to an isolation unit have returned to my unit in as few as 7 days.
17. Approximately 7 people have tested positive, been removed from my unit, and returned to my unit after approximately one week. This began happening approximately one month ago.
18. I have been asked to clean two cells that were considered contaminated.
19. These are cells that are on my unit where someone was placed while they were waiting for their COVID-19 test results.
20. When the person who was in that cell tested positive and was moved to an isolation unit, I was asked to clean the cell to decontaminate it.
21. When I cleaned the contaminated cells, I was only provided with the cleaner I always use (“Oasis Pro Laundry Fresh Room Refresher”), and the mask and gloves I always wear to clean. I was not provided with any other personal protective equipment or different cleaner.
I, Phoebe Mesard, certify that I have read the foregoing to Elijah Warren and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 14, 2020.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 14, 2020
_________________________ Phoebe Mesard Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-23 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-23 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF RYAN PHILLIP
1. My name is Ryan Phillip. I am 27 years old. I am currently incarcerated at the Central Detention Facility on the Southwest-2 unit in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. We are supposed to be let out of our cells for only one hour a day. That one hour is the time that we have to exercise, call our families, call our lawyers, shower, and clean our cells.
3. We are not always let out of our cells for that one hour every day. When I’m not let out of my cell I can’t call my family, can’t call my lawyer, can’t exercise, can’t clean my cell and can’t shower. A few weeks ago I was not let out of my cell for four days in a row.
4. Since I have not been released from my cell every day, I have been unable to shower every day. There are times when I have had to go three or four days without showering. I remember on April 20, 2020, I had not been able to shower for several days. When I am not able to shower I have to wash myself in my cell.
5. When we are let out of our cells for an hour it is often in the middle of the night. Sometime around the week of April 20 or April 27, 2020, I wanted to call my lawyer. However, I was only being let out of my cell in the early hours of the morning so I could not call my lawyer because of the time.
6. When I am let out of my cell for an hour during the day I cannot get everything done that I need to do and I do not have time to call my lawyer. I have to hope that my lawyer sets up a legal call to speak to me so I can ask my lawyer questions.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-23 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3
7. About three or four week ago, we found out that some people on our unit had tested positive for Covid-19. People were scared because they didn’t know what was going on. They wanted to be able to call their families to tell them they were ok. They wanted to call their lawyers. People were saying they didn’t feel well. They wanted to get to medical to be seen by a doctor. The corrections officers also seemed scared. The corrections officers didn’t let anyone out of their cells. About ten people began to break out of their cells in desperation to get out.
8. The corrections officers don’t seem able to control things. It seems like there are fewer corrections officers than normal. The corrections officers usually just stay in the bubble rather than coming out on the unit. I think the corrections officers are scared of getting the virus if they let people out of their cells.
9. We don’t have enough cleaning supplies to clean our cells. We can use our bars of soap, but it is the same soap we have to use to shower. Sometimes we get a paper towel with some cleaning chemical on it, but this is only enough to clean the slot in our cells doors and not enough to clean the whole cell. The only people who get cleaning supplies are the people who work in the detail unit. If they do you a favor they will give you some cleaning supplies but sometimes I’m not able to clean my cell for weeks.
10. There have been problems with the water on my unit. One time I had to go two days without any water in my cell except the water in the toilet.
11. I have not been able to attend religious services. There has been no Chaplain in the facility since this started and I have not been able to practice my religion.
I, Todd Kowalski, certify that I have read the foregoing to Ryan Phillip and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 14, 2020.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 14, 2020
_________________________ Todd Kowalski Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-24 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-24 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF DAVID RANDOLPH
1. My name is David Randolph. I am 20 years old. I am currently incarcerated at CDF on the unit NE2 in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. Over the last two months, I have been able to shower about twice a week. The last time I took a shower was about two days ago. I shower whenever I am let out of my cell. The last time I was let out of my cell was two days ago. That was also the last time I was able to make a legal call. I am let out of my cell about two days a week. When I am let out of my cell, I am let out of my cell for about an hour.
3. I do not get toilet paper every week. I get toilet paper about once a month. The last time I got toilet paper was about two weeks ago. When I get toilet paper, I get one roll. I have toilet paper right now, but I am close to running out.
4. In March, I began having flu-like symptoms. My chest started feeling tight. I had a hard time breathing. I also started coughing.
5. I have asthma and diabetes. Both of these pre-existing conditions make COVID-19 dangerous for me.
6. I am supposed to get an inhaler for my asthma. Without an inhaler, my chest gets tight. I have trouble breathing. I sometimes cough without my inhaler. My inhaler ran out around April 17th. Between around April 17th and May 1st, I submitted about 10-15 sick slips. These sick slips were about my inhaler and how sick I was feeling. I did not get a response to my sick slips until May 13th, when I received my inhaler.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-24 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3
7. In the middle of April, I had a temperature recorded around 93 degrees. Medical staff did not retake my temperature that day.
8. Since around April 30th, my tonsils have been very swollen. I saw someone in medical about my tonsils on May 9th. They said that I would need to have my tonsils removed eventually, but they said they could not have my tonsils removed right now because of COVID-19. When my tonsils started hurting in April, I would rate that pain as a 4 on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the most pain. Today, I would rate my tonsil pain as a 10. The ibuprofen they gave me is not helping. My tonsils hurt when I eat. I have been skipping meals because it hurts to swallow. I cannot sleep because of the pain. It also hurts to talk. I am almost in tears right now because of how much it hurts to speak. I put in another medical slip because of the pain, but I just received more ibuprofen today.
9. To date, I have still not been tested for COVID-19. Medical staff told me that I do not have COVID-19, but they did not tell me why they do not think I have COVID-19.
I, Katherine Rees, certify that I have read the foregoing to David Randolph and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 14th 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 14th 2020.
_________________________ Katherine Rees Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-26 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-26 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARARION OF CRAIG BARKSDALE
1. My name is Craig Barksdale. I am thirty four years old, I am currently incarcerated at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) on the SE3 unit in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I was detained at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) on February 19, 2019. I was initially detained at CDF but then transferred to CTF on July 17, 2019. I was transferred back to CDF on September 29, 2019 and remain detained at CDF to this day.
3. I have been in the SE3 unit since September 29, 2019.
4. The guards have stopped picking up our mail every day. In April, my attorney, Amanda Rogers, told me she mailed a release of information for me to sign and to mail the signed copy immediately to her. I received the release of information, signed it, and put it in the mailbox immediately. The guards did not come to pick up the mail for several days. In both March and April of 2020, my family told me that they mailed me a package. I did not receive the mail until 3 to 4 weeks later.
5. Since our units were locked down during the pandemic, it is very difficult to get time with our case manager. On or about Monday, May 4th, 2020, I finally saw the case manager in our unit and requested that she change my family call list. We are only allowed a certain number of phone numbers on the list and I needed to get in touch with other family members not included on the list. The case manager refused to make changes to my call list. I have been unable to call those family members because they are not on the call list.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-26 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3
6. I am only allowed 1 hour of recreation time a day. During that time, we need to shower and make phone calls to family members and lawyers. Every other day, they allow one side of the unit out for recreation in the morning around 8 or 9 am and the other side of the unit is released for recreation in the evening. Many times I am getting the evening recreation time at 10 or 11 p.m. I cannot call my lawyer or family members at those late times. I then requested a phone call during regular day hours, and the guards refused to allow me to make phone calls that I could not make in the middle of the night when they gave me my 1 hour of recreation time.
7. During the week of April 27th, 2020, I was sitting in my locked cell and I overheard two guards threatening another inmate to hang up the phone, go into his cell, or the guards would mace him. I overheard the inmate explain to the guards that he was on the phone with his grandmother. The guards continued to threaten him in a loud voice that the inmate would get maced. The inmates on my unit are very peaceful with no incidents. However, the guards continue to threaten inmates with mace for minor inconveniences like finishing up phone calls.
8. The clothes I am wearing on my body today have not been changed or washed in 11 days. I wash my own underwear when I take showers. I hang my underwear in my cell overnight to dry them by the morning. The timing varies greatly when my clothes will be washed.
I, Edward McDermitt, certify that the following was read to Craig Barksdale and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 8, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 6, 2020.
_E__d__w__a__r_d___M__c__D__e_r_m__i_t_t___
Edward McDermitt Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-27 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-27 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF TAVON LUCAS
1. My name is Tavon Lucas. I am nineteen years old. I am currently incarcerated at the Central Detention Facility on the NW 2 unit in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I have been at the Central Detention Facility since October 3, 2019.
3. I was first in the SW2 unit and then transferred to the NW2 unit two months ago.
4. About 5 or 6 weeks ago before we were all put on lockdown for the pandemic, the inmates on NW2 were asking guards to be tested for COVID-19 because we learned that people on our unit were on quarantine. The guards told us that we could not be tested unless we showed symptoms. At no point did any inmate get physical with any guards. The inmates were merely asking to be tested for COVID-19. I went back into my cell, as did many other inmates. Twenty-five to thirty minutes later, I heard the guards come back and realized that guards were using paintball guns and pepper spray against the inmates.
5. On or about April 28, 2020, I was on NW2 and due to the pandemic, we were only allowed out of our cells for one hour to shower, call family, etc. There is one guard, Sgt. Ogu (badge 8489) that was very abusive during inmates’ one hour recreation period. I have seen Sgt. Ogu threaten to mace and, in fact, mace inmates for extremely small issues. On or about April 28, 2020, during my one hour period, I was on the phone with my mother. I was wearing a mask but my mother could not hear me so I pulled down my mask to speak on the phone. Sgt. Ogu walked up to me and threatened to mace me for pulling down my mask.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-27 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 4
6. I have also seen Sgt. Ogu bring out mace when inmates are still in the shower and Sgt. Ogu has decided that the inmates’ one hour recreation period is over. It is very difficult to get a shower within the one hour period because while there are 8 showers, we are only allowed to use 4 of the showers due to social distancing and around 10 people are released at the same time for their recreation hour. At the time that we are released for our one hour period, the inmates on detail are also outside their cells.
7. Because we only get one hour of recreation for showering, calling family, and making sick call requests, it is very stressful to get everything done within that hour, especially when I am worried about getting maced by guards for not moving fast enough or for making mistakes like pulling down my mask so my mother can hear me.
8. After the incident with Sgt. Ogu, I put in two grievances on him. However, guards stopped picking up or signing off on grievances. After I told my attorney that the guards were not picking up grievances, the jail finally responded back to my grievance 10-11 days later.
9. On or about April 28, 2020, I put in a sick call request. I was light-headed in my room and suffering from cold-like symptoms. I was worried that I was coming down with COVID-19. I was never seen by a doctor after I filed my first and second sick call request. After I filed my third sick call request, I finally saw a doctor. The doctor took my vitals and told me I was all right.
10. On or about May 1, 2020, I was on NW2 and guards refused to let people out for their one hour recreation period. As is, guards were giving inmates recreation time around 3 and 4 am to call families. When inmates asked guards why they were not allowed for recreation, the CO’s said they would not allow inmates out for recreation because their shift was over and the other shift had not come in yet. I asked the guards if the jail was on 24-hour lockdown. The CO’s said NW2 was not on 24-hour lockdown but that they were short of staff. I told the CO’s that it wasn’t the residents’ fault, people need to call their families and “we shouldn’t have to sit in our cells while you sit in the bubble.” The bubble is an office in the middle of the unit where CO’s sit. The CO replied “I can’t have that discussion.”
11. Two to three weeks ago, the guards finally gave us a wash rag to clean our cells. The guards have stopped giving us wash rags to clean our cells. I share a cell with another inmate. We are using the same dirty washrag to clean our cells.
I, Edward McDermitt, certify that the foregoing was read to Tavon Lucas and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 12, 2020.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-27 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 4 Executed on May 12, 2020.
_E__d__w__a_r_d___M___c_D__e_r_m___it_t___
Edward McDermitt Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-28 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 27

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-28 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF MARCO MOSELEY
1. My name is Marco Moseley. I am 35 years old. I was incarcerated at the CDF on the unit NW1 in Washington, D.C. I was released into the community on April 30, 2020. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. On April 21, 2020, when I was at the CDF, I tested positive for COVID-19. I was subsequently moved to N2, which is a unit where they are quarantining prisoners.
3. I was not permitted to take a shower until April 24, 2020. When I did, the shower was dirty and I tried to clean it myself before using it. I was given a brush to clean the shower but no disinfectant.
4. The quarantine unit itself was dirty as well. Inmates housed on the unit tried to clean it themselves but did not have proper supplies. Instead, inmates used shampoo they purchased from commissary and rags from their cells.
5. Sometimes DOC staff would say they did not have masks when I asked for one.
6. I never had access to hand sanitizer while at CDF.
7. I did not have a change of sheets for 10 days while on the quarantine unit.
8. I was not provided any soap by the DOC. The only soap I was able to obtain was that which I bought in commissary.
9. On April 27, 2020, corrections officers used mace on an inmate in the quarantine unit who was also positive for COVID-19. On April 30, the day I was released, eight people got maced, including myself. The effect of mace is that it makes you unable to breathe, like you’re trying to catch your breath but you cannot.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-28 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3 10. I was given cold food every day for both meals while on the quarantine unit. I was
supposed to have kosher meals, which should be hot, because of my religion. I, Patrick Kirby, certify that I have read the foregoing to Marco Moseley and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 11, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 14, 2020 _________________________ Patrick J. Kirby Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-29 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 28

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-29 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF PHILLIP JOHNSON
1. On April 29, 2020, I was picked up and I was taken to the courthouse holding cell. I was there for a few hours and then they brought me to DC Jail.
2. I went through R&D. They put me in a holding cell. I waited for a while and then they strip searched me, and gave me new clothes.
3. They had us talk to doctors. The doctor didn’t ask anything about the coronavirus or any questions about who I’d been in contact with. My temperature was never taken.
4. I was placed on S2. I had a cellmate when I first came. He came in at the same time I did. He left and I haven’t had a cellmate since, but some people on my unit have cellmates.
5. Four people are now sick with the virus on my unit. For the people who were cellmates, they moved one person out of the cell and kept the other person here.
6. My cell was not cleaned when I came in. The water wasn’t on and the toilet wasn’t working. We finally got the water on, and that’s when we found out the toilet wasn’t working. They had to move me to another cell.
7. We don’t have any access to hand sanitizer. The only thing they give us to clean our cell is a napkin with some spray on it. No one has come to clean the cell. As far as I can see, common spaces are only being cleaned once a day with spray.
8. On or about May 1, 2020, a person was maced on my unit. I could smell the mace for days. It had me coughing and makes my nose and throat scratchy.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-29 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3 I, Phoebe Mesard, certify that I have read the foregoing to Phillip Johnson and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 14, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 14, 2020 _________________________ Phoebe Mesard Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 20
EXHIBIT 29

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 20
DECLARATION OF VINCENT SCHIRALDI On this 14th day of May, 2020, I hereby declare: 1. My name is Vincent Schiraldi. From 2005 to 2010, I was Director of the District of Columbia’s executive branch juvenile justice agency, the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (“DYRS”). During that time, I closed the District’s antiquated 208-bed youth correctional facility, the Oak Hill Youth Detention Center, and opened and ran two replacement facilities – the Youth Services Center, an 88-bed detention facility, and the New Beginnings Youth Development Center, a 60-bed commitment facility. During my tenure there, we closed our solitary unit entirely and moved toward an approach modeled after the one used in the state of Missouri and favoring the use of rigorous programming, improved staff to youth ratios, de-escalation and youth development training and, when a youth was a danger to staff or other youth, short-term “timeouts.” We also rewrote our mechanical restraints policy to reduce the use of mechanical restraints. The Department did not use pepper spray at all for youth in our care. We also created “D.C. YouthLink” a continuum of regionally-based communityrun services, supports and opportunities for youth in DYRS care, which helped reduce unnecessary confinement of youth in Oak Hill/New Beginnings. 2. From 2010 to 2014, I was Commissioner of New York City’s Department of Probation which supervised approximately 30,000 adults and juveniles sentenced to probation by the city’s courts. During my tenure, we safely reduced probation revocations by 45% and increased early discharges from probation more than five-fold. From 2014 to 2015, I was a Senior Advisor to the New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice. One of my duties at the Mayor’s Office was to work with the New York City Department of Correction, which had recently been sued by the U.S. Department of Justice, to improve conditions for youth ages 16 and 17 in the juvenile unit on Rikers Island. The city 1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 20
expanded programming, trained staff in de-escalation techniques, improved staff-toyouth ratios and eliminated the use of punitive segregation on the juvenile unit. 3. During my time as Director of DYRS, I was a member of, and Regional Coordinator for, the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (“CJCA”), a national membership association comprised of directors or administrators of statewide and county juvenile justice agencies. I was also a member of the Juvenile Justice Leadership Network at Georgetown University where I also served as a lecturer. 4. During my tenure as New York City Probation Commissioner, I was a member of both the New York State Council of Probation Administrators and the American Probation and Parole Association, and I am currently a member of the latter. Both of these associations dealt with best practices and standards for the treatment of court-involved young people, among other things. 5. Since my co-founding of the Columbia Justice Lab, I have established two separate associations of correctional administrators – Executives Transforming Probation and Parole (exitprobationparole.org) and Youth Correctional Leaders for Justice (YCLJ.org). EXiT convenes 85 current and former probation and parole executives, including several from Washington, D.C., seeking to safely and effectively reduce this size and punitiveness of probation and parole and make them more hopeful and helpful. In YCLJ, over 50 current and former youth correctional administrators, including several from Washington, D.C., seek to replace the youth prison model with a more effective approach to youth justice including community programs and supports and small, rehabilitative locked facilities for the few youth who need to be securely placed. 6. Previously, I was founder and executive director of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice from 1991 to 2002 and founder and executive director of the Justice Policy Institute from 2002 to 2005. In both of those positions, I provided technical assistance
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 20
for criminal and juvenile justice systems through government and foundation funding. 7. I started my professional career as a line staff/houseparent working for New York State’s
juvenile correctional agency, the Division for Youth, from 1980-1982. I also served as a foster parent for a delinquent youth in 1989 through the San Francisco Department of Social Services. 8. I am currently the co-founder and co-director of the Columbia University Justice Lab and a Senior Research Scientist at the Columbia School of Social Work. I was previously a Senior Research Fellow directing the Harvard Kennedy School’s Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management (“PCJ”). I have also been an adjunct lecturer teaching graduate and undergraduate courses in juvenile justice at New York University’s Wagner School of Public Administration and Silver School of Social Work and at San Francisco State University. I have additionally co-edited a book entitled Reforming Juvenile Justice. I have published over 40 articles and book chapters pertaining to criminal and juvenile justice during my 40-year career in the justice field. 9. I have testified before the United States Congress and to legislative and administrative bodies in the District of Columbia and numerous states about criminal and juvenile justice matters. 10. I was appointed to the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Inmate Population Management from 1988 to 1990 and was the first President of the San Francisco Juvenile Probation Commission in 1990. As DYRS Director, I was a member of Washington, DC’s Criminal Justice Coordinating Council from 2005-2010. I served on Washington, DC’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Group (2006-2009) and was a member of the Federal Juvenile Justice Advisory Commission of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2007-2008). I was also a member of the National Academies of Sciences Committee on Juvenile Justice Reform Implementation from 2013 to 2014 that
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 5 of 20
produced the book Implementing Juvenile Justice Reform: The Federal Role. 11. I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Social Psychology from the State University of New York
at Binghamton and a Master’s of Social Work from New York University. I have attached a true and correct copy of my Curriculum Vitae to this declaration as Appendix A. 12. Because of my experiences within and knowledge of the District of Columbia criminal justice system as well as other criminal justice systems throughout the country, I have given considerable thought to how the District of Columbia Department of Corrections could downsize the population of the Jail (and the Correctional Treatment Facility) on an emergency basis to a level where the number of staff and of inmates will allow for the implementation of policies that will stop the spread of COVID-19 and reduce potential infection of staff and inmates. 13. An actual downsizing effort would require more information to which I do not currently have access, but below I set forth a general approach that would be modified based on receipt of more detailed and up-to-date information and consultation with key District of Columbia system stakeholders. 14. Downsizing would focus on two groups: First, pre-trial arrestees and detainees, and, second, people serving sentences. An expert would work with relevant agencies to create and implement release policies related to both groups in order to reduce the population so that there is (a) more room to allow for generally greater separation of inmates in the jail and, when necessary, medical separation, and (b) fewer inmates to allow the thinning complement of correctional officers and other staff to adequately implement COVID-19 related policies, as well as secure and provide health care and programming for the reduced population. 15. Regarding pre-trial arrestees, persons accused of misdemeanors that do not involve domestic violence or firearms will not be detained at the jail, preferably by providing them with
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 6 of 20
summonses in lieu of arrest. In the alternative, these individuals will be screened for release prior to any presentment in court following arrest. To the extent that policies to this effect have been established, they should continue. Those who have already been detained in this category will be released. 16. Individuals accused of technical violations of supervised release, parole, or probation will not be detained at the jail. Those who have already been detained in this category will be released. 17. A system will be established with the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia (PSA) to screen for potential release those accused of misdemeanors involving domestic violence or firearms, as well as certain felonies. 18. Utilizing the PSA’s risk assessments, those scoring low risk shall either be unsupervised or limited to weekly telephonic reporting because supervising low risk individuals actually increases recidivism and leads to programmatic failures. Supervising low risk individuals also diverts limited PSA staff from focusing on higher risk individuals. 19. All releasees will receive regular reminders regarding their court appearances. It should be recommended that smart phones capable of receiving electronic reminders be provided to those who do not already have such devices. 20. Regarding sentenced defendants, those serving sentences for technical violations of supervised release, parole, or probation shall be released. 21. Persons serving sentences with 120 days or fewer remaining shall be released. 22. Persons with plea agreements where the parties have agreed to probation or a sentence that would result in 120 days or fewer of additional incarceration will be released. 23. Persons eligible for home confinement, work release, or other forms of furlough shall be released.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 7 of 20
24. It should be recommended that assistance programs be established with D.C. government entities and local non-profit organizations for those who will be released. Individuals should be interviewed prior to release and provided with individualized voluntary assistance to help them with transportation, connect them with local and federal income supports and programs, and to provide other case management supports. For those without a verified address, the District should provide housing resources including, but not limited to, hotels, or through other innovative approaches (for example, the Kinship Reentry program in Manhattan and the Homecoming Project in Oakland).
25. An expert will oversee the implementation of these release mechanisms, monitor outcomes, and report results to the Court on a regular basis.
26. The expert and staff will also monitor all medically vulnerable populations for release who did not meet the criteria under any of the other mechanisms. The expert would provide weekly monitoring reports and recommendations for these individuals.
27. The expert would also work to identify individuals held on detainers from other jurisdictions to ensure swift transfer or release. The expert will work with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) regarding individuals who have been sentenced and are awaiting transfer to BOP custody. The expert would also work with BOP regarding those individuals serving sentences who are eligible for home confinement or placement into Residential Reentry Centers.
28. The expert will need daily updates regarding the entire Department of Corrections’ inmate population and categories of inmates (for example pre-trial, pending sentencing, sentenced, parole violation, etc.). The expert will also need risk level assessments, length of time remaining on sentence, information regarding inmates with medical issues that increase risk to COVID-19, information regarding inmates with mental health issues, etc.
29. The data will inform the development and implementation of the release policies.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 8 of 20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 9 of 20 EXHIBIT A 8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 10 of 20

Vincent N. Schiraldi, MSW
46 S. 2nd St., Brooklyn, NY 11249 vs2637@columbia.edu 347-559-3699

Academic and Nonprofit Experience
Columbia University School of Social Work Co-director, Columbia University Justice Lab Senior Research Scientist/Adjunct Professor, 2017 - Present Co-founded the Justice Lab at Columbia University (with Sociologist Bruce Western) devoted to reducing society’s reliance on the criminal justice system as a solution to social problems through research, writing, teaching, and convening scholars, practitioners, policy makers, advocates and formerly incarcerated people. Projects include reducing the footprint and negative impact of community corrections, eliminating youth prisons, and creating a developmentally appropriate response to offending by young adults.

Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government
Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management
Senior Research Fellow, 2015 – 2017
Jointly with Academic Chair Bruce Western, directed the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management for one of the nation’s premier government academic institutions, the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Areas of focus included Community Corrections, Mass Incarceration, Young Adult Justice, and Juvenile Justice. Program has approximately doubled in size and budget during my tenure. Recently hosted a series of independent studies and a reading group on young adult justice with graduate students from the Kennedy School, Law School, and School of Education. Co-taught a graduate course in the Harvard Law School on mass incarceration that was cross-listed in Law, Sociology, and at the Kennedy School.

Justice Policy Institute
Founder and Executive Director, Washington, DC – 2002 - 2005
Established and directed a progressive research, public policy, and advocacy organization devoted to reducing society’s reliance on incarceration as a solution to social problems. Research and advocacy focused on, among other topics, racial disparities in America’s incarceration rate, the tradeoff between funding prisons and higher education, the destructive impact of incarcerating juveniles in adult facilities, the failure of “Three Strikes” laws, media coverage of crime, and approaches to reducing mass incarceration. JPI consistently ranked among the top most frequently quoted think tanks in the United States during my tenure. In addition to national research on the impact of mass incarceration, JPI worked collaboratively on criminal/juvenile justice campaigns at the Federal level and in Alabama, California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland and Texas.

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) Founder and Executive Director, Washington, DC and San Francisco, California 1991 - 2002

1 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 11 of 20
Established an innovative private, non-profit criminal/juvenile justice agency that developed alternatives to incarceration, advocated against the mass incarceration of adults and juveniles, and provided mitigation work in death penalty cases. During my tenure, established offices in Hawaii, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Oakland, CA, in addition to anchor offices in San Francisco and Washington, DC.
National Center on Institutions and Alternatives (NCIA) • Western Regional Director, San Francisco, CA 1985 – 1991 • Case Developer, New York, NY 1982 - 1985
Established Western Regional Office of private, non-profit criminal/juvenile justice agency. Grew Western Regional Office from a one-person start-up to a multi-program organization with a reputation for cutting-edge advocacy in opposition to California’s prison boom that successfully separated from NCIA as the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in 1991.
Government Experience
New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice Senior Advisor, 2014 – 2015 Appointed by Mayor Bill de Blasio as Senior Advisor to his Office of Criminal Justice. Developed and promoted policies to improve safety, reduce incarceration and increase fairness in New York City’s criminal justice system. Specific portfolio included improving school safety while reducing unnecessary school arrests and suspensions; reducing incarceration and improving outcomes for young adults in New York’s criminal justice system; reducing the number of adolescents in city jails and improving conditions at Rikers Island; and raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to eighteen.
New York City Department of Probation Commissioner, 2010 – 2014 As an appointee of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, reformed one of the nation’s largest probation departments. Established a substantially less correctional culture for our 1000-staff department that actively supervised 30,000 adults and juveniles. Major accomplishments included passage of watershed “Close to Home” legislation that transferred nearly all of New York City’s youth from abusive state facilities to community-based programs and facilities within the five boroughs; making the Department’s work more community- and evidence-based through the ground-breaking Neighborhood Opportunity Network (NeON) initiative; and substantially reducing failures-to-report and violations of probation. Probation violations dropped by 45% during my tenure with Department boasting the highest completion rate in the state (80% vs. state average of 65%) and a revocation rate one-third the state average. Also raised $30 million during my tenure to focus rehabilitative resources on young men of color under our Department’s supervision.
District of Columbia Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) Director, 2005 – 2010 Directed and reformed the District of Columbia’s newly created, cabinet-level juvenile justice agency under Mayors Anthony Williams and Adrian Fenty. Inherited an agency in crisis that was morphing into a full-fledged department that had had 20 directors in the previous 19 years which was on the cusp of being placed into court receivership due to
2 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 12 of 20
decades of operating in an abusive and unconstitutional manner. Closed the notorious, overcrowded 208-bed Oak Hill Youth Correctional Facility, and replaced it with the state-ofthe-art 60-bed New Beginnings Youth Center and 86-bed Youth Services Center. Established a neighborhood based and community-driven continuum of innovative programs. Incarceration and recidivism rates dropped significantly during my tenure. During my tenure, DYRS was named one of the “Top 50” programs by Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government Innovations Awards program and received the A. L. Carlisle award from the Coalition for Juvenile Justice.
Human Services Agency of San Francisco Foster Parent, 1989 Foster parent for a seriously emotionally disturbed, delinquent youth for a six-week transitional period following his release from San Francisco’s juvenile hall.
New York State Division for Youth Houseparent/Recreation Coordinator, 1980 - 1982 Served initially as a live-in house parent to a state-run group home for seven juvenile delinquent boys. Promoted to recreation coordinator of three homes housing 14 girls and 7 boys.
Additional Experience
Academic Lecturing Columbia School of Social Work, Fall 2018 and Spring 2020 Harvard University Law School, Fall 2016 New York University, Silver School of Social Work, Spring 2013 New York University, Wagner School of Public Service, Fall 2012 Georgetown University, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, 2009-2013 San Francisco State University, 1996 Taught Masters Level Juvenile and Criminal Justice classes in the Harvard Law School, Columbia School of Social Work, NYU Wagner School of Public Service and Silver School of Social Work. Lectured on leadership in certificate program at Georgetown University, which promotes juvenile justice reform through collaborative efforts with key system stakeholders. Taught an undergraduate course on the history of juvenile justice and juvenile justice reform movements at San Francisco State University.
Freelance Commentator 1985 - Present Have published commentary pieces in the New York Times, Washington Post, New York Daily News, Los Angeles Times, Marshall Project, Baltimore Sun, Christian Science Monitor, San Francisco Chronicle, Miami Herald, Philadelphia Inquirer, San Jose Mercury News, Sacramento Bee, Albany Times-Union, National Law Journal, Marshall Project and American City and County, among others. Regular commentator on Washington, DC’s National Public Radio affiliate, WAMU, from 1998 to 2004, Huffington Post, from 2015 to 2017, and Crime Report from 2015 to present.
3 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 13 of 20
Boards and Commissions
• Columbia University Justice Lab Member, Executive Session on the Future of Justice Policy 2018 – present
• Common Justice Board Member, 2017 – present
• Stella Adler Studio Board Member, 2017 – present
• Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government Member, Executive Session on Community Corrections 2013 - 2016
• National Academy of Sciences Committee on Juvenile Justice Reform Implementation 2013 – 2014
• New York State Council of Probation Administrators Member, 2010-2014
• Federal Advisory Commission on Juvenile Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Member 2007-2008
• Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators Board member and Northeast Regional Coordinator – 2005-2010
• Washington, DC Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform Advisor, 2001
• National Criminal Justice Commission, National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, Alexandria, VA Member, 1995 – 1996
• California Commission on the Status of African American Men Advisor, 1992 - 1996
• San Francisco City and County, Juvenile Probation Commission President, 1990 - 1991, Commissioner, 1991 - 1992
• California Blue Ribbon Commission on Inmate Population Management Commissioner, 1988 - 1990
Training, Technical Assistance, Expert Witness
Plaintiffs’ Expert GH vs. Marstiller, 2019 – present Serve as Plaintiffs’ expert in successful Federal litigation filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Florida Legal Services against the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice for conditions of confinement in youth detention.
4 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 14 of 20
Plaintiffs’ Expert McNeil vs. Community Probation Services, LLC, 2019 - present Plaintiffs’ expert in Federal Litigation filed by Civil Rights Corps against a private, forprofit probation provider in Tennessee.
Expert Witness Jacksonville, FL Death Penalty Sentencing – 2018 - 2020 Served as defense witness for Florida vs. James Belcher on subject of the impact of Mr. Belcher’s confinement in Rikers Island as a juvenile during the 1970s.
Plaintiffs’ Expert JJ vs. Litscher – 2017 – 2018 Serve as Plaintiffs’ expert in successful Federal litigation filed by the ACLU of Wisconsin and the Juvenile Law Center against the Wisconsin Department of Corrections for conditions of confinement in a boys and girls’ youth prison.
Research Development Associates Los Angeles County Probation Governance Study – 2017– 2018 Co-principal Investigator on comprehensive evaluation of the Los Angeles County Probation Department. Los Angeles Probation is the nation’s largest department with 6,600 staff and a budget of $840 million.
City University of New York Institute for State and Local Government – 2015- 2017; 2019-present Serve as part of an expert panel to evaluate and advise on probation reforms in 10 separate jurisdictions (2019-present). Served as part of a consulting team assisting the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance to develop a model approach to young, courtinvolved adults in New York City (2015-2017).
California Leadership Academy 2015 – 2016 Served as a member of a consultant panel designing an innovative correctional facility for young adults incarcerated in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Cuyahoga County Technical Assistance Annie E. Casey Foundation Cleveland, Ohio (2002-2003) Worked as part of a team to analyze Cuyahoga County’s (Cleveland), Ohio’s use of secure detention and made recommendations for reform as part of the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative.
State of Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility Study Hawaii, March - July 1988
5 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 15 of 20
At the request of the Hawaii Department of Corrections, the Hawaii Legislature and ACLU National Prison Project, led a team that recommended a model juvenile correctional system designed to assure public safety while reducing the number of youths incarcerated in secure custody. In 1989, the Hawaii Legislature adopted our recommendations, created the Office of Youth Services and closed the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility.
National Institute of Corrections Technical Assistance Reports Sonoma County, California, August 1987 Santa Cruz County, California, June 1987 Through funding from the United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, researched the programs and policies in place in both counties and advised on potential jail population reduction measures.
Publications
• Bradner, K & Schiraldi, V. (2020, March). Racial Inequities in New York Parole Supervision. The Justice Lab, Columbia University.
• Chester, Lael, Sussman, M, Carey, N, and Schiraldi, V. (2019, November). Report to Vermont Legislature on Raise the Age (Act 201). The Justice Lab, Columbia University.
• Siringil Perker, S., Chester, L. and Schiraldi, V. (2019, January). Emerging Adult Justice in Illinois: Towards an Age-Appropriate Approach. The Justice Lab, Columbia University.
• Williams, J., Schiraldi, V. & Bradner, K. (2019, January). The Wisconsin Community Corrections Story. The Justice Lab, Columbia University.
• Matthews, S., Schiraldi, V. & Chester, L. (2018, May). Youth Justice in Europe: Experience of Germany, the Netherlands, and Croatia in Providing Developmentally Appropriate Responses to Emerging Adults in the Criminal Justice System, Justice Evaluation Journal.
• Schiraldi, V. (2018, April). The Pennsylvania Community Corrections Story. The Justice Lab, Columbia University.
• Butts, J. & Schiraldi, V. (2018, March). Recidivism Reconsidered: Preserving the Community Justice Mission of Community Corrections. Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, Harvard Kennedy School.
• Schiraldi, V., et al. (2018, January). Too Big to Succeed: The Impact of the Growth of Community Corrections and What Should be Done About It. The Justice Lab, Columbia University.
• Schiraldi, V. & Arzu, J. Less is More in New York: An Examination of the Impact of
State Parole Violations on Prison and Jail Populations. (2018, January). The Justice Lab,
Columbia University. • National Institute of Justice, Harvard Kennedy School. (2017) Less Is More: How
Reducing Probation Populations Can Improve Outcomes. Cambridge, MA. M. Jacobson, V. Schiraldi, R. Daly, & E. Hotez. • Chester, L. & Schiraldi, V. (2016, December). Public Safety and Emerging Adults in Connecticut: Providing Effective and Developmentally Appropriate Responses for Youth Under Age 21. Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management. Harvard Kennedy School.
6 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 16 of 20
• Schiraldi, V. (2016, Oct.). Confessions of a Failed “HOPE-er,” Criminology and Public Policy, 15(4).
• Greene, J. & Schiraldi, V. (2016, Oct.). Better by Half: The New York City Story of Winning Large Scale Decarceration while Increasing Public Safety, Federal Sentencing Reporter, 29(1).
• National Institute of Justice, Harvard Kennedy School. (2016). The Future of Youth Justice: A Community-Based Alternative to the Youth Prison Model. Cambridge, MA: P. McCarthy, V. Schiraldi, & M. Shark.
• National Institute of Justice, Harvard Kennedy School. (2016). Community Justice Response to Young Offenders. Cambridge, MA: V. Schiraldi, B. Western, & K. Bradner.
• Schiraldi, V. & Western, B. (2015, Fall). Time to Rethink the Age of Adult Court Jurisdiction, Translational Criminology, 9-11.
• Schiraldi, V., Schindler M., & Galliday S. (2011). The End of the Reform School? In F. • Sherman & F. Jacobs (Eds.), Juvenile Justice: Advancing Research, Policy, and
Practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. • Justice Policy Institute. (2004, Aug.). Swing States: Crime, Prisons and the Future of the
Nation. Washington, DC: Schiraldi, V., Lotke, E. & Stromberg, D. • Justice Policy Institute. (2004, July). Still Striking Out: Ten Years of California’s Three
Strikes. Washington, DC: V. Schiraldi, S. Ehlers & J. Ziedenberg. • Justice Policy Institute. (2004, June). Race and Incarceration in Maryland.
Washington, DC: V. Schiraldi & J. Ziedenberg. • Justice Policy Institute. (2004, Mar.). Treatment or Incarceration: National and State
Findings on the Efficacy and Cost Savings of Drug Treatment Versus Imprisonment, Washington, DC: V. Schiraldi, D. McVay & J. Ziedenberg. • Justice Policy Institute. (2003, Nov.). Cost and Benefits? -The Impact of Drug Imprisonment in New Jersey. Washington, DC: V. Schiraldi & J. Ziedenberg. • Justice Policy Institute. (2003, Aug.). Education & Incarceration. Washington, DC: V. Schiraldi, B. Western, & J. Ziedenberg. • Justice Policy Institute. (2003, Apr.). Returning Adult Offenders in DC -A Road Map to Neighborhood Based Reentry. Washington, DC: V. Schiraldi, T. Roche, & J. Ziedenberg. • Justice Policy Institute. (2002, Aug.). Cellblocks or Classrooms? The Funding of Higher Education and Corrections and Its Impact on African American Men. Washington, DC: V. Schiraldi & J. Ziedenberg. • Schiraldi, V. (2002). Prison Population in the United States. In The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. (vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. • Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2002). Workforce and Youth Development – Barriers and Promising Approaches to Workforce and Youth Development for Young Offenders. Baltimore, MD: V. Schiraldi, D. Brown, S. Maxwell, & E. DeJesus. • Justice Policy Institute. (2002, Aug.). Cutting Correctly: Prison Policies in Times of Fiscal Crisis. Washington, DC: V. Schiraldi, & J. Greene. • Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2001). Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform: Reducing Racial Disparities in Juvenile Detention. Baltimore, MD: V. Schiraldi, B. V. Smith, E. Hoytt, & J. Ziedenberg. • Building Blocks for Youth, Youth Law Center. (2001). Off Balance: Youth, Race and Crime in the News. Washington, DC: L. Dorfman & V. Schiraldi. • Schiraldi, V. & Ziedenberg, J. (2001). How Distorted Coverage of Crime Affects Public Policy. In W. Ayers, B. Dohrn, & R. Ayers (Eds.), Zero Tolerance: Resisting the Drive for Punishment in Our Schools. New York, NY: The New Press.
7 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 17 of 20
• Building Blocks for Youth, Youth Law Center. (2001). A Tale of Two Jurisdictions: Youth Crime and Detention Rates in Maryland & the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: V. Schiraldi, M. Males & L. Feldman.
• Justice Policy Institute. (2000). School House Hype – Two Years Later. Washington, DC: V. Schiraldi, K. Brooks & J. Ziedenberg.
• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2000, May). Second Chances: Giving Kids a Chance to Make a Better Choice (OJJDP Bulletin NCJ 181680). Washington, DC: V.
• Schiraldi, et. al. • Justice Policy Institute. (1998). School House Hype – School Shootings and the Real
Risk Kids Face in America. Washington, DC: V. Schiraldi & J. Ziedenberg. • Schiraldi, V. & Soler, M. (1998, Oct.). The Will of the People? The Public’s Opinion of
the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1997, Crime and Delinquency. 44(4). • Schiraldi, V. & Macallair, D. (Eds.). (1997). Reforming Juvenile Justice. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall Hunt. • Justice Policy Institute. (1997, Oct.). The Pods of Elmore County: A Glimpse Behind the
Rhetoric of the Juvenile Crime Bill. Washington, DC: V. Schiraldi & J. Ziedenberg. • Justice Policy Institute. (1997, July). The Risks Juveniles Face when Incarcerated with
Adults. Washington, DC: V. Schiraldi & J. Ziedenberg. • Justice Policy Institute. (1997, Mar.). Striking Out: The Crime Control Impact of Three
Strikes Laws. Washington, DC: V. Schiraldi & T. J. Ambrosio. • Justice Policy Institute. (1997, Mar.). From Classrooms to Cellblocks: Destructive
Policies Eroding DC’s Communities. Washington, DC: V. Schiraldi & T. J. Ambrosio. • Justice Policy Institute. (1997, Feb.). From Classrooms to Cellblocks: A National
Perspective. Washington, DC: V. Schiraldi & T. J. Ambrosio. • Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. (1996, Feb.) Young African Americans and
California’s Criminal Justice System: Five Years Later. San Francisco, CA: V. Schiraldi, S. Kuyper & S. Hewitt. • Schiraldi, V. & Macallair, D. (1996). Framing the Framers: Shaping the Debate on Juvenile Crime in San Francisco. In S. Iyengar & R. Reeves (Eds.). Do the Media Govern? • Politicians, Voters and Reporters in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. • Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. (1994, Oct). Racial Disparities in the Charging of Los Angeles County’s Third “Strike” Cases. San Francisco, CA: V. Schiraldi & M. Godfrey. • Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. (1994, Oct.) Three Strikes: The Unintended Victims. San Francisco, CA: V. Schiraldi, P. Sussman & L. Hyland. • Schiraldi, V. (1994). Corrections and Higher Ed Compete for California Dollars; Corrections Winning. Overcrowded Times: Solving the Prison Problem. • Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. (1991). Parole Violators in California: A Waste of Money, A Waste of Time. San Francisco, CA: V. Schiraldi, A. Costello & R. Garnett. • Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. (1991) Concrete and Crowds: 100,000 Prisoners of the State. San Francisco, CA: V. Schiraldi & R. Garnett. • Schiraldi, V. (1990) The Prison Dilemma: Should We Lock 'Em All Up? The San Francisco Attorney (October/November 1990).
8 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 18 of 20
• National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. (1990). Young African American Men and the Criminal Justice System in California. San Francisco, CA: V. Schiraldi, S. Fry.
• Schiraldi, V. (1990). Hawaii's Juvenile Justice System: A Model for Reform. Federal Probation, (September 1990, pp. 58-62).
Selected Presentations
• New Frontiers in Juvenile Justice: Expanding Juvenile Court Jurisdiction to 18- and 19Year-Olds. (March 2019). Plenary Panel. National Conference of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
• The Wisconsin Community Corrections Story. (February 2019). Milwaukee Criminal Justice Council.
• Too Big to Succeed: Has Community Corrections Grown Beyond Its Useful Capacity? Keynote presentations to the Oregon Justice Reinvestment Summit (February 2019); the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce (January 2019); and the County Chief Adult Probation and Parole Officers Association of Pennsylvania (September 2018).
• Testimony of Vincent N. Schiraldi, on behalf of five former Commissioners of New York City Probation, before the New York State Assembly Standing Committees on Codes, Health, Governmental Operations, and Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. (October 2018).
• Unfinished Business: Changing Cultures/Changing Minds of Juvenile Justice Law Enforcement: What remains to be done to fundamentally alter the ethos, & most impact law enforcement in America’s JJ system. (October 2018). John Jay College of Justice, Center on Media, Crime and Justice.
• The Future of Youth Justice – Moving Away from Youth Prisons, National Conference of State Legislators, September 2017.
• Lessons for Australian Officials from the U.S. Juvenile Justice Experience, at the University of Sydney (Sydney, AU), the University of Queensland (Brisbane, AU), and Jesuit Social Services National Symposium (Melbourne, AU), March 2017.
• How New York City Halved its Incarceration Rate and Reduced Crime, Harvard Club, New York City, December 2016.
• A Community-based Approach to Juvenile Justice, United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, October 2016.
• Creating a Developmentally Appropriate Approach to Young, Court-Involved Adults, National Summit on Preventing Youth Violence, Department of Justice, Baltimore, MD, June 2016.
• Alternatives to Incarcerating Juveniles, Organization of the American States. December 2015.
• Community-based Responses to Young Adults. Columbia University School of Law, Justice Forum. November 2015.
• Forum on Young Adult Justice in the U.S. Justice Department’s Great Hall of Justice (Opening Remarks by Attorney General Loretta Lynch), September 2015.
• What Our Incarceration Policies Tell Us about Ourselves, Keynote, University of Baltimore School of Law, March 2015.
• Young Adults and America’s Criminal Justice System, Bi-partisan Conference on Criminal Justice, Washington, DC, March 2015.
• Young Adult Justice in the US and UK – A Burgeoning Area of Reform, Keynote at Transition to Adulthood Conference, London, England, February 2015.
9 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 19 of 20
• Mass Incarceration in America, Witts University, Johannesburg, South Africa, August 2014.
• Young Adult Justice. Is a “Third Way” Warranted? Organized and moderated panel with Bruce Western and Alice Goffman, Annie E. Casey Foundation Annual Conference, June 2014
• Young Adult Justice, National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Improving the Health, Safety and Well-Being of Young Adults, April 2014.
• Raise the Age, Turn the Page Keynote, John Jay University, November 2013. • Realigning Juvenile Justice – A Safe and Effective Approach to Juvenile Justice Reform,
National Association of Counties Annual Conference, 2012 • Innovative partnerships in community justice – a series of presentations and meetings
with the leadership of the British juvenile justice system and the City of London regarding ways to create community based justice systems. November 2011 • Training on Probation Services for new judges in New York City, 2010 and 2011 • Replicating the Missouri Model –DC’s Experience so far, Wisconsin Legislative Council, Special Committee on High Risk Juvenile Offenders, 2008 • A Road Map for Juvenile Justice Reform, Annie E. Casey Foundation Congressional Briefing/Panel Discussion, Washington, DC, 2008 • Congressional Roundtable on the Youth Promise Act, Congressman Bobby Scott, Chair, House Judiciary Committee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, Washington, DC, 2008 • Using Positive Youth Development to Turn Young Lives Around, Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, 2008 • New Developments in Juvenile Justice Reform, Keynote, University of Richmond, School of Law, 2008 • Using Best Practices to Promote Juvenile Justice Reform, Florida Blueprint Commission on Juvenile Justice, 2007 • Race and Incarceration in Maryland, Maryland House Judiciary Committee – Special Session, January 2004 • Prison Population Growth in America, Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government, January 2002. • Reforming the District of Columbia’s Juvenile Justice System, before the Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform, Washington, DC, 2001 • Coverage of Violent Crime in the News Media, Dartmouth University, December 2001 • National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1999 • Race and the Juvenile Justice System, Keynote, William and Mary School of Law, 1998 • Presentation before Congressional Black Caucus hearings on Violent Juvenile Crime, 1997 • University of Minnesota Law School Judicial Sentencing Training Workshop, 1996 • California Department of Corrections - Leadership Training Institute, 1994 - 1995 • California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association Annual Meeting, 1994 • Western Society of Criminology Annual Meetings (1991, 1993, 1994). Keynoted the 1991 conference during which I received the June Morrison-Tom Gitchoff Founders Award • American Society of Criminology (1991, 1999, 2012, 2015) • American Correctional Association (1988, 1998)
10 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-30 Filed 05/15/20 Page 20 of 20
• Administrative Office of the Courts, Judicial Council (California), 1992 • California Center for Judicial Education and Research (1991, 1992)
Media Appearances
Media appearances include Today Show, CBS’ Early Show, Nightline, CBS Evening News, MacNeil Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, Fox News, British Broadcasting System (Radio and Television), Canadian Broadcasting System (Radio and Television), Cable News Network (CNN), and MSNBC, among others. Print interviews include the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, US News and World Report, Newsweek, Economist, San Francisco Chronicle, Boston Globe, San Francisco Examiner, Philadelphia Inquirer, the Sacramento Bee, the New York Daily News, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, the San Jose Mercury News, the Miami Herald, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Orange County Register, the Oakland Tribune, and the Atlanta Journal Constitution, among others.
Education
Masters in Social Work, New York University, 1983. Bachelor of Arts, Social Psychology, Binghamton University, 1981.
11 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-31 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 30

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-31 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF KENNETH KNIGHT
1. My name is Kenneth Knight. I am 29 years old. I am currently incarcerated at the CDF on the NW2 unit in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. Someone tested positive on my unit the week of April 12, 2020.
3. The person who tested positive was left on my unit, with a cellmate, for 4 days after he tested positive.
4. The cellmate of the person who tested positive was still on the unit as of April 23, 2020 and he had not been isolated from other people on the unit. At some point between April 23, 2020 and May 7, 2020 this person was released from the jail.
5. Sick call slips and Inmate Grievance Procedure forms were not been available on my unit between the dates of April 23, 2020 and May 12, 2020
6. I asked for a sick call a couple of days before April 23, 2020 because I was throwing up multiple times. There were no sick call slips available but I was able to speak to a white shirt who was on my unit. The white shirt said he would tell medical. I was never seen by medical in reference to that sick call.
7. There were no new masks on my unit for two days before April 23, 2020. Between April 23, 2020 and May 7, 2020 I have consistently had to reuse masks for 2 or 3 days at a time.
8. There was no hand sanitizer on my unit as of May 7, 2020.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-31 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3 I, Phoebe Mesard, certify that I have read the foregoing to Kenneth Knight and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 12, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 12, 2020 _________________________ Phoebe Mesard Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 36
EXHIBIT 31

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 36

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

-------------------------X

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

:

:

vs.

:

:

MUSA REZEINE,

:

Defendant.

:

-------------------------X

Case Number: 2017 CF3 1472
April 30, 2020 Washington, DC

The above-entitled action came on for a hearing before the Honorable DANYA DAYSON, Associate Judge, in Courtroom Number 317.

APPEARANCES:
On Behalf of the Government:
GRACE B. RICHARDS, Esquire Assistant United States Attorney
STEPHANIE LITOS, Esquire Assistant Attorney General for the District of Columbia

On behalf of the Defendant:
NANCY E. ALLEN, Esquire Washington, DC

VICKIE CUNNINGHAM Official Court Transcriber

20-01990 202-879-1757

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 36

1

PROCEEDINGS

2

THE COURT: Okay, folks, we're ready to get

3 started. This is in the matter of the United States v.

4 Rezeine, Musa, 2017 CF3 1472.

5

Starting with the Government parties, for the

6 record, please.

7

MS. RICHARDS: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

8 Grace Richards for the United States.

9

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

10

OAG, please --

11

MS. ALLEN: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

12

THE COURT: Oh --

13

MS. ALLEN: I'm sorry. Go ahead --

14

MS. LITOS: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

15 Stephanie Litos for the Office of the Attorney General, on

16 behalf of the Department of Corrections.

17

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

18

Ms. Allen, I'm sorry to cut you off. For the

19 record, please.

20

MS. ALLEN: Oh, no, that's all right.

21

Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nancy Allen, on

22 behalf of Musa Rezeine.

23

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

24

All right. And Mr. Rezeine, if you could just

25 state your name for the record, please.

2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 36

1

MR. REZEINE: All right. Good afternoon, Ms.

2 Dayson. This is Musa Rezeine.

3

THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Rezeine.

4

All right, folks, we are here today on the Rule

5 35 motion. I have received that motion as well as the

6 opposition. I also received correspondence from Ms. Allen

7 this morning, which we can discuss in just a moment.

8

So, if I, if I may, let me just begin. In

9 January 2000 and -- 2018, Mr. Rezeine was found guilty of

10 assault with significant bodily injury, assault with a

11 dangerous weapon, tampering with physical evidence, and

12 possession of contraband in a penal institution; sentenced

13 to 66 months on the top counts of the assault with a

14 dangerous weapon; and the ASPI and with the tampering and

15 possession charges, sentenced to 12 months; the top counts

16 were to run concurrent to each other as well as the 12

17 month counts, which were grouped then to run consecutive

18 to each other.

19

So, Ms. Allen, if I understand your arguments,

20 in addition to the Eighth Amendment arguments, that the

21 conditions at the Jail and Mr. Rezeine's continued

22 confinement at the Jail are in contravention of the Eighth

23 Amendment, which I'll address separately.

24

But my understanding is, with regard to the Rule

25 35 motion, that despite the seriousness perhaps of the

3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 5 of 36

1 charges, that Mr. Rezeine should nonetheless be released

2 because there were no serious injuries sustained by the

3 complaining witness, that he has served a substantial

4 amount of time, and that he has a relatively minimal

5 history.

6

In sum, my understanding of the Rule 35,

7 separate and apart from the Eight Amendment arguments, are

8 that the three years that he has served, or the time that

9 he has served already, plus the threat to his health,

10 satisfy all the justifications of sentencing; is, is that

11 about the sum of it?

12

And before I ask you to answer that, I should

13 just say, to the extent -- I don't really think anyone's

14 argued the time limits vigorously, or at all. But I

15 would, I would just say that I do believe that for various

16 reasons the -- not the least of which, I think, as Ms.

17 Allen argues, that even -- that this is a timely Rule 35

18 because of the procedural posture. Even if it were not, I

19 would note that the time limits in Rule 35 are not

20 jurisdictional. So I do think it's appropriate to address

21 these issues on the merits.

22

So, could I hear from Ms. Allen; have I

23 accurately summed up your, your position?

24

MS. ALLEN: I, I think that's right, Your Honor.

25 The -- just noting what is different now than at the time

4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 6 of 36

1 of sentencing, two things. Obviously, the, the danger of

2 COVID in the, the Jail and in the BOP; wherever is Rezeine

3 is held, obviously, he did get the disease, he was in the

4 hospital for four days as a result. And also, the fact

5 that at the time of sentencing, I think the Court had a, a

6 different sense of the injuries sustained by the

7 complainant that have been subsequently shown to the Court

8 through our 23.110 motion; and specifically, the, the

9 medical records from the Jail and the affidavit from Dr.

10 Templeton.

11

THE COURT: Okay. All right, thank you.

12

And then, Ms. Richards, again, just to sum up

13 the Government's position as I understand it; you can

14 certainly supplement that, if you wish. But my understand

15 -- standing of the Government's argument is that in light

16 of the charges and Mr. Rezeine's criminal history,

17 basically, the nature of the charges, striking another

18 inmate or another detainee -- excuse me -- from behind,

19 and -- just one moment -- and the fact that it took place

20 in a penal institution; for all of those reasons, that

21 this was an appropriate sentence.

22

Is that correct?

23

MS. RICHARDS: Yes, Your Honor. The

24 Government's position is that the Government certainly

25 takes into account the seriousness of COVID-19; but, it

5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 7 of 36

1 does not outweigh the considerations of what happened in

2 this case and the defendant's criminal history;

3 particularly, given that he was incarcerated on a CPWL

4 conviction when this -- the offense underlying this case

5 happened. He was actually revoked to -- his probation was

6 revoked. He had been given a previous sentence of

7 probation; it was revoked, and then he committed this

8 offense.

9

The Government would just also note,

10 irrespective of the severity of the injuries, the jury

11 believed that he had a weapon, which is clear through

12 their conviction -- the counts of conviction; the fact

13 that they convicted on the ADW count, for example.

14

And so, this wasn't -- and we would just also

15 note, this wasn't arguably an act of protection, or

16 something like that. This was a pre-planned attack in

17 which the defendant snuck up from behind on the victim and

18 stabbed -- began stabbing the victim while the victim was

19 bent down serving another inmate.

20

And so, those acts combined with the weapons

21 offenses and the inability to do well on probation lead

22 the Government to the conclusion that the COVID-19

23 concerns do not out weight those other concerns. And so,

24 we believe that the original sentence was appropriate.

25

THE COURT: Okay.

6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 8 of 36

1

MS. ALLEN: And Your Honor, could I just respond

2 to one thing?

3

THE COURT: Of course.

4

MS. ALLEN: Much of the Government's opposition

5 to the Rule 35 motion was based on Mr. Rezeine not being

6 particularly vulnerable to the COVID-19 infection, and

7 that -- the Government brought that up several times

8 during the course of its opposition. It was a, a bulk of

9 it's opposition.

10

And I, I think that the, the Government can't

11 really get out from under that when an otherwise healthy

12 27 year old is exposed to the -- such a level of virus in

13 -- while he's incarcerated. It, it just -- it tells us

14 that no one is safe. He, he didn't have any particular

15 condition, that's true, that would make him more

16 vulnerable to it; but, he did end up being acutely ill and

17 spending 4 days in the hospital.

18

THE COURT: Okay.

19

MS. ALLEN: And that was part of the

20 Government's opposition.

21

MS. RICHARDS: And, and the Government

22 recognizes that. And the Government would, would only say

23 that that has been a relevant factor in the calculus,

24 which is seen in the most recent legislation passed by the

25 DC Council where they enumerate factors that include risk

7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 9 of 36

1 to the individual who's being considered for release as

2 well as whether they have any serious medical conditions;

3 their age, factors like.

4

So the Government thinks that's still a relevant

5 consideration although recognizes that illness can happen

6 in other individuals and is -- was sorry to hear about Mr.

7 Rezeine's condition.

8

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

9

Let me just, first, address the issues with

10 respect to the, the Rule 35 separate and apart from the

11 constitutional issues. I'll issue a written order

12 regarding the constitutional issues in this case in so far

13 as I don't believe, and I'll again, as I said, issue a

14 written order that lays out my thinking; but, I don't

15 believe that the appropriate relief under -- for a

16 constitutional claim is release, or immediate release as

17 is requested here.

18

So I want to just treat those two things

19 differently. And obviously, it is a somewhat complicated

20 issue, so I, I -- I'm -- I'd like to set that forth in

21 writing rather than try to go through all of that on the

22 record orally because it is, as I said, I, I think a

23 complicated legal issue.

24

With regard to this matter, I -- I'm just going

25 to note the following. The, the sentence was on the high

8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 10 of 36

1 end of the guidelines; for the assault, I believe it was

2 on the bottom end of the guidelines; for the various --

3 the other groupings, the weapons charges and the tampering

4 charge.

5

I would note that the fact that Mr., Mr. Rezeine

6 was found guilty by a jury of committing this offense.

7 Under the most restrictive conditions, specifically, while

8 he was detained, is, is quite serious and, and a very

9 large factor in my determination of this motion.

10

I'll note that, obviously, the nature of the

11 offense, which, based on the video evidence that was

12 produced at trial, it does not appear to be self defense,

13 or, you know, even imperfect self defense. It's not as if

14 this was a fight that got out of hand. Those -- the video

15 evidence does reflect Mr. Rezeine coming up behind the

16 victim and attacking him while was bent over not engaged

17 with Mr. Rezeine in any way.

18

I, I do recognize that the victim in this case

19 was not badly injured. But, based on the jury's finding

20 there was a dangerous weapon, some sort of sharp device

21 was used and the number of strikes that are reflected; all

22 taking place within a penal institution while Mr. Rezeine

23 was not only pending another case, but was actually

24 serving a sentence for a charge that he had been found

25 guilty of really do speak quite loudly as to the

9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 11 of 36

1 appropriateness of the -- at least the 66 months in this

2 case.

3

I do recognize that it was on the high end of

4 the guidelines for such an assault; but, that was taking

5 into account again the circumstances under which those --

6 that, that attack took place.

7

I would just note that with respect to the

8 record, I would just -- obviously, I can't do this part

9 under seal, so I would -- I, I would, indicate that the

10 record as set for especially on pages 6 and 7 of his PSR;

11 especially, 6 -- on page 6, and his adult conviction for

12 weapons offense and prior assaultive -- albeit misdemeanor

13 assaultive convictions are all concerning and all lead me

14 to the conclusion that that high-end guideline was the

15 appropriate guideline.

16

I'd also note that the, the relief that is

17 specifically sought here, which is a reduction that would

18 suspend the entire -- the entirety of the balance of the

19 sentence, so that -- and sentencing Mr. Rezeine

20 essentially to time served with the balance of his

21 sentence to be suspended is inappropriate, given the fact

22 that Mr. Musa has a conviction for, I believe, a, a

23 violation of conditions of release. He had a revocation

24 of probation in 2018; 2013, obviously, that's more -- old

25 and if it were the only thing, it might not weigh as

10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 12 of 36

1 heavily, but an unsuccessful termination of probation.

2

But all of those things really suggest that Mr.

3 Musa's not an appropriate candidate for community

4 supervision. And so, to the extent that the request is

5 for a reduction in sentence that would result in Mr.

6 Rezeine's immediate release, I do not think that's

7 appropriate.

8

I will say that in revisiting the, the sentence

9 however, I do think -- I had sentenced these as basically

10 consecutive sentences -- not basically, they were

11 consecutive sentences or groups and that was really

12 because of what I at the time considered, I think to be

13 sort of two separate courses or conduct in the assaultive

14 behavior versus the tampering evidence.

15

However, in revisiting that, revisiting that,

16 which is what Rule 35, frankly, envisions, which, you

17 know, a reconsideration, if perhaps there are things that

18 occurred to the sentence, or this time -- it does seem

19 that the time of these things, this is not an obstruction

20 case where there was some sort of rape between the

21 assaultive behavior and the -- in this case, tampering.

22

But my example is obstruction where it gains

23 later some attempts to -- or now is later, it attempts to

24 influence a witness or the like. This is really more

25 disposing of a weapon as part of the assault. And so, for

11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 13 of 36

1 that reason, I am inclined, frankly, to run these all

2 concurrent at this point.

3

That will not, that will not result in Mr.

4 Rezeine's immediate release and I'm aware of that, nor,

5 nor do I think that's necessarily the appropriate result

6 here. But I do think that while that has not been

7 requested, it is -- I have been trying to look at this

8 case very carefully.

9

It is, obviously, quite difficult because Mr.

10 Rezeine has not only contracted COVID, but been

11 hospitalized. And Ms. Allen, as you've indicated, he is

12 -- he has become acutely ill because of that and I'm

13 mindful of that. I'm certainly taking that into account

14 on balance.

15

But, when considering the dangerousness of this

16 offense as well as the criminal history in this case, it

17 simply seems to me that the relief that you are seeking is

18 not the appropriate relief. But I will grant the Rule 35

19 insofar as I'm willing to run these all concurrent rather

20 than consecutive as I originally did.

21

MS. ALLEN: So that --

22

THE COURT: Let me --

23

MS. ALLEN: -- okay.

24

THE COURT: I'm sorry, go ahead.

25

MS. ALLEN: So that the total then, 66 months,

12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 14 of 36

1 rather than the 78 months that was the --

2

THE COURT: That's correct.

3

MS. ALLEN: -- original total, okay.

4

THE COURT: That's correct. And I understand

5 that that's not addressing your main concern with regard

6 to the COVID outbreak. I, I will say that I am mindful of

7 that decision; and frankly, every decision that we are

8 making now --

9

MS. ALLEN: Um-hum.

10

THE COURT: -- is, is really take -- is against

11 the backdrop of understanding increased risk to those who

12 are detained and incarcerated for COVID and not at all

13 ignoring that and -- but trying to balance it out with

14 other concerns regarding public safety as well.

15

Having said all that and, and having made that

16 decision regarding the Rule 35, I do -- I did ask the OAG

17 to join us to day because I wanted to make sure that,

18 given the fact that Mr. Rezeine has contracted COVID and

19 that he has been returned to DC Jail, well, there are a

20 couple things.

21

The first thing is, Ms. Allen, let me address

22 your request regarding the transfer to Hazelton. And as

23 you are aware, I don't have the ability to order BOP

24 placements -- I mean --

25

MS. ALLEN: Right. It, it, it wasn't really a

13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 15 of 36

1 request for transfer to Hazelton. I was just anticipating

2 that the Government might say that Mr. Rezeine would be

3 safer in the BOP facility that's now designated as a

4 quarantine facility, and I --

5

THE COURT: I see.

6

MS. ALLEN: -- disagree with that. And I just

7 sent along the, the, the prison union opposition to that

8 transfer plan --

9

THE COURT: Right.

10

MS. ALLEN: -- so the Court have that

11 information.

12

THE COURT: Okay. I --

13

MS. ALLEN: It was not my -- I don't --

14

THE COURT: If --

15

MS. ALLEN: I don't have a suggestion for how

16 Mr. Rezeine should continue to be held because I, I think

17 that's not -- I don't -- I would -- I'm arguing that he

18 not continue to be held at all.

19

THE COURT: Right. No, I understand that, I

20 understand that. Okay. Well, then I'm sorry I

21 misunderstood the reason for providing that information.

22

Let me then turn to OAG to see if you have this

23 information, and if, if Mr. Rezeine consents to having

24 this information put on the record, Ms. Allen. Obviously,

25 Mr. Rezeine is back from the hospital. He's been

14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 16 of 36

1 discharged.

2

Mr. Rezeine, I'm very glad to hear that and I'm

3 glad to hear that you are back.

4

MR. REZEINE: Thank you.

5

THE COURT: But, obviously, you know, and, and

6 certainly it's that would seem to suggest that the most

7 acute danger has passed, but we also hearing that does not

8 mean that it is -- that Mr. Rezeine's care cannot be, you

9 know, somehow -- I, I think I, I need to hear if Mr.

10 Rezeine is willing to have it put on the record what

11 provisions are being made for his, his care upon his

12 discharge.

13

Is there any objection to that, Ms. Allen?

14

MS. ALLEN: Mr. Rezeine, is it okay if the, the

15 Jail information is, is conveyed to the, to the Court

16 about your condition, medical treatment, what all happened

17 at the Jail?

18

MR. REZEINE: No, you -- it, it can -- I, I

19 don't mind.

20

MS. ALLEN: Okay.

21

THE COURT: Okay, thank you.

22

So if I can hear from the OAG as to what

23 provisions are being made for individuals who are

24 discharged back to the Jail from the hospital.

25

MS. LITOS: Okay, Your Honor. So Mr., Mr.

15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 17 of 36

1 Rezeine is currently at the correctional treatment

2 facility. So he was discharged from Howard University

3 Hospital and transferred to the correctional treatment

4 facility where he's been receiving treatment. And as you

5 noted, he -- the records indicate that he -- his condition

6 has been improving.

7

He will not be released from the central

8 treatment facility until the medical staff, and

9 specifically, doctor, determines that he is -- that he has

10 -- that he meets the CDC guidelines for being released

11 back into the Jail.

12

And then, once he's released back into the Jail,

13 he will be -- that, that determination will be made by the

14 Jail in terms of, like, where exactly he will be located

15 and he will have the same access to calls and everything

16 that, that any other inmate has.

17

THE COURT: Could I just ask a few questions.

18

And Ms. Allen, if you have any questions, I'll

19 -- I'm happy to hear from you as well.

20

When you say that he is being treated now at

21 CTF, what does that consist of?

22

MS. LITOS: So that consists of the -- according

23 to his medical records, it consists of examination, he

24 gets, he gets a daily visit, he's asked his, his medical

25 condition, they check his pulse oximeter -- they use a

16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 18 of 36

1 pulse oximeter to check his breathing, they check blood

2 pressure, pulse rate; his vitals, essentially.

3

They take, they take his temperature twice a day

4 and, and they examine him and make sure the -- that he

5 continues to improve, which every record that I see, every

6 day indicates continued improvement.

7

THE COURT: Okay. And then, the next question I

8 had is when you had indicated he would be released back

9 into general population when it is indicated by the CDC's

10 guidelines, what, if you know, is the DOC's understanding

11 of what the CDC guidelines are as far as someone who's

12 been hospitalized and discharged about when they may

13 be --

14

MS. LITOS: Yeah, it's -- the -- she -- he has

15 to free of fever for at least 72 hours without the use of

16 any fever reducing medication; and his other symptoms,

17 such as cough, shortness of breath, have to be improving;

18 and at least seven days has to pass between -- from the

19 time that he first had symptoms.

20

THE COURT: Okay. All right. And when you say

21 free of fever, do you mean free of fever in any other

22 symptom, or do -- does DOC understand it to be fever only?

23

MS. LITOS: Yeah. So it's free of fever for at

24 least 72 hours without fever reducing medicine and free --

25 and that, and that his other symptoms improve --

17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 19 of 36

1

THE COURT: Okay.

2

MS. LITOS: -- the cough, the shortness of

3 breath, etcetera.

4

THE COURT: Okay.

5

Ms. Allen, do you have any other questions

6 regarding Mr. Rezeine's care, or any other requests

7 regarding that at this time?

8

MS. ALLEN: I, I do. I would like to ask Mr.

9 Rezeine, if, if indeed he is -- about his, his treatment

10 there at CTF, if I can.

11

THE COURT: Okay.

12

MS. ALLEN: So, Mr. Rezeine, are you listening?

13

MR. REZEINE: Yeah, I'm listening, Ms. Allen.

14

MS. ALLEN: Okay. So are you being visited by

15 the doctor everyday?

16

MR. REZEINE: Yeah, I'm -- yeah, they coming to

17 see me.

18

MS. ALLEN: Okay. How many times a day are they

19 coming to see you?

20

MR. REZEINE: Ah, they, the came once today; so,

21 I don't know if they gone come again. So, it's -- every

22 other day it's been two times a day. They told me --

23

MS. ALLEN: Okay.

24

MR. REZEINE: -- that, that -- they told me that

25 by the tomorrow I should be released back to the Jail, if

18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 20 of 36

1 I'm -- tomorrow, if I'm -- tomorrow will be the third day

2 that I'm no fever, no symptoms. So I should be released

3 back to the Jail, they said, tomorrow back to my --

4

MS. ALLEN: Um-hum.

5

MR. REZEINE: -- regular, regular block.

6

MS. ALLEN: Okay. And then, are you having any

7 coughing, or difficulty breathing at this point?

8

MR. REZEINE: Nah, I'm good. I'm, I'm, I'm just

9 happy that I -- that, that I beat the COVID-19 because it

10 really had me down.

11

MS. ALLEN: Okay. Okay. And thank you, Mr.

12 Rezeine.

13

I don't have any questions for Mr. Rezeine right

14 now. But I, I do want to point out to the Court that what

15 happened to him occurred during -- this is -- what

16 happened to him occurred subsequent to Judge

17 Kollar-Kotelly's memorandum opinion and the order that she

18 issued to the DC Jail regarding, you know, cleanliness,

19 sanitation, treatment, response --

20

MR. REZEINE: Yeah.

21

MS. ALLEN: -- to the, to the COVID-19 virus.

22

So it's, it's hard to -- it's difficult to just

23 take the Jail at its, at its word, given that Mr. Rezeine

24 was suffering acutely; but notified people, wasn't taken

25 to, to see anyone medical.

19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 21 of 36

1

They find, you know, on April 23rd -- and this

2 is after Ms. Kollar-Kotelly's opinion issued on the 19th,

3 they find him on the 23rd unable to move, sweating

4 profusely. Three hours later an ambulance takes him to --

5 or, two hours later, actually, an ambulance takes him to

6 Howard University Hospital.

7

There -- there's no notification to his

8 attorney, to his family. They wouldn't even tell his

9 attorney where he was taken and it took a court order and

10 two days for his mother to hear his voice.

11

So it -- it's -- it, it -- given Judge

12 Kollar-Kotelly's order and the, the reality of what

13 happened to Mr. Rezeine, it's difficult to credit the

14 Jail's ability to, to continue to care for him. And I, I

15 don't think there's any indication that just because he's

16 had the disease once he won't get it again.

17

THE COURT: So, if there are specific things

18 that you're asking for, I'm happy to entertain those

19 requests. For instance, if you're asking to be notified,

20 I have ordered and I'm prepared in this case to order

21 that, if Mr. Rezeine falls ill again --

22

And Mr. Rezeine, obviously, I'm hopeful that

23 that does not happen, and Ms. Allen is right,

24 unfortunately, I don't think we know whether or not that's

25 something that's possible or likely. I, I just don't know

20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 22 of 36

1 that there's enough information out there to, to be able

2 to say that that's not something that would happen.

3

But, Ms. Allen, if you're asking to be notified

4 if Mr. Rezeine falls ill again, I'm prepared to order

5 that; that you be proactively notified, not, not just that

6 you be --

7

MR. REZEINE: Can I --

8

THE COURT: Yes.

9

MS. ALLEN: Right, go ahead, Mr. Rezeine.

10

MR. REZEINE: Would I be able to say something

11 -- yeah, like, for, for -- I was, I was, I was complaining

12 for days that I was, that I was feeling ill. And then,

13 when I -- when, when they finally took a test, it's like

14 I, I wasn't, I wasn't allowed to get a shower, I was -- it

15 was, it was just horrible and I, I ain't, I ain't --

16

THE COURT: No, I, I understand the concerns set

17 forth --

18

MR. REZEINE: And when I --

19

THE COURT: -- and I'm certain, Mr. --

20

MR. REZEINE: So, it, it was, like, eight day --

21 my fault, I'm sorry for interrupting.

22

THE COURT: No, go ahead.

23

MR. REZEINE: It was, it was, like, for eight

24 days I didn't, I didn't receive no shower, I didn't get to

25 brush my teeth. Like, when I was in the hospital, they

21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 23 of 36

1 didn't even let me take a shower. I was handcuffed from

2 the hand to the ankle. And I had to use hand -- I, I had

3 to shackled just to use the bathroom in a bed -- in a

4 bedpan. I couldn't brush my teeth, couldn't -- I couldn't

5 take a shower; like, it was horrible, man.

6

And then, in, in the Jail, they -- it's, like,

7 while you -- before, before the, the symptom -- before the

8 test results come back, you're locked in a cell, you're

9 not allowed to come out, no shower, no nothing.

10

THE COURT: So I certainly -- I, I certainly am

11 mindful of how -- and I'm not at all trying to down play

12 what you have been through, Mr. Rezeine. It, it sounds,

13 frankly, horrible. And this is certainly not my -- I, I

14 don't think it's anybody's goal that that's what occurred.

15

I, I will say, Ms. Allen, with respect to Judge

16 Kollar-Kotelly's order, that that is, frankly, the, the

17 1983 action that is being pursued is, I think, the

18 appropriate vehicle to address conditions of confinement,

19 and that's part of the analysis regarding the Eighth

20 Amendment claims.

21

MS. ALLEN: Right, right.

22

THE COURT: And so, to the extent -- to the -- I

23 -- I'm not prepared to sort of duplicate specific orders

24 that are being -- that were set forth -- well, I won't say

25 specific, I won't -- I'm not willing to duplicate the sort

22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 24 of 36

1 of groups of orders.

2

But I will say that to the extent that this has

3 been pled before me and there are ongoing concerns about

4 the specific medical condition that Mr. Rezeine finds

5 himself in, there --

6

MR. REZEINE: May I please --

7

THE COURT: -- there are orders that I'm, I'm

8 willing to enter.

9

Yes.

10

MR. REZEINE: Hey, Ms. Allen and Ms. Dayson,

11 will I be able to -- can I -- would I be able to something

12 too about, about, like, about me being in jail. Can I,

13 can I reflect on, like, I just wanted to make a -- I

14 wanted to say something to Ms. Dayson.

15

THE COURT: Sure. Sure.

16

MS. ALLEN: Mr. Rezeine, I think I --

17

THE COURT: Oh -- well --

18

MS. ALLEN: -- I know where you're going. Can,

19 can we hold off one second, can we hold off --

20

THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry --

21

MR. REZEINE: Yes, ma'am.

22

THE COURT: I'm sorry, Ms. Allen, I should not

23 have -- I should have --

24

MS. ALLEN: That's okay. I, I wanted to, I

25 wanted to address some questions; specifically, regarding

23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 25 of 36

1 where and how Mr. Rezeine will be held at the, the Jail.

2

THE COURT: Okay.

3

MS. ALLEN: My question is one of the things,

4 one of the things that Judge Kollar-Kotelly noted was the

5 air flow between quarantine areas and isolations and, and

6 where healthier inmates were, were housed. And I, I want

7 to know specifically as to Mr. Rezeine, how is, how is

8 that addressed at the Jail; how will he be kept from other

9 people who are, who are sick, or, or symptomatic?

10

MR. REZEINE: Ah, and Ms. Allen, they, they --

11 like, for people that was --

12

MS. ALLEN: No, hang on --

13

THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Rezeine.

14

Could I ask OAG to answer that?

15

MR. REZEINE: Oh, I'm sorry.

16

THE COURT: That's okay.

17

I actually have another hearing that's starting

18 in just a few minutes; so, if I could just ask -- if I

19 could ask anybody who's on the call who's not speaking to

20 please mute your phone.

21

Thank you.

22

If I could hear from the OAG, please.

23

MS. LITOS: Yes. My understanding is that Mr.

24 Rezeine will be -- Hi, this is Stephanie Litos from OAG.

25 My understanding is that --

24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 26 of 36

1

(Pause.)

2

THE COURT: Okay, Yes.

3

MS. LITOS: Yeah --

4

(Pause.)

5

THE COURT: Yes, OAG, sorry.

6

MS. LITOS: This is Stephanie Litos from OAG.

7

My understanding is that Mr. Rezeine will be

8 released back into the general population. He will not be

9 put into an isolation unit. He wouldn't be put into a

10 quarantine unit upon his return. He would be put into a

11 unit that is neither a quarantine, nor an isolation unit.

12

MS. ALLEN: And is there air flow between those

13 units as that was one of the issues in, in the lawsuit,

14 the air flow between the isolation and quarantine units,

15 and the general population?

16

MS. LITOS: I'm not - I don't -- I am not a -- I

17 don't know about the air flow between the units -- I mean,

18 if this is a subject of the class action, then I am sure

19 that the Jail is working to, to rectify any problems and

20 to comply with Judge Kollar-Kotelly's order. I, I can't

21 speak more specifically to air flow concerns other than to

22 say that the, the Department is attempting to comply with

23 the Court's order in that case.

24

MS. ALLEN: Then -- and do you what steps the,

25 the Jail is currently taking to maintain social distance,

25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 27 of 36

1 for the inmates to have soap, disinfectant, that kind of

2 thing?

3

MS. LITOS: What I know is, is what has been

4 most recently set forth in the --

5

MS. ALLEN: Um-hum.

6

MS. LITOS: -- class action that; that, that the

7 inmates are getting soap once a week, that they are

8 engaging in social distancing, that they are advising

9 inmates numerous times in a number of different ways

10 regarding social distancing, that if there is anybody

11 who's symptomatic they're getting a mask -- I think

12 everybody's getting a mask.

13

But I, I, I, I was not prepared to speak

14 specifically to the issues at play in the class action

15 case, so.

16

MS. ALLEN: Okay.

17

MS. LITOS: I'm not handling that case; and so,

18 I'm not -- I, I can't specifically speak to exactly what

19 is going on with regard to those specific questions.

20

MS. ALLEN: So, Your Honor, to your, to your

21 point, yes -- my, my point was that, that what happened to

22 Mr. Rezeine after Judge Kollar-Kotelly's order. So, yes,

23 I, I would like to be notified of his medical condition.

24 And I would like to be notified of how in respect to Mr.

25 Rezeine the, the Jail is abiding by that order because it,

26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 28 of 36

1 it wasn't abiding by it when he first went into the

2 hospital and when he first got sick.

3

THE COURT: OAG, what's your position with

4 respect to that?

5

MS. LITOS: I, I know that Your Honor has, has

6 made similar orders regarding notification, regarding the

7 specifics about what exactly is being done to control air

8 flow and to handle social distancing and all of that, and

9 I'll say few things.

10

My understanding is that Judge Kollar-Kotelly's

11 order came out on the 19th; my understanding is that

12 people can be a-symptomatic for several days. So I think

13 that it is conjecture to assume that Mr. Rezeine

14 contracted COVID after Judge Kollar-Kotelly's order --

15

THE COURT: Can I --

16

MS. LITOS: -- was issued --

17

THE COURT: Can I just stop you there because I

18 really do need to move on.

19

But let me just say that the allegation is that

20 he contracted it after; but, that he was symptomatic and,

21 and, and had issues -- I mean, that's after -- that he was

22 not a-symptomatic and then just that, that he was in fact

23 symptomatic and that was the thing that was being pled.

24

Can I just ask very -- without -- I'm not making

25 any findings with regard to that. But I am prepared at

27

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 29 of 36

1 this point to order that you notify counsel if he -- if

2 Mr. Rezeine becomes ill again; and also, before he is

3 moved, that you notify counsel to where he's being and

4 just let her know what the specific -- what, what the

5 specifics are with respect to how that is -- how that --

6 where you're proposing to move her -- move him, excuse me,

7 would -- being separated both physically and, and how --

8 however is required by the order. So it's, it's simply a

9 notification issue.

10

MS. LITOS: But the --

11

MS. ALLEN: And that will be put in writing,

12 Your Honor?

13

THE COURT: I, I can -- sure, I can put that in

14 writing.

15

MS. ALLEN: Okay.

16

THE COURT: All right.

17

MS. LITOS: Thank you, Your Honor.

18

THE COURT: Anything else, folks?

19

MR. REZEINE: Um --

20

MS. ALLEN: Um, Mr. Rezeine, briefly, did you

21 want to just briefly tell the Court what you wanted to

22 tell the Court?

23

MR. REZEINE: Yeah, I just wanted to say that

24 they should, like, you know, I respect, I respect

25 everything you -- your, your decisions. But I was -- I

28

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 30 of 36

1 would just like you to know that when, when I, I came to

2 Jail -- I got locked up on November 10th, 2016, and the

3 incident case was November 27th; so, basically, it was

4 like my second week inside of DC Jail and I was, you know,

5 being in a hostile environment and stuff, I, I, I made, I

6 made a mistake by, by, by assaulting the inmate and I --

7 every, every single day since that, since that day I, I, I

8 had plenty of time to self reflect and grow and, and I, I

9 -- I'm remorseful and that, that -- and that, that, you

10 know, I -- the, the original case that came -- the day I

11 got arrested for, I -- it was dismissed and I was -- I

12 could have been free.

13

And then, every single day that I been held is

14 for that and it's just been time for me to grow and I was

15 just, you know, got -- I'm just, I'm just ready for

16 society. I'm ready to help out, like, help out people

17 even with the COVID-19 situation because I been through it

18 myself. And that, like, if I, you know, I, I would just

19 like to start in society and start going good and be

20 successful, so I can just grow -- so I can, I can do good

21 in society, man, and possibly have a family, you know. I

22 have a mother that's growing old every day, that, that,

23 that, that needs me out there.

24

And I just would like to, to say that I have

25 grown tremendously. Every single day -- I been through a

29

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 31 of 36

1 lot. I been in the Jail -- since I been in jail for these

2 42 months. And, you know, even if, even if it -- if it's

3 a celebration now, even if it's not the now, or not, or,

4 or, or whenever it is, I'm ready for society. And I am

5 not, like, a, a, a, a, like, a danger to people. I'm just

6 -- I'm, I'm, I'm willing to do, I'm willing to do good and

7 succeed in life.

8

I'm tired of -- like, I, I been through it all

9 and I'm just ready for -- I'm ready, I'm ready for society

10 and I have truly, truly grown from, from, from that day.

11 That was like my second week in jail. I'm, I'm -- I've

12 grown tremendously and I apologize to -- and if you was,

13 if you was to give me that chance, I would not let you

14 down or myself down, or my parents, you know.

15

MS. ALLEN: Thank you, Mr. Rezeine.

16

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Rezeine. And I, I

17 appreciate words; and I, I certainly hope that at the time

18 that you are released, that you are as successful as, as

19 you are preparing yourself to be.

20

MR. REZEINE: Yes, ma'am.

21

THE COURT: All right, folks, so I'll issue the

22 written order regarding the specific orders that I've

23 made, and will issue the amended JNC. But, as I

24 indicated, I'm denying the specific request that was made.

25

MR. REZEINE: Oh, one last thing, Ms. Allen --

30

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 32 of 36

1 Ms., Ms. Dayson, one last thing.

2

THE COURT: Yes.

3

MR. REZEINE: Ms. Allen, will we have Court's

4 indulgence real quick?

5

THE COURT: Sure.

6

MS. ALLEN: You know what --

7

THE COURT: If you need to speak with your

8 attorney --

9

MR. REZEINE: Ah, that's okay.

10

THE COURT: -- however, this is recorded, so I

11 don't think that's --

12

MS. ALLEN: I was just going to ask the OAG if,

13 if she could arrange for Mr. Rezeine to be able to call me

14 right after this?

15

MS. LITOS: I don't know that I will be able to

16 because I don't have direct access to the individual who

17 is sitting --

18

THE COURT: Yeah. So, Ms. Allen, unfortunately,

19 we have, we have another hearing that's right after this

20 --

21

MS. ALLEN: Okay, yeah.

22

THE COURT: -- and because they're occurring --

23

MS. ALLEN: Yeah.

24

THE COURT: -- on the unit, unfortunately, I

25 can't -- well, actually --

31

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 33 of 36

1

MS. ALLEN: Oh --

2

THE COURT: -- you know what, could, could you

3 get the CO -- is the CO available?

4

MR. REZEINE: Yeah, I'm, I'm about to ask -- I'm

5 about to get him right now, hold on, hold on, y'all.

6

THE COURT: Okay.

7

(Pause.)

8

MR. REZEINE: He's coming right now, he's coming

9 -- the phone.

10

THE COURT: Okay.

11

Hi.

12

MR. REZEINE: Oh, he's not here yet, he about to

13 come.

14

And Ms. Allen --

15

MS. ALLEN: Um-hum.

16

MR. REZEINE: -- I was going ask you about the

17 probation issue. Remember the, remember that extra year

18 that I was, I was telling you about?

19

MS. ALLEN: Yeah, I, I remember. I looked that

20 up, I figured that all out. I'm going to talk, I'm going

21 to talk to you in a few minutes.

22

MR. REZEINE: All right, here go the CO.

23

THE COURT: Okay, hi, how are you? This is --

24

CORRECTIONS OFFICER: I'm okay. And yourself?

25

THE COURT: -- Judge Dayson. Hi, I'm good,

32

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 34 of 36

1 thanks.

2

Are you, are you at video -- are you at the

3 place where there's the, the attorney room next to the

4 video room?

5

CORRECTIONS OFFICER: No, I'm in the C&P office.

6

THE COURT: Okay.

7

CORRECTIONS OFFICER: -- room -- 82 --

8

THE COURT: Okay. All right.

9

So, Ms. Allen, that's, that's the issue, is that

10 they're not somewhere where there's another phone. And

11 unfortunately, I have to -- I, I -- well, actually, is, is

12 the next hearing --

13

Could I ask -- I'm sorry, the DOC staff, is the

14 next hearing going to take place somewhere else since it's

15 a video --

16

CORRECTIONS OFFICER: I do --

17

THE COURT: -- conference?

18

CORRECTIONS OFFICER: I do believe so. The next

19 hearing is taking place in a different part of the

20 building.

21

THE COURT: Okay. Could you, could you then

22 allow Mr. Rezeine to have a phone call with his attorney

23 before you take him back?

24

CORRECTIONS OFFICER: To his cell?

25

THE COURT: Yeah, exactly; before you take him

33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 35 of 36

1 back to his cell, when you hang up with us, could he,

2 could he call his attorney?

3

CORRECTIONS OFFICER: I'll give him five minutes

4 with his attorney.

5

THE COURT: Okay, thank you so much.

6

CORRECTIONS OFFICER: No problem.

7

MS. ALLEN: Thank you.

8

CORRECTIONS OFFICER: You're welcome.

9

THE COURT: All right..

10

CORRECTIONS OFFICER: Do you need -- are you

11 finished with him?

12

MS. ALLEN: You want me to ---

13

THE COURT: I'm finished with Mr. Rezeine, yes.

14 Thank you.

15

MS. ALLEN: Yeah.

16

THE COURT: Okay.

17

CORRECTIONS OFFICER: Okay, have a good day.

18

MS. ALLEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

19

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

20

Well, everyone, thank you for participation

21 today. And we'll -- this matter is adjourned.

22

MS. ALLEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

23

(Thereupon, this concludes these proceedings.)

24

*****

25

34

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-32 Filed 05/15/20 Page 36 of 36

1

CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER

2

I, VICKIE L. CUNNINGHAM, an Official Court

3 Transcriber for the Superior Court of the District of

4 Columbia, do hereby certify that in my official capacity,

5 I prepared from electronic recordings the proceedings had

6 and testimony adduced in the matter of: UNITED STATES v.

7 MUSA REZEINE, Case No.: 2017 CF3 1472, in said Court on

8 the 30th day of April, 2020.

9

I further certify that the foregoing 34 pages

10 were transcribed to the best of my ability from said

11 recordings.

12

In witness whereof, I have subscribed my name

13 this the 5th day of May, 2020.

14

15

16

17

18

2267

19

___________________________

20

OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIBER

21

22

23 24

25

35

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-33 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 32 Filed Under Seal

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-33 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-33 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-34 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-34 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF KOBIE SWINT
1. My name is Kobie Swint. I am 22 years old. I am currently incarcerated at the Central Detention Facility on Northeast 2 in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I have been incarcerated at the Central Detention Facility since February 18, 2020.
3. On April 15, 2020, I was housed on Southwest 3.
4. On April 15, 2020, my cell mate tested positive for COVID-19 after exhibiting symptoms. My cellmate was removed from our cell.
5. I remained in our cell. I was put on “quarantine.”
6. On April 15, 2020, I was not feeling well. I was experiencing body aches, shortness of breath, and diarrhea. I lost my sense of taste and smell. I reported my symptoms to the nurse. The nurse took my temperature which was 100.6.
7. I asked whether I could be tested and a nurse said no. The nurse said something to effect of there are not enough tests to test everyone.
8. On April 16, 2020, I continued to experience symptoms consistent with COVID-19. The correctional officer popped open my door for a temperature check. I had a temperature of 101.3
9. I told the correctional officer that I was not going back into my cell until I was tested. A lieutenant came onto my unit and I told him that I was refusing to go back into my cell until I was tested.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-34 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 5
10. A nurse came to my cell and administered a COVID-19 test. The nurse put a swab up my nose.
11. On April 17, 2020, I was allowed out of my cell even though I was supposed to be on quarantine. I called my wife and took a shower. A nurse took my temperature and I had a fever.
12. On April 18, 2020, a doctor informed me that I tested positive for COVID-19.
13. Later that day, I was moved to the quarantine unit on North 2.
14. I was in the quarantine unit on North 2 for about 14 days. I arrived on April 18th and remained until the first week of May. I do not remember the exact date I returned to general population
15. During the first 7 days on the quarantine unit, I did not receive any cleaning products or disinfectant to clean my cell. No one cleaned my cell. I repeatedly asked the correctional officers on the unit for cleaning supplies. They ignored my requests.
16. After the first 7 days, I received a spray bottle of an unknown cleaning solution to clean my cell when I asked for it. It look about 3 or 4 hours for a correctional officer to bring me cleaning solution after I asked.
17. I do not know what was in the cleaning solution or how strong it was because I did not have any sense of smell. I did not receive any paper towels or rags to clean my cell. I had to clean my cell with my personal towel.
18. During the 14 days in quarantine, I did not receive any soap. I asked the correctional officers on the unit repeatedly for a bar of soap. They ignored my request.
19. During the 14 days quarantine, I did not receive any clean clothes. I wore the same pajamas and underclothes during this time.
20. During the 14 days in quarantine, I received a new mask and pair of gloves once every three days.
21. On April 21, 2020, a correctional officer fixed the clogged toilet in my cell. He left all of the dirty water from the toilet on the floor of my cell. I had to use my personal towel to clean the dirty water off of the floor.
22. On April 21, 2020, I tried to send legal mail to my attorney. On April 27, 2020, a correctional officer on the unit returned it me unsent.
23. During the first 7 days in quarantine unit, I was not allowed to shower. I asked the correctional officers repeatedly to shower. They ignored my requests.
24. On April 27, 2020, the correctional officers popped our cell doors open for temperature checks. Everyone on my tier told the correctional officers that we would not go back in
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-34 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 5
our cells until we received a shower. A lieutenant came onto our unit and told us we would be allowed to shower.
25. From April 21 to April 27, 2020, I was allowed to shower every three or four days. The correctional officers did not allow us to shower. We were only allowed to shower when a lieutenant came on the unit.
26. The showers were dirty and appeared as if they had not been cleaned for several days. A correctional officer gave me a chemical solution and instructed me to wipe down the shower myself. I used the chemical solution and my personal towel to the clean the shower.
27. On April 27, 2020, an inmate on the unit asked a correctional officer for tissues. The correctional officer ignored him. The inmate insisted that he would not go back into his cell until he received tissues. The correctional officer sprayed mace on this inmate.
28. The mace spread throughout the unit. I told a correctional officer that the mace was irritating my throat and I was have trouble breathing.
29. I asked the correctional officer if I could be seen by a doctor or nurse. The correctional officer told me to lie down.
30. Later that day, I told the nurse who took my temperature that I the mace irritated my throat and I was having trouble breathing. The nurse listened to my lunges with a stethoscope.
31. The nurse told me that my lungs were fine, but my heart was beating really fast. The nurse said that my heart was beating fast because I was running around and using too much energy. The nurse told me to lie down.
32. I am concerned that a correctional officer would spray mace in a unit with people who have a respiratory virus.
33. On April 28, 2020, a correctional officer collected dirty sheets and towels for the first time on the quarantine unit.
34. On April 29, 2020 at approximately 3:50 in the afternoon, I was out of my cell for an hour of recreation. I had just got out of shower and was sitting outside of cell. I fell asleep. An inmate on my tier woke me and told me to go back inside my cell.
35. When I opened my eyes, I saw a member of the ERT team pointing a paintball or mace gun at me. The ERT team member told me was going to shoot me. I told the ERT that I wanted to make a legal call. A member of the ERT team said, “fuck your lawyer and get your sick ass back into your cell.” I stepped inside my cell.
36. During the 14 days in quarantine, I continued to experience symptoms of COVID-19. On multiple occasions, the medical staff told me that I would return to Southwest 3 after seven days in quarantine even as I continued to be symptomatic.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-34 Filed 05/15/20 Page 5 of 5
37. The medical staff told me that they would not test me for COVID-19 again. I was afraid to return to Southwest 3 without a confirmed negative test because I did not want to get sick again or infect anyone else.
38. On April 30, 2020 I told Dr. Suziski that I was still experiencing symptoms on COVID19. I told Dr. Suziski that I did not want to go back to general population. Dr. Suziski told me that my symptoms were normal.
39. I asked Dr. Suziski if I could get tested. Dr. Suziski told me that I could not get tested because the test would come back positive since I already had the virus.
40. Sometime during the first week of May, I was sent to Northeast 2. I was not tested before I was sent to Northeast 2. I still do not have a sense of smell or taste.
41. I have a cell mate on Northeast 2. I do not know if my cellmate has had the coronavirus. 42. I am scared and worried that DOC is not providing adequate care for people with
COVID-19.
I, Elizabeth Olsen, certify that I have read the foregoing to Kobie Swint and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 14, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 14, 2020
_________________________ Elizabeth Olsen Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-36 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 35

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-36 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF ANTONIO JACKSON
1. My name is Antonio Jackson. I am 34 years old. I am currently incarcerated at the Central Detention Facility (CDF) in Washington, D.C. I am currently housed on the SW3 unit. Before I was moved to the SW3 unit, I was housed on the S1 unit for approximately 2 weeks.
2. I am offering the following information based on my own personal knowledge.
3. From approximately April 16, 2020- April 30, 2020, I was housed on the S1 unit at CDF.
4. During my time on the S1 unit, I observed conditions that were very unsanitary. When I used the showers, I saw there was blood and mold throughout the showers. From my cell, I could see the shower area. During my weeks on the S1 unit, I never saw anyone cleaning the showers. To my knowledge, no one cleaned the showers between uses.
5. For the entire time I was on the S1 unit, I did not receive any cleaning supplies for my cell. I had to use my body soap to clean my cell. I ripped my bath towel and used this ripped piece of towel as a rag to clean my cell.
6. I was given a white disposable mask approximately a couple days before I was moved to the S1 unit. I was forced to use this same disposable mask the entire time I was housed in S1. As soon as I got to SW 3, I was given a new mask.
7. While I was housed on the S1 unit, I frequently observed DOC staff who were not wearing personal protective equipment. On any given day while I was on the S1 unit, I would see approximately 2 DOC staff without masks on and it was even more common for DOC staff on S1 to not wear gloves. On the SW3 unit, all the staff wear gloves and masks.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-36 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3
8. On the S1 unit, there were two inmates who were designated for cleaning detail. It was their job to clean the common spaces in the unit between recreation times. The cleaning detail inmates were supposed to clean the unit common areas twice daily. From my cell, I could see the unit areas that the two detail inmates were supposed to clean. The detail inmates rarely actually cleaned the common areas. The detail inmates would actually clean the common areas between 2-3 times a week, as opposed to twice a day. These were the only people I ever saw doing any cleaning in the common spaces while I was on the S1 unit.
9. On my birthday, April 20, 2020, I suffered from chest pains. I told a guard on my unit about these chest pains, and the guard called the infirmary. The woman working in medical stated they were dealing with a medical emergency but would call for me when they were done. The infirmary never called back. I was never seen for the chest pains I reported.
I, Jessica Willis, certify that I have read the foregoing to Antonio Jackson and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 15th, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 15th, 2020.
_________________________ Jessica Willis Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-37 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 36

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-37 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF DONNELL HOWARD
1. My name is Donnell Howard. I am 51 years old. I am currently incarcerated at CDF on the unit South 3 in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I began feeling sick in the end of February. I kept sneezing and coughing. I had cold sweats. I kept waking up in a sweat. I was tested toward the end of February. They did not tell me what kind of test it was. Some sort of swab was stuck up my nose. My test was returned in 10 minutes. Medical told me my test was negative, but they did not say what they tested me for. After my test, I was sent back to my unit. I am coughing right now. I have been coughing on and off for the past two months.
3. I did not seek out medical help for a while after that because the medical unit has been giving out false information. The medical unit was telling people that they were not sick when they were sick. I know three people to whom this has happened. One of those people is still currently sick. The person currently sick cannot even leave his cell.
4. My temperature was being taken twice a day, but medical stopped taking temperatures at all on May 8th. Medical did not tell us why they stopped taking our temperatures. My lowest temperature was 96.5 degrees. Medical did not retake my temperature after that reading. Medical just told me that I was fine and to drink some water. To date, I never declined to have my temperature taken.
5. I have not been receiving confidential legal calls. I either have to use unit phones which are in earshot of other residents, or use the phone in a case manager’s office. When I use the phone in the case manager’s office, the case manager is sitting in the same room as me. Until this Tuesday May 12th, nobody has been wiping down the phones.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-37 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 4
6. To date, DOC staff will only give new masks if I ask for them. To date, DOC has not provided instructions on how to use masks, gloves, or cleaning supplies.
7. I have been incarcerated since December of 2019, and I have not received a new jumpsuit since then. I have been hand-washing my jumpsuit in the shower using my own body soap. My jumpsuit has never been washed in the laundry machines. My unit has been receiving used socks and underwear. I believe they are used because they look stained and dirty, and sometimes the socks have lint balls in them.
8. I am not able to stay six feet away from people in common areas. At one point the week of April 20th, 9 residents were brought out of their cells at once. Today, 6 people were brought out of their cells. Those 6 people were sometimes about three feet apart. Some DOC staff will tell us to keep apart, but many do not. Nobody today was told to keep 6 feet apart.
9. Toward the end of April, my unit has been given some cleaning materials to clean our cells. We are given these cleaning materials a couple times a week but not every day. Until this week, the cleaning solution and rags are passed from cell to cell without being cleaned. As of this week, sometimes DOC staff hand us a paper towel that they have sprayed with cleaning supplies instead of a rag. I cannot clean my whole cell with a paper towel because it will fall apart. I was only given one paper towel sheet for my whole cell.
10. I have not been receiving soap and toilet paper every week. At one point in April I received toilet paper two weeks in a row, but after that DOC staff stopped regularly distributing it. I have to ask for toilet paper when I need it.
11. Detail has been using the same rags to clean surfaces over and over again for the whole week. The rags are made out of torn towels. I saw when they first started using these rags, and I have seen them turn brown over the course of this week.
12. Most of the people on South 3 who got sick were on detail. Detail workers who felt sick still passed out food or cleaned sometime until they were tested. One detail worker, Mr. Jordan, passed out food for at least 3-4 days before he got too sick to leave his cell. Medical workers came to Mr. Jordan’s cell to test him. After another few days, medical told Mr. Jordan he tested positive. Mr. Jordan was taken out of his cell in a stretcher.
13. I put in a medical slip in April for my teeth, and it took them three weeks to respond to it. When they responded, medical told me I needed teeth pulled but that they would not be able to pull my teeth until after COVID-19 was over. Medical sent me back to my unit with Tylenol and Motrin. The Tylenol is not really helping the pain.
I, Katherine Rees, certify that I have read the foregoing to Donnell Howard and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 15th, 2020.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 15th, 2020.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-37 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 4 _________________________ Katherine Rees Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-38 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs-Petitioners, v.
QUINCY BOOTH, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

No. 1:20-cv-00849 (CKK)

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Upon consideration Plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction, and any opposition, reply, and further pleadings and argument submitted in support thereof, or in opposition thereto; It appearing to the Court that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their action, that Plaintiffs and the members of the class they seek to represent will suffer irreparable injury to their Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights and, at a minimum, severely increased risks to their health, perhaps including death, if Defendants are not preliminarily enjoined and ordered to take appropriate measures against Plaintiffs’ exposure to the COVID-19 virus, that the Defendants will not be harmed if such an order is issued, and that the public interest favors the entry of such an order, it is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is hereby GRANTED. By separate order, the Court will appoint an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 to make recommendations to the Court regarding how many and which class members to order released so as to ensure that the number of prisoners remaining at the CDF and CTF can be housed consistently with CDC guidance on best practices to prevent the spread of COVID-19, including the

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-38 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3
requirement that prisoners be able to maintain six feet of space between them and further order that such recommendations take into account CDC guidance concerning health factors that put individuals at elevated risk of death from COVID-19.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants Booth and Johnson (together with their respective successors in office, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and anyone acting in concert with them), are required, pending trial in this action or further order of this Court, to:
1. Within five days of this Court’s order, retain a registered sanitarian to oversee the environmental health and safety programs at both facilities, to ensure that each DOC resident has access to proper and sufficient cleaning supplies to clean their cells and common areas, and provide training so that cleaning tools and products are used properly.
2. Within five days of this Court’s order, contract for professional cleaning services on the secure side of the facility.
3. Within five days of this Court’s order, provide all DOC residents with a device (whether a cell phone or a tablet) that can be used to make confidential, unmonitored phone calls to residents’ attorney of record.
4. Within five days of this Court’s order, implement a system that allows all DOC residents to directly contact medical staff to ensure that residents are timely seen.
5. Within five days of this Court’s order, implement a system for medical staff to visit each non-quarantine unit in DOC facilities to assess residents’ health.
6. Within five days of this Court’s order, provide to the Court a plan to address staffing shortages.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 70-38 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3
7. Within five days of this Court’s order, provide to the Court a plan to conduct a point prevalence survey as soon as possible to determine the spread of COVID-19 among residents and staff. For purposes of the point prevalence survey, a single test for each staff member and resident is sufficient.
8. Within five days of this Court’s order, meet and confer with Plaintiffs and provide to the Court a plan for providing Plaintiffs with information about Defendants’ efforts to comply with this Order.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall comply with the Temporary Restraining Order entered on April 19, 2020, provided that, where this Order requires more specific action, this Order controls. It is also further ORDERED that Defendants shall comply with all recommendations made by amici in their May 20, 2020 final report, pending trial in this action or further order of this Court.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall not be required to furnish security for costs.
Entered on May ___, 2020 at ______a.m./p.m.
By: ______________________________ Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly United States District Judge
3

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-0849 (CKK)

OPPOSITION BY THE UNITED STATES TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Dated: May 22, 2020

MICHAEL R. SHERWIN Acting United States Attorney
DANIEL F. VAN HORN Chief, Civil Division
JOHNNY H. WALKER Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20530 Telephone: 202 252 2575 johnny.walker@usdoj.gov
Counsel for the United States

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 27
CONTENTS Table of Authorities......................................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................2
A. The COVID-19 Pandemic........................................................................................2 B. This Litigation..........................................................................................................3 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................5 I. The Prison Litigation Reform Act applies and sets forth specific, mandatory procedures for release orders ..............................................................................................5 A. Plaintiffs’ invocation of habeas does not allow them to avoid the PLRA ..............6 B. Plaintiffs’ invocation of “enlargement” does not allow them to avoid
the PLRA ..............................................................................................................11 II. Inmates can—and are—seeking individualized release determinations through the
Bail Reform Act, which is the appropriate vehicle for pretrial release ............................12 III. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the need for any release of inmates ..............................16
A. Conditions at the Jail are improved and the spread of the virus has been curtailed ..................................................................................................16
B. The population of the Jail has declined significantly, and will continue to decline ...............................................................................................................18
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................22
i

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 3 of 27
AUTHORITIES Page(s)
Cases Aamer v. Obama,
742 F.3d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................. 7
Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................... 9
Alvarez v. Larose, No. 20-0782, 2020 WL 2315807 (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2020) ...................................................... 10
Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011).................................................................................................... 8, 9, 11, 12
Falcon v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 52 F.3d 137 (7th Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................................... 14
Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016 (5th Cir. 1988) .................................................................................................. 14
Gon v. Gonzales, 534 F. Supp. 2d 118 (D.D.C. 2008) .......................................................................................... 14
Grinis v. Spaulding, No. 20-10738, 2020 WL 2300313 (D. Mass. May 8, 2020)............................................... 10, 11
Martinez-Brooks v. Easter, No. 20-0569, 2020 WL 2405350 (D. Conn. May 12, 2020)....................................................... 9
McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136 (1991).................................................................................................................... 6
Medina v. Choate, 875 F.3d 1025 (10th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................ 14
Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327 (2000).................................................................................................................... 5
Money v. Pritzker, No. 20-2093, 2020 WL 1820660 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2020) ................................................ 10, 11
Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................... 7
ii

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 4 of 27
Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004).................................................................................................................... 7
Plata v. Newsom, No. 01-1351, 2020 WL 1908776 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020) .................................................... 10
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002)................................................................................................................ 5, 8
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973)................................................................................................................ 6, 9
Reaves v. Dep't of Corr., 404 F. Supp. 3d 520 (D. Mass. 2019) ....................................................................................... 12
Reese v. Warden Philadelphia FDC, 904 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2018)...................................................................................................... 14
Rivas v. Jennings, No. 20-2731, 2020 WL 2059848 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2020) ...................................................... 9
Savino v. Souza, No. 20-10617, 2020 WL 2404923 (D. Mass. May 12, 2020)..................................................... 9
Thakker v. Doll, No. 20-0480, 2020 WL 2025384 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2020)....................................................... 9
United States v. Smith, 200 F. Supp. 3d 192 (D.D.C. 2016) .................................................................................... 13, 14
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005).............................................................................................................. 6, 7, 9
Wilson v. Williams, No. 20-0794, 2020 WL 1940882 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 22, 2020) .................................................... 9
Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 3142(a) ...................................................................................................................... 12
18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) ...................................................................................................................... 15
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a) ........................................................................................................................ 8
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(B) .............................................................................................................. 8
18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(2) ................................................................................................................... 5
18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(3) ................................................................................................................. 10
iii

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 5 of 27 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(4) ................................................................................................................. 11 28 U.S.C. § 2241....................................................................................................................... 6, 14 D.C. Code § 23-1322(e).......................................................................................................... 13, 15
Other Authorities Federal Habeas Manual § 1:29 (May 2019 Update) ..................................................................... 14
iv

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 6 of 27
INTRODUCTION This Court declined to order the release of inmates in response to Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, and the reasons supporting that decision are only stronger today, with conditions at the D.C. Jail improving, the rate of COVID-19 infections substantially decreasing, and the reduction of the inmate population already accomplished and continuing further. In any event, the Prison Litigation Reform Act precludes this Court from ordering the release of inmates absent specific and mandatory procedures that Plaintiffs have not followed. As several courts have held, Plaintiffs may not avoid these requirements simply by characterizing their claims as habeas petitions challenging the “fact or duration of confinement,” as that characterization conflicts with the Supreme Court’s definition of such claims and incorrectly conflates the relief requested with the nature of the petition. Nor may Plaintiffs avoid the Act’s strictures by calling their requested relief an “enlargement,” as such relief would nevertheless plainly fall within the Act’s broad definition of a covered release order. In addition, the Bail Reform Act (and its D.C. equivalent) provides the appropriate means for pretrial inmates to seek release from custody. Even were the Court able to consider Plaintiffs’ request for a large-scale release of inmates, such extreme relief would be far from warranted. The rate of COVID-19 at the Jail has already been on a steady and continuous decline for over a month, and the number of positive inmates in isolation is at a nadir. Further, the Department of Corrections has made and continues to make improvements in medical care, environmental health, and staffing levels at the facility, as reported by the neutral, court-appointed amicus. Moreover, the relief Plaintiffs seek—a reduction in the population—has already been achieved. The number of inmates at the Jail is already down by a quarter from what it was on March 24, 2020, and it will decrease still further in the coming days

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 7 of 27
and weeks. In particular, the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals Service will commence next week the removal of 130 to 160 inmates who have been sentenced and committed to the Bureau’s custody. And the Bureau, Marshals Service, and United States Parole Commission are undertaking additional efforts that will reduce the population further still. For these reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction insofar as it seeks a release of inmates.
BACKGROUND A. The COVID-19 Pandemic Over the past several months, the world has faced a menacing global threat. In December 2019, reports of a respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus began to emerge out of Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. The rapid spread of the virus, named “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2,” and the disease it causes, called “coronavirus disease 2019” (“COVID-19”), pose a public health risk unparalleled in modern times. Although the complete clinical picture is not fully understood, the virus appears to be transmitted easily and quickly, and can have a high mortality rate for some of the most vulnerable members of society. The disease particularly affects older adults and those with underlying medical conditions. Data published by the CDC on April 17, 2020, shows that about 75% of people hospitalized with COVID-19 were aged 50 years or older, and, of those patients for whom information is available, nearly 90% had underlying medical conditions, such as obesity, chronic lung disease, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.1 There is currently no proven vaccine or therapeutic treatment. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization classified the COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic. The United States has seen over 1,571,000 confirmed cases and over 94,000 deaths
1 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 8 of 27
as of May 22, 2020.2 The District of Columbia has experienced about 7,900 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and has reported 418 deaths related to the disease as of May 21, 2020.3 The mayor of the District of Columbia declared a state of emergency and a public health emergency on March 11, 2020. See Mayor’s Orders 2020-045 & 2020-046 (Mar. 11, 2020). On March 30, the Mayor issued a stay-at-home order, requiring “all individuals anywhere in Washington, DC, to stay in their residences except to perform” certain specifically exempted activities. See Mayor’s Order 2020-054 (Mar. 30, 2020). That order remains in effect.
There is, however, reason for some optimism. According to the most recent weekly report by the CDC, indicators of the prevalence of COVID-19 in the United States have “continued to decline.”4 In the District of Columbia, the number of COVID-19 patients at D.C. acute-care hospitals has generally declined from a peak of 477 on April 28, 2020, and currently, as of May 20, stands at around 342.5
B. This Litigation Plaintiffs filed this action on March 30, 2020, against the Director and the Warden of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (“DOC”). See Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs are inmates detained in DOC’s Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) or its Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”) (collectively, the “D.C. Jail” or “Jail”), and they seek to represent a class of others similarly situated. They allege that conditions at the D.C. Jail violate their rights under either the Fifth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution because the DOC failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 within the Jail. Compl.
2 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html 3 https://coronavirus.dc.gov/page/coronavirus-data 4 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html 5 https://coronavirus.dc.gov/release/coronavirus-data-may-21-2020
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 9 of 27
¶ 4. With their complaint, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a motion for a preliminary injunction. ECF Nos. 5, 6.
On April 9, 2020, the Court appointed Grace Lopes and Mark Jordan as amici curiae to provide the Court and the parties with information on the conditions at the D.C. Jail and to make findings regarding DOC’s responses to COVID-19. ECF No. 34. The amici reviewed records and conducted unannounced and unescorted visits to the facility over three days and presented their findings in an oral report on April 15 and a final written report submitted April 18. ECF Nos. 45, 51-1.
On April 19, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. In doing so, the Court specifically declined to order the release of any inmates or to appoint an expert to oversee the downsizing of the Jail population. The Court noted that inmates at the Jail were already filing individual release petitions through which they could be considered for release. Further, the Court noted that the population of the Jail had already declined due to expanded authority on the part of law enforcement to release individuals with the approval of the relevant prosecuting authority and new authority for the DOC to award additional time credits to misdemeanants. Mem. Op. re TRO at 26–27. Given these efforts, the Court concluded that releasing inmates was inappropriate. Id. at 27. The Court did, however, grant significant injunctive relief in the form of requirements for DOC to rectify certain deficiencies in its health and safety practices in line with recommendations by the court-appointed amici. Id. at 27–31.
While the motion for a temporary restraining order was pending, the DOC defendants filed a motion to add the United States as a party, which the United States did not oppose. ECF Nos. 44, 46. This Court granted the motion over Plaintiffs opposition. In doing so, the Court observed
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 10 of 27
that the United States’ “sole interest in this case is the potential that the Court could release a significant number of the inmates currently confined in the D.C. Jail.” Mem. Op. at 2 (May 1, 2020), ECF No. 64. The Court therefore restricted the United States’ joinder in the case to any issues involving the release of inmates. Mem. Op. at 10, ECF No. 64.
Following entry of the temporary restraining order and pursuant to a consent order submitted by Plaintiffs and DOC, the Court again appointed Ms. Lopes and Mr. Jordan as amici to conduct additional investigations of the Jail and to report answers to specific questions in an oral report on May 11 and a written report submitted May 20. ECF No. 62. On May 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for preliminary injunction, again requesting that the Court appoint an expert to oversee the large-scale release of inmates from the Jail. ECF No. 70. The United States opposes that motion.
ARGUMENT I. The Prison Litigation Reform Act applies and sets forth specific, mandatory
procedures for release orders. The PLRA prevents this Court from entering the release orders sought by Plaintiffs. The PLRA creates a carefully reticulated scheme for “the entry and termination of prospective relief in civil actions challenging prison conditions.” Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 331 (2000). And it broadly defines a “civil action with respect to prison conditions” as “any civil proceeding arising under Federal law with respect to the conditions of confinement or the effects of actions by government officials on the lives of persons confined in prison,” while excluding “habeas corpus proceedings challenging the fact or duration of confinement in prison.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(2). Thus, the PLRA tracks the basic distinction between habeas suits challenging the “fact or duration of confinement itself,” and civil actions “challenging the conditions of confinement.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 527–28 (2002) (citation omitted).
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 11 of 27
Here, there can be no dispute that Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is one “with respect to prison conditions” and is therefore governed by the PLRA. Plaintiffs allege that the “[d]efendants’ ongoing failure to take reasonable precautions to prevent the spread and severity of a COVID-19 outbreak gravely jeopardizes the safety of Plaintiffs and all of the approximately 1,600 individuals confined in the [D.C. Jail,]” Compl. ¶ 4, and they assert that “proper hygiene and other procedures must be implemented to ensure the safety of Plaintiffs and proposed class members,” id. at 28. These are challenges to the conditions of the facility, and therefore implicate the PLRA’s requirements for release orders.
A. Plaintiffs’ invocation of habeas does not allow them to avoid the PLRA. Although Plaintiffs invoke habeas and 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Compl. ¶ 11, and label their claims as challenging the “fact of confinement in a facility” whose conditions they allege to be unconstitutional, Pls.’ Am. PI Mot. at 37, this is not, in fact, a “habeas corpus proceeding[ ] challenging the fact or duration of confinement in prison.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly drawn a line between “two broad categories of prisoner petitions: (1) those challenging the fact or duration of confinement itself; and (2) those challenging the conditions of confinement.” McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 140 (1991). Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are those in which the prisoners’ success would “necessarily imply the invalidity of their convictions or sentences.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005) (brackets and citation omitted). By contrast, challenges to the conditions of confinement are those in which petitioners “allege[] unconstitutional treatment of them while in confinement,” as Plaintiffs do here. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973); see also id. at 507 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (noting that “an attack on the validity of conviction or sentence is plainly directed at the fact or duration of confinement,” and that a challenge to the deprivation of good-time credits also “falls
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 12 of 27
within” that definition); Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 650-51 (7th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“State prisoners who want to challenge their convictions, their sentences, or administrative orders revoking good-time credits or equivalent sentence-shortening devices . . . contest the fact or duration of custody.”). Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement constitute the “core” of federal habeas. Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004) (“[W]here an inmate seeks injunctive relief challenging the fact of his conviction or the duration of his sentence,” that claim “fall[s] within the ‘core’ of federal habeas. By contrast, constitutional claims that merely challenge the conditions of a prisoner’s confinement, whether the inmate seeks monetary or injunctive relief, fall outside of that core.”) (citation omitted).
Plaintiffs clearly challenge the conditions of their confinement and not the fact of it. They make no claims regarding the propriety of their detention, but instead challenge the defendants’ alleged failure “to implement other basic policies and procedures that would mitigate the risk to Plaintiffs’ health and safety,” Compl. ¶ 10. And if Plaintiffs succeed on the merits, it would not remotely “imply” that their “convictions or sentences” are invalid. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82 (brackets and citation omitted). Nor would success entitle them to outright release from custody, but only to the improvement of or removal from the challenged conditions. See Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (noting that in a conditions of confinement claim, the court may “order the prisoner released unless the unlawful conditions are rectified, leaving it up to the government whether to respond by transferring the petitioner to a place where the unlawful conditions are absent or by eliminating the unlawful conditions in the petitioner's current place of confinement”).
The mere fact that Plaintiffs seek release cannot automatically convert this suit to a habeas “fact or duration” challenge because the PLRA clearly contemplates that actions challenging
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 13 of 27
“prison conditions” may lead to release in rare circumstances where the conditions cannot be redressed, because the statute sets out detailed requirements governing how and when such a “prisoner release order” may be issued. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). In Brown v. Plata, the Supreme Court considered the proper application of those PLRA provisions to two cases in which California prisoners alleged that overcrowding and deficiencies in medical care constituted an Eighth Amendment violation that entitled them to orders granting the release or transfer of a portion of the state prison population. 563 U.S. 493, 507–08, 511 (2011). The Court never once questioned that the suit was a challenge “to prison conditions” that was squarely governed by the PLRA. Id. at 530; see also Nussle, 534 U.S. at 532 (recognizing that the PLRA covers “all inmate suits about prison life”).
Because Plaintiffs claims challenge the conditions (and not the fact) of their confinement, the PLRA applies and strictly limits the relief this Court may grant. Under the PLRA, “[t]he authority to release prisoners as a remedy to cure a systemic violation of the Eighth Amendment is a power reserved to a three-judge district court, not a single-judge district court.” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. at 500 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)); see 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(B) (“In any civil action in Federal court with respect to prison conditions, a prisoner release order shall be entered only by a three-judge court[.]”). Moreover, such an order may not be entered unless “(i) a court has previously entered an order for less intrusive relief that has failed to remedy the deprivation of the Federal right sought to be remedied through the prisoner release order; and (ii) the defendant has had a reasonable amount of time to comply with the previous court orders.” Id. § 3626(a)(3)(A). And even a three-judge court may order prisoners released to remedy unconstitutional prison conditions “only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence” that
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 14 of 27
“crowding is the primary cause of the violation” and “no other relief will remedy [it.]” Id. § 3626(a)(3)(E)(i)-(ii).
Plaintiffs cite a handful of cases in which other federal courts have used the writ of habeas corpus to grant release as relief from conditions related to COVID-19. Those decisions are not, however, controlling here, and there is good reason for this Court not to follow their reasoning; namely, those courts conflated the plaintiffs’ request for release as a remedy with the nature of the habeas challenge. See Martinez-Brooks v. Easter, No. 20-0569, 2020 WL 2405350, at *16 (D. Conn. May 12, 2020); Wilson v. Williams, No. 20-0794, 2020 WL 1940882, at *10 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 22, 2020), stay pending appeal denied, Order, Wilson v. Williams, No. 20-3447 (6th Cir. May 4, 2020).6 But this ignores the distinction between cases challenging the fact of confinement and those challenging conditions of confinement, which turns not on the relief requested but on whether success on the merits would “necessarily imply the invalidity of [the petitioners’] convictions or sentences,” Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82, or whether they “allege[] unconstitutional treatment . . . while in confinement,” Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499.
Other cases that Plaintiffs cite were brought by persons held in civil detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and therefore did not address the applicability of the PLRA. See Savino v. Souza, No. 20-10617, 2020 WL 2404923 (D. Mass. May 12, 2020); Rivas v. Jennings, No. 20-2731, 2020 WL 2059848 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2020); Thakker v. Doll, No. 200480, 2020 WL 2025384 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2020). Individuals who are being detained pending deportation are not “prisoners” as defined by the PLRA. See, e.g., Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 886 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he term ‘prisoner’ does not encompass a civil detainee for purposes of
6 The government’s application for a stay of the injunction in Wilson is currently pending in the Supreme Court of the United States. See Application for a Stay, Williams v. Wilson, No. 19A1041 (U.S. filed May 20, 2020).
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 15 of 27
the PLRA.”); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(3) (“[T]he term ‘prisoner’ means any person subject to incarceration, detention, or admission to any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program[.]”). Accordingly, Sevino, Rivas, and Thakker are not instructive on the applicability of the PLRA to this case.
On the other hand, Plaintiffs fail to acknowledge the substantial persuasive authority against their position. Numerous courts have concluded that the PLRA does indeed apply to lawsuits challenging prison conditions in connection with the presence of COVID-19 within a facility, even where those cases are styled as habeas claims. Alvarez v. Larose, — F. Supp. 3d — , No. 20-0782, 2020 WL 2315807, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2020) (concluding that the PLRA applies despite the fact that plaintiffs sought release and noting that plaintiffs’ argument to the contrary “conflates the nature of relief with the substance of the claim to avoid limitations of the PLRA”); Money v. Pritzker, ––– F. Supp. 3d ––––, No. 20-2093, 2020 WL 1820660, at *14 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2020) (stating that the PLRA “prevents” court from granting release of inmates based on prison conditions and COVID-19); Plata v. Newsom, ––– F. Supp. 3d ––––, No. 01-1351, 2020 WL 1908776, at * 1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020) (“To the extent Plaintiffs seek an order requiring inmate releases or an order requiring transfer of inmates to [other] facilities, this Court lacks authority to grant that relief [under the PLRA].”). cf. Grinis v. Spaulding, No. 20-10738, 2020 WL 2300313, at *2 (D. Mass. May 8, 2020) (noting that there was a “substantial question” as to whether habeas claims seeking a reduction in a prison population due to COVID-19 could properly be characterized as challenging the fact of confinement but denying temporary restraining order on alternate grounds).
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 16 of 27
As the Northern District of Illinois recognized in Money, although “the issue of inmate health and safety is deserving of the highest degree of attention,” an “order imposing a courtordered and court-managed ‘process’ for determining who should be released” from a state prison in response to the COVID-19 pandemic falls “squarely within Section 3626(a)(3)—which forbids this Court from granting it.” 2020 WL 1820660, at *1, 13. “[T]he release of inmates requires a process that gives close attention to detail, for the safety of each inmate, his or her family, and the community at large demands a sensible and individualized release plan—especially during a pandemic.” Id. at *1. As discussed in more detail below, individual motions for release under the federal and D.C. Bail Reform Acts allow judges to undertake that “inherently inmate-specific inquiry,” id., and are the proper legal vehicle for inmates at D.C. Jail to attempt to obtain release due to health risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
B. Plaintiffs’ invocation of “enlargement” does not allow them to avoid the PLRA. Plaintiffs alternatively contend that the Court may grant them their requested relief without issuing a writ of habeas corpus by “enlarging” their sentences to include maintaining their custody in another location, such as a hospital, halfway house, or home. Pls.’ Am. PI Mot. at 35–37. Plaintiffs contend that this would allow them to sidestep the PLRA because they would remain in some form of custody. Id. at 38. But Plaintiffs ignore the PLRA’s broad definition of a “prisoner release order,” which covers more than simply orders that end all custody whatsoever. “The term ‘prisoner release order’ includes any order, including a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctive relief, that has the purpose or effect of reducing or limiting the prison population.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(4). And Brown recognized that an order that permitted state officials to “comply by . . . transferring prisoners to [other] facilities,” was still a “prisoner release order” because it had the “‘effect of reducing or limiting the prison population.’” 563 U.S. at 511 (quoting 18 U.S.C.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 17 of 27
§ 3626(g)(4)). The order sought by Plaintiffs would require the appointment of an expert to “reduce the population” of the D.C. Jail by releasing inmates on a categorical basis. See Pls.’ Am. PI Mot. at 39 (quoting Schiraldi Decl. ¶ 14). Thus, the requested relief, whether called enlargement or a habeas writ, would have the “purpose or effect” of limiting the population at the D.C. Jail, and would therefore constitute a release order under the PLRA. See Brown, 563 U.S. at 511.
In support of their argument to the contrary, Plaintiffs rely on Reaves v. Department of Correction. See Pls.’ Am. PI Mot. at 38 (citing 404 F. Supp. 3d 520, 522 (D. Mass. 2019)). But the decision in Reaves did not turn on the fact that the petitioner there would remain in custody following the order, but on the fact that the requested relief (transfer to a facility where the prisoner could be treated for his medical needs as a quadriplegic person) applied only to a single prisoner and was premised on the need to remedy alleged individualized constitutional violations and not overcrowding. 404 F. Supp. 3d at 523. That situation clearly does not analogize to Plaintiffs’ claims seeking a broad-based releases of several inmates for the express purpose of reducing the population of the Jail. II. Inmates can—and are—seeking individualized release determinations through the
Bail Reform Act, which is the appropriate vehicle for pretrial release. Inmates at the Jail, many of whom are detained pending trial, already have an expeditious method for seeking release that permits judges assigned to and familiar with their cases to make considered and individualized determinations about whether conditions at the Jail, among other factors, warrant their release. Both the federal Bail Reform Act and its D.C. counterpart expressly allow judges to consider an individual defendant’s health when deciding whether to detain him or her pending trial. Under the federal BRA, a person charged with an offense may be released, released on conditions, or detained pending trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(a). In determining “whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 18 of 27
and the safety of any other person and the community,” the court “shall . . . take into account the available information concerning,” inter alia, “the history and characteristics of the person, including . . . the person’s . . . physical and mental condition[.]” Id. § 3142(g)(3). District judges have statutory authority to review a magistrate judge’s detention order, id. § 3145(b), and “inherent authority to reconsider detention decisions . . . where ‘changed circumstances’ support release.” United States v. Smith, 200 F. Supp. 3d 192, 194 (D.D.C. 2016).
The D.C. BRA operates in a similar fashion. See D.C. Code § 23-1322(e) (“The judicial officer shall, in determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, take into account information available concerning . . . The history and characteristics of the person, including: [t]he person’s . . . physical and mental condition[.]”); § 23-1324(a) (“A person who is detained . . . may move the court having original jurisdiction over the offense with which he is charged to amend the order.”). To facilitate the D.C. Superior Court’s evaluation of motions for release “due to the health threat posed by the COVID-19 Pandemic,” the court has issued a standing order requiring such motions to identify, among other things, whether the defendant has “a documented health condition that puts [him or her] especially at risk with respect to COVID19,” and whether the defendant is “charged only with non-assaultive misdemeanors” or “only with felonies that are not crimes of violence[.]” Criminal Standing Order of March 22, 2020— Amended, available at https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/Order-AttachmentPDFs/Standing-order-amended.pdf.
The Attorney General has issued guidance to federal prosecutors concerning “Litigating Pre-Trial Detention Issues During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” AG Memo at 1.7 That guidance
7 https://www.justice.gov/file/1266901/download
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 19 of 27
makes clear that “the current COVID-19 pandemic requires that [prosecutors] ensure [they] are giving appropriate weight to the potential risks facing certain individual from being remanded to . . . custody.” Id. Thus, although the Department’s “paramount obligation” is to “[p]rotect[ ] the public,” prosecutors must also “consider the medical risks associated with individuals being remanded into . . . custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.” Id. at 1–2. Prosecutors “should consider not seeking detention to the same degree [they] would under normal circumstances,” and must weigh “the risk of flight and seriousness of the offense . . . against the defendant’s vulnerability to COVID-19.” Id. at 2. Likewise, “these same considerations should govern [prosecutors’] litigation of motions filed by detained defendants seeking release in light of the pandemic.” Id. Such a defendant’s “risk from COVID-19 should be a significant factor in [each prosecutor’s] analysis[.]” Id.
The United States is currently in the midst of litigating hundreds of motions for release filed by individual defendants incarcerated at the D.C. jail pending trial. These motions are the correct vehicle for a defendant seeking release based on the health risks posed by COVID-19. See Gon v. Gonzales, 534 F. Supp. 2d 118, 119 (D.D.C. 2008) (“For pretrial detainees . . . , habeas corpus relief is not necessarily available when the pretrial detention order can be challenged under § 3145.”); see also, e.g., Reese v. Warden Philadelphia FDC, 904 F.3d 244, 246–48 (3d Cir. 2018) (holding that “federal defendants who seek pretrial release should do so through the means authorized by the Bail Reform Act, not through a separate § 2241 action”); Medina v. Choate, 875 F.3d 1025, 1029 (10th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1573 (2018) (“[W]e now adopt the general rule that § 2241 is not a proper avenue of relief for federal prisoners awaiting federal trial.”); Falcon v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 52 F.3d 137, 139 (7th Cir. 1995) (same); Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1017–19 (5th Cir. 1988) (same); Brian R. Means, Federal Habeas
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 20 of 27
Manual § 1:29 (May 2019 Update) (“Section 2241 generally is not a proper avenue of relief for federal prisoners awaiting federal trial.”).
Further, both the federal Bail Reform Act and its D.C. counterpart require judges to evaluate, on an individualized, defendant-by-defendant basis, (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, (2) the weight of the evidence against the defendant, (3) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the defendant’s release, and (4) the defendant’s history and characteristics, including his or her physical and mental condition. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); D.C. Code § 23-1322(e). This Court recognized the need for such individualized considerations when determining whether a particular inmate is appropriate for release. See Mem. Op. re Joinder of the United States at 7 (“Any large-scale release of inmates would require an analysis of the traditional factors considered for release—the inmate’s fitness for conferment and the danger to the community in the case of release.”) Such determinations are already being conducted on an expeditious and individualized basis in emergency motions for release under the BRA by judges assigned to the underlying criminal case, who are most familiar with the facts and circumstances presented by such motions. See, e.g., Mem. Op. & Order, No. 190194 (D.D.C. May 10, 2020), ECF No. 43 (denying without prejudice motion for release after weighing risk factors, health conditions, and considering presence of COVID-19 in D.C. Jail); Mem. & Order, United States v. Mitchell, No. 19-0244 (D.D.C. May 7, 2020), ECF No. 24 (same); Mem. Op. & Order, United States v. Fletcher, No. 19-0397 (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 2020) (KollarKotelly, J.), ECF No. 26 (same).
The United States, too, takes these individualized factors into account when seeking detention or litigating a motion for release, including assessing each “defendant’s risk from COVID-19” as “a significant factor in [its] analysis.” AG Memo at 2. In appropriate cases, the
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 21 of 27
United States has joined or declined to oppose motions for release by inmates at risk for COVID19. See, e.g., Jt. Mot. for Immediate Release, United States v. Piles, No. 19-0292 (D.D.C. Apr. 1, 2020), ECF No. 152; Jt. Mot. for Immediate Release, United States v. Talley, No. 19-0337 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2020), ECF No. 17; Jt. Mot. for Immediate Release, No. 19-0296 (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2020), EF No. 19. As the federal and DC BRAs provide an effective and considered means for inmates to seek release from the Jail, Plaintiffs’ request for a court-appointed expert to take the reins of that process away from judges is unnecessary and inappropriate. III. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the need for any release of inmates.
A. Conditions at the Jail are improved and the spread of the virus has been curtailed. While Plaintiffs continue to paint a dire picture of conditions within the D.C. Jail, the reports of the court-appointed amici show that circumstances are improved, and the data show that these improvements have led to a substantial and continued reduction in the spread of COVID-19. Amici report ongoing and continued improvement by DOC in several key areas. First, inmates in isolation and quarantine are receiving attentive medical care. Amici report that “on both isolation and quarantine housing units, medical staff are conducting routine monitoring of inmates to identify those who need urgent care. For inmates in isolation, the level of monitoring is very high. It frequently includes multiple visits from both nursing staff and advanced medical providers on a daily basis.” Amici Oral Rep. at 27. On non-quarantine units, amici report that sick-call forms are now collected daily by a nurse with Unity and triaged by a nurse for urgency. Amici Written Rep. at 10 n.20. A protocol issued on May 5, 2020, provides that all inmates with COVID-19 symptoms will be designated by the Unity nurse as level 1 emergency / urgent care and seen immediately. Id. at 10 & Ex. 8. DOC also reports that “sick call providers” are going out onto the tiers to see if there are residents who did not submit a sick-call request who need to be seen (although amici report that they were unable to verify this process). Amici Written Rep. at 11 &
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 22 of 27
Ex. 4, Attach. at 1. “Such a process, if consistently implemented, would provide inmates who are confined on nonquarantine housing units much greater access to health care than they currently have.” Id. at 16.
DOC has also made environmental improvements to promote the health of inmates. Amici report that, while social distancing is not “prevalent” among inmates, there is “some progress and attempts to enforce social distancing” by DOC staff. Amici Oral Rep. at 43. The Jail has posted materials throughout the facilities about the need for social distancing, and staff are being disciplined if they fail to enforce social distancing. Id. at 42. And fewer inmates are now being allowed out of their cells at any given time, which has led to “less chaotic” housing units. Id. at 43. In addition, inmates “have access at both facilities to cleaning materials and cleaning equipment,” though there are complaints about the number of treated paper towels provided to inmates at CDF. Amici Oral Rep. at 40–41. All DOC staff and food-service contractors are required to be trained in the use of personal protective equipment. Amici Written Rep. at 13. DOC is in the process of hiring a full-time sanitarian and, in the meantime, has retained a vendor to audit conditions and make recommendations for improvements, develop a COVID-19 cleaning protocol, and oversee the protocol’s implementation by the DOC’s cleaning contractor. Id. at 14. DOC has also entered into two emergency contracts for environmental HAZMAT-level cleaning services of the common areas of all housing units at the Jail. Id. at 15.
Though Plaintiffs still fault the DOC’s efforts in some respect, the best measure of those efforts is the results. And it cannot be disputed that there has been a significant and sustained curtailment of the spread of COVID-19 within the D.C. Jail, a critical fact that Plaintiffs ignore. As amici report, “the impact of COVID-19 at the CDF and CTF has changed significantly.” Amici Written Rep. at 16. The seven-day average rate of positive COVID-19 tests has been falling at the
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 23 of 27
CDF for over a month since peaking on April 18, 2020, and at the CTF since peaking on April 5 and 6. Amici Oral Rep. at 7. According to amici, “[a]t both facilities, by mid-May 2020, the rate of new COVID-19 cases had dropped significantly from peak levels.” Amici Written Rep. at 16. Given this improvement in conditions as reported by amici and the significant and continued trend in reducing the prevalence of COVID-19 at the Jail, a large-scale release of inmates is unwarranted.
Moreover, the release of inmates would not address the vast majority of the remaining adverse conditions alleged by Plaintiffs, such as a lack of unmonitored access to legal calls on one tier of the isolation unit, insufficient number of treated paper towels provided for cleaning, and the allegedly infrequent collection of sick-call requests by Unity. While Plaintiffs contend that at least some of the remaining issues at the Jail—particularly the fact that social distancing among inmates is not prevalent—are tied to understaffing (not overpopulation), the evidence shows that staffing levels are only increasing. As of May 9, 2020, about 20% of correctional officers and supervisory correctional officers employed by DOC were unavailable for work. Amicus Written Rep. at 8. In the week prior to Amici’s written report, however, “numerous correctional staff have returned to work . . ., which has made staffing shortages less acute. Particularly at the CTF . . . it appears staffing shortages are not having as severe an impact as was evidenced in the recent past.” Amici Written Rep. at 8.
B. The population of the Jail has declined significantly, and will continue to decline. Plaintiffs request for a substantial reduction in the Jail population is not only unwarranted due to improved conditions and reduced infection rates at the Jail, it is also unwarranted because it is already happening. As this Court noted in declining to release inmates as part of its temporary restraining order, a signficant reduction in population at the D.C. Jail has already occurred through the adjudication of individual release petitions, greater release discretion afforded to law
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 24 of 27
enforcement, and a doubling of the maximum number of sentencing credits that a misdemeanant may receive. Mem. Op. re TRO at 26–27. At the time of the Court’s order, this had led to the release from custody of all by nine misdemeanants. Id. at 27.
The population of the Jail has only declined further since the Court’s temporary restraining order. In their May 11 oral presentation, amici reported a “significant reduction” in the population of the Jail since their April report, which they characterized as “material to . . . the clients’ consideration” of the environment at the Jail. Amici Oral Rep. at 7. Indeed, today the population of the Jail stands at only 1,331—a reduction of nearly a quarter (over 23%) from the population of 1,739 on March 24, 2020. Sawyer Decl. ¶ 7. Notably, this decrease is in line with the size of the decrease in population reported by the detention facility that Plaintiffs hold out as a model in their preliminary injunction brief. Arlington County Detention Center reported a reduction in its inmate population of 25 to 30%, which Plaintiffs characterize as “ensuring the space and staffing levels to implement social distancing.” Pls.’ Am. PI Mot. at 1–2.8 Thus, the reduction in population at the Jail is already in line with Plaintiffs’ apparent target.
Further, the population at the Jail will continue to significantly decline even further in the coming days and weeks due to ongoing and significant efforts on the part of federal agencies. In particular, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and the United States Marshal Service are working together to expeditiously remove the approximately 130 to 160 inmates at the Jail who have been sentenced and committed and are awaiting transfer to their designated BOP facility. Matevousian Decl. ¶ 5. The BOP has identified national quarantine sites to hold designated prisoners for a 14day period before transporting them to their destination institution to ensure that COVID-19 is not
8 In their brief, Plaintiffs represent that Arlington reduced its population by “nearly a third.” Pls.’ Am. PI Mot. at 1. More precisely, the new article cited by Plaintiffs reports a “a 25-30% reduction in prison population” over the course of several months, as reported by a Commonwealth attorney.
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 25 of 27
newly introduced into any BOP facilities. Sawyer Decl. ¶ 8. In order to expeditiously clear D.C. Jail inmates for transportation to these quarantine sites, on May 20, 2020, the BOP loaned the USMS five fast response testing machines as well as 264 test kits. Matevousian Decl. ¶ 7; Sawyer Decl. ¶ 9. These machines and test kits will allow designated inmates to be tested at the rate of 20 per hour, and inmates testing negative will be transported the day the day they receive their test result. Matevousian Decl. ¶ 7. The first large movement of these inmates to a BOP facility or quarantine site is expected to occur next week. Id. ¶ 11. In the meantime, the BOP has accepted a group of 35 to 40 inmates (some of which are pretrial inmates in the custody of the Marshals Service) who are considered high risk for COVID-19 vulnerability, and 15 of those inmates have already been transferred to the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Id. ¶ 10; Sawyer Decl. ¶ 10. The remaining inmates will also be transferred when it is safe to do so. Sawyer Decl. ¶ 10.
In addition, this week the Marshals Service began working with the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia to conduct a review of the 50 to 100 inmates who are committed to other institutions but are housed temporarily at the D.C. Jail at the request of prosecutors to determine whether any of those inmates may be removed from the Jail and returned to their permanent institution.9 Sawyer Decl. ¶ 11. And as of April 14, 2020, the Marshals Service is no longer processing federal arrests through DOC facilities and, if those arrestees are ordered detained pretrial, they are not being held at DOC facilities. Id. ¶ 13.
9 Notably, in at least one instance, the Public Defender Service has requested the an inmate remain at the D.C. Jail and not be returned to his permanent institution, even though this individual is not due to participate at any proceedings in the District of Columbia until September. Sawyer Decl. ¶ 11.
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 26 of 27
The United States Parole Commission (“USPC”) has also been working to help reduce the population of the D.C. Jail. It has dramatically limited issuing warrants for parole and supervised release violations to only those offenders who pose an imminent risk to public safety. Husk Decl. ¶ 5. The Commission has also applied heightened scrutiny to offenders already in custody to determine whether their release would pose a risk to public safety, a process that has led to the reduction in the number of parole offenders at the Jail by almost half: from 270 as of March 16, 2020, to 121 as of May 22, 2020. Id. ¶ 6. Beginning this week, the Commission has also undertaken the process of obtaining a list from the DOC of the approximately 90 offenders who have USPC detainers placed on them and beginning next week will conduct a record review of those offenders to determine whether to maintain those detainers based on the seriousness of the violations, the offender’s history of violence and risk to public safety, and an assessment of the amount of time that the Commission could impose for the violations. Id. ¶ 13.
In sum, the population of the Jail has already decreased by nearly a quarter and will continue to significantly decrease in the near future. Any further release of inmates is therefore unwarranted, particularly in light of the continued improvements to the Jail’s conditions being implemented by DOC and the continued decline in COVID-19 infections at the facility.
* * *
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80 Filed 05/22/20 Page 27 of 27

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary

injunction insofar as it seeks the release of inmates from the D.C. Jail.

Dated: May 22, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL R. SHERWIN Acting United States Attorney
DANIEL F. VAN HORN, D.C. Bar #924092 Chief, Civil Division
By: /s/ Johnny Walker JOHNNY H. WALKER, D.C. Bar #991325 Assistant United States Attorney 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20530 Telephone: 202 252 2575 Email: johnny.walker@usdoj.gov
Counsel for the United States

22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80-2 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 5

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

3 EDWARD BANKS

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00849-CKK

4 et al.,
5
6

Petitioners,
V.

7 QUINCY BOOTH, in his official
capacity as Director, D.C. Department 8 of Corrections,

DECLARATION OF ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN

9 et al.,

10

Defendants.

11

12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80-2 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 5

1

I, ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, declare the following under 28 U.S.C. § 1746,

and state that under penalty of perjury the following is true and correct to the best 2
of my knowledge and belief:

3

1. I am a citizen of the United States. I am currently employed by the

Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) of the United States Department ofJustice, as the 4
Acting Assistant Director of the BOP's Correctional Programs Division in Central

5 Office, located in Washington, D .C.

2. The Correctional Programs Division (CPD) develops activities and 6
programs designed to appropriately classify inmates and promote the skills necessary 7 to facilitate the successful reintegration of inmates into their communities upon

8 release. CPD provides national policy direction and daily operational oversight of
institution correctional services; intelligence gathering; counter terrorism efforts; 9
management of inmates placed in the Federal Witness Security Program; inmate

10 transportation; inmate sentence computations and designations; emergency

preparedness; inmate discipline; and the review of sexually dangerous offenders. 11
CPD staff are also responsible for planning, monitoring, and providing the delivery
12 of programs and services such as case management, correctional systems, the

13 agency's Victim and Witness Notification Program and the collection of courtordered obligations through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.
14 Additionally, the Correctional Programs Division is the liaison with Immigration

15 Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Marshals Service. As Acting Assistant Director,
I provide leadership and management oversight of the Correctional Programs 16
Division.

17

3. The BOP is charged with the care and custody of federal offenders

sentenced to a term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 4042. Additionally, by virtue 18
of Section 11201 of Chapter 1 of Subtitle C of Title XI of the National Capital
19 Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Revitalization Act),

20

D eclaration of Andre Matevousian I 1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80-2 Filed 05/22/20 Page 3 of 5

1 enacted August 5, 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, the BOP also administers the
imprisonment terms of felony offenders convicted under the D.C. criminal code 2
(including the parole violators). The BOP has broad authority to provide for the

3 "custody, care, subsistence, education, treatment and training" of D.C. Code felony

offenders in its custody "consistent with the sentence[s] imposed." D .C. Code§ 24-
4
lOl(a)-(b).

5

4. Upon judgment and commitment in federal district court, or for those

6 D .C. criminal code felony offenders in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, the BOP has the sole responsibility in determining where an offender will
7 be designated for service of his or her sentence in accordance with BOP Program

8 Statement 5100.08, Inmate Securiry and Custocjy Classification Manual. See www.bop .gov
via the Resources/Policy & Forms tab. 9
5. Upon information and belief, there are, currently, approximately 130-
10 160 inmates located at the D.C. Jail that have been sentenced and committed to

custody by either the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or the 11
Superior Court for the District of Columbia and who are awaiting transfer to their 12 designated BOP facilities.1 This number fluctuates as more of the inmates at the
13 D.C. Jail are sentenced and committed to custody. For ease of reference and for
purposes of this declaration, these inmates will be collectively referred to as "the 14 BOP inmates."

15

6. On May 14, 2020 the U.S. Marshals Service officials and BOP officials,

including myself, met at BOP Central Office to discuss the depopulation of the D.C. 16
Jail. As a result of that meeting, the BOP and the U.S. Marshals Service determined

17 a methodical plan to safely transfer the BOP inmates to BOP facilities in order to
18 assist with the depopulation of the D.C. Jail.

19
1 The BOP does not own or operate D.C. Jail.
20

Declaration of Andre Matevousian I

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80-2 Filed 05/22/20 Page 4 of 5

1

7. Specifically, the BOP has provided the U.S. Marshals Service with five

(5) Abbott ID NOW instruments for Rapid RNA testing and 264 test kits to test the
2 BOP inmates who are located at the D.C. Jail. The U.S. Marshals Service obtained

3 the instruments on May 20, 2020 and provided them to D.C. Jail. D.C. Jail staff are

responsible for testing the BOP inmates. The five instruments will allow for 20 BOP 4
inmates to be tested in an hour,2 the morning of the anticipated transfer to determine

5 if they are COVID-19 negative. If. a BOP inmate tests positive for COVID-19 on
6 the morning of the anticipated transfer, the inmate will remain at D.C. Jail and await
safe transfer until he has tested negative. It is imperative that testing occur the 7 morning prior to transfer to mitigate the risk of exposure of COVID-19 to other

8 individuals.
8. If the BOP inmate has tested negative for COVID-19, he will be 9
transferred that day to the appropriate BOP facility/quarantine site.

10

9. Transfer will occur either via an airlift or bus, depending on the location

of the appropriate BOP facility. Inmates will be adequately distanced from one 11
another on the mode of transportation to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 exposure.

12

10. In cooperation with the U.S. Marshals Service, the BOP has agreed to

13 accept approximately 35-40 inmates at D.C. Jail who are considered high risk for
COVID-19 vulnerability.3 Fifteen of these high risk inmates have already been 14 transferred to the Federal Detention Center located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

15 (FDC Philadelphia). The remaining high risk inmates will be transferred to an

appropriate BOP facility when it is safe to do so. 16

17
18 2 Testing of a sample takes fifteen minutes per sample, allowing for four tests per hour, per instrument. Two personnel, per instrument, are required to administer the tests.
19 3 These high risk inmates are BOP inmates as well as pre-trial inmates in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service.
20

Declaration of Andre Matevousian I

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80-2 Filed 05/22/20 Page 5 of 5

1

11. Currently, it anticipated that the first large movement of BOP inmates

from D.C. Jail to an appropriate BOP facility/quarantine site will occur next week.
2

3 Executed on this 22nd day of May, 2020.

4

5

Andre Matevousian, Acting Assistant Director

Correctional Programs Division

6

Federal Bureau of Prisons

Washington, D.C.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Declaration of Andre Matevousian I

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80-3 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-0849 (CKK)

DECLARATION OF STEPHEN J. HUSK UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION
I, Stephen J. Husk, Acting Chief of Staff, United States Parole Commission make the following statement under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury:
1. I am the Acting Chief of Staff for the U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K St., NE, Washington, DC 20530. I have held this position for 8 months. Previously, I was the Administrator for Case Operations, U.S. Parole Commission, for 17 years and supervised the activities of the Commission’s hearing examiners and the scheduling of hearings conducted by the U.S. Parole Commission.
2. In the position of Acting Chief of Staff, I work closely with the U.S. Parole Commission’s Case Operations section, which reviews cases and schedules hearings, and the Commissioners, who make release and revocation decisions. I also regularly attend the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council meetings on behalf of the Parole Commission and keep informed of the number of offenders in the D.C. Department of Corrections that are under the Parole Commission’s jurisdiction. I make this statement based on my personal knowledge and my review of documents and records kept by the Commission in the regular course of its business.
3. The offenders at the D.C. Department of Corrections (“DOC”) Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”) under the jurisdiction of the United States Parole Commission (“USPC”) consist of (1) D.C. Code sentenced parole violators (who committed their offense before 8/5/2000), (2) D.C. Code sentenced supervised release violators (who committed their offense on or after 8/5/2000), and (3) prisoners under the USPC’s jurisdiction who violated the rules of the halfway house and are awaiting return to a Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) facility.
4. Offenders who are arrested on a USPC warrant and are placed at the CDF or CTF are scheduled for a probable cause hearing within 5 days of arrest at which time the Commission considers whether to either (1) release and reinstate them to supervision, (2) proceed with a revocation decision on the record, which is an expedited process, or (3) schedule an in-person revocation hearing.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80-3 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 3
5. Starting on or about mid-March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the USPC took steps to reduce the number of prisoners in CDF and CTF, first, by limiting its issuance of new warrants to only offenders that pose an imminent risk to public safety, and second, by giving heightened scrutiny to offenders to determine whether their release would pose a risk to public safety.
6. As a result of these efforts, the population of offenders under the USPC’s jurisdiction in CDF and CTF has been reduced by more than half: from 270 as of March 16, 2020, to 121 as of May 22, 2020.
7. As part of its efforts to apply heightened scrutiny, on or about April 3, 2020, the Commission began reviewing supervised release violator cases to consider reducing the prison term imposed by the USPC for offenders age 60 or older or who suffer from a documented medical condition that makes him/her unusually susceptible to the COVID-19 virus, is not serving a violation term resulting from a new crime of violence (including misdemeanor domestic violence or any sex abuse charge) or for possessing a firearm, has maintained clear conduct during the service of the violator term, and has a release plan that has already been approved by Supervision Officials.
8. In addition, during April 2020, using a roster provided by the DOC, Commission staff individually reviewed each prisoner confined at CDF or CTF on a USPC matter and considered them for possible early release.
9. In addition to these reviews, the USPC also applies heightened scrutiny at probable cause hearings and attempts to reinstate the offender to supervision or resolve the violation behavior on the record . The May 1, 2020 data from the DOC shows that, of the prisoners identified by the DOC as “parole violators” (which USPC understands to include both parole violators and supervised release violators), 35 are awaiting scheduling of a local revocation hearing to contest the alleged violations. Many of these hearings were scheduled before the national emergency was declared and have been continued until the parties needed for the hearing, e.g., the victim, witnesses, supervision officer, attorney, are able to attend the hearing in a safe manner. The USPC has reviewed these cases and determined that they should not be released.
10. The same data shows that there are 14 offenders who remain in custody awaiting institutional revocation hearings. They would ordinarily be transferred to FDC Philadelphia for this hearing, but the Commission will commence these hearings at the Jail in June unless they are transferred before that time.
11. The data also shows that there are 61 offenders that remain at CDF and CTF serving a violator term imposed by the Commission following revocation of parole or supervised release and are awaiting transfer to a BOP institution and 1 offender who had been placed in a residential reentry center (“RRC”)by the BOP and, after violating the rules of the RRC has been returned to the CDF or CTF pending transfer to a BOP institution and consideration by the Parole Commission for rescission of his parole date.
12. Some offenders in DOC custody are in pretrial status, serving misdemeanor sentences, or have been sentenced and are awaiting transfer to a BOP institution and the USPC has issued a warrant because the criminal conduct resulting in their conviction and sentence is also
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 80-3 Filed 05/22/20 Page 3 of 3

considered to be a violation of parole or supervised release. These individuals are referred to as being subject to a “detainer.”
13. This week, the USPC obtained a list from the DOC of approximately 90 offenders who have USPC detainers placed on them and will begin the process of reviewing these cases next week with a projected completion within 3 weeks or soon thereafter. During this review, the USPC will apply its heightened scrutiny to see if the warrant may be rescinded and the detainer removed.
14. If, before this review is complete, an offender is transferred to a BOP institution, the USPC detainer will transfer with the offender and will not prevent their transfer out of the DC DOC. The review will continue after they have been transferred.
15. If an offender who has a USPC warrant placed as a detainer is released by this or any other court, or released by operation of law, the USPC’s warrant will be executed and they will be placed on a probable cause hearing docket within 5 days or reviewed for release by the USPC. For this review, the USPC will take the offender’s risk to public safety into account, and will also consider the reasons that they were released.

Date: ____05/22/2020____________

_________________________________ Stephen J. Husk, Acting Chief of Staff

3

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 63 Filed 05/01/20 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs v.
QUINCY L. BOOTH, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 20-849(CKK)

ORDER (May 1, 2020) For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is, this 1st day of May, 2020, hereby
ORDERED that Defendants’ [44] Motion to Join the United States as a Necessary Party is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that the United States is joined as party with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims for habeas relief. Having been joined as a party, the United States shall enter an appearance, be served with all pleadings, and participate in any proceedings with the Court.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge

1

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 64 Filed 05/01/20 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs v.
QUINCY L. BOOTH, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 20-849(CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION (May 1, 2020)
Defendants have moved to join the United States as a necessary party to this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. The United States has similarly requested joinder, arguing that it has an interest in this case due to the potential for the release of inmates who are under the authority of the United States Attorney General’s office. Upon consideration of the pleadings, 1 the relevant legal authorities, and the record for purposes of this motion, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion. The Court finds that, absent joiner, the United States would be unable to protect its interests and Defendants could be subject to inconsistent obligations. However, as explained below, the United States’ joinder in this case is limited to

1 The Court’s consideration has focused on the following documents: • Defs.’ Mot. to Join the U.S. as a Necessary Party (“Defs.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 44; • Res. by U.S. to D.C. Defs.’ Mot. to Join the U.S. as a Necessary Party (“U.S. Res.”), ECF No. 46; • Pls.’ Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Join U.S. as a Necessary Party (“Pls.’ Opp’n”), ECF No. 52; • Defs.’ Reply in Support of Mot. to Join the U.S. as a Necessary Party (“Defs.’ Reply”), ECF No. 54; • Supp. to Pls.’ Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Joinder (“Pls.’ Supp.”), ECF No. 58; • Defs.’ Supp. Res. in Support of Mot. to Join the U.S. as a Necessary Party (“Defs.’ Supp. Res.”), ECF No. 60; and • Res. of the U.S. to Pls.’ Supp. Mem. in Opp’n to D.C.’s Mot. to Join U.S. (“U.S. Supp. Res.”), ECF No. 61.
In an exercise of its discretion, the Court finds that holding oral argument in this action would not be of assistance in rendering a decision. See LCvR 7(f).
1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 64 Filed 05/01/20 Page 2 of 10
issues involving the release of inmates under Plaintiffs’ claims for writs of habeas corpus in light of the unprecedented circumstances of this case as it relates to the COVID-19 pandemic.2
I. Interest Limited to Plaintiffs’ Habeas Claims To begin, the Court notes the limits of the United States’ interest in this matter. The
United States has acknowledged that it “does not operate or have authority over the District of Columbia Central Detention Facility and Correctional Treatment Facility …, and so cannot address or alter inmates’ conditions of confinement.” ECF No. 46, 1. Instead, the United States’ sole interest in this case is the potential that the Court could “release a significant number of the individuals currently confined in the D.C. Jail.” Id. Specifically, pursuant to writs of habeas corpus, Plaintiffs request that Defendants “[i]immediately take all actions within their power to reduce the inmate population of the D.C. Jail and CTF.” Compl., ECF No. 1, Relief Requested. The Court notes that it has not ordered the release of any inmates at this time and offers no opinion as to whether or not such relief will be granted in the future.
This restriction on the United States’ interest to Plaintiffs’ habeas claims is important. During the April 22, 2020 teleconference, Plaintiffs indicated that they request release of inmates under only the federal habeas statute, not under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. April 22, 2020 Tr., ECF No. 57, 20: 11-14. As such, the United States’ potential role as a party in this matter is restricted to Plaintiffs’ habeas claims for release and does not extend to Plaintiffs’ claims under § 1983 relating to the conditions of their confinement.
2 The Court notes that the United States filed a Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Join the United States as a Party which was opposed by Plaintiffs. ECF Nos. 55, 56. However, the Court need not resolve this Motion because, even absent the arguments in the United States’ Reply, the Court finds that joinder is appropriate.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 64 Filed 05/01/20 Page 3 of 10
Because the United States’ sole interest in this case relates to Plaintiffs’ habeas claims, Plaintiffs argue that the United States cannot be a necessary party. The federal habeas statute states that an application for a writ of habeas corpus “shall ... name ... the person who has custody over” the petitioner and that the writ “shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 2242, 2243. According to Plaintiffs, in a habeas case, the only proper respondent is the immediate custodian of the inmate, in this case the Warden of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (“DOC”). As a general matter, Plaintiffs are correct that the immediate custodian of an inmate is the proper respondent to a habeas claim. See, e.g., Nken v. Napolitano, 607 F. Supp. 2d 149, 154 (D.D.C. 2009) (finding the warden of the Maryland facility where the petitioner was detained to be the proper respondent); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004) (“the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official”); Day v. Trump, 860 F.3d 686, 689 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (explaining that the proper respondent in the petitioner’s case was the warden of the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, not the President of the United States).
However, this case is different from those cited by Plaintiffs in a crucial respect. In this case, the United States has asked to be joined as a party and has urged the importance of its joinder. ECF No. 46. That the United States has requested joinder is critical because the immediate custodian rule can be waived.
In Lane v. United States, No. 14-cv731 (RDM), 2015 WL 6406398 (D.D.C. Oct. 21, 2015), a pro se petitioner filed a habeas action and named as the defendant the United States, not the warden of the federal penitentiary at which the petitioner was detained. In refusing to dismiss the United States based on the immediate custodian rule, the court was guided by the
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 64 Filed 05/01/20 Page 4 of 10
concurrence in Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004). 2015 WL 6406398, at * 3. The concurrence, clarifying the position of two of the five Justices voting with the majority, explained that the immediate custodian rule is “not jurisdictional in the sense of a limitation on subject-matter jurisdiction,” and that the rule “can be waived by the Government.” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 451-52 (Kennedy, J., concurring). The Lane court went on to explain that United States was “fully capable of granting the requested relief” and had waived objection by responding “to the petition without invoking the immediate-custodian rule.” 2015 WL 6406398 at * 3.
The Court further notes that, as a matter of practice, the United States responds to claims for habeas relief from at least some inmates in custody of the DOC, even when the DOC warden is the named defendant. See Williams v. Warden, Central Detention Facility, 538 F. Supp. 2d 74, 75 n.1 (D.D.C. 2008) (U.S. Attorney’s Office responded to the habeas petition of pretrial detainee at D.C. Jail); Fields v. Smith, No. 14-1629, 2016 WL 29250 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2016) (U.S. Parole Commissioner and Attorney General responded to habeas petition of detainee at D.C. jail).
Here, the United States has done more than waive the immediate custodian rule. The United States is actively seeking to be joined in this case. As such, the Court finds that the fact that the relevant claims are habeas claims does not pose a categorical bar to joinder. Instead, the Court must conduct the traditional joinder analysis to determine if joinder is proper.
II. Standard for Joinder Defendants move to join the United States as a necessary party pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 19. Rule 19 “establishes a two-step procedure for determining whether an action must be dismissed because of the absence of a party needed for a just adjudication.” Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Babbitt, 117 F.3d 1489, 1495-96 (D.C. Cir. 1997). First, the Court
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 64 Filed 05/01/20 Page 5 of 10
must apply the factors enumerated in Rule 19(a) to determine whether the absent party is “required” to be joined. Rule 19(a) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if … (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may: (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest; or (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B). If the court finds that a “required” person has not been joined, it “must order that the person be made a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(2).
If a necessary party cannot be joined, the court must turn to the second step, examining the factors enumerated in Rule 19(b) to “determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b). “The factors for the court to consider include: (1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person's absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties; (2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by: (A) protective provisions in the judgment; (B) shaping the relief; or (C) other measures; (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence would be adequate; and (4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b)(1)-(4). A court has “substantial discretion in considering which factors to weigh and how heavily to emphasize certain considerations in deciding whether the action should go forward in the absence of someone needed for a complete adjudication of the dispute.” Cloverleaf Standardbred Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Nat'l Bank of Wash., 699 F.2d 1274, 1277 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (citation omitted).
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 64 Filed 05/01/20 Page 6 of 10
Questions of joinder under Rule 19 “can be complex, and determinations are case specific.” Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851, 863 (2008). There is no dispute that the United States is subject to service of process and that its joinder will not deprive this Court of subject matter jurisdiction. As such, the Court moves to the first consideration for joinder of a necessary party. The relevant question is will disposing of Plaintiffs’ habeas claims in the absence of the United States impair the United States’ ability to protect its interests.
III. The United States’ Interests In assessing whether or not the United States will be able to protect its interests absent
joinder, the Court stresses the unique posture of the District of Columbia. In the District of Columbia, the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia is responsible for prosecuting only a small number of misdemeanor crimes. D.C. Code 23-101(a),(b). For all other crimes, prosecutions are “conducted in the name of the United States by the United States attorney for the District of Columbia or his assistants.” D.C. Code 23-101(c). As of April 15, 2020, there were 1,442 inmates detained by the DOC. Of those 1,442 inmates, all but 42 were in custody related to proceedings involving the United States. Dec. of Reena Chakraborty, ECF No. 44-3, ¶ 6, These 1,400 inmates detained in relation to United States’ proceedings include pre-trial and pre-sentencing cases brought by federal prosecutors, sentenced detainees, detainees awaiting parole hearings with the United States Parole Commission, and those transported to the District of Columbia to face legal proceedings while serving sentences in other jurisdictions. Granting Plaintiffs’ request for habeas release would therefore primarily affect proceedings led by the United States.
Absence from this case would impair the United States’ ability to protect its interests in these detainees as well as in future prosecutions and sentencings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(i).
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 64 Filed 05/01/20 Page 7 of 10
Any large-scale release of inmates would require an analysis of the traditional factors considered for release—the inmate’s fitness for confinement and the danger to the community in the case of release. If absent, the United States would not necessarily be able to state its opinions as to these factors for the various inmates. The United States regularly considers these factors when determining whether to seek detention or to oppose a motion for release, and its experience in these matters could be of use to the Court. In fact, the United States Attorney’s Office has already participated in the process for releasing misdemeanants held by the DOC. In re Sentenced Misdemeanants, 2020 CNC 000120 (Super. Ct. of D.C. March 31, 2020). The United States could also provide the Court with information as to other potential avenues for release and any steps that the United States is already taking to reduce the inmate population.
In finding that the United States has an interest in the release of inmates held by the DOC, the Court considers Lewis v. Government of the District of Columbia, 324 F.R.D. 296 (D.D.C. 2018). In Lewis, the court found that the United States was a required party to a lawsuit challenging Gerstein probable cause procedures used in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. 324 F.R.D. at 301-03. The court explained that the United States had an interest in the case because a ruling finding the procedures unconstitutional would impact the operations of the United States Attorney’s office because the United States Attorney prosecutes nearly all local crimes in the District of Columbia. 324 F.R.D. at 303. While Lewis involved civil claims rather than habeas claims, the Court notes that the primary role of the United States Attorney’s office in prosecuting crimes in the District of Columbia gives the United States an interest in cases, such as this, which could affect those prosecutions and sentencings.
Additionally, the United States has an interest in certain legal issues raised by Plaintiffs’ habeas motion. For example, as litigation progresses, there may be a dispute as to whether or not
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 64 Filed 05/01/20 Page 8 of 10
certain inmates can seek habeas relief in federal court if they still have available remedies in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. As the prosecuting authority in the majority of cases, the United States has an interest in the resolution of this question. Additionally, if some inmates are released early to transitional release or home confinement, the United States has an interest in the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c), which regulates these programs.
Plaintiffs contend that the United States does not have an interest in this case. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that if the United States is deemed a necessary party by virtue of exercising legal control over the inmates in DOC custody, the United States would become a necessary party in all habeas petitions brought by those convicted in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia and detained in federal facilities throughout the country. See Gon v. District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General, 825 F. Supp. 2d 271, 276 n.3 (D.D.C. 2011) (explaining that if the court recognized “the availability of concurrent jurisdiction in habeas proceedings based on the source of the original order of detention … it would fundamentally alter the landscape of habeas litigation and facilitate unprecedented and unseemly forum shopping by D.C. prisoners housed in institutions all over the country”).
The Court finds that Plaintiffs overstate the risk that granting joinder in this case will result in the United States becoming a necessary party in every habeas case. First, this case is unique in that the United States has not only waived the immediate custodian rule but has also asked that it be joined in this lawsuit. Neither party has cited another habeas case in which the United States asked that it be joined. Second, this case involves the potential for the mass release of inmates from DOC custody. As such, this case is distinguishable from the quotidian habeas cases which involve the release of individual inmates. Third, the unprecedented nature of the current global health pandemic cannot be overstated. The COVID-19 pandemic strengthens the
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 64 Filed 05/01/20 Page 9 of 10
United States’ interest in ensuring that both inmates and the greater community remain safe. Additionally, the pandemic creates exigent circumstances in which the Court may benefit from the United States’ experience in assessing the factors for release and in tapping other avenues for release such as the United States Parole Commission, the federal Bureau of Prisons, and the United States Marshals Service.
IV. Likelihood of Inconsistent Obligations Having determined that the United States is unlikely to be able to protect its interests
absent joinder, the Court next considers whether or not the exclusion of the United States would leave the existing parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(ii).
The Court finds that, absent joinder of the United States, the existing Defendants could be subject to a substantial risk of incurring inconsistent objectives. The DOC has certain legal responsibilities to the United States because many of those detained remain under the authority of the United States Attorney General. Additionally, the DOC detains some individuals for federal proceedings pursuant to intergovernmental agreements between the District of Columbia and the United States which could result in competing obligations. Defendants specifically cite to a regulation which establishes guidelines and reimbursement for the DOC’s detention and transport of federal inmates. See DOC Policy & Procedure 2120.2D (eff. May 7, 2015), available online at https://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/ PP%202120.2D%20DOC%20Reimbursement%20for%20Federal%20Prisoners%2005-072015.pdf. A court-ordered mass release of inmates could affect Defendants’ obligations under these guidelines, such as the requirement that the DOC provide housing and medical costs for
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 64 Filed 05/01/20 Page 10 of 10
sentenced felons until the Federal Bureau of Prisons designates the inmate for a different placement.
V. Conclusion In summary, the Court finds that there is sufficient reason to consider the United States a
necessary party to this action because, absent joiner, the United States would be unable to protect its interests and Defendants could be subject to inconsistent obligations. However, the Court cautions that the United States’ joinder in this case is limited to issues involving the release of inmates under Plaintiffs’ habeas claims. The Court further cautions that this case has little precedential effect for future habeas claims. This case is unique because the United States has requested joinder, the habeas claim relates to the mass release of inmates—the majority of whom are under the direct authority of the United States, and there is a need for quick and efficient action due to the threat of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The Court’s ruling on this Motion should not be seen as providing support for the proposition that the United States should be joined in any other habeas cases.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. /s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge
10

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 43

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-0849 (CKK)

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction against defendants Quincy Booth, Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC), and Lennard Johnson, DOC Warden, as DOC continues its extensive response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs’ requested broad, systemic relief is unwarranted in light of the significant and effective actions DOC has shown that it is taking. Plaintiffs have not established that defendants acted with deliberate indifference, especially in light of the substantial discretion afforded them under the law—which is all the more necessary to respond to an evolving public health emergency. The evidence shows that DOC’s ongoing efforts are working: The number of COVID-19positive inmates in DOC facilities peaked late last month and is continuing to decline. Indeed, far from responding to the pandemic unreasonably, DOC took immediate action before the first COVID-19 case was reported in the District of Columbia, to prepare to control and contain the spread of the virus and keep DOC residents safe. Within days after the District’s first confirmed case, Mayor Bowser declared a public health emergency, and DOC took further action, adapting

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 43
its policies and facilities in line with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines: Restricting visitation, screening everyone entering the facilities, educating staff and residents about how to protect themselves from the virus, and communicating with public health officials for proper guidance. DOC has continued to act, by limiting inmate movement, reducing the inmate population (by almost 30% since the crisis began), implementing effective quarantine and medical isolation of potentially infected residents, and increasing facility sanitation and social distancing.
DOC has also fully assisted amici in their inspections and followed through on their recommendations, improving the ability of all its residents to obtain appropriate and timely medical care, contracting with outside professionals to clean the facilities, and ensuring that residents have access to necessary personal protective equipment, cleaning supplies, and clean linens. In addition, DOC has broadened its protocols to test all new intakes and every inmate transferred to another facility and, on May 22, 2020, began broader surveillance testing of residents at its facilities. DOC also continues to improve the ability of every inmate to have reliable and consistent access to confidential legal calls, purchasing additional equipment and reconfiguring existing systems and facilities to accommodate necessary social distancing.
Despite these unprecedented measures, plaintiffs seek preliminary injunctive relief, which in any form would be extraordinary. But the breadth and intrusiveness of the relief sought here is especially so. The declaration of the sole named plaintiff—Edward Banks—submitted in support of the preliminary injunction does not indicate any entitlement to relief even for himself: he does not indicate that he has been denied or delayed access to medical care; that he is unable to socially distance from others; that he currently lacks soap and water, clean towels and linens, or cleaning supplies. Without suffering any such actual or imminent harm, plaintiffs nevertheless ask this Court to take over core aspects of the District’s correctional system. This request is inappropriate
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 43
in scope and untethered to any legal justification, especially given plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate a municipal custom or policy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Although plaintiffs might argue that these are extraordinary times, this is no justification. The Supreme Court has made clear that even in the best of times, administering a correctional facility is an “inordinately difficult undertaking,” requiring that correctional officials be given “substantial discretion” to address problems they face. The present circumstances only heighten the need for deference—the constitutional standard gives due regard to officials’ need to respond quickly under challenging and rapidly evolving circumstances. Congress has spoken clearly as well, through the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies and instructs in no uncertain terms that preliminary injunctive relief “must be narrowly drawn,” “extend no further than necessary,” and use the “least intrusive means.” Yet plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction—seeking, among other things, carte blanche adoption of any recommendations that amici might make—would turn this established law on its head.
The requested preliminary injunction would deeply emmesh this Court in the administration of corrections in the District and effectively displace the proper role of local officials in managing their own operations, including their dedicated and continuing response to the unprecedented challenge posed by COVID-19. Such intervention is especially unwarranted now that defendants’ steadfast actions are showing clear signs of progress. As discussed below, DOC has taken and continues to take extensive measures to ensure that the District’s incarcerated population at both facilities—the Central Detention Facility (CDF) and the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF)—remains safe and secure amid this pandemic. Continued court intervention is unnecessary and improper.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 43
BACKGROUND I. The District’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
A. Planning and Strategy On February 28, 2020, Mayor Bowser issued Mayor’s Order 2020-035 vesting responsibility for coordinating the District’s emergency response planning for COVID-19 with the D.C. Department of Health (DOH) and Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency (HSEMA). Decl. of Lennard Johnson (Johnson Decl.) [20-1] ¶ 4. DOC began implementing operational and medical procedures based on guidance and recommendations from DOH and HSEMA. Id. DOC began to take other actions to guard against this rapidly spreading global disease. On March 6, 2020, Director Booth activated the DOC Incident Command System and started holding daily meetings with the agency’s division heads to discuss COVID-19 preventive measures at the DOC’s facilities. Id. On March 7, the District recorded its first confirmed case of COVID-19. See Gov’t of the District of Columbia, Coronavirus Data, available at https://coronavirus.dc.gov/ page/coronavirus-data. By March 11, Mayor Bowser had issued a Declaration of Public Emergency and a Declaration of Public Health Emergency. See Mayor’s Order 2020-045 (Mar. 11, 2020), available at https://tinyurl.com/yc9ktz8x; Mayor’s Order 2020-046 (Mar. 11, 2020), available at https://tinyurl.com/y8dnbc2r. Two days later, DOC implemented a policy—based on guidance and recommendations from DOH and the CDC—requiring everyone entering a DOC facility to be screened for potential COVID-19 symptoms by conducting a temperature check and screening survey. Decl. of Dr. Beth Jordan (Jordan Decl.) [20-2] ¶¶ 4, 5. DOC’s Medical Director and Health
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 43
Services Administrator, Dr. Beth Jordan, began meeting daily with DOC’s healthcare contractor, Unity Health Care (Unity), to discuss the health of inmates and the measures being taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Id. ¶ 9. She similarly began seeking regular guidance from DOH and, along with Unity’s Medical Director, began communicating regularly with Dr. Anne Spaulding from Emory University, one of the country’s leading experts on infectious diseases and correctional health. Id. ¶ 10.
DOC’s executive team started meeting daily to discuss the findings and updates of the Incident Command System. Johnson Decl. [20-1] ¶ 4. DOC also began participating in daily meetings of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC), ensuring DOC was sharing and receiving appropriate information regarding COVID-19 preventive measures with other detention stakeholders. Id.
B. DOC’s Policies and Practices DOC promptly made changes within the facilities where DOC residents are housed. On March 15, 2020, both facilities halted all non-lawyer visits, Supp. Decl. of Lennard Johnson (Johnson Supp. Decl.), Ex. A ¶ 5, and increased the frequency of scheduled common-area cleanings to every two hours between 8:00 a.m. and midnight, and twice each night between midnight and 8:00 a.m., Johnson Decl. ¶ 6. Residents were given access to appropriate cleaning materials to clean their cells and began receiving a new bar of soap and a roll of toilet paper every week, free of charge. Id. ¶¶ 7–8. DOC also continued to provide residents with clean linens (a towel and sheets) every week. Id. ¶ 9. To minimize the risk of virus transmission, DOC also modified resident movement and activity at its facilities, moving residents from their housing units only for court appearances, medical and dental appointments, work details, legal visits, legal calls, and for residents of CDF,
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 43
video conferencing. Id. ¶ 11. DOC also began placing posters throughout both facilities to remind staff and residents about measures they should take to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Id. ¶ 12.
In addition, all new residents entering a DOC facility began to be quarantined for 14 days before assignment to their permanent housing unit. Jordan Decl. ¶ 7. Everyone on quarantine has their temperature checked twice daily. Id. DOC’s medical staff also began to meet regularly with staff and residents to discuss COVID-19 preventive measures. Id. ¶ 8. DOC conducted its first COVID-19 test on March 15. Id. ¶ 11. Medical staff would take a swab and send it to DOH for testing. Id. On March 26, DOC’s first resident tested positive for COVID-19 and that resident’s housing unit was immediately quarantined. Supp. Decl. of Beth Jordan (Jordan Supp. Decl.), Ex. B ¶ 5.
On April 4, 2020, DOC entered a “Medical Stay-In-Place” Order to minimize inmate movement, largely restricting inmates to their cells, modifying the recreation schedule to allow only small groups of inmates out of their cells at a time, and imposing social distancing. See App’x to Amici Report [47-1] (Medical Stay-in-Place Order included as Exhibit 6).
On April 17, 2020 “informed by some new guidance from Mayor’s Order 2020-063, dated April 15, 2020,” DOC issued a memorandum to all employees and contractors, to remind staff of the new procedures regarding COVID-19. Id. (Exhibit 11). The memorandum, among other things, directed correctional officers to enforce social distancing at all times, and stated that there would be multiple daily announcements over the public address system to remind staff and residents about the need to maintain social distancing. Id. at 1. The memorandum also announced that all DOC residents (except those in isolation) would be provided with one hour out-of-cell time each day and that DOC medical staff would visit each housing unit to remind staff and residents about the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), COVID-19 prevention, and how to submit sick
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 43
call slips. Id. at 2. In addition, the memorandum announced that residents in isolation units would be allowed to shower daily and allowed (with all other residents) a 30-minute unmonitored call to their attorneys each day. Id. at 2, 4. The memorandum also listed new procedures to document the amounts of cleaning materials and equipment in housing units and address shortages, and to verify and document that common areas are cleaned according to schedule. Id. at 3. Moreover, the memorandum announced that all visitors to DOC facilities (including staff, contractors, and inspectors) who failed the COVID-19 screening would be denied entry, and that staff responsible for those screenings would be retrained on the use of contactless infrared thermometers. Id. at 4. Finally, DOC noted that it had requested volunteers from the DOH Medical Reserve Corps to assist in screening. Id. at 5.
C. Resident Release Since before the pandemic began, residents in DOC custody have consisted primarily of individuals charged or prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, not the District. See D.C. Code §§ 23-101(a)-(c). Among the small minority prosecuted by the District, some residents are held pre-trial and some are serving misdemeanor sentences. DOC has no legal authority to unilaterally release individuals from its custody. Until March 18, 2020, its authority was limited to awarding no more than ten good-time credits per calendar month to each resident. See D.C. Code § 24221.01c(a) (2016). On March 18, the D.C. Council passed the COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020. See D.C. Act 23-247 (Mar. 17, 2020), available at https://lims.dccouncil.us/ downloads/LIMS/44469/Signed_Act/B23-0718-SignedAct.pdf. Among other provisions, that law authorized DOC to exercise its discretion to award additional “good time credits” to those serving misdemeanor sentences “consistent with public safety.” See D.C. Code ¶ 24-221.01c(c) (2020).
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 43

The very next day, DOC used its new discretion to double the maximum number of monthly sentencing credits a resident serving a misdemeanor sentence may receive from 10 to 20, see DOC Change Notice #20-002, March 18, 2020 [19-2], ¶ 2c, and it has since released dozens of residents through that procedure. See Defs.’ Mem. in Opp’n to TRO [25] at 10; see also Notice of Filing of Superior Court Order [43] at 2 (noting that the number of individuals in DOC custody serving misdemeanor sentences had dropped, in two weeks, from 94 to 10) (quoting Order, In re Sentenced Misdemeanants, No. 2020 CNC 000120 (Super. Ct. of D.C. Apr. 14, 2020)).
D. Additional Measures Taken Before and After the Court’s Temporary Restraining Order
Before and after the Court issued its temporary restraining order on April 19, 2020 [51], DOC continued to take additional steps to prevent the spread of the virus.
1. Medical Care and Testing DOC has recently expanded testing protocols to ensure that medical testing is readily accessible to residents.1 In determining whether to test residents for COVID-19, DOC has relied primarily on CDC’s “Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities” (CDC Guidance).2 Jordan Supp. Decl. ¶ 10. Recently, however, DOC has expanded the testing criteria beyond CDC Guidance. Id. ¶¶ 10, 11. DOC now tests any resident to be transferred to Saint Elizabeths Hospital or to a federal correctional facility.

1

On May 22 and 26, DOC medical staff hosted remote video conferences to provide an

overview of health services at DOC and discussed specific measures they have taken to address

the spread of COVID-19. See Jordan Supp. Decl. ¶ 17, Attach. 3 (Health Services PowerPoint

Presentation). Although the meetings were open to the public, DOC made the presentations to

inform D.C. Superior Court judges about health services at DOC facilities, and many judges

attended. Id.

2

The CDC Guidance is available online at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/

2019-ncov/downloads/guidance-correctional-detention.pdf (May 24, 2020).

8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 43
Id. ¶ 11. And as of May 18, DOC also tests cellmates of any resident who recently tested positive and all new residents upon intake. Id. ¶ 10. As discussed below, DOC has also improved its protocols to ensure that any resident on a quarantine or non-quarantine unit who displays symptoms of COVID-19 is offered a test in a timely manner.
Recent COVID-19 testing data shows a decline in positive cases in DOC facilities. Supp. Decl. of Reena Chakraborty (Chakraborty Supp. Decl.), Ex. C ¶ 8. The peak of COVID-positive residents occurred on April 24, 2020, when 55 residents were positive and—after a brief decline— there was a secondary peak on May 2, 2020, when 54 residents were positive. Id.; Amici Report [77] at 16 (“At both facilities, by mid-May 2020, the rate of new COVID-19 cases had dropped significantly from peak levels.”). After May 2, 2020, there has been a downward trend in known positive cases and, as of May 24, 2020, only 17 residents remained positive (14 at DOC facilities and 3 in local hospitals). Chakraborty Supp. Decl. ¶ 8.
On May 22, 2020, despite already having robust testing protocols in place, DOC, in collaboration with DOH and Unity, took the step of conducting widespread testing of residents housed in quarantine and non-quarantine units. Jordan Supp. Decl. ¶ 13. Medical staff tested about 400 residents housed in CDF and CTF, including entire housing units with recent COVID-19 cases, the enhanced monitoring unit, all non-COVID patients in the infirmary, and a sampling of other units throughout DOC facilities. Id. The purpose of the study is to identify asymptomatic carriers of the coronavirus and, upon receipt of the study’s results, DOC will coordinate with DOH to determine next steps. Id.3 As of today, 680 DOC residents have been tested for COVID-19. Id. ¶ 15.

3

This broader testing will likely result in a temporary spike in the number of COVID-19-

positive DOC residents. Id. ¶ 13.

9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 43
As with testing practices, medical staff have followed CDC guidance on the placement of inmates based on their potential exposure to COVID-19. Id. ¶ 5. Residents who may have been exposed to someone who tested positive are placed on a 14-day quarantine. Id. In practice, this means that if one resident on a housing unit tests positive for COVID-19, the entire housing unit becomes a “quarantine unit.” Id. Newly arrived residents are similarly housed on an “enhanced monitoring unit” for two weeks and are separated from other housing units. Id. ¶ 6. Nursing staff visit residents on the quarantine unit and the enhanced monitoring unit twice daily to take their temperature, screen for COVID-19 symptoms, and address other concerns residents might raise. Id. When nurses note a fever or a resident complains of symptoms, the nurses call a medical provider (nurse practitioner, physician’s assistant, or doctor) for the resident to be evaluated— generally within two hours—and the medical provider will test for COVID-19 during the evaluation if appropriate. Id. Residents who have been tested and are awaiting results are placed on cell-restriction on their housing unit until the test results come back. Id. ¶ 5.
Residents who test positive for COVID-19 are placed in isolation and checked by medical staff at least twice daily. Id. ¶ 4; Tr. of May 11, 2020 Hr’g (Amici Supp. Oral Rep.) Ex. D, at 27 (“[O]n both isolation and quarantine housing units, medical staff are conducting routine monitoring of inmates to identify those who need urgent care. For inmates in isolation, the level of routine monitoring is very high. It frequently includes multiple visits from both nursing staff and advanced medical providers on a daily basis.”). Unity follows CDC guidance to determine if a resident can be cleared for release from isolation. Jordan Supp. Decl. ¶ 4. This determination requires that: (1) the resident be free from fever for at least 72 hours without the use of feverreducing medications; (2) there are improvements in the resident’s other symptoms, such as coughing and shortness of breath; and (3) at least 10 days have passed since the resident’s first
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 43

symptoms appeared. Id. Until May 3, CDC guidance recommended only seven days since the first symptoms appeared, and DOC followed that guidance until it was updated to 10 days. Id. The only time residents are permitted to leave isolation prior to satisfying CDC’s criteria is if they are released from jail. Id.
Residents not on an isolation or quarantine unit who report or display any CDC-defined symptoms of COVID-19 or other symptoms of concern are offered the opportunity to meet with medical staff and get tested. Id. ¶ 7. The primary way to report symptoms is by filling out a sick call slip and submitting it into the sick call slip box on each housing unit. Id.
On April 13, 2020, DOC enhanced the traditional sick call process by having medical staff “walk the units” and talk with residents daily prior to staffing the sick call clinic on that housing unit. Id. ¶ 8. As a result, providers have been able to find additional residents to place on that day’s sick call schedule who had not completed a slip but needed to be seen by medical staff. Id.4
On May 18, 2020, DOC and Unity updated its system on the non-quarantine/non-isolation units to provide residents care within 24 hours of submitting a sick call slip. Id. ¶ 9. Nurses or Medical Assistants are tasked specifically with visiting non-quarantine, non-isolation housing units each day to retrieve sick call slips so that the slips can be triaged within hours of the resident submitting one. Id. The new system enables residents on these units to submit sick call slips and be seen by a high-level provider within 24 hours, a significant enhancement to accessing care. Id. Additionally, the sick call slip now contains specific questions to screen residents for COVID-19,

4

The new system of walking the units daily directly addresses amici’s concern that residents

will not be able to access medical care if they are not able to submit a slip during their limited time

outside of the cells. See Amici Report [77] at 11 (amici could not verify that this process is being

implemented but noted that “[t]his type of process would provide an opportunity for inmates

locked in their cells to communicate health problems directly to medical staff on a daily basis, and

mitigate the current barriers to accessing medical care for inmates on non-quarantine housing

units”).

11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 43
and residents who report experiencing possible COVID-19 symptoms will be seen the same day. Id., Attach. 2 (New Sick Call Slip).
Consistent with CDC guidance, residents released from DOC’s facilities are screened for COVID-19 symptoms and have their temperature checked prior to release, but they are not tested. Id. ¶ 12. Upon release, inmates are also provided PPE and—if they are symptomatic—advised to self-quarantine for 14 days and consult with their doctor. Id. If someone has COVID-19-related housing needs, Unity discharge planners work with District of Columbia Department of Human Services to help the released inmate find housing. Id.
2. Sanitation DOC has also taken additional measures to improve cleanliness and sanitation at its facilities. Inmates have the opportunity to receive clean linens and clothing on a weekly basis by exchanging their dirty linens and clothing. Johnson Supp. Decl. ¶ 8. To ensure residents receive this opportunity, correctional officers are required to track the laundry exchanges for linens, uniforms, and personal laundry. Declaration of Kathleen Jo Landerkin (Landerkin Decl.), Ex. E ¶ 4; Declaration of Michele Jones (Jones Decl.), Ex. F ¶ 4. As of May 20, 2020, all inmates are provided fresh bed linens upon entering isolation, which are replaced weekly, and another set of clean bed linens upon release from isolation. Johnson Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 8, 9; Attach. 8 (Order with New Isolation Linen Policy). Inmates also have access to sufficient and appropriate cleaning equipment and supplies. Declaration of Gitana Stewart-Ponder (Stewart-Ponder Decl.), Ex. G ¶ 10; Amici Supp. Oral Rep. at 40 (residents “have access at both facilities to cleaning material and equipment”). To clean their cells, residents in each unit have access to a medical-grade, peroxide-based surface cleaner and disinfectant, approved by the CDC for killing the virus. Id. Residents are not permitted to access
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 43
the cleaning solution directly because it could be harmful if ingested or sprayed into someone’s eyes. Id. ¶ 11. Instead, correctional officers spray the solution onto paper towels and give them to residents. Id. ¶ 11. On April 25, 2020, DOC began requiring correctional officers to verify that each cell in both facilities is clean every day and to mark the time the cell was checked on the Housing Unit Cell Cleaning Verification Form. Landerkin Decl. ¶ 5; Jones Decl. ¶ 5. Supervisors review the forms, and correctional officers are disciplined for failure to comply with the protocols. Landerkin Decl. ¶ 7; Jones Decl. ¶ 7.
DOC continually works to improve its protocols to ensure that cleaning supplies are readily accessible. Since April 9, 2020, a DOC program analyst calls correctional housing units twice a day to ask if any cleaning supplies are needed and to confirm that cleaning is being done. Landerkin Decl. ¶ 9; Jones Decl. ¶ 9. The program analyst documents the calls and additional supplies are provided to the housing units as needed. Landerkin Decl. ¶ 9, Attach. 4 (Sample CDF Call Log); Jones Decl. ¶ 9, Attach. 4 (Sample CTF Call Log). Additionally, the Department of Youth and Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) sanitarian, Dwayne Coley, recently recommended replacing the paper towels inmates use to clean their cells with microfiber towels. Id. ¶ 12. DOC adopted the recommendation and ordered additional microfiber towels that arrived on May 18, 2020. Id. DOC has distributed one to each resident, and the new system should address many of Amici’s concerns. Id.; Amici Supp. Oral Rep. at 41.
A detail of residents is also tasked with cleaning common areas throughout CDF and CTF. Stewart-Ponder Decl. ¶ 9. The detail—supervised by correctional officers—cleans all common spaces and housing unit common areas during the night. Id. During the day, the inmate detail cleans common areas and high-touch surfaces every two hours. Id. To ensure that these cleanings are taking place regularly, on April 25, 2020, DOC began requiring correctional officers to
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 14 of 43
complete a Housing Unit Sanitation Checklist verifying that common areas and high-touch surfaces (including tables, chairs, knobs and handles, television and remote controls, railings, and mailboxes) are cleaned every two hours and some items (including inmates’ telephones, video visitation screen, exercise equipment and kiosk screens) are cleaned after each use.5 Landerkin Decl. ¶ 6; Jones Decl. ¶ 6. Supervisors then review the forms after each shift and officers who fail to comply are disciplined. Landerkin Decl. ¶ 8; Jones Decl. ¶ 8.
Since the Court issued its temporary restraining order, DOC has worked diligently to retain a sanitarian and professional cleaning services. While initiating the procurement process and searching for vendors, DOC began working with the DYRS sanitarian who visited CDF and CTF on April 30, 2020, and May 6, 2020. Stewart-Ponder Decl. ¶ 4. He provided DOC with his recommendations—related to chemical control, supervision of inmates during cleaning cycles, and disposal of PPE—all of which DOC implemented. Id.
DOC has now entered into contracts with a professional cleaning service for both facilities and a sanitarian. Stewart-Ponder Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 6. On May 12, 2020, professional cleaning service Rock Solid Group, LLC began cleaning CDF common areas, including showers and high-touch surface areas, throughout the day, from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. in accordance with CDC guidelines. Id. ¶ 5. Spectrum Management, LLC began the same cleaning regimen in CTF on May 18, 2020. Id. ¶ 6. That day, DOC also entered into a contract with a sanitarian, Potomac-Hudson Engineering, Inc., to provide onsite inspections and cleaning procedure plans for three months, beginning the week of May 25, 2020. Id. ¶ 7. The District has also planned for long-term sanitarian services at its facilities by creating and funding a permanent DOC sanitarian position, posted on

5

The rolling cart phone on the isolation unit is sanitized after every use by a correctional

officer at CTF and by an inmate detail at CDF Jones Decl. ¶ 6; Landerkin Decl. ¶ 11.

14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 15 of 43
May 21, 2020. Id. ¶ 8, Attach. 4. These professional cleaning services will supplement inmate and staff cleaning and sanitation efforts throughout the public health emergency. Id. ¶ 9.
3. Social Distancing, PPE, and Education Since the pandemic began, the population and cell-occupancy at DOC facilities has been greatly reduced, creating an environment that is more conducive to social distancing and combating the spread of COVID-19. The combined population at CTF and CDF decreased from 1,846 on March 14, 2020 to 1,340 on May 24, 2020, a decrease of 27%. Chakraborty Supp. Decl. ¶ 5, Attach. 1 (Population Graph); Amici Supp. Oral Rep. at 7 (amici noting that there had been a significant reduction in population at both facilities, compared to when they conducted their first inspections). The percentage of the population housed in single cells rose from 44% of the combined CDF and CTF populations on March 4, 2020, to 71.9% of the population on May 21, 2020, a 61.2% increase in single-cell housing. Chakraborty Supp. Decl. ¶ 6, Attach. 2 (Single Cell Housing Graph). DOC has undertaken extensive efforts to educate residents about COVID-19, and residents receive a constant stream of information about the disease and proper safety precautions. On April 28, 2020, DOC began providing residents with COVID-19 informational packets, as well as courses on digital tablets, and has since provided weekly cell-to-cell distribution of education materials regarding COVID-19, covering topics such as proper PPE usage, cleaning and disinfecting practices, and the importance of social distancing. Declaration of Amy Lopez (Lopez Decl.), Ex. H ¶ 12, Attach. 3 (Educational Materials Provided to Residents). Public address announcements are played throughout the facilities every two hours, reminding everyone of the importance of wearing PPE, social distancing, cleaning, and hygiene. Johnson Supp. Decl. ¶ 6, Attach. 5 (Text of Public Address Announcement). Flyers have been posted throughout CDF and
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 16 of 43
CTF with reminders to practice social distancing, wear PPE, and practice proper hygiene. Johnson Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7; Attachs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 (Precautionary Tips Flyer, Safety Checklist Flyer, Hygiene and Social Distancing Flyer, Flyers Posted in CDF, Flyers, Mask Reminder Flyer). See Amici Report [77] at 13 (“relative to the signage amici observed during the April site visits, the defendants have increased the number of informational signs addressing the use of PPE, including donning, doffing and disposal, throughout the CDF and CTF”).
Staff have also received extensive education regarding COVID-19. On April 27, 2020, DOC launched a mandatory online training module for staff regarding the disease; donning, doffing, and disposing of PPE; cleaning and disinfecting practices; the importance of social distancing; and screening procedures, including the use of infrared thermometers. Lopez Decl. ¶ 11, Attach. 1 (Staff COVID-19 Training). About 98% of staff have completed the training module online. Id. Additionally, paper copies of the training materials and reminders about COVID-19 precautions have also been provided to staff during roll call. Id.; Johnson Supp. Decl. ¶ 6.
Inmates and staff have access to sufficient PPE and are utilizing it appropriately. “Since amici’s April 2020 site visits, personal protective equipment has been made much more widely available to inmates and staff at the CDF and CTF and most staff have been trained on proper donning, doffing and disposal procedures.” Amici Report [77] at 17. All DOC staff are now required to wear gloves, masks and face shields at the agency’s facilities, and all residents are required to wear masks outside of their cells. Johnson Supp. Decl. ¶ 4. Additionally, the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department (FEMS) conducted on-site PPE fit tests for 40 DOC staff members on May 5, 2020, and trained two correctional officers as trainers. Id. ¶ 5. DOC has sought a vendor to fit test an additional 150 staff members and train 20
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 17 of 43
staff members on how to conduct the fit tests, who will then train the remaining DOC staff. Id. ¶ 5.
DOC has implemented new measures to ensure that staff is enforcing COVID-19 related protocols. A surveillance team monitors video footage and informs supervisors of any social distancing and PPE violations, and discipline has been imposed on correctional officers who fail to implement social distancing. Johnson Supp. Decl. ¶ 7. Beginning on April 25, 2020, at the end of each shift, correctional officers are required to complete a COVID-19 Housing Unit Checklist which asks officers to note whether: (1) the housing unit has cleaning and hygiene supplies, (2) staff and residents wear masks, (3) all residents were allowed to shower and allowed one hour out of their cells, (4) residents were reminded to social distance, (5) COVID-19 information was discussed during roll call, and (6) any residents reported feeling ill. Landerkin Decl. ¶ 7, Attach. 3 (Housing Unit Checklist); Jones ¶ 7, Attach. 3 (Housing Unit Checklist). In addition to supervisors reviewing these checklists every day and imposing discipline for failure to complete the forms, since May 10, 2020, DOC began requiring supervisors to conduct two unannounced walkthroughs and complete the same checklist to ensure that COVID-19 precautionary measures are being followed and the correctional officers are accurately completing the forms. Landerkin Decl. ¶ 10; Jones Decl. ¶ 10. Supervisors note and remedy any deficiencies they observe. Id.
4. Staffing Staffing across DOC operations has been improving over the last several weeks despite a number of challenges arising from the pandemic. DOC currently employs 945 correctional officers, and there are an additional 45 vacant correctional officer positions available to be filled. Stewart-Ponder Decl. ¶ 13. Filling these vacancies has proved difficult during the public health emergency. Id. Restrictions on physical gatherings have limited DOC’s ability to hold correctional
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 18 of 43
officer recruitment events. Id. Those who apply for positions also cannot start right away; every new hire must pass recruitment testing, an extensive background check, and a course called Basic Correctional Training before they can take on the full duties of the job. Id.; Lopez Decl. ¶ 10. The current workforce has itself faced difficulties. As many as a third of correctional officers have been on leave and unavailable to work during portions of the pandemic, including leave related to COVID-19 quarantines and illnesses. Stewart-Ponder Decl. ¶ 14.
Despite the challenges presented by the pandemic, DOC has undertaken substantial efforts to increase staffing at DOC facilities. Id. ¶ 15. For instance, DOC called and sent return-to-work letters to individuals whose leave had expired (e.g., individuals who were self-quarantining for two weeks and had not returned to work when the quarantine ended). Id. DOC has also continued its recruiting efforts, reaching out to the Mayor’s Office of Veterans Affairs, which is advertising correctional officer positions and helping DOC identify potential candidates from their database of applicants. Id. ¶ 17. DOC will also hold a recruiting event for correctional officers—preemployment testing—on June 6, 2020. Id.
Staffing has substantially improved in the last several weeks. About two weeks ago, 298 officers were unavailable for duty; as of May 18, 2020, that number has dropped to 251. Id. ¶ 16. On May 22, 2020, thirteen officers graduated from the training academy and reported to work at CDF and CTF on May 25. Lopez Decl. ¶ 10. Medical staffing has improved too. Notwithstanding the reduced resident population, Unity was recently approved to hire four additional staff, two nurse practitioners and two medical assistants, to assist with resident medical care. Jordan Supp. Decl. ¶ 14. Those positions have now been posted. Id. On April 27, 2020, members of the DOH Medical Reserve Corps began volunteering in the DOC facilities, primarily assisting with entry screenings. Id. ¶ 16.
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 19 of 43
5. Legal Calls DOC has also implemented changes to facilitate legal calls and communications between residents and their attorneys. DOC case managers have been arranging approximately 200 emergency attorney calls per week. Supplemental Declaration of Camille Williams (Williams Supp. Decl.), Ex. I ¶ 4. Amici noted in their report that residents currently in isolation at CTF have consistent access to a rolling cart that houses a phone for resident use. See Amici Supp. Oral Rep. at 29. Except for a small number on one tier, residents in isolation at CDF similarly have access to a phone cart. Id. at 30; see id. at 32 (observing residents in isolation “are afforded confidentiality because the calls take place in their cells”); id. at 33 (“So clearly, there’s been improvement on the isolation units in terms of access to legal calls.”).6 In non-isolation units, many attorney calls by CDF and CTF inmates were previously conducted using telephones in case managers’ offices, although for security reasons, the case manager would have to remain in or near the office during the call. Williams Decl. ¶ 4. Individual cell phones for all residents would be expensive and could pose security risks, including allowing the intimidation of witnesses and other illegal activity. Id. ¶ 6. However, to enable unmonitored emergency calls between residents and attorneys, DOC has now obtained 50 cell phones and 10 wired headsets with long cords that will enable case managers to dial the number of a resident’s attorney and permit the resident to speak on the headset unmonitored while the case manager is sufficiently at a distance. Id. ¶ 5. Headsets will also be disinfected between each use. Id. DOC has also ordered 50 wireless headsets and expects them to arrive in early June 2020. Id. DOC posted

6

Currently, all residents have access to the rolling phone cart. Landerkin Decl. ¶ 11. For a

short period of time, a small number of residents in isolation at CDF could not access the rolling

phone cart used for legal calls and instead were permitted to make legal calls from a case manager's

office or in the unit recreation room.

19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 20 of 43
flyers in CDF and CTF on May 1, 2020, notifying residents about the availability of free legal calls. Johnson Supp. Decl. ¶ 10, Attach. 9.
In addition, DOC has harnessed digital tablets, previously used for educational and vocational programs, to facilitate secure messaging between residents and their attorneys. Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 4-6. DOC has configured accounts for many residents to permit unmonitored, secure messaging with their attorney and is working to expand access to all residents. Id. DOC has also configured the tablets to allow residents to fill out and submit grievance forms directly to the inmate grievance coordinator. Id. ¶ 7. DOC currently has approximately 500 tablets, with another 1,000 tablets that have been approved for purchase and should arrive in June 2020. Id. ¶¶ 5, 8.
E. The Plaintiffs Plaintiffs in this case are three individuals currently in DOC custody; plaintiffs Phillips and Banks reside at CDF, while plaintiff Smith resides at CTF. Compl. [1] ¶¶ 14–17. Plaintiff Phillips is incarcerated pending trial and was denied bond. See id. ¶ 14; United States v. D’Angelo Phillips, Case No. 2020 CF3 002932 (D.C. Super. Ct.). Plaintiff Banks has pled guilty to a felony and awaits sentencing. See Compl. ¶ 15; United States v. Edward M. Banks, Case No. 2019 CF1 010956 (D.C. Super. Ct.). Plaintiff Smith is incarcerated pending trial. Compl. ¶ 16.7 Plaintiff Banks is the only plaintiff who filed an affidavit in support of preliminary injunctive relief. He states that he does not regularly receive his out-of-cell time, the hot water tap in his cell did not work properly, and that he has “not been receiving a new face mask every day.” Banks Decl. [70-35] ¶¶ 4–9, 13. His affidavit does not claim that he is suffering from a lack of

7

One of the original plaintiffs—Keon Jackson—has been released and is no longer a party.

Memorandum Opinion [51] (Mem. Op.) at 7.

20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 21 of 43

medical care or access to care. He also does not claim that he has filed any administrative grievance with DOC.8 II. Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit on March 30, 2020. See Compl.; Amended Memorandum Opinion (Mem. Op.) [51] at 2. Along with the Complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO), and a motion for preliminary injunction. See Mot. to Certify Class [3]; Application for TRO [5]; Mot. for Prelim. Inj. [6]. Plaintiffs challenge their conditions of confinement, alleging generally that DOC’s response to the pandemic poses an unreasonable and excessive risk to their health and safety in violation of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. Compl. ¶¶ 8–9.
The Court held a TRO hearing on April 7, 2020, and heard argument for approximately two hours. After further discussions, the Parties agreed to the appointment of Grace Lopes and Mark Jordan “as amici of the Court to provide information on the actual conditions of the CTF and CDF and to make findings on Defendants’ responses to COVID-19.” Id. at 4; Consent Order Appointing Amicus [34]. Amici reviewed documents provided by the District and conducted unannounced and unescorted inspections of the CDF and CTF on April 10, 11, and 12. Mem. Op. at 4.9 Amici presented their preliminary findings orally at a telephone conference on April 15, and submitted their written report on April 18, 2020. Id.
The Court entered a TRO on April 19, 2020, requiring specific actions in a number of areas.

8

DOC’s Inmate Grievance Procedure is currently codified in DOC Policy and Procedure

4030.1K (Jan. 18, 2018), available at https://tinyurl.com/y89anbw3.

9

See Transcript (Apr. 15, 2020) at 10 (“[T]he Defendants have been very cooperative and

responsive throughout this assessment process in terms of providing us with the data and

information that we needed.”).

21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 22 of 43
See TRO [51]. DOC took immediate action to comply with the TRO. On April 22, the Court conducted a telephone conference to discuss the schedule for briefing on plaintiffs’ amended motion for a preliminary injunction, during which the District consented to extend the TRO until at least May 15, 2020, to facilitate fact gathering ahead of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Minute Order (Apr. 23, 2020). On April 28, 2020, the Court issued a Consent Order which established a schedule for briefing and appointed amici to provide an oral report to the Court on May 11, 2020, answering questions on access to medical care; monitoring and treatment of inmates on isolation; access to telephone calls, showers, clean linens, and cleaning supplies; and social distancing. Consent Order [62] at 1.10 The Consent Order also directed amici to file a supplemental written report by May 20, 2020, to answer additional questions on staff training, retention of a sanitarian and professional cleaning services, and the education of staff and inmates about limiting the spread of COVID-19. Id. at 2.
On May 1, 2020, the Court granted the District’s motion to join the United States as a necessary party. Order [63]; Mem. Opinion [64].
In their amended motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs urge the Court to “extend and expand” the already broad relief granted in the TRO. Pls.’ Mem. at 2. Specifically, plaintiffs ask the Court to appoint an expert to make recommendations regarding a broad release of categories of inmates. Id.; see also Pls.’ Proposed Order [70-38] at 1–2. Plaintiffs ask the Court to order the District, within five days, to (1) hire a sanitarian and professional cleaning service for both facilities and ensure that “each DOC resident has access to proper and sufficient cleaning supplies to clean their cells and common areas, and provide training so that cleaning tools and
10 The District also agreed to extend the TRO “until the Court issues a decision on plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction[.]” Consent Order [62] at 2.
22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 23 of 43
products are used properly”; (2) to “implement a system for medical staff to visit each nonquarantine unit in DOC facilities to assess residents’ health” and to provide “a plan to address staffing shortages”; and (3) to confer with plaintiffs and provide to the Court a plan for providing plaintiffs with information about the defendants’ compliance. Id. at 2–3. Finally, plaintiffs ask the Court to order the District to provide a plan to “conduct a point prevalence survey as soon as possible to determine the spread of COVID-19 among residents and staff[,]” id. at 3, i.e., test every inmate and staff member.11
LEGAL STANDARD A preliminary injunction “is ‘an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.’” Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 393 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)). “The primary purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the object of the controversy in its then existing condition—to preserve the status quo.” Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20 (emphasis added). The latter two factors merge when the government is opposing an injunction. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). A plaintiff seeking emergency injunctive relief bears the burden of proving all four prongs of the standard before relief can be granted. Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288,
11 A “point prevalence survey” is a “data collection tool used to identify the number of people with a disease or condition at a specific point in time.” See https://www.cdc.gov/hai/eip/antibioticuse.html (May 20, 2020).
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 24 of 43
1292 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “An injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of course.” Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 165 (2010). See also Disability Rights Council of Greater Wash. v. WMATA, 234 F.R.D. 4, 7 (D.D.C. 2006) (“[T]he greater the scope of relief demanded, the greater the necessary showing to get it.”).
ARGUMENT I. Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled to Preliminary Injunctive Relief Related to Health and
Safety Conditions. A. Plaintiffs Cannot Show a Likelihood of Success on the Merits. Demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits is the “most important factor” in the preliminary injunction analysis. Aamer, 742 F.3d at 1038. Failing to meet the burden on this prong “is alone sufficient to defeat” a motion for emergency injunctive relief. Smith v. Henderson, 944 F. Supp. 2d 89, 96 (D.D.C. 2013). Plaintiffs must show not merely that success is a “possibility” but that it is “likely.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20–22. Plaintiffs cannot meet this burden. Plaintiffs cannot complain that the District has done nothing to address the COVID-19 outbreak in DOC facilities; they argue only that the District’s efforts are insufficient. Pls.’ Mem. at 9. As the evidence shows, however, the District took immediate action, even before the first resident tested positive for COVID-19. See Background Section I.A. DOC swiftly mobilized its executive leadership to develop action plans, promptly began screening visitors, developed screening protocols for residents, and devised a system for isolating positive patients and quarantining those with symptoms. See above at 4–8. As demonstrated, DOC has worked diligently to respond to the COVID-19 crisis and continually improve the effectiveness of its response. See generally Background Section I.12
12 The “incidence of diseases or infections, standing alone,” do not “imply unconstitutional confinement conditions, since any densely populated residence may be subject to outbreaks.”
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 25 of 43
At bottom, plaintiffs complain not that the District’s actions are entirely ineffective, but that the District is not moving quickly enough. Indeed, leaving aside the release issue, plaintiffs’ proposed preliminary injunction [70-38] simply imposes a five-day time period for the District to provide a “system” or “plan” to demonstrate to the Court what the District is already doing. DOC has adapted its policies to increase the efficacy of its practices in limiting COVID-19’s potential harm to inmates based on the best available knowledge. See generally Background Section I.
1. Plaintiffs Cannot Meet the Deliberate Indifference Standard, Which Gives Correctional Officials Substantial Discretion That Is Even Further Heightened in the Present Public Health Emergency.
Plaintiffs cannot show unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of either the Eighth Amendment (for convicted prisoners) or the Fifth Amendment (for pre-trial detainees). In an Eighth Amendment challenge to prison conditions, a plaintiff must show “deliberate indifference” by officials satisfying both “subjective and objective requirements.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 846 (1994). This requires showing “that officials had subjective knowledge of the serious medical need and recklessly disregarded the excessive risk to inmate health or safety from that risk.” Baker v. District of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302, 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. 825 at 837); see Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993) (to demonstrate deliberate indifference, plaintiffs must show that jail officials (1) exposed inmates to “an unreasonable risk of serious damage” to the inmates’ health (an “objective factor”), and (2) acted with “deliberate indifference” to posing such a risk (a “subjective factor”)).
There can be no dispute that, under the Fifth Amendment as well, “liability for negligently inflicted harm is categorically beneath the threshold of constitutional due process.” Kingsley v.
Shepherd v. Dallas Cty., 591 F.3d 445, 454 (5th Cir. 2009). The Constitution does not require a detention facility to provide “foolproof protection from infection” by a communicable disease. Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 266 (7th Cir. 1997) (tuberculosis).
25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 26 of 43
Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472 (2015). After Kingsley, courts are divided whether the same deliberate indifference standard continues to apply to convicted prisoners as to pretrial detainees. See Burke v. Regalado, 935 F.3d 960, 991 (10th Cir. 2019) (noting the “[c]ircuits are split on whether Kingsley alters the standard for conditions of confinement and inadequate medical care claims brought by pretrial detainees”). The better interpretation is that “Kingsley does not control because it was an excessive force case, not a deliberate indifference case.” Whitney v. City of St. Louis, 887 F.3d 857, 860 n.4 (8th Cir. 2018). Indeed, it would be incongruous for two different constitutional standards to apply to inmates housed in the same correctional facility. And it is notable that, prior to Kingsley, federal courts of appeals that had considered the issue uniformly held that the Farmer standard applies to substantive due process claims of pretrial detainees. See Caiozzo v. Koreman, 581 F.3d 63, 71–72 and n.3 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing cases).
But even if the deliberate indifference standard is now lower for pretrial detainees, the only change is that “the ‘subjective prong’ (or ‘mens rea prong’) of a deliberate indifference claim is defined objectively.” Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 35 (2d Cir. 2017). Therefore, even assuming a lesser standard than under the Eighth Amendment, a pretrial detainee would still have to prove “that the defendant-official acted intentionally to impose the alleged condition, or recklessly failed to act with reasonable care to mitigate the risk that the condition posed to the pretrial detainee even though the defendant-official knew, or should have known, that the condition posed an excessive risk to health or safety.” Id. (emphasis added).
Plaintiffs are therefore incorrect in arguing that they “do not need to show deliberate indifference in order to state a due process claim for inadequate conditions of confinement.” Pls.’ Mem. at 7. Deliberate indifference remains the standard, with the only possible permutation being that the subjective prong is treated objectively. See Darnell, 849 F.3d at 35. Thus, plaintiffs would
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 27 of 43
be only half correct when they argue that liability is premised on whether “Defendants knew or should have known that the jail conditions posed an excessive risk to their health.” Id. at 12. At minimum, plaintiffs would also have to show that defendants recklessly failed to respond to that excessive risk. Plaintiffs do not come close to showing such deliberate indifference.
Importantly, in assessing liability, a court must account for the executive’s legitimate interest in managing correctional facilities and must defer to the policies and practices of correctional administrators. “[R]unning a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking,” and the “safety and order at these institutions requires the expertise of correctional officials, who must have substantial discretion to devise reasonable solutions to the problems they face.” Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2474 (quoting Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318, 326 (2012)). As the D.C. Circuit has explained: “We must accord ‘[p]rison administrators ... wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Hatim v. Obama, 760 F.3d 54, 59 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979) (emphasis added)).
Moreover, the deference afforded to correctional officials is greatly heightened where, as here, they are responding to an unprecedented and rapidly evolving public health crisis. The Supreme Court has explained: “[L]iability for the deliberate indifference to inmate welfare rests upon the luxury enjoyed by prison officials of having time to make unhurried judgments, upon the chance for repeated reflection, largely uncomplicated by the pulls of competing obligations.” Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 853 (1998). DOC officials have had no such luxury here, as the nation faces an unprecedented public health emergency, with the District itself and the surrounding metropolitan area a hotspot for the virus. This situation obligates correctional officials
27

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 28 of 43
to act quickly under difficult circumstances involving limited supplies and resources, constantly changing information and public health guidance, and the need to balance competing considerations related to institutional safety and security. Plaintiffs cannot show that this heightened standard for deliberate indifference has been met here.
The circumstances confronting DOC in operating its facilities in the midst of a pandemic are complex. But regardless of previous circumstances, to obtain an injunction now plaintiffs must show that “the deliberate indifference will continue ‘during the remainder of the litigation and into the future.’” Abdulrazzaq v. Trump, 422 F. Supp. 3d 281, 290 (D.D.C. 2019) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 846). Plaintiffs here have failed to do this, because the evidence in the record shows that the District has taken numerous steps to slow the spread of the virus and to properly monitor and care for the residents in its facilities, and that those steps are effective. See, e.g., Chakraborty Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 8–9 (showing steady decline in COVID-19 cases and residents in isolation).
2. DOC Responded Immediately and Reasonably to the Pandemic, and Its Response Is Effective.
Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed because the evidence demonstrates that what DOC is doing is working. The District has taken numerous, effective steps to combat the spread of the virus. See generally Background Section I. Although plaintiffs point to an increased rate of COVID-19-positive results among DOC residents since March 30, 2020, Pls.’ Mem. at 1, plaintiffs fail to put this in context. From March 30 to May 25, 2020, the total number of positive cases in the United States increased over ten-fold from 163,569 to 1,637,456.13
13 See Centers for Disease Control, Number of COVID-19 Cases in the U.S., by Date Reported, January 22 to April 27, 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/casesupdates/previouscases.html (May 20, 2020) and https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html (May 25, 2020) (current case numbers).
28

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 29 of 43
Most importantly, the number of DOC residents currently positive for COVID-19 peaked at 55 on April 24, 2020, and has been declining since then. Chakraborty Supp. Decl. ¶ 8.14 There are currently just 17 residents who have tested positive and not yet recovered. Id.15 This clear progress, combined with the many measures DOC has taken to mitigate the further spread of illness, shows there is no need for preliminary injunctive relief.
a. Medical Care and Testing Plaintiffs state, in conclusory fashion, that DOC’s “system suffers from several systemic flaws that result in the ineffective provision of medical care.” Pls.’ Mem. at 10. See also id. at 11 (“This broken system has surely led to, and will continue to lead to, increased spread of the virus within DOC facilities.”).16 Plaintiffs are incorrect; the numbers show otherwise. DOC’s medical procedures for responding to COVID-19 were initially developed—and continue to be adapted—based on guidance and recommendations from DOH and the CDC. See Jordan Decl. ¶ 4; Jordan Supp. Decl. ¶ 3. See Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Correctional and Detention Facilities, March 23, 2020 (CDC Guidance). Plaintiffs do not complain about any systemic failures of DOC to comply with the CDC Guidelines, pointing
14 Cf. Jordan Supp. Decl. ¶ 13 (the number of positives will likely increase temporarily as DOC implements increased testing). 15 DOC’s statistic of positive residents includes “presumed positives,” residents identified by medical staff as displaying potential symptoms of COVID-19 but who refused testing. Chakraborty Supp. Decl. ¶ 7. The results from the May 22 testing are not yet finalized and are not included in the total number of positives. Jordan Decl. ¶ 15. 16 Plaintiffs assert that one inmate’s experience is “representative.” Pls.’ Mem. at 11. The experiences of non-plaintiff inmates, even if they occurred exactly as described , may be troubling, but they cannot evidence a practice or pattern by DOC.
29

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 30 of 43
only to isolated incidents.17 As described in detail above, see Background Section I.B.1, DOC continues to take appropriate steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The data showing a steady decline of infections bear out this conclusion. Chakraborty Supp. Decl. ¶ 8. DOC has also recently addressed the potential barriers to medical care noted by amici, including implementing enhanced protocols to ensure that all residents have access to timely medical care. See Background Section I.B.1. Residents who report or display any CDC-defined symptoms of COVID-19 or other symptoms of concern can meet with medical staff and get tested. Jordan Decl. ¶ 5.
As of May 18, 2020, DOC expanded its testing criteria beyond CDC guidance and now also tests cellmates of any resident who recently tested positive and all new residents upon arrival.18 Id.
In response to the Court’s questions in its Minute Order of May 18, 2020, the District notes that DOC began testing all inmates before being transferred to Saint Elizabeths on May 5, 2020, and began testing those being transferred to other federal correctional facilities beginning on May 22, 2020. Jordan Supp. Decl. ¶ 11. In addition, DOC also provides all released inmates with PPE and—if they are symptomatic—advice to self-quarantine and consult a doctor. Id. ¶ 12. Incoming residents are provided with COVID-19 information, monitored closely, and—as of May 18,
17 See Pls.’ Mem. at 12, 15. The CDC Guidance, as its name suggests, does not contain “requirements” but recommendations “specific for correctional facilities and detention centers during the outbreak of COVID-19, to ensure continuation of essential public services and protection of the health and safety of incarcerated and detained persons, staff, and visitors.” CDC Guidance at 1. 18 On April 27, 2020, members of the DOH Medical Reserve Corps (DC MRC) began volunteering in the DOC facilities. Jordan Supp. Decl. ¶ 16. DC MRC volunteers assist nurses with taking temperatures as well as with conducting screenings at the CDF and CTF entrances. Id. Currently, DC MRC volunteers primarily assist with screening questions as Unity’s nurses conduct temperature readings at CDF and CTF entrances. Id.
30

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 31 of 43
2020—tested for COVID-19. Jordan Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 6, 12. DOC has also recently begun broader surveillance testing at its facilities and tested almost 400 inmates on May 22, 2020. Id. ¶ 13.
Plaintiffs complain that conditions on the isolation units are “still punitive, discouraging residents from self-disclosing COVID-19 symptoms for fear of being sent to the unit.” Pls.’ Mem. at 20; see id. at 21–23. But the evidence shows that DOC took early action, and continues to do so, to improve the conditions and communications capabilities of inmates in isolation, well beyond the constitutional minimum. See above at 4–8; 19–20.
b. Sanitation DOC has now contracted with a sanitarian and professional cleaning services to clean DOC facilities and has announced a full-time sanitarian staff position. Stewart-Ponder Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 8. These professional services are supplementing the efforts of inmates and staff to keep areas clean and sanitized. See Background Section I.B.2. After the Court issued its TRO, DOC moved swiftly to implement a variety of tools to ensure that cleaning protocols are followed and supplies are readily available, consulting with and implementing the recommendations of DYRS’s sanitarian. Stewart-Ponder Decl. ¶ 4. DOC has also developed checklists so that officers can verify that all cells are cleaned daily, that all residents have weekly access to clean laundry, and that high-touch and common areas are cleaned every two hours. Landerkin Decl. ¶¶ 4–6; Jones Decl. ¶¶ 4–6. DOC supervisors recently began unannounced spot-checks to ensure the accuracy of the officers’ verifications and officers are disciplined for failure to comply. Landerkin Decl. ¶¶ 7–8; Jones Decl. ¶¶ 7–8. Implementing changes in a system as complicated as a jail cannot be immediate; plaintiffs’ allegations of isolated failures do not amount to a constitutional violation when adequate practices are in place and conditions are improving.
31

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 32 of 43
c. Education, PPE, and Social Distancing As described in detail above, see 15–17, DOC has taken significant steps to reduce its population, and to educate staff and residents about social distancing, PPE, and general infectioncontrol practices. See also Amici Report [77] at 13 (91% of DOC’s available workforce have participated in mandatory PPE training as of May 19, 2020); See also id. at 17 (“Since amici’s April 2020 site visits, personal protective equipment has been made much more widely available to inmates and staff at the CDF and CTF and most staff have been trained on proper donning, doffing and disposal procedures.”). Sufficient PPE is available to inmates and staff, who are utilizing it. All DOC staff are now required to wear gloves, masks and face shields at the agency’s facilities, and all residents are required to wear masks outside of their cells. Johnson Supp. Decl. ¶ 4. Residents receive information about the disease and proper safety precautions in a variety of ways, in addition to the visual information posted throughout the facilities and regular publicaddress announcements. Last month DOC began providing residents with COVID-19 informational packets and courses on digital tablets, and weekly cell-to-cell distribution of education materials regarding COVID-19, covering topics such as proper PPE usage, cleaning and disinfecting practices, and the importance of social distancing. Lopez Decl., Ex. H ¶ 12; Attach. 3. Plaintiffs nevertheless complain of inmates “clustering” and that “[u]nderstaffing may also contribute to disciplinary issues between residents and staff.” Id. at 27. But staff enforcement, if imperfect, cannot be blamed for every case in which residents choose to congregate or cause “incidents.” Amici Supp. Oral Rep. at 34–35. DOC’s inability to control every action taken by every resident does not amount to a constitutional violation. Cf. Johnson Supp. Decl. ¶ 7 (A surveillance team monitors video footage for social distancing and PPE violations, and discipline
32

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 33 of 43
has been imposed on correctional officers who fail to implement social distancing). d. Staffing
Plaintiffs fail to confront—or even mention—the real-world constraints which caused DOC’s “staffing limitations” and simply ask the Court to order the District to fix it. See Pls.’ Proposed Order [70-38] at 2. Cf. Pls.’ Mem. at 24 (“In spite of the Court’s Order, understaffing persists.”).19 As explained, see above at 17–18, DOC’s staffing has improved markedly in recent weeks, with more than 45 additional correctional officers reporting for duty who were unavailable two weeks ago, Stewart-Ponder Decl. ¶ 16. Far from exhibiting deliberate indifference, DOC continues to address its staffing issues head-on, by increasing and diversifying its recruiting efforts and sending out return-to-work letters. Id. ¶¶ 15–16. Moreover, medical staffing is improving too, with Unity receiving approval to hire additional staff, Jordan Supp. Decl. ¶ 14, and through the use of DOC Medical Reserve Corps volunteers. Id. ¶ 16. See Amici Report [77] at 8 (“[I]t appears staffing shortages are not having as severe an impact as was evident in the recent past.”).
3. Plaintiffs Have Not Established a Municipal Policy or Custom Needed for Liability Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiffs’ claims cannot succeed because they make no attempt to show a municipal policy or custom causing any alleged constitutional violation. With over 1,300 inmates in DOC facilities, the fact that plaintiffs could find a number of inmates to complain about their individual problems with how the District is addressing the pandemic is neither surprising nor dispositive. “[E]pisodic failures of process do not make out a constitutional violation.” Lightfoot v. District of Columbia,
19 Plaintiffs’ isolated anecdotes of a small number of officers working long hours offer no indication that those officers’ experiences are representative of the almost 1,000 correctional officers working for DOC. See Pls.’ Mem. at 25.
33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 34 of 43
246 F.R.D. 326, 335 (D.D.C. 2007) (quoting Lightfoot v. District of Columbia, 448 F.3d 392, 402 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (Silberman, S.J., concurring)).
Similarly, the isolated acts of a handful of correctional officers are insufficient to impose liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; instead, “[p]laintiffs who seek to impose liability on local governments under § 1983 must prove that ‘action pursuant to official municipal policy’ caused their injury.” Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011) (quoting Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)). Cf. Martin v. Malhoyt, 830 F.2d 237, 255 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“One instance, however egregious, does not a pattern or practice make.”).
For purposes of municipal liability, an action will have “caused” constitutional injury only when there is an “affirmative link,” such that the government policy or custom was itself the “moving force” behind the violation. See Baker v. District of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302, 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Generally, a § 1983 plaintiff can establish a policy or custom by reference to: (1) express municipal policy; (2) actions of a policy maker; (3) consistent conduct by non-policy makers (i.e., “custom” with force of law); or (4) “deliberate indifference” to a risk of constitutional injury. Id. at 1306–1307 (citations omitted).
To the extent plaintiffs complain about the actions of correctional officers, those allegations would be actionable, if at all, under the third type of claim identified in Baker—a custom or practice. But to succeed under that standard, plaintiffs must put forth “evidence that the municipality’s employees engaged in a persistent or regular pattern of conduct that gave rise to the alleged constitutional violations.” Egudu v. District of Columbia, 72 F. Supp. 3d 34, 41 (D.D.C. 2014) (citing Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 39 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). Plaintiffs’ anecdotes and hearsay do not meet that burden; the pandemic is a unique situation, and every
34

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 35 of 43
District employee and official is in uncharted territory. The District’s responses to this unique public health emergency do not demonstrate a consistent pattern of unconstitutional conduct.
“Inadvertent errors, honest mistakes, agency confusion, even negligence in the performance of official duties, do not warrant redress under [42 U.S.C. § 1983].” Silverman v. Barry, 845 F.2d 1072, 1080 (D.C. Cir. 1988). See also Ellis v. District of Columbia, 84 F.3d 1413, 1424 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“Even if mistakes were made in some instances, ‘it is not reasonable to extrapolate a general policy of lawlessness from such mistakes.’”).
The adoption of policies to address the conditions “bear[s] heavily on the inquiry into deliberate indifference,” Helling, 509 U.S. at 36, and “militates against a finding of deliberate indifference,” even if those policies were “not perfectly enforced.” Abdullah v. Washington, 530 F. Supp. 2d 112, 118 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Scott v. District of Columbia, 139 F.3d 940, 944 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). In this inquiry, courts may properly go beyond officials’ mental states and consider “the constraints facing the official[s]” for context. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303 (1991); see Helling, 509 U.S. at 37 (“The inquiry into this factor also would be an appropriate vehicle to consider arguments regarding the realities of prison administration.”).
4. Plaintiffs Failed To Exhaust Their Administrative Remedies. Prisoners must exhaust their administrative remedies before suing in federal court under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). See, e.g., Price v. Lilly, 2020 WL 1065703, *3 (D.D.C. Mar. 5, 2020) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (“[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions ... by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted”)); see also Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002) (unanimous) (“hold[ing] that the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes,
35

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 36 of 43
and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong”); Hawthorne v. Gray, 893 F. Supp. 2d 11, 14–15 (D.D.C. 2012) (granting motion to dismiss where prisoner challenging conditions in DOC facilities failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the PLRA).
DOC’s Inmate Grievance Procedure is currently codified in DOC Policy and Procedure 4030.1K (Jan. 18, 2018), available at https://tinyurl.com/y89anbw3; see, e.g., Hawthorne, 893 F. Supp. 2d at 14 (describing the Inmate Grievance Procedures (IGP) available to residents of DOC). There is no indication that any of the remaining named plaintiffs filed any grievances with DOC about COVID-19 or any other aspect of their confinement. Consequently, they have failed to exhaust under the PLRA. See Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (“All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet federal standards ….” Exhaustion is required under the PLRA “[e]ven when the prisoner seeks relief not available in grievance proceedings, notably money damages[.]”) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739–41 (2001)).
B. Plaintiffs Have Failed To Show That They Will Likely Suffer Imminent and Irreparable Harm.
“The failure to demonstrate irreparable harm is ‘grounds for refusing to issue a preliminary injunction, even if the other three factors entering the [preliminary injunction] calculus merit such relief.’” Nat’l Min. Ass’n v. Jackson, 768 F. Supp. 2d 34, 50 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). “[P]roving irreparable injury is a considerable burden, requiring proof that the movant’s injury is certain, great and actual—not theoretical—and imminent, creating a clear and present need for extraordinary equitable relief to prevent harm.” Power Mobility Coal. v. Leavitt, 404 F. Supp. 2d 190, 204 (D.D.C. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). If a party fails to make a sufficient showing of irreparable injury, a court may deny a motion for preliminary relief without considering the other factors. CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 747 (D.C. Cir.
36

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 37 of 43
1995); see Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Past injury cannot justify injunctive relief, let alone preliminary injunctive relief. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 210–11 (1995) (citing Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105–106 (1983)).
Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that they face irreparable harm that is both likely and imminent, especially given that the considerable efforts of DOC are working to slow and prevent the spread of COVID-19 in its facilities. See generally Background Section I. Indeed, the three plaintiffs have failed to show that they are facing any risk of imminent harm themselves. Mr. Banks was the only one to submit a declaration in support of plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, and nothing in his declaration indicates that he faces any immediate threat or is being denied access to medical monitoring or care. See Banks Decl. [70-35]. Because the named plaintiffs cannot show that they themselves are at risk of irreparable harm that is both likely and imminent, they have no basis for preliminary injunctive relief.
C. The Balance of Equities and Public Interest Militate Against Preliminary Relief.
Even if plaintiffs could show a likelihood of success on the merits and that they would suffer irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction, they must additionally show both that “the balance of equities tips in their favor,” and that “an injunction is in the public interest.” Sherley, 644 F.3d at 392; In re Navy Chaplaincy, 738 F.3d 425, 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (plaintiffs cannot use a strong showing on some factors to make up for weak showing on others). These two factors “merge when the Government is the opposing party” and are thus analyzed together. Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 920 F.3d 1, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]here the Court has a less intrusive means” of ensuring legal compliance, “the public interest would weigh towards choosing such options, especially where … the plaintiffs seek a mandatory (‘do this’) rather than prohibitory (‘don’t do
37

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 38 of 43
this’) injunction.” Garnett v. Zeilinger, 313 F. Supp. 3d 147, 160 (D.D.C. 2018). DOC does not dispute the gravity of COVID-19 or its responsibility to ensure the well-
being of the individuals in its custody during a pandemic. See D.C. Code § 24-211.02(a). However, imposing plaintiffs’ requested relief—even broader than that granted in the TRO—would disrupt the extensive efforts already underway to address the crisis, and divert staff attention and energy away from those efforts. See District of Columbia v. USDA, 2020 WL 1236657, at *12 (D.D.C. March 13, 2020) (observing that “injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs”) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979)).
The relief requested by plaintiffs is overbroad and treads on the prerogatives of the executive in operating correctional institutions. Correctional officials “must have substantial discretion to devise reasonable solutions to the problems they face.” Florence, 566 U.S. at 326. See also Hatim, 760 F.3d at 59 (“We must accord ‘[p]rison administrators ... wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices ….”) (quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 547). Plaintiffs’ requested relief would ignore that required deference and seriously impinge on the prerogatives of DOC and the Mayor. Indeed, plaintiffs’ request for far-reaching relief would run roughshod over the broad authority of the Mayor to operate DOC’s facilities, in contravention of long-standing case law. That relief is even more inappropriate in a declared public health emergency, when the executive’s authority—and the need for clear, decisive action—should be at its zenith. See, e.g., Jacobsen v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 (1905) (holding that a law mandating vaccinations during a smallpox outbreak was encompassed by government’s inherent police powers to ensure public health and safety). Cf. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 112 (“In exercising their equitable powers federal courts must recognize ‘[the] special delicacy of the adjustment to be
38

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 39 of 43
preserved between federal equitable power and State administration of its own law.’”) (quoting Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117, 120 (1951)).
The preliminary injunction requested by plaintiffs would decrease the flexibility of responsible officials to respond as changing conditions warrant, not to mention divert necessary staff time and resources from those efforts to the monitoring of compliance with any Court-ordered relief. Already, DOC and the District have expended an additional approximately $4 million on its response to COVID-19 in DOC facilities, including contracts with professional cleaners, communication equipment, additional cleaning materials, and staff expansions and overtime. Stewart-Ponder Decl. ¶ 18. Plaintiffs’ requests for resource-intensive system-wide reform would undermine the monumental efforts already underway.
The balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in DOC’s favor and counsel against granting a preliminary injunction.
D. Plaintiffs’ Requested Relief Is Not Narrowly Tailored. The PLRA’s strict limits on preliminary injunctive relief apply to this “civil action with respect to prison conditions.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see id. § 3626(g)(2), (5) (defining “prison” as “any Federal, State, or local facility that incarcerates or detains juveniles or adults accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law”). The PLRA constrains the authority of courts to order preliminary injunctive relief, requiring that such relief “be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Even assuming that the Court finds that plaintiffs have sufficiently shown some constitutional harm that must be immediately corrected, plaintiffs’ requested injunction is exceptionally broad, seeking to adopt almost two dozen specific actions from the TRO, and also
39

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 40 of 43
adding eight more. See Pls.’ Proposed Order. These requests can hardly be construed as narrowly drawn, extending no further than necessary, and constituting the least intrusive means. Thus, the requested relief well exceeds what is permissible under the PLRA. See Am. Order [50]. Cf. Valentine v. Collier, 956 F.3d 797, 806 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (“These may be salutary health measures. But that level of micromanagement, enforced upon threat of contempt, does not reflect the principles of comity commanded by the PLRA.”).
The PLRA builds upon the already well-established rule that injunctive relief must be “narrowly tailored to remedy the specific harm shown.” Nevada Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 435 F.3d 326, 330 (D.C. Cir. 2006); see also USDA, 2020 WL 1236657 at *12 (observing that “injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs”) (quoting Califano, 442 U.S. at 702).
Worse, only one named plaintiff—Mr. Banks—has offered a declaration, which speaks of individual concerns, including a loss of out-of-cell time, and does not allege any specific complaints about insufficient medical care or monitoring. See Banks Decl. [70-35].20 But plaintiffs ask, essentially, that this Court convert those complaints into broad, institutional reform litigation. It would be inappropriate for the Court to extrapolate individual allegations into system-wide
20 Mr. Banks has moved for release in his criminal case in Superior Court, United States v. Edward Banks, No. 2019 CF1 010956. DOC responded to Mr. Banks’ motion, see Response of District of Columbia, No. 2019 CF1 010956, Ex. J, providing evidence demonstrating that his allegations there and here were inconsistent, and belied by the evidence, id. at 4–6, Attach. 1 (compilation of evidence cited in the District’s response brief). According to the docket, Mr. Banks’ request for relief was denied on May 26, 2020, after a teleconference hearing. See https://www.dccourts.gov/eaccess.
40

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 41 of 43
failures justifying the imposition of sweeping relief.21 DOC “has taken and continues to take measures—informed by guidance from the CDC
and medical professionals—to abate and control the spread of the virus.” Valentine, 956 F.3d at 806. Plaintiffs’ overbroad requested relief would not aid those efforts and could well impair DOC’s ability to continue fighting the virus. II. Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled to Preliminary Injunctive Relief Related to Legal Calls.
Plaintiffs cannot meet any of the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief involving the asserted difficulties of residents calling their lawyers during the pandemic. Pls.’ Mem. at 22– 23.
First, plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. DOC persists in its efforts to improve telephone access for its residents. DOC case managers have been arranging approximately 200 emergency attorney calls per week. Williams Decl. ¶ 4. On May 1, 2020, flyers were posted in CDF and CTF regarding the availability of free legal calls. Johnson Supp. Decl. ¶ 10, Attach. 9. To facilitate unmonitored attorney-client communication, DOC has obtained 50 cell phones and 10 wired headsets with long cords. Williams Decl. ¶ 5. Case managers will use these cell phones to facilitate secure, unmonitored attorney calls. Id. ¶ 5. DOC has placed an order for 50 wireless headsets and expects them to arrive in early June. Id. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, DOC had approximately 500 tablet devices that participating residents could use for their education in various educational and recreational programs. Lopez Decl. ¶ 5. To help increase resident access to attorney communications during the pandemic, on May 7, 2020, DOC
21 Numerous allegations in many declarations are from the time period prior to the TRO. See [70-7] ¶¶ 2–6; [70-8] ¶¶ 2–6; [70-10] ¶¶ 3–11; [70-11] ¶¶ 3–8; [70-14] ¶¶ 2–5; [70-15] ¶¶ 3–28; [70-18] ¶¶ 4–11; and [70-34] ¶¶ 3–13.
41

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 42 of 43
configured participating residents’ American Prison Data Systems accounts to facilitate secure, unmonitored messaging with their attorneys, and has been working to configure such accounts for each resident. Id. ¶ 6. DOC has also been working with the Public Defender Service, the Federal Public Defender, and private attorneys to ensure each resident’s attorney has access. Id. DOC cannot see the content of any message sent or received. Id. Additionally, the District has approved the purchase of 1,000 tablets to help expand attorney-client messaging capabilities. Id. ¶ 8. DOC expects to receive those devices in June. Id. Plaintiffs’ claims also cannot succeed on the merits because of their failure to show any municipal policy or custom, or that plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies, regarding any issue about communications with lawyers. See above at 33–36.
Second, plaintiffs also cannot show likely and imminent irreparable harm related to legal calls, especially in light of the actions that DOC has taken. See Background Section I.D.5. Indeed, these plaintiffs have not attempted to establish, through their own affidavits, that they are presently being denied adequate access to their lawyers. See Banks Decl. [70-35]. While plaintiff Banks notes that he (like every inmate) is expected to make legal calls during his one hour daily out-ofcell time, id. ¶ 6, he does not indicate that he was ever unable to make a call when he wanted.
Finally, the balance of the equities and the public interest favor the District. Not only would the District suffer the harms that preliminary injunctive relief would cause, as already detailed, but DOC has also determined that it should not provide individual cell phones to each resident, as plaintiffs request. Williams Decl. ¶ 6. In addition to the significant costs of such an effort, it would raise serious security concerns because residents could use the phones for illicit activity, such as witness tampering. Id.
42

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82 Filed 05/26/20 Page 43 of 43

III. The United States Has Opposed Plaintiffs’ Request Regarding Inmate Release.

The United States has opposed [80] plaintiffs’ request for relief regarding the release of

inmates, including the request for the appointment of an expert. The District defers to the United

States on this issue.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny plaintiffs’ amended motion for a

preliminary injunction.

Dated: May 26, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

KARL A. RACINE Attorney General for the District of Columbia

TONI MICHELLE JACKSON Deputy Attorney General Public Interest Division

/s/ Fernando Amarillas FERNANDO AMARILLAS [974858] Chief, Equity Section

/s/ Andrew J. Saindon ANDREW J. SAINDON [456987] Senior Assistant Attorney General PAMELA DISNEY [1601225] MICAH BLUMING [1618961] Assistant Attorneys General 441 Fourth Street, N.W., Suite 630 South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6643 (202) 730-1470 (fax) andy.saindon@dc.gov pamela.disney@dc.gov micah.bluming@dc.gov

Counsel for Defendants

43

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 46
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 46

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 46

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 46

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 46
ATTACHMENT 1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 46

COVID-19 PRECAUTIONARY TIPS

HELP SAFEGUARD YOUR HEALTH AND REDUCE THE SPREAD OF COVID-19.

WASH YOUR HANDS WITH SOAP

1

AND WATER FOR AT LEAST 20

SECONDS.

IF YOU ARE FEELING ILL,

2

IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY UNIT

OFFICERS.

DISINFECTANT WILL BE SPRAYED

3

IN EACH CELL. RESIDENTS ARE

REQUIRED TO WIPE DOWN AND

CLEAN THEIR CELLS AFTERWARD.

WIPE DOWN SURFACES SUCH AS

4

TELEPHONES AND KIOSKS

BEFORE USE.

5

PRACTICE SOCIAL DISTANCING. STAND OR WALK SIX (6) FEET

APART FROM OTHERS.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 46
ATTACHMENT 2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 46
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS' SAFETY CHECKLIST
PROTECT YOURSELF AND OTHERS BY FOLLOWING THESE STEPS:
PRACTICE SOCIAL DISTANCING BY STAYING AT LEAST SIX FEET AWAY FROM OTHER PEOPLE.
WEAR THE APPROPRIATE PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT(PPE) AT ALL TIMES.
THOROUGHLY WASH YOUR HANDS FOR AT LEAST 20 SECONDS THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
AVOID TOUCHING YOUR FACE, PARTICULARLY THE MOUTH, NOSE AND EYES.
SANITIZE YOUR EQUIPMENT AND COMMONLY TOUCHED SURFACES BEFORE USE.
IF A RESIDENT APPEARS TO HAVE FLU-LIKE SYMPTOMS, REPORT HIM/HER TO MEDICAL IMMEDIATELY.
IF YOU ARE SICK, CONTACT YOUR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER AND REQUEST SICK LEAVE THROUGH YOUR SUPERVISOR.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 46
COVID-19 SYMPTOM CHECKLIST
MILD TO SEVERE SYMPTOMS MAY APPEAR TWO (2) TO FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER EXPOSURE TO THE VIRUS. IF A RESIDENT APPEARS TO HAVE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING, REPORT HIM/HER TO MEDICAL IMMEDIATELY.
FEVER
COUGH
SHORTNESS OF BREATH OR DIFFICULTY BREATHING
CHILLS
HEADACHE
MUSCLE PAIN
SORE THROAT
LOSS OF TASTE OR SMELL

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 46
ATTACHMENT 3

PLEASE WASH YOUR se 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of HANDS

1
Wet

Use 2 Soap

3
sefcoSocrnr2du0sb

Rinse 4
Dry
5

TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF GERMS

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 46
ATTACHMENT 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 46
Wash Your Hands posters throughout common areas of facilities and housing units: April 22, 2020.
Hand hygiene- Housing Unit- April 22, 2020

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 14 of 46
Social Distancing- Throughout common areas of facilities, areas where staff and inmates once congregated, and areas susceptible to crowding. April 22, 2020.
COVID-19 Ways to stay safe- posters throughout common areas of facilities and housing units: April 22, 2020

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 15 of 46
ATTACHMENT 5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 16 of 46
From: Blackmon, Keena (DOC) Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 6:18 PM To: Booth, Quincy (DOC) <quincy.booth@dc.gov>; Stewart‐Ponder, Gitana (DOC) <gitana.stewart‐ponder@dc.gov>; Patten, Wanda (DOC) <wanda.patten@dc.gov>; Johnson, Lennard (DOC) <lennard.johnson@dc.gov>; Landerkin, Kathleenjo (DOC) <Kathleenjo.Landerkin@dc.gov>; Jones, Michele (DOC) <Michele.Jones@dc.gov>; Glover, Eric (DOC) <eric.glover@dc.gov> Subject: Approved PA Announcement
DOC PA Announcement
The Department of Corrections takes the safety and well‐being of all our staff, residents and contractors extremely seriously. We understand your heightened concerns regarding COVID‐19 and we have undertaken several efforts to reduce the risk to everyone in our facilities.
 we require everyone entering our facilities to be medically screened for illness;  we have enhanced cleaning of common areas every two hours;  we have instituted a medical stay in place;  and we have increased our communication through signs, PA announcements, and emails to staff.
In keeping with guidance from experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and DC Health, we encourage everyone to take the following simple steps to help stop the spread of COVID‐19:
 Wash your hands with soap for 20 seconds, frequently. If DOC residents need additional soap, please notify your unit officer.
 Cover your cough with your upper arm or tissue that you immediately throw away and avoid touching your face.
 Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth with unwashed hands.  Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects or surfaces such as railings, handles, and doorknobs.  Practice social distancing by staying at least six feet away from other people.  Don’t shake hands with others.  For DOC staff and contractors: If you’re feeling sick, stay home. If you have a high temperature, you
will not be allowed into the facilities.  For DOC residents, if you’re feeling sick, please notify your unit officer.
You can also visit https://coronavirus.dc.gov for the most up‐to‐date information.
Thank you!
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 17 of 46
ATTACHMENT 6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 18 of 46

Photos: Central Detention Facility- Various Locations

Third Floor Admin and Medical area

3rd Floor Entrance

Entrance to Medical Unit

Medical- Social Distancing

CONFIDENTIAL

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 19 of 46
3rd Floor Housing
NORTH SIDE

Quarantine Unit displays appropriate PPEs required and proper way to apply and remove

NOTICE that we Social Distance.

SOUTH SIDE

Quarantine Unit displays appropriate PPEs required and proper way to apply and remove

NOTICE that we Social Distance.

CONFIDENTIAL

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 20 of 46
2nd Floor Housing
NORTH SIDE

Quarantine Unit displays proper PPEs to be worn, how to apply and remove.

Isolation Unit displays proper PPEs to be worn how to apply and remove.

Quarantine unit displays proper PPEs to be worn, how to apply and remove.

Social Distancing signage is shared by all 3 units as they are in the same space on the North and South sides.
SOUTH SIDE

Quarantine unit displays proper PPEs to be worn, how to apply and remove.

Quarantine unit displays proper PPEs to be worn, how to apply and remove.
CONFIDENTIAL

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 21 of 46
1st Floor Housing
NORTH SIDE
Quarantine unit displays of Social Distancing and proper PPEs to be worn, how to apply and remove.
SOUTH SIDE
Quarantine unit displays of Social Distancing and proper PPEs to be worn, how to apply Social Distancing signage is shared by all 3 units as they are in the same space on the North and South sides.
CONFIDENTIAL

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 22 of 46
Elevators throughout the facility displaying Social Distancing and various information about COVID-19
CONFIDENTIAL

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 23 of 46
INMATE RECEPTION CENTER (IRC)
Social Distancing and COVID-19 information

Seating taped off and X’d to indicate off limits

Male Processing Social Distancing

CONFIDENTIAL

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 24 of 46
Additional Areas

Hallway Closet

Door leading to outdoor rec Officers Dining Room

Door leading to Warden’s Suite

KeyWatcher System

Time Clock stations

Radio Room

CONFIDENTIAL

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 25 of 46
ATTACHMENT 7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 26 of 46
LET'S WORK TOGETHER
EVERYONE ENTERING DOC FACILITIES ARE REQUIRED TO WEAR A MASK
TO HELP STOP THE SPREAD!

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 27 of 46
ATTACHMENT 8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 28 of 46
CENTRAL DETENTION FACILITY
POST ORDER
Medical Restrictive Housing Unit (Isolation)
May 20, 2020
I. PURPOSE: To establish policies and procedures for the safe, efficient and orderly operation of Housing Units.
II. POLICY: It is the policy of the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC) to operate housing units consistent with applicable Court Orders, American Correctional Association expected practices, DOC policies and D.C. regulations which dictate a safe, clean, secure and humane environment for inmates committed to our custody.
III. APPLICABILITY: To all employees involved in the management, service or operations of cell blocks.
IV. DEFINITIONS: A. Donning: the practice of putting on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). B. Doffing: the practice of taking off Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). C. Security Inspection: An inspection of the housing unit involves a patrol of all areas in the housing unit. It shall include observation of windows, bars, locking mechanisms, keys, maintenance deficiencies, lighting, security equipment, plumbing, visual obstructions, fire hazard, condition of inmates, informal count of inmates and is documented in the unit logbook. D. Isolation: Cells for patients with suspected or confirmed contagious or infectious diseases. Inmates designated to be in isolation shall be housed in a cell alone E. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): equipment worn to minimize exposure to hazards that cause serious workplace injuries and illnesses. PPE shall include at least gloves, mask, and face-shield. F. Quarantine: Cells in which inmates without symptoms exposed to infectious or
contagious disease is placed. Inmates the medical provider designates for quarantine shall be housed in a cell alone.
G. Sallyport Principle: Ensuring only one (1) door/gate is opened at a time. At no time should more than one (1) door/gate be opened at the same time with the exception of emergencies.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 29 of 46
V. DISTRIBUTION: Each post shall have a hard copy of this post order. In addition, ALL post orders shall be accessible to Correctional Officers electronically via the “I” drive. Officers shall read and sign an acknowledgement that they understand their post orders, daily. Officers with questions about the contents of the post order shall immediately contact their zone supervisor for clarification.
VI. PROCEDURES: A. Staffing: Housing Units shall be staffed in accordance with the approved master roster.
B. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT- Anyone entering the unit shall wear a mask and gloves (PPE) at all times. Gloves and mask shall be properly applied when first entering unit, NO EXCEPTIONS. Gloves and mask shall be properly removed right before exiting and properly disposed of, NO EXCEPTIONS in biohazard receptacle located in the sick call room. Hands shall be washed or use hand sanitizer immediately upon removing PPEs. PPE for doc staff shall be obtained the risk manager or designee. Officers shall not request PPE from the healthcare vendor for doc staff.
C. UNIT ADMISSION- all inmates housed on isolation units shall be directed by medical provider’s orders. Inmates designated by medical as “Isolation” shall be housed in a cell alone.
1. Isolation- Cells for inmates with suspected or confirmed contagious or infectious diseases. Inmates medical designate as isolation shall be housed in a cell alone.
2. Medical doctor’s order shall designate “isolation”. Officers shall house inmates beginning with the cell at the far end of the housing unit. Each inmate/admission shall be housed in every other cell, e.g. first admission shall be housed in cell #10, second admission cell #11 (every other cell). When capacity is reached empty cells shall be filled.
3. Inmates shall be wearing a mask when admitted to isolation units. Inmates shall be housed in cell alone.
4. Masks for inmates shall be supplied by medical. Additional masks shall be available on the unit. Inmates shall wear a mask at all times outside of his/her cell.
5. Officers shall wear a clean mask and gloves when entering an inmate’s cell. Once exiting cells the Officer shall properly remove gloves, wash hands or use hand sanitizer, and apply clean PPEs. If no physical contact with inmate, Officer may continue to wear mask.
6. Each time an Officer/staff member makes physical contact with an inmate they shall properly remove PPEs, wash hands or use hand sanitizer and properly apply clean PPEs.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 30 of 46
7. Medical provider’s orders shall include activities inmate may participate in, if any.
8. All inmates admitted to the isolation unit shall receive a new bed roll which includes two sheets, one towel and one blanket, when they first enter the unit. All inmates discharged from the isolation shall receive a new bed roll when they enter the housing unit they transferred to. Their bed roll in the isolation shall be laundered.
VII. ACTIVITY- Inmates housed on the isolation unit shall NOT participate in video visitation. Inmates shall be offered a shower, daily. Using the “Isolation Unit Activity Record”, the unit officer shall document the inmates name, DCDC#, date, time in and out of shower, and if any refusals, and the reason why. Medical shall determine what, if any, out of cell activities inmates may participate in.
VIII. Accountability for Housing Reassignments: Inmates housed on isolation units shall not be reassigned to another housing unit unless physician’s orders dictate. When a physician’s order for re-assignment is written and received by the officer, the Compliance Officer shall coordinate movement with the officer in charge of the housing unit who shall document it by log book entry indicating name, DCDC Number, and Housing Unit to which reassigned.
IX. Security:
A. All exterior/interior doors shall be secured at all times except for authorized and directly supervised movement. The Sally-port principle shall apply at all times, with no more than one door/gate opened at one time.
B. Cell doors shall remain closed at all times.
C. Knock and announce rule- all staff of the opposite gender must announce their presence upon entering the housing unit. Officers shall conduct irregular thirty (30) minutes security inspections of the entire unit to maintain cell control, discourage contraband trafficking and maintain appropriate surveillance.
D. Patrols shall be recorded in the unit logbook indicating the name of the Officer conducting the patrol.
E. All designated DOC employees shall utilize the Guard 1Plus Rounds Tracking System to conduct/document their rounds/inspections on each post that has been equipped with the technology.
F. During patrols, the officers shall ensure that any inmate found lying on the floor does not need assistance or in distress.
G. Tiers shall be cleared at all times, free from loitering and clothes drying on the rails.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 31 of 46
H. The key to the Housing Unit Control Module door shall never be left in the door lock. This door shall never be opened with inmates in the sally port or while a side gate is open.
I. Only one Officer shall be in the Control Module at a time. No chairs or other furniture shall be in the sally-port area. Only one chair shall be allowed in the Control Module.
J. All incidents or situations that could lead to an incident or unsafe condition shall be immediately reported to a shift supervisor.
K. Staff shall not bring any personal items into the housing unit; i.e. newspapers, magazines, books, food items, medication, handbags or purses, radios, televisions, etc.
L. Cell Block Common Areas. The unit OIC or designated staff shall visually inspect showers, dayrooms, and recreation areas, chase closets and storage area supply closets, cell tiers, and the control bubble.
M. Bar and Window Inspections: All bars, doors, and windows shall be physically checked on each shift for damage, tampering, and integrity. The inspection is to be recorded on the Bar and Window form and turned into the Command Center. If a serious condition is found, the Zone Supervisor shall be contacted immediately and also logged in the maintenance logbook.
X. Inmate Search Procedures:
A. All inmates entering or exiting the housing unit shall be searched for contraband. Officers shall wear PPEs, gloves and mask.
B. Inmates may have their legal papers when going to court or a legal visit. Religious materials are authorized.
C. At the conclusion of all legal and contact visits all inmates will be stripped searched prior to entry into the housing unit. Officers shall wear PPEs, gloves and mask.
D. All inmates shall be searched (frisked) upon returning to the unit. When officers have probable cause to believe an inmate is in possession of contraband, he/she may be strip searched. All strip searches shall be conducted with a second officer present as backup and in a private setting. Officers shall wear PPEs, gloves and mask.
E. Correctional Officers will only be allowed to strip search inmates of the same gender and all strip searches must be conducted in a private area, with a backup officer of the same gender as the inmate and the strip search must be documented in the strip search log book. Officers shall wear PPEs, gloves and
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 32 of 46

mask

F. During cell searches, inmates shall have handcuffs applied prior to opening the cell door. Inmates shall wear mask whenever they exit the cell. Officers/any staff shall also wear gloves and mask.

XI. Equipment Control:

A. The unit OIC shall be responsible for maintaining an inventory of all cellblock equipment, Post Orders and keys. Any discrepancy shall be immediately reported to the Zone Supervisor and/or Shift Commander

B. Accountability for keys, radios and restraints physical inventory at each shift change with an entry logbook and the relieving officer's signature on the submitted to the Command Center.

C. The First Aid Kit shall be checked to make sure that the seal has not been broken. If the seal has been broken the nurses ' station shall be notified at once for re-stocking and a new seal, which the nurse shall be responsible for replacing on the First Aid Kit. This notification shall be recorded in the logbook, indicating the date, time, and the name of the person notified. The Zone Supervisor shall be notified if the seal is broken or the first aid kit is missing.

D. The broken seal shall also be indicated on the equipment inventory sheet until it has been replaced.

E. If it is necessary to use the First Aid Kit, the employee must record in the logbook the reason for breaking the seal and the items used from the kit.

XII. Count Procedures:

A. Counts shall be conducted at any time designated by the Shift Supervisor. Official counts shall be conducted at the following time:

#1 Shift 12:00 a.m. 1:00 a.m. 2:00 a.m. 3:00 a.m. 4:00 a.m.

#2 Shift 8:00 a.m. 3:00 p.m.

#3 Shift 10:30 p.m.

B. All counts shall be conducted with the inmates standing by their assigned cell door. Once the officers have completed their count and the count is called into the count book, the inmates shall be released unless security reasons dictate otherwise.
C. All officers assigned to the housing unit shall participate in the official count. It is mandatory that the OIC of the unit be present for all official counts
D. Inmates shall remain quiet and by their cell until the counting officer gives the

5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 33 of 46
"O. K." command. E. While counting, officers shall allow nothing short of an emergency to distract
them. Any disruption of the count process by inmates shall be cause for disciplinary action. F. Officers shall be positive they see a human body before counting an inmate as present. G. The counting officers shall remain in the area counted until the count is verified as correct. H. Each count shall be accurate and prompt. If there is any doubt as to the correctness of the count, a re-count shall be made I. No Inmate shall participate in the housing unit count. J. Each count is telephoned into the Count Supervisor during the official count. K. The OIC shall immediately prepare a count slip and forward this slip to the Count Supervisor. The unit OIC shall ensure that the count slip is turned in to the Count Supervisor within five (5) minutes of completion of the count.
XIII. Movement Control: All inmate movement shall be escorted, and only by order of medical.
A. Each unit shall maintain a running count sheet of inmate movement to reflect an accurate total count of all inmates in the unit.
B. The running count sheet shall reflect Name, DCDC Number, time out, time in and movement to and from the total count of inmates in the unit.
C. Between the hours of 8:00 p .m. and 8:00 a.m. inmate movement shall be by officer escort only.
XIV. Contraband:
A. Inmates are not permitted to have milk crates, cigarette lighters, furniture, any glass or metal items/objects, or any other contraband in their cell. Cleaning materials are not allowed to be kept in the cells (mops, buckets, brooms, scouring powder, disinfectant, etc.). All cleaning supplies and chemicals shall be secured when not in use.
B. Bedding, clothing or any other material shall not be attached to cell bars or utilized in such a manner that would obstruct visibility into the cells or tiers, or not used for its intended purposes, i.e., blanket on floor for rugs, towel for foot rug, etc. Inmate misuse of government issued clothing and/or bedding is subject to Disciplinary Action.
C. No items shall be attached to the walls or windows.
XV. Conduct: Inmates are expected to conduct themselves in a manner sociably acceptable by respecting each other’s space and keeping their person and assigned area clean and presentable at all times. All inmates are to wear identification wristbands at all times. Identification bands shall reflect inmates’ name, DCDC number, and picture. Inmates without armbands are prohibited from all activities (mail, canteen, visiting, etc.) until armband is reissued through established procedures the next workday.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 34 of 46

XVI. XVII.
XVIII.

Inmate Cell Movement: Correctional officers shall not move inmates from cell to cell, unless authorized by medical. If medical orders cell movement, notify the Zone Supervisor who will coordinate with the compliance officer.
Watch-Take Medications:
A. The nurse shall submit the medication list to the housing unit officer.
B. The nurse shall walk cell to cell accompanied by the officer and administer the medication.
C. Once the nurse administers the medication to the inmate, the nurse and officer shall observe the inmate visually swallow the medication. Additionally, the nurse and officer shall have inmate open his/her mouth, lift the tongue, and have inmate open palms to ensure the inmate has swallowed the medication.
D. If the inmate refuses the watch take process the officer shall write a disciplinary report on the inmate and make immediate notification through the chain of command.
Sick Call: is conducted seven (7) days per week in this unit.
A. Medical rounds shall be made at a minimum two times a day, every day.
B. Medical provider shall address inmate’s sick call and chronic care needs the on unit.
C. At least once a day, medical shall walk cell to cell to determine if inmates require sick call. This round shall be logged in the Officers logbook located in the Control module to include the Medical staff name, time-in and time out.
D. In case of emergency (life threatening) the Command Center shall be notified to call the Medical Emergency Response Team (MERT).
E. Inmates may utilize the paper request Sick Call System.
F. Sick call shall be conducted on the unit, inside the sick call room.
G. When medical staff arrives on the unit to conduct sick call, the Correctional Officer shall assist the medical staff. Sick call shall not be delayed, postponed or canceled by any correctional staff member. Any delay or issue with sick call shall be reported to the Zone Supervisor immediately and logged in the unit logbook.
H. All inmates on the sick call list must either be seen by the medical staff or sign a refusal in the presence of the medical staff.
I. When sick call is being conducted in the housing units, the assigned staff shall

7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 35 of 46

XVII. XVIII.
XIX.

remain at the sick call room door throughout the process. HIPAA laws prevent the officer from sharing medical information. The officer shall view both the healthcare provider and the inmate at all times.
J. Mental Health rounds shall be made at a minimum once per week (in addition to any routine scheduled or emergency visits).
K. All staffs entering and exiting the unit shall practice donning and doffing respectively. (The practice of putting on (donning) and taking off (doffing) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
Medical Emergencies: In case of medical emergencies (life threatening), the Nurses Station shall be notified by landline or a call made via walkie-talkie. The employee making the call shall give all necessary information to medical staff, i.e. location of the injured, or ill person, and whether the person is conscious. The assigned Officers shall take immediate life saving measures as required through CPR and Suicide Prevention Training until the medical staff arrive and relieve them. Officers shall assist the medical team until they are no longer needed. The Shift Commander shall be notified of all medical emergencies as soon as possible after contacting the medical staff. All staff shall be familiar with D.O. 6080.2 “Suicide Prevention”. If an inmate is escorted from the unit, an officer shall accompany the inmate.
Mail: When handing out mail to inmates the following shall be adhered to:
A. Officers distributing mail in isolation units shall wear gloves. Once issuance of mail is complete gloves shall be properly removed and disposed of, and wash hands or use hand sanitizer.
B. Incoming mail shall be distributed by the number three shift daily. The officer distributing mail shall require armband identification for reception of letters and other mail.
C. All incoming legal mail shall be delivered by officers and shall be opened with the inmate concerned in attendance. Legal Mail shall be checked for contraband only and not censored or read by the staff.
D. All legal mail shall be receipted for by the addressee in the "Legal Mail" Logbook by the officer making the delivery.
E. Inmates shall not handle other inmate mail.
Meals: During meal time, inmates housed on isolation units shall receive meals on clam shells and the following shall be adhered to:
A. Officer shall wear gloves at all times when handling food trays.
B. Food carts shall be placed inside the common area for distribution.
C. Upon receiving the food cart, the Housing unit Officer shall immediately count the number of trays and sign for the amount of trays received. All discrepancies shall be noted on the receipt and the culinary unit notified of the discrepancy.

8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 36 of 46
D. Any discrepancies with food trays, concerns, or problems shall be immediately reported to the Zone Supervisor, who shall consult with the Food Service Supervisor on duty for resolution.
E. A log book entry shall be made showing quantity of food trays delivered.
F. The housing unit officer shall inspect food trays for contraband and quantity.
G. When delivering food trays to cells, officer shall instruct inmate to stand at the far end of the cell, open tray slot and place food on slot, step back at least 6 feet, direct inmate to retrieve the tray and step to the back of cell, and lock the food slot.
H. Special diet trays shall be issued promptly and directly to the inmate requiring the diet.
I. At the completion of the meal, ALL trays shall be -removed from the unit.
J. Food trays shall immediately be served without interruption unless an emergency exists.
K. No inmate shall retain a tray or food items in their cell to include fruit.
L. Clam shell trays shall be properly disposed of in a bio-hazard bag.
XX. Commissary: A. Inmates shall place commissary orders items on one of the two kiosks located in the unit. The kiosks are available for ordering twenty-four hours per day. Commissary orders via kiosk. All orders placed prior to noon on Friday shall be delivered on the following Tuesday. B. All inmates shall be locked down in their cells while commissary is being delivered. C. Commissary staff shall ensure that each inmate is positively identified and sign for their canteen as being delivered. D. Inmates on Disciplinary Restrictive Housing shall not be allowed to receive commissary. E. If the kiosk becomes inoperable the Officer shall notify the Commissary Officer at 202-523-7137 or the Contract Administrator at 202-790-6658 or 202-2790833. F. Inmates housed on isolation units may order commissary. Once inmate completes kiosk/commissary order, staff, while wearing gloves and mask shall spray disinfectant on paper towel until damp, and thoroughly wipe the kiosk screen and box. Officer shall properly dispose of dirty paper towel and immediately properly remove gloves, wash hands or use hand sanitizer, and with dry hands apply clean gloves.
XXI. Social Visits: All social visits including face to face and video visitation shall be
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 37 of 46

XXII. XXIII.
XXIV. XXV.

suspended for inmates housed on isolation units.
Legal Visits: A. Legal visitation is authorized seven (7) days a week, twenty-four (24) hours a
day, including during count times. B. Legal Visits shall be conducted on the same level on which the inmate is
housed during the time that visiting halls are opened for social visits. C. At all other times, Legal Visits are conducted in the visiting hall located on the
Second Level. D. Inmates receiving Legal Visits after normal visiting hours shall be escorted from
and to the housing unit. E. Legal Visits in progress at 8:00 p.m. on the first and third level shall be escorted
to the second level visiting hall for completion of their visit. F. Inmates going on legal visits may have a pen or pencil and legal papers in their
possession. Inmates receiving legal visits during the hours that the visiting halls are closed shall be strip searched for contraband when returning to the unit.
Telephone Privileges:
A. Inmate telephones are installed in all housing units for use by inmates only during out of cell time.
B. The Control Module (bubble) telephone shall never be used for legal or personal calls by inmates. The C&P (Case manager) office is the only authorized telephone for inmate legal calls in each unit.
C. Telephone calls to attorneys shall be conducted by the Case Managers upon receipt of a request form as soon as reasonably possible. After verification of the identity of the attorney, such communication shall be private.
D. Emergency legal and long distance calls shall be scheduled through the Office of the Case Manager or Chaplain, by submission of a request form.
E. Once inmate completes call, staff, while wearing gloves and mask shall spray peroxide solution disinfectant on paper towel until damp, and thoroughly wipe the telephone and receiver. Officer shall properly dispose of dirty paper towel and immediately properly remove gloves, wash hands or use hand sanitizer, and with dry hands apply clean gloves.
Laundry Services: Inmate's laundry to include sheets, towels, uniforms and personal laundry will be cleaned once a week in accordance with the approved schedule.
Files and Records: Unit Logbook: The unit logbook is a written record of events occurring on the unit and listed chronologically on a daily basis to reflect, but not limited to, the following: A. Date Day, Shift Number and names of officers assigned to the unit for that shift. B. Equipment inventory and inmate count. The logbook should reflect any inmate
assignment to, or reassignment from the housing unit. C. Departure from the unit of any assigned officer for lunch, etc., showing time out
and in. D. All thirty (30) minute irregular security checks, to include window and bar and

10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 38 of 46

XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX.
XXX.

census checks. E. Time of all official counts and the time the count cleared F. Time and name of all staff members entering the unit, i.e. supervisors, medical
personnel. Officers not assigned to the unit who enter shall be logged in, to include nature of business. General visitation on units, to include sallyport area, is prohibited. G. Entries into the Maintenance Logbook shall be made when deficiencies are found in the unit and require the maintenance staff to correct such deficiencies. Maintenance personnel shall check the unit log book on a daily basis and sign off after correcting the deficiency. H. All log book entries are to be written legibly and accurately. The logbook is an official document and should be treated as such.
Movement Sheet: A movement sheet shall be maintained in each unit to reflect all inmate movement from and into the unit. The sheet shall reflect Name, DCDC Number, destination and the time. Up to the minute maintenance of the movement sheet is mandatory.
Card File: In order to identify and process movement of inmates in the facility, it is essential to know the location of an inmate at any given time. Each housing unit shall maintain a 3 x 5 card file system on all inmates housed in the unit. Data on the 3 x 5 card shall include the inmates name, DCDC number, race, sex, and age, date of commitment, charge bond, any special instructions, unit assigned, and photo. As inmates are transferred to another unit, the 3 x 5 card shall be turned over to the escorting officer; the card shall NOT be given to the inmate.
Barber Services: Barber Service shall be suspended for inmates housed on isolation units.
Inmate Property: A. Inmate property shall never be handled by other inmates and shall be
maintained in a secure area. B. If an inmate is scheduled for court/medical trip etc., the inmate’s property shall
be stored in the inmate’s cell. C. Anytime an inmate's property is moved without the inmate present, it shall be
inventoried on the property inventory form and signed by the Officer doing the inventory and store in the storage area by the stairwell leading to the lower tiers in the unit. Upon the inmate's return, the shift in which the inmate is returning on, will re-issue the property to the inmate and the inmate will sign the property inventory sheet as to whether all property is accounted for and this receipt will be stored in the inmate 's folder.
Fire Evacuation: A. The Command Center shall be immediately notified of any fire, noting size,
type, location and any other pertinent information. The unit staff shall retrieve an appropriate extinguisher and attempt to extinguish and/or control the fire. B. After a supervisor assesses the situation and determines that a unit must be evacuated, the following procedures are to be followed:

11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 39 of 46

XXXI.
XXXII. XXXIII.

1) Command Center shall be notified who shall then dispatch officers to assist in the evacuation and open doors to the evacuation routes.
2) The main gate and side gate shall be opened and an officer stationed at the main gate to count the inmates as they leave.
3) Open one cell at a time; if possible, evacuating the inmates out of the block, down the recreation yard stairwell to the recreation yard, where the officer stationed at the yard door shall count the inmates as they enter the yard. This count shall be compared to the count taken as the inmates left the unit to ensure all inmates are accounted for on the yard.
4) After all inmates are out, the last officer in the unit shall check the unit, if possible, to make sure no one is left in any area of the unit. When the officer leaves the unit, the last thing he/she. shall do is remove the keys, wing cards and log book from the unit and turn them into the Command Center. The Control Module door is to be left open for the Fire Department.
5) In the event the electricity is out, manual controls shall be used. The control module door key shall be used to open the utility doors in the sally port that houses the controls. Set the controls to manual from electric and open the cell doors. If all doors do not open at this time, the officer must take the manual release key to each cell and insert in the slot above each door and manually release the door. Proceed with the evacuation.
Sanitation:
A. All detail Inmates shall undergo Bio-Hazardous Clean Up training. All training documentation shall be maintained by the NIPS Coordinator.
B. Each detail inmate will fully understand that he may be required to cleanup blood, urine, feces, vomit, etc. during the execution of their duties.
C. All inmates have the right to refuse any assignment. If they exercise that right, they will no longer be a candidate for work detail. The refusal shall be documented.
D. All surfaces shall be disinfected using the peroxide solution after inmates have come in contact with surfaces such as telephones, kiosks, etc.
E. Officer shall ensure detail inmates wear gloves and mask while cleaning unit. Officers and inmates shall properly doff PPEs once cleaning is complete.
Library Services: Law Library services shall be available once a week (Wednesday’s) from 8:45a.m. – 10:45a.m. DC Public Library (DCPL) services shall be on the unit every Wednesday of each month from 9:15a.m. – 11:45a.m.
Chemical Control: A SDS book shall be maintained in the housing unit control bubble. All chemicals shall be stored and secured in a designated area in the cellblock. Officers assigned to Southwest One shall dispense all chemicals in mop buckets for the inmates to clean their cells. The cleaning of the cells shall be under

12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 40 of 46

XXXIV. XXXV.
XXXVI.

the direct supervision of correctional officers.
Religious Services: All inmates shall be afforded the opportunity to receive religious services offered on-unit.
Suicide Prevention: Inmates who demonstrate unusual or bizarre behavior will receive more frequent observation. All such behavior shall be reported immediately to the Zone Lt. and the Charge Nurse on duty. Any inmate expressing suicidal ideations, either verbally or physically, shall be immediately reported to the Zone Lt. and the Charge Nurse on duty. An Officer will remain cell side with the inmate under constant supervision until medical staff arrive and determine the status of the inmate. All activity involving an inmate presenting suicidal ideations will be recorded in the unit logbook. In the event of an actual suicide attempt immediately contact medical and initiate First Aid/CPR, if necessary. In the event of a suicide attempt by hanging the wonder knife shall be obtained from the unit First Aid kit and will be utilized to release the inmate.
First Responder’s Responsibility: A. Separate the alleged victim and abuser; B. Preserve and protect any crime scene until appropriate steps can be taken to
collect any evidence; Use a camera/video recorder to visually document and record the crime scene. C. If the abuse occurred within a time period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence, request that the alleged victim not take any actions that could destroy physical evidence, including, as appropriate, washing, brushing teeth, changing clothes, urinating, defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating; and D. If the abuse occurred within a time period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence, ensure that the alleged abuser does not take any actions that could destroy physical evidence, including, as appropriate, washing, brushing teeth, changing clothes, urinating, defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating. E. If the first staff responder is not a security staff member, the responder shall be required to request that the alleged victim not take any actions that could destroy physical evidence, and then notify security staff. F. Verbal Notification: Immediately report the information or incident directly to the PREA Coordinator. Any allegation of sexual activity as defined in this directive shall be reported as a possible sexual assault, sexual abuse or sexual misconduct. The employee shall not conduct any inquiry or investigation into the circumstances related to the allegation. G. Written Notification: Submit a written report providing any information received or observed that concerns sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual misconduct to the Warden, CCC Director, Office Chief or the highest ranking official on duty before the end of their workday. H. Confidentiality: Employees shall not discuss any aspect of the complaint with other employees or inmates except in accordance with this directive. Strict confidentiality shall be maintained, to the extent possible, at all times.

13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 41 of 46 ___________________________________ Lennard Johnson, Warden
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 42 of 46
ATTACHMENT 9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 43 of 46
DGT(GECLTLODLLB)OIANCLK& FREE
LEGAL CALLS
SDCTOUAVRYIINDC-G1OT9NHNPEAECNTDEEDMIC
See opposite side for additional details.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT DC.DOC.GOV

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 44 of 46
GLOBAL TEL LINK (GTL)
FREE, UNMONITORED AND UNRECORDED LEGAL AND EMERGENCY CALLS
-Each legal call can last up to 30 minutes
-Legal calls can be made Monday thru Sunday from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM
-Your attorney should send their name, phone number, client's name and DCDC number to DCDOClegalcalllist@dc.gov to be added to the new automated legal call system
-Your attorney will send a notification letter in the mail to you explaining the new automated legal call system and how to reach them

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 45 of 46
DSTEECCCDHUONRCOU&LSOGIES
FREE LEGAL CALLS
SDCTOUAVRYIINDC-G1OT9NHNPEAECNTDEEDMIC
See opposite side for additional details.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT DC.DOC.GOV

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 46 of 46
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES
FREE, UNMONITORED AND UNRECORDED LEGAL AND EMERGENCY CALLS
-Each legal call can last up to 30 minutes
-Legal calls can be made Monday thru Sunday from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM
-Your attorney should send their name, phone number, client's name and DCDC number to DCDOClegalcalllist@dc.gov to be added to the new automated legal call system
-Your attorney will send a notification letter in the mail to you explaining the new automated legal call system and how to reach them

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 35
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 35

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 35

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 35

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 35

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 35

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 35

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 35
ATTACHMENT 1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 35
Residents in all housing units are able to access medical care on all housing units via six processes outlined as follows:
1. Sick Call- Sick call requests are collected daily by nursing staff, where they are date stamped, then triaged according to Unity’s “Sick Call Triage” policy. The slips are then given to the unit clerk/medical assistant who schedules the resident’s appointment. This scheduling process is trackable in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). If the nature of the sick call request is not urgent or symptom-based, the resident might be assessed after 48 hours depending on the nature of the concerns. After the unit clerk/medical assistant schedules the appointment, the sick call slip is scanned into the EMR within 24 hours (and the hard copy is shredded for HIPAA compliance). Occasionally residents place their sick call slips in the resident grievance box or in the mail, which can cause the slip to be delayed in arriving to the nursing triage areas. Date-stamping the sick call slip, scheduling the appointment in the EMR, and viewing the clinical note in the EMR are all easy to track and essentially serve as an electronic log for this process.
2. Enhanced Access in Sick Call clinic- Each day in DOC’s housing units, residents are seen by a nurse practitioner, physician’s assistant, or physician on their unit’s Sick Call clinic. Residents are placed on the sick call schedule in a variety of ways. One way, referenced above, is through the sick call request process. Patients may also be scheduled by the urgent care provider (for example, a blood pressure check after a patient is seen in urgent care for a high blood pressure reading). Chronic care providers can also place patients on the sick call schedule for similar, simple follow up needs. The sick call providers also receive all abnormal intake lab results and see patients to discuss and treat a positive result, such as for chlamydia or a syphilis infection. Lastly, sick call providers are also going out onto the tiers and seeing if there are residents not on the schedule who need to be seen that day. This enhancement enables those who may not have filled out a sick call slip, or those who may not want to discuss their COVID-19 status or other concerns in a public setting, to be seen by a provider in the sick call clinic that day. On any given day, more patients may be seen in the Sick Call clinic than were on the original roster. The sick call process can be tracked in the EMR. This enhancement commenced on 04/13/2020.
3. Urgent Care Clinic - Residents are instructed in the Inmate Reception Center, the Intake Housing Unit and on all housing units that they can bring more urgent health concerns (including a wide range of symptoms that could be consistent with COVID) to a DOC officer’s attention and be seen in at the DOC’s Urgent Care Clinic, the same day of their complaint. Once alerted of a resident’s complaint, DOC’s correctional officers call medical staff who instruct the officers to bring the resident directly to the Urgent Care Clinic to be seen. Resident visits to the Urgent Care Clinic are documented in their EMR notes.
4. Chronic Care Clinic- Residents receive a comprehensive medical assessment during their initial intake screening. Those who present with a chronic medical condition are assessed, treated then scheduled for a follow-up appointment in the Chronic Care Clinic. The follow up appointments are usually scheduled 30 days out, but can be scheduled sooner, if necessary. Based on the stability of their condition, resident will have follow-up care appointments at either 30, 60 or 90 day intervals (or sooner as needed). These

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 35
appointments are tracked in the EMR. If a patient presenting for a Chronic Care Clinic appointment exhibits COVID-19 related symptoms (e.g, as detected by vital signs), they will be placed under investigation for COVID – 19.
5. Quarantine Housing Unit monitoring: Residents on the quarantine unit are seen twice daily by Unity’s nursing staff. On their rounds on the quarantines housing units, nurses assess residents’ vital signs and ask the residents if they have any COVID-19 symptoms or other concerns. These visits are noted in the EMR. As an enhancement designed to help pick up COVID-19 positive patients quickly, when nurses note any abnormal vital signs or have a resident complain of symptoms, the nurses immediately call a provider (NP, PA or MD) and the resident is seen (and generally swabbed) within two hours. Regular Sick Call clinic also occurs on all housing units under quarantine. Patients seen in sick call clinic that day may exceed the initial roster of patients scheduled if nurses note abnormalities in vital signs or want residents to be quickly seen given their complaints. This enhancement to care commenced 03/26/2020 with the first quarantine unit.
6. Medical Emergencies- When a resident has an acute medical emergency, DOC’s correctional officers call Unity’s Urgent Care Provider and a code is called to that Unit. The Medical Emergency Response Team promptly response to the call to assess the resident. If the resident requires treatment beyond what can be provided at DOC, 911 is called and DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services arrive to assess the need for the resident to be transferred to a higher level of care. Medical emergencies can be tracked through a resident’s EMR.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 35
ATTACHMENT 2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 35
PS 6001.I
DC Department of Corrections Sick Call Request Form
Name/Nombre:

Date of Birth/Fecha de Nacimiento:

DCDC#

Housing Unit/Unidad

Cell/Celda #

Check only one box per slip

Marque solo una casilla por papelata

I wish to be seen at Sick Call Dental Treatment Mental Health Other

Yo deseo el visto por el doctor Tratamiento Dental Salud Mental Otro

I have (check all that apply)

Tengo (marque todo lo que corresponda)

A fever Coughing Difficulty breathing/ shortness of breath Headache/Body Ache Upset stomach

Una fiebre Tos Dificultad para respirar/ falta de aliento Dolor de cabeza o dolor corporal Dolor de barriga

Comments/Comentarios

For any emergency ask the officer to call the medical unit. Para cualquier emergencia, pidale al oficial que llame al medico de turno.
5/20/2020

Patient Signature/Firma del paciente

Date/Fecha

Medical Provider or Registered Nurse

Date

Time

am

pm

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 35
ATTACHMENT 3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 14 of 35
Health Services at DC DOC
Beth Jordan, MD, CCHA Medical Director and Health Services Administrator DC Department of Corrections Eleni O’Donovan, MD, MS Director of Correctional Medicine Unity Health Care

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 15 of 35
Jail Inmate Population
• CDF + CTF: ➢ ADP Pre-COVID (1800) today: 1333 ➢ 70% pre-trial detainees or sentenced misdemeanants ➢ 30% parole violators, sentenced felons and writs and holds ➢ 18% maximum security, 68% minimum security and the remainder minimum security
• 92% male and 8% female (including juveniles)
• Over 90% African American
• 5% Hispanic
• 3% White
• About 5 pregnant inmates/month
• 55% with history of some mental illness or SUD
• 9% with active mental health diagnosis
• Approximately 30 inmates daily have HIV/AIDS (which comprises 80% of our pharmacy budget)
• Approximately 25% with at least one chronic condition (HTN, Asthma, Diabetes, kidney disease, heart disease)

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 16 of 35
Unity Health Care and the New Contract
• Providing care for DOC residents for almost 14 years • Focus on comprehensive care and nationally recognized continuity of care • Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder – started over
10 years ago • New contract: recognizes DOC is one of the largest providers of mental
health care in DC
• All services provided through a Trauma Informed Lens – DOC has brought in two of the nation’s leading experts in Trauma Informed Care to train staff and residents
• Shift from acute/crisis care to comprehensive and continuous management and rehabilitation – medication and therapy
• Expanded mental health services with more group offerings • Nation’s only jail-based SUD therapeutic units with MAT and SUD curricula expected
to open in 2020

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 17 of 35
OHSA Mission
• The Mission of the Office of Health Services Administration (OHSA) is to oversee the healthcare contract to ensure that the medical, dental and behavioral health (mental health as well as substance use disorder) needs of the entire inmate population are met with propriety and dispatch from admission, transfer or release; and the responsibilities also include prevention and health education.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 18 of 35
Contract Monitoring
• Joint audits with the healthcare vendor to ensure contract compliance as well as compliance with national and local standards – increased from 30 to nearly 200 audits over the past 7 years
• Accredited through the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) • CDF accredited since 2001 / CTF accredited since 2004 • Only 15% of the nation’s jails have NCCHC accreditation
• Accredited through the American Correctional Association (ACA) • CTF accredited since 1997 / CDF since 2010 • Approximately 8% of nation’s jails have ACA accreditation
• Worked with leading SME in medical care in incarcerated settings, leading national court monitor with QI/QA expertise.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 19 of 35

OHSA CQI MONITORING CALENDAR

October 2017- September 2018

Audit Plan for DOC Medical Services (Delivery of Health Care)

Service Area

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Provider Sick Call (JP)

X

X

Dental Services - CDF

(JP)

X

X

Dental Services - CTF

(JP)

X

X

Radiology -CXR (JP)

X

X

Radiology -Non-CXR

(JP)

X

Chronic Care- Mental

Health (JP)

X

X

X X

Acute Mental Health

(JP)

X

X

X

Mental Health-

Stepdown (JP)

X

X

Discharge Planning

(JP)

X

X

Hospital Services (JP)

X

X

Medical Records (JP)

X

X

Annual Physicals (CDF)

(JP)

X

X

Annual Physicals (CTF)

(JP)

X

X

Mental Health (

includes AIMS testing

& Depakote,Lithium

levels) (JP)

X

X

I nvoluntary Medication

Adminstration (JP)

X

X

Communicable Disease

Tx (JP)

X

X

Quality Management

Program (QA)

(JP)

X

Dialysis (JP)

X

X

RSAT (JP)

X

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 20 of 35

Chronic Mental Health Audit 2019

Performance Measures Screening and Mental Health assessment evaluations reflect DOCs Suicide Prevention protocol (See Intake audit)
Screening questions that warrant an expedited mental health services encounter shall be referred to the mental health clinician for a comprehensive mental health assessment.

Reference
C.5.10.2, C.5.10.2.1 ACA 4-ALDF-4C-19, 27-34 DOC PS 60001+ PS 6080 NCCHC J-G-01,04 NCCHC J-E-05, NCCHC-J-G-05 C.5.10.2.3 ACA 4-ALDF-4C-19, 27-34 NCCHC J-G-01,04 NCCHC J-E-05, NCCHC-J-G-05

Pt. referrals to MH services seen by qualified mental health professional within 2 business days of referral
There is a comprehensive mental health assessment for each inmate as part of the history and physical if intake screen is positive All EMR notes on patients with mental health issues will be comprehensive with respect to assessment of condition and treatment plan Pre-segregation clearance exams will document potential impact on inmates mental health status if problem exist

C.5.10.2.3 ACA 4-ALDF-4C-19, 27-34 NCCHC J-G-01,04 NCCHC J-E-05, NCCHC-J-G-05 C.5.10.2.4 ACA 4-ALDF-4C-19, 27-34 NCCHC J-G-01,04 NCCHC J-E-05, NCCHC-J-G-05
C.5.10.2.4 ACA 4-ALDF-4C-19, 27-34 NCCHC J-G-01,04 NCCHC J-E-05, NCCHC-J-G-05
C.5.10.2.4 ACA 4-ALDF-4C-19, 27-34 NCCHC J-G-01,04 NCCHC J-E-05, NCCHC-J-G-05

Benchmark
95-100%
95-100% 95-100% 95-100% 95-100% 95-100%

Mar-19 100%
100% 93% 100% 100% 100%

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 21 of 35
Intake Screening
• New residents arrive with masks and are screened for COVID-19 with questions and a temperature check before progressing through routine intake procedures
• Those who screen positive at the jail’s entrance are immediately taken to the IRC’s medical area for COVID assessment and testing.
• Those who screen negative proceed to routine intake assessment - Vitals, HIV and STD screening, tuberculosis screening, medical assessment (MD) and mental health screening including a suicide risk assessment, COVID testing
• Behavioral health clinicians complete a comprehensive behavioral health assessment at intake for those who screen positive - residents needing psychiatric follow-up are seen within 24 hours for intake
• Medications are verified and patients generally get their first dose medication in the IRC or that night after confirmation. Patients coming in on MAT have dose verified and MAT continued. Those in withdrawal can be initiated onto MAT.
• Intake clinical staff providing COVID patient education, which is documented in the EMR.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 22 of 35
Health Care Services
• Chronic Care Clinic- residents with chronic conditions. Followed up in general every 30, 60 or 90 days depending on control of condition.
• Urgent Care Clinic- open 24/7. For urgent/emergency care
• Sick Call Clinic- for acute and more routine care (new symptoms, medication refill, etc…) Residents generally seen within 24-72 hours.
• Infirmary – for residents who need enhanced monitoring or a higher level of care
• Specialty Care Clinics- Dental, Infectious Disease, MAT, Radiology, Podiatry, Ophthalmology, Sports Medicine, Orthopedics, OB, Wound Care
• Tele-medicine- Pulmonary specialist, Rheumatology, Endocrinology, Cardiac Subspecialist, Nephrology, Dental Sub-specialty
• Dialysis

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 23 of 35
Multiple ways to access care
• SICK CALL: Patient placed on the sick call provider schedule by another provider for follow-up (blood pressure check, etc.) Patient seen within 24-hours after slip triaged by nurse. All housing units
• EXPEDITED SICK CALL: Patient places a sick call slip which is triaged by a nurse and patient seen within 24h. Non-quarantine/Non-isolation units
• Urgent care: Patient alerts staff member about an acute issue and is brought to the medical area for evaluation that day

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 24 of 35
Multiple ways to access care
• Chronic Care clinic: Patients scheduled for routine appointments for chronic medical conditions
• Medical Emergency: Medical team deploys to unit (fall, chest pain). Team arrives within 4 minutes
• Medical rounds: Sick call provider walks tier checking in with residents, nurse temperature checks on quarantine units, COVID team assesses sick patients on isolation unit. Increases the number of patients seen in Sick Call clinic daily (adds those who haven’t submitted a sick call slip)

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 25 of 35
COVID-19 at the Jail

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 26 of 35
COVID at the Jail
• Pandemic Policy in place since 2009 • Screening at entrances began March 13, 2020 with questionnaire and temperature
taken • Visitation stopped March 14, 2020 • Facility on Medical lockdown- movement very restricted • First + on March 26, 2020 at CTF • CDC Guidance-screening, quarantine, isolation and PPE • DOH/DFL partnership for testing • Working with national SME in Infectious Disease in Correctional Settings since
March. • DHS- Discharge planning for those in need of housing related to COVID status

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 27 of 35
COVID at the Jail- as of May 22, 2020
• 368 tests performed (2 at Hospital) • 189 COVID-19 (+) patients ( 2 tested at hospital)
• CTF (69)/CDF (120)
• 176 (–) results • 4 tests Pending • 3 residents currently hospitalized • 15 COVID-19 + in isolation • 170 COVID-19 + patients recovered • 1 COVID-19 related death

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 28 of 35
Identification Paths for 158 COVID-19 Positives and 110 Negatives Through May 06, 2020

Hospital = 2 Self-
Referral = 3 Cellmate Positive
= 3 Initial Quarantine Assessment = 26
Sick Call = 29
Urgent Care = 38

Self Report = Pos1itive Cellmate =
2 Court Order = 3
Sick Call = 16
Initial Quarantine Assessment = 18
Temperature Check = 24

Temperature Check = 57

Urgent Care = 48

158 Positives Identified via Seven Paths

110 Negatives Identified via Seven Paths

Testing

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 29 of 35

1. DOH Public Health Lab – PCR (viral RNA) test

2. Abbot ID NOW Rapid PCR Machine – 2 at DOC – used for point of care testing for new intakes and symptomatic patients (can be sure positives are “true positives” but need to retest negatives as “false negative” rate is high)

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 30 of 35
Groups Tested
• New intakes • Patients with symptoms • Close contacts of confirmed positives (cellmates) • Transfers to some facilities (e.g. St. Elizabeth’s and USMS) • Broader surveillance testing started today

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 31 of 35
Quarantine – Asymptomatic Patients
• 14 days
• All residents see a provider for an initial assessment at the start of quarantine
• Temperature/symptom check twice a day
• Reset to “Day 0” if additional cases arise on the unit

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 32 of 35
Isolation – Patients infected with COVID-19
• Nurse and 1-2 providers see patients sick with COVID-19 twice a day for vital signs (pulse oximetry, blood pressure, temperature, etc.) and an exam twice a day until discharge
• Sicker patients → more frequent visits, transfer to infirmary, or send to ER for further evaluation
• Follow-up visit with provider after discharge

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 33 of 35
Release from isolation
• For individuals who will NOT be re-tested to determine if they are still contagious:
• The individual has been free from fever for at least 72 hours without the use of fever-reducing medications AND
• The individual’s other symptoms have improved (e.g., cough, shortness of breath) AND
• At least 10 days have passed since the first symptoms appeared
• For individuals who had a confirmed positive COVID-19 test but never showed symptoms:
• At least 10 days have passed since the date of the individual’s first positive COVID-19 test AND
• The individual has had no subsequent illness
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#Medicalisolation

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 34 of 35
Figure 2: From Midgely et al. demonstrating inability to recover replication-competent virus from specimens collected more than 9 days after illness onset. Kaplan-Meier analysis shows time to inability to recover replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 from 14 U.S. patients. Last probability of successful isolation falls to 50% at day 4 after illness onset and to 20% at day 8. After day 9, probability approaches zero. Unpublished CDC data.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-2 Filed 05/26/20 Page 35 of 35
Contact information
• Dr. Beth Jordan- DOC’s Medical Director and Health Services Administrator. Beth.Jordan@dc.gov. Cell phone: 202.594.6293.
• Dr. Eleni O’Donovan- Director of Correctional Medicine at Unity; Local Program Director for The National Family Medicine Residency Program at Unity. eodonovan@unityhealthcare.org

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-3 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 12
EXHIBIT C

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-3 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-0849 (CKK)

DECLARATION OF REENA CHAKRABORTY Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Reena Chakraborty, declare and state as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years, competent to testify to the matters contained in this declaration, and testify based on my personal knowledge acquired in the course of my official duties. I previously submitted a declaration in this matter [44-3]. 2. I am the Chief of Strategic Planning and Analysis of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC). I have worked for DOC for approximately 15.5 years; prior to that, I was a contractor with Anteon (now General Dynamics Information Technology) at DOC. My duties include strategic planning, analysis, and evaluation. My team and I also support DOC by providing information services as requested. 3. I make this declaration to explain the data and trends regarding the population of the DOC facilities and cases of COVID-19 among residents housed at DOC facilities. 4. The data regarding total population numbers and inmate location described below are extracted from a daily midnight snapshot of Jail and Community Corrections System (JACCS), DOC’s official offender-management system and legal information system of record. The data are written to a set of tables used for analysis (our data warehouse) called the CENSUS tables. These

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-3 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 12
data do not represent the current state of the system at any given moment, only the status of the system at midnight for each day the data is loaded into the tables.
5. Attachment 1 is a graph showing the change in population from March 4, 2020, to May 24, 2020. The data from JACCS records show that the combined population at the Central Detention Facility (CDF) and the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) has decreased significantly since March 14, 2020. On the graph, it can be seen that the population at DOC facilities was 1846 on March 14, 2020. The population has declined by 506, or approximately 27%, as of May 24, 2020.
6. Attachment 2 is a graph showing the percent of CDF and CTF residents housed in single cells (cells in which the resident is the sole occupant) from March 4, 2020 to May 24, 2020 (data are at approximately ten-day intervals). The data from JACCS records show that as of March 4, 2020, of the 1772 residents housed in CDF and CTF combined, 800, or 44.6%, were housed in single cells. As of May 24, 2020, of the 1340 inmates housed in CDF and CTF combined, 963, or 71.9%, were housed in single cells. These data indicate there was a 61.2% increase in single-cell housing since March 4, 2020.
7. The data regarding COVID-19-positive residents described below are extracted from data provided to me by Unity Health Care regarding daily COVID-19 testing results and who Unity’s medical team has deemed “recovered.” “Presumed positive” residents are individuals who medical staff identified as displaying symptoms of COVID-19 but refused testing, and those residents are included in the totals of positive residents.
8. Attachment 3 is a graph showing the cumulative number of COVID-19-positive or presumed COVID-19-positive residents since the first confirmed positive for COVID-19 for a resident was received on March 26, 2020. This is represented on the graph by the purple line. The graph’s green line depicts the cumulative number of residents deemed recovered. Finally, the gold
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-3 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 12

line shows, for each day noted, the number of COVID-19-positive residents current as of that date. The data show that the peak of COVID-19-positive residents occurred on April 24, 2020, when 55 residents were positive. Subsequently after a brief decline, there was a secondary peak on May 2, 2020, when 54 residents were positive. After May 2, 2020, there has been a generally downward trend in positive cases. As of the evening of May 24, 2020, a total of 17 residents were currently positive; including three (3) at local hospitals, and, 14 at DOC facilities.
9. Attachment 4 is a table showing a statistical breakdown of residents based on their COVID-19 status and whether they are in isolation housing. As the table shows, the number of residents in isolation for COVID-19 peaked at 57 on May 4, 2020, and has steadily declined since. As of May 24, 2020, only 17 residents remained in medical isolation for COVID-19.
10. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Executed on _M__a_y_2_6_,_2_0_2_0__________

__________________________ REENA CHAKRABORTY

3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-3 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 12
ATTACHMENT 1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-3 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 12

DOC Facility Population

DOC Facility Population Since Crisis Onset

2000 1800

DOC Facility Population, 1846

CTF

CDF

DOC Facility Population

1600
1400 CDF, 1233
1200
1000

CDF, 1275

CDF, 1195

DOC Facility Population, 1340

CDF, 1091

CDF, 1043

CDF, 1007

CDF, 972

CDF, 975 CDF, 978

800 60C0TF, 539 400

CTF, 571

CTF, 516

CTF, 424

CTF, 398

CTF, 374

CTF, 374

CTF, 351

CTF, 362

200

0 3/4/2020

3/14/2020 3/24/2020

4/3/2020

4/13/2020 4/23/2020

5/3/2020

5/13/2020 5/23/2020

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-3 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 12
ATTACHMENT 2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-3 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 12

120.0%

PERCENT SINGLE CELLED at CDF, CTF, and BOTH FACILITIES OVERALL

CTF % Single Celled

CDF% Single Celled

DOC % Single Celled

100.0%
80.0% 68.5%
60.0% 44.6%
40.0%34.3%

73.1%
47.2% 36.0%

72.1%
48.3% 38.0%

77.8%
52.6% 42.7%

94.0%
59.3% 46.0%

94.7%
68.2% 58.2%

94.7%
69.0% 59.0%

95.4%
69.5% 60.1%

97.7%
72.7% 63.5%

20.0%

0.0% 3/4/2020

3/14/2020

3/24/2020

4/3/2020

4/13/2020

4/23/2020

5/3/2020

5/13/2020

5/23/2020

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-3 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 12
ATTACHMENT 3

250

200

150

100

50

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-3 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 12

Current Positives, Cumulative Positives and Cumulative Recovered

20 22 0

01

01

02

05

05

06

06

0 10

0 12

0 14

0 18

4 20

7 26

7

38

7

41

Cumulative Positives

7

47

43

9

52

11

53

11

53

32 56

41 62

43 66

43 66

49

82

50

90

53

97

53

100

Current Positives

56

105

62

112

65

116

55

68

124

72

126

80

128

41

85

128

85

137

87

140

89

144

54

91

149

Cumulative Recovered

95

152

103

157

107

157

109

157

45 36 36

119

160

121

164

124

165

126

176

129

178

136

178

139

179

142

179

30 30

147

183

147

184

148

184

149

185

162 186

164 187

18

164 188

166 193

167 193

168 193

17

170 193

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-3 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 12
ATTACHMENT 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-3 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 12

DOC Resident Data March 25, 2020, to May 24, 2020

Percent In

Cumulative

Custody Who Are Positives Deemed

Date

DOC Population Cumulative Positives In Isolation Recovered Fatalities Positive

Recovered

5/24

1340

193

17

170

1

1.3%

88.1%

5/23

1332

193

19

168

1

1.4%

87.0%

5/22

1331

193

20

167

1

1.5%

86.5%

5/21

1333

193

21

166

1

1.6%

86.0%

5/20

1335

187

16

165

1

1.2%

88.2%

5/19

1332

187

16

165

1

1.2%

88.2%

5/18

1330

186

30

150

1

2.3%

80.6%

5/17

1330

186

30

150

1

2.3%

80.6%

5/16

1327

186

32

148

1

2.4%

79.6%

5/15

1327

184

31

147

1

2.3%

79.9%

5/14

1326

180

32

142

1

2.4%

78.9%

5/13

1327

182

38

138

1

2.9%

75.8%

5/12

1349

179

40

134

1

3.0%

74.9%

5/11

1348

179

44

130

1

3.3%

72.6%

5/10

1348

177

45

127

1

3.3%

71.8%

5/9

1337

166

34

127

1

2.5%

76.5%

5/8

1338

164

42

118

1

3.1%

72.0%

5/7

1338

160

38

117

1

2.8%

73.1%

5/6

1332

158

43

110

1

3.2%

69.6%

5/5

1343

158

52

101

1

3.9%

63.9%

5/4

1346

158

57

97

1

4.2%

61.4%

5/3

1346

152

52

96

1

3.9%

63.2%

5/2

1340

144

52

89

1

3.9%

61.8%

5/1

1348

144

52

89

1

3.9%

61.8%

4/30

1350

140

51

88

1

3.8%

62.9%

4/29

1358

137

50

86

1

3.7%

62.8%

4/28

1366

132

46

85

1

3.4%

64.4%

4/27

1372

128

52

75

1

3.8%

58.6%

4/26

1373

126

53

72

1

3.9%

57.1%

4/25

1368

122

53

68

1

3.9%

55.7%

4/24

1381

112

49

62

1

3.5%

55.4%

4/23

1392

110

47

62

1

3.4%

56.4%

4/22

1395

104

47

56

1

3.4%

53.8%

4/21

1402

99

45

53

1

3.2%

53.5%

4/20

1412

96

43

52

1

3.0%

54.2%

4/19

1412

90

40

50

1

2.8%

55.6%

4/18

1408

90

40

50

1

2.8%

55.6%

4/17

1428

82

31

50

1

2.2%

61.0%

4/16

1430

75

31

43

1

2.2%

57.3%

4/15

1431

65

22

43

1

1.5%

66.2%

4/14

1441

62

21

40

1

1.5%

64.5%

4/13

1442

56

23

32

1

1.6%

57.1%

4/12

1442

53

44

9

0

3.1%

17.0%

4/11

1442

52

44

9

0

3.1%

17.3%

4/10

1467

52

43

9

0

2.9%

17.3%

4/9

1480

47

38

9

0

2.6%

19.1%

4/8

1490

33

54

7

0

3.6%

21.2%

4/7

1496

37

45

7

0

3.0%

18.9%

4/6

1517

28

39

7

0

2.6%

25.0%

4/5

1517

20

39

7

0

2.6%

35.0%

4/4

1515

18

28

4

0

1.8%

22.2%

4/3

1545

14

11

0

0

0.7%

0.0%

4/2

1568

12

13

0

0

0.8%

0.0%

4/1

1598

12

10

0

0

0.6%

0.0%

3/31

1612

6

8

0

0

0.5%

0.0%

3/30

1626

6

7

0

0

0.4%

0.0%

3/29

1630

5

6

0

0

0.4%

0.0%

3/28

1630

4

4

0

0

0.2%

0.0%

3/27

1647

3

1

0

0

0.1%

0.0%

3/26

1677

1

1

0

0

0.1%

0.0%

3/25

1692

1

1

0

0

0.1%

0.0%

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 69
EXHIBIT D

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 69

1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

2

3

**************** )

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

) Civil Action

4

) No. 20-CV-00849

Plaintiffs,

)

5

)

vs.

)

6

)

QUINCY L. BOOTH, et al.,

) Washington, DC

7

) May 11, 2020

Defendants.

) 2:00 p.m.

8

)

**************** )

9

10

TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

11

BEFORE THE HONORABLE COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12

13

APPEARANCES:

14

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

ARTHUR B. SPITZER

15

(Appearing

SCOTT MICHELMAN, ESQ.

Telephonically)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF

16

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

915 15th Street, Northwest

17

Second Floor

Washington, DC 20005

18

19

STEVEN D. MARCUS, ESQ.

JENNA MARIE COBB, ESQ.

20

JONATHAN ANDERSON, ESQ.

PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE

21

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

633 Indiana Avenue, Northwest

22

Washington, DC 20004

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 69

2

1

APPEARANCES, CONT'D:

2

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

ANDREW SAINDON, ESQ.

(Appearing

MICAH IAN BLUMING, ESQ.

3

Telephonically)

PAMELA DISNEY, ESQ.

FERNANDO AMARILLAS, ESQ.

4

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

5

441 Fourth Street, Northwest

Sixth Floor

6

Washington, DC 20001

7

APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY:

8

ERIC GLOVER, ESQ.

9

MICHELLE WILSON, ESQ.

GENERAL COUNSEL

10

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS

11

2000 14th Street, Northwest

Washington, DC 20009

12

GRACE LOPES

13

MARK JORDAN

(AMICI CURIAE)

14

15

REPORTED BY:

(Telephonically)

16

17

18

19

LISA EDWARDS, RDR, CRR Official Court Reporter United States District Court for the
District of Columbia 333 Constitution Avenue, NW Room 6706 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 354-3269

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 69

3

1

THE COURT: All right. It's 2:00. This is Judge

2

Kollar-Kotelly. This is in the matter of Banks, et al.,

3

versus Booth, et al., 20-CV-849.

4

I have from the court staff the deputy courtroom

5

clerk, my law clerk and the court reporter.

6

Somebody has not muted their phone.

7

I have certain people which I will call on. These

8

will be speakers or potential speakers. They will be the

9

amici experts; Plaintiffs, whom they've identified; the

10

Defendants, including the Department of Corrections counsel;

11

as well as the United States.

12

So let me find out whether -- Ms. Lopes, are you

13

on the phone?

14

MS. LOPES: Good afternoon. Yes.

15

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

16

Mr. Jordan, are you on the phone?

17

MR. JORDAN: Yes, your Honor. Good afternoon.

18

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

19

Mr. Marcus, are you on the line?

20

MR. MARCUS: Good afternoon, your Honor.

21

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

22

Mr. Anderson, are you on the line?

23

MR. ANDERSON: Yes, your Honor. Good afternoon.

24

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

25

Ms. Cobb?

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 69

4

1

MS. COBB: Yes, your Honor. Good afternoon.

2

THE COURT: Mr. Perloff?

3

Maybe's not on the line yet.

4

Scott Michelman?

5

He's not on the line yet. I should give him a few

6

moments in case he's muted.

7

MR. MICHELMAN: I'm sorry. I was on mute, your

8

Honor. This is Mr. Michelman. I was on mute. My

9

apologies.

10

THE COURT: I know it takes a moment. Thank you

11

for muting.

12

Mr. Perloff, are you on now or not?

13

MR. SPITZER: Your Honor, I believe he's listening

14

on the public line.

15

THE COURT: Okay. Then that's all right.

16

Mr. Spitzer, are you on?

17

MR. SPITZER: Yes. I'm here, your Honor.

18

THE COURT: For the Defendant, Mr. Saindon?

19

MR. SAINDON: Good afternoon. I'm here.

20

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

21

Mr. Amarillas?

22

MR. AMARILLAS: Yes. I'm here, your Honor. Good

23

afternoon.

24

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

25

Mr. Bluming?

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 69

5

1

MR. BLUMING: Yes. Good afternoon, your Honor.

2

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

3

Ms. Disney?

4

MS. DISNEY: Yes, your Honor. Good afternoon.

5

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

6

Mr. Glover?

7

MR. GLOVER: Yes, your Honor. Good afternoon.

8

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

9

Ms. Wilson?

10

MS. WILSON: Good afternoon. I'm here.

11

THE COURT: And, Mr. Walker, are you on for the

12

United States?

13

MR. WALKER: I am on, your Honor. And good

14

afternoon.

15

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

16

Somebody just came on. Did somebody come on that

17

I had not called earlier?

18

What I would ask is we do have a public line

19

that's automatically muted. So anybody who is not going to

20

be on speaker, I'd ask that they be on that, simply so that

21

when everybody comes on and off we don't keep hearing these

22

clicks, particularly if they're not going to speak.

23

What I would ask is that, other than the principal

24

speakers -- and the principal speakers obviously can refer

25

to somebody else to answer the question, and that's fine;

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 69

6

1

and I'll remind myself to give you a moment to unmute so we

2

don't have that background jangling noise. So I will call

3

on you.

4

We are here based on the order that I signed on

5

April 28th, 2020, which was a consent order. And the amici

6

were directed to go back to the facilities and to provide an

7

oral report today answering -- there were five questions.

8

And so I think the way I'm going to do this is

9

I'll state the question and then call on either Ms. Lopes or

10

Mr. Jordan. Just indicate whoever wants to answer it. And

11

once it's been answered, if I have questions, I'll do

12

followup and I'll let the party, since we only have five

13

questions, if there's a followup question that you want to

14

ask, before we move on to the second question.

15

So let me start with the first question: How

16

are --

17

MS. LOPES: Your Honor --

18

THE COURT: Sure. Who is this?

19

MS. LOPES: This is Grace Lopes.

20

Your Honor, we had some background information

21

that we wanted to provide to the Court and the parties first

22

that we thought would be helpful before we got into

23

Question 1.

24

THE COURT: Perfect.

25

MS. LOPES: Some of that background information I

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 69

7

1

will provide and some Mr. Jordan will be providing. He'll

2

be addressing the first two questions and I'll be addressing

3

the last three questions.

4

THE COURT: That's fine.

5

MS. LOPES: As a threshold matter, your Honor,

6

there have been some changes that are material to the

7

parties' consideration and the clients' consideration of the

8

information that we'd like to convey this afternoon with

9

respect to the five questions. So we thought it would be

10

important to outline those changes now.

11

First, with respect to the jail, the population at

12

the jail has decreased since our previous report to the

13

Court in April. Last week, we were at the jail on May 7th

14

and the population was 969 inmates, a significant reduction

15

over the 1,020 who were there just a few weeks earlier when

16

we reported on the population.

17

There's also been a change in terms of housing

18

status, et cetera. As the Court may recall, there are 18

19

housing units at the jail. Most, albeit not all, have 80

20

cells. They're single versus double. Some cells are single

21

cells; some cells are double cells.

22

We haven't had an opportunity to evaluate the data

23

with respect to the prevalence of double celling versus

24

single celling, though there are indications that there is

25

less double celling at the jail now. And hopefully we'll be

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 69

8

1

able to provide that data to the Court and the parties in

2

our final report.

3

The Defendants do report that there are

4

limitations in their ability to operate some cells that are

5

currently vacant now because of maintenance-related issues.

6

We don't know the prevalence of those issues at this time.

7

At the time of our May 7th site visit, there were

8

15 housing units open. Three were closed. Ten were

9

quarantine units and one was an isolation unit for inmates

10

who were positive for COVID-19.

11

That is a shift from the distribution and

12

characterization or classification of housing units relative

13

to our prior visit because, as you'll hear in a minute,

14

there are more inmates who are COVID-19 positive at the jail

15

now than there were during our previous site visit.

16

With respect to the correctional treatment

17

facility, the population there this past Friday when we were

18

there also had decreased. And the population count was 364

19

inmates. It had been just a few weeks earlier hovering at

20

around 400 inmates.

21

As you may recall, the CTF has the inpatient

22

infirmary, a 26-room, 40-bed infirmary. And that infirmary

23

served both facilities. It has 27 housing units. Most have

24

the capacity of -- not all -- for 50 beds. There are four

25

that have as many as 96 beds and then a handful of smaller

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 69

9

1

units.

2

No units with double cells at the time of our

3

visit last week to the CTF. And that again is in contrast

4

to our prior site visit in April at the CTF.

5

Eleven units at the CTF were closed. And in

6

contrast to our previous visit, there were only four inmates

7

on isolation status at the CTF. Those inmates were all

8

housed in the inpatient infirmary.

9

There were no isolation housing units operating at

10

all at the CTF and only one quarantine unit. There had been

11

eight during our previous site visit.

12

So there's been a significant shift in the

13

COVID-19-positive population at the facilities, which

14

Mr. Jordan will be getting into in detail.

15

In terms of methodology with respect to this stage

16

of our assessment, we obtained data of course from the site

17

visits, observations and interviews; also, a review of

18

documents that the Defendants produced in response to our

19

request and analysis of various data sets that the

20

Defendants also produced.

21

We've conducted unannounced and unescorted site

22

visits on two dates at the jail and the CTF. We conducted

23

observations in many of the housing units at both

24

facilities, including cells and day rooms. We visited

25

general population, maximum- and medium-security housing

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 69

10

1

units; we visited mental health units, special management

2

units, both isolation units, one in each facility, that were

3

operating. And when I say isolation unit at the CTF, I mean

4

the infirmary, which has the inmates in isolation status

5

now.

6

We visited quarantine units; we visited

7

non-quarantine units and the medical units at both

8

facilities and the visitor entry screening areas; and we

9

also were on the administrative side briefly at both

10

facilities.

11

We conducted structured and informal interviews in

12

person and by telephone, including with the deputy director

13

of the DOC, the DOC deputy director for case management

14

services.

15

And we conducted in-depth, structured interviews

16

with the medical director for the contractor who provides

17

health services at both facilities -- that's Unity

18

Healthcare -- the nursing director for Unity Healthcare,

19

which has the responsibility for both facilities; the

20

warden, who has responsibility for both facilities; the

21

deputy warden at the correctional treatment facility; and

22

again, with dozens and correctional officers and some of

23

their supervisors assigned to posts throughout both

24

facilities.

25

And again, we spoke in smaller groups this time,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 69

11

1

smaller groups of -- the smaller groups of inmates and

2

individually with inmates. By our estimate, over 100

3

inmates were interviewed during this phase who are either on

4

isolation, quarantine status or in the general population of

5

both facilities.

6

We did conduct data analysis. The Defendants

7

continue to provide us with access to the electronic health

8

records; and we have conducted analysis of those records,

9

which Mr. Jordan will be reviewing with the Court and the

10

parties in a moment, in addition to the electronic health

11

records.

12

We've also analyzed data sets related to COVID-19

13

testing; housing unit designations; admissions and housing

14

assignments; sick-call requests; the hiring of the

15

sanitarian; efforts to secure professional cleaning

16

services, records related to that; directives and

17

information related to implementation of the TRO as well

18

that were provided to DOC and/or contract staff by DOC

19

management.

20

And the Defendants have produced a significant

21

amount of the data we've requested. They also produced

22

certain data we did not request, such as video excerpts of

23

activity on certain CTF housing units, which we have

24

reviewed. And we have continued to receive documents in

25

response to our request on an ongoing basis from the

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 69

12

1

Defendants. Most recently, this past Saturday afternoon was

2

the most recent installment.

3

And we'd like to underscore that the Defendants

4

have been extremely cooperative and responsive, again,

5

throughout this stage of the process.

6

While we expect and will file our written report

7

by May 28th, we would like an opportunity to supplement the

8

information we provide today with respect to the first five

9

questions in light of more recent data we've received from

10

the Defendants as it appears appropriate.

11

THE COURT: Okay. And can I just ask, the

12

supplement that you were talking about, would you want

13

another oral one or are you going to be supplementing it in

14

written format?

15

MS. LOPES: In writing. In writing. We can do

16

that in the report.

17

THE COURT: Okay. That was the question. I'm

18

sorry. Go ahead.

19

MS. LOPES: Thank you.

20

And so with all of that in mind, I can turn this

21

over to Mr. Jordan, who at least preliminarily will address

22

what the data shows with respect to testing, and then

23

address the first two questions in the April 28th order.

24

THE COURT: Mr. Jordan?

25

MR. JORDAN: Thank you, your Honor.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 14 of 69

13

1

As Ms. Lopes mentioned, since our last report to

2

the Court three weeks ago, the impact of COVID-19 at the

3

jail and CTF has changed significantly.

4

The first positive case of COVID-19 in the DOC

5

facility was confirmed at the CTF on March 25th. The number

6

of cases at the CTF steadily increased until April 5th, when

7

it peaked, and then it began to decline.

8

April 16th was really the tail end of that

9

decrease, when two inmates tested positive.

10

Then there was not another positive case at the

11

CTF for approximately two weeks, until May 1st, when an

12

inmate who had been transferred from the jail tested

13

positive at the CTF.

14

As of last Friday, there were no isolation housing

15

units at the CTF; and the four inmates who were COVID-19

16

positive were housed in the medical infirmary.

17

There was one quarantine housing unit at that

18

time.

19

At the jail, the first positive case was confirmed

20

on April 8th, two weeks after the first case at CTF. For

21

the next week, the number of positive cases at the jail

22

continued to rise, eventually peaking on April 15th, and

23

then it began to decrease.

24

The most current data we have is through May 6th.

25

Inmates continue to present the symptoms and continue to be

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 15 of 69

14

1

tested, albeit in smaller numbers than in mid-April.

2

As of last Thursday at the jail, there was one

3

isolation housing unit and all but two housing units were

4

quarantined, which is a significant difference relative to

5

the last time we reported to the Court.

6

Unless there are any questions, I am prepared to

7

move to Question No. 1.

8

THE COURT: No questions from me.

9

Are there any questions from Plaintiffs' counsel?

10

MR. MARCUS: Yes, your Honor. This is Steven

11

Marcus.

12

First, a preliminary question: Ms. Lopes had

13

mentioned the written report. I believe she mentioned it

14

coming in on May 28th. And we have a --

15

MS. LOPES: May 20th.

16

MR. MARCUS: Okay. The 20th, then.

17

MS. LOPES: I misspoke, then. My apologies. The

18

20th.

19

MR. MARCUS: Okay. And I had a preliminary

20

question for Mr. Jordan.

21

You mentioned one resident was transferred from

22

the jail to CTF and then tested positive on May 1st. Do you

23

know why that resident was transferred?

24

MR. JORDAN: Let me clarify: More than one

25

resident were transferred. But the resident who did test

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 16 of 69

15

1

positive was from the CDF. It was a group of inmates.

2

And my understanding is that it was a -- I would

3

need to confirm this, but my understanding based on a lot of

4

interviews is it was a cohort of inmates from the CDF who

5

were in a specific program. And there is a program at the

6

CTF called the Young Men Emerging program. And they were

7

transferred from the CDF to that program at the CTF as a

8

group. One of them tested positive.

9

MR. MARCUS: Thank you.

10

That was all, your Honor.

11

THE COURT: Defense counsel, anything you wish to

12

ask?

13

MR. SAINDON: Nothing right now. Thank you, your

14

Honor.

15

THE COURT: And from the US, anything from you?

16

MR. WALKER: No. Thank you, your Honor.

17

THE COURT: So let's proceed.

18

I must say that I'm happy to hear that the numbers

19

have gone down. I have a couple of questions about that,

20

but I'll wait. And also, I'm happy the Department of

21

Corrections has continued to be cooperative with the amici

22

experts. Obviously, that makes it much better for all of us

23

in terms of being able to get a handle on this.

24

So let me let you proceed, then. Mr. Jordan,

25

you're starting with Question No. 1. Is that correct?

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 17 of 69

16

1

MR. JORDAN: That's correct. Thank you.

2

Question No. 1: At the jail, most inmates are

3

housed in quarantine units presently. In contrast, at CTF

4

most inmates are housed on non-quarantine housing units.

5

Access to healthcare at the jail and the CTF must

6

be understood in the context of the current operating

7

environment. On non-quarantine housing units, just like on

8

quarantine, and isolation housing units, DOC has adopted a

9

policy of confining inmates in their cells for 23 hours per

10

day and releasing them for one hour per day. There are

11

significant deviations in implementation of the policy,

12

which I will discuss in a minute.

13

Unlike quarantine housing units and isolation

14

housing units, medical staff do not routinely monitor

15

inmates on non-quarantine housing units; and those inmates

16

on non-quarantine housing units do not have daily

17

interactions with medical staff unless they are taking daily

18

medications.

19

On non-quarantine housing units, the primary

20

method by which inmates are able to access medical care is

21

through the submission of a sick-call request form.

22

Sick-call request forms are maintained by housing unit

23

correctional staff, and inmates must request a form from an

24

officer.

25

This lack of unimpeded access to forms is an

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 18 of 69

17

1

initial barrier to accessing medical care.

2

During our site visits, officers were unable to

3

consistently produce the forms readily. In one case, an

4

officer upon request gave us the wrong form.

5

In some cases, inmates said forms were not

6

available and they had to write requests on paper that were

7

not forms. And we observed this phenomenon in the sample

8

that we reviewed that I will discuss below.

9

In the current operating environment, the barriers

10

for inmates on non-quarantine housing units' access to

11

healthcare are much more significant than they would

12

otherwise be.

13

The problem appears particularly acute at the

14

jail, where because of higher housing unit population levels

15

and significant correctional officer staffing shortages,

16

inmates do not receive an hour out of their cells daily

17

consistent with the adopted policy.

18

Inmates are allowed out of their cells in small

19

groups around the clock. Based on the number of inmates

20

allowed out of their cells, which is impacted by the number

21

of staff working on the unit at any time, inmates and staff

22

report that two to three days can elapse between an inmate's

23

release for their hour of out-of-cell time. This greatly

24

reduces the opportunities inmates have to submit sick-call

25

request forms to medical staff.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 19 of 69

18

1

At the CTF, housing unit populations are lower and

2

inmates consistently reported that they receive their hour

3

of out-of-cell time every day during either the a.m. or the

4

p.m. shift.

5

Notwithstanding the identified barriers to

6

accessing medical care, we reviewed copies of all sick-call

7

request forms collected by medical staff between April 20th

8

and April 30th, 2020, at both facilities. We analyzed them

9

to determine whether the request forms were collected timely

10

and whether inmates were seen timely. There were a total of

11

136 requests from the jail and CTF. 82 percent of them were

12

from the jail; 18 percent of them were from the CTF. We

13

were able to analyze from the jail 63 requests to access --

14

requests for care to assess the timeliness of the

15

collection.

16

And just on a methodological note, we used the

17

date the forms were signed and dated by the inmate as a

18

proxy for the date that they were submitted to medical. Of

19

the 63 forms, 75 percent were picked up either the day of or

20

the day after they were submitted; 20 percent of them were

21

collected two to three days after they were submitted; and 5

22

percent were collected four days after they were submitted.

23

At the CTF, we analyzed the 17 requests that were

24

in the data. 65 percent were picked up the day of or the

25

day after they were submitted; 24 percent were collected two

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 20 of 69

19

1

to three days after they were submitted; and 12 percent were

2

collected 14 and 15 days, respectively, after they were

3

submitted.

4

From that data, we selected a sample of submitted

5

sick-call requests from both facilities to determine whether

6

inmates who submitted sick-call requests were seen by

7

medical and on what timeline.

8

In the future, we hope -- in the written report,

9

we hope to address whether the encounters addressed a

10

complaint in the sick-call request form. But at this point,

11

we limited our analysis strictly to timeliness.

12

We attempted to select only requests from inmates

13

housed on non-quarantine housing units. However, based on

14

our review, we do need to confirm the dates that all housing

15

units were designated as quarantine before we can be

16

confident that we limited it to non-quarantine housing

17

units.

18

Turning to the jail: We were able to analyze 24

19

requests for care for this analysis. In 16 of those 24, the

20

inmate was seen within two days of submission. In six of

21

the 24 cases, the inmate was seen three to five days after

22

the submission of the form. One inmate was seen eight days

23

after submission of the form; and in one case, there was no

24

record of the inmate having been seen after submitting the

25

form.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 21 of 69

20

1

We included in our sample nine requests that

2

included reported symptoms of coughing, shortness of breath,

3

loss of taste, and fever-related symptoms. Of those nine,

4

three were seen the day after the requests were submitted;

5

four were seen two days after the request was submitted; and

6

two additional were seen four and five days, respectively,

7

after the request was submitted.

8

It's noteworthy that in one of those two cases,

9

one that was seen four days after the request was submitted,

10

it was referred -- the case was referred for a COVID-19

11

test; and in that case, the inmate did test positive.

12

At the CTF, we reviewed 11 of the total 25

13

sick-call requests that had been submitted during our period

14

of review. Of those 11, six were seen two days after the

15

submission; three were seen three to four days after

16

submission; one was seen six days after submission; and one

17

was seen 15 days after the submission.

18

In none of those cases were there any symptoms

19

consistent with COVID, including cough or fever-related

20

symptoms or shortness of breath.

21

It is noteworthy that on May 5th, Unity Healthcare

22

issued a sick-call triage protocol. The protocol requires

23

that every sick-call request form be classified either as

24

Level 1, which requires emergency or urgent care, or

25

Level 2, which requires a scheduled appointment. Included

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 22 of 69

21

1

in the Level 1 criteria is shortness of breath,

2

hyperventilation, respiratory distress and COVID symptoms,

3

which are described as headaches, GI symptoms, shortness of

4

breath, cough and fever.

5

In sum, there are barriers to inmates on

6

non-quarantine housing units submitting sick-call requests.

7

And when those requests are submitted, there are at times

8

delays in both the collection of the sick-call requests and

9

in patients being seen by medical staff.

10

That is the end of my presentation with

11

Question 1. If there are questions, I could address those

12

now or move to Question 2.

13

THE COURT: I have a question about the protocol

14

that Unity Healthcare started: When did it go into effect?

15

They put it out May 5th. Is it operational at this point or

16

not?

17

MR. JORDAN: As far as -- it was issued. I do not

18

know if it's operational.

19

MS. LOPES: They've reported that it is.

20

THE COURT: Okay. And that's Ms. Lopes?

21

MS. LOPES: Yes.

22

THE COURT: Okay. That's okay. I just want to

23

make sure the comments are ascribed to the right people.

24

Plaintiffs' counsel, do you have any questions

25

about what has been presented so far?

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 23 of 69

22

1

MR. MARCUS: One question, Mr. Jordan. This is

2

Steven Marcus.

3

Do you know of any efforts on DOC's part to have

4

medical staff walk the non-quarantine housing units or make

5

periodic visits to non-quarantine housing units?

6

MR. JORDAN: I am not aware of any efforts. I'm

7

not aware of efforts.

8

I do know that their efforts on the quarantine and

9

isolation housing units is very staff intensive, as I'll

10

describe in a minute, with respect to what they are doing,

11

especially on the isolation units. There are a lot of hours

12

of medical staff work going to those units. And I don't

13

know if that impacts the non-quarantine units or not, but I

14

do know that they have extended a lot of resources

15

monitoring on those other units.

16

MR. MARCUS: One brief followup, Mr. Jordan: Were

17

you able to quantify the correctional officer -- the

18

shortage of correctional officers? You mentioned that as

19

one reason why there was impeded access to sick-calls forms.

20

Do you have any quantitative data on that front?

21

MR. JORDAN: I do not have quantitative data on

22

that front. We are still awaiting data on officers who are

23

unavailable for duty and vacancies. So we weren't able to

24

in the aggregate.

25

On the housing unit level, we routinely observed,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 24 of 69

23

1

and staff reported, managers reported, that they are

2

currently staffing lower than the levels that they normally

3

staff at because they do not have sufficient staff to staff

4

them at their normal levels. So there are some housing

5

units that would normally have five or even six correctional

6

officers that have three or four correctional officers.

7

MR. MARCUS: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

8

THE COURT: Defense counsel, DC, anything you want

9

to ask?

10

MR. SAINDON: Thank you, your Honor. Andrew

11

Saindon. A quick question for Mr. Jordan.

12

You said that at the jail, out of 24 requests, 16

13

were seen within a day or two of the request. But I didn't

14

catch the next category. What was that number?

15

MR. JORDAN: Six were seen three to five days

16

after the submission of the form; one was seen eight days

17

after the submission; and in one case, there was no record

18

of the inmate being seen.

19

MR. SAINDON: That's all I have. Thank you.

20

THE COURT: Mr. Walker, anything that you want to

21

ask?

22

MR. WALKER: No, your Honor. Thank you.

23

THE COURT: One quick question, and you may get to

24

it later: Who gets tested? I know that you indicated that

25

the -- I guess in the jail, in the breakdown, that two were

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 25 of 69

24

1

seen four to five days later who were tested, and it came

2

back positive.

3

So is it once they're seen that there's a decision

4

by the medical people as to whether to test?

5

MR. JORDAN: A medical provider -- and the medical

6

providers, Unity's providers, are advanced practitioners.

7

They include doctors, physician's assistants and nurse

8

practitioners. They will make a decision about who to test.

9

And it's based on their assessment of the patients. So it's

10

not only symptoms, but also objective data by all signs and

11

history, exposure. And so a provider has to make that

12

decision.

13

THE COURT: Okay. Let me let you move on, then,

14

to I guess Question 2.

15

MR. JORDAN: Question 2. Yes. Thank you, your

16

Honor.

17

As of May 8th -- I'm going to begin my discussion

18

with isolation units. And as of May 8th, there was one

19

isolation unit at the jail. At the CTF, all inmates in

20

isolation were housed in individual cells in the infirmary.

21

According to the management of the medical

22

program, the expectation is that inmates in isolation are

23

monitored by nursing staff twice per day and, additionally,

24

by advanced care providers twice per day.

25

A position called the COVID provider of the day

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 26 of 69

25

1

has been created; and this person is responsible for

2

coordinating daily rounds by medical providers and serving

3

as a communication liaison with DOC security staff.

4

We sampled the cohort of inmates who were on

5

isolation status at the jail and CTF as of April 19th, 2020,

6

and reviewed their electronic health records.

7

At the jail, there were 85 inmates on isolation on

8

or after April 19th at some point. That doesn't necessarily

9

meet concurrently, but at some point after April 19th. We

10

sampled 25 of those inmates, who collectively spent a total

11

of 257 days on isolation in our review period.

12

On 84 percent of the days in our review, the

13

inmates were seen at least two times by a medical provider.

14

On 92 percent of those days, the inmates were seen at least

15

once by a provider.

16

In most cases, when an inmate was not seen by a

17

provider on a given day, there is documentation in the

18

health record of an unsuccessful attempt due to the inmate

19

refusing, insufficient correctional staff to escort the

20

provider, or an incident that precluded the provider from

21

entering the unit.

22

On 84 percent of days, inmates were monitored by

23

nursing staff twice per day. And there was only one day

24

when an inmate did not have his or her vital signs taken at

25

least one time.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 27 of 69

26

1

At the CTF, 14 inmates were on isolation on or

2

after April 19th, and we reviewed a sample of seven of those

3

inmates, who collectively spent 71 days in isolation in our

4

review period.

5

On 76 percent of those days, the inmates were seen

6

twice daily by a provider. On 93 percent of days, they were

7

seen at least once by a provider -- I'm sorry. They were

8

seen once by a provider. At least once. I'm sorry. And

9

there were no days on which the inmates did not have their

10

vital signs taken at least once.

11

Now switching to quarantine units: On quarantine

12

housing units, nursing staff conduct temperature checks

13

twice per day. Providers do not routinely assess inmates on

14

quarantine housing units.

15

To assess the monitoring practices on these

16

quarantine units, we sampled inmates housed on quarantine

17

units at the jail and at CTF on or after April 19th of 2020.

18

At the jail, we reviewed health records of 20

19

inmates, who collectively spent 195 days on quarantine

20

status during our review period. On 62 percent of those

21

days, the inmates had their temperatures taken twice. On 29

22

percent of those days, the inmates had their temperatures

23

taken once. And in most cases, when an inmate's temperature

24

was not taken a second time, it was because the inmate

25

refused to have his or her temperature taken.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 28 of 69

27

1

On 7 percent of the days, an inmate did not have

2

his temperature taken. However, in all of those cases, the

3

inmate refused both temperature checks each of those days.

4

At CTF, we reviewed the health record of eight

5

inmates who spent 112 days on quarantine. On 96 percent of

6

those days, the inmates had two temperature checks; and on 4

7

percent, they had one temperature check.

8

In sum, on both isolation and quarantine housing

9

units, medical staff are conducting routine monitoring of

10

inmates to identify those who need urgent care. For inmates

11

in isolation, the level of routine monitoring is very high.

12

It frequently includes multiple visits from both nursing

13

staff and advanced medical providers on a daily basis.

14

And that concludes my presentation on Question 2.

15

THE COURT: Okay. When you say "collectively," I

16

take it you're talking about putting all the days together

17

for the -- it's not each inmate, but it's actually all

18

together for -- if you had 14, it's a total amount. Is that

19

correct, just to make sure?

20

MR. JORDAN: That's correct. So we took a sample

21

of inmates and calculated for each one how many days each

22

individual spent, and then we totaled those. So we really

23

calculated the number of inmate days on isolation.

24

THE COURT: Okay. Plaintiffs' counsel, any

25

questions?

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 29 of 69

28

1

MR. MARCUS: Yes. Steven Marcus here.

2

Mr. Jordan, when you said "seen by medical

3

provider" for residents on isolation units, does that

4

include the twice-daily temperature check or is that a

5

separate event you're describing?

6

MR. JORDAN: That's limited to advanced care

7

providers, so doctors, physician's assistants, nurse

8

practitioners.

9

MR. MARCUS: Okay. That's my only question.

10

THE COURT: So nursing would be doing the two

11

times per day and then you'd have these advanced care

12

people, which are separate. So they're seen four times a

13

day?

14

MR. JORDAN: That's correct. That is the goal.

15

They do not always achieve it, but that is what -- the

16

practice they're trying to implement.

17

THE COURT: DC, any questions?

18

MR. SAINDON: Not right now. Thank you, your

19

Honor.

20

THE COURT: All right. United States, any

21

questions?

22

MR. WALKER: No, your Honor. Thank you.

23

THE COURT: Then in terms of No. 3, is that you,

24

Mr. Jordan, or Ms. Lopes?

25

MS. LOPES: It's me, your Honor.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 30 of 69

29

1

MR. JORDAN: That is Ms. Lopes.

2

THE COURT: Okay.

3

MS. LOPES: Question 3 -- I'll just read it for

4

the record: Is the DOC providing consistent and reliable

5

access to legal calls, personal telephone calls, running

6

water, daily showers and clean clothing and clean linens to

7

all inmates on isolation status?

8

We limited our review to the isolation units that

9

have been operating recently. So that's one unit at the

10

jail and the infirmary at the CTF.

11

I'll take each category separately.

12

First, with respect to personal calls at the CTF,

13

inmates and staff reported that inmates can make personal

14

calls daily when they are in isolation status in the

15

infirmary at CTF. We observed that happening. A telephone

16

is actually placed on a rolling cart and it is moved from

17

cell to cell down the infirmary corridor so that inmates who

18

are housed in the infirmary can access the phone. We did

19

not receive any complaints from the inmates who are on

20

isolation in the infirmary about their daily access to the

21

phone.

22

And the situation at the jail is somewhat

23

different. So in the isolation unit that was operating at

24

the jail, when we were there last week, again, rolling carts

25

were used on some of the tiers and the same process of

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 31 of 69

30

1

moving the rolling cart with the telephone from cell to cell

2

was occurring.

3

But the rolling carts were not available to

4

inmates on one segment of the housing unit, on the Lower 1

5

tier. And those inmates did not have access to the

6

telephone at their cell door. They were reportedly

7

accommodated by being provided access to a telephone in an

8

office area on the housing unit.

9

The inmates reported that they do not always have

10

access to that office area. It is not a daily occurrence

11

for them. And there is some difficulty, apparently, getting

12

this rolling cart -- operating it on this lower tier, which

13

contributed to the problem. So that was one limitation.

14

It certainly was a step n the right direction

15

compared to what the situation was when we were there in

16

April when, you know, there was an inability, complete

17

inability, for inmates on isolation to make any personal

18

phone calls. But there was that limitation, and it was

19

evident in that part of the housing unit at the jail.

20

With respect to legal calls at both facilities,

21

the Defendants recently implemented a system -- and I don't

22

know how much, your Honor, you know about this system and

23

whether you want me to just explain how it works for these

24

30-minute unmonitored legal calls.

25

THE COURT: Yes. I would go ahead. I'm familiar

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 32 of 69

31

1

with it, but why don't we put it on the record for everybody

2

else.

3

MS. LOPES: Okay. A system was very recently

4

established where Defendants worked with their service

5

providers -- and there are different service providers at

6

both facilities -- to create or establish access for legal

7

calls through these 30-minute unmonitored legal calls.

8

Information about how this operates is posted on the DOC

9

website and signage is posted in the housing units. It was

10

first posted, I am told, at the beginning of May. The

11

signage -- the signage is intended to notify inmates and

12

apparently staff about how the system works.

13

And essentially, attorneys are required to email

14

the DOC case management kind of generic email address to

15

register for the system.

16

Case managers now, who work to implement the

17

system, are viewed as essential employees, pursuant to this

18

emergency order or under this emergency order that's in

19

effect in the District, so that a number of them have come

20

back to work. They weren't working until recently; and in

21

the last week or so, they have come back to work, many of

22

them, and are working to implement this new system.

23

The attorney then notifies -- once the attorney

24

registers through the case management office for

25

participation in this system, the attorney then is required

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 33 of 69

32

1

to notify their client by mail that they've registered for

2

the system and also notify their client about how to contact

3

them.

4

The clients or inmates explain that there are

5

delays and there have been delays in receiving their regular

6

mail. And so some of them still have had difficulty

7

receiving their regular mail, which may or may not affect

8

how this is working.

9

But legal calls are now happening with somewhat

10

greater frequency on the isolation units. And what we

11

observed on the isolation units is that the rolling -- the

12

phones on the isolation units, both the isolation in the

13

infirmary at the CTF and then the isolation units at the

14

jail, is that the phone on the rolling cart is being used

15

for that purpose. And we are told that those are

16

unmonitored calls, and the inmates are afforded

17

confidentiality because the calls take place in their cells

18

and not in the day rooms and not in the offices of the case

19

managers. So that is occurring.

20

We haven't had an opportunity to verify this data,

21

but on Saturday we did receive data from the Defendants on

22

three weeks of operations related to this system, the last

23

three weeks of operations related to this system.

24

And, you know, I have a lot of questions about the

25

data that we'll have to talk through with the Defendants.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 34 of 69

33

1

We just haven't had an opportunity to do that since we got

2

it on Saturday.

3

But there are indicated in these data reasons for

4

why calls were not completed. And as a general matter, in

5

the three-week period, roughly 15 percent of the calls that

6

were scheduled through this new system -- it was indicated

7

that they were not completed due to staffing shortages,

8

security issues, limitations of the availability of phones

9

on housing units and disruption.

10

So clearly, there's been improvement on the

11

isolation units in terms of access to legal calls. It

12

appears that additional progress may be necessary.

13

Clearly, on non-isolation units, there is a note,

14

I would think, that the Court and the parties should be

15

aware of, and this is a situation that we stumbled upon,

16

which was that legal calls that are scheduled through this

17

system are being conducted in the offices of case managers

18

with the case manager present. So I observed multiple --

19

two inmates, three inmates, conducting legal calls in the

20

case manager's office with the case manager clearly within

21

earshot when I was at the jail. So that -- and that appears

22

to be the practice. So that's one thing that I wanted to

23

raise.

24

With respect to running water at both facilities

25

for inmates in isolation, there was no apparent issue and no

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 35 of 69

34

1

complaints that we heard about with respect to the infirmary

2

or with respect to the isolation unit at the jail.

3

With respect to showers at the CTF and the

4

infirmary and access to showers in isolation at the jail,

5

first at the CTF, inmates and staff reported that inmates

6

were allowed out of their cells in the infirmary daily to

7

shower. There were no complaints, and expectations appeared

8

to be very clear that inmates had to be allowed out of their

9

cells to shower if they were on isolation status. There was

10

no blanket rule prohibiting showers that staff articulated

11

at the jail.

12

And staff and inmates both affirmed that inmates

13

are allowed out of their cells to shower when they are on

14

isolation status, but that it does not occur on a daily

15

basis. Some inmates reported multiple-day delays. They

16

recognized that they had been allowed to shower several days

17

earlier, but hadn't been allowed to shower within the past

18

couple of days.

19

And staffing -- it appears from talking to staff

20

and inmates that, again, what contributes to this is

21

staffing limitations combined with incidents and

22

disturbances that contribute to the inability of the

23

Defendants to provide daily access to showers.

24

So, you know, there is significant tension and

25

there are significant issues, particularly at the jail --

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 36 of 69

35

1

this is really an issue at the jail -- that contribute to

2

creating a lot of challenges for the staff and the inmates.

3

And there are a lot of issues. And that delays

4

the ability of the limited staff who are available to

5

provide consistent daily out-of-cell time. It's an issue.

6

It's moving in the right direction in terms of -- that it's

7

more frequent, but it's still not consistently being

8

afforded on a daily basis.

9

With respect to clean clothing and clean linens in

10

isolation, staff and inmates reported clothing and linen

11

exchanges had occurred that week and that there had been

12

very recent increased frequency. It's too premature to make

13

any judgments about consistency, but clearly there is a

14

recent effort to address it that was reported by both staff

15

and inmates. And while we were there, we observed linen

16

exchanges at both facilities occurring.

17

THE COURT: I have a question. When you say

18

"incidents or disturbances," can you give me an idea of what

19

we're talking about?

20

MS. LOPES: Yeah. There are fights. You know,

21

there are inmates that are angry. You know, there are

22

objects thrown; there's food thrown; there's bags of

23

substances thrown around. I mean, it's a tense environment,

24

and there are disturbances.

25

Because they're not getting a lot of out-of-cell

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 37 of 69

36

1

time, and feel that they're punished, inmates -- some, you

2

know, are refusing to go back in their cell. And there

3

are -- you know, there are issues between the inmates and

4

the staff around going back into cells that escalate and,

5

you know, issues related to getting out to use the phone.

6

The facility is on -- in the non-isolation housing

7

units, it is clear that the Defendants are trying to provide

8

recreation to everyone; and they're doing that by allowing

9

recreation to occur on a 24-hour basis.

10

So inmates -- they're told, and staff have

11

confirmed, and even our cursory review of the logbooks in

12

the housing units also confirm this, that inmates are being

13

afforded the opportunity to leave their cells to take a

14

shower or call home in some instances at 1:00, 2:00, and

15

3:00 a.m. because they weren't able to provide that

16

opportunity during, you know, the day or the evening. So

17

instead, you know, the staff will provide that opportunity

18

at 1:00, 2:00, or 3:00 a.m. And that leads to problems as

19

well.

20

So, you know, it's a tense environment. And, you

21

know, the inmates -- many inmates feel as though they're

22

being unduly punished because they are, you know, locked

23

down for a significant part of the day. They are, you know,

24

generally idle, and it's a very difficult and stressful

25

situation for them. It's also a very difficult and

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 38 of 69

37

1

stressful situation for the staff. They're understaffed.

2

And, you know, there's significant overtime. Staff are

3

tired. And it's a very stressful mix of factors, your

4

Honor.

5

THE COURT: What I was curious about, you labeled

6

these as disturbances. I take it the records themselves

7

indicate some of the descriptions of what you've indicated

8

were the problems. Is that correct?

9

MS. LOPES: Yes. Yes. Yes, your Honor.

10

THE COURT: Okay.

11

MS. LOPES: Yes.

12

THE COURT: So, Plaintiffs' counsel, any

13

questions?

14

MR. MARCUS: Yes. This is Steven Marcus here.

15

Ms. Lopes, when you observed the case managers in

16

their office during the scheduled legal calls, were case

17

managers wearing PPE as far as you could observe?

18

MS. LOPES: This all happens -- yes. Yes.

19

Wearing a mask. And I have to look at my notes about the

20

gloves, whether they were wearing gloves. Not wearing a

21

gown, but wearing a mask. Definitely they were wearing a

22

mask. And I'd have to look at my notes.

23

MR. MARCUS: Okay.

24

MS. LOPES: It'll take me a while to access that.

25

MR. MARCUS: Do you have a sense of how many

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 39 of 69

38

1

residents on the isolation unit or roughly how many

2

residents on isolation units at the jail don't get to shower

3

every day?

4

MS. LOPES: No. It's frequent enough that both

5

staff and inmates have reported it to us. But no.

6

MR. MARCUS: And as far as the residents who

7

receive their hour out of cell at 1:00, 2:00, or 3:00 in the

8

morning, are you aware of how frequent that is?

9

MS. LOPES: It's common. It's recognized as a --

10

you know, as something that they have to do in order to

11

afford everyone the opportunity to be out of their cell.

12

MR. MARCUS: Okay. And the rolling phone cart:

13

Did you observe the cart being wiped down between uses or

14

does a staff member push it from cell to cell?

15

MS. LOPES: A staff member or detail inmates. And

16

I didn't observe the -- with sanitation, but I know that

17

Mr. Jordan did.

18

MR. JORDAN: I did not observe the sanitation.

19

I will say that I did have conversations with

20

inmates when I was interviewing them in which they said it

21

was the detail's job, the inmate detail's job, to move the

22

cart from one cell to the next. And they had stated that

23

the detail had been locked down for a prolonged period on

24

the day that we were there, and that therefore other

25

inmates' access to the phone was limited because of that,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 40 of 69

39

1

because the detail inmate whose job it was to move the phone

2

was locked down. And that created a lot of frustration as

3

well on the unit.

4

THE COURT: Excuse me. Can I just ask, was there

5

sanitation of the phone between inmates, leaving aside the

6

cart?

7

MS. LOPES: We just didn't observe it, your Honor.

8

But we have observed it in housing units without the cart.

9

We certainly have observed it, you know, where they had the

10

phones mounted on the walls in the day rooms. We have

11

observed the cleaning of the phones. And the rolling carts,

12

we just didn't observe it and we didn't inquire about it.

13

We certainly can follow up on that.

14

THE COURT: I would appreciate it.

15

And what about if they're in the case manager's

16

office? Is there any cleaning of the phone between calls?

17

MS. LOPES: We'll have to check.

18

THE COURT: Okay. Sorry, Mr. Marcus. Go ahead.

19

MR. MARCUS: And I just have one last question.

20

Are the detail inmates that work on the isolation

21

units -- are those people who are also housed on those units

22

and have tested positive?

23

MS. LOPES: Yes.

24

MR. MARCUS: Okay.

25

MS. LOPES: Yes.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 41 of 69

40

1

THE COURT: DC, anything? Any questions?

2

MR. SAINDON: Nothing at this time. Thank you,

3

your Honor.

4

THE COURT: How about --

5

MR. GLOVER: Your Honor? Your Honor? This is

6

Eric Glover. I just wanted to clarify one issue that

7

Ms. Lopes brought up.

8

The agency did provide her with data with regard

9

to emergency calls conducted at the facility about that

10

recent issue over the weekend that she referenced. Those

11

emergency calls were slightly different than the standard

12

30-minute legal calls that the residents have. However,

13

when Ms. Lopes follows up with staff, I'll explain it

14

clearly. So I just wanted to be very clear.

15

THE COURT: Okay. And, United States, any

16

questions?

17

MR. WALKER: No questions from the United States.

18

Thank you, your Honor.

19

THE COURT: And I guess we're moving to Question

20

4.

21

MS. LOPES: That question is: Do DOC residents

22

have access to cleaning materials and cleaning equipment to

23

clean their cells?

24

Again, they have access at both facilities to

25

cleaning materials and cleaning equipment. Availability is

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 42 of 69

41

1

not uniform from housing unit to housing unit. So some

2

housing units have more cleaning supplies and cleaning

3

materials available than others.

4

The Defendants recently began to issue paper

5

towels which are sprayed with a peroxide solution to inmates

6

at the jail. It's highly regulated at the jail in the sense

7

that staff are involved, the paper towels are sprayed, and a

8

limited number are provided.

9

Inmates report that because it's so -- you know,

10

it's four or five paper towels that have been sprayed with

11

this peroxide solution that they're given, these are not

12

highly absorbent paper towels; and inmates report that it's

13

difficult to get their cells clean with what is provided so

14

that they continue to rely upon the ripped towels and the

15

ripped T-shirts to supplement in order to clean their cells.

16

At the CTF, access to the paper towels and the

17

peroxide solution is not as highly regulated; and inmates

18

appear to be able to use the solution and the paper towels

19

more independently and are better able to clean.

20

But appropriate sanitation is, you know, a

21

continuing issue at both facilities, and clearly especially

22

deficient at the jail.

23

And then I know for the next set of questions,

24

whether in the final report -- and I can say that the

25

Defendants -- from all of the documentation I've reviewed

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 43 of 69

42

1

and from the interviews I've conducted, the Defendants are

2

working to secure the contract with the professional

3

cleaning service for the secure side of the facility. That

4

would not include the cells, but it will include the common

5

areas and the day rooms in the housing units. And I believe

6

it's anticipated that it will start this week, which is

7

something we can confirm.

8

THE COURT: Okay. No. 5.

9

MS. LOPES: Is the DOC enforcing social

10

distancing?

11

There is -- there are increased -- an increased

12

volume of health educational materials on social distancing

13

that are posted throughout both facilities. Both management

14

and staff, supervisory staff and line staff, report that

15

staff are being disciplined for the failure to enforce

16

social distancing. There is some evidence of this on site.

17

The increased -- the increased evidence of social

18

distancing. But it certainly is not prevalent, certainly

19

not during our site visits.

20

And I would say even in the video excerpts of

21

activity on the housing units that the Defendants provided,

22

there were -- and that was just limited to the CTF -- there

23

were examples of failure to enforce social distancing, which

24

is -- you know, there are fewer inmates who are allowed out

25

of their cells at any one time relative to what the

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 44 of 69

43

1

situation was when we were there in April. So as a result,

2

at least some housing units are less chaotic.

3

Again, this has created -- by allowing fewer

4

inmates out at a time, you know, this has given rise to this

5

other problem of the 24-hour recreation schedule because of

6

the difficulty letting -- when you let fewer numbers of

7

inmates out at one time, they can't all during the day get

8

out of their cells to shower and use the phone, et cetera.

9

So the Defendants have expanded to this 24-hour recreation

10

cycle.

11

But there's evidence of some progress and attempts

12

to enforce social distancing, certainly the effort of an

13

attempt to enforce social distancing.

14

But I would say there still isn't a prevalence of

15

social distancing. And staffing limitations to some degree,

16

you know, undercut the ability of staff to enforce it when

17

there are an insufficient number of staff on the housing

18

units.

19

So that's where that stands, your Honor.

20

THE COURT: Okay. On this particular issue,

21

Plaintiffs' counsel, any questions?

22

MR. MARCUS: I just had one question, Ms. Lopes,

23

about paper towels and rags.

24

Did you see on this round where residents still

25

were using makeshift rags -- was that less prevalent than

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 45 of 69

44

1

your first visit or about the same?

2

MS. LOPES: About the same. About the same.

3

MR. MARCUS: Okay. And that was my only question.

4

I didn't have any questions aside from that.

5

THE COURT: DC?

6

MR. SAINDON: Yes, your Honor.

7

I don't recall, Ms. Lopes. Did you say when the

8

video excerpts -- from what days those were from?

9

MS. LOPES: I can tell you. Here we go. 4-27,

10

11:00 a.m. to 11:15 at the CTF. 4-27, 10:00 to 11:00 a.m.

11

at the CTF. 4-27, 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. at the CTF. And 4-27,

12

7:00 to 8:00 a.m. at the CTF.

13

MR. SAINDON: Okay. Thank you.

14

THE COURT: Anybody else from DC? Mr. Glover or

15

anybody?

16

MR. GLOVER: I don't have anything, Judge. Thank

17

you.

18

THE COURT: US, any questions?

19

MR. WALKER: No. Thank you, your Honor.

20

And my thanks to Ms. Lopes and Mr. Jordan as well.

21

THE COURT: Yes. Definitely.

22

I have a couple of overall questions that I'd like

23

to ask. I'm going to direct them to DC first; and then if

24

Ms. Lopes or Mr. Jordan have something to add additionally,

25

that would be helpful. And they're not exactly connected to

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 46 of 69

45

1

these four points.

2

From DC's perspective, in terms of the legal

3

calls, we're still having a problem, obviously, here. The

4

rolling carts obviously help to some degree. But I don't

5

see how you're doing -- if they're in the presence of their

6

case managers, that's not an unmonitored call. I mean, what

7

they're discussing is what they want to do with their cases,

8

pleas, sentences, other kind of things. Obviously,

9

that's -- nobody should be there.

10

Are you going to do anything else? If you don't

11

have the complete answer, that's fine. I'm just raising the

12

issue.

13

MR. GLOVER: Your Honor, this is Eric Glover.

14

THE COURT: Go ahead.

15

MR. GLOVER: This is Eric Glover. I don't know if

16

someone was speaking before me.

17

THE COURT: It doesn't sound like it. Go ahead,

18

Mr. Glover.

19

MR. GLOVER: Yes, your Honor.

20

We are looking at adding additional equipment to

21

the facilities to assist with -- or to assist with providing

22

legal calls to the residents.

23

However, your Honor, it is still a correctional

24

facility. And notwithstanding -- and understanding the

25

Court's concern about case managers or staff being present,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 47 of 69

46

1

there has to be eyes on the residents at the facility, just

2

for the safety and security of staff and residents.

3

But we are looking at other alternatives or

4

expanding our equipment to allow for legal calls, that being

5

additional cell phones.

6

And we have recently implemented -- we've recently

7

worked with the Public Defender Service and the Federal

8

Public Defender Services to implement an email program where

9

residents in isolation who have been provided with tablets

10

have the ability to email their attorneys to further be able

11

to -- allow them to communicate with them.

12

But we can't have at a correctional facility a

13

situation where there are absolutely no eyes on a resident.

14

There are security issues attached to that.

15

THE COURT: I understand that. But I still think

16

that, you know, there still needs to be some way of -- I'm

17

not sure -- I haven't been to the jail in eons. But I mean,

18

in terms of a way they're being able to distance or some

19

other way of doing it.

20

I understand they can't just be left in an office.

21

But I do think that if people are close enough to listen to

22

what they're talking about, it's obviously going to be --

23

it's going to hinder them from being frank in their

24

discussions or complaints or anything else they may have

25

with their lawyers.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 48 of 69

47

1

I understand you were looking at tablets, which

2

would be of some help in terms of doing it or some other way

3

of doing cell phones where they could go to a place where

4

you can't overhear them, but you could still see them.

5

MR. GLOVER: Yes, your Honor.

6

THE COURT: This is still a problem. This is

7

still -- from my perspective, this is still a problem.

8

I know that at least the scheduling has gotten

9

slightly better based on both FPD and PDS and the Department

10

of Corrections working around setting specific times, so

11

it's not sort of guesswork anymore about when they get to

12

have the calls, et cetera. So there's been some improvement

13

at least in that. And obviously, having 30 minutes instead

14

of ten makes a big difference.

15

But I am concerned about the fact that if somebody

16

is around that can hear what they say, they're obviously

17

going to temper what's said. So we need to come up with

18

something else. I'm not sure what, but I still thought that

19

the idea of cell phones, where they could move to a place

20

where they could be seen but nobody could hear what they're

21

actually saying, to my mind makes sense.

22

But I'll leave it to you to come up with a way of

23

doing it. But if they're overheard, if there is such a

24

situation that you can hear the conversation, that's not

25

really an unmonitored call. So I'm just throwing that out.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 49 of 69

48

1

I'm just indicating to you, having listened to this, there

2

are some are concerns here.

3

MR. GLOVER: Yes, your Honor. I will address that

4

with the executive staff, this issue.

5

THE COURT: Okay. I mean, I'm not ordering

6

something at this point. I'm just asking you to come up

7

with a better way.

8

The rolling carts seem to work to some degree as

9

long as it's consistent. But the issue of there being --

10

where you can overhear the conversation is clearly not from

11

my perspective an unmonitored call, even if they're not

12

trying to hear it.

13

And I'm not indicating that the case managers are

14

doing something wrong. But if you can't have a private

15

conversation, then people are just simply not going to be

16

honest and frank in their discussions. But I'm just

17

throwing out my concerns about it.

18

The other issue is, I'm curious to know in terms

19

of the lower population, is it due to releases by individual

20

judges? BOP doesn't seem to have had much success in moving

21

their group out. Is there a particular category of people

22

that has lowered it? Or what's happening? Or are fewer

23

people coming in or what? Do you know? If you don't,

24

that's fine.

25

MR. GLOVER: Your Honor, just briefly, it's a

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 50 of 69

49

1

combination of both. I know that MPD and the US Attorney's

2

Office have started making a more diligent effort to have

3

more offenses be classified with citations. And there has

4

been -- as the Court is well aware, there were multiple bond

5

hearings occurring at the Superior Court where residents

6

have been released as well.

7

THE COURT: Right. Okay.

8

What about the Parole Commission? Are they doing

9

anything?

10

MR. GLOVER: Your Honor, I'd have to -- I'd have

11

to follow up on that.

12

THE COURT: Mr. Walker, do you know? If you don't

13

know, that's fine. These are questions you weren't expected

14

to know the answer to. But I'm just curious.

15

MR. WALKER: I don't know that today, your Honor.

16

THE COURT: Okay. It would be helpful at some

17

point to find out what's happening with the Parole

18

Commission as to whether they have some system in place for

19

going through these, at least the ones where they're being

20

held for technical reasons as opposed to new charges. And I

21

know there have been some issues with the Bureau of Prisons

22

in terms of the receiving group having some concerns, which

23

leads me to my next question.

24

The last time I asked this question of DC about

25

doing tests prior to people being released or being

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 51 of 69

50

1

transferred, the answer I got was that the CDC did not

2

require it.

3

Is that still the same answer or are people being

4

tested before they're released or transferred?

5

MR. GLOVER: Your Honor, presently, residents are

6

not being released. However, we are reassessing our policy.

7

The director and I had a meeting with Chief Judge Howell

8

this morning, and we'll be getting back to her with any

9

changes regarding our policy regarding testing residents --

10

testing or screening of residents prior to their release

11

from the facilities.

12

THE COURT: I think quarantining them at the other

13

end is not perfection. I mean, it might be better than

14

nothing. But perhaps -- I'm just throwing this out, not

15

ordering it or anything else. We're not there yet.

16

But certainly in terms of releasing or frankly

17

sending people -- with the Bureau of Prisons with people

18

that are ready to be moved, that there were some assurances

19

that they were getting people that were not sick that would

20

probably move these people out a little faster.

21

But I know you've had discussions with the Chief

22

Judge about this, because there are some concerns,

23

obviously, in terms of our trying to from the federal court

24

and I'm sure from Superior Court in their own way, too, in

25

terms of trying to move people.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 52 of 69

51

1

The other question that I had for DC is, what's

2

happening with the staffing issues? And I realize that is

3

not a quickie, but as I recall there was some efforts to

4

getting additional staff through some mechanism which --

5

unfortunately, I don't have it in front of me.

6

Does anybody want to answer that from DC?

7

MR. SAINDON: Yes, your Honor.

8

MR. GLOVER: Go ahead.

9

MR. SAINDON: Go ahead, Eric.

10

MR. GLOVER: Mr. Saindon, please proceed.

11

MR. SAINDON: I want I was going to say, you

12

probably have more recent detail.

13

We had asked for assistance from Public Health,

14

and they provided some volunteer staffers to assist in

15

the -- doing the screening. And maybe Mr. Glover has

16

details there. But, again, it remains difficult to hire

17

full-time correctional officers because of the time required

18

to train them.

19

THE COURT: Right.

20

MR. GLOVER: In addition to that, your Honor,

21

Mr. Saindon is correct. We have reached out to the Medical

22

Reserve Corps, and we received staff from the Corps who have

23

been assisting with screening of residents.

24

We've also, as regards our staff who took leave

25

pursuant to the COVID pandemic -- we began sending out

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 53 of 69

52

1

return-of-work notices to staff for those staff who are

2

going to be able to return to work.

3

We are doing rolling hires. We're currently

4

reviewing applications for new staff to assist with the

5

facility.

6

And there's been a request for armed security to

7

assist with taking over of hospital details. So we've made

8

several different types of efforts to add more staff to the

9

facility and develop policies or enforce policies, getting

10

staff that was previously out on leave to return to the

11

facility.

12

THE COURT: I was just interested, since obviously

13

some of these problems that Ms. Lopes and Mr. Jordan have

14

identified seem to be staffing issues, which I understand is

15

harder to fill in the hole. But you had indicated, I

16

thought, after the last report that the efforts were being

17

made. And I guess it's the Public Health Service I was

18

thinking of there in terms of getting some additional

19

assistance.

20

Those are the only questions that I had that were

21

additional.

22

Mr. Marcus, are there any questions from you or

23

anything else you wish to bring up?

24

MR. MARCUS: Just a clarifying question for

25

Mr. Glover.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 54 of 69

53

1

The armed security you mentioned: Can you just

2

say a little bit more about that? Are those private

3

contractors? Where in the facility would those people be

4

working?

5

MR. GLOVER: I have yet to follow up with our

6

deputy director with the administration to get more details

7

about that. So I don't have that exact information right

8

now.

9

MR. MARCUS: Okay.

10

MR. GLOVER: But it's my understanding they will

11

not be at the facility. They would just be part of doing --

12

they will not be operating in the facility. Just hospital

13

details.

14

MR. MARCUS: Okay. And I'm not sure, Mr. Glover,

15

if you or Mr. Saindon would know the answer to this. But do

16

you know if there's capability in the District to test

17

everyone at the jail, the 1300 or so people who remain? Has

18

that conversation happened or have any inquiries been made?

19

MR. GLOVER: I am not familiar with any facility

20

that has the capability to test all the residents at the DOC

21

facilities. However, we are looking at every opportunity to

22

test as many residents as possible.

23

MR. MARCUS: Okay.

24

THE COURT: And my understanding is at least there

25

was some discussion of testing people that were being

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 55 of 69

54

1

released not only into the community, but potentially if

2

they were being transferred someplace else, which might

3

bring the population -- well, testing into the community, so

4

we didn't send somebody out that turns out to be sick going

5

home, who doesn't show -- who is asymptomatic and then goes

6

home.

7

But also, it might make it easier to move some

8

people out that should be moved out of the facility if the

9

receiving facilities were satisfied that they weren't

10

getting people that potentially were sick. But I'll leave

11

you to have that discussion with the Chief Judge at this

12

point.

13

Anything else from DC? Anything else you wish to

14

bring up or raise?

15

MR. SAINDON: This is Andrew Saindon.

16

No, your Honor. Thank you.

17

THE COURT: Mr. Walker, is there anything you want

18

to say?

19

MR. WALKER: No, your Honor. Thank you.

20

THE COURT: Thank you very much, Ms. Lopes and

21

Mr. Jordan, in terms of going in and going over and checking

22

back with what we had talked about.

23

And we certainly -- and I appreciate the

24

Department of Corrections being cooperative. The system

25

won't work unless they get the information. And so I

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 56 of 69

55

1

appreciate that.

2

And I certainly appreciate the help from Ms. Lopes

3

and Mr. Jordan. This has made this case certainly a better

4

case in terms of getting information that everybody can

5

accept that's neutral and that we can work with. So I thank

6

you very much for your time and energy and how careful you

7

are in terms of going through all of this. So I await with

8

interest the written findings.

9

Do you have any questions of the director or

10

anybody else, Ms. Lopes or Mr. Jordan?

11

MS. LOPES: No, your Honor.

12

We will reach back out to counsel for both sides

13

after this and determine whether there are any other areas

14

that they think would be helpful for us to clarify in the

15

final report based on what we've said today. And we

16

anticipate that the final report will supplement today's

17

presentation as well as address the remaining questions.

18

THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.

19

MS. LOPES: Thank you.

20

THE COURT: Everybody is excused. As I said

21

before, take care of yourselves. Thank you.

22

MS. LOPES: Thank you, your Honor.

23

MR. MARCUS: Thank you, Judge.

24

MR. SAINDON: Thank you, your Honor.

25

MR. GLOVER: Thank you, your Honor.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 57 of 69

56

1

MR. WALKER: Thank you, your Honor.

2

MR. JORDAN: Thank you, your Honor.

3

(Proceedings concluded.)

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 58 of 69

57

1

CERTIFICATE

2

3

I, LISA EDWARDS, RDR, CRR, do hereby

4

certify that the foregoing constitutes a true and accurate

5

transcript of my stenographic notes, and is a full, true,

6

and complete transcript of the proceedings produced to the

7

best of my ability.

8

Please Note: This hearing occurred

9

during the COVID-19 pandemic and is therefore subject to the

10

technological limitations of reporting remotely.

11

12

13

Dated this 11th day of May, 2020.

14

15

/s/ Lisa Edwards, RDR, CRR

Official Court Reporter

16

United States District Court for the

District of Columbia

17

333 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 6706

Washington, DC 20001

18

(202) 354-3269

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 59 of 69

58

/
/s [1] - 57:15
1
1 [8] - 6:23, 14:7, 15:25, 16:2, 20:24, 21:1, 21:11, 30:4
1,020 [1] - 7:15 100 [1] - 11:2 10:00 [1] - 44:10 11 [3] - 1:7, 20:12, 20:14 112 [1] - 27:5 11:00 [2] - 44:10 11:15 [1] - 44:10 11th [1] - 57:13 12 [1] - 19:1 1300 [1] - 53:17 136 [1] - 18:11 14 [3] - 19:2, 26:1, 27:18 14th [1] - 2:11 15 [4] - 8:8, 19:2, 20:17, 33:5 15th [2] - 1:16, 13:22 16 [2] - 19:19, 23:12 16th [1] - 13:8 17 [1] - 18:23 18 [2] - 7:18, 18:12 195 [1] - 26:19 19th [5] - 25:5, 25:8, 25:9, 26:2, 26:17 1:00 [3] - 36:14, 36:18, 38:7 1st [2] - 13:11, 14:22
2
2 [5] - 20:25, 21:12, 24:14, 24:15, 27:14
20 [2] - 18:20, 26:18 20-CV-00849 [1] 1:4 20-CV-849 [1] - 3:3 2000 [1] - 2:11 20001 [3] - 2:6, 2:18, 57:17 20004 [1] - 1:22 20005 [1] - 1:17 20009 [1] - 2:11 202 [2] - 2:18, 57:18 2020 [6] - 1:7, 6:5, 18:8, 25:5, 26:17, 57:13 20th [4] - 14:15,

14:16, 14:18, 18:7 23 [1] - 16:9 24 [5] - 18:25, 19:18,
19:19, 19:21, 23:12 24-hour [3] - 36:9,
43:5, 43:9 25 [2] - 20:12, 25:10 257 [1] - 25:11 25th [1] - 13:5 26-room [1] - 8:22 27 [1] - 8:23 28th [4] - 6:5, 12:7,
12:23, 14:14 29 [1] - 26:21 2:00 [5] - 1:7, 3:1,
36:14, 36:18, 38:7
3
3 [2] - 28:23, 29:3 30 [1] - 47:13 30-minute [3] 30:24, 31:7, 40:12 30th [1] - 18:8 333 [2] - 2:17, 57:17 354-3269 [2] - 2:18, 57:18 364 [1] - 8:18 3:00 [3] - 36:15, 36:18, 38:7
4
4 [2] - 27:6, 40:20 4-27 [4] - 44:9, 44:10, 44:11 40-bed [1] - 8:22 400 [1] - 8:20 441 [1] - 2:5
5
5 [2] - 18:21, 42:8 50 [1] - 8:24 5th [3] - 13:6, 20:21, 21:15
6
62 [1] - 26:20 63 [2] - 18:13, 18:19 633 [1] - 1:21 65 [1] - 18:24 6706 [2] - 2:17, 57:17 6th [1] - 13:24

7
7 [1] - 27:1 71 [1] - 26:3 75 [1] - 18:19 76 [1] - 26:5 7:00 [1] - 44:12 7th [2] - 7:13, 8:7
8
80 [1] - 7:19 82 [1] - 18:11 84 [2] - 25:12, 25:22 85 [1] - 25:7 8:00 [2] - 44:11, 44:12 8th [3] - 13:20, 24:17, 24:18
9
915 [1] - 1:16 92 [1] - 25:14 93 [1] - 26:6 96 [2] - 8:25, 27:5 969 [1] - 7:14 9:00 [1] - 44:11
A
a.m [7] - 18:3, 36:15, 36:18, 44:10, 44:11, 44:12
ability [5] - 8:4, 35:4, 43:16, 46:10, 57:7
able [13] - 8:1, 15:23, 16:20, 18:13, 19:18, 22:17, 22:23, 36:15, 41:18, 41:19, 46:10, 46:18, 52:2
absolutely [1] 46:13
absorbent [1] 41:12
accept [1] - 55:5 access [22] - 11:7, 16:5, 16:20, 16:25, 17:10, 18:13, 22:19, 29:5, 29:18, 29:20, 30:5, 30:7, 30:10, 31:6, 33:11, 34:4, 34:23, 37:24, 38:25, 40:22, 40:24, 41:16 accessing [2] - 17:1, 18:6 accommodated [1] -

30:7 according [1] - 24:21 accurate [1] - 57:4 achieve [1] - 28:15 Action [1] - 1:3 activity [2] - 11:23,
42:21 acute [1] - 17:13 add [2] - 44:24, 52:8 adding [1] - 45:20 addition [2] - 11:10,
51:20 additional [7] - 20:6,
33:12, 45:20, 46:5, 51:4, 52:18, 52:21
additionally [2] 24:23, 44:24
address [8] - 12:21, 12:23, 19:9, 21:11, 31:14, 35:14, 48:3, 55:17
addressed [1] - 19:9 addressing [2] - 7:2 administration [1] 53:6 administrative [1] 10:9 admissions [1] 11:13 adopted [2] - 16:8, 17:17 advanced [5] - 24:6, 24:24, 27:13, 28:6, 28:11 affect [1] - 32:7 affirmed [1] - 34:12 afford [1] - 38:11 afforded [3] - 32:16, 35:8, 36:13 afternoon [24] - 3:14, 3:15, 3:17, 3:18, 3:20, 3:21, 3:23, 3:24, 4:1, 4:19, 4:20, 4:23, 4:24, 5:1, 5:2, 5:4, 5:5, 5:7, 5:8, 5:10, 5:14, 5:15, 7:8, 12:1 agency [1] - 40:8 aggregate [1] - 22:24 ago [1] - 13:2 ahead [7] - 12:18, 30:25, 39:18, 45:14, 45:17, 51:8, 51:9 al [4] - 1:3, 1:6, 3:2, 3:3 albeit [2] - 7:19, 14:1 allow [2] - 46:4, 46:11 allowed [8] - 17:18, 17:20, 34:6, 34:8, 34:13, 34:16, 34:17,

42:24 allowing [2] - 36:8,
43:3 alternatives [1] -
46:3 AMARILLAS [2] -
2:3, 4:22 Amarillas [1] - 4:21 AMERICAN [1] - 1:15 AMICI [1] - 2:13 amici [3] - 3:9, 6:5,
15:21 amount [2] - 11:21,
27:18 analysis [5] - 9:19,
11:6, 11:8, 19:11, 19:19
analyze [2] - 18:13, 19:18
analyzed [3] - 11:12, 18:8, 18:23
Anderson [1] - 3:22 ANDERSON [2] 1:20, 3:23 Andrew [2] - 23:10, 54:15 ANDREW [1] - 2:2 angry [1] - 35:21 answer [8] - 5:25, 6:10, 45:11, 49:14, 50:1, 50:3, 51:6, 53:15 answered [1] - 6:11 answering [1] - 6:7 anticipate [1] - 55:16 anticipated [1] - 42:6 apologies [2] - 4:9, 14:17 apparent [1] - 33:25 appear [1] - 41:18 aPPEARANCES [1] 1:13 APPEARANCES [1] 2:1 appeared [1] - 34:7 Appearing [2] - 1:15, 2:2 APPEARING [1] - 2:7 applications [1] 52:4 appointment [1] 20:25 appreciate [4] 39:14, 54:23, 55:1, 55:2 appropriate [2] 12:10, 41:20 April [18] - 6:5, 7:13, 9:4, 12:23, 13:6, 13:8, 13:20, 13:22, 14:1,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 60 of 69

59

18:7, 18:8, 25:5, 25:8, 25:9, 26:2, 26:17, 30:16, 43:1
area [2] - 30:8, 30:10 areas [3] - 10:8, 42:5, 55:13 armed [2] - 52:6, 53:1 ARTHUR [1] - 1:14 articulated [1] 34:10 ascribed [1] - 21:23 aside [2] - 39:5, 44:4 assess [3] - 18:14, 26:13, 26:15 assessment [2] 9:16, 24:9 assigned [1] - 10:23 assignments [1] 11:14 assist [5] - 45:21, 51:14, 52:4, 52:7 assistance [2] 51:13, 52:19 assistants [2] - 24:7, 28:7 assisting [1] - 51:23 assurances [1] 50:18 asymptomatic [1] 54:5 attached [1] - 46:14 attempt [2] - 25:18, 43:13 attempted [1] - 19:12 attempts [1] - 43:11 ATTORNEY [1] - 2:4 attorney [3] - 31:23, 31:25 Attorney's [1] - 49:1 attorneys [2] - 31:13, 46:10 automatically [1] 5:19 availability [2] 33:8, 40:25 available [4] - 17:6, 30:3, 35:4, 41:3 Avenue [3] - 1:21, 2:17, 57:17 await [1] - 55:7 awaiting [1] - 22:22 aware [5] - 22:6, 22:7, 33:15, 38:8, 49:4
B
background [3] -

6:2, 6:20, 6:25 bags [1] - 35:22 Banks [1] - 3:2 BANKS [1] - 1:3 barrier [1] - 17:1 barriers [3] - 17:9,
18:5, 21:5 based [7] - 6:4, 15:3,
17:19, 19:13, 24:9, 47:9, 55:15
basis [5] - 11:25, 27:13, 34:15, 35:8, 36:9
beds [2] - 8:24, 8:25 BEFORE [1] - 1:11 began [4] - 13:7, 13:23, 41:4, 51:25 begin [1] - 24:17 beginning [1] - 31:10 below [1] - 17:8 best [1] - 57:7 better [6] - 15:22, 41:19, 47:9, 48:7, 50:13, 55:3 between [6] - 17:22, 18:7, 36:3, 38:13, 39:5, 39:16 big [1] - 47:14 bit [1] - 53:2 blanket [1] - 34:10 BLUMING [2] - 2:2, 5:1 Bluming [1] - 4:25 bond [1] - 49:4 Booth [1] - 3:3 BOOTH [1] - 1:6 BOP [1] - 48:20 breakdown [1] 23:25 breath [4] - 20:2, 20:20, 21:1, 21:4 brief [1] - 22:16 briefly [2] - 10:9, 48:25 bring [3] - 52:23, 54:3, 54:14 brought [1] - 40:7 Bureau [2] - 49:21, 50:17 BY [1] - 2:15
C
calculated [2] 27:21, 27:23
capability [2] 53:16, 53:20
capacity [1] - 8:24 care [11] - 16:20,

17:1, 18:6, 18:14, 19:19, 20:24, 24:24, 27:10, 28:6, 28:11, 55:21
careful [1] - 55:6 cart [9] - 29:16, 30:1, 30:12, 32:14, 38:12, 38:13, 38:22, 39:6, 39:8 carts [5] - 29:24, 30:3, 39:11, 45:4, 48:8 case [27] - 4:6, 10:13, 13:4, 13:10, 13:19, 13:20, 17:3, 19:23, 20:10, 20:11, 23:17, 31:14, 31:16, 31:24, 32:18, 33:17, 33:18, 33:20, 37:15, 37:16, 39:15, 45:6, 45:25, 48:13, 55:3, 55:4 cases [10] - 13:6, 13:21, 17:5, 19:21, 20:8, 20:18, 25:16, 26:23, 27:2, 45:7 catch [1] - 23:14 category [3] - 23:14, 29:11, 48:21 CDC [1] - 50:1 CDF [3] - 15:1, 15:4, 15:7 cell [18] - 17:23, 18:3, 29:17, 30:1, 30:6, 35:5, 35:25, 36:2, 38:7, 38:11, 38:14, 38:22, 46:5, 47:3, 47:19 celling [3] - 7:23, 7:24, 7:25 cells [25] - 7:20, 7:21, 8:4, 9:2, 9:24, 16:9, 17:16, 17:18, 17:20, 24:20, 32:17, 34:6, 34:9, 34:13, 36:4, 36:13, 40:23, 41:13, 41:15, 42:4, 42:25, 43:8 certain [3] - 3:7, 11:22, 11:23 certainly [10] - 30:14, 39:9, 39:13, 42:18, 43:12, 50:16, 54:23, 55:2, 55:3 CERTIFICATE [1] 57:1 certify [1] - 57:4 cetera [3] - 7:18, 43:8, 47:12 challenges [1] - 35:2

change [1] - 7:17 changed [1] - 13:3 changes [3] - 7:6, 7:10, 50:9 chaotic [1] - 43:2 characterization [1] - 8:12 charges [1] - 49:20 check [3] - 27:7, 28:4, 39:17 checking [1] - 54:21 checks [3] - 26:12, 27:3, 27:6 Chief [3] - 50:7, 50:21, 54:11 citations [1] - 49:3 Civil [1] - 1:3 CIVIL [1] - 1:15 clarify [3] - 14:24, 40:6, 55:14 clarifying [1] - 52:24 classification [1] 8:12 classified [2] 20:23, 49:3 clean [8] - 29:6, 35:9, 40:23, 41:13, 41:15, 41:19 cleaning [10] - 11:15, 39:11, 39:16, 40:22, 40:25, 41:2, 42:3 clear [3] - 34:8, 36:7, 40:14 clearly [7] - 33:10, 33:13, 33:20, 35:13, 40:14, 41:21, 48:10 clerk [2] - 3:5 clicks [1] - 5:22 client [2] - 32:1, 32:2 clients [1] - 32:4 clients' [1] - 7:7 clock [1] - 17:19 close [1] - 46:21 closed [2] - 8:8, 9:5 clothing [3] - 29:6, 35:9, 35:10 COBB [2] - 1:19, 4:1 Cobb [1] - 3:25 cohort [2] - 15:4, 25:4 collected [6] - 18:7, 18:9, 18:21, 18:22, 18:25, 19:2 collection [2] 18:15, 21:8 collectively [4] 25:10, 26:3, 26:19, 27:15 COLLEEN [1] - 1:11 Columbia [2] - 2:16,

57:16 COLUMBIA [5] - 1:1,
1:16, 1:21, 2:4, 2:10 combination [1] -
49:1 combined [1] - 34:21 coming [2] - 14:14,
48:23 comments [1] -
21:23 Commission [2] -
49:8, 49:18 common [2] - 38:9,
42:4 communicate [1] -
46:11 communication [1] -
25:3 community [2] -
54:1, 54:3 compared [1] - 30:15 complaint [1] - 19:10 complaints [4] -
29:19, 34:1, 34:7, 46:24
complete [3] - 30:16, 45:11, 57:6
completed [2] - 33:4, 33:7
concern [1] - 45:25 concerned [1] 47:15 concerns [4] - 48:2, 48:17, 49:22, 50:22 concluded [1] - 56:3 concludes [1] 27:14 concurrently [1] 25:9 conduct [2] - 11:6, 26:12 conducted [8] - 9:21, 9:22, 10:11, 10:15, 11:8, 33:17, 40:9, 42:1 conducting [2] 27:9, 33:19 CONFERENCE [1] 1:10 confident [1] - 19:16 confidentiality [1] 32:17 confining [1] - 16:9 confirm [4] - 15:3, 19:14, 36:12, 42:7 confirmed [3] - 13:5, 13:19, 36:11 connected [1] 44:25 consent [1] - 6:5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 61 of 69

60

consideration [2] 7:7
consistency [1] 35:13
consistent [5] 17:17, 20:19, 29:4, 35:5, 48:9
consistently [3] 17:3, 18:2, 35:7
constitutes [1] - 57:4 Constitution [2] 2:17, 57:17 CONT'D [1] - 2:1 contact [1] - 32:2 context [1] - 16:6 continue [4] - 11:7, 13:25, 41:14 continued [3] 11:24, 13:22, 15:21 continuing [1] 41:21 contract [2] - 11:18, 42:2 contractor [1] 10:16 contractors [1] 53:3 contrast [3] - 9:3, 9:6, 16:3 contribute [2] 34:22, 35:1 contributed [1] 30:13 contributes [1] 34:20 conversation [4] 47:24, 48:10, 48:15, 53:18 conversations [1] 38:19 convey [1] - 7:8 cooperative [3] 12:4, 15:21, 54:24 coordinating [1] 25:2 copies [1] - 18:6 Corps [2] - 51:22 correct [7] - 15:25, 16:1, 27:19, 27:20, 28:14, 37:8, 51:21 correctional [13] 8:16, 10:21, 10:22, 16:23, 17:15, 22:17, 22:18, 23:5, 23:6, 25:19, 45:23, 46:12, 51:17 Corrections [4] 3:10, 15:21, 47:10, 54:24 CORRECTIONS [1] -

2:10 corridor [1] - 29:17 cough [2] - 20:19,
21:4 coughing [1] - 20:2 counsel [9] - 3:10,
14:9, 15:11, 21:24, 23:8, 27:24, 37:12, 43:21, 55:12
COUNSEL [1] - 2:9 count [1] - 8:18 couple [3] - 15:19, 34:18, 44:22 course [1] - 9:16 court [3] - 3:4, 3:5, 50:23 Court [15] - 2:15, 2:16, 6:21, 7:13, 7:18, 8:1, 11:9, 13:2, 14:5, 33:14, 49:4, 49:5, 50:24, 57:15, 57:16 COURT [75] - 1:1, 3:1, 3:15, 3:18, 3:21, 3:24, 4:2, 4:10, 4:15, 4:18, 4:20, 4:24, 5:2, 5:5, 5:8, 5:11, 5:15, 6:18, 6:24, 7:4, 12:11, 12:17, 12:24, 14:8, 15:11, 15:15, 15:17, 21:13, 21:20, 21:22, 23:8, 23:20, 23:23, 24:13, 27:15, 27:24, 28:10, 28:17, 28:20, 28:23, 29:2, 30:25, 35:17, 37:5, 37:10, 37:12, 39:4, 39:14, 39:18, 40:1, 40:4, 40:15, 40:19, 42:8, 43:20, 44:5, 44:14, 44:18, 44:21, 45:14, 45:17, 46:15, 47:6, 48:5, 49:7, 49:12, 49:16, 50:12, 51:19, 52:12, 53:24, 54:17, 54:20, 55:18, 55:20 Court's [1] - 45:25 courtroom [1] - 3:4 COVID [4] - 20:19, 21:2, 24:25, 51:25 COVID-19 [8] - 8:10, 8:14, 11:12, 13:2, 13:4, 13:15, 20:10, 57:9 COVID-19-positive [1] - 9:13 create [1] - 31:6 created [3] - 25:1, 39:2, 43:3 creating [1] - 35:2 criteria [1] - 21:1

CRR [3] - 2:15, 57:3, 57:15
CTF [43] - 8:21, 9:3, 9:4, 9:5, 9:7, 9:10, 9:22, 10:3, 11:23, 13:3, 13:5, 13:6, 13:11, 13:13, 13:15, 13:20, 14:22, 15:6, 15:7, 16:3, 16:5, 18:1, 18:11, 18:12, 18:23, 20:12, 24:19, 25:5, 26:1, 26:17, 27:4, 29:10, 29:12, 29:15, 32:13, 34:3, 34:5, 41:16, 42:22, 44:10, 44:11, 44:12
CURIAE [1] - 2:13 curious [3] - 37:5, 48:18, 49:14 current [3] - 13:24, 16:6, 17:9 cursory [1] - 36:11 cycle [1] - 43:10
D
daily [16] - 16:16, 16:17, 17:16, 25:2, 26:6, 27:13, 28:4, 29:6, 29:14, 29:20, 30:10, 34:6, 34:14, 34:23, 35:5, 35:8
data [22] - 7:22, 8:1, 9:16, 9:19, 11:6, 11:12, 11:21, 11:22, 12:9, 12:22, 13:24, 18:24, 19:4, 22:20, 22:21, 22:22, 24:10, 32:20, 32:21, 32:25, 33:3, 40:8
date [2] - 18:17, 18:18
Dated [1] - 57:13 dated [1] - 18:17 dates [2] - 9:22, 19:14 days [39] - 17:22, 18:21, 18:22, 19:1, 19:2, 19:20, 19:21, 19:22, 20:5, 20:6, 20:9, 20:14, 20:15, 20:16, 20:17, 23:15, 23:16, 24:1, 25:11, 25:12, 25:14, 25:22, 26:3, 26:5, 26:6, 26:9, 26:19, 26:21, 26:22, 27:1, 27:3, 27:5, 27:6, 27:16, 27:21, 27:23, 34:16, 34:18, 44:8 DC [17] - 1:6, 1:17,

1:22, 2:6, 2:11, 2:18, 23:8, 28:17, 40:1, 44:5, 44:14, 44:23, 49:24, 51:1, 51:6, 54:13, 57:17
DC's [1] - 45:2 decision [3] - 24:3, 24:8, 24:12 decline [1] - 13:7 decrease [2] - 13:9, 13:23 decreased [2] - 7:12, 8:18 Defendant [1] - 4:18 Defendants [21] 1:7, 3:10, 8:3, 9:18, 9:20, 11:6, 11:20, 12:1, 12:3, 12:10, 30:21, 31:4, 32:21, 32:25, 34:23, 36:7, 41:4, 41:25, 42:1, 42:21, 43:9 DEFENDANTS [1] 2:2 Defender [2] - 46:7, 46:8 DEFENDER [1] 1:20 defense [2] - 15:11, 23:8 deficient [1] - 41:22 definitely [2] - 37:21, 44:21 degree [3] - 43:15, 45:4, 48:8 delays [5] - 21:8, 32:5, 34:15, 35:3 Department [4] 3:10, 15:20, 47:9, 54:24 DEPARTMENT [1] 2:10 depth [1] - 10:15 deputy [5] - 3:4, 10:12, 10:13, 10:21, 53:6 describe [1] - 22:10 described [1] - 21:3 describing [1] - 28:5 descriptions [1] 37:7 designated [1] 19:15 designations [1] 11:13 detail [6] - 9:14, 38:15, 38:23, 39:1, 39:20, 51:12 detail's [2] - 38:21 details [4] - 51:16,

52:7, 53:6, 53:13 determine [3] - 18:9,
19:5, 55:13 develop [1] - 52:9 deviations [1] -
16:11 difference [2] - 14:4,
47:14 different [4] - 29:23,
31:5, 40:11, 52:8 difficult [4] - 36:24,
36:25, 41:13, 51:16 difficulty [3] - 30:11,
32:6, 43:6 diligent [1] - 49:2 direct [1] - 44:23 directed [1] - 6:6 direction [2] - 30:14,
35:6 directives [1] - 11:16 director [7] - 10:12,
10:13, 10:16, 10:18, 50:7, 53:6, 55:9
disciplined [1] 42:15
discuss [2] - 16:12, 17:8
discussing [1] - 45:7 discussion [3] 24:17, 53:25, 54:11 discussions [3] 46:24, 48:16, 50:21 DISNEY [2] - 2:3, 5:4 Disney [1] - 5:3 disruption [1] - 33:9 distance [1] - 46:18 distancing [8] 42:10, 42:12, 42:16, 42:18, 42:23, 43:12, 43:13, 43:15 distress [1] - 21:2 distribution [1] 8:11 District [5] - 2:16, 2:16, 31:19, 53:16, 57:16 district [1] - 57:16 DISTRICT [7] - 1:1, 1:1, 1:11, 1:16, 1:21, 2:4, 2:10 disturbances [4] 34:22, 35:18, 35:24, 37:6 DOC [13] - 10:13, 11:18, 13:4, 16:8, 25:3, 29:4, 31:8, 31:14, 40:21, 42:9, 53:20 DOC's [1] - 22:3 doctors [2] - 24:7,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 62 of 69

61

28:7 documentation [2] -
25:17, 41:25 documents [2] -
9:18, 11:24 door [1] - 30:6 double [5] - 7:20,
7:21, 7:23, 7:25, 9:2 down [6] - 15:19,
29:17, 36:23, 38:13, 38:23, 39:2
dozens [1] - 10:22 due [3] - 25:18, 33:7, 48:19 during [12] - 8:15, 9:11, 11:3, 17:2, 18:3, 20:13, 26:20, 36:16, 37:16, 42:19, 43:7, 57:9 duty [1] - 22:23
E
earshot [1] - 33:21 easier [1] - 54:7 educational [1] 42:12 EDWARD [1] - 1:3 Edwards [1] - 57:15 EDWARDS [2] 2:15, 57:3 effect [2] - 21:14, 31:19 effort [3] - 35:14, 43:12, 49:2 efforts [8] - 11:15, 22:3, 22:6, 22:7, 22:8, 51:3, 52:8, 52:16 eight [4] - 9:11, 19:22, 23:16, 27:4 either [5] - 6:9, 11:3, 18:3, 18:19, 20:23 elapse [1] - 17:22 electronic [3] - 11:7, 11:10, 25:6 eleven [1] - 9:5 email [4] - 31:13, 31:14, 46:8, 46:10 emergency [5] 20:24, 31:18, 40:9, 40:11 Emerging [1] - 15:6 employees [1] 31:17 encounters [1] 19:9 end [3] - 13:8, 21:10, 50:13 energy [1] - 55:6

enforce [6] - 42:15, 42:23, 43:12, 43:13, 43:16, 52:9
enforcing [1] - 42:9 entering [1] - 25:21 entry [1] - 10:8 environment [4] 16:7, 17:9, 35:23, 36:20 eons [1] - 46:17 equipment [4] 40:22, 40:25, 45:20, 46:4 ERIC [1] - 2:8 Eric [4] - 40:6, 45:13, 45:15, 51:9 escalate [1] - 36:4 escort [1] - 25:19 especially [2] 22:11, 41:21 ESQ [10] - 1:15, 1:19, 1:19, 1:20, 2:2, 2:2, 2:3, 2:3, 2:8, 2:9 essential [1] - 31:17 essentially [1] 31:13 establish [1] - 31:6 established [1] 31:4 estimate [1] - 11:2 et [7] - 1:3, 1:6, 3:2, 3:3, 7:18, 43:8, 47:12 evaluate [1] - 7:22 evening [1] - 36:16 event [1] - 28:5 eventually [1] 13:22 evidence [3] - 42:16, 42:17, 43:11 evident [1] - 30:19 exact [1] - 53:7 exactly [1] - 44:25 examples [1] - 42:23 excerpts [3] - 11:22, 42:20, 44:8 exchanges [2] 35:11, 35:16 excuse [1] - 39:4 excused [1] - 55:20 executive [1] - 48:4 expanded [1] - 43:9 expanding [1] - 46:4 expect [1] - 12:6 expectation [1] 24:22 expectations [1] 34:7 expected [1] - 49:13 experts [2] - 3:9, 15:22

explain [3] - 30:23, 32:4, 40:13
exposure [1] - 24:11 extended [1] - 22:14 extremely [1] - 12:4 eyes [2] - 46:1, 46:13
F
facilities [24] - 6:6, 8:23, 9:13, 9:24, 10:8, 10:10, 10:17, 10:19, 10:20, 10:24, 11:5, 18:8, 19:5, 30:20, 31:6, 33:24, 35:16, 40:24, 41:21, 42:13, 45:21, 50:11, 53:21, 54:9
facility [18] - 8:17, 10:2, 10:21, 13:5, 36:6, 40:9, 42:3, 45:24, 46:1, 46:12, 52:5, 52:9, 52:11, 53:3, 53:11, 53:12, 53:19, 54:8
fact [1] - 47:15 factors [1] - 37:3 failure [2] - 42:15, 42:23 familiar [2] - 30:25, 53:19 far [4] - 21:17, 21:25, 37:17, 38:6 faster [1] - 50:20 Federal [1] - 46:7 federal [1] - 50:23 FERNANDO [1] - 2:3 fever [3] - 20:3, 20:19, 21:4 fever-related [2] 20:3, 20:19 few [3] - 4:5, 7:15, 8:19 fewer [4] - 42:24, 43:3, 43:6, 48:22 fights [1] - 35:20 file [1] - 12:6 fill [1] - 52:15 final [4] - 8:2, 41:24, 55:15, 55:16 findings [1] - 55:8 fine [5] - 5:25, 7:4, 45:11, 48:24, 49:13 first [15] - 6:15, 6:21, 7:2, 7:11, 12:8, 12:23, 13:4, 13:19, 13:20, 14:12, 29:12, 31:10, 34:5, 44:1, 44:23 five [10] - 6:7, 6:12,

7:9, 12:8, 19:21, 20:6, 23:5, 23:15, 24:1, 41:10
Floor [2] - 1:17, 2:5 follow [3] - 39:13, 49:11, 53:5 follows [1] - 40:13 followup [3] - 6:12, 6:13, 22:16 food [1] - 35:22 FOR [5] - 1:1, 1:14, 1:20, 2:2, 2:4 foregoing [1] - 57:4 form [9] - 16:21, 16:23, 17:4, 19:10, 19:22, 19:23, 19:25, 20:23, 23:16 format [1] - 12:14 forms [11] - 16:22, 16:25, 17:3, 17:5, 17:7, 17:25, 18:7, 18:9, 18:17, 18:19, 22:19 four [13] - 8:24, 9:6, 13:15, 18:22, 20:5, 20:6, 20:9, 20:15, 23:6, 24:1, 28:12, 41:10, 45:1 Fourth [1] - 2:5 FPD [1] - 47:9 frank [2] - 46:23, 48:16 frankly [1] - 50:16 frequency [2] 32:10, 35:12 frequent [3] - 35:7, 38:4, 38:8 frequently [1] 27:12 Friday [2] - 8:17, 13:14 front [3] - 22:20, 22:22, 51:5 frustration [1] - 39:2 full [2] - 51:17, 57:5 full-time [1] - 51:17 future [1] - 19:8
G
general [3] - 9:25, 11:4, 33:4
GENERAL [2] - 2:4, 2:9
generally [1] - 36:24 generic [1] - 31:14 GI [1] - 21:3 given [3] - 25:17, 41:11, 43:4

Glover [9] - 5:6, 40:6, 44:14, 45:13, 45:15, 45:18, 51:15, 52:25, 53:14
GLOVER [19] - 2:8, 5:7, 40:5, 44:16, 45:13, 45:15, 45:19, 47:5, 48:3, 48:25, 49:10, 50:5, 51:8, 51:10, 51:20, 53:5, 53:10, 53:19, 55:25
gloves [2] - 37:20 goal [1] - 28:14 gown [1] - 37:21 Grace [1] - 6:19 GRACE [1] - 2:12 greater [1] - 32:10 greatly [1] - 17:23 group [4] - 15:1, 15:8, 48:21, 49:22 groups [4] - 10:25, 11:1, 17:19 guess [4] - 23:25, 24:14, 40:19, 52:17 guesswork [1] 47:11
H
handful [1] - 8:25 handle [1] - 15:23 happy [2] - 15:18, 15:20 harder [1] - 52:15 headaches [1] - 21:3 health [9] - 10:1, 10:17, 11:7, 11:10, 25:6, 25:18, 26:18, 27:4, 42:12 Health [2] - 51:13, 52:17 healthcare [2] - 16:5, 17:11 Healthcare [4] 10:18, 20:21, 21:14 hear [6] - 8:13, 15:18, 47:16, 47:20, 47:24, 48:12 heard [1] - 34:1 hearing [2] - 5:21, 57:8 hearings [1] - 49:5 held [1] - 49:20 help [3] - 45:4, 47:2, 55:2 helpful [4] - 6:22, 44:25, 49:16, 55:14 hereby [1] - 57:3 high [1] - 27:11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 63 of 69

62

higher [1] - 17:14 highly [3] - 41:6, 41:12, 41:17 hinder [1] - 46:23 hire [1] - 51:16 hires [1] - 52:3 hiring [1] - 11:14 history [1] - 24:11 hole [1] - 52:15 home [3] - 36:14, 54:5, 54:6 honest [1] - 48:16 Honor [56] - 3:17, 3:20, 3:23, 4:1, 4:8, 4:13, 4:17, 4:22, 5:1, 5:4, 5:7, 5:13, 6:17, 6:20, 7:5, 12:25, 14:10, 15:10, 15:14, 15:16, 23:10, 23:22, 24:16, 28:19, 28:22, 28:25, 30:22, 37:4, 37:9, 39:7, 40:3, 40:5, 40:18, 43:19, 44:6, 44:19, 45:13, 45:19, 45:23, 47:5, 48:3, 48:25, 49:10, 49:15, 50:5, 51:7, 51:20, 54:16, 54:19, 55:11, 55:22, 55:24, 55:25, 56:1, 56:2 HONORABLE [1] 1:11 hope [2] - 19:8, 19:9 hopefully [1] - 7:25 hospital [2] - 52:7, 53:12 hour [5] - 16:10, 17:16, 17:23, 18:2, 38:7 hours [2] - 16:9, 22:11 housed [9] - 9:8, 13:16, 16:3, 16:4, 19:13, 24:20, 26:16, 29:18, 39:21 housing [54] - 7:17, 7:19, 8:8, 8:12, 8:23, 9:9, 9:23, 9:25, 11:13, 11:23, 13:14, 13:17, 14:3, 16:4, 16:7, 16:8, 16:13, 16:14, 16:15, 16:16, 16:19, 16:22, 17:10, 17:14, 18:1, 19:13, 19:14, 19:16, 21:6, 22:4, 22:5, 22:9, 22:25, 23:4, 26:12, 26:14, 27:8, 30:4, 30:8, 30:19, 31:9, 33:9, 36:6, 36:12, 39:8, 41:1, 41:2, 42:5,

42:21, 43:2, 43:17 hovering [1] - 8:19 Howell [1] - 50:7 hyperventilation [1]
- 21:2
I
IAN [1] - 2:2 idea [2] - 35:18, 47:19 identified [3] - 3:9, 18:5, 52:14 identify [1] - 27:10 idle [1] - 36:24 impact [1] - 13:2 impacted [1] - 17:20 impacts [1] - 22:13 impeded [1] - 22:19 implement [4] 28:16, 31:16, 31:22, 46:8 implementation [2] 11:17, 16:11 implemented [2] 30:21, 46:6 important [1] - 7:10 improvement [2] 33:10, 47:12 in-depth [1] - 10:15 inability [3] - 30:16, 30:17, 34:22 incident [1] - 25:20 incidents [2] - 34:21, 35:18 include [4] - 24:7, 28:4, 42:4 included [3] - 20:1, 20:2, 20:25 includes [1] - 27:12 including [4] - 3:10, 9:24, 10:12, 20:19 increased [6] - 13:6, 35:12, 42:11, 42:17 independently [1] 41:19 Indiana [1] - 1:21 indicate [2] - 6:10, 37:7 indicated [5] - 23:24, 33:3, 33:6, 37:7, 52:15 indicating [2] - 48:1, 48:13 indications [1] - 7:24 individual [3] 24:20, 27:22, 48:19 individually [1] 11:2

infirmary [16] - 8:22, 9:8, 10:4, 13:16, 24:20, 29:10, 29:15, 29:17, 29:18, 29:20, 32:13, 34:1, 34:4, 34:6
informal [1] - 10:11 information [9] 6:20, 6:25, 7:8, 11:17, 12:8, 31:8, 53:7, 54:25, 55:4 initial [1] - 17:1 inmate [18] - 13:12, 18:17, 19:20, 19:21, 19:22, 19:24, 20:11, 23:18, 25:16, 25:18, 25:24, 26:24, 27:1, 27:3, 27:17, 27:23, 38:21, 39:1 inmate's [2] - 17:22, 26:23 inmates [101] - 7:14, 8:9, 8:14, 8:19, 8:20, 9:6, 9:7, 10:4, 11:1, 11:2, 11:3, 13:9, 13:15, 13:25, 15:1, 15:4, 16:2, 16:4, 16:9, 16:15, 16:20, 16:23, 17:5, 17:10, 17:16, 17:18, 17:19, 17:21, 17:24, 18:2, 18:10, 19:6, 19:12, 21:5, 24:19, 24:22, 25:4, 25:7, 25:10, 25:13, 25:14, 25:22, 26:1, 26:3, 26:5, 26:9, 26:13, 26:16, 26:19, 26:21, 26:22, 27:5, 27:6, 27:10, 27:21, 29:7, 29:13, 29:17, 29:19, 30:4, 30:5, 30:9, 30:17, 31:11, 32:4, 32:16, 33:19, 33:25, 34:5, 34:8, 34:12, 34:15, 34:20, 35:2, 35:10, 35:15, 35:21, 36:1, 36:3, 36:10, 36:12, 36:21, 38:5, 38:15, 38:20, 39:5, 39:20, 41:5, 41:9, 41:12, 41:17, 42:24, 43:4, 43:7 inmates' [1] - 38:25 inpatient [2] - 8:21, 9:8 inquire [1] - 39:12 inquiries [1] - 53:18 installment [1] - 12:2 instances [1] - 36:14 instead [2] - 36:17,

47:13 insufficient [2] -
25:19, 43:17 intended [1] - 31:11 intensive [1] - 22:9 interactions [1] -
16:17 interest [1] - 55:8 interested [1] - 52:12 interviewed [1] -
11:3 interviewing [1] -
38:20 interviews [5] - 9:17,
10:11, 10:15, 15:4, 42:1
involved [1] - 41:7 isolation [50] - 8:9, 9:7, 9:9, 10:2, 10:3, 10:4, 11:4, 13:14, 14:3, 16:8, 16:13, 22:9, 22:11, 24:18, 24:19, 24:20, 24:22, 25:5, 25:7, 25:11, 26:1, 26:3, 27:8, 27:11, 27:23, 28:3, 29:7, 29:8, 29:14, 29:20, 29:23, 30:17, 32:10, 32:11, 32:12, 32:13, 33:11, 33:13, 33:25, 34:2, 34:4, 34:9, 34:14, 35:10, 36:6, 38:1, 38:2, 39:20, 46:9 issue [12] - 33:25, 35:1, 35:5, 40:6, 40:10, 41:4, 41:21, 43:20, 45:12, 48:4, 48:9, 48:18 issued [2] - 20:22, 21:17 issues [11] - 8:5, 8:6, 33:8, 34:25, 35:3, 36:3, 36:5, 46:14, 49:21, 51:2, 52:14 it'll [1] - 37:24
J
jail [44] - 7:11, 7:12, 7:13, 7:19, 7:25, 8:14, 9:22, 13:3, 13:12, 13:19, 13:21, 14:2, 14:22, 16:2, 16:5, 17:14, 18:11, 18:12, 18:13, 19:18, 23:12, 23:25, 24:19, 25:5, 25:7, 26:17, 26:18, 29:10, 29:22, 29:24, 30:19, 32:14, 33:21,

34:2, 34:4, 34:11, 34:25, 35:1, 38:2, 41:6, 41:22, 46:17, 53:17
jangling [1] - 6:2 JENNA [1] - 1:19 job [3] - 38:21, 39:1 JONATHAN [1] 1:20 Jordan [22] - 3:16, 6:10, 7:1, 9:14, 11:9, 12:21, 12:24, 14:20, 15:24, 22:1, 22:16, 23:7, 23:11, 28:2, 28:24, 38:17, 44:20, 44:24, 52:13, 54:21, 55:3, 55:10 JORDAN [17] - 2:13, 3:17, 12:25, 14:24, 16:1, 21:17, 22:6, 22:21, 23:15, 24:5, 24:15, 27:20, 28:6, 28:14, 29:1, 38:18, 56:2 JUDGE [1] - 1:11 Judge [6] - 3:1, 44:16, 50:7, 50:22, 54:11, 55:23 judges [1] - 48:20 judgments [1] 35:13
K
keep [1] - 5:21 kind [2] - 31:14, 45:8 Kollar [1] - 3:2 KOLLAR [1] - 1:11 Kollar-Kotelly [1] 3:2 KOLLAR-KOTELLY [1] - 1:11 Kotelly [1] - 3:2 KOTELLY [1] - 1:11
L
labeled [1] - 37:5 lack [1] - 16:25 last [13] - 7:3, 7:13, 9:3, 13:1, 13:14, 14:2, 14:5, 29:24, 31:21, 32:22, 39:19, 49:24, 52:16 law [1] - 3:5 lawyers [1] - 46:25 leads [2] - 36:18, 49:23 least [12] - 12:21,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 64 of 69

63

25:13, 25:14, 25:25, 26:7, 26:8, 26:10, 43:2, 47:8, 47:13, 49:19, 53:24
leave [5] - 36:13, 47:22, 51:24, 52:10, 54:10
leaving [1] - 39:5 left [1] - 46:20 legal [14] - 29:5, 30:20, 30:24, 31:6, 31:7, 32:9, 33:11, 33:16, 33:19, 37:16, 40:12, 45:2, 45:22, 46:4 less [3] - 7:25, 43:2, 43:25 letting [1] - 43:6 Level [3] - 20:24, 20:25, 21:1 level [2] - 22:25, 27:11 levels [3] - 17:14, 23:2, 23:4 liaison [1] - 25:3 LIBERTIES [1] - 1:15 light [1] - 12:9 limitation [2] - 30:13, 30:18 limitations [5] - 8:4, 33:8, 34:21, 43:15, 57:10 limited [8] - 19:11, 19:16, 28:6, 29:8, 35:4, 38:25, 41:8, 42:22 line [7] - 3:19, 3:22, 4:3, 4:5, 4:14, 5:18, 42:14 linen [2] - 35:10, 35:15 linens [2] - 29:6, 35:9 LISA [2] - 2:15, 57:3 Lisa [1] - 57:15 listen [1] - 46:21 listened [1] - 48:1 listening [1] - 4:13 locked [3] - 36:22, 38:23, 39:2 logbooks [1] - 36:11 look [2] - 37:19, 37:22 looking [4] - 45:20, 46:3, 47:1, 53:21 Lopes [19] - 3:12, 6:9, 6:19, 13:1, 14:12, 21:20, 28:24, 29:1, 37:15, 40:7, 40:13, 43:22, 44:7, 44:20,

44:24, 52:13, 54:20, 55:2, 55:10
LOPES [34] - 2:12, 3:14, 6:17, 6:19, 6:25, 7:5, 12:15, 12:19, 14:15, 14:17, 21:19, 21:21, 28:25, 29:3, 31:3, 35:20, 37:9, 37:11, 37:18, 37:24, 38:4, 38:9, 38:15, 39:7, 39:17, 39:23, 39:25, 40:21, 42:9, 44:2, 44:9, 55:11, 55:19, 55:22
loss [1] - 20:3 lower [4] - 18:1, 23:2, 30:12, 48:19 Lower [1] - 30:4 lowered [1] - 48:22
M
mail [3] - 32:1, 32:6, 32:7
maintained [1] 16:22
maintenance [1] 8:5
maintenancerelated [1] - 8:5
makeshift [1] - 43:25 management [7] 10:1, 10:13, 11:19, 24:21, 31:14, 31:24, 42:13 manager [2] - 33:18, 33:20 manager's [2] 33:20, 39:15 managers [9] - 23:1, 31:16, 32:19, 33:17, 37:15, 37:17, 45:6, 45:25, 48:13 March [1] - 13:5 Marcus [7] - 3:19, 14:11, 22:2, 28:1, 37:14, 39:18, 52:22 MARCUS [25] - 1:19, 3:20, 14:10, 14:16, 14:19, 15:9, 22:1, 22:16, 23:7, 28:1, 28:9, 37:14, 37:23, 37:25, 38:6, 38:12, 39:19, 39:24, 43:22, 44:3, 52:24, 53:9, 53:14, 53:23, 55:23 MARIE [1] - 1:19 MARK [1] - 2:13 mask [3] - 37:19,

37:21, 37:22 material [1] - 7:6 materials [4] - 40:22,
40:25, 41:3, 42:12 matter [3] - 3:2, 7:5,
33:4 maximum [1] - 9:25 maybe's [1] - 4:3 mean [6] - 10:3,
35:23, 45:6, 46:17, 48:5, 50:13
mechanism [1] 51:4
Medical [1] - 51:21 medical [24] - 10:7, 10:16, 13:16, 16:14, 16:17, 16:20, 17:1, 17:25, 18:6, 18:7, 18:18, 19:7, 21:9, 22:4, 22:12, 24:4, 24:5, 24:21, 25:2, 25:13, 27:9, 27:13, 28:2 medications [1] 16:18 medium [1] - 9:25 medium-security [1] - 9:25 meet [1] - 25:9 meeting [1] - 50:7 member [2] - 38:14, 38:15 Men [1] - 15:6 mental [1] - 10:1 mentioned [6] - 13:1, 14:13, 14:21, 22:18, 53:1 method [1] - 16:20 methodological [1] 18:16 methodology [1] 9:15 MICAH [1] - 2:2 MICHELLE [1] - 2:9 MICHELMAN [2] 1:15, 4:7 Michelman [2] - 4:4, 4:8 mid [1] - 14:1 mid-April [1] - 14:1 might [3] - 50:13, 54:2, 54:7 mind [2] - 12:20, 47:21 minute [3] - 8:13, 16:12, 22:10 minutes [1] - 47:13 misspoke [1] - 14:17 mix [1] - 37:3 moment [3] - 4:10,

6:1, 11:10 moments [1] - 4:6 monitor [1] - 16:14 monitored [2] -
24:23, 25:22 monitoring [4] -
22:15, 26:15, 27:9, 27:11
morning [2] - 38:8, 50:8
most [9] - 7:19, 8:23, 12:1, 12:2, 13:24, 16:2, 16:4, 25:16, 26:23
mounted [1] - 39:10 move [10] - 6:14, 14:7, 21:12, 24:13, 38:21, 39:1, 47:19, 50:20, 50:25, 54:7 moved [3] - 29:16, 50:18, 54:8 moving [4] - 30:1, 35:6, 40:19, 48:20 MPD [1] - 49:1 MR [86] - 3:17, 3:20, 3:23, 4:7, 4:13, 4:17, 4:19, 4:22, 5:1, 5:7, 5:13, 12:25, 14:10, 14:16, 14:19, 14:24, 15:9, 15:13, 15:16, 16:1, 21:17, 22:1, 22:6, 22:16, 22:21, 23:7, 23:10, 23:15, 23:19, 23:22, 24:5, 24:15, 27:20, 28:1, 28:6, 28:9, 28:14, 28:18, 28:22, 29:1, 37:14, 37:23, 37:25, 38:6, 38:12, 38:18, 39:19, 39:24, 40:2, 40:5, 40:17, 43:22, 44:3, 44:6, 44:13, 44:16, 44:19, 45:13, 45:15, 45:19, 47:5, 48:3, 48:25, 49:10, 49:15, 50:5, 51:7, 51:8, 51:9, 51:10, 51:11, 51:20, 52:24, 53:5, 53:9, 53:10, 53:14, 53:19, 53:23, 54:15, 54:19, 55:23, 55:24, 55:25, 56:1, 56:2 MS [36] - 3:14, 4:1, 5:4, 5:10, 6:17, 6:19, 6:25, 7:5, 12:15, 12:19, 14:15, 14:17, 21:19, 21:21, 28:25, 29:3, 31:3, 35:20, 37:9, 37:11, 37:18,

37:24, 38:4, 38:9, 38:15, 39:7, 39:17, 39:23, 39:25, 40:21, 42:9, 44:2, 44:9, 55:11, 55:19, 55:22
multiple [4] - 27:12, 33:18, 34:15, 49:4
multiple-day [1] 34:15
must [3] - 15:18, 16:5, 16:23
mute [2] - 4:7, 4:8 muted [3] - 3:6, 4:6, 5:19 muting [1] - 4:11
N
necessarily [1] 25:8
necessary [1] 33:12
need [4] - 15:3, 19:14, 27:10, 47:17
needs [1] - 46:16 neutral [1] - 55:5 new [4] - 31:22, 33:6, 49:20, 52:4 next [5] - 13:21, 23:14, 38:22, 41:23, 49:23 nine [2] - 20:1, 20:3 nobody [2] - 45:9, 47:20 noise [1] - 6:2 non [15] - 10:7, 16:4, 16:7, 16:15, 16:16, 16:19, 17:10, 19:13, 19:16, 21:6, 22:4, 22:5, 22:13, 33:13, 36:6 non-isolation [2] 33:13, 36:6 non-quarantine [13] - 10:7, 16:4, 16:7, 16:15, 16:16, 16:19, 17:10, 19:13, 19:16, 21:6, 22:4, 22:5, 22:13 none [1] - 20:18 normal [1] - 23:4 normally [2] - 23:2, 23:5 Northwest [4] - 1:16, 1:21, 2:5, 2:11 Note [1] - 57:8 note [2] - 18:16, 33:13 notes [3] - 37:19,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 65 of 69

64

37:22, 57:5 noteworthy [2] -
20:8, 20:21 nothing [3] - 15:13,
40:2, 50:14 notices [1] - 52:1 notifies [1] - 31:23 notify [3] - 31:11,
32:1, 32:2 notwithstanding [2]
- 18:5, 45:24 number [9] - 13:5,
13:21, 17:19, 17:20, 23:14, 27:23, 31:19, 41:8, 43:17
numbers [3] - 14:1, 15:18, 43:6
nurse [2] - 24:7, 28:7 nursing [6] - 10:18, 24:23, 25:23, 26:12, 27:12, 28:10 NW [2] - 2:17, 57:17
O
objective [1] - 24:10 objects [1] - 35:22 observations [2] 9:17, 9:23 observe [6] - 37:17, 38:13, 38:16, 38:18, 39:7, 39:12 observed [10] - 17:7, 22:25, 29:15, 32:11, 33:18, 35:15, 37:15, 39:8, 39:9, 39:11 obtained [1] - 9:16 obviously [10] - 5:24, 15:22, 45:3, 45:4, 45:8, 46:22, 47:13, 47:16, 50:23, 52:12 occur [2] - 34:14, 36:9 occurred [2] - 35:11, 57:8 occurrence [1] 30:10 occurring [4] - 30:2, 32:19, 35:16, 49:5 OF [9] - 1:1, 1:10, 1:15, 1:16, 1:21, 2:4, 2:4, 2:10 offenses [1] - 49:3 office [7] - 30:8, 30:10, 31:24, 33:20, 37:16, 39:16, 46:20 OFFICE [1] - 2:4 Office [1] - 49:2 officer [4] - 16:24,

17:4, 17:15, 22:17 officers [7] - 10:22,
17:2, 22:18, 22:22, 23:6, 51:17
offices [2] - 32:18, 33:17
Official [1] - 2:15 official [1] - 57:15 once [9] - 6:11, 24:3, 25:15, 26:7, 26:8, 26:10, 26:23, 31:23 one [38] - 8:9, 9:10, 10:2, 12:13, 13:17, 14:2, 14:21, 14:24, 15:8, 16:10, 17:3, 19:22, 19:23, 20:8, 20:9, 20:16, 22:1, 22:16, 22:19, 23:16, 23:17, 23:23, 24:18, 25:23, 25:25, 27:7, 27:21, 29:9, 30:4, 30:13, 33:22, 38:22, 39:19, 40:6, 42:25, 43:7, 43:22 ones [1] - 49:19 ongoing [1] - 11:25 open [1] - 8:8 operate [1] - 8:4 operates [1] - 31:8 operating [8] - 9:9, 10:3, 16:6, 17:9, 29:9, 29:23, 30:12, 53:12 operational [2] 21:15, 21:18 operations [2] 32:22, 32:23 opportunities [1] 17:24 opportunity [9] 7:22, 12:7, 32:20, 33:1, 36:13, 36:16, 36:17, 38:11, 53:21 opposed [1] - 49:20 oral [2] - 6:7, 12:13 order [7] - 6:4, 6:5, 12:23, 31:18, 38:10, 41:15 ordering [2] - 48:5, 50:15 otherwise [1] - 17:12 out-of-cell [4] 17:23, 18:3, 35:5, 35:25 outline [1] - 7:10 overall [1] - 44:22 overhear [2] - 47:4, 48:10 overheard [1] - 47:23 overtime [1] - 37:2 own [1] - 50:24

P
p.m [2] - 1:7, 18:4 PAMELA [1] - 2:3 pandemic [2] 51:25, 57:9 paper [8] - 17:6, 41:4, 41:7, 41:10, 41:12, 41:16, 41:18, 43:23 Parole [2] - 49:8, 49:17 part [4] - 22:3, 30:19, 36:23, 53:11 participation [1] 31:25 particular [2] 43:20, 48:21 particularly [3] 5:22, 17:13, 34:25 parties [4] - 6:21, 8:1, 11:10, 33:14 parties' [1] - 7:7 party [1] - 6:12 past [3] - 8:17, 12:1, 34:17 patients [2] - 21:9, 24:9 PDS [1] - 47:9 peaked [1] - 13:7 peaking [1] - 13:22 people [21] - 3:7, 21:23, 24:4, 28:12, 39:21, 46:21, 48:15, 48:21, 48:23, 49:25, 50:3, 50:17, 50:19, 50:20, 50:25, 53:3, 53:17, 53:25, 54:8, 54:10 per [7] - 16:9, 16:10, 24:23, 24:24, 25:23, 26:13, 28:11 percent [19] - 18:11, 18:12, 18:19, 18:20, 18:22, 18:24, 18:25, 19:1, 25:12, 25:14, 25:22, 26:5, 26:6, 26:20, 26:22, 27:1, 27:5, 27:7, 33:5 perfect [1] - 6:24 perfection [1] 50:13 perhaps [1] - 50:14 period [6] - 20:13, 25:11, 26:4, 26:20, 33:5, 38:23 periodic [1] - 22:5 Perloff [2] - 4:2, 4:12 peroxide [3] - 41:5,

41:11, 41:17 person [2] - 10:12,
25:1 personal [4] - 29:5,
29:12, 29:13, 30:17 perspective [3] -
45:2, 47:7, 48:11 phase [1] - 11:3 phenomenon [1] -
17:7 phone [14] - 3:6,
3:13, 3:16, 29:18, 29:21, 30:18, 32:14, 36:5, 38:12, 38:25, 39:1, 39:5, 39:16, 43:8
phones [7] - 32:12, 33:8, 39:10, 39:11, 46:5, 47:3, 47:19
physician's [2] 24:7, 28:7
picked [2] - 18:19, 18:24
place [4] - 32:17, 47:3, 47:19, 49:18
placed [1] - 29:16 Plaintiffs [2] - 1:4, 3:9 PLAINTIFFS [1] 1:14 Plaintiffs' [5] - 14:9, 21:24, 27:24, 37:12, 43:21 pleas [1] - 45:8 point [7] - 19:10, 21:15, 25:8, 25:9, 48:6, 49:17, 54:12 points [1] - 45:1 policies [2] - 52:9 policy [5] - 16:9, 16:11, 17:17, 50:6, 50:9 population [11] 7:11, 7:14, 7:16, 8:17, 8:18, 9:13, 9:25, 11:4, 17:14, 48:19, 54:3 populations [1] 18:1 position [1] - 24:25 positive [15] - 8:10, 8:14, 13:4, 13:9, 13:10, 13:13, 13:16, 13:19, 13:21, 14:22, 15:1, 15:8, 20:11, 24:2, 39:22 possible [1] - 53:22 posted [4] - 31:8, 31:9, 31:10, 42:13 posts [1] - 10:23 potential [1] - 3:8

potentially [2] - 54:1, 54:10
PPE [1] - 37:17 practice [2] - 28:16, 33:22 practices [1] - 26:15 practitioners [3] 24:6, 24:8, 28:8 precluded [1] - 25:20 preliminarily [1] 12:21 preliminary [2] 14:12, 14:19 premature [1] 35:12 prepared [1] - 14:6 presence [1] - 45:5 present [3] - 13:25, 33:18, 45:25 presentation [3] 21:10, 27:14, 55:17 presented [1] - 21:25 presently [2] - 16:3, 50:5 prevalence [3] 7:23, 8:6, 43:14 prevalent [2] - 42:18, 43:25 previous [4] - 7:12, 8:15, 9:6, 9:11 previously [1] 52:10 primary [1] - 16:19 principal [2] - 5:23, 5:24 Prisons [2] - 49:21, 50:17 private [2] - 48:14, 53:2 problem [6] - 17:13, 30:13, 43:5, 45:3, 47:6, 47:7 problems [3] - 36:18, 37:8, 52:13 proceed [3] - 15:17, 15:24, 51:10 proceedings [1] 57:6 Proceedings [1] 56:3 process [2] - 12:5, 29:25 produce [1] - 17:3 produced [5] - 9:18, 9:20, 11:20, 11:21, 57:6 professional [2] 11:15, 42:2 program [6] - 15:5, 15:6, 15:7, 24:22,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 66 of 69

65

46:8 progress [2] - 33:12,
43:11 prohibiting [1] -
34:10 prolonged [1] -
38:23 protocol [3] - 20:22,
21:13 provide [12] - 6:6,
6:21, 7:1, 8:1, 11:7, 12:8, 34:23, 35:5, 36:7, 36:15, 36:17, 40:8
provided [7] - 11:18, 30:7, 41:8, 41:13, 42:21, 46:9, 51:14
provider [12] - 24:5, 24:11, 24:25, 25:13, 25:15, 25:17, 25:20, 26:6, 26:7, 26:8, 28:3
providers [9] - 24:6, 24:24, 25:2, 26:13, 27:13, 28:7, 31:5
provides [1] - 10:16 providing [3] - 7:1, 29:4, 45:21 proxy [1] - 18:18 public [2] - 4:14, 5:18 Public [4] - 46:7, 46:8, 51:13, 52:17 PUBLIC [1] - 1:20 punished [2] - 36:1, 36:22 purpose [1] - 32:15 pursuant [2] - 31:17, 51:25 push [1] - 38:14 put [2] - 21:15, 31:1 putting [1] - 27:16
Q
quantify [1] - 22:17 quantitative [2] 22:20, 22:21 quarantine [31] - 8:9, 9:10, 10:6, 10:7, 11:4, 13:17, 16:3, 16:4, 16:7, 16:8, 16:13, 16:15, 16:16, 16:19, 17:10, 19:13, 19:15, 19:16, 21:6, 22:4, 22:5, 22:8, 22:13, 26:11, 26:14, 26:16, 26:19, 27:5, 27:8 quarantined [1] 14:4

quarantining [1] 50:12
questions [32] - 6:7, 6:11, 6:13, 7:2, 7:3, 7:9, 12:9, 12:23, 14:6, 14:8, 14:9, 15:19, 21:11, 21:24, 27:25, 28:17, 28:21, 32:24, 37:13, 40:1, 40:16, 40:17, 41:23, 43:21, 44:4, 44:18, 44:22, 49:13, 52:20, 52:22, 55:9, 55:17
quick [2] - 23:11, 23:23
quickie [1] - 51:3 QUINCY [1] - 1:6
R
rags [2] - 43:23, 43:25
raise [2] - 33:23, 54:14
raising [1] - 45:11 RDR [3] - 2:15, 57:3, 57:15 reach [1] - 55:12 reached [1] - 51:21 read [1] - 29:3 readily [1] - 17:3 ready [1] - 50:18 realize [1] - 51:2 really [4] - 13:8, 27:22, 35:1, 47:25 reason [1] - 22:19 reasons [2] - 33:3, 49:20 reassessing [1] 50:6 receive [6] - 11:24, 17:16, 18:2, 29:19, 32:21, 38:7 received [2] - 12:9, 51:22 receiving [4] - 32:5, 32:7, 49:22, 54:9 recent [6] - 12:2, 12:9, 35:12, 35:14, 40:10, 51:12 recently [8] - 12:1, 29:9, 30:21, 31:3, 31:20, 41:4, 46:6 recognized [2] 34:16, 38:9 record [6] - 19:24, 23:17, 25:18, 27:4, 29:4, 31:1 records [7] - 11:8,

11:11, 11:16, 25:6, 26:18, 37:6
recreation [4] - 36:8, 36:9, 43:5, 43:9
reduces [1] - 17:24 reduction [1] - 7:14 refer [1] - 5:24 referenced [1] 40:10 referred [2] - 20:10 refused [2] - 26:25, 27:3 refusing [2] - 25:19, 36:2 regard [1] - 40:8 regarding [2] - 50:9 regards [1] - 51:24 register [1] - 31:15 registered [1] - 32:1 registers [1] - 31:24 regular [2] - 32:5, 32:7 regulated [2] - 41:6, 41:17 related [9] - 8:5, 11:12, 11:16, 11:17, 20:3, 20:19, 32:22, 32:23, 36:5 relative [3] - 8:12, 14:4, 42:25 release [2] - 17:23, 50:10 released [5] - 49:6, 49:25, 50:4, 50:6, 54:1 releases [1] - 48:19 releasing [2] - 16:10, 50:16 reliable [1] - 29:4 rely [1] - 41:14 remain [1] - 53:17 remaining [1] - 55:17 remains [1] - 51:16 remind [1] - 6:1 remotely [1] - 57:10 report [17] - 6:7, 7:12, 8:2, 8:3, 12:6, 12:16, 13:1, 14:13, 17:22, 19:8, 41:9, 41:12, 41:24, 42:14, 52:16, 55:15, 55:16 reported [14] - 7:16, 14:5, 18:2, 20:2, 21:19, 23:1, 29:13, 30:9, 34:5, 34:15, 35:10, 35:14, 38:5 REPORTED [1] 2:15 reportedly [1] - 30:6 reporter [1] - 3:5

Reporter [2] - 2:15, 57:15
reporting [1] - 57:10 request [17] - 9:19, 11:22, 11:25, 16:21, 16:22, 16:23, 17:4, 17:25, 18:7, 18:9, 19:10, 20:5, 20:7, 20:9, 20:23, 23:13, 52:6 requested [1] - 11:21 requests [17] 11:14, 17:6, 18:11, 18:13, 18:14, 18:23, 19:5, 19:6, 19:12, 19:19, 20:1, 20:4, 20:13, 21:6, 21:7, 21:8, 23:12 require [1] - 50:2 required [3] - 31:13, 31:25, 51:17 requires [3] - 20:22, 20:24, 20:25 Reserve [1] - 51:22 resident [5] - 14:21, 14:23, 14:25, 46:13 residents [18] - 28:3, 38:1, 38:2, 38:6, 40:12, 40:21, 43:24, 45:22, 46:1, 46:2, 46:9, 49:5, 50:5, 50:9, 50:10, 51:23, 53:20, 53:22 resources [1] - 22:14 respect [15] - 7:9, 7:11, 7:23, 8:16, 9:15, 12:8, 12:22, 22:10, 29:12, 30:20, 33:24, 34:1, 34:2, 34:3, 35:9 respectively [2] 19:2, 20:6 respiratory [1] - 21:2 response [2] - 9:18, 11:25 responsibility [2] 10:19, 10:20 responsible [1] 25:1 responsive [1] - 12:4 result [1] - 43:1 return [3] - 52:1, 52:2, 52:10 return-of-work [1] 52:1 review [9] - 9:17, 19:14, 20:14, 25:11, 25:12, 26:4, 26:20, 29:8, 36:11 reviewed [9] - 11:24, 17:8, 18:6, 20:12,

25:6, 26:2, 26:18, 27:4, 41:25
reviewing [2] - 11:9, 52:4
ripped [2] - 41:14, 41:15
rise [2] - 13:22, 43:4 rolling [12] - 29:16, 29:24, 30:1, 30:3, 30:12, 32:11, 32:14, 38:12, 39:11, 45:4, 48:8, 52:3 Room [2] - 2:17, 57:17 rooms [4] - 9:24, 32:18, 39:10, 42:5 roughly [2] - 33:5, 38:1 round [1] - 43:24 rounds [1] - 25:2 routine [2] - 27:9, 27:11 routinely [3] - 16:14, 22:25, 26:13 rule [1] - 34:10 running [2] - 29:5, 33:24
S
safety [1] - 46:2 Saindon [6] - 4:18, 23:11, 51:10, 51:21, 53:15, 54:15 SAINDON [14] - 2:2, 4:19, 15:13, 23:10, 23:19, 28:18, 40:2, 44:6, 44:13, 51:7, 51:9, 51:11, 54:15, 55:24 sample [5] - 17:7, 19:4, 20:1, 26:2, 27:20 sampled [3] - 25:4, 25:10, 26:16 sanitarian [1] - 11:15 sanitation [4] 38:16, 38:18, 39:5, 41:20 satisfied [1] - 54:9 Saturday [3] - 12:1, 32:21, 33:2 schedule [1] - 43:5 scheduled [4] 20:25, 33:6, 33:16, 37:16 scheduling [1] - 47:8 SCOTT [1] - 1:15 Scott [1] - 4:4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 67 of 69

66

screening [4] - 10:8, 50:10, 51:15, 51:23
second [2] - 6:14, 26:24
Second [1] - 1:17 secure [3] - 11:15, 42:2, 42:3 security [7] - 9:25, 25:3, 33:8, 46:2, 46:14, 52:6, 53:1 see [3] - 43:24, 45:5, 47:4 seem [3] - 48:8, 48:20, 52:14 segment [1] - 30:4 select [1] - 19:12 selected [1] - 19:4 send [1] - 54:4 sending [2] - 50:17, 51:25 sense [3] - 37:25, 41:6, 47:21 sentences [1] - 45:8 separate [2] - 28:5, 28:12 separately [1] 29:11 served [1] - 8:23 service [3] - 31:4, 31:5, 42:3 SERVICE [1] - 1:20 Service [2] - 46:7, 52:17 services [3] - 10:14, 10:17, 11:16 Services [1] - 46:8 serving [1] - 25:2 set [1] - 41:23 sets [2] - 9:19, 11:12 setting [1] - 47:10 seven [1] - 26:2 several [2] - 34:16, 52:8 shift [3] - 8:11, 9:12, 18:4 shirts [1] - 41:15 shortage [1] - 22:18 shortages [2] 17:15, 33:7 shortness [4] - 20:2, 20:20, 21:1, 21:3 show [1] - 54:5 shower [8] - 34:7, 34:9, 34:13, 34:16, 34:17, 36:14, 38:2, 43:8 showers [5] - 29:6, 34:3, 34:4, 34:10, 34:23 shows [1] - 12:22

sick [17] - 11:14, 16:21, 16:22, 17:24, 18:6, 19:5, 19:6, 19:10, 20:13, 20:22, 20:23, 21:6, 21:8, 22:19, 50:19, 54:4, 54:10
sick-call [13] - 11:14, 16:21, 16:22, 17:24, 18:6, 19:5, 19:6, 19:10, 20:13, 20:22, 20:23, 21:6, 21:8
sick-calls [1] - 22:19 side [2] - 10:9, 42:3 sides [1] - 55:12 signage [3] - 31:9, 31:11 signed [2] - 6:4, 18:17 significant [11] 7:14, 9:12, 11:20, 14:4, 16:11, 17:11, 17:15, 34:24, 34:25, 36:23, 37:2 significantly [1] 13:3 signs [3] - 24:10, 25:24, 26:10 simply [2] - 5:20, 48:15 single [3] - 7:20, 7:24 site [9] - 8:7, 8:15, 9:4, 9:11, 9:16, 9:21, 17:2, 42:16, 42:19 situation [8] - 29:22, 30:15, 33:15, 36:25, 37:1, 43:1, 46:13, 47:24 six [5] - 19:20, 20:14, 20:16, 23:5, 23:15 Sixth [1] - 2:5 slightly [2] - 40:11, 47:9 small [1] - 17:18 smaller [5] - 8:25, 10:25, 11:1, 14:1 social [8] - 42:9, 42:12, 42:16, 42:17, 42:23, 43:12, 43:13, 43:15 solution [4] - 41:5, 41:11, 41:17, 41:18 someone [1] - 45:16 someplace [1] - 54:2 somewhat [2] 29:22, 32:9 sorry [5] - 4:7, 12:18, 26:7, 26:8, 39:18 sort [1] - 47:11

sound [1] - 45:17 speaker [1] - 5:20 speakers [4] - 3:8, 5:24 speaking [1] - 45:16 special [1] - 10:1 specific [2] - 15:5, 47:10 spent [5] - 25:10, 26:3, 26:19, 27:5, 27:22 SPITZER [3] - 1:14, 4:13, 4:17 Spitzer [1] - 4:16 sprayed [3] - 41:5, 41:7, 41:10 staff [61] - 3:4, 11:18, 16:14, 16:17, 16:23, 17:21, 17:25, 18:7, 21:9, 22:4, 22:9, 22:12, 23:1, 23:3, 24:23, 25:3, 25:19, 25:23, 26:12, 27:9, 27:13, 29:13, 31:12, 34:5, 34:10, 34:12, 34:19, 35:2, 35:4, 35:10, 35:14, 36:4, 36:10, 36:17, 37:1, 37:2, 38:5, 38:14, 38:15, 40:13, 41:7, 42:14, 42:15, 43:16, 43:17, 45:25, 46:2, 48:4, 51:4, 51:22, 51:24, 52:1, 52:4, 52:8, 52:10 staffers [1] - 51:14 staffing [8] - 17:15, 23:2, 33:7, 34:19, 34:21, 43:15, 51:2, 52:14 stage [2] - 9:15, 12:5 standard [1] - 40:11 stands [1] - 43:19 start [2] - 6:15, 42:6 started [2] - 21:14, 49:2 starting [1] - 15:25 state [1] - 6:9 States [7] - 2:16, 3:11, 5:12, 28:20, 40:15, 40:17, 57:16 STATES [2] - 1:1, 1:11 status [10] - 7:18, 9:7, 10:4, 11:4, 25:5, 26:20, 29:7, 29:14, 34:9, 34:14 steadily [1] - 13:6 stenographic [1] 57:5

step [1] - 30:14 STEVEN [1] - 1:19 Steven [4] - 14:10, 22:2, 28:1, 37:14 still [15] - 22:22, 32:6, 35:7, 43:14, 43:24, 45:3, 45:23, 46:15, 46:16, 47:4, 47:6, 47:7, 47:18, 50:3 Street [3] - 1:16, 2:5, 2:11 stressful [3] - 36:24, 37:1, 37:3 strictly [1] - 19:11 structured [2] 10:11, 10:15 stumbled [1] - 33:15 subject [1] - 57:9 submission [10] 16:21, 19:20, 19:22, 19:23, 20:15, 20:16, 20:17, 23:16, 23:17 submit [1] - 17:24 submitted [15] 18:18, 18:20, 18:21, 18:22, 18:25, 19:1, 19:3, 19:4, 19:6, 20:4, 20:5, 20:7, 20:9, 20:13, 21:7 submitting [2] 19:24, 21:6 substances [1] 35:23 success [1] - 48:20 sufficient [1] - 23:3 sum [2] - 21:5, 27:8 Superior [2] - 49:5, 50:24 supervisors [1] 10:23 supervisory [1] 42:14 supplement [4] 12:7, 12:12, 41:15, 55:16 supplementing [1] 12:13 supplies [1] - 41:2 switching [1] - 26:11 symptoms [8] 13:25, 20:2, 20:3, 20:18, 20:20, 21:2, 21:3, 24:10 system [15] - 30:21, 30:22, 31:3, 31:12, 31:15, 31:17, 31:22, 31:25, 32:2, 32:22, 32:23, 33:6, 33:17, 49:18, 54:24

T
T-shirts [1] - 41:15 tablets [2] - 46:9, 47:1 tail [1] - 13:8 taste [1] - 20:3 technical [1] - 49:20 technological [1] 57:10 telephone [6] 10:12, 29:5, 29:15, 30:1, 30:6, 30:7 TELEPHONE [1] 1:10 TELEPHONICALLY [1] - 2:7 Telephonically [2] 1:15, 2:3 telephonically [1] 2:15 temper [1] - 47:17 temperature [8] 26:12, 26:23, 26:25, 27:2, 27:3, 27:6, 27:7, 28:4 temperatures [2] 26:21, 26:22 ten [2] - 8:8, 47:14 tense [2] - 35:23, 36:20 tension [1] - 34:24 terms [18] - 7:17, 9:15, 15:23, 28:23, 33:11, 35:6, 45:2, 46:18, 47:2, 48:18, 49:22, 50:16, 50:23, 50:25, 52:18, 54:21, 55:4, 55:7 test [8] - 14:25, 20:11, 24:4, 24:8, 53:16, 53:20, 53:22 tested [9] - 13:9, 13:12, 14:1, 14:22, 15:8, 23:24, 24:1, 39:22, 50:4 testing [6] - 11:13, 12:22, 50:9, 50:10, 53:25, 54:3 tests [1] - 49:25 THE [81] - 1:1, 1:11, 1:14, 1:16, 1:20, 2:2, 2:4, 3:1, 3:15, 3:18, 3:21, 3:24, 4:2, 4:10, 4:15, 4:18, 4:20, 4:24, 5:2, 5:5, 5:8, 5:11, 5:15, 6:18, 6:24, 7:4, 12:11, 12:17, 12:24, 14:8, 15:11, 15:15,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 68 of 69

67

15:17, 21:13, 21:20, 21:22, 23:8, 23:20, 23:23, 24:13, 27:15, 27:24, 28:10, 28:17, 28:20, 28:23, 29:2, 30:25, 35:17, 37:5, 37:10, 37:12, 39:4, 39:14, 39:18, 40:1, 40:4, 40:15, 40:19, 42:8, 43:20, 44:5, 44:14, 44:18, 44:21, 45:14, 45:17, 46:15, 47:6, 48:5, 49:7, 49:12, 49:16, 50:12, 51:19, 52:12, 53:24, 54:17, 54:20, 55:18, 55:20
themselves [1] 37:6
therefore [2] - 38:24, 57:9
they've [3] - 3:9, 21:19, 32:1
thinking [1] - 52:18 three [16] - 7:3, 8:8, 13:2, 17:22, 18:21, 19:1, 19:21, 20:4, 20:15, 23:6, 23:15, 32:22, 32:23, 33:5, 33:19 three-week [1] - 33:5 threshold [1] - 7:5 throughout [3] 10:23, 12:5, 42:13 throwing [3] - 47:25, 48:17, 50:14 thrown [3] - 35:22, 35:23 Thursday [1] - 14:2 tier [2] - 30:5, 30:12 tiers [1] - 29:25 timeline [1] - 19:7 timeliness [2] 18:14, 19:11 timely [2] - 18:9, 18:10 tired [1] - 37:3 today [4] - 6:7, 12:8, 49:15, 55:15 today's [1] - 55:16 together [2] - 27:16, 27:18 took [2] - 27:20, 51:24 total [4] - 18:10, 20:12, 25:10, 27:18 totaled [1] - 27:22 towels [8] - 41:5, 41:7, 41:10, 41:12, 41:14, 41:16, 41:18,

43:23 train [1] - 51:18 TRANSCRIPT [1] -
1:10 transcript [2] - 57:5,
57:6 transferred [8] -
13:12, 14:21, 14:23, 14:25, 15:7, 50:1, 50:4, 54:2
treatment [2] - 8:16, 10:21
triage [1] - 20:22 TRO [1] - 11:17 true [2] - 57:4, 57:5 trying [5] - 28:16, 36:7, 48:12, 50:23, 50:25 turn [1] - 12:20 turning [1] - 19:18 turns [1] - 54:4 twice [7] - 24:23, 24:24, 25:23, 26:6, 26:13, 26:21, 28:4 twice-daily [1] - 28:4 two [21] - 7:2, 9:22, 12:23, 13:9, 13:11, 13:20, 14:3, 17:22, 18:21, 18:25, 19:20, 20:5, 20:6, 20:8, 20:14, 23:13, 23:25, 25:13, 27:6, 28:10, 33:19 types [1] - 52:8
U
unable [1] - 17:2 unannounced [1] 9:21 unavailable [1] 22:23 under [1] - 31:18 undercut [1] - 43:16 underscore [1] 12:3 understaffed [1] 37:1 understood [1] 16:6 unduly [1] - 36:22 unescorted [1] 9:21 unfortunately [1] 51:5 uniform [1] - 41:1 unimpeded [1] 16:25 UNION [1] - 1:15

unit [23] - 8:9, 9:10, 10:3, 11:13, 13:17, 14:3, 16:22, 17:14, 17:21, 18:1, 22:25, 24:19, 25:21, 29:9, 29:23, 30:4, 30:8, 30:19, 34:2, 38:1, 39:3, 41:1
united [1] - 2:16 United [6] - 3:11, 5:12, 28:20, 40:15, 40:17, 57:16 UNITED [2] - 1:1, 1:11 units [69] - 7:19, 8:8, 8:9, 8:12, 8:23, 9:1, 9:2, 9:5, 9:9, 9:23, 10:1, 10:2, 10:6, 10:7, 11:23, 13:15, 14:3, 16:3, 16:4, 16:7, 16:8, 16:13, 16:14, 16:15, 16:16, 16:19, 19:13, 19:15, 19:17, 21:6, 22:4, 22:5, 22:9, 22:11, 22:12, 22:13, 22:15, 23:5, 24:18, 26:11, 26:12, 26:14, 26:16, 26:17, 27:9, 28:3, 29:8, 31:9, 32:10, 32:11, 32:12, 32:13, 33:9, 33:11, 33:13, 36:7, 36:12, 38:2, 39:8, 39:21, 41:2, 42:5, 42:21, 43:2, 43:18 units' [1] - 17:10 Unity [4] - 10:17, 10:18, 20:21, 21:14 Unity's [1] - 24:6 unless [3] - 14:6, 16:17, 54:25 unlike [1] - 16:13 unmonitored [6] 30:24, 31:7, 32:16, 45:6, 47:25, 48:11 unmute [1] - 6:1 unsuccessful [1] 25:18 up [12] - 18:19, 18:24, 39:13, 40:7, 40:13, 47:17, 47:22, 48:6, 49:11, 52:23, 53:5, 54:14 urgent [2] - 20:24, 27:10 US [3] - 15:15, 44:18, 49:1 uses [1] - 38:13

V
vacancies [1] - 22:23 vacant [1] - 8:5 various [1] - 9:19 verify [1] - 32:20 versus [3] - 3:3, 7:20, 7:23 video [3] - 11:22, 42:20, 44:8 viewed [1] - 31:17 visit [8] - 8:7, 8:13, 8:15, 9:3, 9:4, 9:6, 9:11, 44:1 visited [4] - 9:24, 10:1, 10:6 visitor [1] - 10:8 visits [6] - 9:17, 9:22, 17:2, 22:5, 27:12, 42:19 vital [2] - 25:24, 26:10 volume [1] - 42:12 volunteer [1] - 51:14 vs [1] - 1:5

Wilson [1] - 5:9 wiped [1] - 38:13 wish [3] - 15:11, 52:23, 54:13 works [2] - 30:23, 31:12 write [1] - 17:6 writing [2] - 12:15 written [5] - 12:6, 12:14, 14:13, 19:8, 55:8
Y
Young [1] - 15:6 yourselves [1] 55:21

W

wait [1] - 15:20 walk [1] - 22:4 WALKER [9] - 5:13, 15:16, 23:22, 28:22, 40:17, 44:19, 49:15, 54:19, 56:1 walker [1] - 5:11 Walker [3] - 23:20, 49:12, 54:17 walls [1] - 39:10 wants [1] - 6:10 warden [2] - 10:20, 10:21 Washington [7] 1:6, 1:17, 1:22, 2:6, 2:11, 2:18, 57:17 water [2] - 29:6, 33:24 wearing [6] - 37:17, 37:19, 37:20, 37:21 website [1] - 31:9 week [8] - 7:13, 9:3, 13:21, 29:24, 31:21, 33:5, 35:11, 42:6 weekend [1] - 40:10 weeks [7] - 7:15, 8:19, 13:2, 13:11, 13:20, 32:22, 32:23 WILSON [2] - 2:9, 5:10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-4 Filed 05/26/20 Page 69 of 69

68

1

u uu

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 20
EXHIBIT E

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
QUINCY BOOTH, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-00849 (CKK)

DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN JO LANDERKIN

Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1746, I, Kathleen Jo Landerkin, declare and state as follows:

I. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years, competent to testify to the matters

contained in this declaration, and testify based on my personal knowledge acquired in the course

of my official duties, including my daily observations of conditions and procedures at District of

Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC) facilities. I previously submitted a declaration in this

matter [21-2].

2. I am the Deputy Warden with DOC's Central Detention Facility (CDF). In this role,

I am responsible for the care and well-being of all residents housed in DOC's CDF. I am also

responsible for the supervision of all DOC uniformed staff at the CDF. I have worked for DOC

since January 2018.

3. I provide this declaration to inform the Court of DOC's health and safety

precautions related to COYID-19.

4.

To ensure residents have the opportunity to exchange dirty linens and clothing for

clean ones, correctional officers are required to track the laundry exchanges for linens, uniforms,

and personal laundry.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 20
5. On April 25, 2020, DOC began requiring correctional officers in CDF to verify that each cell is clean every day, and mark the time the cell was checked on the Housing Unit Cell Cleaning Verification Form. Attachment 1 is a sample of the form.
6. On April 24, 2020, DOC also began requiring correctional officers in CDF to note that common areas and high-touch surfaces are cleaned every two hours on a Housing Unit Sanitation Checklist. Attachment 2 is a sample of the form.
7. On April 25,2020, DOC began requiring correctional officers at CDF to complete the COVID-19 Housing Unit Checklist after each shift. On the form, correctional officers are asked to note whether: (1) the housing unit has cleaning and hygiene supplies, (2) staff and residents wear masks, (3) all residents were allowed to shower and allowed one hour out of their cells, (4) residents were reminded to social distance, (5) COVID-19 information was discussed during roll call, and (6) any residents reported feeling ill. Attachment 3 is a sample of the form.
8. The shift supervisor verifies after each shift that the correctional officers have completed the Housing Unit Cell Cleaning Verification Form, the Housing Unit Sanitation Checklist, and the COVID-19 Housing Unit Checklist, and will discipline officers for failure to complete the forms. Though instances occur in which officers fail to properly complete the form, officers' overall compliance with using the form has improved in recent weeks.
9. On April 9, 2020, a specified program analyst calls correctional officers at all housing units in their assigned facility twice a day Monday through Friday (and on weekends beginning May 16, 2020). During the call, the program analyst asks if there are any cleaning supplies needed on the unit, confirms that the two-hour cleanings are being done, and confirms that documentation is being completed. The program analyst then informs CDF leadership and supervisors of the results of the check-ins, and additional supplies are provided to housing units as
2


Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 20
needed. Program analysts began documenting these calls on April 30, 2020, and Attachment 4 is a sample of the form.
10. Since May 10, 2020, DOC began requmng supervisors to conduct two unannounced walkthroughs on each unit twice a week to ensure that COYID-19 precautionary measures are being adhered to. Supervisors track their observations on a COYID-19 Housing Unit Supervisor Checklist. Supervisors will note any deficiencies and rectify any issues they note. Attachment 5 is sample of the form.
11. For a short period of time, a small number of residents in isolation at CDF could not access the rolling phone cart used for legal calls and instead were permitted to make legal calls from a case manager's office or in the unit recreation room. Currently there are no residents who cannot access the rolling phone cart. The rolling phone cart used in the isolation unit is cleaned by irunate details.
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
KATHLEEN JO LANDERKIN
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 20
ATTACHMENT 1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 20
ATTACHMENT 2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 14 of 20
ATTACHMENT 3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 15 of 20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 16 of 20
ATTACHMENT 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 17 of 20

Housing Unit 5‐18‐20 PM SO1 SO2 SO3 SE2 SE3 SW2 SW3 N01 NO2 NO3 NW1 NW2 NE1 NE2 NE3

Time 3:34 3:35 3:36 3:38 3:39 3:40 3:42 3:43 3:45 3:46 3:49 3:50 3:51 3:51 3:57

Names Cpl. Gause Cpl. Gutierrez Cpl. Freeman Pv. Akanbi Cpl. Clark Officer Bembry Officer Nwachukwu
Melton Cpl. Namato Sgt. Jefferson Sgt. Wallace Officer T. Jones Officer Onikoro Officer Adenuge Cpl. Oyelami

Notes Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing units was sanitized. Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing units was sanitized. Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing units was sanitized. Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing units was sanitized. Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing units was sanitized. Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing units was sanitized. Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing units was sanitized. Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing units was sanitized. Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing units was sanitized. Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing units was sanitized Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing units was sanitized. Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing units was sanitized. Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing units was sanitized. Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing units was sanitized. Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing units was sanitized

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 18 of 20
ATTACHMENT 5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 19 of 20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-5 Filed 05/26/20 Page 20 of 20

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-6 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 14
EXHIBIT F

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-6 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-6 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-6 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-6 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 14
ATTACHMENT 1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-6 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-6 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 14
ATTACHMENT 2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-6 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 14
. ·~ -T·~r:~· -~~·~.:~~-:~~·>(·>·::~::~>·~=~°-.-~~--~~;~.~':;~J--~-.~.:.,:.·.:_.;...,_7_:~~:t :..~.-..l --~· ~--. ~··~ "·;._~ ~:~;.j-;.:..~ .~ ~~·~ ~ ... ·~.--~ . ·,
Housing Unit Sanitation .Checklist

f.Y:Ll&J.E_GEJ7E._r-A__ Print Name:

Signature: ---..,..,..-=----w+-+-·

~ Unit: ____C_'t_ __ ·

Date: _5-h1_L~

Areas to Be Sanitized Inmate Telephones
(after each use)
Tables/Chairs/ Benches

All Dc0: :;11cbs/Handles

I T/V -;;-i·:-:.;··;,~::.-,;ot~

Iron~·-'- J t_, i L· l.) l.)

v·--·+-- ·· L-...

. ---·----

en j

• !

(' \Vlo!Un'.a.... o

'1.· )!1· ..dL~.-\•..-.-J..~-i J11..·..",,i.0._

Il an cl oI ox ,( anr. er eac1h

/ use)
All stair and tier rai!ings

Exercise Equipment/ Pull-Up Bars (After each use)
Unit Mail/Sick Call/I GP
boxes Kiosk screen and box (After each use)

Shift 8a.m. - Bp.m.

8:00am · lO:OOam 12:00pm 2:00pm 4:00pm 6:00pm

Initial here to indicate you adhered to cleaning after each use

Ai\
A· A A· tz ~,_fl, !-g-rz A·~ A·t---
A, A 1i. fZ 1_Jr_~_A-:_1 __ -'~ f6r 'fl_ Jl -/L- I
A' A k' ~-Jlt-'-~I ~\fl I~· 11__ I A.~

Initia.l here to indic2t::: v.ou adhered to ci"?2ning after each use

I I

NfJr

l T A'A A.fl k ~ rt--J .A-· (l_ ~ ~ /L I k'~

Initial here to indicate you adhered to cleaning after each use

/\,A

A,A A·fL {J-fl rfr- (l fJr,(L
Initial here to indicate you adhered to cleaning after each use
A·k

f'1 L (v

Cleaning Times:
Initial each, box under the time to indicate you completed the task.
\
Each shift shall turn this paperwork in \Nith their shift packet. The Shift Captain will ensure the form is completed properiy and a copy is scanned to The Deputy Warden and Ms. Anecika Points.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-6 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 14
ATTACHMENT 3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-6 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-6 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 14
ATTACHMENT 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-6 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 14

5‐15‐20 P.M. CTF Open Housing Unit SMUA SMUB C2A C2B C3A C3B C4A C4C D1B D2A D2B E2A E4A E4B M82 M96

Time

Name

4:30 P.M. Jerry Clinton

4:31 P.M. Parease Buckner

4:32 P.M. Howard Johnson

4:54 P.M. Kerrlyn Emmanuel

4:33 P.M. Kenneth Knawuba

4:35 P.M. Goodwin Okere

4:36 P.M. Aderemi Olojede

4:38 P.M. Rahman Alebiosu

4:40 P.M. Dominic Okeke

4:47 P.M. Daquez Harrell

4:39 P.M. Crystal Warderick

4:47 P.M. Jacqueline Hewitt

4:48 P.M. Shamika Hill

4:55 P.M. Gina Summers

4:52 P.M. Gloria Pryor

4:53 P.M. Slyvester Corneh

Notes Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing unit was sanitized Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing unit was sanitized Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing unit was sanitized Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing unit was sanitized Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing unit was sanitized Need peroxide spray , reported the housing unit was sanitized Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing unit was sanitized Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing unit was sanitized Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing unit was sanitized Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing unit was sanitized Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing unit was sanitized Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing unit was sanitized Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing unit was sanitized Need peroxide spray , reported the housing unit was sanitized Need peroxide spray , reported the housing unit was sanitized Have all cleaning supplies, reported the housing unit was sanitized

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-6 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 14
ATTACHMENT 5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-6 Filed 05/26/20 Page 14 of 14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 127
EXHIBIT G

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 127

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 127

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 127

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 127

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 127

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 127
ATTACHMENT 1

AWCAaRsDe /1C:2O0-NcvT-0R0A84C9T-CKK

2. Contract Number

3. Effective Date

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A

12-MAY-2020

5. Issued By: George G. Lewis, CPPO

Code

Document 18C.o2m-Cp7raephteiFonnislievedH0az5a/rd2o6us/2M0ateriPalsa(g“HeAZ8MoATf”1) 27
Environmental Cleaning Services related to the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Coronavirus-19
Pandemic for the Department of Corrections.
4. Requisition/Purchase Request/Project No.

Page of Pages

1

53

6. Administered by (If other than line 5) Domonique L. Banks, Contract Specialist

Department of General Services Contracts and Procurement Division 2000 14th Street, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20009

Department of General Services Contracts and Procurement Division 2000 14th Street, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20009

8. Name and Address of Contractor (No. street, city, county, state and Zip Code)
ROCK SOLID DISTRICT GROUP, LLC. 1025 Connecticut Avenue | Suite 1000

8. Delivery

FOB Origin

Other (See Schedule Section F)

9. Discount for prompt payment Net thirty (30) Days

Washington, D.C. 20036

Arvella Gardner | (202) 239‐7600 | calltherock@ymail.com

Code

Facility

11. Ship to/Mark For

Code

10. Submit invoices to the Address shown in item 6 (2 copies unless otherwise specified)
12. Payment will be made by Government of the District of Columbia


Code

Item 6

13. Reserved for future use

14. Accounting and Appropriation Data

ENCUMBRANCE CODE:

15A. Item

15B. Supplies/Services

15C. Qty.

15D. Unit

15E. Unit Price 15F. Amount

0001

FIXED-PRICE MONTHLY SERVICE RATE

EA

MONTHLY $209,517.92

$628,553.76

TOTAL AMOUNT OF CONTRACT 

AGGREGATE NTE $653,553.76

16. Table of Contents

(X) Section

Description

Page

(X)

Section

Description

Page

PART I – THE SCHEDULE

PART II – CONTRACT CLAUSES

X

A

Solicitation/Contract Form

I

Contract Clauses

X

B

Supplies or Services and Price/Cost

X

C

Description/Specifications/Work

Statement

X

D

Packaging and Marking

PART III – LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER

ATTACHMENTS

J

List of Attachments

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

X

E

Inspection and Acceptance

X

F

Deliveries or Performance

K

Representations, Certifications and Other

Statements of Offerors

X

G

Contract Administration data

L

Instructions, conditions & notices to offerors

X

H

Special Contract Requirements

M

Evaluation factors for award

EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE

ISSUE DATE Friday, March 13, 2020

Contracting Officer will complete Item 17 or 18 as applicable

17. CONTRACTOR’S NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT (Contractor is required to sign this document and return copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees to furnish and deliver all items, perform all the services set forth or otherwise identified above and on any continuation sheets, for the consideration stated herein. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be subject to and governed by the following documents: (a) this award/contract, (b) the solicitation, if any, and (c) such provisions, representations, certifications, and specifications, as are attached or

18. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.) Your offer on
Solicitation Number DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A, including the additions or changes made by which additions or changes are set forth in full above, is hereby accepted as to the items listed above and on any continuation sheets. This award consummates the contract which consists of the following documents: (a) the Government’s solicitation and your offer, and (b) this award/contract. No further contractual document is necessary.

incorporated by reference herein. (Attachments are listed herein.)

19A. Name and Title of Signer (Type or print)

Arvella J. Gardner, President
19B. Name of Contractor

19C. Date Signed

20A. Name of Contracting Officer
George G. Lewis, CPPO Chief of Contracts & Procurement, Chief Procurement Officer

20B. District of Columbia

20C. Date Signed

12-MAY-2020

12-MAY-2020

(Signature of person authorized to sign)
Government of the District of Columbia

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES

B.1
B.1.1 B.2 B.2.1 B.3
B.3.1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 127
SECTION B CONTRACT TYPE, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COST
Persuant to D.C. Code § 7–2304. Issuance of emergency executive order; contents; actions of Mayor after issuance This Emergency Contract (the “Contract”) DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A is made by and between the District of Columbia Government (the “District”) by and through its Department of General Services (“DGS”), on behalf of the Department of Corrections (“DOC”), collectively (the “District”) and Rock Solid District Group, LLC. (“Rock Solid” or "Contractor") to provide Comprehensive Hazardous Materials (“HAZMAT”) Environmental Cleaning Services related to the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Coronavirus-19 Pandemic for the Department of Corrections. These services shall be performed the Department of Corrections’ Central Detention Facility/D.C. Jail, located at 1901 D Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003.
The Contractor shall provide all labor, management, supervision, tools, equipment, storage, vehicles, approved Center for Biocide Chemistries (“CBC”), Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) antimicrobial fighting cleaning product supplies, and approved pandemic Personal Protection Equipment (”PPE”), and all else necessary to successfully perform the required services on an emergency basis for a period up-to 90-days.
TYPE OF CONTRACT In accordance with 27 DCMR Chapter 47 of Title 27 - 4712 FIXED-PRICE CONTRACTS; the District awards the firm, fixed monthly service rate contract with supplies and materials reimbursed in accordance with 27 DCMR Chapter 47 of Title 27 – 4713 COST REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACTS.
The Contract shall contain the following types of contract components:
a) Firm-fixed Monthly Services Rate; and b) Cost of supplies/materials compensated on a reimbursable basis and charged to the district
with not more than a 3% mark-up.
PRICE
The firm-fixed, monthly service rate and cost reimbursement ceiling as identified in Section [B.3.1] and [B.3.1.1] (respectively) shall be the Contractor’s sole method of compensation and as such, shall be sufficient to cover all of the cost necessary to provide services including, but not limited to, all labor, supplies (to include all approved Center for Biocide Chemistries, EPA and CDC antimicrobial fighting cleaning product supplies and approved pandemic Personal Protection Equipment (”PPE”)), materials, equipment, tools, vehicles, transportation, travel to and from work sites, per diem, subcontractor cost, home office overhead, profit, insurance coverages and provisions as required in Section [I.14] and, all else necessary to perform all work related to providing the District with safe and proper provision of required services as described herein.
Price Schedule All antimicrobial fighting cleaning product supplies (cleaning “solvents’) and CDC approved pandemic, Personal Protection Equipment (”PPE”) shall be furnished to the District at Contractor cost plus NO-MORE than a 3% markup. The Department will not pay for or otherwise reimburse the Contractor for cost of any other equipment purchase and or rented.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 2 of 53

B.3.2 B.3.2.1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 127

B.3.1 PRICE SCHEDULE
CLIN DESCRIPTION 0001 Firm‐Fixed Daily Janitorial Services

UNIT

COST QTY

MTLY $ 209,517.92 3 $

TOTAL BASIC SERVICES

$ 209,517.92

$

EXTENDED COST
628,553.76 628,553.76

0002 CLEANING SUPPLY COST REIMBURSEMENT CEILING SECTION [B.3.2.1]

$

25,000.00

$

653,553.76

90‐DAY EMERGENCY CONTRACT COST BREAKDOWN BY PERIOD

DESCRIPTION

UNIT

RATE QTY EXTENDED COST

12‐MAY‐2020 THRU 31‐MAY‐2020 DAILY $ 6,983.93 20 $

139,678.61

1‐JUNE‐2020 THRU 31‐JULY‐2020 MTLY $ 209,517.92 2 $ 1‐AUGUST‐2020 THRU 10‐AUGUST‐2020 DAILY $ 6,983.93 10 $

419,035.84 69,839.31

CLEANING SUPPLY COST REIMBURSEMENT CEILING EA $ 25,000.00 1 $ 90‐DAY EMERGENCY CONTRACT COST $

25,000.00 653,553.76

GRAND TOTAL EMERGENCY CONTRACT (EC) NOT‐TO‐EXCEED CONTRACT VALUE $

653,553.76

Cleaning Supply Cost Reimbursement
The Contractor will be reimbursed for all approved Center for Biocide Chemistries (“CBC”), Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) antimicrobial fighting cleaning product supplies (“solvents”), and approved pandemic, Personal Protection Equipment (”PPE”) collectively (“Cleaning Supplies”). Such cost for “cleaning supplies” will be reimbursed only when the following are complete: (i) the Contractor provides the Department with an invoice outlining the itemized cost of all approved cleaning supplies and materials as described in Section [B.3]. The invoice shall be itemized to include but at a minimum, a full list of individual supplies/materials (i.e. antimicrobial cleaning solvent, N95 respirator mask, Tyvek suites, etc.), quantity purchased, vendor cost of materials by line item, extended cost by material, and estimate shipping and arrival of materials; and (ii) the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) approves the invoice. The Cleaning Supply Reimbursable Cost shall-not exceed the established ordering ceiling as defined in Section [B.4.2.1.1] below for the term of the Emergency Contract. Cost of all materials and supplies shall be furnished to the District at Contractor cost plus NO-MORE than a 3% markup. The Department will not pay for or otherwise reimburse the Contractor for cost of any other equipment purchase and or rented.

Cost Reimbursement Supply/Material Ordering Ceiling The ordering maximum values for all Clean Supplies furnished to the District for the duration of the 90-day Emergency Contract Period shall be as identified in the table below:

ITEM DESCRIPTION

EMERGENCY CONTRACT PERIOD
(ECP) NOT‐TOEXCEED

Reimbursable "Cleaning Supply" Cost

$

25,000.00

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 3 of 53

B.3.3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 127
The Department is an exempt government agency and thus will neither owe, nor pay any sales tax imposed on the vendor for the purchase of any such materials or supplies. If and to the extent permitted under applicable law, the Department at its discretion, will complete any forms that the vendor may provide, to position and/or enable the vendor to purchase materials or supplies for this Contract, on a tax-free basis.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 4 of 53

C.1 C.1.1
C.2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 127
SECTION C SPECIFICATIONS/WORK STATEMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On March 11, 2020 Mayor Muriel Bowser declared a state of emergency pursuant to D.C. Code § 7–2304. Issuance of emergency executive order; contents; actions of Mayor in response to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) declaration of the imminent threat and spread of SARSCoV-2 (COVID-19) Coronavirus-19 as a world-wide Pandemic. The District of Columbia Government (the “District”) by and through its Department of General Services (“DGS”), on behalf of the Department of Corrections (“DOC”), collectively (the “District”) is committed to improving the quality, appearance and cleanliness of its real property assets throughout the District of Columbia including the Department of Corrections. The Department of General Services is responsible for the operations, maintenance and repair, including comprehensive janitorial and sanitation services for more than 36,000,000 gross square feet in owned or operated facilities across the District of Columbia. The Contractor shall provide Comprehensive Hazardous Materials (“HAZMAT”) Environmental Cleaning Services related to the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Coronavirus-19 Pandemic for the Department of Corrections. These services shall be performed the Department of Corrections’ Central Detention Facility/D.C. Jail, located at 1901 D Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003.
APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS AND REQUIRED LICENSURES The following are applicable to this procurement and the resulting contract; and are hereby incorporated by reference.

No.

Document Type

Title

Version/ Date

1

U.S. Law

U.S. Department of Labor

Most Recent

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

General Contractor’s Quality Control Plan ‐ 29 CFR Part 1900

Subparts A‐P

Occupational Safety and Health Standards 29 CFR, Part 1910,

Construction Contractor’s Quality Control Plan – 29 CFR Part

1926

Hazardous and Toxic Materials

2

U.S. Law

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 42 USC sections 6901‐6976
Concerning Hazardous Substances and Waste

Most Recent

3

U.S. Law

40 CFR, Parts 260, 261, 264, 265, 268, 270, and 273

Most Recent

4

Executive Order 13101

5

OCP Document (Directive)

6

Industry Standards and

Specifications

Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition
OCP Directive 1303.00 Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
Vacuum Cleaner "Green Label/Green Label Plus" Testing Program

Most Recent Most Recent Most Recent

7

Industry Standards and

Specifications

ANSI/ASEE A1264.2‐2006 Provision of Slip Resistance on Walking/Working Surfaces
Guidelines

Most Recent

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 5 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 127

C.3 C.3.1 C.3.1.1 C.3.1.2 C.3.1.3
C.3.1.4
C.3.1.5

8

Consent Decree

9

Federal Guidelines

10

Industry Standard

11 EPA’s Registered Antimicrobial products for Use Against
Novel Cornoavirus SARS‐CoV‐ 2, the Cause of COVID‐19

12 Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐19)‐ Fighting Products; Center for Biocide Chemistries.

13

Interim Environmental

Cleaning and Disinfection

Recommendations; Centers

for Disease Control and

Prevention.

14

District of Columbia

District ‐ Sierra Club Consent Decree Center for Disease Control Protocols ASTM E1971‐05(2011): Standard Guide for Stewardship for the Cleaning of Commercial and Institutional Buildings https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020‐ 03/documents/sars‐cov‐2‐list_03‐03‐2020.pdf
https://www.americanchemistry.com/Novel‐Coronavirus‐ Fighting‐Products‐List.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019‐ ncov/community/home/cleaning‐disinfection.html
Guidance Memorandum ‐ EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY District‐wide guidance for enhanced cleaning in all public facilities to protect against COVID‐19 spread

Most Recent Most Recent
Most Recent 03‐March‐2020
05‐March‐2020
05‐March‐2020
12‐March‐2020

DEFINITIONS & ACRONYMS
Definitions. The following are definitions used for the purpose of this solicitation:
Acceptance: constitutes acknowledgment that the supplies or services conform to applicable contract quality and quantity requirements.
Antimicrobial mold and mildew cleaner refers to a type of disinfecting product designed to eliminate specific types of mold or mildew.
Approval: the Department and/or the District has reviewed submittals, deliverables, or administrative documents (e.g., insurance certificates, etc.), and has determined the documents conform to contract requirements. Department and/or District approval shall not relieve the Contractor of responsibility for complying with Federal, District, local laws and regulations.
Contracting Officer (CO): Chief Contracting Officer and Contracting Officers with delegated authority from the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) are authorized to enter into contractual relationships on behalf of the District or Department, in accordance with their delegated authority. Further, only the CPO and COs are authorized to modify or make changes to the terms and conditions of the contract via the issuance of written contract modifications, change orders, change directives and/or task orders. Thus, actions or obligations of the Contractor, that are not authorized by the CPO or COs are at the sole risk and expense of the Contractor.
Contractor: the individual, firm, company, corporation, partnership, or combination thereof, including joint ventures, contracting with the Department to the contract work. The Contractor is one of the parties to this Contract.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 6 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 14 of 127

C.3.1.6 C.3.1.7 C.3.1.8 C.3.1.9 C.3.1.10 C.3.1.11 C.3.1.12 C.3.1.13
C.3.1.14 C.3.1.15 C.3.1.16

Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR): A District employee(s) responsible for technical direction and administration, not authorization, of the services under the contract, or task orders issued against IDIQ contracts, as applicable, unless otherwise authorized by the CO. Correction: the elimination of a defect.
Carpet cleaners include products that are used to perform routine cleaning or spot cleaning of carpets, rugs, and upholstery. This category includes, but is not limited to, products that use shampooing, dry foam, absorption, and wet extraction.
Concentrate refers to a product that, as sold, must be diluted by water prior to its intended use.
Deficiency: a lack of quality and/or sub-standard of work. For purpose of this solicitation, a deficiency is an item, or condition that is considered sub-standard, or below minimum expectations with regard to code, work product and safety.
Disinfectant refers to a substance, or mixture of substances that destroys or irreversibly inactivates bacteria, fungi and viruses, but not necessarily their spores.
Furniture polish refers to fluid that is designed to clean, refine, or protect furniture through polishing.
Hazardous Materials "means any waste, substances, radiation or materials whether solids, liquids or gases that are:
a) hazardous, toxic, infectious, explosive, radioactive, carcinogenic or mutagenic;
b) now or become defined as pollutants, contaminants, hazardous wastes or substances, toxic substances, radioactive materials, solid waste or other similar designations in or otherwise subject to District and Federal regulations;
c) present on the premises and can cause or threaten to cause, a nuisance pursuant to applicable statutory or common law upon the premises, facilities or properties; and/or
d) polychlorinated biphenyl’s (PCBs), asbestos, lead-based paint, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, petroleum and petroleum products (including gasoline, crude oil etc.) that pose a hazard to human health, safety, natural resources, industrial hygiene or the environment or otherwise pose an impediment to working conditions."
High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) refers to an air filter designed according to federal standards to remove 99.97% of airborne particles measuring 0.3 micrometers in diameter. HEPA vacuum cleaners trap dust and other irritants, improving indoor air quality.
Holidays: days observed by the District of Columbia Government.
Industry Standards means the highest level of industry-developed best standards, practices or procedures (including any standards, practices or procedures established by the applicable trade associations or under Applicable Laws).

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 7 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 15 of 127

C.3.1.17 C.3.1.18 C.3.1.19 C.3.1.20
C.3.1.21 C.3.1.22 C.3.1.23
C.3.1.24 C.3.1.25 C.3.1.26 C.3.1.27 C.3.1.28

Inspections is a systematic practice of monitoring, at regularly scheduled interval inspections of the infrastructure conditions, unit placement, usage, signage/markings in support of DCMR
Inspections: a systematic practice of monitoring, at regularly scheduled interval inspections of the infrastructure conditions, unit placement, usage, signage/markings in support of DCMR mandates, etc.
Lime and scale removers are products designed to remove the alkaline (a chalky mineral deposit) resulting from water use in locations such as showers, tubs, sinks, and toilets.
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) refers to a document that contains information on the potential hazards of a chemical product and how to work safely with the product. The MSDS also contains information on the use, storage, and handling of the hazardous material, and how to respond in case of an accident or spill. The MSDS contains much more information about the material than the product label. However, it is important to note that the MSDS may not list every human and environmental impact associated with the product.
Normal Working Hours – is the time period of: 6:00am – 8:00pm.
OSHA – Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the Federal Government agency responsible for providing the rules and regulations on safety and health requirements in the work place.
Prevailing Wage The prevailing wage is defined as the hourly wage, usual benefits and overtime, allegedly paid to the majority of workers, laborers, and mechanics within a particular area as determined by the Service Contract Action Wage Determination, Davis Bacon and or the District of Columbia Living Wage Act; whichever of the applicable is higher. Prevailing wages are established by regulatory agencies for each trade and occupation employed in the performance of public work, as well as by State Departments of Labor or their equivalents.
Quality Assurance (QA) means any actions taken in order to ensure services meet Contract requirements.
Quality Assurance Evaluation are the methodologies implemented to assess the adequacy of Contractor performance.
Quality Control (QC) refers to Contractor developed and implemented safeguards that ensure quality service are provided to satisfy the requirements of the Contract.
Quality Control Plan is a document that describes the actions (measurements, inspections, quality checks or monitoring of process parameters) required at each phase of a process to assure the process outputs will conform to pre-determined requirements.
Real-time The actual time during which a process or event occurs. Relating to a system in which input data is processed, so that it is available virtually immediately for feedback.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 8 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 16 of 127

C.3.1.29

Response Time means the time period in which the Contractor, after initial notification by the District, is required to be physically on the premises at the work site, with appropriate tools, equipment, and materials, ready to perform the required Work.

C.3.1.30
C.3.1.31
C.3.1.32
C.3.2 C.3.2.1 C.3.2.2 C.3.2.3 C.3.2.4 C.3.2.5 C.3.2.6 C.3.2.7 C.3.2.8 C.3.2.9 C.3.2.10 C.3.2.11

SalesForce: is a cloud-based CRM (Customer Relationship Management) software system. Salesforce provides a platform for work order management, enabling DGS to track work order Service Level Agreements (SLA’s) and oversee city-wide facilities work order request, and monitor contractor’s costs and performance. Contractors are required to update the system at a timely manner and understand DGS will use the data as a contractor work performance indicator in annual and quarterly reviews.

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are organic chemicals that evaporate at room temperature under normal indoor conditions. VOCs include a variety of chemicals that are emitted by a wide array of products, such as: cleaning supplies, building materials and furnishings, office equipment, paints and lacquers, paint strippers, pesticides, etc. Many types of VOCs have been linked to a variety of adverse health effects, including: eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches; loss of concentration; nausea; damage to the liver, kidney, and central nervous system; allergic skin reaction; fatigue; dizziness; and cancer mandates, etc.

Wage Determination A wage determination is a listing of wage rates and fringe benefit rates for each labor category of workers which the U.S. Department of Labor has determined to be prevailing in a given area. It establishes standards for wage rates and safety and health protections for employees performing work on covered Government contracts.

Acronyms The following are acronyms used for the purpose of this solicitation:

ANSI

American National Standards Institute

BLRA

refers to the DCRA’s Business Licensing Regulation Administration

BOCA

Building Official Code Administrators

CERP

Contractor’s Emergency Response Plan

CO

Contracting Officer

COTR

Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative

DCMR

District of Columbia Municipal Regulations

DOC

Department of Corrections

DCRA

Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs

DGS

Department of General Services

DSLBD

DC Department of Small and Local Business Development

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 9 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 17 of 127

C.3.2.12 C.3.2.13 C.3.2.14 C.3.2.15 C.3.2.16 C.3.2.17

EMCS EPA MSDS NFPA NIOSH OSHA

C.3.2.18 C.3.2.19 C.3.2.20 C.3.2.21 C.3.2.22 C.3.2.23 C.3.2.24

PBS PPE QA QAP QC QCP SCP

Energy Management Control Systems Environmental Protection Agency Material Safety Data Sheet National Fire Protection Association National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the Federal Government agency responsible for providing the rules and regulations on safety and health requirements in the workplace Public Buildings Maintenance Guides and Time Standards Personal Protective Equipment Quality Assurance Quality Assurance Protocol Quality Control Quality Control Program Strike Contingency Plan

C.4
C.5 C.5.1

BACKGROUND The District of Columbia Government (the “District”) by and through its Department of General Services (“DGS”), on behalf of the Department of Corrections (“DOC”), collectively (the “District”) is committed to improving the quality, appearance and cleanliness of its real property assets throughout the District of Columbia including the Department of Corrections. The Department of General Services provides operations, management, maintenance, engineering, janitorial and exterior grounds maintenance and related services for over eight hundred fifty (850) properties with approximately 36,000,000 in gross square feet. These properties include municipal buildings, schools, parks and recreation centers, warehouses, and residential properties both occupied and vacant. As a service-providing agency, positive customer service and rapid response and resolution to tenant issues, projects, and service requests are paramount to the Department’s operations mission and values.
REQUIREMENTS & STANDARDS OF SERVICES
Requirements The Contractor shall be prepared to take the steps necessary in order to mitigate and reduce the spread and effect of an influenza-like epidemic and or pandemic on behalf of the District through

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 10 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 18 of 127

its custodial/housekeeping operations under the current global threat associated with the SARSCoV-19 (COVID-19) Coronavirus-19 epidemic. Given the unpredictable length and severity of a pandemic, the Contractor’s shall link their planned actions to the periods and phases established by the World Health Organization (“WHO”) and the Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) throughout an epidemic and or pandemic cycle. The Contractor shall provide environmental HAZMAT level, cleaning services at the Department of Corrections, Central Detention Facility/D.C. Jail, located at 1901 D Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 focusing on all hightouch surfaces and areas, to include but is not limited to: desks, computer mouse & keyboards, phones, lockers, cubbies, window sills and counter tops, doors, frames, doorknobs and push bars, elevator buttons, light switches, handrails, bathroom floors, faucet handles, toilet handles, toilet stall door locks, towel dispenser and hand driers, shower, kitchen areas cafeterias, office common areas, nurse and other rooms. These services shall be carried out in accordance with the U.S. Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Environmental Cleaning and Disinfection Recommendations without restriction.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/infection-control/control-recommendations.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/organizations/cleaning-disinfection.html

C.5.1.1 C.5.1.2

https://coronavirus.dc.gov/page/coronavirus-resources
Chemicals approved for use: Refer to the links provided in Section C.2 [11] - EPA, [12] - CBC and , [13] – CDC Registered Antimicrobial Products for Use Against Novel Coronavirus SARSCoV-2, the Cause of COVID-19. The Contractor shall follow manufacturers recommendations for proper use, concentrations, and applicable surfaces. It is the contractor’s sole responsibility to use the right chemicals for the right application.
The Contractor shall follow District and Federal Regulations as well SARS-CoV-19 guidance provided by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) to ensure their personnel are protected to include but not limited to:

C.5.1.3

 Personal Protective Equipment Training,  Daily temperature measurement/testing of all personnel to confirm a temperature is not
present and shall be email to the COTR daily.  Respirator use and fit testing,  Contractor to provide records of all testing prior to commencement of work,  Maintain required record keeping,  Contractor must maintain at least one supervisor onsite with Coronavirus disease (COVID-
19) training: Online training.  Contractor shall maintain Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for all chemicals onsite and updated
as revision are issued.
Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE)

Contractors are required to wear goggles, recommended respirators, Tyvek Coveralls or overalls and all else required to prevent further contamination and or the continued spread through

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 11 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 19 of 127

C.5.1.3.1
C.5.1.3.2 C.5.1.3.3 C.5.1.3.4
C.5.2 C.5.2.1 C.5.2.1.1

comprehensive environmental mitigation cleaning services in wake of a biological epidemic and or pandemic response measures. The Contractor’s staff shall comply with the CDC approved and appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as disposable gloves, gowns and N95 respirator mask when performing all tasks in the cleaning process, including handling trash. Personal clothing shall not be worn in way that it may be exposed to airborne dust aTnydp/eortext he particulates. The Contractor’s staff shall wear disposable coverall or reusable PPE can be worn (those approved for multiple use when strictly following manufacturers decontamination methods) but shall be changed out at end of each shift. All used coveralls should be collected in a used clothing bin for cleaning by professional decontamination by cleaners in accordance with individual manufacturer instructions. If temporary suits are worn, they shall be discarded in accordance with CDC guidelines, local and state regulations.
Gloves and shoe covers should be worn at all times. Gloves must be appropriate for each chemical used. It is recommended that all personnel performing COVID cleaning operations wear full/half face respirator (personnel performing fogging must wear a respirator). Additional PPE might be required based on the cleaning/disinfectant products being used and whether there is a risk of splash.
Gloves and gowns shall be removed carefully to avoid contamination of the wearer and the surrounding area. The Contractor’s staff shall be clean its hands after removing gloves. Gloves shall be removed after cleaning a room or area whether or not occupied by ill persons. The Contractor’s staff shall clean its hands immediately after gloves are removed.
Cleaning staff shall immediately report breaches in PPE (e.g., tear in gloves) or any potential exposures to their supervisor and the Contractor’s Contract Representative shall immediately report such breaches to the District COTR.
Standards of Services
Initial COVID Cleaning Event
Prior to COVID Cleaning Services the contractor shall:
(i) Ventilate the rooms/spaces prior to cleaning/disinfecting and allow to ventilate during cleaning if possible. If ventilation through open windows is not possible, use a high volume HEPA filter system to remove airborne particles from the air during cleaning. Temporarily increase the cleaning area’s humidity to approximately 50% Relative Humidity (RH) if possible.
(ii) Contractor shall perform general cleaning removing dirt and debris (this does not require approved disinfectants), this includes a mopping event. Clean all dust from horizontal surfaces with a towel dampened. This is done first to minimize re-aerosolization of stationary contaminated dust and particles due to nearby activity. Contractor shall be careful to use slow, smooth wiping action and change out or wet clean the towel on a regular basis to minimize re-aerosolization of the wiper dust and particulates.
(iii) Contractor shall not perform any sweeping (iv) Restrooms should receive special attention due to the tendency of the COVID-19 to
bioaccumulate within feces, vomit, sputum, and urine. Clean any surface that may have

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 12 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 20 of 127

C.5.2.1.2 C.5.2.3

blood, stool or body fluids on them taking established Blood-Borne Pathogen (BBP) universal precautions and disposal. (v) Vacuuming: Contractor shall vacuum carpeting and other fabrics. Vacuums used shall have High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filtration systems installed. Take appropriate precautions when changing the vacuum HEPA or pre-filter to minimize exposures to airborne dusts. Use change in bag procedures to change out vacuum filters.
Disinfection (i) Contractor shall perform trash-liner replacement and disinfection of all trash receptacles (ii) Contractor shall perform disinfection of all components such as desks, computer mouse &
keyboards, phones, lockers, cubbies, window sills and counter tops, doors, frames, doorknobs and push bars, elevator buttons, light switches, handrails, bathroom floors, faucet handles, toilet handles, toilet stall door locks, towel dispenser and hand driers, shower and locker rooms, kitchen areas cafeterias, office common areas, nurse and other rooms (an alcohol solution shall be used for all electronics). a) Do not dry the surface after applying the disinfectant. The surface that are disinfected
shall stay wet for the amount of time listed on the label (minimum of 30 seconds for most). This step is important because the contact time is what is required to kill the virus. Leave the surface you are cleaning wet with disinfectant for as many minutes as the product instructions require. It's not enough to just wipe a surface with a rag dampened with disinfectant. b) Pay special attention to properly disinfect window ledges and other commonly dusty surfaces. c) Disinfect all vertical surface up to 6 foot from floor, including but not limited to walls, windows, columns, doors, rails, etc. d) Clean and disinfect HVAC system or other ventilation grills including removing all caked-on debris, dust, grease, etc.
(i) Contractor shall disinfect floors by mopping with approved chemicals (this is the second round of mopping). Care must be taken to not dilute cleaning chemicals more than manufacturers recommendations. Precautions must be taken to not aerosolize the dirty cleaning liquid but instead use steady and sweeping mop swipes and careful, deliberate mop head squeezes. Efficacy for sanitizing or disinfecting is very dependent on three factors: a) concentration of the active ingredients, b) the duration of exposure of the pathogens to the active ingredients, and c) the surface material to be disinfected.
Fogging
Once disinfection cleaning is complete areas are to be identified by the DOC representative that can be fogged (Please note, a sprayer cannot be used as a substitute for a fogger). When fogging, contracted personnel must wear a full-face respirator with organic cartridges. Contractor shall perform fogging operations in areas identified by the representative, ensuring all surfaces are saturated. Limit access to the area fogged until no longer volatized.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 13 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 21 of 127

C.5.2.3.1 After conducting cleaning and fogging services:

C.5.2.4
C.5.2.4.1 C.5.2.4.1.1 C.5.2.4.1.2

(iii) Do not re-use any clothing used during cleaning. (iv) Launder items as appropriate in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. If
possible, launder items using the hottest appropriate water setting for the items and high temperature dry (if possible) items completely. (v) Inform laundry services of potential COVID-19 contamination if laundry is sent to external services for cleaning.
General Cleaning Standard The Contractor shall follow all guidelines as recommended by the Center for Disease Control (CDC). The following cleaning mechanisms and guidance shall be used and followed.
Surfaces Surfaces shall be cleaned using a detergent or soap and water prior to disinfection.
For disinfection, the Contractor shall dilute household bleach solutions, alcohol solutions with at least 70% alcohol, and most common EPA-registered household disinfectants should be effective.
Diluted household bleach solutions can be used if appropriate for the surface. Follow manufacturer’s instructions for application and proper ventilation. Check to ensure the product is not past its expiration date. Never mix household bleach with ammonia or any other cleanser. Unexpired household bleach will be effective against coronaviruses when properly diluted.

Prepare a bleach solution by mixing:
1. (5) tablespoons (1/3rd cup) bleach per gallon of water or; 2. (4) teaspoons bleach per quart of water,

a. Products with EPA-approved emerging viral pathogens claims are expected to be effective against COVID-19 based on data for harder to kill viruses. Follow the manufacturer’s instructions for all cleaning and disinfection products (e.g., concentration, application method and contact time, etc.).

b. For soft (porous) surfaces such as carpeted floor, rugs, and drapes, remove visible contamination if present and clean with appropriate cleaners indicated for use on these surfaces. After cleaning:

i. If the items can be laundered, launder items in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions using the warmest appropriate water setting for the items and then dry items completely.

ii. Otherwise, use products with the EPA-approved emerging viral pathogens claims that are suitable for porous surfaces.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 14 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 22 of 127

C.5.2.5 C.5.2.5.1

Daily Precautionary COVID Cleaning Prior to Daily Disinfection Services the contractor shall:

C.5.2.5.2

(i) Contractor shall perform general cleaning removing dirt and debris. Contractor shall be careful to use slow, smooth wiping action and change out or wet clean the towel on a regular basis to minimize re-aerosolization of the wiper dust and particulates.
(ii) Contractor shall not perform any sweeping.
Disinfection

C.5.2.5.3

(i) Contractor shall disinfection of all trash receptacles (ii) Contractor shall perform disinfection of all components such as desks, computer mouse &
keyboards, phones, lockers, cubbies, window sills and counter tops, doors, frames, doorknobs and push bars, elevator buttons, light switches, handrails, bathroom floors, faucet handles, toilet handles, toilet stall door locks, towel dispenser and hand driers, shower and locker rooms, kitchen areas cafeterias, office common areas, nurse and other rooms (an alcohol solution shall be used for all electronics). a) Do not dry the surface after applying the disinfectant. The surface that are disinfected
shall stay wet for the amount of time listed on the label (minimum of 30 seconds for most). This step is important because the contact time is what is required to kill the virus. Leave the surface you are cleaning wet with disinfectant for as many minutes as the product instructions require. It's not enough to just wipe a surface with a rag dampened with disinfectant. b) Pay special attention to properly disinfect window ledges and other commonly dusty surfaces. c) Clean and disinfect HVAC system or other ventilation grills including removing all caked-on debris, dust, grease, etc. (iii) Contractor shall disinfect floors by mopping with approved chemicals (this is the second round of mopping). Care must be taken to not dilute cleaning chemicals more than manufacturers recommendations. Precautions must be taken to not aerosolize the dirty cleaning liquid but instead use steady and sweeping mop swipes and careful, deliberate mop head squeezes. Efficacy for sanitizing or disinfecting is very dependent on three factors: a) concentration of the active ingredients, b) the duration of exposure of the pathogens to the active ingredients, and c) the surface material to be disinfected.
Fogging

C.5.2.5.3.1

Once disinfection cleaning is complete areas fog the areas previously identified by the DOC representative during the initial cleaning event (Please note, a sprayer cannot be used as a substitute for a fogger). When fogging, contracted personnel must wear a full-face respirator with organic cartridges. Contractor shall perform fogging operations in areas identified by the representative, ensuring all surfaces are saturated. Limit access to the area fogged until no longer volatized.
After conducting cleaning and fogging services:

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 15 of 53

C.5.3 C.5.3.1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 23 of 127
(i) Do not re-use any clothing used during cleaning. (ii) Launder items as appropriate in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. If possible,
launder items using the hottest appropriate water setting for the items and high temperature dry (if possible) items completely. (iii)Inform laundry services of potential COVID-19 contamination if laundry is sent to external services for cleaning.
Reporting The Contractor is required to capture before and after pictures of the work performed and submit through the DGS Work Order Management System (Salesforce) within forty-eight (48)-hours following the completion of services.
The “SalesForce” service call system will allow Department personnel to electronically record and request services in order for the Contractor to respond and deploy services. The Department requires that the Contractor uses the Salesforce Customer Relationship Management (CRM) for reviewing assigned work requests, reporting on work request statuses and completion, and submitting cost proposals and completion of work documentation. SalesForce training is available, and the Contractor shall schedule training by calling (202) 698-7744 and/or emailing sales.force@dc.gov. Additional access to technical support is available during normal business hours (8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday) through the Salesforce helpline (202) 6987744.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 16 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 24 of 127

SECTION D PACKAGING AND MARKING

D.1

The packaging and marking requirements for the resultant Contract shall be governed by Article

No. 2, Shipping Instructions-Consignment, of the Government of the District of Columbia's

Department of General Services Standard Contract Provisions (“SCP”) for Supplies and Services

Contracts, January 2016 Attachment J.1.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 17 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 25 of 127

SECTION E INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

E.1

The inspection and acceptance requirements for the resultant Contract shall be governed by Article

No. 5, Inspection of Supplies, and or Article No. 6, Inspection of Services, of the Government of

the District of Columbia's Department of General Services Standard Contract Provisions (“SCP”)

for Supplies and Services Contracts, January 2016 Attachment J.1.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 18 of 53

F.1 F.1.1 F.1.2 F.2 F.3
F.3.1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 26 of 127
SECTION F PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE AND DELIVERABLES
TERM OF EMERGENCY CONTRACT
The term of this Emergency Contract is for a period of up-to ninety (90)-days, effective 12-May2020, ending on or before 10-August-2020.
Termination. The Department reserves the right to terminate this Emergency Contract before the expiration of the 90-day period for convenience if services are no longer required.
RESERVED [Intentionally Omitted]
DELIVERABLES The Contractor shall perform the activities required to successfully complete the District’s requirements and submit one (1) hard copy and one (1) soft copy of each deliverable to the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) identified in Section [G.9] in accordance with the following.
The Contractor(s) shall submit to the Department, as a deliverable, the report described in Section [H.5.5] which is required by the 51% District Residents New Hires Requirements and First Source Employment Agreement. If the Contractor does not submit the report as part of the deliverables, the Contractor shall not be entitled to and shall not receive final payment pursuant to Section [G.3.2].

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 19 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 27 of 127

SECTION G CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

G.1

INVOICE PAYMENT

G.1.1 G.1.2 G.2

The Department will make payments to the Contractor(s), upon the submission of proper invoices, at the prices stipulated in this Contract, for supplies delivered and accepted or services performed and accepted, less any discounts, allowances or adjustments provided for in this Contract.
The Department will pay the Contractor on or before the 30th day after receiving a proper invoice from the Contractor.
COVID-19 INVOICE SUBMITTAL & PAYMENTS

G.2.1
G.2.2
G.2.3
G.2.3.1 G.2.3.2 G.2.3.3 G.2.3.4 G.2.3.5 G.232.6 G.2.3.7 G.2.3.8

The Contractor shall create and submit payment requests in .pdf format and email to the COTR of record. The Contractor must indicate the proper Contract number on all invoices. Properly prepared invoices with the necessary backup shall be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt. Properly prepared invoices not paid by that date shall bear interest in accordance with the Prompt Payment Act.
The Contractor shall submit a proper invoice based on applicable guidelines specified in Section [G.4]. Invoices shall be prepared and submitted to the COTR identified in Section [G.9]. The District shall not be required to pay invoiced amounts or corresponding interest payments for invoices that are not properly prepared as required under this Contract.
Note: this is different from current process. For all COVID-19 related invoices, vendor does not submit invoice via e-invoicing. Rather, the vendor submits a PDF copy of the invoice to DGS for review.
For all non-COVID invoices, vendor must continue with regular invoicing process, via einvoicing;
DGS COTR/Management reviews COVID-19 invoice, approves, and confirms with vendor preferred method of payment (PCARD or ACH);
DGS will submit approved invoice to OCP/EOC and confirm that it is “OK to Pay”;
EOC/OCP pays vendor directly via PCARD or ACH;
Renee Bryant must be copied on all invoice submittals renee.bryant1@dc.gov;
Name, title, telephone number and complete mailing address of the responsible official to whom payment is to be sent;
Name, title and phone number of the individual preparing the invoice;
Name, title, phone number and mailing address of person; if different from the person identified in Section [G.9.2] above to be notified in the event of a defective invoice; and

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 20 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 28 of 127

G.2.3.9 G.3 G.3.1 G.3.2 G.4 G.4.1
G.4.2

Authorized signature.
FIRST SOURCE AGREEMENT REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT
For Contracts subject to the 51% District Residents New Hires Requirements and First Source Employment Agreement requirements, final request for payment must be accompanied by the report or a waiver of compliance discussed in Section [H.5.5].
The Department shall not make final payment to the Contractor until the agency CFO has received the CO’s final determination or approval of waiver of the Contractor’s compliance with 51% District Residents New Hires Requirements and First Source Employment Agreement requirements.
PAYMENT
Payments on Partial Deliveries of Goods & Services
Unless otherwise specified in this Contract, payment will be made on partial deliveries of goods and services accepted by the Department if:
a) The amount due on the deliveries on goods and or services warrants it; or
b) The Contractor requests it and the amount due on the deliveries is in accordance with the following:
(i) "Payment will be made on completion and acceptance of each item for which the price is stated in the Schedule in Section [B.3.1].
(ii) "Payment will be made on completion and acceptance of each item in accordance with the agreed upon delivery schedule".
(iii)"Payment will be made on completion and acceptance of each percentage or stage of work in accordance with the prices stated in the Schedule in Section [B.3.1]; and
c) Presentation of a properly executed invoice.
Payment for Reimbursable Items and Services The Contractor will be reimbursed for all approved Center for Biocide Chemistries (“CBC”), Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) antimicrobial fighting cleaning product supplies (“solvents”), and approved pandemic, Personal Protection Equipment (”PPE”) collectively (“Cleaning Supplies”). Such cost for “cleaning supplies” will be reimbursed only when the following are complete: (i) the Contractor provides the Department with an invoice outlining the itemized cost of all approved cleaning supplies and materials as described in Section [B.3]. The invoice shall be itemized to include but at a minimum, a full list of individual supplies/materials (i.e. antimicrobial cleaning solvent, N95 respirator mask, Tyvek suites, etc.), quantity purchased, vendor cost of materials by line item, extended cost by material, and estimate shipping and arrival of materials; and (ii) the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) approves the invoice. The Cleaning Supply Reimbursable Cost shall-not exceed the established ordering ceiling as defined in Section [B.3.2.1] for the term of the Emergency Contract. Cost of all materials and supplies shall be furnished to the District at Contractor cost

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 21 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 29 of 127

G.5 G.5.1 G.5.2 G.5.3
G.6 G.6.1 G.6.1.1
G.6.1.1.1 G.6.1.1.2 G.6.1.1.3 G.6.1.1.4 G.6.1.2 G.6.1.2.1 G.6.1.2.2

plus NO-MORE than a 3% markup. The Department will not pay for or otherwise reimburse the Contractor for cost of any other equipment purchase and or rented.
ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT PAYMENTS
In accordance with 27 DCMR 3250, the Contractor may assign to a bank, trust company, or other financing institution funds due or to become due as a result of the performance of this Contract.
Any assignment shall cover all unpaid amounts payable under this Contract and shall not be made to more than one party.
Notwithstanding an assignment of Contract payments, the Contractor, not the assignee, is required to prepare invoices. Where such an assignment has been made, the original copy of the invoice must refer to the assignment and must show that payment of the invoice is to be made directly to the assignee as follows:
“Pursuant to the instrument of assignment dated ___________, make payment of this invoice to (name and address of assignee).”
THE QUICK PAYMENT ACT
Interest Penalties to Contractors
The District will pay interest penalties on amounts due to the Contractor under the Quick Payment Act, D.C. Official Code § 2-221.01 et seq., as amended, for the period beginning on the day after the required payment date and ending on the date on which payment of the amount is made. Interest shall be calculated at the rate of at least 1.5% per month. No interest penalty shall be paid if payment for the completed delivery of the item of property or service is made on or before the required payment date. The required payment date shall be:
The date on which payment is due under the terms of the Contract;
Not later than seven (7) calendar days, excluding legal holidays, after the date of delivery of meat or meat food products;
Not later than ten (10) calendar days, excluding legal holidays, after the date of delivery of a perishable agricultural commodity; or
30 calendar days, excluding legal holidays, after receipt of a proper invoice for the amount of the payment due.
No interest penalty shall be due to the Contractor if payment for the completed delivery of goods or services is made on or after:
3rd day after the required payment date for meat or a meat food product;
5th day after the required payment date for an agricultural commodity; or

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 22 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 30 of 127

G.6.1.2.3 G.6.1.3
G.6.2 G.6.2.1
G.6.2.1.1 G.6.2.1.2 G.6.2.2
G.6.2.2.1 G.6.2.2.2 G.9.2.2.3 G.6.2.3
G.6.2.4
G.6.3

15th day after any other required payment date.
Any amount of an interest penalty which remains unpaid at the end of any thirty (30)-day period shall be added to the principal amount of the debt and thereafter interest penalties shall accrue on the added amount.
Payments to SubContractors
The Contractor must take one of the following actions within seven (7) days of receipt of any amount paid to the Contractor by the District for work performed by any subContractor under the Contract:
Pay the subContractor(s) for the proportionate share of the total payment received from the District that is attributable to the subContractor(s) for work performed under the Contract; or
Notify the CO and the subContractor(s), in writing, of the Contractor’s intention to withhold all or part of the subContractor’s payment and state the reason for the nonpayment.
The Contractor must pay any subContractor or supplier interest penalties on amounts due to the subContractor or supplier beginning on the day after the payment is due and ending on the date on which the payment is made. Interest shall be calculated at the rate of at least 1.5% per month. No interest penalty shall be paid on the following if payment for the completed delivery of the item of property or service is made on or before the:
3rd day after the required payment date for meat or a meat product;
5th day after the required payment date for an agricultural commodity; or
15th day after any other required payment date.
Any amount of an interest penalty which remains unpaid by the Contractor at the end of any 30day period shall be added to the principal amount of the debt to the subContractor and thereafter interest penalties shall accrue on the added amount.
A dispute between the Contractor and subContractor relating to the amounts or entitlement of a subContractor to a payment or a late payment interest penalty under the Quick Payment Act does not constitute a dispute to which the District is a party. The District may not be interpleaded in any judicial or administrative proceeding involving such a dispute.
SubContract requirements. The Contractor shall include in each subContract under this Contract a provision requiring the subContractor to include in its Contract with any lower-tier subContractor or supplier the payment and interest clauses required under paragraphs (1) and (2) of D.C. Official Code § 2-221.02(d).

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 23 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 31 of 127

G.7

CONTRACTING OFFICER (CO)

Contracts will be entered into and signed on behalf of the District only by Contracting Officer. The contact information for the Contracting Officer is:

GEORGE G. LEWIS, CPPO
Chief Procurement Officer Chief of Contracts & Procurement Department of General Services 2000 14th Street N.W. | 8th Floor Telephone: (202) 727-2800 E-mail: george.lewis@dc.gov

G.8

AUTHORIZED CHANGES BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER

G.8.1

The CO is the only person(s) authorized to approve changes in any of the requirements of this Contract.

G.8.2

The Contractor shall not comply with any order, directive or request that changes or modifies the requirements of this Contract, unless issued in writing and signed by the CO.

G.8.3

In the event the Contractor effects any change at the instruction or request of any person other than the CO, the change will be considered to have been made without authority and no adjustment will be made in the Contract price to cover any cost increase incurred as a result thereof.

G.9

CONTRACTING OFFICER’S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE / CONTACT

ADMINISTRATOR (“COTR” OR “CA”)

G.9.1
G.9.1.1 G.9.1.2 G.9.1.3
G.9.1.4 G.9.1.5 G.9.2

The COTR/CA is responsible for general administration of the Contract and advising the CO as to the Contractor’s compliance or noncompliance with the Contract. The COTR/CA has the responsibility of ensuring the work conforms to the requirements of the Contract and such other responsibilities and authorities as may be specified in the Contract. These include:
Keeping the CO fully informed of any technical or Contractual difficulties encountered during the performance period and advising the CO of any potential problem areas under the Contract;
Coordinating site entry for Contractor personnel, if applicable;
Reviewing invoices for completed work and recommending approval by the CO if the Contractor’s costs are consistent with the negotiated amounts and progress is satisfactory and commensurate with the rate of expenditure;
Reviewing and approving invoices for deliverables to ensure receipt of goods and services. This includes the timely processing of invoices and vouchers in accordance with the District’s payment provisions; and
Maintaining a file that includes all Contract correspondence, modifications, records of inspections (site, data, equipment) and invoice or vouchers.
The address and telephone number of the COTR/CA is: The COTR will be determine based on the discipline listed Section 3.1.1 and location.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 24 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 32 of 127

G.9.3
G.9.4 G.10 G.10.1 G.10.2 G.10.3 G.10.4 G.10.5 G.10.6

RUTH JENKINS
Management Analyst Public Safety Cluster Mobile: (202) 579-2624 Email: ruth.jenkins@dc.gov

ALISON HERBERT
Administrative Assistant Facility Management Division Mobile: (202) 710-9430 Email: alison.herbert@dc.gov

The COTR/CA shall NOT have the authority to:

KESSIA CRUZ
Executive Assistant Facility Management Division Mobile: (202) 596-4291 Email: kessia.cruz@dc.gov

1. Award, agree to, or sign any Contract, delivery order or task order. Only the CO shall make Contractual agreements, commitments or modifications;
2. Grant deviations from or waive any of the terms and conditions of the Contract; 3. Increase the dollar limit of the Contract or authorize work beyond the dollar limit of the
Contract, 4. Authorize the expenditure of funds by the Contractor; 5. Change the period of performance; or 6. Authorize the use of District property, except as specified under the Contract.

The Contractor will be fully responsible for any changes not authorized in advance, in writing, by the CO; may be denied compensation or other relief for any additional work performed that is not so authorized; and may also be required, at no additional cost to the District, to take all corrective action necessitated by reason of the unauthorized changes.
COST REIMBURSEMENT CEILING

Cost reimbursement ceiling for this contract is set forth in Section [B.3.2.1].

The costs of cleaning supplies used in performing the services under this contract shall not exceed the cost reimbursement ceiling specified in Section [B.3.2.1].

The Contractor agrees to use its best efforts to perform the work specified in this contract and to meet all obligations under this contract including the use of cleaning supplies within the cost reimbursement ceiling.

The Contractor must notify the CO, in writing, whenever it has reason to believe that the total cost of cleaning supplies used in performing the services under this contract will be either greater or substantially less than the cost reimbursement ceiling.

As part of the notification, the Contractor must provide the CO a revised estimate of the total cost of cleaning supplies required to perform services under this contract.

The District is not obligated to reimburse the Contractor for costs incurred in excess of the cost reimbursement ceiling specified in Section [B.3.2.1], and the Contractor is not obligated to continue performance under this contract (including actions under the Termination clauses of this contract), or otherwise incur costs in excess of the cost reimbursement ceiling specified in Section [B.3.2.1], until the CO notifies the Contractor, in writing, that the estimated cost has been increased and provides a revised cost reimbursement ceiling for cleaning supplies required as part of performing services under this contract.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 25 of 53

G.10.7 G.10.8 G.10.9 G.10.10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 33 of 127
No notice, communication, or representation in any form from any person other than the CO shall change the cost reimbursement ceiling. In the absence of the specified notice, the District is not obligated to reimburse the Contractor for any costs in excess of the costs reimbursement ceiling, whether such costs were incurred during the course of contract performance or as a result of termination.
If any cost reimbursement ceiling specified in Section [B.3.2.1] is increased, any costs the Contractor incurs before the increase that are in excess of the previous cost reimbursement ceiling shall be allowable to the same extent as if incurred afterward, unless the CO issues a termination or other notice directing that the increase is solely to cover termination or other specified expenses.
A change order shall not be considered an authorization to exceed the applicable cost reimbursement ceiling specified in Section [B.3.2.1], unless the change order specifically increases the cost reimbursement ceiling.
Only costs determined in writing to be reimbursable in accordance with the cost principles set forth in rules issued pursuant to Title V of the D.C. Procurement Practices Reform Act of 2010 shall be reimbursable.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 26 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 34 of 127

SECTION H SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

H.1 H.1.1
H.1.1.1 H.1.2
H.2 H.2.1
H.2.2 H.3 H.3.1 H.3.2

HIRING OF DISTRICT RESIDENTS AS APPRENTICES AND TRAINEES

For all new employment resulting from this Contract or subContracts hereto, as defined in Mayor’s Order 83-265 and implementing instructions, the Contractor shall use its best efforts to comply with the following basic goal and objectives for utilization of bona fide residents of the District of Columbia in each project’s labor force:

At least fifty-one (51) percent of apprentices and trainees employed shall be residents of the District of Columbia registered in programs approved by the District of Columbia Apprenticeship Council.
The Contractor shall negotiate an Employment Agreement with the Department of Employment Services (DOES) for jobs created as a result of this Contract. The DOES shall be the Contractor’s first source of referral for qualified apprentices and trainees in the implementation of employment goals contained in this clause.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WAGE DETERMINATIONS

The Contractor shall be bound by the Wage Determination No. 2015-4282, Revision No.: 17, dated 23-April-2020, issued by the U.S. Department of Labor in accordance with the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351 et seq., and incorporated herein as Attachment J.2. The Contractor shall be bound by the wage rates for the term of the Contract subject to revision as stated herein and in accordance with Article 25 of the SCP. If an option is exercised, the Contractor shall be bound by the applicable wage rates at the time of the exercise of the option. If the option is exercised and the CO obtains a revised wage determination, the revised wage determination is applicable for the option periods.

RESERVED [Intentionally Omitted]
PREGNANT WORKERS FAIRNESS The Contractor shall comply with the Protecting Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2016, D.C. Official Code § 32-1231.01 et seq. (PPWF Act).

The Contractor shall not:

(a) Refuse to make reasonable accommodations to the known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, or breastfeeding for an employee, unless the Contractor can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship;

(b) Take an adverse action against an employee who requests or uses a reasonable accommodation

in regard to the employee's conditions or privileges of employment, including failing to reinstate

the employee when the need for reasonable accommodations ceases to the employee's original job

or

to

an

equivalent

position

with

equivalent:

(1) Pay;

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 27 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 35 of 127

H.3.3
H.3.4 H.3.5 H.4 H.4.1 H.4.2

(2) Accumulated seniority and retirement; (3) Benefits; and (4) Other applicable service credits;
(c) Deny employment opportunities to an employee, or a job applicant, if the denial is based on the need of the employer to make reasonable accommodations to the known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, or breastfeeding;
(d) Require an employee affected by pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, or breastfeeding to accept an accommodation that the employee chooses not to accept if the employee does not have a known limitation related to pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, or breastfeeding or the accommodation is not necessary for the employee to perform her duties;
(e) Require an employee to take leave if a reasonable accommodation can be provided; or
(f) Take adverse action against an employee who has been absent from work as a result of a pregnancy-related condition, including a pre-birth complication.
The Contractor shall post and maintain in a conspicuous place a notice of rights in both English and Spanish and provide written notice of an employee's right to a needed reasonable accommodation related to pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, or breastfeeding pursuant to the PPWF Act to:
(a) New employees at the commencement of employment; (b) Existing employees; and (c) An employee who notifies the employer of her pregnancy, or other condition covered
by the PPWF Act, within 10 days of the notification.
The Contractor shall provide an accurate written translation of the notice of rights to any nonEnglish or non-Spanish speaking employee.
Violations of the PPWF Act shall be subject to civil penalties as described in the Act.
UNEMPLOYED ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
The Contractor shall comply with the Unemployed Anti-Discrimination Act of 2012, D.C. Official Code § 32-1361 et seq.
The Contractor shall not:
(a) Fail or refuse to consider for employment, or fail or refuse to hire, an individual as an employee because of the individual's status as unemployed; or
(b) Publish, in print, on the Internet, or in any other medium, an advertisement or announcement for any vacancy in a job for employment that includes:
(1) Any provision stating or indicating that an individual's status as unemployed disqualifies the individual for the job; or

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 28 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 36 of 127

H.4.3 H.5

(2) Any provision stating or indicating that an employment agency will not consider or hire an individual for employment based on that individual's status as unemployed.
Violations of the Unemployed Anti-Discrimination Act shall be subject to civil penalties as described in the Act.
51% DISTRICT RESIDENTS NEW HIRES REQUIREMENTS AND FIRST SOURCE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

H.5.1 H.5.2

For Contracts for services in the amount of $300,000 or more, the Contractor shall comply with the First Source Employment Agreement Act of 1984, as amended, D.C. Official Code § 2-219.01 et seq. (First Source Act).
The Contractor shall enter into and maintain during the term of the Contract, a First Source Employment Agreement (Employment Agreement) with the District of Columbia Department of Employment Service’s (DOES), in which the Contractor shall agree that:

H.5.3 H.5.4 H.5.5 H.5.6
H.5.7
H.5.8
H.5.9 H.5.10

(a) The first source for finding employees to fill all jobs created in order to perform the Contract shall be the First Source Register; and
(b) The first source for finding employees to fill any vacancy occurring in all jobs covered by the Employment Agreement shall be the First Source Register.
The Contractor shall not begin performance of the Contract until its Employment Agreement has been accepted by DOES. Once approved, the Employment Agreement shall not be amended except with the approval of DOES.
The Contractor agrees that at least 51% of the new employees hired to perform the Contract shall be District residents.
The Contractor’s hiring and reporting requirements under the First Source Act and any rules promulgated thereunder shall continue for the term of the Contract.
The CO may impose penalties, including monetary fines of 5% of the total amount of the direct and indirect labor costs of the Contract, for a willful breach of the Employment Agreement, failure to submit the required hiring compliance reports, or deliberate submission of falsified data.
If the Contractor does not receive a good faith waiver, the CO may also impose an additional penalty equal to 1/8 of 1% of the total amount of the direct and indirect labor costs of the Contract for each percentage by which the Contractor fails to meet its hiring requirements.
Any Contractor which violates, more than once within a 10-year timeframe, the hiring or reporting requirements of the First Source Act shall be referred for debarment for not more than five (5) years.
The Contractor may appeal any decision of the CO pursuant to this clause to the D.C. Contract Appeals Board as provided in clause 14 of the SCP, Disputes.
The provisions of the First Source Act do not apply to nonprofit organizations which employ 50 employees or less.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 29 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 37 of 127

H.6 H.6.1 H.6.2
H.6.3
H.6.4 H.6.4.1 H.6.4.2 H.6.5
H.6.6

AUDITS AND RECORDS
As used in this clause, “records” includes books, documents, accounting procedures and practices, and other data, regardless of type and regardless of whether such items are in written form, in the form of computer data, or in any other form.
Examination of Costs. If this is a cost-reimbursement, incentive, time-and-materials, labor-hour, or price re-determinable Contract, or any combination of these, the Contractor shall maintain and the CO, or an authorized representative of the CO, shall have the right to examine and audit all records and other evidence sufficient to reflect properly all costs claimed to have been incurred or anticipated to be incurred directly or indirectly in performance of this Contract. This right of examination shall include inspection at all reasonable times of the Contractor’s plants, offices or other facilities or parts of them, engaged in performing the Contract.
Cost or pricing data. If the Contractor has been required to submit cost or pricing data in connection with any pricing action relating to this Contract, the CO, or an authorized representative of the CO, in order to evaluate the accuracy, completeness, and currency of the cost or pricing data, shall have the right to examine and audit all of the Contractor’s records, including computations and projections, related to:
a) The Proposal for the Contract, subContract, or modification; b) The discussions conducted on the proposal(s), including those related to negotiating; c) Pricing of the Contract, subContract, or modification; or d) Performance of the Contract, subContract or modification.
Comptroller General
The Comptroller General of the United States, or an authorized representative, shall have access to and the right to examine any of the Contractor’s directly pertinent records involving transactions related to this Contract or a subContract hereunder.
This section may not be construed to require the Contractor or subContractor to create or maintain any record that the Contractor or subContractor does not maintain in the ordinary course of business or pursuant to a provision of law.
Reports. If the Contractor is required to furnish cost, funding, or performance reports, the CO or an authorized representative of the CO shall have the right to examine and audit the supporting records and materials, for the purpose of evaluating:
a) The effectiveness of the Contractor’s policies and procedures to produce data compatible with the objectives of these reports; and
b) The data reported.
Availability. The Contractor shall make available at its local office at all reasonable times the records, materials, and other evidence described in clauses H.6.1 through H.6.5, for examination, audit, or reproduction, until three (3) years after final payment under this Contract or for any shorter period specified in the Contract, or for any longer period required by statute or by other clauses of this Contract. In addition:

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 30 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 38 of 127

H.6.7 H.7

a) If this Contract is completely or partially terminated, the Contractor shall make available the records relating to the work terminated until thee (3) years after any resulting final termination settlement; and
b) The Contractor shall make available records relating to appeals under the Disputes clause or to litigation or the settlement of claims arising under or relating to this Contract until such appeals, litigation, or claims are finally resolved.
The Contractor shall insert a clause containing all the terms of this clause, including this Section [H.6.7], in all subContracts under this Contract that exceed the small purchase threshold of $100,000, and:
a) That is cost-reimbursement, incentive, time-and-materials, labor-hour, or priceredeterminable type or any combination of these;
b) For which cost, or pricing data are required; or c) That requires the subContractor to furnish reports as discussed in Section [H.6.5] of this
clause.
ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE SERVICES

H.8
H.9 H.9.1 H.9.1.1 H.9.1.2
H.9.1.3

This Contract is a “nonpersonal services Contract”. The Contractor and the Contractor’s employees: (1) shall perform the services specified herein as independent Contractors, not as employees of the government; (2) shall be responsible for their own management and administration of the work required and bear sole responsibility for complying with any and all technical, schedule, financial requirements or constraints attendant to the performance of this Contract; (3) shall be free from supervision or control by any government employee with respect to the manner or method of performance of the service specified; but (4) shall, pursuant to the government’s right and obligation to inspect, accept or reject work, comply with such general direction of the CO, or the duly authorized representative of the CO as is necessary to ensure accomplishment of the Contract objectives.
CRIMINAL BACKGROUND AND TRAFFIC RECORDS CHECKS FOR CONTRACTORS THAT PROVIDE DIRECT SERVICES TO CHILDREN OR YOUTH RESERVED [Intentionally Omitted]
SUBCONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS
Mandatory SubContracting Requirements
For all Contracts in excess of $250,000, at least 35% of the dollar volume of the Contract shall be subContracted to qualified small business enterprises (SBEs).
If there are insufficient SBEs to completely fulfill the requirement of Section [H.9.1.1], then the subContracting may be satisfied by subContracting 35% of the dollar volume to any qualified certified business enterprises (CBEs); provided, however, that all reasonable efforts shall be made to ensure that SBEs are significant participants in the overall subContracting work. A prime Contractor that is certified by DSLBD as a small, local, or disadvantaged business enterprise shall not be required to comply with the provisions of Sections [H.9.1.1] and [H.9.1.2].

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 31 of 53

H.9.1.4
H.9.1.5
H.9.1.6 H.9.1.7 H.10 H.10.1
H.10.2 H.10.3 H.10.4 H.10.5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 39 of 127
Except as provided in Sections [H.9.1.5] and [H.9.1.7], a prime Contractor that is a CBE and has been granted a bid preference pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 2-218.43, or is selected through a set-aside program, shall perform at least 35% of the Contracting effort with its own organization and resources and, if it subContracts, 35% of the subContracting effort shall be with CBEs. A CBE prime Contractor that performs less than 35% of the Contracting effort shall be subject to enforcement actions under D.C. Official Code § 2-218.63.
If the prime Contractor is a certified joint venture and has been granted a bid preference pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 2-218.43, or is selected through a set-aside program, the CBE member of the certified joint venture shall perform at least 50% of the Contracting effort with its own organization and resources and, if it subContracts, 35% of the subContracting effort shall be with CBEs. If the CBE member of the certified joint venture prime Contractor performs less than 50% of the Contracting effort, the certified joint venture shall be subject to enforcement actions under D.C. Official Code § 2-218.63.
Each CBE utilized to meet these subContracting requirements shall perform at least 35% of its Contracting effort with its own organization and resources.
A prime Contractor that is a CBE and has been granted a bid preference pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 2-218.43, or is selected through a set-aside program, shall perform at least 50% of the onsite work with its own organization and resources if the Contract is $1 million or less.
FAIR CRIMINAL RECORD SCREENING
The Contractor shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Criminal Record Screening Amendment Act of 2014, effective December 17, 2014 (D.C. Law 20-152) (“Act” as used in this section). This section applies to any employment, including employment on a temporary or Contractual basis, where the physical location of the employment is in whole or substantial part within the District of Columbia.
Prior to making a conditional offer of employment, the Contractor shall not require an applicant for employment, or a person who has requested consideration for employment by the Contractor, to reveal or disclose an arrest or criminal accusation that is not then pending or did not result in a criminal conviction.
After making a conditional offer of employment, the Contractor may require an applicant to disclose or reveal a criminal conviction.
The Contractor may only withdraw a conditional offer of employment, or take adverse action against an applicant, for a legitimate business reason as described in the Act.
This section and the provisions of the Act shall not apply:
(a) Where a federal or District law or regulation requires the consideration of an applicant’s criminal history for the purposes of employment;

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 32 of 53

H.10.6 H.11 H.11.1 H.11.2 H.12 H.12.1
H.12.2
H.12.3 H.12.4 H.12.5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 40 of 127
(b) To a position designated by the employer as part of a federal or District government program or obligation that is designed to encourage the employment of those with criminal histories;
(c) To any facility or employer that provides programs, services, or direct care to, children, youth, or vulnerable adults; or
(d) To employers that employ less than 11 employees.
A person claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of the Act may file an administrative complaint with the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights, and the Commission on Human Rights may impose monetary penalties against the Contractor
DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES The District will be responsible for the following regarding this Contract:
Assigning, monitoring and the Quality Assurance, Quality Control (“QAQC”) surveillance of the vendor's completion of their scheduled site duties.
The District will provide access to and training on the Salesforce Work order Ticket system.
CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES
Contractor Notice Regarding Late Performance In the event the Contractor anticipates or encounters difficulty in complying with the terms and conditions as stated in the Contract or in meeting any other requirements set forth in the Contract, the Contractor shall immediately notify the CO and the COTR in writing giving full detail as to the rationale for the late delivery and why the Contractor should be granted an extension of time, if any. Receipt of the Contractor's notification shall in no way be construed as an acceptance or waiver by the Department.
At all times and during performance under this Contract, the Contractor shall be responsible to the Department for any and all acts and omissions of the Contractor’s agents, employees, subContractors, sub-subContractors, material suppliers, and laborers, and the agents and employees of the subContractors, sub-subContractors, material suppliers and laborers performing or supplying work in connection with the project/services.
The Contractor shall be responsible for providing services in accordance with the requirements of this Contract.
The Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining any and all licenses and permits, unless otherwise stated herein necessary for the performance of this Contract.
The Contractor shall furnish all equipment needed for the performance of the work under the resultant Contract. All equipment must be properly guarded and meet all applicable OSHA standards.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 33 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 41 of 127

H.12.6 H.12.7 H.12.8

The Contractor shall assume full responsibility and liability for compliance with all applicable regulations pertaining to the health and safety of personnel during the execution of work and shall hold the District harmless for any action on his part or that of his employees or subContractors, which results in illness, injury or death.
The Contractor shall furnish all MSDS for any materials used in the performance of this Contract. The Contractor shall make efforts to use recycled paper products and environmentally preferable materials.
The Contractor shall be responsible for the base operations of the building only, which excludes retail space specific services, not provided to retailers by the building.

a) The Contractor shall be liable for all fines and shall comply with all District regulations for safe handling, storage, disposal, and use of any hazardous materials and chemicals.

H.12.9

b) The Contractor shall be charged the cost, in the event of fines or penalties levied by the EPA or an Air Quality Management Authority.
Bond Requirements - RESERVED [Intentionally Omitted]

H.12.10

Allowable SubContracting Requirements

H.12.10.1

The Contractor shall ensure that all activities carried out by any subContractor conforms to the provisions of this Contract.

H.12.10.2

It is the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure its subContractors are capable of meeting the reporting requirements under this Contract and, if they cannot, the Contractor is not relieved of the reporting requirements.

H.12.10.3

The Contractor shall notify the District Contracting Officer, in writing, of the termination of any subContract for the provision of services, including the arrangements made to ensure continuation of the services covered by the terminated subContract, not less than forty-five (45) days prior to the effective date of the termination, unless immediate termination of the Contract is necessary to protect the health and safety of Enrollees or prevent fraud and abuse. In such an event, the Contractor shall notify COTR immediately upon taking such action.

H.12.10.3.1 If the District determines that the termination or expiration of a subContract materially affects the ability of the Contractor to carry out its responsibility under this Contract; the District may terminate this Contract.

H.12.10.3.2 The Contractor shall ensure subContracts contain a provision that requires subContracts to contain all provisions of the Contractor’s Contract with the District and that the subContractor look solely to Contractor for payment for services rendered.

H.12.11

Staff Attire and Identification

H.12.11.1

The Contractor’s staff shall wear neat, clean, and professional attire. The attire shall include distinctive apparel identifying staff as Contractor’s employees.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 34 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 42 of 127

H.12.11.2

The Contractor’s staff shall wear identification badges at all times. The identification badges shall provide company logo, employee’s name, and employee photograph.

H.12.12

Safety Requirements

H.12.12.1

The Contractor shall be responsible for complying with all applicable District and Federal rules, regulations and practices relating to safety on the job site; for all injury to persons or damage to property that occurs as a result of the Contractor's negligence and shall take proper safety and health precautions to protect the work, the workers, the tenants and District property; and for all materials delivered and work performed until completion and acceptance of the entire work in writing by the COTR.

H.12.12.2

The Contractor shall provide and ensure that all its personnel at the work sites properly wear all applicable safety devices and apparel required by the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) including, but not limited to:

H.12.12.2.1 Back support devices

H.12.12.2.2 Eye protection

H.12.12.2.3 Hearing protection

H.12.12.2.4 Hand protection

H.12.12.2.5 Head protection

H.12.12.2.6 Foot protection

H.12.12.2.7 Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) gear in accordance with the CDC’s established guideline

H.12.12.3

The District has the right to inspect all areas for safety violations at its discretion, direct the Contractor to make immediate improvement of necessary conditions and/or procedures, and/or stop the work if other hazards are deemed to exist.

H.12.12.4

Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the District shall not be obligated to make an equitable adjustment for any work stoppage that results from safety hazards created by the Contractor. In the event that the Contracting Officer directs the work to stop because of existing safety hazards after the Contractor has been notified and provided ample time to correct, the Contractor shall bear all costs for eliminating the hazard(s) and shall not be granted compensation for the work stoppage.

H.12.12.5

The Contractor shall immediately notify the COTR if the job site is visited by an OSHA official for compliance of the Occupational Safety and Health Act or any other safety regulatory requirements.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 35 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 43 of 127

H.12.13 H.12.13.1 H.12.13.2 H.12.14 H.12.15
H.12.16
H.12.17 H.12.18 H.12.19 H.12.19.1 H.12.19.2

Fire Prevention
The Contractor shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining an effective fire prevention program for its employees and the District property being serviced on the job site.
The Contractor shall be knowledgeable and train all its employees on the job site to fulfill the requirements of this Statement of Work on the procedures, means of egress and methods of reporting fires on the job sites.
Smoke Free Environment The District's facilities are smoke free. The Contractor is responsible for adhering to all applicable rules and regulations regarding maintenance of a smoke free environment on the job sites.
Delivery of Services The Contractor shall schedule its service deliveries during times that cause minimum disruption and inconvenience to District agency operations, including District of Columbia Public School (DCPS) operations. Unless otherwise approved by the COTR, the assessment services shall be made weekdays before 6:00 p.m. or on weekends. Upon conclusion of the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) academic year, the Contractor shall have more flexible hours to provide the assessment services.
Communication At its own expense, the Contractor shall provide electronic pagers, transportable cellular telephones, or any other telecommunication devices adequate to effectively provide a communication link to District officials especially in emergency situations when the need to get hold of Contractor personnel is greatest. The names of the individual officers and the telephone numbers for their respectively assigned pager and telephone number shall be provided to the Contracting Officer and the COTR at the start of the period of performance.
Accident Reports The Contractor shall immediately notify the COTR of any accidents on the job site arising from the performance of this SOW that involve bodily injury to Contractor’s employees or District workers or both, building occupants, visitors, or other persons.
Property Damage Notification Any damage caused by the Contractor or its employees to District property shall be promptly repaired or replaced by the Contractor at the Contractor’s expense.
Suspension Of Work
In the event services are not provided or required by the District because the buildings is closed due to unanticipated circumstances, deductions to the Contractor price normally payable to Contractor will be computed as follows.
The deduction rate in dollars per day will be equal to the per month Contract price for the building, divided by twenty-one (21) days per month. (This will be adjusted as appropriate if some portion of the Contractor’s requirements apply to weekends or holidays).

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 36 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 44 of 127

H.12.19.3 H.12.19.4 H.12.19.5 H.12.20 H.12.20.1
H.13

The deduction rate in dollars per day multiplied by the number of days services were not provided or required will equal the total dollar deduction to be made.
Deductions will not be made to the extent that the Contractor can demonstrate that payment to employees is required by an incorporated wage determination or union agreement.
In the event services are provided for portion of days, appropriate adjustments will be made by the COTR to assure the Contractor is compensated for services provided.
Contract Completion or Termination
The Contractor shall turn over all plans codes, manuals, records, files, reports, databases spare inventory and materials developed or purchased in the course of the Contract to the COTR within thirty (30) calendar days after Contract completion or termination.
DIVERSION, REASSIGNMENT AND REPLACEMENT OF KEY PERSONNEL
The key personnel, if specified in the Contract, are considered to be essential to the work being performed hereunder. Prior to diverting any of the specified key personnel for any reason, the Contractor shall notify the CO at least thirty (30) calendar days in advance and shall submit justification, including proposed substitutions, in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the impact upon the Contract. The Contractor shall obtain written approval of the CO for any proposed substitution of key personnel.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 37 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 45 of 127

SECTION I CONTRACT CLAUSES

I.1

GOVERNING LAW

This Contract, and any disputes arising out of or related to this Contract, shall be governed by, and

construed in accordance with, the laws of the District of Columbia.

I.2

APPLICABILITY OF STANDARD CONTRACT PROVISIONS

The Standard Contract Provisions for use with District of Columbia Government, Department of

General Services Supplies and Services Contracts dated January 14, 2016 (SCP) are incorporated

as part of the Contract.

I.3

CONTRACTS THAT CROSS FISCAL YEARS

Continuation of this Contract beyond the current fiscal year is contingent upon future fiscal

authorizations and appropriations.

I.4

CONTRACTS IN EXCESS OF ONE MILLION DOLLARS

Any Contract in excess of $l,000,000 shall not be binding or give rise to any claim or demand

against the District until approved by the Council of the District of Columbia and signed by the

Contracting Office.

I.5

CONTINUITY OF SERVICES

I.5.1
I.5.1.1 I.5.1.2 I.5.2 I.5.2.1 I.5.2.2
I.5.3
I.5.4

The Contractor recognizes that the services provided under this Contract are vital to the District of Columbia and must be continued without interruption and that, upon Contract expiration or termination, a successor, either the District or another Contractor, at the District’s option, may continue to provide these services. To that end, the Contractor agrees to:
Furnish phase-out, phase-in (transition) training; and
Exercise its best efforts and cooperation to affect an orderly and efficient transition to a successor.
The Contractor shall, upon the Contracting Officer’s written notice:
Furnish phase-in, phase-out services for up to ninety (90) days after this Contract expires and
Negotiate in good faith a plan with a successor to determine the nature and extent of phase-in, phase-out services required. The plan shall specify a training program and a date for transferring responsibilities for each division of work described in the plan and shall be subject to the Contracting Officer’s approval.
The Contractor shall provide sufficient experienced personnel during the phase-in, phase-out period to ensure that the services called for by this Contract are maintained at the required level of proficiency.
The Contractor shall allow as many personnel as practicable to remain on the job to help the successor maintain the continuity and consistency of the services required by this Contract. The Contractor also shall disclose necessary personnel records and allow the successor to conduct on-

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 38 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 46 of 127

site interviews with these employees. If selected employees are agreeable to the change, the Contractor shall release them at a mutually agreeable date and negotiate transfer of their earned fringe benefits to the successor.

I.5.5

Only in accordance with a modification issued by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall be

reimbursed for all reasonable phase-in, phase-out costs (i.e., costs incurred within the agreed

period after Contract expiration that result from phase-in, phase-out operations) and a fee (profit)

not to exceed a pro rata portion of the fee (profit) under this Contract

I.6

CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION

The Contractor shall keep all information relating to any employee or customer of the District in

absolute confidence and shall not use the information in connection with any other matters; nor

shall it disclose any such information to any other person, firm or corporation, in accordance with

the District and Federal laws governing the confidentiality of records.

I.7

ESTIMATED QUANTITIES

It is the intent of the District to secure a Contract for all of the needs of the designated agencies for

items specified herein which may occur during the Contract term. The District agrees that it will

purchase its requirements of the articles or services included herein from the Contractor. Articles

or services specified herein have a history of repetitive use in the District agencies. The estimated

quantities stated in the RFP reflect the best estimates available. They shall not be construed to limit

the quantities which may be ordered from the Contractor by the District or to relieve the Contractor

of his obligation to fill all such orders. Orders will be placed from time to time if and when needs

arise for delivery, all charges prepaid, to the ordering agency. The District does not guarantee to

order any specific quantities of any item(s) or work hours of service.

I.8

DISPUTES

All disputes arising under or relating to the Contract shall be resolved as provided in the Standard

Contract Provisions for use with District of Columbia Department of General Services Supplies

and Services Contracts dated January 14, 2016 (“SCP”), Article 14: Disputes Attachment J.1.

I.9

CHANGES

(a) The CO may, at any time, by written order, and without notice to the surety, if any, make changes in the Contract within the general scope hereof. If such change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of performance of the Contract, or in the time required for performance, an equitable adjustment shall be made. Any claim for adjustment for a change within the general scope must be asserted within ten (10) days from the date the change is ordered; provided, however, that the CO, if he or she determines that the facts justify such action, may receive, consider and adjust any such claim asserted at any time prior to the date of final settlement of the Contract. If the parties fail to agree upon the adjustment to be made, the dispute shall be determined as provided in Section [I.8] Disputes.
(b) The District shall not require the Contractor, and the Contractor shall not require a subContractor, to undertake any work that is beyond the original scope of the Contract or subContract, including work under a District-issued change order/Contract modification,
DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 39 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 47 of 127
when the additional work increases the Contract price beyond the not-to-exceed price or negotiated maximum price of this Contract, unless the CO:
(1) Agrees with Contractor, and if applicable, the subContractor on a price for the additional work;
(2) Obtains a certification of funding to pay for the additional work; (3) Makes a written, binding commitment with the Contractor to pay for the additional
work within 30-days after the Contractor submits a proper invoice; and (4) Provides the Contractor with written notice of the funding certification. (c) The Contractor shall include in its subContracts a clause that requires the Contractor to:

(1) Within 5 business days of its receipt of notice the approved additional funding, provide the subContractor with notice of the amount to be paid to the subContractor for the additional work to be performed by the subContractor;

(2) Pay the subContractor any undisputed amount to which the subContractor is entitled for the additional work within 10 days of receipt of payment from the District; and

(3) Notify the subContractor and CO in writing of the reason the Contractor withholds any payment from a subContractor for the additional work.

Neither the District, Contractor, nor any subContractor may declare another party to be in
default, or assess, claim, or pursue damages for delays, until the parties to agree on a price for the additional work.I.10 NON-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE

I.10.1

The Contractor shall not discriminate in any manner against any employee or applicant for employment that would constitute a violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, effective December 13, 1977, as amended (D.C. Law 2-38; D.C. Official Code § 2-1401.01 et seq.) (“Act”, as used in this clause.) The Contractor shall include a similar clause in all subContracts, except subContracts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials. In addition, the Contractor agrees, and any subContractor shall agree, to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, a notice setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause as provided in section 251 of the Act.

I.10.2

Pursuant to Mayor’s Order 85-85, (6/10/85), Mayor’s Order 2002-175 (10/23/02), Mayor’s Order 2011-155 (9/9/11) and the rules of the Office of Human Rights, Chapter 11 of Title 4 of the D.C. Municipal Regulations, the following clauses apply to the Contract:

I.10.3

The Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibilities, genetic

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 40 of 53

I.10.4
I.10.5 I.10.6 I.10.7 I.10.8 I.10.9 I.10.10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 48 of 127
information, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, or credit information. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination, which is prohibited by the Act. In addition, harassment based on any of the above-protected categories is prohibited by the Act.
The Contractor agrees to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, or credit information. The affirmative action shall include, but not be limited to the following:
a) employment, upgrading or transfer; b) recruitment, or recruitment advertising; c) demotion, layoff, or termination; d) rates of pay, or other forms of compensation; and e) selection for training and apprenticeship.
The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the Contracting agency, setting forth the provisions in paragraphs 19(b) (1) and (b) (2) concerning non-discrimination and affirmative action.
The Contractor shall, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment pursuant to the non-discrimination requirements set forth in paragraph 19(b) (2).
The Contractor agrees to send to each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other Contract or understanding, a notice to be provided by the Contracting agency, advising the said labor union or workers’ representative of that Contractor’s commitments under this nondiscrimination clause and the Act, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.
The Contractor agrees to permit access to its books, records, and accounts pertaining to its employment practices, by the Chief Procurement Officer or designee, or the Director of the Office of Human Rights or designee, for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with the Act, and to require under terms of any subContractor agreement each subContractor to permit access of such subContractors’ books, records, and accounts for such purposes.
The Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of the Act and with all guidelines for equal employment opportunity applicable in the District adopted by the Director of the Office of Human Rights, or any authorized official.
The Contractor shall include in every subContract the equal opportunity clause, i.e., paragraphs 19(b) (1) through (b) (9) of this clause, so that such provisions shall be binding upon each subContractor.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 41 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 49 of 127

I.15.11 I.11

The Contractor shall take such action with respect to any subContract as the CO may direct as a means of enforcing these provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance; provided, however, that in the event the Contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subContractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the Contracting agency, the Contractor may request the District to enter into such litigation to protect the interest of the District
RIGHTS IN DATA
A. Definitions
1. “Products” - A deliverable under any Contract that may include commodities, services and/or technology furnished by or through Contractor, including existing and custom Products, such as, but not limited to: a) recorded information, regardless of form or the media on which it may be recorded; b) document research; c) experimental, developmental, or engineering work; d) licensed software; e) components of the hardware environment; f) printed materials (including but not limited to training manuals, system and user documentation, reports, drawings); g) third party software; h) modifications, customizations, custom programs, program listings, programming tools, data, modules, components; and i) any intellectual property embodied therein, whether in tangible or intangible form, including but not limited to utilities, interfaces, templates, subroutines, algorithms, formulas, source code, and object code.
2. “Existing Products” - Tangible Products and intangible licensed Products that exist prior to the commencement of work under the Contract. Existing Products must be identified on the Product prior to commencement of work or else will be presumed to be Custom Products.
3. “Custom Products” - Products, preliminary, final or otherwise, which are created or developed by Contractor, its subContractors, partners, employees, resellers or agents for the District under the Contract.
4. “District” – The District of Columbia and its agencies.
B. Title to Project Deliverables The Contractor acknowledges that it is commissioned by the District to perform services detailed in the Contract. The District shall have ownership and rights for the duration set forth in the Contract to use, copy, modify, distribute, or adapt Products as follows:
1. Existing Products: Title to all Existing Licensed Product(s), whether or not embedded in, delivered or operating in conjunction with hardware or Custom Products, shall remain with Contractor or third-party proprietary owner, who retains all rights, title and interest (including patent, trademark or copyrights). Effective upon payment, the District shall be granted an irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, paid-up license to use, execute, reproduce, display, perform, adapt (unless Contractor advises the District as part of Contractor’s Proposal that adaptation will violate existing agreements or statutes and Contractor demonstrates such to the District’s satisfaction), and distribute Existing Product to District users up to the license capacity stated in the Contract with all license rights necessary to fully effect the general business purpose of the project or work plan or

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 42 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 50 of 127
Contract. Licenses shall be granted in the name of the District. The District agrees to reproduce the copyright notice and any other legend of ownership on any copies authorized under this paragraph.
2. Custom Products: Effective upon Product creation, Contractor hereby conveys, assigns, and transfers to the District the sole and exclusive rights, title and interest in Custom Product(s), whether preliminary, final or otherwise, including all patent, trademark and copyrights. Contractor hereby agrees to take all necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that the Custom Products are protected against unauthorized copying, reproduction and marketing by or through Contractor.
C. Transfers or Assignments of Existing or Custom Products by the District The Department may transfer or assign Existing or Custom Products and the licenses thereunder to another District agency. Nothing herein shall preclude the Contractor from otherwise using the related or underlying general knowledge, skills, ideas, concepts, techniques and experience developed under a project or work plan in the course of Contractor’s business.
D. SubContractor Rights
Whenever any data, including computer software, are to be obtained from a subContractor under the Contract, the Contractor shall use this clause, Rights in Data, in the subContract, without alteration, and no other clause shall be used to enlarge or diminish the District’s or the Contractor’s rights in that subContractor data or computer software which is required for the District.
E. Source Code Escrow
1. For all computer software furnished to the District with the rights specified in section B.2, the Contractor shall furnish to the District, a copy of the source code with such rights of the scope as specified in section B.2 of this clause. For all computer software furnished to the District with the restricted rights specified in section B.1 of this clause, the District, if the Contractor either directly or through a successor or affiliate shall cease to provide the maintenance or warranty services provided the District under the Contract or any paid-up maintenance agreement, or if the Contractor should be declared insolvent by a court of competent jurisdiction, shall have the right to obtain, for its own and sole use only, a single copy of the current version of the source code supplied under the Contract, and a single copy of the documentation associated therewith, upon payment to the person in control of the source code the reasonable cost of making each copy.
2. If the Contractor or Product manufacturer/developer of software furnished to the District with the rights specified in section B.1 of this clause offers the source code or source code escrow to any other commercial customers, the Contractor shall either: (1) provide the District with the source code for the Product; (2) place the source code in a third party escrow arrangement with a designated escrow agent who shall be named and identified to the District, and who shall be directed to release the deposited source code in accordance with a standard escrow arrangement acceptable to the District; or (3) will certify to the District that the Product manufacturer/ developer has named the District as a named
DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 43 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 51 of 127

beneficiary of an established escrow arrangement with its designated escrow agent who shall be named and identified to the District, and who shall be directed to release the deposited source code in accordance with the terms of escrow.

3. The Contractor shall update the source code, as well as any corrections or enhancements to the source code, for each new release of the Product in the same manner as provided above and certify such updating of escrow to the District in writing.
F. Indemnification and Limitation of Liability

The Contractor shall indemnify and save and hold harmless the District, its officers, agents and employees acting within the scope of their official duties against any liability, including costs and expenses, (i) for violation of proprietary rights, copyrights, or rights of privacy, arising out of the publication, translation, reproduction, delivery, performance, use or disposition of any data furnished under this Contract, or (ii) based upon any data furnished under this Contract, or based upon libelous or other unlawful matter contained in such data.

I.12

OTHER CONTRACTORS

The Contractor shall not commit or permit any act that will interfere with the performance of work

by another District Contractor or by any District employee.

I.13

SUBCONTRACTS

The Contractor hereunder shall not subContract any of the Contractor’s work or services to any

subContractor without the prior written consent of the CO. Any work or service so subContracted

shall be performed pursuant to a subContract agreement, which the District will have the right to

review and approve prior to its execution by the Contractor. Any such subContract shall specify

that the Contractor and the subContractor shall be subject to every provision of this Contract.

Notwithstanding any such subContract approved by the District, the Contractor shall remain liable

to the District for all Contractor's work and services required hereunder.

I.14

INSURANCE

A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. The Contractor at its sole expense shall procure and maintain, during the entire period of performance under this contract, the types of insurance specified below. The Contractor shall have its insurance broker or insurance company submit a Certificate of Insurance to the CO giving evidence of the required coverage prior to commencing performance under this contract. In no event shall any work be performed until the required Certificates of Insurance signed by an authorized representative of the insurer(s) have been provided to, and accepted by, the CO. All insurance shall be written with financially responsible companies authorized to do business in the District of Columbia or in the jurisdiction where the work is to be performed and have an A.M. Best Company rating of A- / VII or higher. The Contractor shall require all of its subcontractors to carry the same insurance required herein.

All required policies shall contain a waiver of subrogation provision in favor of the Government of the District of Columbia.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 44 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 52 of 127
The Government of the District of Columbia shall be included in all policies required hereunder to be maintained by the Contractor and its subcontractors (except for workers’ compensation and professional liability insurance) as an additional insureds for claims against The Government of the District of Columbia relating to this contract, with the understanding that any affirmative obligation imposed upon the insured Contractor or its subcontractors (including without limitation the liability to pay premiums) shall be the sole obligation of the Contractor or its subcontractors, and not the additional insured. The additional insured status under the Contractor’s and its subcontractors’ Commercial General Liability insurance policies shall be affected using the ISO Additional Insured Endorsement form CG 20 10 11 85 (or CG 20 10 07 04 and CG 20 37 07 04) or such other endorsement or combination of endorsements providing coverage at least as broad and approved by the CO in writing. All of the Contractor’s and its subcontractors’ liability policies (except for workers’ compensation and professional liability insurance) shall be endorsed using ISO form CG 20 01 04 13 or its equivalent so as to indicate that such policies provide primary coverage (without any right of contribution by any other insurance, reinsurance or self-insurance, including any deductible or retention, maintained by an Additional Insured) for all claims against the additional insured arising out of the performance of this Statement of Work by the Contractor or its subcontractors, or anyone for whom the Contractor or its subcontractors may be liable. These policies shall include a separation of insureds clause applicable to the additional insured.
If the Contractor and/or its subcontractors maintain broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown below, the District requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by the Grantee and subcontractors.
1. Commercial General Liability Insurance. The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the CO with respect to the services performed that it carries a CGL policy, written on an occurrence (not claims-made) basis, on Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) form CG 00 01 04 13 (or another occurrence-based form with coverage at least as broad and approved by the CO in writing), covering liability for all ongoing and completed operations of the Contractor, including ongoing and completed operations under all subcontracts, and covering claims for bodily injury, including without limitation sickness, disease or death of any persons, injury to or destruction of property, including loss of use resulting therefrom, personal and advertising injury, and including coverage for liability arising out of an Insured Contract (including the tort liability of another assumed in a contract) and acts of terrorism (whether caused by a foreign or domestic source). Such coverage shall have limits of liability of not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, a $2,000,000 general aggregate (including a per location or per project aggregate limit endorsement, if applicable) limit, a $1,000,000 personal and advertising injury limit, and a $2,000,000 products-completed operations aggregate limit.
The vendor should be named as an additional insured on the applicable manufacturer’s/distributer’s Commercial General Liability policy using Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) form CG 20 15 04 13 (or another occurrence-based form with coverage at least as broad)
DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 45 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 53 of 127
2. Automobile Liability Insurance. The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the CO of commercial (business) automobile liability insurance written on ISO form COTR/CA 00 01 10 13 (or another form with coverage at least as broad and approved by the CO in writing) including coverage for all owned, hired, borrowed and nonowned vehicles and equipment used by the Contractor, with minimum per accident limits equal to the greater of (i) the limits set forth in the Contractor’s commercial automobile liability policy or (ii) $1,000,000 per occurrence combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation Insurance. The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the CO of Workers’ Compensation insurance in accordance with the statutory mandates of the District of Columbia or the jurisdiction in which the contract is performed.
Employer’s Liability Insurance. The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the CO of employer’s liability insurance as follows: $500,000 per accident for injury; $500,000 per employee for disease; and $500,000 for policy disease limit.
All insurance required by this paragraph 3 shall include a waiver of subrogation endorsement for the benefit of Government of the District of Columbia
4. Crime Insurance (3rd Party Indemnity) - The Contractor shall provide a 3rd Party Crime policy to cover the dishonest acts of Contractor’s employees which result in a loss to the District. The policy shall provide a limit of $10,000 per occurrence.
5. Cyber Liability Insurance - The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the Contracting Officer of Cyber Liability Insurance, with limits not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate. Coverage shall be sufficiently broad to respond to the duties and obligations as is undertaken by Contractor in this agreement and shall include, but not limited to, claims involving infringement of intellectual property, including but not limited to infringement of copyright, trademark, trade dress, invasion of privacy violations, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, release of private information, alteration of electronic information, extortion and network security. The policy shall provide coverage for breach response costs as well as regulatory fines and penalties as well as credit monitoring expenses with limits sufficient to respond to these obligations. This insurance requirement will be considered met if the general liability insurance includes an affirmative cyber endorsement for the required amounts and coverages. NOTE: The Office of Risk Management (ORM) will require the Contractor to furnish a copy of the actual cyber policy (not just the binder) prior to granting approval of the policy.
6. Environmental Liability Insurance - The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the CO of pollution legal liability insurance covering losses caused by pollution conditions that arise from the ongoing or completed operations of the Contractor. Completed operations coverage shall remain in effect for at least ten (10) years after completion of the work. Such insurance shall apply to bodily injury, property damage (including loss of use of damaged property or of property that has been physically injured), cleanup costs, liability and cleanup costs while in transit, and defense
DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 46 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 54 of 127
(including costs and expenses incurred in the investigation, defense and settlement of claims). There shall be neither an exclusion nor a sublimit for mold-related claims. The minimum limits required under this paragraph shall be equal to the greater of (i) the limits set forth in the Contractor’s pollution legal liability policy or (ii) $2,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the annual aggregate. If such coverage is written on a claims-made basis, the Contractor warrants that any retroactive date applicable to coverages under the policy precedes the Contractor’s performance of any work under the Contract and that continuous coverage will be maintained or an extended reporting period will be exercised for at least ten (10) years after completion. The Contractor also must furnish to the Owner certificates of insurance evidencing pollution legal liability insurance maintained by the transportation and disposal site operators(s) used by the Contractor for losses arising from facility(ies) accepting, storing or disposing hazardous materials or other waste as a result of the Contractor’s operations. Such coverages must be maintained with limits of at least the amounts set forth above.
7. Professional Liability Insurance (Errors & Omissions) - The Contractor shall provide Professional Liability Insurance (Errors and Omissions) to cover liability resulting from any error or omission in the performance of professional services under this Contract. The policy shall provide limits of $1,000,000 per claim or per occurrence for each wrongful act and $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The Contractor warrants that any applicable retroactive date precedes the date the Contractor first performed any professional services for the Government of the District of Columbia and that continuous coverage will be maintained or an extended reporting period will be exercised for a period of at least ten years after the completion of the professional services.
8. Sexual/Physical Abuse & Molestation – RESERVED [Intentionally Omitted]
9. Commercial Umbrella or Excess Liability - The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the CO of commercial umbrella or excess liability insurance with minimum limits equal to the greater of (i) the limits set forth in the Contractor’s umbrella or excess liability policy or (ii) $5,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 in the annual aggregate, following the form and in excess of all liability policies. All liability coverages must be scheduled under the umbrella and/or excess policy. The insurance required under this paragraph shall be written in a form that annually reinstates all required limits. Coverage shall be primary to any insurance, self-insurance or reinsurance maintained by the District and the “other insurance” provision must be amended in accordance with this requirement and principles of vertical exhaustion
B. PRIMARY AND NONCONTRIBUTORY INSURANCE. The insurance required herein shall be primary to and will not seek contribution from any other insurance, reinsurance or self-insurance including any deductible or retention, maintained by the Government of the District of Columbia.
C. DURATION. The Contractor shall carry all required insurance until all Contract work is accepted by the District and shall carry the required General Liability; any required Professional Liability; and any required Employment Practices Liability insurance for five (5) years following final acceptance of the work performed under this Contract.
DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 47 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 55 of 127
D. LIABILITY. These are the required minimum insurance requirements established by the District of Columbia. HOWEVER, THE REQUIRED MINIMUM INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED ABOVE WILL NOT IN ANY WAY LIMIT THE CONTRACTOR’S LIABILITY UNDER THIS CONTRACT.
E. CONTRACTOR’S PROPERTY. Contractor and subContractors are solely responsible for any loss or damage to their personal property, including but not limited to tools and equipment, scaffolding and temporary structures, rented machinery, or owned and leased equipment. A waiver of subrogation shall apply in favor of the District of Columbia.
F. MEASURE OF PAYMENT. The District shall not make any separate measure or payment for the cost of insurance and bonds. The Contractor shall include all of the costs of insurance and bonds in the Contract price.
G. NOTIFICATION. The Contractor shall immediately provide the CO with written notice in the event that its insurance coverage has or will be substantially changed, canceled or not renewed, and provide an updated certificate of insurance to the CO.
H. CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE. The Contractor shall submit certificates of insurance giving evidence of the required coverage as specified in this section prior to commencing work. Evidence of insurance shall be submitted to:
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
And mailed to the attention of:
GEORGE G. LEWIS, CPPO C/O Domonique L. Banks Chief Procurement Officer Chief of Contracts & Procurement Department of General Services 2000 14th Street N.W. | 8th Floor Telephone: (202) 727-2800 E-mail: george.lewis@dc.gov
The CO may request, and the Contractor shall promptly deliver updated certificates of insurance, endorsements indicating the required coverages, and/or certified copies of the insurance policies. If the insurance initially obtained by the Contractor expires prior to completion of the Contract, renewal certificates of insurance and additional insured and other endorsements shall be furnished to the CO prior to the date of expiration of all such initial insurance. For all coverage required to be maintained after completion, an additional certificate of insurance evidencing such coverage shall be submitted to the CO on an annual basis as the coverage is renewed (or replaced).
I. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION. The Contractor agrees that the District may disclose the name and contact information of its insurers to any third party which presents a claim against the District for any damages or claims resulting from or arising out of work performed by the Contractor, its agents, employees, servants or subContractors in the performance of this Contract.
DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 48 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 56 of 127

J. CARRIER RATINGS. All Contractor’s and its subContractors’ insurance required in connection with this Contract shall be written by insurance companies with an A.M. Best Insurance Guide rating of at least A- VII (or the equivalent by any other rating agency) and licensed in the in the District.

I.15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

In accordance with the District of Columbia Administrative Issuance System, Mayor’s Order 85-

85 dated June 10, 1985, the forms for completion of the Equal Employment Opportunity

Information Report are incorporated herein as Attachment J.8. An award cannot be made to any

Contractor who has not satisfied the equal employment requirements.

I.16

ORDER OF PRECEDENCE

The Contract will contain the following clause:

ORDER OF PRECEDENCE
A conflict in language shall be resolved by giving precedence to the document in the highest order of priority that contains language addressing the issue in question. The following documents are incorporated into the Contract by reference and made a part of the Contract in the following order of precedence:

(1) An applicable Court Order, if any (2) Contract document (3) Standard Contract Provisions (4) Contract attachments other than the Standard Contract Provisions (5) RFP, as amended (6) BAFOs (in order of most recent to earliest) (7) Proposal

I.17

TIME

Time, if stated in a number of days, will include Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, unless otherwise stated herein.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 49 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 57 of 127

SECTION J ATTACHMENTS

The following list of attachments is incorporated into the solicitation by reference.

ATTACHMENT NO.
J.1

DOCUMENT
Government of the District of Columbia’s Department of General Services Standard Contract Provisions (“SCP”) for Supplies and Services Contracts, January 2016

J.2

U.S. Department of Labor Wage Determination 2015-4282, Revision 17 Dated 23-

April-2020

J.3

Way to Work Amendment Act of 2006 - Living Wage Notice & Fact Sheet

J.4

Bidder/Offer Certification revised 26-February-2020

J.5

Department of Employment Services First (1st) Source Employment Agreement

J.6

Department of Employment Services First (1st) Source Employment Plan

J.7

DSLBD SBE SubContracting Plan Form

J.8

Department of Employment Services, Equal Employment Opportunity Employer

Information Report and Mayor’s Order 85-85

J.9

Tax Certification Affidavit

J.10

Center for Biocide Chemistries Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Fighting Products

J.11

EPA’s Registered Antimicrobial Products for Use Against Novel Coronavirus SARSCoV-2, the Cause of COVID-19

J.12

CDC Environmental Cleaning and Disinfection Recommendations

J.13

District-wide guidance for enhanced cleaning in all public facilities to protect against

COVID-19 spread

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 50 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 58 of 127

SECTION K REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF
OFFERORS

K.1

Bidder/Offeror Certification Form Attachment J.4

K.2

WALSH-HEALEY ACT

If this Contract is for the manufacture or furnishing of materials, supplies, articles or equipment in an amount that exceeds or may exceed $10,000, and is subject to the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. §§ 35-45) (the “Act”, as used in this section), the following terms and conditions apply:

(a) All representations and stipulations required by the Act and regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor (41 CFR 50-201.3) are incorporated by reference. These representations and stipulations are subject to all applicable rulings and interpretations of the Secretary of Labor that are now, or may hereafter, be in effect.

(b) All employees whose work relates to this Contract shall be paid not less than the minimum wage prescribed by regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor (41 CFR 50-202.2) (41 U.S.C. §40). Learners, student learners, apprentices, and handicapped workers may be employed at less than the prescribed minimum wage (see 41 CFR 50-202.3) to the same extent that such employment is permitted under Section 14 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. §214).

K.3

CERTIFICATION REGARDING A DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE (JULY 1990)

K.3.1

Definitions. As used in this provision:

K.3.1.2

Conviction: means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendere) or imposition of sentence, or both, by any judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of the federal or state criminal drug statutes.

K.3.1.3

Criminal drug statute: means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of any controlled substance.

K.3.1.4

Drug-free workplace: means the site(s) for the performance of work done by the Contractor in connection with a specific Contract at which employees of the Contractor are prohibited from engaging in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance.

K.3.1.5

Employee: means an employee of a Contractor directly engaged in the performance of work under a District Contract. “Directly engaged” is defined to include all direct cost employees and any other Contractor employee who has other than a minimal impact or involvement in Contract performance.

K.3.1.6

Individual: means an offeror/Contractor that has no more than one employee including the offeror/Contractor.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 51 of 53

K.3.2 K.3.3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 59 of 127
The Contractor, if other than an individual, shall within 30 days after award (unless a longer period is agreed to in writing for Contracts of 30 days or more performance duration), or as soon as possible for Contracts of less than 30 days performance duration:
(1) Publish a statement notifying its employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the Contractor’s workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violations of such prohibition;
(2) Establish an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform such employees about: a. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; b. The Contractor’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; c. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and d. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace.
(3) Provide all employees engaged in performance of the Contract with a copy of the statement required by Section [K.3.2(1)] of this clause;
(4) Notify such employees in writing in the statement required by Section [K.3.2(1)] of this clause that, as a condition of continued employment on this Contract, the employee will: a. Abide by the terms of the statement; and b. Notify the employer in writing of the employee’s conviction under a criminal drug statute for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than 5 days after such conviction.
(5) Notify the CO in writing within 10 days after receiving notice under Section [K.3.2(4)(b)] of this clause, from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. The notice shall include the position title of the employee;
(6) Within 30 days after receiving notice under Section [K.3.2(4)(b)] of this clause of a conviction, take one of the following actions with respect to any employee who is convicted of a drug abuse violation occurring in the workplace:
a. Take appropriate personnel action against such employee, up to and including termination; or
b. Require such employee to satisfactorily participate in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a federal, state, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; and
(7) Make a good faith effort to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of Section [K.3.2(1)] through [K.3.2(6)] of this clause.
The Contractor, if an individual, agrees by award of the Contract or acceptance of a purchase order, not to engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance while performing this Contract.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 52 of 53

K.3.4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 60 of 127
In addition to other remedies available to the District, the Contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of Sections [K.3.2] or [K.3.3] of this clause may render the Contractor subject to suspension of Contract payments, termination of the Contract for default, and suspension or debarment.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES
Page 53 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 61 of 127
ATTACHMENT 2

AWCAaRseD1/C:2O0-NcvT-0R0A84C9T-CKK

2. Contract Number

3. Effective Date

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B

18-MAY-2020

5. Issued By: George G. Lewis, CPPO

Code

Document 18.2-7CaptFioinled 05/26/20 Page 62 of 127 Page of Pages Comprehensive Hazardous Materials (“HAZMAT”)

Environmental Cleaning Services related to the

SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Coronavirus-19

Pandemic for the Department of Corrections.

1

53

4. Requisition/Purchase Request/Project No.

6. Administered by (If other than line 5) Domonique L. Banks, Contract Specialist

Department of General Services Contracts and Procurement Division 2000 14th Street, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20009

Department of General Services Contracts and Procurement Division 2000 14th Street, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20009

8. Name and Address of Contractor (No. street, city, county, state and Zip Code) 8. Delivery

SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT, LLC 1229 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20003

George Simpson | (202) 546‐2080 |kadams@smusa.us

Code

Facility

11. Ship to/Mark For

Code

FOB Origin

Other (See Schedule Section F)

9. Discount for prompt payment Net thirty (30) Days

10. Submit invoices to the Address



shown in item 6

(2 copies unless otherwise specified)

Item 6

12. Payment will be made by Government of the District of Columbia

Code

13. Reserved for future use

15A. Item 0001

15B. Supplies/Services FIXED-PRICE MONTHLY SERVICE RATE

(X) Section

Description

PART I – THE SCHEDULE

X

A

Solicitation/Contract Form

14. Accounting and Appropriation Data

ENCUMBRANCE CODE:

15C. Qty.

15D. Unit

15E. Unit Price

15F. Amount

EA

MONTHLY

$255,073.87

795,211.61

TOTAL AMOUNT OF CONTRACT 

AGGREGATE NTE
$790,221.61 (INCLUDING $25K Cost
Reimbursement)

16. Table of Contents

Page

(X)

Section

Description

Page

PART II – CONTRACT CLAUSES

I

Contract Clauses

X

B

Supplies or Services and Price/Cost

X

C

Description/Specifications/Work

Statement

X

D

Packaging and Marking

PART III – LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER

ATTACHMENTS

J

List of Attachments

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

X

E

Inspection and Acceptance

X

F

Deliveries or Performance

K

Representations, Certifications and Other

Statements of Offerors

X

G

Contract Administration data

L

Instructions, conditions & notices to offerors

X

H

Special Contract Requirements

M

Evaluation factors for award

EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE

ISSUE DATE Friday, March 13, 2020

Contracting Officer will complete Item 17 or 18 as applicable

17. CONTRACTOR’S NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT (Contractor is required to sign this document and return copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees to furnish and deliver all items, perform all the services set forth or otherwise identified above and on any continuation sheets, for the consideration stated herein. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be subject to and governed by the following documents:
(a) this award/contract, (b) the solicitation, if any, and (c) such provisions, representations, certifications, and specifications, as are attached or

18. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.) Your offer on Solicitation Number DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B, including the additions or changes made by which additions or changes are set forth in full above, is hereby accepted
as to the items listed above and on any continuation sheets. This award consummates the contract which consists of the following documents: (a) the
Government’s solicitation and your offer, and (b) this award/contract. No further contractual document is necessary.

incorporated by reference herein. (Attachments are listed herein.)

19A. Name and Title of Signer (Type or print)
Nathan Speight, Dir of BD
19B. Name of Contractor

19C. Date Signed

20A. Name of Contracting Officer
George G. Lewis, CPPO Chief of Contracts & Procurement, Chief Procurement Officer

20B. District of Columbia

20C. Date Signed

18-MAY-2020

18-MAY-2020

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Government of the District of Columbia

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 63 of 127

B.1 B.1.1 B.2 B.2.1 B.3
B.3.1

SECTION B CONTRACT TYPE, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COST
Pursuant to D.C. Code § 7–2304. Issuance of emergency executive order; contents; actions of Mayor after issuance This Emergency Contract (the “Contract”) DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B is made by and between the District of Columbia Government (the “District”) by and through its Department of General Services (“DGS”), on behalf of the Department of Corrections (“DOC”), collectively (the “District”) and Spectrum Management, LLC. (“Spectrum” or "Contractor") to provide Comprehensive Hazardous Materials (“HAZMAT”) Environmental Cleaning Services related to the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Coronavirus-19 Pandemic for the Department of Corrections. These services shall be performed at the Department of Corrections’ Correctional Treatment Facility, located at 1901 E Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003.
The Contractor shall provide all labor, management, supervision, tools, equipment, storage, vehicles, approved Center for Biocide Chemistries (“CBC”), Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) antimicrobial fighting cleaning product supplies, consumable supplies (e.g. liquid hand soap, paper towel and toilet paper) and approved pandemic Personal Protection Equipment (”PPE”), and all else necessary to successfully perform the required services on an emergency basis for a period up-to 90-days.
TYPE OF CONTRACT In accordance with 27 DCMR Chapter 47 of Title 27 - 4712 FIXED-PRICE CONTRACTS; the District awards the firm, fixed monthly service rate contract with supplies and materials reimbursed in accordance with 27 DCMR Chapter 47 of Title 27 – 4713 COST REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACTS.
The Contract shall contain the following types of contract components:
a) Firm-fixed Monthly Services Rate; and b) Cost of supplies/materials compensated on a reimbursable basis and charged to the district
with not more than a 3% mark-up.
PRICE
The firm-fixed, monthly service rate and cost reimbursement ceiling as identified in Section [B.3.1] and [B.3.1.1] (respectively) shall be the Contractor’s sole method of compensation and as such, shall be sufficient to cover all of the cost necessary to provide services including, but not limited to, all labor, supplies (to include all approved Center for Biocide Chemistries, EPA and CDC antimicrobial fighting cleaning product supplies, consumable supplies (e.g. liquid hand soap, paper towel and toilet paper) and approved pandemic Personal Protection Equipment (”PPE”)), materials, equipment, tools, vehicles, transportation, travel to and from work sites, per diem, subcontractor cost, home office overhead, profit, insurance coverages and provisions as required in Section [I.14] and, all else necessary to perform all work related to providing the District with safe and proper provision of required services as described herein.
Price Schedule All antimicrobial fighting cleaning product supplies (cleaning “solvents’), consumable supplies (e.g. liquid hand soap, paper towel and toilet paper) and CDC approved pandemic, Personal Protection Equipment (”PPE”) shall be furnished to the District at Contractor cost plus NO-MORE

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 2 of 53

B.3.2 B.3.2.1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 64 of 127

than a 3% markup. The Department will not pay for or otherwise reimburse the Contractor for cost of any other equipment purchase and or rented.

B.3.1 PRICE SCHEDULE
CLIN DESCRIPTION 0001 Firm‐Fixed Daily Janitorial Services

DCAM‐20‐NC‐EM‐0079B PRICE SCHEDULE

UNIT

COST QTY

MTLY $ 255,073.87 3 $

TOTAL BASIC SERVICES

$ 255,073.87

$

EXTENDED COST
765,221.61 765,221.61

0002 CLEANING SUPPLY COST REIMBURSEMENT CEILING SECTION [B.3.2.1]

$

25,000.00

$

790,221.61

90‐DAY EMERGENCY CONTRACT COST BREAKDOWN BY PERIOD

DESCRIPTION

UNIT

RATE QTY EXTENDED COST

18‐MAY‐2020 THRU 31‐MAY‐2020 DAILY $

8,502.46 14 $

119,034.47

1‐JUNE‐2020 THRU 31‐JULY‐2020 MTLY $ 255,073.87 2 $

510,147.74

1‐AUGUST‐2020 THRU 16‐AUGUST‐2020 DAILY $

8,502.46 16 $

136,039.40

CLEANING SUPPLY COST REIMBURSEMENT CEILING EA $ 25,000.00 1 $

25,000.00

90‐DAY EMERGENCY CONTRACT COST $

790,221.61

GRAND TOTAL EMERGENCY CONTRACT (EC) NOT‐TO‐EXCEED CONTRACT VALUE $
$

790,221.61
‐

Cleaning Supply Cost Reimbursement The Contractor will be reimbursed for all approved Center for Biocide Chemistries (“CBC”), Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) antimicrobial fighting cleaning product supplies (“solvents”), and approved pandemic, Personal Protection Equipment (”PPE”) collectively (“Cleaning Supplies”). Such cost for “cleaning supplies” will be reimbursed only when the following are complete: (i) the Contractor provides the Department with an invoice outlining the itemized cost of all approved cleaning supplies and materials as described in Section [B.3]. The invoice shall be itemized to include but at a minimum, a full list of individual supplies/materials (i.e. antimicrobial cleaning solvent, N95 respirator mask, Tyvek suites, etc.), quantity purchased, vendor cost of materials by line item, extended cost by material, and estimate shipping and arrival of materials; and (ii) the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) approves the invoice. The Cleaning Supply Reimbursable Cost shall-not exceed the established ordering ceiling as defined in Section [B.4.2.1.1] below for the term of the Emergency Contract. Cost of all materials and supplies shall be furnished to the District at Contractor cost plus NO-MORE than a 3% markup. The Department will not pay for or otherwise reimburse the Contractor for cost of any other equipment purchase and or rented.

Cost Reimbursement Supply/Material Ordering Ceiling The ordering maximum values for all Clean Supplies furnished to the District for the duration of the 90-day Emergency Contract Period shall be as identified in the table below:

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 3 of 53

B.3.3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 65 of 127

ITEM DESCRIPTION Reimbursable "Cleaning Supply" Cost

EMERGENCY CONTRACT PERIOD
(ECP) NOT‐TOEXCEED

$

25,000.00

The Department is an exempt government agency and thus will neither owe, nor pay any sales tax imposed on the vendor for the purchase of any such materials or supplies. If and to the extent permitted under applicable law, the Department at its discretion, will complete any forms that the vendor may provide, to position and/or enable the vendor to purchase materials or supplies for this Contract, on a tax-free basis.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 4 of 53

C.1 C.1.1
C.2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 66 of 127
SECTION C SPECIFICATIONS/WORK STATEMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On March 11, 2020 Mayor Muriel Bowser declared a state of emergency pursuant to D.C. Code § 7–2304. Issuance of emergency executive order; contents; actions of Mayor in response to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) declaration of the imminent threat and spread of SARSCoV-2 (COVID-19) Coronavirus-19 as a world-wide Pandemic. The District of Columbia Government (the “District”) by and through its Department of General Services (“DGS”), on behalf of the Department of Corrections (“DOC”), collectively (the “District”) is committed to improving the quality, appearance and cleanliness of its real property assets throughout the District of Columbia including the Department of Corrections. The Department of General Services is responsible for the operations, maintenance and repair, including comprehensive janitorial and sanitation services for more than 36,000,000 gross square feet in owned or operated facilities across the District of Columbia. The Contractor shall provide Comprehensive Hazardous Materials (“HAZMAT”) Environmental Cleaning Services related to the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Coronavirus-19 Pandemic for the Department of Corrections. These services shall be performed at the Department of Corrections’ Correctional Treatment Facility, located at 1901 E Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003.
APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS AND REQUIRED LICENSURES The following are applicable to this procurement and the resulting contract; and are hereby incorporated by reference.

No.

Document Type

Title

Version/ Date

1

U.S. Law

U.S. Department of Labor

Most Recent

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

General Contractor’s Quality Control Plan ‐ 29 CFR Part 1900

Subparts A‐P

Occupational Safety and Health Standards 29 CFR, Part 1910,

Construction Contractor’s Quality Control Plan – 29 CFR Part

1926

Hazardous and Toxic Materials

2

U.S. Law

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 42 USC sections 6901‐6976
Concerning Hazardous Substances and Waste

Most Recent

3

U.S. Law

40 CFR, Parts 260, 261, 264, 265, 268, 270, and 273

Most Recent

4

Executive Order 13101

5

OCP Document (Directive)

6

Industry Standards and

Specifications

Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition
OCP Directive 1303.00 Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
Vacuum Cleaner "Green Label/Green Label Plus" Testing Program

Most Recent Most Recent Most Recent

7

Industry Standards and

Specifications

ANSI/ASEE A1264.2‐2006 Provision of Slip Resistance on Walking/Working Surfaces
Guidelines

Most Recent

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 5 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 67 of 127

8

Consent Decree

9

Federal Guidelines

10

Industry Standard

11 EPA’s Registered Antimicrobial products for Use Against
Novel Cornoavirus SARS‐CoV‐ 2, the Cause of COVID‐19

12 Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐19)‐ Fighting Products; Center for Biocide Chemistries.

13

Interim Environmental

Cleaning and Disinfection

Recommendations; Centers

for Disease Control and

Prevention.

14

District of Columbia

District ‐ Sierra Club Consent Decree Center for Disease Control Protocols ASTM E1971‐05(2011): Standard Guide for Stewardship for the Cleaning of Commercial and Institutional Buildings https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020‐ 03/documents/sars‐cov‐2‐list_03‐03‐2020.pdf
https://www.americanchemistry.com/Novel‐Coronavirus‐ Fighting‐Products‐List.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019‐ ncov/community/home/cleaning‐disinfection.html
Guidance Memorandum ‐ EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY District‐wide guidance for enhanced cleaning in all public facilities to protect against COVID‐19 spread

Most Recent Most Recent
Most Recent 03‐March‐2020
05‐March‐2020
05‐March‐2020
12‐March‐2020

C.3 C.3.1 C.3.1.1 C.3.1.2 C.3.1.3
C.3.1.4
C.3.1.5

DEFINITIONS & ACRONYMS
Definitions. The following are definitions used for the purpose of this solicitation:
Acceptance: constitutes acknowledgment that the supplies or services conform to applicable contract quality and quantity requirements.
Antimicrobial mold and mildew cleaner refers to a type of disinfecting product designed to eliminate specific types of mold or mildew.
Approval: the Department and/or the District has reviewed submittals, deliverables, or administrative documents (e.g., insurance certificates, etc.), and has determined the documents conform to contract requirements. Department and/or District approval shall not relieve the Contractor of responsibility for complying with Federal, District, local laws and regulations.
Contracting Officer (CO): Chief Contracting Officer and Contracting Officers with delegated authority from the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) are authorized to enter into contractual relationships on behalf of the District or Department, in accordance with their delegated authority. Further, only the CPO and COs are authorized to modify or make changes to the terms and conditions of the contract via the issuance of written contract modifications, change orders, change directives and/or task orders. Thus, actions or obligations of the Contractor, that are not authorized by the CPO or COs are at the sole risk and expense of the Contractor.
Contractor: the individual, firm, company, corporation, partnership, or combination thereof, including joint ventures, contracting with the Department to the contract work. The Contractor is one of the parties to this Contract.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 6 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 68 of 127

C.3.1.6 C.3.1.7 C.3.1.8 C.3.1.9 C.3.1.10 C.3.1.11 C.3.1.12 C.3.1.13
C.3.1.14 C.3.1.15 C.3.1.16

Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR): A District employee(s) responsible for technical direction and administration, not authorization, of the services under the contract, or task orders issued against IDIQ contracts, as applicable, unless otherwise authorized by the CO. Correction: the elimination of a defect.
Carpet cleaners include products that are used to perform routine cleaning or spot cleaning of carpets, rugs, and upholstery. This category includes, but is not limited to, products that use shampooing, dry foam, absorption, and wet extraction.
Concentrate refers to a product that, as sold, must be diluted by water prior to its intended use.
Deficiency: a lack of quality and/or sub-standard of work. For purpose of this solicitation, a deficiency is an item, or condition that is considered sub-standard, or below minimum expectations with regard to code, work product and safety.
Disinfectant refers to a substance, or mixture of substances that destroys or irreversibly inactivates bacteria, fungi and viruses, but not necessarily their spores.
Furniture polish refers to fluid that is designed to clean, refine, or protect furniture through polishing.
Hazardous Materials "means any waste, substances, radiation or materials whether solids, liquids or gases that are:
a) hazardous, toxic, infectious, explosive, radioactive, carcinogenic or mutagenic;
b) now or become defined as pollutants, contaminants, hazardous wastes or substances, toxic substances, radioactive materials, solid waste or other similar designations in or otherwise subject to District and Federal regulations;
c) present on the premises and can cause or threaten to cause, a nuisance pursuant to applicable statutory or common law upon the premises, facilities or properties; and/or
d) polychlorinated biphenyl’s (PCBs), asbestos, lead-based paint, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, petroleum and petroleum products (including gasoline, crude oil etc.) that pose a hazard to human health, safety, natural resources, industrial hygiene or the environment or otherwise pose an impediment to working conditions."
High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) refers to an air filter designed according to federal standards to remove 99.97% of airborne particles measuring 0.3 micrometers in diameter. HEPA vacuum cleaners trap dust and other irritants, improving indoor air quality.
Holidays: days observed by the District of Columbia Government.
Industry Standards means the highest level of industry-developed best standards, practices or procedures (including any standards, practices or procedures established by the applicable trade associations or under Applicable Laws).

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 7 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 69 of 127

C.3.1.17 C.3.1.18 C.3.1.19 C.3.1.20
C.3.1.21 C.3.1.22 C.3.1.23
C.3.1.24 C.3.1.25 C.3.1.26 C.3.1.27 C.3.1.28

Inspections is a systematic practice of monitoring, at regularly scheduled interval inspections of the infrastructure conditions, unit placement, usage, signage/markings in support of DCMR
Inspections: a systematic practice of monitoring, at regularly scheduled interval inspections of the infrastructure conditions, unit placement, usage, signage/markings in support of DCMR mandates, etc.
Lime and scale removers are products designed to remove the alkaline (a chalky mineral deposit) resulting from water use in locations such as showers, tubs, sinks, and toilets.
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) refers to a document that contains information on the potential hazards of a chemical product and how to work safely with the product. The MSDS also contains information on the use, storage, and handling of the hazardous material, and how to respond in case of an accident or spill. The MSDS contains much more information about the material than the product label. However, it is important to note that the MSDS may not list every human and environmental impact associated with the product.
Normal Working Hours – is the time period of: 6:00am – 8:00pm.
OSHA – Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the Federal Government agency responsible for providing the rules and regulations on safety and health requirements in the work place.
Prevailing Wage The prevailing wage is defined as the hourly wage, usual benefits and overtime, allegedly paid to the majority of workers, laborers, and mechanics within a particular area as determined by the Service Contract Action Wage Determination, Davis Bacon and or the District of Columbia Living Wage Act; whichever of the applicable is higher. Prevailing wages are established by regulatory agencies for each trade and occupation employed in the performance of public work, as well as by State Departments of Labor or their equivalents.
Quality Assurance (QA) means any actions taken in order to ensure services meet Contract requirements.
Quality Assurance Evaluation are the methodologies implemented to assess the adequacy of Contractor performance.
Quality Control (QC) refers to Contractor developed and implemented safeguards that ensure quality service are provided to satisfy the requirements of the Contract.
Quality Control Plan is a document that describes the actions (measurements, inspections, quality checks or monitoring of process parameters) required at each phase of a process to assure the process outputs will conform to pre-determined requirements.
Real-time The actual time during which a process or event occurs. Relating to a system in which input data is processed, so that it is available virtually immediately for feedback.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 8 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 70 of 127

C.3.1.29

Response Time means the time period in which the Contractor, after initial notification by the District, is required to be physically on the premises at the work site, with appropriate tools, equipment, and materials, ready to perform the required Work.

C.3.1.30
C.3.1.31
C.3.1.32
C.3.2 C.3.2.1 C.3.2.2 C.3.2.3 C.3.2.4 C.3.2.5 C.3.2.6 C.3.2.7 C.3.2.8 C.3.2.9 C.3.2.10 C.3.2.11

SalesForce: is a cloud-based CRM (Customer Relationship Management) software system. Salesforce provides a platform for work order management, enabling DGS to track work order Service Level Agreements (SLA’s) and oversee city-wide facilities work order request, and monitor contractor’s costs and performance. Contractors are required to update the system at a timely manner and understand DGS will use the data as a contractor work performance indicator in annual and quarterly reviews.

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are organic chemicals that evaporate at room temperature under normal indoor conditions. VOCs include a variety of chemicals that are emitted by a wide array of products, such as: cleaning supplies, building materials and furnishings, office equipment, paints and lacquers, paint strippers, pesticides, etc. Many types of VOCs have been linked to a variety of adverse health effects, including: eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches; loss of concentration; nausea; damage to the liver, kidney, and central nervous system; allergic skin reaction; fatigue; dizziness; and cancer mandates, etc.

Wage Determination A wage determination is a listing of wage rates and fringe benefit rates for each labor category of workers which the U.S. Department of Labor has determined to be prevailing in a given area. It establishes standards for wage rates and safety and health protections for employees performing work on covered Government contracts.

Acronyms The following are acronyms used for the purpose of this solicitation:

ANSI

American National Standards Institute

BLRA

refers to the DCRA’s Business Licensing Regulation Administration

BOCA

Building Official Code Administrators

CERP

Contractor’s Emergency Response Plan

CO

Contracting Officer

COTR

Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative

DCMR

District of Columbia Municipal Regulations

DOC

Department of Corrections

DCRA

Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs

DGS

Department of General Services

DSLBD

DC Department of Small and Local Business Development

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 9 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 71 of 127

C.3.2.12 C.3.2.13 C.3.2.14 C.3.2.15 C.3.2.16 C.3.2.17

EMCS EPA MSDS NFPA NIOSH OSHA

C.3.2.18 C.3.2.19 C.3.2.20 C.3.2.21 C.3.2.22 C.3.2.23 C.3.2.24

PBS PPE QA QAP QC QCP SCP

Energy Management Control Systems Environmental Protection Agency Material Safety Data Sheet National Fire Protection Association National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the Federal Government agency responsible for providing the rules and regulations on safety and health requirements in the workplace Public Buildings Maintenance Guides and Time Standards Personal Protective Equipment Quality Assurance Quality Assurance Protocol Quality Control Quality Control Program Strike Contingency Plan

C.4
C.5 C.5.1

BACKGROUND The District of Columbia Government (the “District”) by and through its Department of General Services (“DGS”), on behalf of the Department of Corrections (“DOC”), collectively (the “District”) is committed to improving the quality, appearance and cleanliness of its real property assets throughout the District of Columbia including the Department of Corrections. The Department of General Services provides operations, management, maintenance, engineering, janitorial and exterior grounds maintenance and related services for over eight hundred fifty (850) properties with approximately 36,000,000 in gross square feet. These properties include municipal buildings, schools, parks and recreation centers, warehouses, and residential properties both occupied and vacant. As a service-providing agency, positive customer service and rapid response and resolution to tenant issues, projects, and service requests are paramount to the Department’s operations mission and values.
REQUIREMENTS & STANDARDS OF SERVICES
Requirements The Contractor shall be prepared to take the steps necessary in order to mitigate and reduce the spread and effect of an influenza-like epidemic and or pandemic on behalf of the District through

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 10 of 53

C.5.1.1 C.5.1.2
C.5.1.3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 72 of 127
its custodial/housekeeping operations under the current global threat associated with the SARSCoV-19 (COVID-19) Coronavirus-19 epidemic. Given the unpredictable length and severity of a pandemic, the Contractor’s shall link their planned actions to the periods and phases established by the World Health Organization (“WHO”) and the Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) throughout an epidemic and or pandemic cycle. The Contractor shall provide environmental HAZMAT level, cleaning services at the Department of Corrections , Correctional Treatment Facility/, located at 1901 E Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 focusing on all high-touch surfaces and areas, to include but is not limited to: desks, computer mouse & keyboards, phones, lockers, cubbies, window sills and counter tops, doors, frames, doorknobs and push bars, elevator buttons, light switches, handrails, bathroom floors, faucet handles, toilet handles, toilet stall door locks, towel dispenser and hand driers, shower, kitchen areas cafeterias, office common areas, nurse and other rooms. These services shall be carried out in accordance with the U.S. Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Environmental Cleaning and Disinfection Recommendations without restriction. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/infection-control/control-recommendations.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/organizations/cleaning-disinfection.html
https://coronavirus.dc.gov/page/coronavirus-resources
Chemicals approved for use: Refer to the links provided in Section C.2 [11] - EPA, [12] - CBC and , [13] – CDC Registered Antimicrobial Products for Use Against Novel Coronavirus SARSCoV-2, the Cause of COVID-19. The Contractor shall follow manufacturers recommendations for proper use, concentrations, and applicable surfaces. It is the contractor’s sole responsibility to use the right chemicals for the right application.
The Contractor shall follow District and Federal Regulations as well SARS-CoV-19 guidance provided by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) to ensure their personnel are protected to include but not limited to:
Personal Protective Equipment Training, Daily temperature measurement/testing of all personnel to confirm a temperature is not present and shall be email to the COTR daily. Respirator use and fit testing, Contractor to provide records of all testing prior to commencement of work, Maintain required record keeping, Contractor must maintain at least one supervisor onsite with Coronavirus disease (COVID19) training: Online training. Contractor shall maintain Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for all chemicals onsite and updated as revision are issued.
Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE)
Contractors are required to wear goggles, recommended respirators, Tyvek Coveralls or overalls and all else required to prevent further contamination and or the continued spread through

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 11 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 73 of 127

C.5.1.3.1
C.5.1.3.2 C.5.1.3.3 C.5.1.3.4
C.5.2 C.5.2.1 C.5.2.1.1

comprehensive environmental mitigation cleaning services in wake of a biological epidemic and or pandemic response measures. The Contractor’s staff shall comply with the CDC approved and appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as disposable gloves, gowns and N95 respirator mask when performing all tasks in the cleaning process, including handling trash. Personal clothing shall not be worn in way that it may be exposed to airborne dust and/or particulates. The Contractor’s staff shall wear disposable coverall or reusable PPE can be worn (those approved for multiple use when strictly following manufacturers decontamination methods) but shall be changed out at end of each shift. All used coveralls should be collected in a used clothing bin for cleaning by professional decontamination by cleaners in accordance with individual manufacturer instructions. If temporary suits are worn, they shall be discarded in accordance with CDC guidelines, local and state regulations.
Gloves and shoe covers should be worn at all times. Gloves must be appropriate for each chemical used. It is recommended that all personnel performing COVID cleaning operations wear full/half face respirator (personnel performing fogging must wear a respirator). Additional PPE might be required based on the cleaning/disinfectant products being used and whether there is a risk of splash.
Gloves and gowns shall be removed carefully to avoid contamination of the wearer and the surrounding area. The Contractor’s staff shall be clean its hands after removing gloves. Gloves shall be removed after cleaning a room or area whether or not occupied by ill persons. The Contractor’s staff shall clean its hands immediately after gloves are removed.
Cleaning staff shall immediately report breaches in PPE (e.g., tear in gloves) or any potential exposures to their supervisor and the Contractor’s Contract Representative shall immediately report such breaches to the District COTR.
Standards of Services
Initial COVID Cleaning Event
Prior to COVID Cleaning Services the contractor shall:
(i) Ventilate the rooms/spaces prior to cleaning/disinfecting and allow to ventilate during cleaning if possible. If ventilation through open windows is not possible, use a high volume HEPA filter system to remove airborne particles from the air during cleaning. Temporarily increase the cleaning area’s humidity to approximately 50% Relative Humidity (RH) if possible.
(ii) Contractor shall perform general cleaning removing dirt and debris (this does not require approved disinfectants), this includes a mopping event. Clean all dust from horizontal surfaces with a towel dampened. This is done first to minimize re-aerosolization of stationary contaminated dust and particles due to nearby activity. Contractor shall be careful to use slow, smooth wiping action and change out or wet clean the towel on a regular basis to minimize re-aerosolization of the wiper dust and particulates.
(iii) Contractor shall not perform any sweeping (iv) Restrooms should receive special attention due to the tendency of the COVID-19 to
bioaccumulate within feces, vomit, sputum, and urine. Clean any surface that may have

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 12 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 74 of 127

C.5.2.1.2 C.5.2.3

blood, stool or body fluids on them taking established Blood-Borne Pathogen (BBP) universal precautions and disposal. (v) Vacuuming: Contractor shall vacuum carpeting and other fabrics. Vacuums used shall have High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filtration systems installed. Take appropriate precautions when changing the vacuum HEPA or pre-filter to minimize exposures to airborne dusts. Use change in bag procedures to change out vacuum filters.
Disinfection (i) Contractor shall perform trash-liner replacement and disinfection of all trash receptacles (ii) Contractor shall perform disinfection of all components such as desks, computer mouse &
keyboards, phones, lockers, cubbies, window sills and counter tops, doors, frames, doorknobs and push bars, elevator buttons, light switches, handrails, bathroom floors, faucet handles, toilet handles, toilet stall door locks, towel dispenser and hand driers, shower and locker rooms, kitchen areas cafeterias, office common areas, nurse and other rooms (an alcohol solution shall be used for all electronics). a) Do not dry the surface after applying the disinfectant. The surface that are disinfected
shall stay wet for the amount of time listed on the label (minimum of 30 seconds for most). This step is important because the contact time is what is required to kill the virus. Leave the surface you are cleaning wet with disinfectant for as many minutes as the product instructions require. It's not enough to just wipe a surface with a rag dampened with disinfectant. b) Pay special attention to properly disinfect window ledges and other commonly dusty surfaces. c) Disinfect all vertical surface up to 6 foot from floor, including but not limited to walls, windows, columns, doors, rails, etc. d) Clean and disinfect HVAC system or other ventilation grills including removing all caked-on debris, dust, grease, etc.
(i) Contractor shall disinfect floors by mopping with approved chemicals (this is the second round of mopping). Care must be taken to not dilute cleaning chemicals more than manufacturers recommendations. Precautions must be taken to not aerosolize the dirty cleaning liquid but instead use steady and sweeping mop swipes and careful, deliberate mop head squeezes. Efficacy for sanitizing or disinfecting is very dependent on three factors: a) concentration of the active ingredients, b) the duration of exposure of the pathogens to the active ingredients, and c) the surface material to be disinfected.
Fogging
Once disinfection cleaning is complete areas are to be identified by the DOC representative that can be fogged (Please note, a sprayer cannot be used as a substitute for a fogger). When fogging, contracted personnel must wear a full-face respirator with organic cartridges. Contractor shall perform fogging operations in areas identified by the representative, ensuring all surfaces are saturated. Limit access to the area fogged until no longer volatized.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 13 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 75 of 127

C.5.2.3.1
C.5.2.4 C.5.2.4.1 C.5.2.4.1. C.5.2.4.1.

After conducting cleaning and fogging services:
(iii) Do not re-use any clothing used during cleaning. (iv) Launder items as appropriate in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. If
possible, launder items using the hottest appropriate water setting for the items and high temperature dry (if possible) items completely. (v) Inform laundry services of potential COVID-19 contamination if laundry is sent to external services for cleaning.
General Cleaning Standard The Contractor shall follow all guidelines as recommended by the Center for Disease Control (CDC). The following cleaning mechanisms and guidance shall be used and followed.
Surfaces Surfaces shall be cleaned using a detergent or soap and water prior to disinfection.
C For disinfection, the Contractor shall dilute household bleach solutions, alcohol solutions with at least 70% alcohol, and most common EPA-registered household disinfectants should be effective.
C Diluted household bleach solutions can be used if appropriate for the surface. Follow manufacturer’s instructions for application and proper ventilation. Check to ensure the product is not past its expiration date. Never mix household bleach with ammonia or any other cleanser. Unexpired household bleach will be effective against coronaviruses when properly diluted.
Prepare a bleach solution by mixing:
1. (5) tablespoons (1/3rd cup) bleach per gallon of water or; 2. (4) teaspoons bleach per quart of water,
a. Products with EPA-approved emerging viral pathogens claims are expected to be effective against COVID-19 based on data for harder to kill viruses. Follow the manufacturer’s instructions for all cleaning and disinfection products (e.g., concentration, application method and contact time, etc.).
b. For soft (porous) surfaces such as carpeted floor, rugs, and drapes, remove visible contamination if present and clean with appropriate cleaners indicated for use on these surfaces. After cleaning:
i. If the items can be laundered, launder items in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions using the warmest appropriate water setting for the items and then dry items completely.
ii. Otherwise, use products with the EPA-approved emerging viral pathogens claims that are suitable for porous surfaces.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 14 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 76 of 127

C.5.2.5 C.5.2.5.1 C.5.2.5.2
C.5.2.5.3 C.5.2.5.3.

Daily Precautionary COVID Cleaning
Prior to Daily Disinfection Services the contractor shall:
(i) Contractor shall perform general cleaning removing dirt and debris. Contractor shall be careful to use slow, smooth wiping action and change out or wet clean the towel on a regular basis to minimize re-aerosolization of the wiper dust and particulates.
(ii) Contractor shall not perform any sweeping.
Disinfection
(i) Contractor shall disinfection of all trash receptacles (ii) Contractor shall perform disinfection of all components such as desks, computer mouse &
keyboards, phones, lockers, cubbies, window sills and counter tops, doors, frames, doorknobs and push bars, elevator buttons, light switches, handrails, bathroom floors, faucet handles, toilet handles, toilet stall door locks, towel dispenser and hand driers, shower and locker rooms, kitchen areas cafeterias, office common areas, nurse and other rooms (an alcohol solution shall be used for all electronics). a) Do not dry the surface after applying the disinfectant. The surface that are disinfected
shall stay wet for the amount of time listed on the label (minimum of 30 seconds for most). This step is important because the contact time is what is required to kill the virus. Leave the surface you are cleaning wet with disinfectant for as many minutes as the product instructions require. It's not enough to just wipe a surface with a rag dampened with disinfectant. b) Pay special attention to properly disinfect window ledges and other commonly dusty surfaces. c) Clean and disinfect HVAC system or other ventilation grills including removing all caked-on debris, dust, grease, etc. (iii) Contractor shall disinfect floors by mopping with approved chemicals (this is the second round of mopping). Care must be taken to not dilute cleaning chemicals more than manufacturers recommendations. Precautions must be taken to not aerosolize the dirty cleaning liquid but instead use steady and sweeping mop swipes and careful, deliberate mop head squeezes. Efficacy for sanitizing or disinfecting is very dependent on three factors: a) concentration of the active ingredients, b) the duration of exposure of the pathogens to the active ingredients, and c) the surface material to be disinfected.
Fogging
Once disinfection cleaning is complete areas fog the areas previously identified by the DOC representative during the initial cleaning event (Please note, a sprayer cannot be used as a substitute for a fogger). When fogging, contracted personnel must wear a full-face respirator with organic cartridges. Contractor shall perform fogging operations in areas identified by the representative, ensuring all surfaces are saturated. Limit access to the area fogged until no longer volatized.
C After conducting cleaning and fogging services:

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 15 of 53

C.5.3 C.5.3.1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 77 of 127
(i) Do not re-use any clothing used during cleaning. (ii) Launder items as appropriate in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. If possible,
launder items using the hottest appropriate water setting for the items and high temperature dry (if possible) items completely. (iii)Inform laundry services of potential COVID-19 contamination if laundry is sent to external services for cleaning.
Reporting The Contractor is required to capture before and after pictures of the work performed and submit through the DGS Work Order Management System (Salesforce) within forty-eight (48)-hours following the completion of services.
The “SalesForce” service call system will allow Department personnel to electronically record and request services in order for the Contractor to respond and deploy services. The Department requires that the Contractor uses the Salesforce Customer Relationship Management (CRM) for reviewing assigned work requests, reporting on work request statuses and completion, and submitting cost proposals and completion of work documentation. SalesForce training is available, and the Contractor shall schedule training by calling (202) 698-7744 and/or emailing sales.force@dc.gov. Additional access to technical support is available during normal business hours (8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday) through the Salesforce helpline (202) 6987744.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 16 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 78 of 127

SECTION D PACKAGING AND MARKING

D.1

The packaging and marking requirements for the resultant Contract shall be governed by Article

No. 2, Shipping Instructions-Consignment, of the Government of the District of Columbia's

Department of General Services Standard Contract Provisions (“SCP”) for Supplies and Services

Contracts, January 2016 Attachment J.1.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 17 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 79 of 127

SECTION E INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

E.1

The inspection and acceptance requirements for the resultant Contract shall be governed by Article

No. 5, Inspection of Supplies, and or Article No. 6, Inspection of Services, of the Government of

the District of Columbia's Department of General Services Standard Contract Provisions (“SCP”)

for Supplies and Services Contracts, January 2016 Attachment J.1.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 18 of 53

F.1 F.1.1 F.1.2 F.2 F.3
F.3.1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 80 of 127
SECTION F PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE AND DELIVERABLES
TERM OF EMERGENCY CONTRACT
The term of this Emergency Contract is for a period of up-to ninety (90)-days, effective 18-May2020, ending on or before 16-August-2020.
Termination. The Department reserves the right to terminate this Emergency Contract before the expiration of the 90-day period for convenience if services are no longer required.
RESERVED [Intentionally Omitted]
DELIVERABLES The Contractor shall perform the activities required to successfully complete the District’s requirements and submit one (1) hard copy and one (1) soft copy of each deliverable to the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) identified in Section [G.9] in accordance with the following.
The Contractor(s) shall submit to the Department, as a deliverable, the report described in Section [H.5.5] which is required by the 51% District Residents New Hires Requirements and First Source Employment Agreement. If the Contractor does not submit the report as part of the deliverables, the Contractor shall not be entitled to and shall not receive final payment pursuant to Section [G.3.2].

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 19 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 81 of 127

G.1 G.1.1
G.1.2

SECTION G CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
INVOICE PAYMENT
The Department will make payments to the Contractor(s), upon the submission of proper invoices, at the prices stipulated in this Contract, for supplies delivered and accepted or services performed and accepted, less any discounts, allowances or adjustments provided for in this Contract.
The Department will pay the Contractor on or before the 30th day after receiving a proper invoice from the Contractor.

G.2 G.2.1
G.2.2
G.2.3
G.2.3.1 G.2.3.2 G.2.3.3 G.2.3.4 G.2.3.5 G.232.6 G.2.3.7 G.2.3.8

COVID-19 INVOICE SUBMITTAL & PAYMENTS
The Contractor shall create and submit payment requests in .pdf format and email to the COTR of record. The Contractor must indicate the proper Contract number on all invoices. Properly prepared invoices with the necessary backup shall be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt. Properly prepared invoices not paid by that date shall bear interest in accordance with the Prompt Payment Act.
The Contractor shall submit a proper invoice based on applicable guidelines specified in Section [G.4]. Invoices shall be prepared and submitted to the COTR identified in Section [G.9]. The District shall not be required to pay invoiced amounts or corresponding interest payments for invoices that are not properly prepared as required under this Contract.
Note: this is different from current process. For all COVID-19 related invoices, vendor does not submit invoice via e-invoicing. Rather, the vendor submits a PDF copy of the invoice to DGS for review.
For all non-COVID invoices, vendor must continue with regular invoicing process, via einvoicing;
DGS COTR/Management reviews COVID-19 invoice, approves, and confirms with vendor preferred method of payment (PCARD or ACH);
DGS will submit approved invoice to OCP/EOC and confirm that it is “OK to Pay”;
EOC/OCP pays vendor directly via PCARD or ACH;
Renee Bryant must be copied on all invoice submittals renee.bryant1@dc.gov;
Name, title, telephone number and complete mailing address of the responsible official to whom payment is to be sent;
Name, title and phone number of the individual preparing the invoice;
Name, title, phone number and mailing address of person; if different from the person identified in Section [G.9.2] above to be notified in the event of a defective invoice; and

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 20 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 82 of 127

G.2.3.9 G.3 G.3.1 G.3.2 G.4 G.4.1
G.4.2

Authorized signature.
FIRST SOURCE AGREEMENT REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT
For Contracts subject to the 51% District Residents New Hires Requirements and First Source Employment Agreement requirements, final request for payment must be accompanied by the report or a waiver of compliance discussed in Section [H.5.5].
The Department shall not make final payment to the Contractor until the agency CFO has received the CO’s final determination or approval of waiver of the Contractor’s compliance with 51% District Residents New Hires Requirements and First Source Employment Agreement requirements.
PAYMENT
Payments on Partial Deliveries of Goods & Services
Unless otherwise specified in this Contract, payment will be made on partial deliveries of goods and services accepted by the Department if:
a) The amount due on the deliveries on goods and or services warrants it; or
b) The Contractor requests it and the amount due on the deliveries is in accordance with the following:
(i) "Payment will be made on completion and acceptance of each item for which the price is stated in the Schedule in Section [B.3.1].
(ii) "Payment will be made on completion and acceptance of each item in accordance with the agreed upon delivery schedule".
(iii)"Payment will be made on completion and acceptance of each percentage or stage of work in accordance with the prices stated in the Schedule in Section [B.3.1]; and
c) Presentation of a properly executed invoice.
Payment for Reimbursable Items and Services The Contractor will be reimbursed for all approved Center for Biocide Chemistries (“CBC”), Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) antimicrobial fighting cleaning product supplies (“solvents”), and approved pandemic, Personal Protection Equipment (”PPE”) collectively (“Cleaning Supplies”). Such cost for “cleaning supplies” will be reimbursed only when the following are complete: (i) the Contractor provides the Department with an invoice outlining the itemized cost of all approved cleaning supplies and materials as described in Section [B.3]. The invoice shall be itemized to include but at a minimum, a full list of individual supplies/materials (i.e. antimicrobial cleaning solvent, N95 respirator mask, Tyvek suites, etc.), quantity purchased, vendor cost of materials by line item, extended cost by material, and estimate shipping and arrival of materials; and (ii) the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) approves the invoice. The Cleaning Supply Reimbursable Cost shall-not exceed the established ordering ceiling as defined in Section [B.3.2.1] for the term of the Emergency Contract. Cost of all materials and supplies shall be furnished to the District at Contractor cost

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 21 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 83 of 127

G.5 G.5.1 G.5.2 G.5.3
G.6 G.6.1 G.6.1.1
G.6.1.1.1 G.6.1.1.2 G.6.1.1.3 G.6.1.1.4 G.6.1.2 G.6.1.2.1 G.6.1.2.2

plus NO-MORE than a 3% markup. The Department will not pay for or otherwise reimburse the Contractor for cost of any other equipment purchase and or rented.

ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT PAYMENTS

In accordance with 27 DCMR 3250, the Contractor may assign to a bank, trust company, or other financing institution funds due or to become due as a result of the performance of this Contract.

Any assignment shall cover all unpaid amounts payable under this Contract and shall not be made to more than one party.

Notwithstanding an assignment of Contract payments, the Contractor, not the assignee, is required to prepare invoices. Where such an assignment has been made, the original copy of the invoice must refer to the assignment and must show that payment of the invoice is to be made directly to the assignee as follows:

“Pursuant to the instrument of assignment dated (name and address of assignee).”

, make payment of this invoice to

THE QUICK PAYMENT ACT

Interest Penalties to Contractors

The District will pay interest penalties on amounts due to the Contractor under the Quick Payment Act, D.C. Official Code § 2-221.01 et seq., as amended, for the period beginning on the day after the required payment date and ending on the date on which payment of the amount is made. Interest shall be calculated at the rate of at least 1.5% per month. No interest penalty shall be paid if payment for the completed delivery of the item of property or service is made on or before the required payment date. The required payment date shall be:

The date on which payment is due under the terms of the Contract;

Not later than seven (7) calendar days, excluding legal holidays, after the date of delivery of meat or meat food products;

Not later than ten (10) calendar days, excluding legal holidays, after the date of delivery of a perishable agricultural commodity; or

30 calendar days, excluding legal holidays, after receipt of a proper invoice for the amount of the payment due.

No interest penalty shall be due to the Contractor if payment for the completed delivery of goods or services is made on or after:

3rd day after the required payment date for meat or a meat food product;

5th day after the required payment date for an agricultural commodity; or

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 22 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 84 of 127

G.6.1.2.3 G.6.1.3
G.6.2 G.6.2.1
G.6.2.1.1 G.6.2.1.2 G.6.2.2
G.6.2.2.1 G.6.2.2.2 G.9.2.2.3 G.6.2.3
G.6.2.4
G.6.3

15th day after any other required payment date.
Any amount of an interest penalty which remains unpaid at the end of any thirty (30)-day period shall be added to the principal amount of the debt and thereafter interest penalties shall accrue on the added amount.
Payments to SubContractors
The Contractor must take one of the following actions within seven (7) days of receipt of any amount paid to the Contractor by the District for work performed by any subContractor under the Contract:
Pay the subContractor(s) for the proportionate share of the total payment received from the District that is attributable to the subContractor(s) for work performed under the Contract; or
Notify the CO and the subContractor(s), in writing, of the Contractor’s intention to withhold all or part of the subContractor’s payment and state the reason for the nonpayment.
The Contractor must pay any subContractor or supplier interest penalties on amounts due to the subContractor or supplier beginning on the day after the payment is due and ending on the date on which the payment is made. Interest shall be calculated at the rate of at least 1.5% per month. No interest penalty shall be paid on the following if payment for the completed delivery of the item of property or service is made on or before the:
3rd day after the required payment date for meat or a meat product;
5th day after the required payment date for an agricultural commodity; or
15th day after any other required payment date.
Any amount of an interest penalty which remains unpaid by the Contractor at the end of any 30day period shall be added to the principal amount of the debt to the subContractor and thereafter interest penalties shall accrue on the added amount.
A dispute between the Contractor and subContractor relating to the amounts or entitlement of a subContractor to a payment or a late payment interest penalty under the Quick Payment Act does not constitute a dispute to which the District is a party. The District may not be interpleaded in any judicial or administrative proceeding involving such a dispute.
SubContract requirements. The Contractor shall include in each subContract under this Contract a provision requiring the subContractor to include in its Contract with any lower-tier subContractor or supplier the payment and interest clauses required under paragraphs (1) and (2) of D.C. Official Code § 2-221.02(d).

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 23 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 85 of 127

G.7

CONTRACTING OFFICER (CO)

Contracts will be entered into and signed on behalf of the District only by Contracting Officer. The contact information for the Contracting Officer is:

GEORGE G. LEWIS, CPPO Chief Procurement Officer
Chief of Contracts & Procurement Department of General Services 2000 14th Street N.W. | 8th Floor Telephone: (202) 727-2800 E-mail: george.lewis@dc.gov

G.8

AUTHORIZED CHANGES BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER

G.8.1

The CO is the only person(s) authorized to approve changes in any of the requirements of this Contract.

G.8.2

The Contractor shall not comply with any order, directive or request that changes or modifies the requirements of this Contract, unless issued in writing and signed by the CO.

G.8.3

In the event the Contractor effects any change at the instruction or request of any person other than the CO, the change will be considered to have been made without authority and no adjustment will be made in the Contract price to cover any cost increase incurred as a result thereof.

G.9 G.9.1
G.9.1.1 G.9.1.2 G.9.1.3
G.9.1.4 G.9.1.5 G.9.2

CONTRACTING OFFICER’S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE / CONTACT ADMINISTRATOR (“COTR” OR “CA”)
The COTR/CA is responsible for general administration of the Contract and advising the CO as to the Contractor’s compliance or noncompliance with the Contract. The COTR/CA has the responsibility of ensuring the work conforms to the requirements of the Contract and such other responsibilities and authorities as may be specified in the Contract. These include:
Keeping the CO fully informed of any technical or Contractual difficulties encountered during the performance period and advising the CO of any potential problem areas under the Contract;
Coordinating site entry for Contractor personnel, if applicable;
Reviewing invoices for completed work and recommending approval by the CO if the Contractor’s costs are consistent with the negotiated amounts and progress is satisfactory and commensurate with the rate of expenditure;
Reviewing and approving invoices for deliverables to ensure receipt of goods and services. This includes the timely processing of invoices and vouchers in accordance with the District’s payment provisions; and
Maintaining a file that includes all Contract correspondence, modifications, records of inspections (site, data, equipment) and invoice or vouchers.
The address and telephone number of the COTR/CA is: The COTR will be determine based on the discipline listed Section 3.1.1 and location.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 24 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 86 of 127

G.9.3
G.9.4 G.10 G.10.1 G.10.2 G.10.3 G.10.4 G.10.5 G.10.6

RUTH JENKINS Management Analyst Public Safety Cluster Mobile: (202) 579-2624 Email: ruth.jenkins@dc.gov

ALISON HERBERT Administrative Assistant Facility Management Division Mobile: (202) 710-9430 Email: alison.herbert@dc.gov

The COTR/CA shall NOT have the authority to:

KESSIA CRUZ Executive Assistant Facility Management Division Mobile: (202) 596-4291 Email: kessia.cruz@dc.gov

1. Award, agree to, or sign any Contract, delivery order or task order. Only the CO shall make Contractual agreements, commitments or modifications;
2. Grant deviations from or waive any of the terms and conditions of the Contract; 3. Increase the dollar limit of the Contract or authorize work beyond the dollar limit of the
Contract, 4. Authorize the expenditure of funds by the Contractor; 5. Change the period of performance; or 6. Authorize the use of District property, except as specified under the Contract.

The Contractor will be fully responsible for any changes not authorized in advance, in writing, by the CO; may be denied compensation or other relief for any additional work performed that is not so authorized; and may also be required, at no additional cost to the District, to take all corrective action necessitated by reason of the unauthorized changes.

COST REIMBURSEMENT CEILING

Cost reimbursement ceiling for this contract is set forth in Section [B.3.2.1].

The costs of cleaning supplies used in performing the services under this contract shall not exceed the cost reimbursement ceiling specified in Section [B.3.2.1].

The Contractor agrees to use its best efforts to perform the work specified in this contract and to meet all obligations under this contract including the use of cleaning supplies within the cost reimbursement ceiling.

The Contractor must notify the CO, in writing, whenever it has reason to believe that the total cost of cleaning supplies used in performing the services under this contract will be either greater or substantially less than the cost reimbursement ceiling.

As part of the notification, the Contractor must provide the CO a revised estimate of the total cost of cleaning supplies required to perform services under this contract.

The District is not obligated to reimburse the Contractor for costs incurred in excess of the cost reimbursement ceiling specified in Section [B.3.2.1], and the Contractor is not obligated to continue performance under this contract (including actions under the Termination clauses of this contract), or otherwise incur costs in excess of the cost reimbursement ceiling specified in Section [B.3.2.1], until the CO notifies the Contractor, in writing, that the estimated cost has been increased and provides a revised cost reimbursement ceiling for cleaning supplies required as part of performing services under this contract.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 25 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 87 of 127

G.10.7 G.10.8 G.10.9 G.10.10

No notice, communication, or representation in any form from any person other than the CO shall change the cost reimbursement ceiling. In the absence of the specified notice, the District is not obligated to reimburse the Contractor for any costs in excess of the costs reimbursement ceiling, whether such costs were incurred during the course of contract performance or as a result of termination.
If any cost reimbursement ceiling specified in Section [B.3.2.1] is increased, any costs the Contractor incurs before the increase that are in excess of the previous cost reimbursement ceiling shall be allowable to the same extent as if incurred afterward, unless the CO issues a termination or other notice directing that the increase is solely to cover termination or other specified expenses.
A change order shall not be considered an authorization to exceed the applicable cost reimbursement ceiling specified in Section [B.3.2.1], unless the change order specifically increases the cost reimbursement ceiling.
Only costs determined in writing to be reimbursable in accordance with the cost principles set forth in rules issued pursuant to Title V of the D.C. Procurement Practices Reform Act of 2010 shall be reimbursable.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 26 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 88 of 127

SECTION H SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

H.1 H.1.1
H.1.1.1 H.1.2
H.2 H.2.1
H.2.2 H.3 H.3.1 H.3.2

HIRING OF DISTRICT RESIDENTS AS APPRENTICES AND TRAINEES

For all new employment resulting from this Contract or subContracts hereto, as defined in Mayor’s Order 83-265 and implementing instructions, the Contractor shall use its best efforts to comply with the following basic goal and objectives for utilization of bona fide residents of the District of Columbia in each project’s labor force:

At least fifty-one (51) percent of apprentices and trainees employed shall be residents of the District of Columbia registered in programs approved by the District of Columbia Apprenticeship Council.
The Contractor shall negotiate an Employment Agreement with the Department of Employment Services (DOES) for jobs created as a result of this Contract. The DOES shall be the Contractor’s first source of referral for qualified apprentices and trainees in the implementation of employment goals contained in this clause.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WAGE DETERMINATIONS

The Contractor shall be bound by the Wage Determination No. 2015-4282, Revision No.: 17, dated 23-April-2020, issued by the U.S. Department of Labor in accordance with the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351 et seq., and incorporated herein as Attachment J.2. The Contractor shall be bound by the wage rates for the term of the Contract subject to revision as stated herein and in accordance with Article 25 of the SCP. If an option is exercised, the Contractor shall be bound by the applicable wage rates at the time of the exercise of the option. If the option is exercised and the CO obtains a revised wage determination, the revised wage determination is applicable for the option periods.

RESERVED [Intentionally Omitted]

PREGNANT WORKERS FAIRNESS
The Contractor shall comply with the Protecting Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2016, D.C. Official Code § 32-1231.01 et seq. (PPWF Act).

The Contractor shall not:

(a) Refuse to make reasonable accommodations to the known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, or breastfeeding for an employee, unless the Contractor can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship;

(b) Take an adverse action against an employee who requests or uses a reasonable accommodation

in regard to the employee's conditions or privileges of employment, including failing to reinstate

the employee when the need for reasonable accommodations ceases to the employee's original job

or

to

an

equivalent

position

with

equivalent:

(1) Pay;

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 27 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 89 of 127

H.3.3
H.3.4 H.3.5 H.4 H.4.1 H.4.2

(2) Accumulated seniority and retirement; (3) Benefits; and (4) Other applicable service credits;
(c) Deny employment opportunities to an employee, or a job applicant, if the denial is based on the need of the employer to make reasonable accommodations to the known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, or breastfeeding;
(d) Require an employee affected by pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, or breastfeeding to accept an accommodation that the employee chooses not to accept if the employee does not have a known limitation related to pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, or breastfeeding or the accommodation is not necessary for the employee to perform her duties;
(e) Require an employee to take leave if a reasonable accommodation can be provided; or
(f) Take adverse action against an employee who has been absent from work as a result of a pregnancy-related condition, including a pre-birth complication.
The Contractor shall post and maintain in a conspicuous place a notice of rights in both English and Spanish and provide written notice of an employee's right to a needed reasonable accommodation related to pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, or breastfeeding pursuant to the PPWF Act to:
(a) New employees at the commencement of employment; (b) Existing employees; and (c) An employee who notifies the employer of her pregnancy, or other condition covered
by the PPWF Act, within 10 days of the notification.
The Contractor shall provide an accurate written translation of the notice of rights to any nonEnglish or non-Spanish speaking employee.
Violations of the PPWF Act shall be subject to civil penalties as described in the Act.
UNEMPLOYED ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
The Contractor shall comply with the Unemployed Anti-Discrimination Act of 2012, D.C. Official Code § 32-1361 et seq.
The Contractor shall not:
(a) Fail or refuse to consider for employment, or fail or refuse to hire, an individual as an employee because of the individual's status as unemployed; or
(b) Publish, in print, on the Internet, or in any other medium, an advertisement or announcement for any vacancy in a job for employment that includes:
(1) Any provision stating or indicating that an individual's status as unemployed disqualifies the individual for the job; or

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 28 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 90 of 127

(2) Any provision stating or indicating that an employment agency will not consider or hire an individual for employment based on that individual's status as unemployed.

H.4.3

Violations of the Unemployed Anti-Discrimination Act shall be subject to civil penalties as described in the Act.

H.5 H.5.1

51% DISTRICT RESIDENTS NEW HIRES REQUIREMENTS AND FIRST SOURCE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
For Contracts for services in the amount of $300,000 or more, the Contractor shall comply with the First Source Employment Agreement Act of 1984, as amended, D.C. Official Code § 2-219.01 et seq. (First Source Act).

H.5.2

The Contractor shall enter into and maintain during the term of the Contract, a First Source Employment Agreement (Employment Agreement) with the District of Columbia Department of Employment Service’s (DOES), in which the Contractor shall agree that:

H.5.3
H.5.4 H.5.5 H.5.6

(a) The first source for finding employees to fill all jobs created in order to perform the Contract shall be the First Source Register; and
(b) The first source for finding employees to fill any vacancy occurring in all jobs covered by the Employment Agreement shall be the First Source Register.
The Contractor shall not begin performance of the Contract until its Employment Agreement has been accepted by DOES. Once approved, the Employment Agreement shall not be amended except with the approval of DOES.
The Contractor agrees that at least 51% of the new employees hired to perform the Contract shall be District residents.
The Contractor’s hiring and reporting requirements under the First Source Act and any rules promulgated thereunder shall continue for the term of the Contract.
The CO may impose penalties, including monetary fines of 5% of the total amount of the direct and indirect labor costs of the Contract, for a willful breach of the Employment Agreement, failure to submit the required hiring compliance reports, or deliberate submission of falsified data.

H.5.7

If the Contractor does not receive a good faith waiver, the CO may also impose an additional penalty equal to 1/8 of 1% of the total amount of the direct and indirect labor costs of the Contract for each percentage by which the Contractor fails to meet its hiring requirements.

H.5.8

Any Contractor which violates, more than once within a 10-year timeframe, the hiring or reporting requirements of the First Source Act shall be referred for debarment for not more than five (5) years.

H.5.9 H.5.10

The Contractor may appeal any decision of the CO pursuant to this clause to the D.C. Contract Appeals Board as provided in clause 14 of the SCP, Disputes.
The provisions of the First Source Act do not apply to nonprofit organizations which employ 50 employees or less.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 29 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 91 of 127

H.6 H.6.1 H.6.2
H.6.3
H.6.4 H.6.4.1 H.6.4.2 H.6.5
H.6.6

AUDITS AND RECORDS
As used in this clause, “records” includes books, documents, accounting procedures and practices, and other data, regardless of type and regardless of whether such items are in written form, in the form of computer data, or in any other form.
Examination of Costs. If this is a cost-reimbursement, incentive, time-and-materials, labor-hour, or price re-determinable Contract, or any combination of these, the Contractor shall maintain and the CO, or an authorized representative of the CO, shall have the right to examine and audit all records and other evidence sufficient to reflect properly all costs claimed to have been incurred or anticipated to be incurred directly or indirectly in performance of this Contract. This right of examination shall include inspection at all reasonable times of the Contractor’s plants, offices or other facilities or parts of them, engaged in performing the Contract.
Cost or pricing data. If the Contractor has been required to submit cost or pricing data in connection with any pricing action relating to this Contract, the CO, or an authorized representative of the CO, in order to evaluate the accuracy, completeness, and currency of the cost or pricing data, shall have the right to examine and audit all of the Contractor’s records, including computations and projections, related to:
a) The Proposal for the Contract, subContract, or modification; b) The discussions conducted on the proposal(s), including those related to negotiating; c) Pricing of the Contract, subContract, or modification; or d) Performance of the Contract, subContract or modification.
Comptroller General
The Comptroller General of the United States, or an authorized representative, shall have access to and the right to examine any of the Contractor’s directly pertinent records involving transactions related to this Contract or a subContract hereunder.
This section may not be construed to require the Contractor or subContractor to create or maintain any record that the Contractor or subContractor does not maintain in the ordinary course of business or pursuant to a provision of law.
Reports. If the Contractor is required to furnish cost, funding, or performance reports, the CO or an authorized representative of the CO shall have the right to examine and audit the supporting records and materials, for the purpose of evaluating:
a) The effectiveness of the Contractor’s policies and procedures to produce data compatible with the objectives of these reports; and
b) The data reported.
Availability. The Contractor shall make available at its local office at all reasonable times the records, materials, and other evidence described in clauses H.6.1 through H.6.5, for examination, audit, or reproduction, until three (3) years after final payment under this Contract or for any shorter period specified in the Contract, or for any longer period required by statute or by other clauses of this Contract. In addition:

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 30 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 92 of 127

H.6.7
H.7
H.8 H.9 H.9.1 H.9.1.1 H.9.1.2 H.9.1.3

a) If this Contract is completely or partially terminated, the Contractor shall make available the records relating to the work terminated until thee (3) years after any resulting final termination settlement; and
b) The Contractor shall make available records relating to appeals under the Disputes clause or to litigation or the settlement of claims arising under or relating to this Contract until such appeals, litigation, or claims are finally resolved.
The Contractor shall insert a clause containing all the terms of this clause, including this Section [H.6.7], in all subContracts under this Contract that exceed the small purchase threshold of $100,000, and:
a) That is cost-reimbursement, incentive, time-and-materials, labor-hour, or priceredeterminable type or any combination of these;
b) For which cost, or pricing data are required; or c) That requires the subContractor to furnish reports as discussed in Section [H.6.5] of this
clause.
ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE SERVICES
This Contract is a “nonpersonal services Contract”. The Contractor and the Contractor’s employees: (1) shall perform the services specified herein as independent Contractors, not as employees of the government; (2) shall be responsible for their own management and administration of the work required and bear sole responsibility for complying with any and all technical, schedule, financial requirements or constraints attendant to the performance of this Contract; (3) shall be free from supervision or control by any government employee with respect to the manner or method of performance of the service specified; but (4) shall, pursuant to the government’s right and obligation to inspect, accept or reject work, comply with such general direction of the CO, or the duly authorized representative of the CO as is necessary to ensure accomplishment of the Contract objectives.
CRIMINAL BACKGROUND AND TRAFFIC RECORDS CHECKS FOR CONTRACTORS THAT PROVIDE DIRECT SERVICES TO CHILDREN OR YOUTH RESERVED [Intentionally Omitted]
SUBCONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS
Mandatory SubContracting Requirements
For all Contracts in excess of $250,000, at least 35% of the dollar volume of the Contract shall be subContracted to qualified small business enterprises (SBEs).
If there are insufficient SBEs to completely fulfill the requirement of Section [H.9.1.1], then the subContracting may be satisfied by subContracting 35% of the dollar volume to any qualified certified business enterprises (CBEs); provided, however, that all reasonable efforts shall be made to ensure that SBEs are significant participants in the overall subContracting work. A prime Contractor that is certified by DSLBD as a small, local, or disadvantaged business enterprise shall not be required to comply with the provisions of Sections [H.9.1.1] and [H.9.1.2].

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 31 of 53

H.9.1.4
H.9.1.5
H.9.1.6 H.9.1.7 H.10 H.10.1
H.10.2 H.10.3 H.10.4 H.10.5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 93 of 127
Except as provided in Sections [H.9.1.5] and [H.9.1.7], a prime Contractor that is a CBE and has been granted a bid preference pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 2-218.43, or is selected through a set-aside program, shall perform at least 35% of the Contracting effort with its own organization and resources and, if it subContracts, 35% of the subContracting effort shall be with CBEs. A CBE prime Contractor that performs less than 35% of the Contracting effort shall be subject to enforcement actions under D.C. Official Code § 2-218.63.
If the prime Contractor is a certified joint venture and has been granted a bid preference pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 2-218.43, or is selected through a set-aside program, the CBE member of the certified joint venture shall perform at least 50% of the Contracting effort with its own organization and resources and, if it subContracts, 35% of the subContracting effort shall be with CBEs. If the CBE member of the certified joint venture prime Contractor performs less than 50% of the Contracting effort, the certified joint venture shall be subject to enforcement actions under D.C. Official Code § 2-218.63.
Each CBE utilized to meet these subContracting requirements shall perform at least 35% of its Contracting effort with its own organization and resources.
A prime Contractor that is a CBE and has been granted a bid preference pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 2-218.43, or is selected through a set-aside program, shall perform at least 50% of the onsite work with its own organization and resources if the Contract is $1 million or less.
FAIR CRIMINAL RECORD SCREENING
The Contractor shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Criminal Record Screening Amendment Act of 2014, effective December 17, 2014 (D.C. Law 20-152) (“Act” as used in this section). This section applies to any employment, including employment on a temporary or Contractual basis, where the physical location of the employment is in whole or substantial part within the District of Columbia.
Prior to making a conditional offer of employment, the Contractor shall not require an applicant for employment, or a person who has requested consideration for employment by the Contractor, to reveal or disclose an arrest or criminal accusation that is not then pending or did not result in a criminal conviction.
After making a conditional offer of employment, the Contractor may require an applicant to disclose or reveal a criminal conviction.
The Contractor may only withdraw a conditional offer of employment, or take adverse action against an applicant, for a legitimate business reason as described in the Act.
This section and the provisions of the Act shall not apply:
(a) Where a federal or District law or regulation requires the consideration of an applicant’s criminal history for the purposes of employment;

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 32 of 53

H.10.6 H.11 H.11.1 H.11.2 H.12 H.12.1
H.12.2
H.12.3 H.12.4 H.12.5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 94 of 127
(b) To a position designated by the employer as part of a federal or District government program or obligation that is designed to encourage the employment of those with criminal histories;
(c) To any facility or employer that provides programs, services, or direct care to, children, youth, or vulnerable adults; or
(d) To employers that employ less than 11 employees.
A person claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of the Act may file an administrative complaint with the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights, and the Commission on Human Rights may impose monetary penalties against the Contractor
DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES The District will be responsible for the following regarding this Contract:
Assigning, monitoring and the Quality Assurance, Quality Control (“QAQC”) surveillance of the vendor's completion of their scheduled site duties.
The District will provide access to and training on the Salesforce Work order Ticket system.
CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES
Contractor Notice Regarding Late Performance In the event the Contractor anticipates or encounters difficulty in complying with the terms and conditions as stated in the Contract or in meeting any other requirements set forth in the Contract, the Contractor shall immediately notify the CO and the COTR in writing giving full detail as to the rationale for the late delivery and why the Contractor should be granted an extension of time, if any. Receipt of the Contractor's notification shall in no way be construed as an acceptance or waiver by the Department.
At all times and during performance under this Contract, the Contractor shall be responsible to the Department for any and all acts and omissions of the Contractor’s agents, employees, subContractors, sub-subContractors, material suppliers, and laborers, and the agents and employees of the subContractors, sub-subContractors, material suppliers and laborers performing or supplying work in connection with the project/services.
The Contractor shall be responsible for providing services in accordance with the requirements of this Contract.
The Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining any and all licenses and permits, unless otherwise stated herein necessary for the performance of this Contract.
The Contractor shall furnish all equipment needed for the performance of the work under the resultant Contract. All equipment must be properly guarded and meet all applicable OSHA standards.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 33 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 95 of 127

H.12.6

The Contractor shall assume full responsibility and liability for compliance with all applicable regulations pertaining to the health and safety of personnel during the execution of work and shall hold the District harmless for any action on his part or that of his employees or subContractors, which results in illness, injury or death.

H.12.7

The Contractor shall furnish all MSDS for any materials used in the performance of this Contract. The Contractor shall make efforts to use recycled paper products and environmentally preferable materials.

H.12.8

The Contractor shall be responsible for the base operations of the building only, which excludes retail space specific services, not provided to retailers by the building.

a) The Contractor shall be liable for all fines and shall comply with all District regulations for safe handling, storage, disposal, and use of any hazardous materials and chemicals.

b) The Contractor shall be charged the cost, in the event of fines or penalties levied by the EPA or an Air Quality Management Authority.

H.12.9

Bond Requirements - RESERVED [Intentionally Omitted]

H.12.10

Allowable SubContracting Requirements

H.12.10.1

The Contractor shall ensure that all activities carried out by any subContractor conforms to the provisions of this Contract.

H.12.10.2

It is the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure its subContractors are capable of meeting the reporting requirements under this Contract and, if they cannot, the Contractor is not relieved of the reporting requirements.

H.12.10.3

The Contractor shall notify the District Contracting Officer, in writing, of the termination of any subContract for the provision of services, including the arrangements made to ensure continuation of the services covered by the terminated subContract, not less than forty-five (45) days prior to the effective date of the termination, unless immediate termination of the Contract is necessary to protect the health and safety of Enrollees or prevent fraud and abuse. In such an event, the Contractor shall notify COTR immediately upon taking such action.

H.12.10.3.1 If the District determines that the termination or expiration of a subContract materially affects the ability of the Contractor to carry out its responsibility under this Contract; the District may terminate this Contract.

H.12.10.3.2 The Contractor shall ensure subContracts contain a provision that requires subContracts to contain all provisions of the Contractor’s Contract with the District and that the subContractor look solely to Contractor for payment for services rendered.

H.12.11

Staff Attire and Identification

H.12.11.1

The Contractor’s staff shall wear neat, clean, and professional attire. The attire shall include distinctive apparel identifying staff as Contractor’s employees.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 34 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 96 of 127

H.12.11.2

The Contractor’s staff shall wear identification badges at all times. The identification badges shall provide company logo, employee’s name, and employee photograph.

H.12.12

Safety Requirements

H.12.12.1

The Contractor shall be responsible for complying with all applicable District and Federal rules, regulations and practices relating to safety on the job site; for all injury to persons or damage to property that occurs as a result of the Contractor's negligence and shall take proper safety and health precautions to protect the work, the workers, the tenants and District property; and for all materials delivered and work performed until completion and acceptance of the entire work in writing by the COTR.

H.12.12.2

The Contractor shall provide and ensure that all its personnel at the work sites properly wear all applicable safety devices and apparel required by the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) including, but not limited to:

H.12.12.2.1 Back support devices

H.12.12.2.2 Eye protection

H.12.12.2.3 Hearing protection

H.12.12.2.4 Hand protection

H.12.12.2.5 Head protection

H.12.12.2.6 Foot protection

H.12.12.2.7 Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) gear in accordance with the CDC’s established guideline

H.12.12.3

The District has the right to inspect all areas for safety violations at its discretion, direct the Contractor to make immediate improvement of necessary conditions and/or procedures, and/or stop the work if other hazards are deemed to exist.

H.12.12.4

Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the District shall not be obligated to make an equitable adjustment for any work stoppage that results from safety hazards created by the Contractor. In the event that the Contracting Officer directs the work to stop because of existing safety hazards after the Contractor has been notified and provided ample time to correct, the Contractor shall bear all costs for eliminating the hazard(s) and shall not be granted compensation for the work stoppage.

H.12.12.5

The Contractor shall immediately notify the COTR if the job site is visited by an OSHA official for compliance of the Occupational Safety and Health Act or any other safety regulatory requirements.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 35 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 97 of 127

H.12.13 H.12.13.1 H.12.13.2 H.12.14 H.12.15
H.12.16
H.12.17 H.12.18 H.12.19 H.12.19.1 H.12.19.2

Fire Prevention
The Contractor shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining an effective fire prevention program for its employees and the District property being serviced on the job site.
The Contractor shall be knowledgeable and train all its employees on the job site to fulfill the requirements of this Statement of Work on the procedures, means of egress and methods of reporting fires on the job sites.
Smoke Free Environment The District's facilities are smoke free. The Contractor is responsible for adhering to all applicable rules and regulations regarding maintenance of a smoke free environment on the job sites.
Delivery of Services The Contractor shall schedule its service deliveries during times that cause minimum disruption and inconvenience to District agency operations, including District of Columbia Public School (DCPS) operations. Unless otherwise approved by the COTR, the assessment services shall be made weekdays before 6:00 p.m. or on weekends. Upon conclusion of the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) academic year, the Contractor shall have more flexible hours to provide the assessment services.
Communication At its own expense, the Contractor shall provide electronic pagers, transportable cellular telephones, or any other telecommunication devices adequate to effectively provide a communication link to District officials especially in emergency situations when the need to get hold of Contractor personnel is greatest. The names of the individual officers and the telephone numbers for their respectively assigned pager and telephone number shall be provided to the Contracting Officer and the COTR at the start of the period of performance.
Accident Reports The Contractor shall immediately notify the COTR of any accidents on the job site arising from the performance of this SOW that involve bodily injury to Contractor’s employees or District workers or both, building occupants, visitors, or other persons.
Property Damage Notification Any damage caused by the Contractor or its employees to District property shall be promptly repaired or replaced by the Contractor at the Contractor’s expense.
Suspension Of Work
In the event services are not provided or required by the District because the buildings is closed due to unanticipated circumstances, deductions to the Contractor price normally payable to Contractor will be computed as follows.
The deduction rate in dollars per day will be equal to the per month Contract price for the building, divided by twenty-one (21) days per month. (This will be adjusted as appropriate if some portion of the Contractor’s requirements apply to weekends or holidays).

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 36 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 98 of 127

H.12.19.3 H.12.19.4 H.12.19.5 H.12.20 H.12.20.1
H.13

The deduction rate in dollars per day multiplied by the number of days services were not provided or required will equal the total dollar deduction to be made.
Deductions will not be made to the extent that the Contractor can demonstrate that payment to employees is required by an incorporated wage determination or union agreement.
In the event services are provided for portion of days, appropriate adjustments will be made by the COTR to assure the Contractor is compensated for services provided.
Contract Completion or Termination
The Contractor shall turn over all plans codes, manuals, records, files, reports, databases spare inventory and materials developed or purchased in the course of the Contract to the COTR within thirty (30) calendar days after Contract completion or termination.
DIVERSION, REASSIGNMENT AND REPLACEMENT OF KEY PERSONNEL
The key personnel, if specified in the Contract, are considered to be essential to the work being performed hereunder. Prior to diverting any of the specified key personnel for any reason, the Contractor shall notify the CO at least thirty (30) calendar days in advance and shall submit justification, including proposed substitutions, in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the impact upon the Contract. The Contractor shall obtain written approval of the CO for any proposed substitution of key personnel.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 37 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 99 of 127

I.1 I.2
I.3 I.4
I.5 I.5.1
I.5.1.1 I.5.1.2 I.5.2 I.5.2.1 I.5.2.2
I.5.3 I.5.4

SECTION I CONTRACT CLAUSES
GOVERNING LAW This Contract, and any disputes arising out of or related to this Contract, shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the District of Columbia.
APPLICABILITY OF STANDARD CONTRACT PROVISIONS The Standard Contract Provisions for use with District of Columbia Government, Department of General Services Supplies and Services Contracts dated January 14, 2016 (SCP) are incorporated as part of the Contract.
CONTRACTS THAT CROSS FISCAL YEARS Continuation of this Contract beyond the current fiscal year is contingent upon future fiscal authorizations and appropriations.
CONTRACTS IN EXCESS OF ONE MILLION DOLLARS Any Contract in excess of $l,000,000 shall not be binding or give rise to any claim or demand against the District until approved by the Council of the District of Columbia and signed by the Contracting Office.
CONTINUITY OF SERVICES
The Contractor recognizes that the services provided under this Contract are vital to the District of Columbia and must be continued without interruption and that, upon Contract expiration or termination, a successor, either the District or another Contractor, at the District’s option, may continue to provide these services. To that end, the Contractor agrees to:
Furnish phase-out, phase-in (transition) training; and
Exercise its best efforts and cooperation to affect an orderly and efficient transition to a successor.
The Contractor shall, upon the Contracting Officer’s written notice:
Furnish phase-in, phase-out services for up to ninety (90) days after this Contract expires and
Negotiate in good faith a plan with a successor to determine the nature and extent of phase-in, phase-out services required. The plan shall specify a training program and a date for transferring responsibilities for each division of work described in the plan and shall be subject to the Contracting Officer’s approval.
The Contractor shall provide sufficient experienced personnel during the phase-in, phase-out period to ensure that the services called for by this Contract are maintained at the required level of proficiency.
The Contractor shall allow as many personnel as practicable to remain on the job to help the successor maintain the continuity and consistency of the services required by this Contract. The Contractor also shall disclose necessary personnel records and allow the successor to conduct on-

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 38 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 100 of 127

site interviews with these employees. If selected employees are agreeable to the change, the Contractor shall release them at a mutually agreeable date and negotiate transfer of their earned fringe benefits to the successor.

I.5.5

Only in accordance with a modification issued by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall be

reimbursed for all reasonable phase-in, phase-out costs (i.e., costs incurred within the agreed

period after Contract expiration that result from phase-in, phase-out operations) and a fee (profit)

not to exceed a pro rata portion of the fee (profit) under this Contract

I.6

CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION

The Contractor shall keep all information relating to any employee or customer of the District in

absolute confidence and shall not use the information in connection with any other matters; nor

shall it disclose any such information to any other person, firm or corporation, in accordance with

the District and Federal laws governing the confidentiality of records.

I.7

ESTIMATED QUANTITIES

It is the intent of the District to secure a Contract for all of the needs of the designated agencies for

items specified herein which may occur during the Contract term. The District agrees that it will

purchase its requirements of the articles or services included herein from the Contractor. Articles

or services specified herein have a history of repetitive use in the District agencies. The estimated

quantities stated in the RFP reflect the best estimates available. They shall not be construed to limit

the quantities which may be ordered from the Contractor by the District or to relieve the Contractor

of his obligation to fill all such orders. Orders will be placed from time to time if and when needs

arise for delivery, all charges prepaid, to the ordering agency. The District does not guarantee to

order any specific quantities of any item(s) or work hours of service.

I.8

DISPUTES

All disputes arising under or relating to the Contract shall be resolved as provided in the Standard

Contract Provisions for use with District of Columbia Department of General Services Supplies

and Services Contracts dated January 14, 2016 (“SCP”), Article 14: Disputes Attachment J.1.

I.9

CHANGES

(a) The CO may, at any time, by written order, and without notice to the surety, if any, make changes in the Contract within the general scope hereof. If such change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of performance of the Contract, or in the time required for performance, an equitable adjustment shall be made. Any claim for adjustment for a change within the general scope must be asserted within ten (10) days from the date the change is ordered; provided, however, that the CO, if he or she determines that the facts justify such action, may receive, consider and adjust any such claim asserted at any time prior to the date of final settlement of the Contract. If the parties fail to agree upon the adjustment to be made, the dispute shall be determined as provided in Section [I.8] - Disputes.

(b) The District shall not require the Contractor, and the Contractor shall not require a subContractor, to undertake any work that is beyond the original scope of the Contract or subContract, including work under a District-issued change order/Contract modification,
DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 39 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 101 of 127
when the additional work increases the Contract price beyond the not-to-exceed price or negotiated maximum price of this Contract, unless the CO:
(1) Agrees with Contractor, and if applicable, the subContractor on a price for the additional work;
(2) Obtains a certification of funding to pay for the additional work; (3) Makes a written, binding commitment with the Contractor to pay for the additional
work within 30-days after the Contractor submits a proper invoice; and (4) Provides the Contractor with written notice of the funding certification. (c) The Contractor shall include in its subContracts a clause that requires the Contractor to:

(1) Within 5 business days of its receipt of notice the approved additional funding, provide the subContractor with notice of the amount to be paid to the subContractor for the additional work to be performed by the subContractor;

(2) Pay the subContractor any undisputed amount to which the subContractor is entitled for the additional work within 10 days of receipt of payment from the District; and

(3) Notify the subContractor and CO in writing of the reason the Contractor withholds any payment from a subContractor for the additional work.

Neither the District, Contractor, nor any subContractor may declare another party to be in default, or assess, claim, or pursue damages for delays, until the parties to agree on a price for the additional work.I.10 NON-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE

I.10.1

The Contractor shall not discriminate in any manner against any employee or applicant for employment that would constitute a violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, effective December 13, 1977, as amended (D.C. Law 2-38; D.C. Official Code § 2-1401.01 et seq.) (“Act”, as used in this clause.) The Contractor shall include a similar clause in all subContracts, except subContracts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials. In addition, the Contractor agrees, and any subContractor shall agree, to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, a notice setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause as provided in section 251 of the Act.

I.10.2

Pursuant to Mayor’s Order 85-85, (6/10/85), Mayor’s Order 2002-175 (10/23/02), Mayor’s Order 2011-155 (9/9/11) and the rules of the Office of Human Rights, Chapter 11 of Title 4 of the D.C. Municipal Regulations, the following clauses apply to the Contract:

I.10.3

The Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibilities, genetic

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 40 of 53

I.10.4
I.10.5 I.10.6 I.10.7 I.10.8 I.10.9 I.10.10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 102 of 127
information, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, or credit information. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination, which is prohibited by the Act. In addition, harassment based on any of the above-protected categories is prohibited by the Act.
The Contractor agrees to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, or credit information. The affirmative action shall include, but not be limited to the following:
a) employment, upgrading or transfer; b) recruitment, or recruitment advertising; c) demotion, layoff, or termination; d) rates of pay, or other forms of compensation; and e) selection for training and apprenticeship.
The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the Contracting agency, setting forth the provisions in paragraphs 19(b) (1) and (b) (2) concerning non-discrimination and affirmative action.
The Contractor shall, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment pursuant to the non-discrimination requirements set forth in paragraph 19(b) (2).
The Contractor agrees to send to each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other Contract or understanding, a notice to be provided by the Contracting agency, advising the said labor union or workers’ representative of that Contractor’s commitments under this nondiscrimination clause and the Act, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.
The Contractor agrees to permit access to its books, records, and accounts pertaining to its employment practices, by the Chief Procurement Officer or designee, or the Director of the Office of Human Rights or designee, for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with the Act, and to require under terms of any subContractor agreement each subContractor to permit access of such subContractors’ books, records, and accounts for such purposes.
The Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of the Act and with all guidelines for equal employment opportunity applicable in the District adopted by the Director of the Office of Human Rights, or any authorized official.
The Contractor shall include in every subContract the equal opportunity clause, i.e., paragraphs 19(b) (1) through (b) (9) of this clause, so that such provisions shall be binding upon each subContractor.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 41 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 103 of 127

I.15.11 I.11

The Contractor shall take such action with respect to any subContract as the CO may direct as a means of enforcing these provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance; provided, however, that in the event the Contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subContractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the Contracting agency, the Contractor may request the District to enter into such litigation to protect the interest of the District
RIGHTS IN DATA
A. Definitions
1. “Products” - A deliverable under any Contract that may include commodities, services and/or technology furnished by or through Contractor, including existing and custom Products, such as, but not limited to: a) recorded information, regardless of form or the media on which it may be recorded; b) document research; c) experimental, developmental, or engineering work; d) licensed software; e) components of the hardware environment; f) printed materials (including but not limited to training manuals, system and user documentation, reports, drawings); g) third party software; h) modifications, customizations, custom programs, program listings, programming tools, data, modules, components; and i) any intellectual property embodied therein, whether in tangible or intangible form, including but not limited to utilities, interfaces, templates, subroutines, algorithms, formulas, source code, and object code.
2. “Existing Products” - Tangible Products and intangible licensed Products that exist prior to the commencement of work under the Contract. Existing Products must be identified on the Product prior to commencement of work or else will be presumed to be Custom Products.
3. “Custom Products” - Products, preliminary, final or otherwise, which are created or developed by Contractor, its subContractors, partners, employees, resellers or agents for the District under the Contract.
4. “District” – The District of Columbia and its agencies.
B. Title to Project Deliverables The Contractor acknowledges that it is commissioned by the District to perform services detailed in the Contract. The District shall have ownership and rights for the duration set forth in the Contract to use, copy, modify, distribute, or adapt Products as follows:
1. Existing Products: Title to all Existing Licensed Product(s), whether or not embedded in, delivered or operating in conjunction with hardware or Custom Products, shall remain with Contractor or third-party proprietary owner, who retains all rights, title and interest (including patent, trademark or copyrights). Effective upon payment, the District shall be granted an irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, paid-up license to use, execute, reproduce, display, perform, adapt (unless Contractor advises the District as part of Contractor’s Proposal that adaptation will violate existing agreements or statutes and Contractor demonstrates such to the District’s satisfaction), and distribute Existing Product to District users up to the license capacity stated in the Contract with all license rights necessary to fully effect the general business purpose of the project or work plan or

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 42 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 104 of 127
Contract. Licenses shall be granted in the name of the District. The District agrees to reproduce the copyright notice and any other legend of ownership on any copies authorized under this paragraph.
2. Custom Products: Effective upon Product creation, Contractor hereby conveys, assigns, and transfers to the District the sole and exclusive rights, title and interest in Custom Product(s), whether preliminary, final or otherwise, including all patent, trademark and copyrights. Contractor hereby agrees to take all necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that the Custom Products are protected against unauthorized copying, reproduction and marketing by or through Contractor.
C. Transfers or Assignments of Existing or Custom Products by the District The Department may transfer or assign Existing or Custom Products and the licenses thereunder to another District agency. Nothing herein shall preclude the Contractor from otherwise using the related or underlying general knowledge, skills, ideas, concepts, techniques and experience developed under a project or work plan in the course of Contractor’s business.
D. SubContractor Rights
Whenever any data, including computer software, are to be obtained from a subContractor under the Contract, the Contractor shall use this clause, Rights in Data, in the subContract, without alteration, and no other clause shall be used to enlarge or diminish the District’s or the Contractor’s rights in that subContractor data or computer software which is required for the District.
E. Source Code Escrow
1. For all computer software furnished to the District with the rights specified in section B.2, the Contractor shall furnish to the District, a copy of the source code with such rights of the scope as specified in section B.2 of this clause. For all computer software furnished to the District with the restricted rights specified in section B.1 of this clause, the District, if the Contractor either directly or through a successor or affiliate shall cease to provide the maintenance or warranty services provided the District under the Contract or any paid-up maintenance agreement, or if the Contractor should be declared insolvent by a court of competent jurisdiction, shall have the right to obtain, for its own and sole use only, a single copy of the current version of the source code supplied under the Contract, and a single copy of the documentation associated therewith, upon payment to the person in control of the source code the reasonable cost of making each copy.
2. If the Contractor or Product manufacturer/developer of software furnished to the District with the rights specified in section B.1 of this clause offers the source code or source code escrow to any other commercial customers, the Contractor shall either: (1) provide the District with the source code for the Product; (2) place the source code in a third party escrow arrangement with a designated escrow agent who shall be named and identified to the District, and who shall be directed to release the deposited source code in accordance with a standard escrow arrangement acceptable to the District; or (3) will certify to the District that the Product manufacturer/ developer has named the District as a named
DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 43 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 105 of 127

beneficiary of an established escrow arrangement with its designated escrow agent who shall be named and identified to the District, and who shall be directed to release the deposited source code in accordance with the terms of escrow.

3. The Contractor shall update the source code, as well as any corrections or enhancements to the source code, for each new release of the Product in the same manner as provided above and certify such updating of escrow to the District in writing.

F. Indemnification and Limitation of Liability

The Contractor shall indemnify and save and hold harmless the District, its officers, agents and employees acting within the scope of their official duties against any liability, including costs and expenses, (i) for violation of proprietary rights, copyrights, or rights of privacy, arising out of the publication, translation, reproduction, delivery, performance, use or disposition of any data furnished under this Contract, or (ii) based upon any data furnished under this Contract, or based upon libelous or other unlawful matter contained in such data.

I.12

OTHER CONTRACTORS

The Contractor shall not commit or permit any act that will interfere with the performance of work

by another District Contractor or by any District employee.

I.13

SUBCONTRACTS

The Contractor hereunder shall not subContract any of the Contractor’s work or services to any

subContractor without the prior written consent of the CO. Any work or service so subContracted

shall be performed pursuant to a subContract agreement, which the District will have the right to

review and approve prior to its execution by the Contractor. Any such subContract shall specify

that the Contractor and the subContractor shall be subject to every provision of this Contract.

Notwithstanding any such subContract approved by the District, the Contractor shall remain liable

to the District for all Contractor's work and services required hereunder.

I.14

INSURANCE

A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. The Contractor at its sole expense shall procure and maintain, during the entire period of performance under this contract, the types of insurance specified below. The Contractor shall have its insurance broker or insurance company submit a Certificate of Insurance to the CO giving evidence of the required coverage prior to commencing performance under this contract. In no event shall any work be performed until the required Certificates of Insurance signed by an authorized representative of the insurer(s) have been provided to, and accepted by, the CO. All insurance shall be written with financially responsible companies authorized to do business in the District of Columbia or in the jurisdiction where the work is to be performed and have an A.M. Best Company rating of A- / VII or higher. The Contractor shall require all of its subcontractors to carry the same insurance required herein.

All required policies shall contain a waiver of subrogation provision in favor of the Government of the District of Columbia.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 44 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 106 of 127
The Government of the District of Columbia shall be included in all policies required hereunder to be maintained by the Contractor and its subcontractors (except for workers’ compensation and professional liability insurance) as an additional insureds for claims against The Government of the District of Columbia relating to this contract, with the understanding that any affirmative obligation imposed upon the insured Contractor or its subcontractors (including without limitation the liability to pay premiums) shall be the sole obligation of the Contractor or its subcontractors, and not the additional insured. The additional insured status under the Contractor’s and its subcontractors’ Commercial General Liability insurance policies shall be affected using the ISO Additional Insured Endorsement form CG 20 10 11 85 (or CG 20 10 07 04 and CG 20 37 07 04) or such other endorsement or combination of endorsements providing coverage at least as broad and approved by the CO in writing. All of the Contractor’s and its subcontractors’ liability policies (except for workers’ compensation and professional liability insurance) shall be endorsed using ISO form CG 20 01 04 13 or its equivalent so as to indicate that such policies provide primary coverage (without any right of contribution by any other insurance, reinsurance or self-insurance, including any deductible or retention, maintained by an Additional Insured) for all claims against the additional insured arising out of the performance of this Statement of Work by the Contractor or its subcontractors, or anyone for whom the Contractor or its subcontractors may be liable. These policies shall include a separation of insureds clause applicable to the additional insured.
If the Contractor and/or its subcontractors maintain broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown below, the District requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by the Grantee and subcontractors.
1. Commercial General Liability Insurance. The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the CO with respect to the services performed that it carries a CGL policy, written on an occurrence (not claims-made) basis, on Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) form CG 00 01 04 13 (or another occurrence-based form with coverage at least as broad and approved by the CO in writing), covering liability for all ongoing and completed operations of the Contractor, including ongoing and completed operations under all subcontracts, and covering claims for bodily injury, including without limitation sickness, disease or death of any persons, injury to or destruction of property, including loss of use resulting therefrom, personal and advertising injury, and including coverage for liability arising out of an Insured Contract (including the tort liability of another assumed in a contract) and acts of terrorism (whether caused by a foreign or domestic source). Such coverage shall have limits of liability of not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, a $2,000,000 general aggregate (including a per location or per project aggregate limit endorsement, if applicable) limit, a $1,000,000 personal and advertising injury limit, and a $2,000,000 products-completed operations aggregate limit.
The vendor should be named as an additional insured on the applicable manufacturer’s/distributer’s Commercial General Liability policy using Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) form CG 20 15 04 13 (or another occurrence-based form with coverage at least as broad)
DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 45 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 107 of 127
2. Automobile Liability Insurance. The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the CO of commercial (business) automobile liability insurance written on ISO form COTR/CA 00 01 10 13 (or another form with coverage at least as broad and approved by the CO in writing) including coverage for all owned, hired, borrowed and non- owned vehicles and equipment used by the Contractor, with minimum per accident limits equal to the greater of (i) the limits set forth in the Contractor’s commercial automobile liability policy or (ii) $1,000,000 per occurrence combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation Insurance. The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the CO of Workers’ Compensation insurance in accordance with the statutory mandates of the District of Columbia or the jurisdiction in which the contract is performed.
Employer’s Liability Insurance. The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the CO of employer’s liability insurance as follows: $500,000 per accident for injury; $500,000 per employee for disease; and $500,000 for policy disease limit.
All insurance required by this paragraph 3 shall include a waiver of subrogation endorsement for the benefit of Government of the District of Columbia
4. Crime Insurance (3rd Party Indemnity) - The Contractor shall provide a 3rd Party Crime policy to cover the dishonest acts of Contractor’s employees which result in a loss to the District. The policy shall provide a limit of $10,000 per occurrence.
5. Cyber Liability Insurance - The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the Contracting Officer of Cyber Liability Insurance, with limits not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate. Coverage shall be sufficiently broad to respond to the duties and obligations as is undertaken by Contractor in this agreement and shall include, but not limited to, claims involving infringement of intellectual property, including but not limited to infringement of copyright, trademark, trade dress, invasion of privacy violations, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, release of private information, alteration of electronic information, extortion and network security. The policy shall provide coverage for breach response costs as well as regulatory fines and penalties as well as credit monitoring expenses with limits sufficient to respond to these obligations. This insurance requirement will be considered met if the general liability insurance includes an affirmative cyber endorsement for the required amounts and coverages. NOTE: The Office of Risk Management (ORM) will require the Contractor to furnish a copy of the actual cyber policy (not just the binder) prior to granting approval of the policy.
6. Environmental Liability Insurance - The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the CO of pollution legal liability insurance covering losses caused by pollution conditions that arise from the ongoing or completed operations of the Contractor. Completed operations coverage shall remain in effect for at least ten (10) years after completion of the work. Such insurance shall apply to bodily injury, property damage (including loss of use of damaged property or of property that has been physically injured), cleanup costs, liability and cleanup costs while in transit, and defense
DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 46 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 108 of 127
(including costs and expenses incurred in the investigation, defense and settlement of claims). There shall be neither an exclusion nor a sublimit for mold-related claims. The minimum limits required under this paragraph shall be equal to the greater of (i) the limits set forth in the Contractor’s pollution legal liability policy or (ii) $2,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the annual aggregate. If such coverage is written on a claims-made basis, the Contractor warrants that any retroactive date applicable to coverages under the policy precedes the Contractor’s performance of any work under the Contract and that continuous coverage will be maintained or an extended reporting period will be exercised for at least ten (10) years after completion. The Contractor also must furnish to the Owner certificates of insurance evidencing pollution legal liability insurance maintained by the transportation and disposal site operators(s) used by the Contractor for losses arising from facility(ies) accepting, storing or disposing hazardous materials or other waste as a result of the Contractor’s operations. Such coverages must be maintained with limits of at least the amounts set forth above.
7. Professional Liability Insurance (Errors & Omissions) - The Contractor shall provide Professional Liability Insurance (Errors and Omissions) to cover liability resulting from any error or omission in the performance of professional services under this Contract. The policy shall provide limits of $1,000,000 per claim or per occurrence for each wrongful act and $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The Contractor warrants that any applicable retroactive date precedes the date the Contractor first performed any professional services for the Government of the District of Columbia and that continuous coverage will be maintained or an extended reporting period will be exercised for a period of at least ten years after the completion of the professional services.
8. Sexual/Physical Abuse & Molestation – RESERVED [Intentionally Omitted]
9. Commercial Umbrella or Excess Liability - The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the CO of commercial umbrella or excess liability insurance with minimum limits equal to the greater of (i) the limits set forth in the Contractor’s umbrella or excess liability policy or (ii) $5,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 in the annual aggregate, following the form and in excess of all liability policies. All liability coverages must be scheduled under the umbrella and/or excess policy. The insurance required under this paragraph shall be written in a form that annually reinstates all required limits. Coverage shall be primary to any insurance, self-insurance or reinsurance maintained by the District and the “other insurance” provision must be amended in accordance with this requirement and principles of vertical exhaustion
B. PRIMARY AND NONCONTRIBUTORY INSURANCE. The insurance required herein shall be primary to and will not seek contribution from any other insurance, reinsurance or self-insurance including any deductible or retention, maintained by the Government of the District of Columbia.
C. DURATION. The Contractor shall carry all required insurance until all Contract work is accepted by the District and shall carry the required General Liability; any required Professional Liability; and any required Employment Practices Liability insurance for five (5) years following final acceptance of the work performed under this Contract.
DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 47 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 109 of 127
D. LIABILITY. These are the required minimum insurance requirements established by the District of Columbia. HOWEVER, THE REQUIRED MINIMUM INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED ABOVE WILL NOT IN ANY WAY LIMIT THE CONTRACTOR’S LIABILITY UNDER THIS CONTRACT.
E. CONTRACTOR’S PROPERTY. Contractor and subContractors are solely responsible for any loss or damage to their personal property, including but not limited to tools and equipment, scaffolding and temporary structures, rented machinery, or owned and leased equipment. A waiver of subrogation shall apply in favor of the District of Columbia.
F. MEASURE OF PAYMENT. The District shall not make any separate measure or payment for the cost of insurance and bonds. The Contractor shall include all of the costs of insurance and bonds in the Contract price.
G. NOTIFICATION. The Contractor shall immediately provide the CO with written notice in the event that its insurance coverage has or will be substantially changed, canceled or not renewed, and provide an updated certificate of insurance to the CO.
H. CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE. The Contractor shall submit certificates of insurance giving evidence of the required coverage as specified in this section prior to commencing work. Evidence of insurance shall be submitted to:
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
And mailed to the attention of:
GEORGE G. LEWIS, CPPO C/O Domonique L. Banks Chief Procurement Officer Chief of Contracts & Procurement Department of General Services 2000 14th Street N.W. | 8th Floor Telephone: (202) 727-2800 E-mail: george.lewis@dc.gov
The CO may request, and the Contractor shall promptly deliver updated certificates of insurance, endorsements indicating the required coverages, and/or certified copies of the insurance policies. If the insurance initially obtained by the Contractor expires prior to completion of the Contract, renewal certificates of insurance and additional insured and other endorsements shall be furnished to the CO prior to the date of expiration of all such initial insurance. For all coverage required to be maintained after completion, an additional certificate of insurance evidencing such coverage shall be submitted to the CO on an annual basis as the coverage is renewed (or replaced).
I. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION. The Contractor agrees that the District may disclose the name and contact information of its insurers to any third party which presents a claim against the District for any damages or claims resulting from or arising out of work performed by the Contractor, its agents, employees, servants or subContractors in the performance of this Contract.
DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 48 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 110 of 127

J. CARRIER RATINGS. All Contractor’s and its subContractors’ insurance required in connection with this Contract shall be written by insurance companies with an A.M. Best Insurance Guide rating of at least A- VII (or the equivalent by any other rating agency) and licensed in the in the District.

I.15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

In accordance with the District of Columbia Administrative Issuance System, Mayor’s Order 85-

85 dated June 10, 1985, the forms for completion of the Equal Employment Opportunity

Information Report are incorporated herein as Attachment J.8. An award cannot be made to any

Contractor who has not satisfied the equal employment requirements.

I.16

ORDER OF PRECEDENCE

The Contract will contain the following clause:

ORDER OF PRECEDENCE A conflict in language shall be resolved by giving precedence to the document in the highest order of priority that contains language addressing the issue in question. The following documents are incorporated into the Contract by reference and made a part of the Contract in the following order of precedence:

(1) An applicable Court Order, if any (2) Contract document (3) Standard Contract Provisions (4) Contract attachments other than the Standard Contract Provisions (5) RFP, as amended (6) BAFOs (in order of most recent to earliest) (7) Proposal

I.17

TIME

Time, if stated in a number of days, will include Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, unless otherwise stated herein.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 49 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 111 of 127

SECTION J ATTACHMENTS
The following list of attachments is incorporated into the solicitation by reference.

ATTACHMENT NO.
J.1

DOCUMENT
Government of the District of Columbia’s Department of General Services Standard Contract Provisions (“SCP”) for Supplies and Services Contracts, January 2016

J.2

U.S. Department of Labor Wage Determination 2015-4282, Revision 17 Dated 23-

April-2020

J.3

Way to Work Amendment Act of 2006 - Living Wage Notice & Fact Sheet

J.4

Bidder/Offer Certification revised 26-February-2020

J.5

Department of Employment Services First (1st) Source Employment Agreement

J.6

Department of Employment Services First (1st) Source Employment Plan

J.7

DSLBD SBE SubContracting Plan Form

J.8

Department of Employment Services, Equal Employment Opportunity Employer Information Report and Mayor’s Order 85-85

J.9

Tax Certification Affidavit

J.10

Center for Biocide Chemistries Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Fighting Products

J.11

EPA’s Registered Antimicrobial Products for Use Against Novel Coronavirus SARSCoV-2, the Cause of COVID-19

J.12

CDC Environmental Cleaning and Disinfection Recommendations

J.13

District-wide guidance for enhanced cleaning in all public facilities to protect against COVID-19 spread

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 50 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 112 of 127

SECTION K REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF
OFFERORS

K.1

Bidder/Offeror Certification Form Attachment J.4

K.2

WALSH-HEALEY ACT

If this Contract is for the manufacture or furnishing of materials, supplies, articles or equipment in an amount that exceeds or may exceed $10,000, and is subject to the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. §§ 35-45) (the “Act”, as used in this section), the following terms and conditions apply:

(a) All representations and stipulations required by the Act and regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor (41 CFR 50-201.3) are incorporated by reference. These representations and stipulations are subject to all applicable rulings and interpretations of the Secretary of Labor that are now, or may hereafter, be in effect.

(b) All employees whose work relates to this Contract shall be paid not less than the minimum wage prescribed by regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor (41 CFR 50-202.2) (41 U.S.C. §40). Learners, student learners, apprentices, and handicapped workers may be employed at less than the prescribed minimum wage (see 41 CFR 50-202.3) to the same extent that such employment is permitted under Section 14 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. §214).

K.3

CERTIFICATION REGARDING A DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE (JULY 1990)

K.3.1

Definitions. As used in this provision:

K.3.1.2

Conviction: means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendere) or imposition of sentence, or both, by any judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of the federal or state criminal drug statutes.

K.3.1.3

Criminal drug statute: means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of any controlled substance.

K.3.1.4

Drug-free workplace: means the site(s) for the performance of work done by the Contractor in connection with a specific Contract at which employees of the Contractor are prohibited from engaging in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance.

K.3.1.5

Employee: means an employee of a Contractor directly engaged in the performance of work under a District Contract. “Directly engaged” is defined to include all direct cost employees and any other Contractor employee who has other than a minimal impact or involvement in Contract performance.

K.3.1.6

Individual: means an offeror/Contractor that has no more than one employee including the offeror/Contractor.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 51 of 53

K.3.2 K.3.3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 113 of 127
The Contractor, if other than an individual, shall within 30 days after award (unless a longer period is agreed to in writing for Contracts of 30 days or more performance duration), or as soon as possible for Contracts of less than 30 days performance duration:
(1) Publish a statement notifying its employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the Contractor’s workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violations of such prohibition;
(2) Establish an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform such employees about: a. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; b. The Contractor’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; c. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and d. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace.
(3) Provide all employees engaged in performance of the Contract with a copy of the statement required by Section [K.3.2(1)] of this clause;
(4) Notify such employees in writing in the statement required by Section [K.3.2(1)] of this clause that, as a condition of continued employment on this Contract, the employee will: a. Abide by the terms of the statement; and b. Notify the employer in writing of the employee’s conviction under a criminal drug statute for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than 5 days after such conviction.
(5) Notify the CO in writing within 10 days after receiving notice under Section [K.3.2(4)(b)] of this clause, from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. The notice shall include the position title of the employee;
(6) Within 30 days after receiving notice under Section [K.3.2(4)(b)] of this clause of a conviction, take one of the following actions with respect to any employee who is convicted of a drug abuse violation occurring in the workplace:
a. Take appropriate personnel action against such employee, up to and including termination; or
b. Require such employee to satisfactorily participate in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a federal, state, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; and
(7) Make a good faith effort to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of Section [K.3.2(1)] through [K.3.2(6)] of this clause.
The Contractor, if an individual, agrees by award of the Contract or acceptance of a purchase order, not to engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance while performing this Contract.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 52 of 53

K.3.4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 114 of 127
In addition to other remedies available to the District, the Contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of Sections [K.3.2] or [K.3.3] of this clause may render the Contractor subject to suspension of Contract payments, termination of the Contract for default, and suspension or debarment.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079B | DOC SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) COMPREHENSIVE “HAZMAT” ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING SERVICES Page 53 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 115 of 127
ATTACHMENT 3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 116 of 127

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TASK ORDER/DELIVERY ORDER FOR SERVICES
OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 18 & 29

1.REQUISITION NUMBER
N/A

PAGE
1 of 8

2. TASK ORDER AGREEMENT NO.

3. Award/Effective Date

4. CONTRACT NUMBER

5. SOLICITATION NUMBER

6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE

CW82753

See 30C below

7. FOR SOLICITATION INFORMATION CONTACT:
Email: Courtney.Lattimore@dc.gov
9. ISSUED BY

A. NAME
Courtney B. Lattimore

OFFICE OF CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT TRANSPORTATION AND SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT COMMODITY GROUP 2000 14TH STREET, NW, 6TH FLOOR WASHINGTON, DC 20009

GSA Contract

N/A

#47QRAA18D0074

B. TELEPHONE (No Collect Calls)

PHONE. 202-671-2327

10. THIS ACQUISITION IS

UNRESTRICTED

SET ASIDE

%FOR

SMALL BUSINESS

SMALL DISADV. BUS.

Cooperative

Agreement

DCSS

SIC:

SIZE STANDARD:

11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINATION UNLESS BLOCK IS MARKED
N/A

8.OFFER DUE DATE:
12. PAYMENT DISCOUNT TERMS
Net 30 days

13. RESERVED

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

5. CONTRACTOR / OFFEROR
Potomac-Hudson Engineering, Inc. 77 Upper Rock, Suite 302 Rockville, MD 20850

RFTOP STEP

IFB

RFP

2-

16. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY

CODE

Public Safety & Justice Cluster (PSJC)

Cluster Financial Manager, Accounts Payable Division

899 North Capitol Street, N.E. 6th Floor, Suite: #600A

Washington, D.C. 20002

15A DUNS CODE 17. DELIVER TO

15B TAX ID NO.

DC Department of Corrections (DOC) 2000 14th Street NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20009
18A. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER

19 ITEM NO.

20 SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES

18. ADMINISTERED BY

DC Department of Corrections (DOC) 2000 14th Street NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20009
18B. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 16 UNLESS BLOCK BELOW IS CHECKED

SEE ADDENDUM

21 ESTIAMTED QUANTITY

22 UNIT

23 UNIT PRICE

24 AMOUNT

0001 Environmental Conditions Inspections

See Attachment B – Price Schedule

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA
ENCUMBRANCE CODE:
27. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN ONE COPY TO THE ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY ADDITIONAL PAGES SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED HEREIN. THIS ORDER IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT IDENTIFIED IN BLOCK 4. 29A. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR /CONTRACTOR

26. TOTAL ESTIMATED AWARD (FOR GOVT. USE ONLY)
Not-to-Exceed $75,000.00
28. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ARE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THIS DELIVERY ORDER IN THE FOLLOWING PRIORITY: (1). THIS DELIVERY ORDER IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE U.S. COMMUNITIES CONTRACT IDENTIFIED IN BLOCK 4.
30A. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)

29B. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (TYPE OR PRINT)
Frederick J. Carey

29C. DATE S IGNED

30B. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (TYPE OR PRINT)

May 18, 2020

Courtney B. Lattimore
Contracting Officer

30C DATE SIGNED

TEansvkirCOonarmsdeeern1Nt:a2ol0.C:-cCovnW-d0i80t28io74n59s3-ICnKspKectDiooncument 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 117 of 127

1. SERVICES/SUPPLIES REQUIRED

The Contractor shall provide perform Environmental Conditions Inspections at the two Department of Correction Facilities:

-

Central Detention Facility

-

Correctional Treatment Facility

2. TASK ORDER NO: CW82753

2.1 The District awards a Labor Hour contract with a cost-reimbursable component. 3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:

The period of performance shall be date of award through three (3) months, thereafter. 4. OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT

4.1 The Government may extend the term of this agreement for a period of three, one (1) month option periods, or successive fractions thereof, by written notice to the Contractor before the expiration of the contract; provided that the District will give the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least thirty (30) days before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the District to an extension. The exercise of this option is subject to the availability of funds at the time of the exercise of this option. The Contractor may waive the thirty (30) day preliminary notice requirement by providing a written waiver to the Contracting Officer prior to expiration of the contract.
4.2 If the District exercises this option, the extended contract shall be considered to include this option provision.
4.3 The price for the option period shall be as specified in the contract.

4.4 The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed six (6) months.
5. CONTRACTING OFFICER (CO)
Task orders will be entered into and signed on behalf of the District only by contracting officers. The contact information for the Contracting Officer is:
Courtney B. Lattimore Office of Contracting and Procurement 2000 14th Street, NW, 6th Floor Washington, DC 20009 202-671-2327 Courtney.Lattimore@dc.gov

Page 2 of 8

TEansvkirCOonarmsdeeern1Nt:a2ol0.C:-cCovnW-d0i80t28io74n59s3-ICnKspKectDiooncument 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 118 of 127
6. AUTHORIZED CHANGES BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER
6.1 The CO is the only person authorized to approve changes in any of the requirements of this task order.
6.2 The Contractor shall not comply with any order, directive or request that changes or modifies the requirements of this task order, unless issued in writing and signed by the CO.
6.3 In the event the Contractor effects any change at the instruction or request of any person other than the CO, the change will be considered to have been made without authority and no adjustment will be made in the task order price to cover any cost increase incurred as a result thereof.
7. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
7.1 The CA is responsible for general administration of the task order and advising the CO as to the Contractor’s compliance or noncompliance with the task order. The CA has the responsibility of ensuring the work conforms to the requirements of the task order and such other responsibilities and authorities as may be specified in the task order. These include:
7.1.1 Keeping the CO fully informed of any technical or contractual difficulties encountered during the performance period and advising the CO of any potential problem areas under the task order;
7.1.2 Coordinating site entry for Contractor personnel, if applicable;
7.1.3 Reviewing invoices for completed work and recommending approval by the CO if the Contractor’s prices and costs are consistent with the contractual amounts and progress is satisfactory and commensurate with the rate of expenditure;
7.1.4 Reviewing and approving invoices for deliverables to ensure receipt of goods and services. This includes the timely processing of invoices and vouchers in accordance with the District’s payment provisions; and
7.1.5 Maintaining a file that includes all task order correspondence, modifications, records of inspections (site, data, equipment) and invoice or vouchers.
7.2 The address and telephone number of the CA is:
Gloria Robertson Manager, Compliance D.C. Department of Corrections 1901 D Street SE Washington, DC 20003 (o)202.523.7017 gloria.robertson@dc.gov
Page 3 of 8

TEansvkirCOonarmsdeeern1Nt:a2ol0.C:-cCovnW-d0i80t28io74n59s3-ICnKspKectDiooncument 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 119 of 127

7.3 The CA shall NOT have the authority to:

1. Award, agree to, or sign any task order, delivery order or task order. Only the CO shall make contractual agreements, commitments or modifications;
2. Grant deviations from or waive any of the terms and conditions of the task order; 3. Increase the dollar limit of the task order or authorize work beyond the dollar
limit of the task order, 4. Authorize the expenditure of funds by the Contractor; 5. Change the period of performance; or 6. Authorize the use of District property, except as specified under the task order.
7.4 The Contractor will be fully responsible for any changes not authorized in advance, in writing, by the CO; may be denied compensation or other relief for any additional work performed that is not so authorized; and may also be required, at no additional cost to the District, to take all corrective action necessitated by reason of the unauthorized changes.
8. COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT

8.1 The District will make payments to the Contractor, upon the submission of proper invoices, at the prices stipulated in this contract for services delivered and accepted or services performed and accepted, less any discounts, allowances or adjustments provided for in this contract.
8.2 In instances where the Mayor has declared an emergency and the District utilizes the Contractor’s services under this contract during the declared emergency, the Contractor agrees to accept payment for those services by the District’s credit card. The District shall not be liable to Contractor for any associated credit card fees.
9. INVOICE SUBMITTAL

9.1 The Contractor shall submit proper invoices on a monthly basis or as otherwise specified in Section G.4. Invoices shall be prepared in duplicate and submitted to the agency Chief Financial Officer with concurrent copies to the Contract Administrator (CA) specified in Section 7.2 above.

9.2 To constitute a proper invoice, the Contractor shall submit the following information on the invoice:

9.2.1

Contractor’s name, federal tax ID and invoice date (date invoices as of the date of mailing or transmittal);

9.2.2 Contract number and invoice number;

9.2.3

Description, price, quantity and the date(s) that the supplies or services were delivered or performed;

9.2.4

Other supporting documentation or information, as required by the Contracting Officer;

Page 4 of 8

TEansvkirCOonarmsdeeern1Nt:a2ol0.C:-cCovnW-d0i80t28io74n59s3-ICnKspKectDiooncument 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 120 of 127

9.2.5

Name, title, telephone number and complete mailing address of the responsible official to whom payment is to be sent;

9.2.6 Name, title, phone number of person preparing the invoice;

9.2.7

Name, title, phone number and mailing address of person (if different from the person identified in G.2.2.6 above) to be notified in the event of a defective invoice; and

9.2.8 Authorized signature.

10. PAYMENT

Unless otherwise specified in this contract, payment will be made on partial deliveries of goods and services accepted by the District if:

a) The amount due on the deliveries warrants it; or

b) The Contractor requests it and the amount due on the deliveries is in accordance with the following:

• Payment will be made on completion and acceptance of the following stages of work in accordance with the hourly rates stated in the Schedule in Attachment B:

- Upon completion of the initial inspection and establishment of a protocol

- Upon project completion; and

c) Presentation of a properly executed invoice

11. INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

11.1 The inspection and acceptance requirements for the resultant contract shall be governed by clause number five (5), Inspection of Supplies, of the Government of the District of Columbia's Standard Contract Provisions for use with Supplies and Services Contracts, dated July 2010.

11.2 Representatives of the Government of the District of Columbia shall perform inspection and acceptance of the vehicle/s to be furnished under this order at the destination to ensure that the vehicle/s conform to the terms of the resultant contract. Any item found not in compliance with the specifications shall be rejected.

12. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE

A conflict in language shall be resolved by giving precedence to the document in the highest order of priority that contains language addressing the issue in question. The

Page 5 of 8

TEansvkirCOonarmsdeeern1Nt:a2ol0.C:-cCovnW-d0i80t28io74n59s3-ICnKspKectDiooncument 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 121 of 127
following documents are incorporated into the task order by reference and made a part of the task order in the following order of precedence:
13. INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS AND ORDER OF PRECEDENCE
The following documents are incorporated by reference into the contract. In the event of an inconsistency among the provisions of this Agreement, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order:
13.1 This Agreement, including Standard Contract Provisions for use with District of Columbia Government Supply and Services Contracts, dated July 2010.
13.2 Statement of Work (Attachment A)
13.3 Price Schedule (Attachment B)
13.4 GSA Contract No.: 47QRAA18D0074 with Potomac-Hudson Engineering, Inc. (Attachment C)
13.5 Contractor’s Quote dated May 13, 2020 (Attachment D)
14. DISPUTES
14. Disputes
All disputes arising under or relating to the contract shall be resolved as provided herein.
(a) Claims by the Contractor against the District: Claim, as used in paragraph (a) of this clause, means a written assertion by the Contractor seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract. A claim arising under a contract, unlike a claim relating to that contract, is a claim that can be resolved under a contract clause that provides for the relief sought by the claimant
(1) All claims by a Contractor against the District arising under or relating to a contract shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the CO for a decision. The Contractor’s claim shall contain at least the following:
(i) A description of the claim and the amount in dispute; (ii) Data or other information in support of the claim; (iii) A brief description of the Contractor’s efforts to resolve the dispute prior to filing the
claim; and (iv) The Contractor’s request for relief or other action by the CO.
(2) The CO may meet with the Contractor in a further attempt to resolve the claim by agreement.
Page 6 of 8

TEansvkirCOonarmsdeeern1Nt:a2ol0.C:-cCovnW-d0i80t28io74n59s3-ICnKspKectDiooncument 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 122 of 127
(3) The CO shall issue a decision on any claim within 120 calendar days after receipt of the claim. Whenever possible, the CO shall take into account factors such as the size and complexity of the claim and the adequacy of the information in support of the claim provided by the Contractor.
(4) The CO’s written decision shall do the following:
(i) Provide a description of the claim or dispute; (ii) Refer to the pertinent contract terms; (iii) State the factual areas of agreement and disagreement; (iv) State the reasons for the decision, including any specific findings of fact, although
specific findings of fact are not required and, if made, shall not be binding in any subsequent proceeding; (v) If all or any part of the claim is determined to be valid, determine the amount of monetary settlement, the contract adjustment to be made, or other relief to be granted; (vi)Indicate that the written document is the CO’s final decision; and (vii) Inform the Contractor of the right to seek further redress by appealing the decision to the Contract Appeals Board.
(5) Failure by the CO to issue a decision on a contract claim within 120 days of receipt of the claim will be deemed to be a denial of the claim and will authorize the commencement of an appeal to the Contract Appeals Board as provided by D.C. Official Code § 2 360.04
(6) If a contractor is unable to support any part of its claim and it is determined that the inability is attributable to a material misrepresentation of fact or fraud on the part of the Contractor, the Contractor shall be liable to the District for an amount equal to the unsupported part of the claim in addition to all costs to the District attributable to the cost of reviewing that part of the Contractor’s claim. Liability under this paragraph (a)(6) shall be determined within six (6) years of the commission of the misrepresentation of fact or fraud.
(7) Pending final decision of an appeal, action, or final settlement, the Contractor shall proceed diligently with performance of the contract in accordance with the decision of the CO.
(b) Claims by the District against the Contractor: Claim as used in paragraph (b) of this clause, means a written demand or written assertion by the District seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract. A claim arising under a contract, unlike a claim relating to that contract, is a claim that can be resolved under a contract clause that provides for the relief sought by the claimant.
(1) The CO shall decide all claims by the District against a contractor arising under or relating to a contract.
(2) The CO shall send written notice of the claim to the contractor. The CO’s written decision shall do the following:
Page 7 of 8

TEansvkirCOonarmsdeeern1Nt:a2ol0.C:-cCovnW-d0i80t28io74n59s3-ICnKspKectDiooncument 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 123 of 127 (i) Provide a description of the claim or dispute; (ii) Refer to the pertinent contract terms; (iii) State the factual areas of agreement and disagreement; (iv) State the reasons for the decision, including any specific findings of fact, although specific findings of fact are not required and, if made, shall not be binding in any subsequent proceeding; (v) If all or any part of the claim is determined to be valid, determine the amount of monetary settlement, the contract adjustment to be made, or other relief to be granted; (vi) Indicate that the written document is the CO’s final decision; and (vii) Inform the Contractor of the right to seek further redress by appealing the decision to the Contract Appeals Board. (3) The CO shall support the decision by reasons and shall inform the Contractor of its rights as provided herein. (4) Before or after issuing the decision, the CO may meet with the Contractor to attempt to resolve the claim by agreement. (5) The authority contained in this paragraph (b) shall not apply to a claim or dispute for penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation which another District agency is specifically authorized to administer, settle or determine. (6) This paragraph shall not authorize the CO to settle, compromise, pay, or otherwise adjust any claim involving fraud. (c) Decisions of the CO shall be final and not subject to review unless the Contractor timely commences an administrative appeal for review of the decision, by filing a complaint with the Contract Appeals Board, as authorized by D.C. Official Code § 2-360.04. (d) Pending final decision of an appeal, action, or final settlement, the Contractor shall proceed diligently with performance of the contract in accordance with the decision of the CO.
Page 8 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 124 of 127
ATTACHMENT 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 125 of 127

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 126 of 127

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-7 Filed 05/26/20 Page 127 of 127

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 33
EXHIBIT H

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 33
ATTACHMENT 1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 14 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 15 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 16 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 17 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 18 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 19 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 20 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 21 of 33
ATTACHMENT 2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 22 of 33
D.C. Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
Open Letter to All Employees From Director Quincy L. Booth DOC-OL20-09: April 27, 2020 (Mandatory Training: IR Thermometer and Personal Protective Equipment)
In these unprecedented times, DOC appreciates your ongoing dedication, professionalism and support of the agency’s critical mission. The safety and security of staff, residents and contractors is our top priority.
As we work together to respond to the COVID-19 public health emergency, we need to constantly emphasize the importance of personal protective equipment (PPE). That is why we are providing masks and gloves to everyone entering our facilities and requiring they be worn at all times. Staff assigned to transportation and the quarantine and isolation units will be provided specific PPE for use in those areas. It is imperative that all staff understand how to properly use, don, doff, and dispose of their PPE.
I want to thank the Center for Professional Development and Learning team for creating the required training module, “Wearing Personal Protective Equipment,” through the Bridge Learning Management System. This training is mandatory for all DOC staff.
Please take the necessary time to complete the training. If you are completing the training during your shift, you must get your supervisor’s approval prior to completing the course during your shift.
Please see the attached instructions on how to navigate the system. It is critical that everyone take this course and I ask for your cooperation. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Dr. Lynnita Thomas at Lynnita.thomas@dc.gov.
All DOC staff must complete the training by Monday, May 4, 2020. If you do not attend, your supervisor and division Deputy Director will be notified by the online system.
The D.C. Department of Corrections’ vision is to be a benchmark correction agency. To become benchmark agency, we will serve with pride, passion and professionalism in caring for human lives.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 23 of 33
Please continue to practice health and safety precautions that will help us keep our DOC facilities, staff, and residents safe and healthy. Follow the guidance below on how to reduce your risk of infection and slow its spread.
• Practice social distancing by staying at least six feet away from other people. • Thoroughly wash your hands for at least 20 seconds multiple times a day. • Avoid close contact with people who are sick. • Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth. • Sanitize your equipment. • Follow the safety protocols in place at each of the DOC facilities. • If you are sick, contact your healthcare provider and request sick leave through
your supervisor. Thank you for your continued commitment to serving our city and our neighbors. For more information about COVID-19, visit: https://coronavirus.dc.gov/ https://dchealth.dc.gov/coronavirus https://cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019- ncov/index.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories.html/
PLEASE READ AT ALL ROLL CALLS FOR SEVEN (7) CONSECUTIVE DAYS AND POST ON ALL APPROPRIATE BULLETIN BOARDS
The D.C. Department of Corrections’ vision is to be a benchmark correction agency. To become benchmark agency, we will serve with pride, passion and professionalism in caring for human lives.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 24 of 33
ATTACHMENT 3

COVID-19 Precautionary Tips Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 25 of 33
Help safeguard your health and reduce the spread of COVID-19
1. Wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds
2. If you are feeling ill, immediately notify unit ofﬁcers. 3. Disinfectant will be sprayed in each cell. Residents are
required to wipe down and clean their cells afterward. 4. Wipe down surfaces such as telephones and kiosks
before use. 5. Practice social distancing. Stand or walk six (6) feet apart
from others and wear your mask.
COVID-19 Sugerencias de Precauciones
Ayudar a salvaguardar su salud y reducir la propagación de COVID-19
1. Lávese las manos con agua y jabón durante al menos 20 segundos.
2. Si usted se siente enfermo, notiﬁque inmediatamente a los oﬁciales de unidad.
3. El desinfectante se rociará en cada célula. Se requiere que los residentes limpien y limpien sus celdas después.
4. Limpie las superﬁcies como los teléfonos y los quioscos antes de su uso.
5. Practica distanciamiento social. Quérate o camina seis (6) pies de distancia de los demás y ponte la máscara.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 26 of 33
A Few Important Reminders about Coronaviruses and Reducing the Risk of Exposure:
• Coronaviruses on surfaces and objects naturally die within hours to days. Warmer temperatures and exposure to sunlight will reduce the time the virus survives on surfaces and objects.
• Normal routine cleaning with soap and water removes germs and dirt from surfaces. It lowers the risk of spreading COVID-19 infection.
• Disinfectants kill germs on surfaces. By killing germs on a surface after cleaning, you can further lower the risk of spreading infection. EPA-approved disinfectants are an important part of reducing the risk of exposure to COVID-19. If disinfectants on this list are in short supply, alternative disinfectants can be used (for example, 1/3 cup of bleach added to 1 gallon of water, or 70% alcohol solutions).
• Store and use disinfectants in a responsible and appropriate manner according to the label. Do not mix bleach or other cleaning and disinfection products together–this can cause fumes that may be very dangerous to breathe in. Keep all disinfectants out of the reach of children.
• Do not overuse or stockpile disinfectants or other supplies. This can result in shortages of appropriate products for others to use in critical situations.
• Always wear gloves appropriate for the chemicals being used when you are cleaning and disinfecting. Additional personal protective equipment (PPE) may be needed based on setting and product.
• Practice social distancing, wear facial coverings, and follow proper prevention hygiene, such as washing your hands frequently and using alcohol-based (at least 60% alcohol) hand sanitizer when soap and water are not available.
Watch for symptoms
People with COVID-19 have had a wide range of symptoms reported – ranging from mild symptoms to severe illness. Symptoms may appear 2-14 days after exposure to the virus. People with these symptoms or combinations of symptoms may have COVID-19:
• Cough • Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing
Or at least two of these symptoms: • Fever • Chills • Repeated shaking with chills • Muscle pain • Headache • Sore throat • New loss of taste or smell
If you have any of these emergency warning signs for COVID-19 get medical attention immediately: • Trouble breathing • Persistent pain or pressure in the chest • New confusion or inability to arouse • Bluish lips or face
This list is not all inclusive. Please consult your medical provider for any other symptoms that are severe or concerning to you.
Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 27 of 33
Quick Guide to COVID 19
In response to so many of your questions about the Coronavirus and COVID 19 pandemic, here are some frequently asked questions and responses from the Center for Disease Control (CDC):
What is a novel coronavirus? A novel coronavirus is a new coronavirus that has not been previously identified. The virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is not the same as the coronaviruses that commonly circulate among humans and cause mild illness, like the common cold.
Why is the disease called coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19? On February 11, 2020 the World Health Organization (WHO) announced an official name for the disease that is causing the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak, first identified in Wuhan China. The new name of this disease is coronavirus disease 2019, abbreviated as COVID-19. In COVID-19, ‘CO’ stands for ‘corona,’ ‘VI’ for ‘virus,’ and ‘D’ for disease. Formerly, this disease was referred to as “2019 novel coronavirus” or “2019-nCoV”.
There are many types of human coronaviruses including some that commonly cause mild upper-respiratory tract illnesses. COVID-19 is a new disease, caused by a novel (or new) coronavirus that has not previously been seen in humans. The name of this disease was selected following WHO best practice for naming of new human infectious diseases.
What’s the source of the virus? COVID-19 is caused by a coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are common in people and may different species of animals, including camels, cattle, cats, and bats. Rarely, animal coronaviruses can infect people and then spread between people. This occurred with MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and now with the virus that causes COVID-19. The SARSCoV-2 virus is a betacoronavirus, like MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. All three of these viruses have their origins in bats. The sequences from U.S. patients are similar to the one that China initially posted, suggesting a likely single, recent emergence of this virus from an animal reservoir. However, the exact source of this virus is unknown.
How does the virus spread? The virus that causes COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly from person to person, mainly through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes. These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs. Spread is more likely when people are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet).
COVID-19 seems to be spreading easily and sustainably in the community (“community spread”) in many affected geographic areas. Community spread means people have been infected with the virus in an area, including some who are not sure how or where they became infected.
Why are we seeing a rise in cases? The number of cases of COVID-19 being reported in the United States is rising due to increased laboratory testing and reporting across the country. The growing number of cases in part reflects the rapid spread of COVID-19 as many U.S. states and territories experience community spread. More detailed and accurate data will allow us to better understand and track the size and scope of the outbreak and strengthen prevention and response efforts.
Can someone who has had COVID-19 spread illness to others? The virus that causes COVID-19 is spreading from person-to-person. People are thought to be most contagious when they are symptomatic (the sickest). That is why CDC recommends that these patients be isolated either in the hospital or at home (depending on how sick they are) until they are better and no longer pose a risk of infecting others. More recently the virus has also been detected in asymptomatic persons.
How long someone is actively sick can vary so the decision on when to release someone from isolation is made using a test-based or non-test-based strategy (i.e. time since illness started and time since recovery) in consultation with state and local public health officials. The decision involves considering the specifics of each
1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 28 of 33
situation, including disease severity, illness signs and symptoms, and the results of laboratory testing for that patient. Someone who has been released from isolation is not considered to pose a risk of infection to others.
Can someone who has been quarantined for COVID-19 spread the illness to others? Quarantine means separating a person or group of people who have been exposed to a contagious disease but have not developed illness (symptoms) from others who have not been exposed, in order to prevent the possible spread of that disease. Quarantine is usually established for the incubation period of the communicable disease, which is the span of time during which people have developed illness after exposure. For COVID-19, the period of quarantine is 14 days from the last date of exposure because the incubation period for this virus is 2 to 14 days. Someone who has been released from COVID-19 quarantine is not considered a risk for spreading the virus to others because they have not developed illness during the incubation period.
Can I get sick with COVID-19 if it’s on food? Based on information about this novel coronavirus thus far, it seems unlikely that COVID-19 can be transmitted through food – additional investigation is needed.
Will warm weather stop the outbreak of COVID-19? It is not yet known whether weather and temperature affect the spread of COVID-19. Some other viruses, like those that cause the common cold and flu, spread more during cold weather months but that does not mean it is impossible to become sick with these viruses during other months. There is much more to learn about the transmissibility, severity, and other features associated with COVID-19 and investigations are ongoing.
What are the symptoms and complications that COVID-19 can cause? Current symptoms reported for patients with COVID-19 have included mild to severe respiratory illness with fever1, cough, and difficulty breathing.
If I recovered from COVID-19, will I be immune to it? CDC and partners are investigating to determine if you can get sick with COVID-19 more than once. At this time, we are not sure if you can become re-infected. Until we know more, continue to take steps to protect yourself and others.
Who is at higher risk for serious illness from COVID-19? COVID-19 is a new disease and there is limited information regarding risk factors for severe disease. Based on currently available information and clinical expertise, older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions might be at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Based on what we know now, those at high-risk for severe illness from COVID-19 are:
• People aged 65 years and older • People who live in a nursing home or long-term care facility
People of all ages with underlying medical conditions, particularly if not well controlled, including: • People with chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma • People who have serious heart conditions • People who are immunocompromised • People with severe obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥40) • People with diabetes • People with chronic kidney disease undergoing dialysis • People with liver disease
What kind of testing is being used to diagnose if I have COVID-19? There are actually many tests being used to diagnose COVID-19 that the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized for use during the current emergency. All of these diagnostic tests identify the virus in samples from the respiratory system, such as from nasal or nasopharyngeal swabs.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 29 of 33
CDC Guidelines on How to Protect Yourself and Others
Know how it spreads
There is currently no vaccine to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The best way to prevent illness is to avoid being exposed to this virus. The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person: • Between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet). • Through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes or talks. • These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs. • Some recent studies have suggested that COVID-19 may be spread by people who are not showing symptoms.
Clean your hands often • Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds especially after you have
been in a public place, or after blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing.
• If soap and water are not readily available, use a hand sanitizer that contains at least 60%
alcohol. Cover all surfaces of your hands and rub them together until they feel dry.
• Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands.
Avoid close contact • Avoid close contact with people who are sick. • Put distance between yourself and other people, at least 6 feet when possible (social distancing) • Remember that some people without symptoms may be able to spread virus.
Cover your mouth and nose with a cloth face cover when around others
• You could spread COVID-19 to others even if you do not feel sick. • Everyone should wear a cloth face cover when they have to go out in public (cloth face coverings should not be placed on anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance). • The cloth face cover is meant to protect other people in case you are infected. • Do NOT use a facemask meant for a healthcare worker. • Continue to keep about 6 feet between yourself and others. The cloth face cover is not a substitute for social distancing.
Cover coughs and sneezes
• If you are in a private setting and do not have on your cloth face covering, remember to always cover your mouth and nose with a tissue when you cough or sneeze or use the inside of your elbow. • Throw used tissues in the trash. • Immediately wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. If soap and water are not readily available, clean your hands with a hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol.
Clean and disinfect • Clean AND disinfect frequently touched surfaces daily. This includes tables, doorknobs, light switches, countertops, handles, desks, phones, keyboards, toilets, faucets, and sinks. • If surfaces are dirty, clean them. Use detergent or soap and water prior to disinfection.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 30 of 33
From the CDC’s Interim Guidance on Management of COVID-19 in Correctional and Detention Facilities
Definitions: Medical Isolation—Medical isolation refers to confining a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case (ideally to a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes), to prevent contact with others and to reduce the risk of transmission. Medical isolation ends when the individual meets pre-established clinical and/or testing criteria for release from isolation, in consultation with clinical providers and public health officials. In this context, isolation does NOT refer to punitive isolation for behavioral infractions within the custodial setting.
Quarantine—Quarantine refers to the practice of confining individuals who have had close contact with a COVID-19 case to determine whether they develop symptoms of the disease. Quarantine for COVID-19 should last for a period of 14 days. Ideally, each quarantined individual would be quarantined in a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes. If symptoms develop during the 14-day period, the individual should be placed under medical isolation and evaluated for COVID-19. If symptoms do not develop, movement restrictions can be lifted, and the individual can return to their previous residency status within the facility.
Social Distancing—Social distancing is the practice of increasing the space between individuals and decreasing the frequency of contact to reduce the risk of spreading a disease (ideally to maintain at least 6 feet between all individuals, even those who are asymptomatic). Social distancing strategies can be applied on an individual level (e.g., avoiding physical contact), a group level (e.g., canceling group activities where individuals will be in close contact), and an operational level (e.g., rearranging chairs in the dining hall to increase distance between them). Although social distancing is challenging to practice in correctional and detention environments, it is a cornerstone of reducing transmission of respiratory diseases such as COVID-19.
Verbal Screening &Temperature Check Protocols for Incarcerated/Detained Persons, Staff, & Visitors
CDC guidance recommends verbal screening and temperature checks for incarcerated/detained persons, staff, volunteers, and visitors who enter correctional and detention facilities, as well as incarcerated/detained persons who are transferred to another facility or released from custody. Below, verbal screening questions for COVID-19 symptoms and contact with known cases, and a safe temperature check procedure are detailed.
√ Verbal screening for symptoms of COVID-19 and contact with COVID-19 cases should include the following questions:
1. Today or in the past 24 hours, have you had any of the following symptoms? Fever, felt feverish, or had chills? Cough? Difficulty breathing?
2. In the past 14 days, have you had contact with a person known to be infected with the novel coronavirus (COVID-19)?
√ The following is a protocol for medical providers to safely check an individual’s temperature: • Perform hand hygiene • Put on a face mask, eye protection (goggles or disposable face shield that fully covers the front and sides of the face), gown/coveralls, and a single pair of disposable gloves • Check individual’s temperature • If performing a temperature check on multiple individuals, ensure that a clean pair of gloves is used for each individual and that the thermometer has been thoroughly cleaned in between each check. If disposable or non-contact thermometers are used and the screener did not have physical contact with an individual, gloves do not need to be changed before the next check. If non-contact thermometers are used, they should be cleaned routinely as recommended by CDC for infection control. • Remove and discard PPE and perform hand hygiene
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 31 of 33
Properly Donning, Doffing, and Disposing of PPE
Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) is a front-line defense against the spread of viruses. Here’s how to use it:
When putting on gloves, wash your hands, pull gloves on, placing over the cuffs of your shirt or medical gown if applicable. The CDC recommends removing gloves if they become torn, damaged, or soiled. Perform hand hygiene before putting on new gloves. To remove gloves:
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 32 of 33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-8 Filed 05/26/20 Page 33 of 33
Social Distancing Keep Your Distance to Slow the Spread
Limiting face-to-face contact with others is the best way to reduce the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
What is social distancing?
Social distancing, also called “physical distancing,” means keeping space between yourself and other people outside of your home. To practice social or physical distancing:
Stay at least 6 feet (about 2 arms’ length) from other people Do not gather in groups Stay out of crowded places and avoid mass gatherings
In addition to everyday steps to prevent COVID-19, keeping space between you and others is one of the best tools we have to avoid being exposed to this virus and slowing its spread locally and across the country and world. Since people can spread the virus before they know they are sick, it is important to stay away from others when possible, even if you—or they—have no symptoms. Social distancing is especially important for people who are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.
Being incarcerated can present challenges with practicing social distancing to prevent the spread of COVID-19. In addition to limiting close contact with others as much as possible, wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) such as a mask is an important safeguard.
Why practice social distancing?
COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact (within about 6 feet) for a prolonged period. Spread happens when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks, and droplets from their mouth or nose are launched into the air and land in the mouths or noses of people nearby. The droplets can also be inhaled into the lungs. Recent studies indicate that people who are infected but do not have symptoms likely also play a role in the spread of COVID-19. It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or eyes. However, this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads. COVID-19 can live for hours or days on a surface, depending on factors such as sunlight, humidity, and the type of surface. Social distancing helps limit opportunities to come in contact with contaminated surfaces and infected people outside the home. This is why washing your hands and cleaning/disinfecting surfaces is vital to stop the spread.
Although the risk of severe illness may be different for everyone, anyone can get and spread COVID-19. Everyone has a role to play in slowing the spread and protecting themselves, their family, and their
Stay connected while staying away. It is very important to stay in touch with friends and family. They are under social distancing guidelines as well and are very likely feeling disconnected and anxious, just like you. Call, write, and stay connected with your support team. Everyone reacts differently to stressful situations and having to socially distance yourself from loved ones can be difficult for all.
Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-9 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT I

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-9 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-9 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 48
EXHIBIT J

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 48

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v.
EDWARD BANKS

)

)

)

2019 CF1 010956

)

Judge McKenna

)

Sentencing: June 26, 2020

)

)

RESPONSE OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELEASE FROM DETENTION BASED
ON COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND REQUEST FOR VACATUR OF RELIEF ORDERED

INTRODUCTION

Defendant has once again moved for emergency release from the District of Columbia

Department of Corrections (DOC) based on the COVID-19 pandemic. See May 18, 2020

Motion for Release from Detention Based on COVID-19 Pandemic (Motion). DOC takes no

position on this request, but the Superior Court’s consideration of these motions has routinely

resulted in the Court awarding criminal defendants “remedial relief” against DOC.

The Court should decline to do so here, for jurisdictional, prudential, and factual reasons.

First, a criminal court generally lacks jurisdiction to enjoin operations at correctional facilities.

Second, Defendant is the named plaintiff in a putative class action brought under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 challenging the conditions of confinement at DOC under both the Fifth Amendment and

Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. Finally, the representations to the Court that Defendant’s

motion advances about his conditions of confinement are demonstrably false in light of

documentary evidence to the contrary. Rather than awarding further remedial relief, the Court

should vacate the remedial relief it awarded Defendant on April 17, 2020, requiring his ongoing

housing in a single cell.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 48
BACKGROUND On February 24, 2020, Defendant pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter. Since pleading guilty, he has repeatedly sought release from the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC) because of the COVID-19 pandemic. DOC took no position on Defendant’s request for release in any of his earlier motions, nor does it do so now. The Court denied each of his requests, though it ordered remedial relief on April 17, 2020, requiring DOC to house Defendant in a cell without a cellmate. The Court declined to set an end date to this remedial relief. Defendant is also the named plaintiff in Banks, et al., v. Booth, et al., 20-cv-00849 (CKK) (D.D.C.). He claims violations of his Fifth Amendment rights (Claim I), violation of his Eighth Amendment rights (Claim II), and although it does not specifically allege a Sixth Amendment violation, among the relief Defendant seeks is “unmonitored, confidential legal calls and video visits with counsel to reduce the need for defense teams to enter into the facility and meet with clients in dangerously close quarters[.]” Banks Compl. [ECF 1] at 36, ¶ 18. On April 19, 2020, Defendant secured emergency injunctive relief entitling him and the putative class to, among other relief, “consistent and reliable access to legal calls, personal telephone call, daily showers, and clean clothing and clean linens [while] on isolation status.” April 19, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) [ECF 48] at 2. The Court also ordered DOC to provide to Defendant “proper cleaning supplies that have been sanitized regularly” and to establish a schedule to maintain cleaning of common areas and cells. Id. The Court continues to monitor DOC’s compliance with the TRO; on May 11, 2020, court appointed amici provided an update on the current state of DOC conditions.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 48
ARGUMENT I. Jurisdictional and Prudential Considerations Weigh Against Ordering Additional
Remedial Injunctive Relief in Defendant’s Criminal Case. A. In General, This Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Jail Administration. Defendant’s criminal prosecution is not a civil suit where he has standing to seek injunctive relief from DOC for his conditions of confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973) (“A [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a statement prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life”). And the day-today operations of correctional facilities are typically not the province of the judiciary. “[C]ourts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration” and it would “not be wise for [courts] to second-guess the expert administrators on matters on which they are better informed.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 531 (1979) (quoting Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 405 (1974) and quoting Wolfish v. Levi, 573 F.2d 118, 124 (2d Cir. 1978)); cf. In re Taylor, --- A.3d. ---, 2020 WL 1809690, at *10 (D.C. April 9, 2020) (“as the Court said in Bell v. Wolfish, ‘maintaining institutional security and preserving internal order and discipline are essential goals that may require limitation or retraction of the retained constitutional rights of both convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees.’”). With this motion, Defendant does not seek remediation of any particular condition, only release from DOC. See Motion at ¶ 15. Given both the broad judicial deference afforded to correctional facilities and the lack of any request for remedial relief, the Court should refrain from ordering additional injunctive relief about Defendant’s conditions of confinement, particularly in the midst of a pandemic. See, e.g., Mays v. Dart, 2020 WL 1987007, at *3 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (acknowledging that the coronavirus pandemic “further complicates the difficult challenge of managing” a correctional facility).
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 48

B. The Subject Matters Where Defendant Asserts DOC Failures Are the Same as His Claims in Banks v. Booth.
Defendant is the named plaintiff in the putative class action lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and challenging conditions of confinement at DOC during the COVID-19 pandemic. See Banks, et al., v. Booth, et al., 20-cv-00849 (CKK) (D.D.C.).1 He identifies the same issues in his federal suit as he does here. See Banks Compl. [ECF 1] at Count I, Count II, and 36, ¶ 18. And there, Defendant secured emergency injunctive relief entitling him to, among other relief, “consistent and reliable access to legal calls, personal telephone call, daily showers, and clean clothing and clean linens [while] on isolation status.” April 19, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) [ECF 48] at 2.
Accordingly, this Court should defer to the United States District Court—which has the benefit of fact-finding by court-appointed amici—to resolve any complaints, rather than entertain parallel litigation in the context of his criminal prosecution. See Handy v. Veilleux & Roth, 325 F.3d 346, 349-50 (D.C. Cir 2003) (explaining that courts disfavor “parallel litigation[,]” particularly where “the issues arise out of the same transaction); WMATA v. Ragonese, 617 F.2d 828, 830 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (“Considerations of comity and orderly administration of justice dictate that two courts of equal authority should not hear the same case simultaneously.”). This Court should deny remedial relief in the context of Defendant’s current motion. II. The Court Should Not Order Further Remedial Relief Because Defendant’s
Representations Are Contradicted by Documentary Evidence and By His Declaration in Banks v. Booth. Even if the Court believes it can grant remedial relief here, it should decline to do so because documentary evidence—including Defendant’s recent declaration in the Banks case—

1

The Public Defender Service represents Defendant in his criminal prosecution and in

Banks.

4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 48
belie his representations to the Superior Court. He identifies five areas of concern, and on each, documentary evidence disproves the assertion.
First, Defendant asserts that DOC “has made no attempt to assure that Mr. Banks’ cell is cleaned regularly.” Motion at ¶ 9. But DOC records confirm that Mr. Banks’s cell was cleaned on April 29, 2020; May 1, 2020; May 3, 2020; May 4, 2020; May 5, 2020; May 6, 2020; May 7, 2020; May 8, 2020; May 9, 2020; May 10, 2020; May 11, 2020; May 12, 2020; May 13, 2020; May 16, 2020; May 18, 2020; and May 19, 2020. See Ex. 1, SW2 Cell Cleaning Logs (emphasis added for Mr. Banks’s cell). Under any definition, his cell is cleaned regularly.
Next, Defendant charges that DOC failed to maintain him in a single-occupancy cell. See Motion at ¶ 9. Here again, DOC records document that Defendant has remained in a single cell—Southwest 2, Cell 22—since March 30, 2020. See Ex. 2 (DOC Housing History). No violation of any court order occurred.
Third, Defendant claims an inability to take showers. See Motion at ¶ 9. DOC affords each resident in general population units one hour outside of his cell each day, affording the resident an opportunity to shower if he wishes. See Ex. 3, May 11, 2020 Transcript of Banks Amici. In response to the allegations in Defendant’s motion, DOC pulled agency staff away from other duties and reviewed a sampling of surveillance footage of Defendant’s unit to ensure that he received the allotted time outside of his cell. Tracking reports from the sample reveal that Defendant receives his time outside of his cell. See Ex. 4 (Tracking Reports from April 15, 2020; April 19, 2020; May 1, 2020; May 3, 2020; May 5, 2020; May 7, 2020; and May 8, 2020). DOC does not prohibit Defendant from showering. The surveillance video confirms that Defendant chooses not to shower during his time outside of his cell, although he did take an 18minute shower on April 19, 2020. Id.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 48

Fourth, in his Motion, Defendant asserts that he has “no ability to . . . make personal or legal phone calls[.]” Motion at ¶ 9. But Defendant’s call log2 demonstrates that since April 13, 2020, he has made 14 phone calls, seven of which appear to have been legal calls because they were to his defense lawyer, Ieshaah Murphy. See Ex. 5.3 These are on top of the legal calls coordinated through case management, which occurred on April 3, 2020 at 1:09 p.m.; April 27, 2020, at 4:15 p.m.; April 30, 2020, at 11:28 a.m.; and May 13, 2020, at 3:45 p.m. See Ex. 7 (emphasis added to exhibit). And finally, in his declaration in Banks, Defendant affirms that his hour of recreation time allows him to “make any personal or legal phone calls.” Ex. 8 at ¶ 6; see also id. at ¶ 13 (“when I left my cell to make a phone call during my one hour of recreation”). His representation to the Superior Court that he is unable to make personal or legal phone calls is demonstrably false.
Finally, Defendant asserts that DOC “forced [him] to use the same face mask for multiple days at a time.” Motion at ¶ 9. But this too appears to be an exaggeration. In his Banks declaration, Defendant identifies only one instance, almost three weeks ago, where he had to use a face mask that was not new. See Ex. 8 at ¶ 13. Although DOC does not track mask distribution to residents, housing units receive a new box of masks each day. And the surveillance footage documented distribution of the masks. See Ex. 4 at 5 (May 8, 2020 at 6:35 a.m.). One instance—while regrettable—does not establish the type of municipal custom, policy, or practice that rises to a constitutional violation entitling Defendant to remedial relief. See City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823-24 (1985).

2

The Court can facially connect this document to Defendant because the PIN is his dcdc

(DOC identification) number.

3

The PDS Phone List identifies (202) 713-7047 as the designated phone number for legal

calls between Defendant and Ms. Murphy. See Ex. 6 at 3 (emphasis added to exhibit).

6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 48
This documentary evidence proves that Defendant’s representations about his conditions of confinement should be taken with a grain of salt. The only evidence Defendant has provided in his motion are his own statements, which are demonstrably false. No remedial relief is warranted. III. The Court Should Vacate All Outstanding Individual Injunctive Relief.
This case demonstrates the dangers of granting ongoing injunctive relief to Defendant in the context of his criminal case. Defendant is the named plaintiff in a pending § 1983 class action focused squarely on the constitutionality of his conditions of confinement. This Court should decline Defendant’s request to act in an expansive and duplicative way to address issues that are properly before the United States District Court. See Handy, 325 F.3d at 349-50. That court is Defendant’s chosen forum to present these issues, and that is where it should be resolved. Creating a patch work of relief—some from the United States District Court, some from the Superior Court—could result in DOC ending up with conflicting orders, especially when Defendant’s representations to this Court for this motion have been proven untrue. Instead of ordering further relief, the Court should vacate its existing order mandating single-cell confinement, returning control of correctional operations to DOC and allowing Defendant to continue litigating all remaining complaints in Banks v. Booth.
CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Court should refrain from ordering any additional remedial relief to Defendant here and vacate the order of single-cell confinement.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 48

DATE: May 21, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,
KARL A. RACINE Attorney General for the District of Columbia
/s/ Chad Copeland CHAD COPELAND [982119] Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division 441 4th Street, N.W. Suite 630 South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6623 chad.copeland@dc.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of this filing was served via CaseFileXpress on this May 21, 2020, upon all counsel of record.

/s/ Chad Copeland CHAD COPELAND [982119]

8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 48
ATTACHMENT 1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 14 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 15 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 16 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 17 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 18 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 19 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 20 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 21 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 22 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 23 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 24 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 25 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 26 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 27 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 28 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 29 of 48





05 -25'$1 7KDW
V FRUUHFW 7KDQN \RX



4XHVWLRQ 1R  $W WKH MDLO PRVW LQPDWHV DUH



KRXVHG LQ TXDUDQWLQH XQLWV SUHVHQWO\ ,Q FRQWUDVW DW &7)



PRVW LQPDWHV DUH KRXVHG RQ QRQTXDUDQWLQH KRXVLQJ XQLWV



$FFHVV WR KHDOWKFDUH DW WKH MDLO DQG WKH &7) PXVW



EH XQGHUVWRRG LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH FXUUHQW RSHUDWLQJ



HQYLURQPHQW 2Q QRQTXDUDQWLQH KRXVLQJ XQLWV MXVW OLNH RQ



TXDUDQWLQH DQG LVRODWLRQ KRXVLQJ XQLWV '2& KDV DGRSWHG D



SROLF\ RI FRQILQLQJ LQPDWHV LQ WKHLU FHOOV IRU  KRXUV SHU



GD\ DQG UHOHDVLQJ WKHP IRU RQH KRXU SHU GD\ 7KHUH DUH



VLJQLILFDQW GHYLDWLRQV LQ LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKH SROLF\



ZKLFK , ZLOO GLVFXVV LQ D PLQXWH



8QOLNH TXDUDQWLQH KRXVLQJ XQLWV DQG LVRODWLRQ



KRXVLQJ XQLWV PHGLFDO VWDII GR QRW URXWLQHO\ PRQLWRU



LQPDWHV RQ QRQTXDUDQWLQH KRXVLQJ XQLWV DQG WKRVH LQPDWHV



RQ QRQTXDUDQWLQH KRXVLQJ XQLWV GR QRW KDYH GDLO\



LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK PHGLFDO VWDII XQOHVV WKH\ DUH WDNLQJ GDLO\



PHGLFDWLRQV



2Q QRQTXDUDQWLQH KRXVLQJ XQLWV WKH SULPDU\



PHWKRG E\ ZKLFK LQPDWHV DUH DEOH WR DFFHVV PHGLFDO FDUH LV



WKURXJK WKH VXEPLVVLRQ RI D VLFNFDOO UHTXHVW IRUP



6LFNFDOO UHTXHVW IRUPV DUH PDLQWDLQHG E\ KRXVLQJ XQLW



FRUUHFWLRQDO VWDII DQG LQPDWHV PXVW UHTXHVW D IRUP IURP DQ



RIILFHU



7KLV ODFN RI XQLPSHGHG DFFHVV WR IRUPV LV DQ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 30 of 48

April 15, 2020

DOC Ex. 4

On April 15, 2020 @ 9:08pm inmate Edward Banks left his cell went to sally port area and returned back to cell at 9:12pm.

April 19, 2020

04:36 am – Cell door is opened

04:39 am – Inmate out of cell to Upper right TV room

04:49 am – Inmate exits unit

04:58 am – Inmate returns to unit and goes back in cell door closed

08:17 am – Inmate exits cell goes to shower then goes to cell# 37 on lower left tier talking

08:21 am – From lower left tier to upper right tier then to gym

08:22 am – Exits gym to lower left tier

08:22 am – Lower left tier to the #2 gate then to the upper Left tier overlook

08:24 am – Inmate exits upper left tier to get water for another cell on the upper left tier

08:25 am – Inmate in gym playing hand ball

08:45 am - Inmate exits gym to lower left tier

08:48 am – Exits lower left tier to common area floor

08:50 am – Inmate is now in shower

09:08 am – Inmate is now out of the shower

09:17 am – Inmate is now on phone in common area

09:22 am – Inmate reenters cell and door is closed

03:57 pm – Inmate is given a face mask by the housing unit officer

09:44 pm – Inmate is let out of cell and goes to lower right tier

09:47 pm – Inmate goes into sally port through #3 gate

09:49 pm – Inmate is now back in cell door is closed

May 1, 2020

*3:53am exit cell

1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 31 of 48
*3:54am interacted w/other inmates by the bubble area *3:56am entered cell *8:56am interacted w/medical team (temp. reading) *11:06am received food tray *11:28am food tray was collected *11:57am interacted with medical team *2:02pm interacted w/case manager at cell door
May 3, 2020 750 PM INMATE EDWARD BANKS CAME OUT CELL22 752 PM BACK IN CELL 22 753 PM IN CELL 22 DOORWAY 754 PM WALKING DOWN LOWER LT TIER GRAB SOMETHING FROM ANOTHER CELL35 TOOK BACK TO HIS CELL 22 757PM IN CELL 22 DOORWAY RAN BACK DOWN TIER GRAB SOMETHING FROM ANOTHER INMATE AND GAVE IT TO ANOTHER CELL ACROSS FROM IT 758PM IN CELL22 DOORWAY 759PM BACK IN CELL22 833PM BACK OUT CELL 22 GAVE SOMETHING TO ANOTHER CELL WENT BACK INTO CELL 22 834 ON ONE KNEE TALKING TO INMATE THREW SLOT 835PM LOWER LT TIER SITTING AT TABLE 836PM TOOK PAPERS FROM ANOTHER INMATE THREW SLOT 839 BACK ON LOWER LT TIER 843PM BACK IN BUBBLE AREA 843 ONTOP LEFT TIER GOT PAPER WORK FROM CELL
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 32 of 48
845 LOWER LT TIER 845 SITTING ON PAYPHONE BENCH 846PM PICK UP FACILITY PAY PHONE PUSHING DIAL BUTTONS 853PM IN GYM AREA TALKING TO ANOTHER INMATE IN DOORWA853PM BACK IN BUBBLE AREA 854 BACK ON LOWER LT TIER-BACK IN BUBBLE AREA –LOWERIGHT TIER PASSING ITEM TO INMATE THREW SLOT 855PM BACK IN BUBBLE AREA 856 GYM AREA 857 BACK IN BUBBLE AREA 857PM BACK ON LOWER LT TIER BACK INTO CELL 22 858PM BACK OUT CELL BACK INTO BUBBLE AREA 902 LOWER LEFT TIER 905PM UPPER LT TIER 907PM BACK IN CELL 22 –BACK ON UPPER LEFT TIER 911PM UPPER LT TIER 912 PM BUBBLE AREA 914PM BUBBLE AREA DRINKING WATER OUT FOUNTAIN-WENT TO UPPER RIGHT TIER 916 UPPER RIGHT TIER
May 5, 2020 750 PM INMATE EDWARD BANKS CAME OUT CELL22 752 PM BACK IN CELL 22 753 PM IN CELL 22 DOORWAY 754 PM WALKING DOWN LOWER LT TIER GRAB SOMETHING FROM ANOTHER CELL35 TOOK BACK TO HIS CELL 22 757PM IN CELL 22 DOORWAY RAN BACK DOWN TIER GRAB SOMETHING FROM ANOTHER INMATE AND GAVE IT TO ANOTHER CELL ACROSS FROM IT
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 33 of 48
758PM IN CELL22 DOORWAY 759PM BACK IN CELL22 833PM BACK OUT CELL 22 GAVE SOMETHING TO ANOTHER CELL WENT BACK INTO CELL 22 834 ON ONE KNEE TALKING TO INMATE THREW SLOT 835PM LOWER LT TIER SITTING AT TABLE 836PM TOOK PAPERS FROM ANOTHER INMATE THREW SLOT 839 BACK ON LOWER LT TIER 843PM BACK IN BUBBLE AREA 843 ONTOP LEFT TIER GOT PAPER WORK FROM CELL 845 LOWER LT TIER 845 SITTING ON PAYPHONE BENCH 846PM PICK UP FACILITY PAY PHONE PUSHING DIAL BUTTONS 853PM IN GYM AREA TALKING TO ANOTHER INMATE IN DOORWA853PM BACK IN BUBBLE AREA 854 BACK ON LOWER LT TIER-BACK IN BUBBLE AREA –LOWERIGHT TIER PASSING ITEM TO INMATE THREW SLOT 855PM BACK IN BUBBLE AREA 856 GYM AREA 857 BACK IN BUBBLE AREA 857PM BACK ON LOWER LT TIER BACK INTO CELL 22 858PM BACK OUT CELL BACK INTO BUBBLE AREA 902 LOWER LEFT TIER 905PM UPPER LT TIER 907PM BACK IN CELL 22 –BACK ON UPPER LEFT TIER 911PM UPPER LT TIER 912 PM BUBBLE AREA 914PM BUBBLE AREA DRINKING WATER OUT FOUNTAIN-WENT TO UPPER RIGHT TIER
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 34 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 35 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 36 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 37 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 38 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 39 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 40 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 41 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 42 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 43 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 44 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 45 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 46 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 47 of 48 DOC Ex. 8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-10 Filed 05/26/20 Page 48 of 48

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 82-11 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-0849 (CKK)

ORDER Upon consideration of plaintiffs’ amended motion for a preliminary injunction (Motion), defendants’ opposition, the United States’ opposition, and the entire record, it is this ______ day of _____________, 2020, ORDERED that: The Motion is DENIED.

_____________________________________________ THE HONORABLE COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY Judge, United States District Court
for the District of Columbia

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs-Petitioners,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants-Respondents.

No. 1:20-cv-00849 (CKK)

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION On April 19, this Court held that “Plaintiffs have provided evidence that Defendants are aware of the risk that COVID-19 poses to Plaintiffs’ health and have disregarded those risks by failing to take comprehensive, timely, and proper steps to stem the spread of the virus.” Dkt. No. 51 (“TRO Op.”) at 22. Accordingly, the Court ordered Defendants to implement policies to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in their facilities and to ensure constitutionally adequate medical care. See Dkt. No. 50 (“TRO Order”). Defendants resist further relief on the basis that “ongoing efforts are working.” Dkt. No. 82 (“Opp.”) at 1. That is both legally and factually wrong. As Judge Moss explained in granting a preliminary injunction last weekend in an analogous case against another District of Columbia facility, “Defendants cannot claim that the need for an injunction is now moot because [their facility] has ceased its wrongful conduct, particularly where it did so following the entry of a TRO.” Costa v. Bazron, 2020 WL 2735666, at *4 (D.D.C. May 24, 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Instead, a “court’s power to grant injunctive relief survives discontinuance of the illegal conduct . . . because the purpose . . . is to prevent future violations[.]” U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Daniel Chapter One, 89 F. Supp. 3d 132, 143 (D.D.C. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 26
In any event, the record is clear that Defendants have not remedied the unconstitutional conditions in their facilities. Having reviewed amici’s oral report from May 11, 2020, Dr. Jaimie Meyer identified “major and pervasive system-level deficits” that continue to threaten Plaintiffs’ health and safety. Dkt. No. 70-2 (“Supp. Meyer Decl.”) at ¶ 3. Drawing on amici’s oral report, declarations from 30 DOC residents, documents from DOC staff members, and Dr. Meyer’s supplemental report, Plaintiffs identified seven areas of deficiency: (1) medical care; (2) enforcement of social distancing; (3) sanitation; (4) punitive conditions on isolation units; (5) legal call access; (6) understaffing; and (7) structural problems in the facilities. Dkt. No. 70-1 (“Pls.’ Mot.”) at 9-28.
Defendants characterize Plaintiffs’ evidence as “isolated instances,” “isolated failures,” “isolated anecdotes,” “isolated acts,” or “individual problems,” Opp. at 30-34, and cite new policies and procedures adopted in recent weeks to improve conditions. See, e.g., id. at 12 (“As of May 20, 2020, all inmates are provided fresh bed linens upon entering isolation . . . .”).
These responses lack merit. Defendants cannot brush aside systemic failures to enforce basic policies by recharacterizing them as “isolated incidents.” Defendants offer no evidence to rebut their record of routine failures that put residents at risk, such as the ongoing problem of releasing residents from their cells while they await their COVID-19 test results. See Pls.’ Mot. at 15-16. Nor do Defendants acknowledge the routine problems identified by amici. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 69 (“Amici Oral Report”) at 41 (reporting that sanitation is “clearly especially deficient at the jail”). Moreover, the Court should reject Defendants’ reliance on alleged new policies adopted since amici’s last inspection, as the Court did in its opinion granting the TRO. See TRO Op. at 5 (“[T]he Court has no record evidence that the updates . . . have been implemented.”). Defendants cite a decrease in the number of DOC residents who have tested positive for COVID-19, but the
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 26
data in Defendants’ opposition show that this decrease has accompanied a stark decrease in the number of COVID-19 tests administered, and so that decrease does not prove anything, as Plaintiffs’ expert explains, and in any event does not undermine the mountain of evidence that conditions at the Jail remain dangerous in terms of infection prevention. In light of Defendants’ striking and ongoing failures to provide constitutionally adequate conditions for DOC residents, the Court should order greater relief to remedy Defendants’ constitutional violations.
Additionally, this Court should join other federal courts in adopting a process to transition some DOC residents safely to community supervision. The federal government’s arguments that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and federal and D.C. Bail Reform Acts prevent this Court from transitioning DOC residents to home confinement or other forms of community supervision, Dkt. No. 80 (“U.S. Opp.”), are wrong. By its own terms, the PLRA does not apply to habeas petitions that challenge the “fact . . . of confinement in prison,” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(2), which (as other federal courts have recognized in analogous cases) Plaintiffs do here. And the D.C. Circuit has held that release is an appropriate remedy in a habeas matter like this one. Even if the PLRA did apply, the strictures cited by the government do not apply here because Plaintiffs’ requested relief is not a “prisoner release order” as defined by the PLRA. Finally, the argument that the Bail Reform Act requires abstention is foreclosed by Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F.2d 521, 526 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (doctrine of abstention did not preclude federal court from making rulings concerning rights of detainees at District of Columbia jail).
A. Plaintiffs are Likely To Prevail on the Merits of Their Constitutional Claims. In its April Order, the Court found that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that Defendants had acted with deliberate indifference in responding to the pandemic. TRO Op. at 22.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4 of 26
That holding — which Defendants evidently seek to relitigate1 — is relevant in this proceeding, as Judge Moss explained. See Costa, 2020 WL 2735666, at *4 (analyzing the defendant’s history of constitutional violations in deciding whether to extend TRO relief in a preliminary injunction). Moreover, the record before the Court today shows, as it showed in April, that Defendants continue to act with deliberate indifference towards Plaintiffs’ health and safety.
1. The Court has already rejected Defendants’ position on the legal standards. This Court has already held that “a pre-trial detainee need only show that prison conditions are objectively unreasonable in order to state a claim under the due process clause” and that pretrial detainees “do not need to show deliberate indifference in order to state a due process claim for inadequate conditions of confinement.” TRO Op. 11-12. It is puzzling, then, that Defendants — who did not seek reconsideration of the Court’s TRO opinion — now contest the very standard this Court applied. Defendants provide no intervening precedential authority to dispel the Court’s prior recitation of the Fifth Amendment standard. Cf. LaShawn A. v. Barry, 87 F.3d 1389, 1393 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (en banc) (“[T]he same issue presented a second time in the same case in the same court should lead to the same result.”).
2. Conditions at the Jail remain abysmal. Even though conditions at the jail are different now than they were when the Court issued its TRO in April, the conditions at the jail continue to pose a grave risk to Plaintiffs’ health. As Dr. Meyer warns, there are still “major and pervasive system-level deficits” that pose a “risk of serious harm” to DOC residents and staff. Dkt. No. 70-2, Supp. Meyer Decl. ¶ 3.
1 Defendants recount at length their policies from February 28 to April 17, but do not refute the Court’s finding in its April order that “numerous declarations from inmates and DOC staff rebut[] that Defendants’ policies are being fully implemented.” TRO Op. at 17.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 5 of 26

Relying on declarations from 30 DOC residents, documents from DOC staff, and amici’s

reports, Plaintiffs have identified seven areas of systemic concern: medical care, social distancing,

sanitation, punitive conditions on isolation units, legal calls, understaffing, and structural

problems. Defendants mostly do not engage with these specific deficits. They argue instead that

Plaintiffs’ evidence amounts to no more than isolated errors; that the decreasing number of positive

tests shows that conditions are improving; and that Defendants have adopted new policies and

procedures to correct previous problems. Each argument fails.

First, Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs show only isolated problems ignores large parts

of the record. In each of seven categories of constitutional violations, Plaintiffs rely on amici’s

report, 30 DOC resident declarations, and DOC staff documents to highlight system-wide failings.

For each category, Plaintiffs cite evidence of widespread deficiencies:

Issue Medical care
Social distancing

Record
· Residents on non-quarantine face barriers to care, including not being able to obtain sick call forms, delays in the receipt of forms by medical staff, and delays in obtaining care. Amici Oral Report at 17-19.
· Multiple residents of different housing units report that they are not let out of their cells for even an hour a day. Dkt. Nos. 70-3 (Thomas Decl., South 2) ¶ 16; 70-4 (Jenkins Decl., C3B) ¶ 10; 70-8 (Hightower Decl., NE1) ¶ 9.
· Residents from two different units report that there are no sick call slips on their units whatsoever. Dkt. Nos. 70-5 (Perry Decl., NW2) ¶ 8; 70-31 (Knight Decl., NW2) ¶ 5; 70-6 (Stankavage Decl., C2B) ¶ 15.
· Multiple residents report that staff do not pick up sick call slips. Dkt. Nos. 70-5 (Perry Decl., NW2) ¶ 7; 70-7 (Jaggers Decl., C2A) ¶ 13.
· “There still isn’t a prevalence of social distancing.” Amici Oral Report at 43.
· Multiple residents report being let out of their cells while awaiting COVID-19 test results, in contravention of DOC policy: Dkt. Nos. 70-14 (Robertson Decl., NW2) ¶ 6; 70-34 (Swint Decl., SW3) ¶ 11.
· Multiple residents report groups of residents regularly congregating in different areas of DOC facilities. Dkt. Nos. 70-6 (Stankavage Decl., C2B) ¶ 6; 70-15 (Ingraham Decl., D2B) ¶¶ 40-43; 70-7 (Jaggers Decl., C2A) ¶ 9; 70-19 (Toran Decl., NE1) ¶ 29.

5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 6 of 26

Issue Sanitation
Conditions on Isolation Units Legal Calls Understaffing
Structural Problems

Record
· Pictures from housing units at both CTF and CDF from April 29 and May 11 confirm that staff are not enforcing social distancing. Dkt. No. 73; see also Ex. B, Pictures of Jail.2
· “[A]ppropriate sanitation is . . . a continuing issue at both facilities, and clearly especially deficient at the jail.” Amici Oral Report at 41.
· Multiple residents report horrendous conditions on different housing units. Dkt. Nos. 70-17 (Burl Decl., North 2) ¶ 6; 70-28 (Moseley Decl., NW1) ¶ 3; 70-36 (A. Jackson Decl., South 1) ¶ 4.
· Multiple residents report not having access to cleaning supplies. Dkt. Nos. 70-23 (Phillip Decl., SW2) ¶ 9; 70-7 (Jaggers Decl., C2A) ¶ 6; 70-11 (Cooper Decl., NW2) ¶ 14.
· One resident on the detail unit reports that he is cleaning cells of residents who have tested positive with a room freshener product lacking disinfectant properties. Dkt. No. 70-22 (Warren Decl., NE2) ¶ 21.
· Multiple residents report filthy conditions on the recently opened North 2 isolation unit. Dkt. Nos. 70-17 (Burl Decl., North 2) ¶¶ 6-8; 70-34 (Swint Decl., North 2) ¶¶ 13m 21, 26; 70-12 (Horne Decl., North 2) ¶ 3.
· Multiple residents of isolation units at CTF and CDF report that they were allowed to shower very infrequently while in isolation. Dkt. Nos. 70-10 (K. Johnson Decl., C4A) ¶ 10; 70-12 (Horne Decl., North 2) ¶ 3.
· “[L]egal calls . . . are being conducted in the offices of case managers with the case manager present.” Amici Oral Report at 33; accord Dkt. Nos. 7010 (K. Johnson Decl., C2B) ¶¶ 15, 17.
· Amici note “significant correctional officer staffing shortages” at CDF. Amici Oral Report at 17; accord id. at 23.
· DOC staff members themselves reported the harrowing levels of understaffing. Dkt. No. 70-16 (DOC Docs.) at 10 (only one officer working on housing unit at CDF on May 3); id. at 14 (staff member worked 22-hour shift on May 4 and collapsed on floor of unit); id. at 5-6 (six officers worked over 24-hour shifts on April 26).
· Multiple residents report difficulty obtaining services from staff. Dkt. Nos. 70-12 (Horne Decl., SW2) ¶ 3(h); 70-27 (Lucas Decl., NW2) ¶ 10.
· Dr. Meyer’s first expert report observes the poor air flow as a factor in spreading the virus. Dkt. No. 5-2 (First Meyer Decl.) ¶ 28(c). Defendants have offered no evidence that they have taken steps to address this issue.

2 The photos filed under seal with this brief show a resident without a mask on preparing food trays for other residents, residents without masks in close proximity, and trash strewn on the floors of housing units.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 7 of 26
In sum, as the record makes clear, the evidence regarding the unsafe conditions in DOC facilities reflects a pattern of DOC failing to follow its own guidance and this Court’s Order, in several different categories. This evidence cannot be dismissed as “isolated”: the sheer volume of incidents, together with the comprehensive reports of amici, reveal systemic failings.
Second, Defendants’ argument that conditions must have improved because the number of positive tests has decreased suffers from conceptual flaws. Defendants’ declarant on this point, Dr. Chakraborty, focuses on recent trends in the number of residents testing positive, Dkt. No. 823 (“Chakraborty Decl.”) ¶¶ 8-9 — information which, presented in isolation, is uninformative and potentially misleading. Bafflingly, and in defiance of good epidemiological practice, DOC chose to decrease testing as the number of positive cases rose in early May. See Chakraborty Decl. ¶ 8; Ex. A, (“May 29 Meyer Decl.”) ¶ 9. Unsurprisingly, with fewer tests, there were fewer reported cases. But Dr. Chakraborty has not reported the positivity rate, i.e., the number of positive tests as a percentage of the total number of COVID-19 tests performed on DOC residents. Ex. A, May 29 Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6. As epidemiology experts recognize, knowledge of the positivity rate is essential to assessing the spread of the virus. Id. A high positivity rate “almost certainly means that the [community at issue] is not testing everyone who has been infected with the pathogen, because it implies that doctors are testing only people with a very high probability of having the infection. People with milder symptoms, to say nothing of those with none at all, are going undercounted.”3 Dr. Meyer further explains: “To stop the spread of the virus the DOC needs facility-wide surveillance and needs to test all residents and staff at least once. Surveillance testing—and, in the absence of highly effective contact tracing, retesting—enables a clinical and
3 Robinson Meyer et al., A New Statistic Reveals Why America’s COVID-19 Numbers are Flat, ATLANTIC (April 16, 2020), https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/04/uscoronavirus-outbreak-out-control-test-positivity-rate/610132/.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 8 of 26
public health response that is informed by real data.” Ex. A, May 29 Meyer Decl. ¶ 14. Because of the “relatively high rate of false negative results,” particularly on Abbott ID NOW machines, Dr. Meyer recommends that “residents should be retested.” Id. Her conclusion is clear: “Failure to test all residents and all staff means that the virus will continue to move among the unmonitored population.” Id.
Third, Defendants’ appeal to recently revised policies is both familiar and flawed. Defendants have been revising policies since the start of the pandemic. But as this Court has made clear, “[h]aving a written policy in place but not fully implemented cannot protect Defendants from a finding of deliberate indifference.” TRO Op. at 17 (citing Daskalea v. District of Columbia, 227 F.3d 433, 442 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). The Court should continue to judge Defendants’ constitutional compliance by the actual conditions in their facilities.
To illustrate the disconnect between Defendants’ stated policies and the conditions as described by amici and DOC residents, consider the process for requesting medical assistance. At the TRO stage, numerous DOC residents submitted declarations describing their fruitless efforts to request medical attention. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 26-2 (Guillory Decl.) ¶ 9 (“I put in a sick call slip 3 weeks ago, on a weekday. It took 2 weeks to get seen by sick call.”). The Court ordered Defendants to “ensure that the triage process associated with sick call requests on the nonquarantine units is expedited.” TRO Op. at 27. Four weeks later, however, amici reported a host of problems with requesting medical assistance, including the unavailability of sick-call forms and significant delays in response to sick call requests. Amici Oral Rep. 16-19. In response, Defendants have promulgated a policy as of May 18 to “provide residents care within 24 hours of submitting a sick call slip.” Opp. at 11. But as amici write, even on paper, these new measures “do not address the barriers accessing sick call that are identified in this report.” Dkt. No. 77
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 9 of 26
(“Amici Written Report”), at 11. Nor can this new policy, even if implemented, erase from the record the constitutional violations observed by amici and vividly described by DOC residents — weeks after this Court ordered them fixed. Similarly, it took until May 20, a month after the Court’s order, for Defendants to adopt a policy of offering residents “clean bed linens upon release from isolation” so they do not carry linens from an infected housing unit back into the general population. Opp. at 12. The record shows that Defendants waited until the eve of the deadline for opposing this motion to adopt commonsense policies, and even now, months into the pandemic, have yet to fully implement them. Accordingly, constitutional violations persist.
Finally, Defendants have not addressed structural problems in DOC facilities that have enabled the spread of the virus. The District’s own auditor reports show that the “current HVAC system has significant design problems that inhibit proper airflow,” Dkt. No. 5-2 (First Meyer Decl.) ¶ 28(c) — a condition cited by the Court in April in concluding that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. See TRO Op. 21.
3. The Court’s continued involvement is necessary. To the extent that Defendants have improved conditions, those improvements have come as a direct result of this litigation and the Court’s ongoing involvement. Where there is no evidence that “the measures that [Defendants] attest[] are now in place were being taken or even considered prior to this litigation,” solidifying TRO measures in a preliminary injunction is appropriate. Costa, 2020 WL 2735666, at *9. Defendants acknowledge that “reducing the inmate population” will help “control and contain the spread of the virus and keep DOC residents safe.” Opp. at 1-2. But it was not until after this lawsuit was filed that DOC began acting in earnest on its authority to release inmates serving misdemeanor sentences. On March 17, 2020, the DOC was vested with the power to award
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 10 of 26
unlimited good time credits in order to “effectuate the immediate release of persons sentenced to misdemeanors[.]” D.C. Code § 24-221.01c(c); D.C. Act 23-247 (Mar. 17, 2020). But the number of sentenced misdemeanants did not substantially decrease for weeks. See Ex. C (“Anderson Decl.”) ¶ 11. From March 17 to March 30 (the date on which Plaintiffs filed this case), the number of sentenced misdemeanants in DOC facilities dropped slowly from 102 to 79. Id. ¶ 11. It took nearly a month from when Defendants received the authority to effectuate immediate release — and this lawsuit, along with a number of cases in Superior Court — for the number to be reduced significantly, from 79 on March 30 to 10 on April 13.
The United States also tacitly acknowledges the importance of reducing the inmate population. See U.S. Opp. at 13-14. Yet, like the DOC, the United States has largely opposed efforts to release inmates. A review of the cases litigated in In re Sentenced Misdemeanants, Case No. 2020 CNC 000120 (D.C. Super. Ct. filed Mar. 26, 2020), reveals that the government opposed release in more than 81 percent of the relevant misdemeanor cases (those that were not moot and required the government’s position), even when the defendants were particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. Ex. C (Anderson Decl.) ¶¶ 5-9.4 The United States’ staunch opposition to release extended to pre-trial cases as well. A review of bond review motions in Superior Court decided between March 26 and April 22 revealed that, out of 153 motions, the United States opposed release in an extraordinary 93 percent. Ex. D (“Bhatt Decl.”) ¶ 6; Anderson Decl. ¶ 6.
4 For example, in United States v. Henderson, 2019 CF3 000166, the United States opposed relief in the case of one 52-year-old woman who was serving a sentence for misdemeanor theft and unlawful entry of a commercial establishment — a case in which it had not asked for incarceration in its original victim impact statement. Another set of cases for which the United States opposed Rule 35 relief — involving misdemeanor thefts of items from a Home Depot and Harris Teeter, United States v. Cooper, 2017 CMD 016011 & 2019 CMD 012948 — were delayed long enough that defense counsel felt compelled to file an Emergency Mandamus Petition in the D.C. Court of Appeals before the Rule 35 motion was finally granted by the Superior Court.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 11 of 26
Finally, with respect to people incarcerated at the jail for violations (or alleged violations) of parole or supervised release, the vast majority of the releases occurred after the Complaint was filed in this case. See Ex. C (Anderson Decl.) Attchs. A-D. As of March 17, there were 279 parole violators at the Jail and CTF. Id. ¶ 13. On March 30, when the complaint was filed, there were 231. Id. ¶ 7. By May 14, the number had reached its nadir at 113. Id. It has since increased again, up to 121 on May 29, and there are still many more who should be released. Id. at Attch. B.
Of the approximately 74 people under the Parole Commission’s jurisdiction who are represented by the Public Defender Service, 11 are being held solely for technical parole violations — while their hearings are being continued indefinitely. Ex. E (“Edmonson Decl.”) ¶ 4. Another 20 are serving USPC-imposed sentences for technical violations of parole, and their requests for release due to the pandemic have all been denied. Id. ¶ 5. Some of these individuals are incarcerated only for a failure to report to supervision. Id. ¶ 4. Another 18 people are still awaiting a hearing for incurring a new arrest in a matter that has been determined in their favor — for example, they have been acquitted or the case has been dismissed — or in which a judge has already determined that they pose no danger to any person or the community. Id. ¶ 6. If subjected to this same harsh approach, a large number of the 90 individuals who currently have USPC detainers coming under review, see Dkt. No. 80-3 at ¶ 13, will also be held, significantly increasing the number of individuals confined under USPC jurisdiction. Further, the USPC’s continued practice of re-arresting released individuals for technical violations, such as a failure to report, ensures that a population of people who present no danger to society continue to cycle in and out of the jail, furthering the spread of COVID-19 both in the jail and in the community at large.5
5 To effectuate further releases, the BOP claims to have implemented a system where they will rapidly test D.C. jail residents “the morning of the anticipated transfer” to ensure that they are not transferring residents who are positive. Dkt. No. 80-2 ¶ 7. The BOP reports that “D.C. Jail staff
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 12 of 26
Defendants actions have made it quite clear that absent court intervention, they will not take critical steps to decrease the spread of COVID-19 and to ensure the health and safety of Plaintiffs and the community at large. The Court should not withdraw its supervision by denying a preliminary injunction.
B. Plaintiffs Have Satisfied the Exhaustion Requirement Under the PLRA. Plaintiffs Banks and Jackson submitted emergency grievances to Director Booth on March 24. Defendants’ Inmate Grievance Policy requires DOC to respond within 72 hours of receipt. See Ex. G at 17. Plaintiffs Banks and Jackson did not receive responses before filing suit in this Court six days later — well after the 72-hour period elapsed — and thus satisfied their burden under the PLRA. See Ex. H (Murphy Decl.); Ex. I (Epps Decl.). Because exhaustion applies only when administrative remedies are “available,” circuit courts have uniformly held “that a prison’s failure to timely respond to an inmate’s properly filed grievance renders its remedies ‘unavailable’ under the PLRA.” Robinson v. Superintendent, 831 F.3d 148, 153 (3d Cir. 2016) (citing cases); see also Lineberry v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 923 F. Supp. 2d 284, 293 (D.D.C. 2013) (“If . . . prison officials . . . ignore such a request . . . exhaustion may be excused.”). And, so long as one member of the class has pursued available administrative remedies, “the plaintiff class has met the filing prerequisite.” Jackson v. District of Columbia, 254 F.3d 262, 269 (D.C. Cir. 2001).6 C. The District Bears Responsibility for the Constitutional Violations at its Jail. Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, the District bears liability for Plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. The District is liable under § 1983 when its “policies are the moving force
are responsible for testing the BOP inmates” in this manner, id., but a DOC resident who was supposed to be transferred today reports that those tests were not done on a group of residents who were transferred into custody today, see Ex. F (Guillory Decl.) ¶¶ 3-4. 6 Plaintiffs’ Complaint need not have pled exhaustion. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007).
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 13 of 26
[behind] the constitutional violation.” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389 (1989) (cleaned up). Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs have not shown a custom, Opp. at 34, is irrelevant because Plaintiffs satisfy two different and independent conditions for establishing municipal liability: the policies in question are the action of a final policymaker, and the District’s response to COVID-19 reflects deliberate indifference.
First, the District is liable because Plaintiffs challenge policies and procedures approved by Defendant Booth, the final policymaker at the D.C. jail. “[A] single action can represent municipal policy where the acting official has final policymaking authority over the particular area, or . . . particular issue.” Thompson v. District of Columbia, 832 F.3d 339, 347-48 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). Here, the final policymaker for DOC is Defendant Booth, as the D.C. Circuit and this Court have held. See Triplett v. District of Columbia, 108 F.3d 1450, 1453 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Laureys v. District of Columbia, 2019 WL 4673492, at *3 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2019).
Defendant Booth has exercised his final policymaking authority to manage DOC’s constitutionally deficient response to the crisis. He approved the Department’s most recent plan for addressing COVID-19, see Dkt. No. 40-2 at 1, and he was responsible for subsequent policy updates. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 82-8, Attch. 2, at 1 (letter from Booth to employees).
These circumstances are similar to those giving rise to municipal liability in Costa. There, the final policymaker’s “personal involvement in [Saint Elizabeths] Hospital’s response to [the] COVID[-19] crisis” made the District liable for its constitutionally inadequate response to the pandemic. 2020 WL 2735666, at *14; see also id. at *2 (discussing the specific actions that plaintiffs contended were actionable). The court recognized that when final policymakers are involved in resolving matters within their authority, they, and therefore the municipality, bear responsibility for the result. See id.; accord O’Callaghan v. District of Columbia, 741 F. Supp.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 14 of 26
273, 277 (D.D.C. 1990). That logic applies here. This case is not about “the isolated acts of a handful of correctional officers,” Opp. at 34, but rather a systemically flawed crisis response approved by the official with final policymaking authority over conditions at DOC facilities.
Second, deliberate indifference is an independent basis for holding the District liable. Liability arises where the government failed “to respond to a need (for example, training of employees) in such a manner as to show ‘deliberate indifference’ to the risk that not addressing the need will result in constitutional violations.” Baker v. District of Columbia, 326 F. 3d 1302, 1306-07 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting Harris, 489 U.S. at 390). In this context, deliberate indifference is a lower bar than is required under the Eighth Amendment: unlike the Eighth Amendment, municipal liability does not require a showing of “subjective indifference.” Id. at 1307. Rather, a plaintiff need only establish that the government “knew or should have known of the risk of constitutional violations, an objective standard.” Id. at 1307 (internal citation omitted).
The Court has already held that Defendants’ conduct satisfies this condition. In analyzing Plaintiffs’ due process claims in its TRO opinion, the Court found Plaintiffs likely to show that “Defendants knew or should have known that the jail conditions posed an excessive risk to their health,” TRO Op. at 12 (emphasis added), and held that Defendants, through their response to COVID-19, exposed Plaintiffs to such a risk. Id. at 15.7 For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ actions since the TRO have remained “inadequate.” Harris, 489 U.S. at 388.
Defendants’ response is not a series of “honest mistakes.” Opp. at 35. To the contrary, Defendants’ failure to remove barriers to sick calls, see Amici Written Report at 10-11, and failure to ensure inmates in isolation receive daily showers, Amici Oral Report at 34, along with their
7 Even if Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference were required, the Court has found that standard satisfied also. See TRO Op. at 22.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 15 of 26
other deficiencies discussed, run afoul of the Court’s TRO. See TRO Order at 1 (ordering Defendants to ensure that “medical staff are promptly informed about inmates who present with COVID-19 symptoms”); id. at 2 (requiring Defendants to take “immediate steps to provide . . . daily showers . . . to all inmates on isolation status”). Through t failures to correct patent deficiencies, Defendants have allowed the obvious risks of COVID-19 to persist. See Dkt. 70-2 (Supp. Meyer. Decl.) ¶ 3; see also Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 407 (1997) (“[C]ontinued adherence to an approach that [Defendants] know or should know has failed to prevent tortious conduct by employees may establish the conscious disregard for the consequences of their action — the ‘deliberate indifference’ — necessary to trigger municipal liability.”).
Defendants are wrong to suggest that having some policies insulates them from liability. Opp. at 35. First, they cite Eighth Amendment law, id. (quoting Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993)), even though that standard is stricter. Second, as this Court has recognized, the existence of a policy does not shield defendants when it is inadequate or not implemented. TRO Op. at 17. That is equally true as to municipal liability. See Daskalea, 227 F.3d at 442 (holding that “a ‘paper’ policy cannot insulate a municipality from liability”).
Finally, Defendants appeal generally to the difficulties in responding to the pandemic, Opp. 35, but courts around the country have held that inadequate responses to COVID-19 conditions can reflect deliberate indifference sufficient to justify municipal liability. See, e.g., Cameron v. Bouchard, 2020 WL 2569868, at *20 (E.D. Mich. May 21, 2020); Carranza v. Reams, 2020 WL 2320174, at *7 (D. Colo. May 11, 2020).
D. Plaintiffs Have Met the Balance of the Preliminary Injunction Factors. Plaintiffs have shown that they face irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and the public interest favor granting a preliminary injunction. Again, Defendants rehash arguments
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 16 of 26
previously rejected by the Court and make no effort to distinguish the Court’s prior reasoning. Regarding irreparable harm, Defendants argue that the three named plaintiffs have not
shown that “they are facing any risk of imminent harm themselves,” Opp. at 37 (emphasis added) — a defense that this Court rejected in April: “The fact that many other inmates face this same risk does not diminish the risk faced by Plaintiffs.” TRO Op. at 24. “No man’s health is an island,” this Court observed, id.; accordingly, “steps taken to reduce the risk of infection among any inmates, such as reducing the inmate population or providing adequate cleaning supplies, would also reduce the named Plaintiffs’ risk of contracting COVID-19.” Id. at 8. Moreover, Dr. Meyer’s supplemental declaration confirms that “people living and working in DC DOC facilities remain at risk of serious harm due to COVID-19 infection.” Dkt. No. 70-2 (Supp. Meyer Decl.) ¶ 3.
Because Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims, the remaining factors are easily satisfied. In a suit against the government, the balance of the equities and the public interest factors merge, and “[i]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” TRO Op. 25 (quoting Simms v. District of Columbia, 872 F. Supp. 2d 90, 105 (D.D.C. 2012)).
As they did in their TRO opposition, Defendants cite the burden of operating a correctional institution, baldly asserting that the Court “must defer to the policies and practices of correctional administrators.” Opp. at 27; see also Opp. at 38 (arguing that Defendants are “required deference”). But the Supreme Court has instructed otherwise: “[C]ourts may not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison administration.” Brown v. Plata (Plata I), 563 U.S. 493, 511 (2011). Equally unpersuasive is Defendants’ assertion that the requested relief would “disrupt the extensive efforts already underway to address the crisis.” Opp. at 38. Defendants offer no evidence whatsoever
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 17 of 26
that any particular form of requested relief that would disrupt their efforts, and, in any event,
Plaintiffs are not asking Defendants to take steps that are significantly beyond the steps they claim
to be taking already. As the Court observed in rejecting this same argument at the TRO stage,
“DOC officials claim that Defendants are already complying with much of the requested relief.” TRO Op. at 25.8
Nor do Defendants identify any particular forms of requested relief that are not “narrowly
tailored to remedy the specific harm shown.” Opp. at 40. Each of Plaintiffs’ proposed forms of
relief is narrowly tailored to a constitutional violation, see, e.g., Proposed Order at 2 (requiring
Defendants to “implement a system for medical staff to visit each non-quarantine unit in DOC
facilities to assess residents’ health” — an order that responds to amici’s findings regarding the
barriers to medical care), and Defendants make no specific argument to the contrary.
Moreover, courts facing constitutional claims based on the COVID-19 pandemic have
granted relief of the type Plaintiffs propose, or even more extensive relief, and found it consistent
with the PLRA’s requirement that relief is “narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to
correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).9 Defendants’ lone authority on this
8 For instance, Plaintiffs ask the Court to order the Defendants to engage a sanitarian and professional cleaners, Dkt. No. 70-38 (“Proposed Order”) at 2 — steps Defendants claim already to be taking. 9 See Seth v. McDonough, 2020 WL 2571168, at *14 (D. Md. May 21, 2020) (ordering defendants to address testing, PPE, training and supervision of medical staff, and protections for high-risk detainees, as “narrowly drawn injunctive relief” consistent with the PLRA); Cameron v. Bouchard, 2020 WL 2569868, at *29 & id., Order at 3-6, Dkt. No. 94 (E.D. Mich. May 21, 2020) (finding “narrowly drawn” requirement satisfied where court ordered provision of soap, disinfectant wipes, and cleaning supplies; cleaning and hand-sanitizing regime; access to showers, laundry and PPE; protocol for symptom reporting by detainees and testing; staff training; limits on multi-person cells; improved access to counsel; and process for release of detainees); Swain v. Junior, 2020 WL 2078580, at *21-22 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2020) (imposing requirements regarding detainee education, social distancing, soap, cleaning supplies, toilet paper, showers, laundry, PPE,
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 18 of 26
point is distinguishable. See Valentine v. Collier, 956 F.3d 797, 806 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (staying injunction because of its level of “micromanagement” “down to the half-hour interval”).
E. The PLRA Does Not Bar This Court from Transferring DOC Residents To Cure DOC’s Constitutional Violations.
The United States contends that the PLRA governs Plaintiffs’ request for habeas relief and bars this Court from ordering the transfer of any prisoners, including by enlarging their sentences so that they can serve their sentences outside of DOC facilities. The United States is wrong on both counts. First, the PLRA does not apply to Plaintiffs’ habeas petition, which is a challenge to the fact of confinement, explicitly excluded from the PLRA’s coverage. Second, even if this Court were to find that Plaintiffs’ habeas petition challenges the conditions of their confinement, the requested relief would not be precluded; because this Court would not be issuing a “prisoner release order” within the meaning of the statute. The PLRA thus does not apply.
1. The PLRA does not apply to Plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which challenges the fact of their confinement.
As the United States recognizes, U.S. Opp. at 5, the PLRA’s statutory scheme applies only to “any civil proceeding arising under Federal law with respect to the conditions of confinement or the effects of actions by government officials on the lives of persons confined in prison, but does not include habeas corpus proceedings challenging the fact or duration of confinement in prison.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(2) (emphasis added).
Because Plaintiffs’ Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenges the fact of Plaintiffs’ confinement, the PLRA, by its own terms, has no relevance. As the Sixth Circuit recently held,
handwashing, testing, timely medical attention, and weekly reports to the Court as consistent with PLRA’s narrowness requirement), stayed on other grounds, 958 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir. 2020); Mays v. Dart, 2020 WL 1987007, at *36-37 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2020) (imposing requirements regarding testing, social distancing, soap, hand sanitizer, PPE, limitations on double-celling and group housing, and a compliance report as “narrowly tailored relief” under the PLRA).
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 19 of 26
“[w]here a petition claims no set of conditions would be constitutionally sufficient, [the court] construes the petitioner’s claim as challenging the fact of the confinement.” Wilson, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 14291, at *4, stay denied, 590 U.S. —, 2020 WL 2644305 (May 26, 2020); see also, e.g., Order Denying Stay, Cameron v. Bouchard, No. 20-1469 (6th Cir. May 26, 2020) (same); Malam v. Adducci, 2020 WL 1672662, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2020) (holding § 2241 is a proper avenue for the plaintiff to seek “immediate release from confinement as a result of there being no conditions of confinement sufficient to prevent irreparable constitutional injury under the facts of her case”); Cameron, 2020 WL 2569868, at *13; Martinez-Brooks v. Easter, 2020 WL 2405350, at *16 (D. Conn. May 12, 2020); Prieto Refunjol v. Adducci, 2020 WL 2487119, at *17 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2020); Bent v. Barr, 2020 WL 1812850, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2020). As in these cases, Plaintiffs’ habeas petition challenges the fact of their confinement. Although Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims seek relief from specific conditions in DOC facilities, Plaintiffs’ habeas petition alleges that the “only strategy to ensure the reasonable health and safety of Plaintiffs and proposed class members” is to “[d]ownsiz[e] the population in Defendants’ custody.” Compl. ¶ 133 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the PLRA does not apply to that petition.
The law of this Circuit likewise supports this characterization. As the United States acknowledges, see U.S. Opp. at 7, binding precedent in this Circuit holds that if a conditions-ofconfinement claim is successful, “a court may simply order the prisoner released unless the unlawful conditions are rectified, leaving it up to the government whether to respond by transferring the petitioner to a place where the unlawful conditions are absent or by eliminating the unlawful conditions in the petitioner's current place of confinement.” Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Further, “[w]here the specific detention abridges federally protected interests — by placing petitioner in the wrong prison, denying him treatment, imposing
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 20 of 26
cruel and unusual punishment, impeding his access to the courts, and so on — it is an unlawful detention and habeas lies to release the petitioner therefrom.” Id. at 1036. The United States asserts that even success on their constitutional claims “would not entitle [Plaintiffs] to outright release from custody” under Aamer. U.S. Opp. at 7. But that is precisely what Aamer requires.
The governments’ authorities, U.S. Opp. at 10, are inapposite as they do not address whether Plaintiffs’ habeas petition challenges the fact of their confinement. In Money v. Pritzker, 2020 WL 1820660, at *22 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2020), the court applied the PLRA to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, but it found their habeas claims under § 2254 (not the same provision Plaintiffs invoked here) unexhausted and therefore did not reach them. Plata v. Newsom, 2020 WL 1908776 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020), was not a habeas case, but an emergency motion in an ongoing remedial case. And in Alvarez v. Larose, 2020 WL 2315807 (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2020), Plaintiffs’ “fail[ed] to argue there are no set of conditions of confinement that would be constitutionally sufficient,” id. at *3, whereas Plaintiffs in this case have argued that only release or enlargement can fully cure the Eighth Amendment harm. None of these cases refutes that Plaintiffs’ habeas petition challenges the fact of their confinement.
2. However the Court characterizes the requested relief, Plaintiffs’ requested remedy is not a “prisoner release order” under the PLRA.
The United States’ argument fails for another reason: it relies on the PLRA’s restrictions on “prisoner release orders,” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3), but the relief Plaintiffs request does not meet the statutory definition of that term.
The PLRA defines a “prisoner release order” as any order “that has the purpose or effect of reducing or limiting the prison population, or that directs the release from or nonadmission of prisoners to a prison.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(4). As several courts have found, that language is not
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 21 of 26
as broad as it appears. Rather, it applies only to orders reducing prison populations because they exceed a facility’s or system’s capacity, which is not a claim in this case.
As one court explained, “looking at the statute as a whole requires reading the definition of ‘prisoner release order’ in conjunction with the requirements for entering one. One such requirement is that a three-judge court must determine, by clear and convincing evidence, that ‘crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a Federal right,’ before it can enter a prisoner release order.” Plata v. Brown, 427 F. Supp. 3d 1211, 1223 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (Plata II) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(E)(i)). If courts did not understand that the term “prisoner release order” means only an order focused on overcrowding, then “if any other reason caused the violation of an inmate’s constitutional rights, judges could not provide relief by releasing the inmate. There is no evidence to support that this was Congress’ intent when crafting this section of the statute.” Cameron, 2020 WL 2569868, at *27.
To prevent this nonsensical result, these cases and others have held that the PLRA’s requirements apply only where the reason for the order of release or transfer is to relieve overcrowding. See id. at *27; Plata II, 427 F. Supp. 3d at 1222-24; Reaves v. Dep’t of Corr., 404 F. Supp. 3d 520, 522-24 (D. Mass. 2019); Mays, 2020 WL 1987007, at *31 (indicating that this “conclusion seems correct”); Money, 2020 WL 1820660, at *12 n.11 (suggesting that single-judge courts can order prisoner transfers for reasons other than overcrowding). This reading accords with the PLRA’s purpose, as the “[s]ponsors of the PLRA were especially concerned with courts setting ‘population caps’ and ordering the release of inmates as a sanction for prison administrators’ failure to comply with the terms of consent decrees designed to eliminate overcrowding.” Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987, 998 n.14 (9th Cir. 2000).
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 22 of 26
While the PLRA does not define “crowding,” courts applying it have held that it “refers to the presence in a facility or prison system of a prisoner population exceeding that facility or system’s capacity.” Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 922 F. Supp. 2d 882, 920 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (citing cases); accord Jensen v. Gunter, 807 F. Supp. 1463, 1469 (D. Neb. 1992). Plata I reflects that these understandings are correct, as the Court there focused on the design capacity of California’s prisons in comparison to the actual inmate population. 563 U.S. at 502-06.
Properly understood, then, the relief Plaintiffs seek is not a “prisoner release order.” They do not claim that CDF or CTF exceeds its capacity. They allege (and this Court has found) that the DOC is not allowing for necessary social distancing. But “[t]he inability to socially distance in the jail setting has nothing to do with the capacity of the facility.” Cameron, 2020 WL 2569868, at *28. Moreover, in sharp contrast to an overcrowding claim, Plaintiffs do not ask for a percentage-based reduction in the number of individuals detained by Defendants. And Plaintiffs’ specific complaints are far different from those in an overcrowding case; they allege (and the Court has found) that due to COVID-19, sick call responses, sanitation, conditions in the units, and access to legal calls are all constitutionally deficient. As described above, these conditions persist. They do not involve overcrowding. Therefore, the PLRA’s requirements for “prisoner release orders” do not apply to the writ of habeas corpus that Plaintiffs seek.
If this Court were to issue an order enlarging Plaintiffs’ custody, that would not be a “prisoner release order” under the PLRA, either, because it would not order their release. Wilson, 2020 WL 1940882, at *10 (“[T]he Court is not ordering the release of the prisoners. Instead, the inmates will remain in BOP custody, but the conditions of their confinement will be enlarged.”). The United States disagrees, contending that under Plata I, any transfer to a different form of custody is still a “prisoner release order.” U.S. Opp. At 8. But Plata I was not a habeas action
22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 23 of 26
and did not address the issue of enlargement. Moreover, the Supreme Court explained, the transfer order there qualified as a prisoner release order “[b]ecause the order limits the prison population as a percentage of design capacity.” 563 U.S. at 511. Plaintiffs’ request for enlargement does no such thing — it does not address design capacity, let alone ask the Court to limit population in reference to design capacity. Instead, Plaintiffs request transfers as necessary to alleviate the risk of medical harm caused by Defendants’ constitutional violations. See Reaves, 404 F. Supp. 3d at 522 (differentiating between release and transfer). Nothing in Plata I prevents enlargement here.
Significantly, neither the District nor the United States asserts that the test for enlargement, see Pls.’ Mot. 26, is not met. Because the PLRA does not bar enlargement, neither the District nor the United States has offered any reason why this Court should not employ that remedy.
F. The Bail Reform Act Is Not a Substitute for this Court’s Review of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Claims, for which Release and Enlargement Are Proper Remedies.
The Defendants and the United States contend that Plaintiffs who are pretrial detainees should pursue release through the federal and D.C. Bail Reform Acts (“BRA”). But although the United States labels the BRA as the “correct vehicle,” U.S. Opp. at 14, it does not contend that Plaintiffs are required to pursue such relief before filing a habeas petition. Therefore, even on the government’s own terms, its argument does not bar relief.
Apparently, Defendants and the United States are contending only that this Court should abstain from providing relief in light of the BRA. That highly impractical contention is foreclosed by circuit precedent. When a class of pretrial detainees alleged that their confinement in D.C. Jail violated the Eighth Amendment, the D.C. Circuit held that their claims were properly addressed in a civil action for equitable relief and specifically rejected the government’s abstention argument. Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F.2d 521, 524-27 (D.C. Cir. 1978). See also United States v. RojasYepes, 630 F. Supp. 2d 18, 20-24 (D.D.C. 2009) (construing conditions claim as habeas petition,
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 24 of 26
not BRA motion, and adjudicating it on the merits); Al Odah v. United States, 406 F. Supp. 2d 37, 43 (D.D.C. 2005) (explaining that where jail conditions “violated pretrial detainees constitutional rights,” “federal courts have a duty to protect the constitutional rights of pretrial detainees from being infringed by prison regulations or practice.”).10
Indeed, courts could not even consider Plaintiffs’ substantive claims under the BRA. The BRA addresses whether an individual should be detained prior to trial or sentencing based on only two considerations: risk of non-appearance and danger to a person or to the community. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142, 3143. Conditions of confinement are no part of the analysis, and there is no mechanism to assert pretrial detainees’ due process rights. “[T]he inability of the D.C. system to grant [Plaintiffs] the full relief requested in connection with [their] federal claims” makes abstention improper. Bridges v. Kelly, 84 F.3d 470, 477 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also Campbell, 580 F.2d at 527; United States v. Rojas-Yepes, 630 F. Supp. 2d 18, 20-24 (D.D.C. 2009).
Even if a court hearing a BRA motion would consider COVID-19, such motions could not possibly timely address DOC’s largescale constitutional violations, which necessitate a systemic remedy. The idea that dozens of judges should adjudicate hundreds of due process claims in BRA motions even as the courts operate under the burdens of the pandemic is not a serious proposal.
The United States places heavy weight on the Attorney General’s April 6, 2020 memorandum regarding the Department of Justice’s public stance on detention issues during the ongoing pandemic. U.S. Opp. at 13-14. But while the Attorney General’s recommendation that
10 The government’s largely out-of-circuit cases are not to the contrary; they address situations in which pretrial detainees attempted to use habeas proceedings either to litigate aspects of their criminal cases, see Medina v. Choate, 875 F.3d 1025, 1026 (10th Cir. 2017); Reese v. Warden Philadelphia FDC, 904 F.3d 244, 245 (3d Cir. 2018); Falcon v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 52 F.3d 137, 139 (7th Cir. 1995); Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1018 (5th Cir. 1988), or to relitigate out-of-time issues already addressed in the normal course, Gon v. Gonzales, 534 F. Supp. 2d 118, 120 (D.D.C. 2008).
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 25 of 26

prosecutors consider COVID-19 vulnerability is laudable, pretrial detainees are not required to

rely on the good will of prosecutors to secure their constitutional rights. And despite the Attorney

General’s statement that a “defendant’s risk from COVID-19 should be a significant factor in [a

prosecutor’s] analysis,” id., prosecutors in this district have taken a decidedly different tack,

overwhelmingly arguing for continued detention in response to BRA motions. Although the

United States is currently litigating hundreds of such motions, U.S. Opp. at 14, it points to only

three in which it has not opposed release. Id. at 16. As discussed above, the United States has

opposed 93 percent of BRA motions in Superior Court. See Ex. D (Bhatt Decl.) ¶ 6.

To be sure, Defendants’ and the federal government’s concerns regarding public safety and

flight risk in releasing DOC residents must be taken into account. That is why Plaintiffs propose

that the Court appoint an expert to “focus[] on the critical issues of inmate and public safety.” Pls.’

Mot. 38 (quoting Martinez-Brooks, 2020 WL 2405350, at *27). With the expert’s aid, this Court

can ensure that DOC residents safely transition to community supervision, while also weighing

inmate safety from DOC’s constitutional violations.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ overwhelming evidence shows the conditions they face are dire and the risk is

acute. The District is responsible, and this Court has more than adequate authority to order a

remedy. The Court should grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

DATED: May 29, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Steven Marcus
Steven Marcus (D.C. Bar # 1630882) Jonathan Anderson (D.C. Bar # 475306) Jenna Cobb (D.C. Bar # 979506) Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel: 202-824-2524; smarcus@pdsdc.org

25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89 Filed 05/29/20 Page 26 of 26
/s/ Scott Michelman Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar # 1006945) Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar # 235960) Michael Perloff (D.C. Bar # 1601047) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of the District of Columbia 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel.: 202-457-0800 smichelman@acludc.org /s/ Jacob S. Kreilkamp Jacob S. Kreilkamp (Pro Hac Vice Pending) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426 Tel.: 213.683.9260 Fax: 213.593.2960 jacob.kreilkamp@mto.com Jonathan S. Meltzer (D.C. Bar # 888166546) Jeremy S. Kreisberg (D.C. Bar # 1048346) Rachel G. Miller-Ziegler (D.C. Bar # 229956) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 1155 F Street, NW Seventh Floor Washington DC, 20004 Tel.: 202.220.1100 Fax: 202.220.2300 jonathan.meltzer@mto.com
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 9
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 9
Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jaimie Meyer
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1746, I hereby declare as follows:
1. I am Dr. Jaimie Meyer, an Assistant Professor of Medicine at Yale School of Medicine and Assistant Clinical Professor of Nursing at Yale School of Nursing in New Haven, Connecticut. I am a physician who is board certified in Infectious Disease, Addiction Medicine, and Internal Medicine, with expertise in infectious diseases in prisons and jails. I completed a fellowship in clinical Infectious Diseases at Yale School of Medicine in 2011 and a fellowship in Interdisciplinary HIV Prevention at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS in 2012. I hold a Master of Science in Biostatistics and Epidemiology from Yale School of Public Health. I previously submitted a Declaration in this case dated March 29, 2020 along with a copy of my CV. I also previously submitted a Supplemental Declaration on May 14, 2020.
2. To prepare this Supplemental Declaration, I reviewed the following documents:
• Declaration of Reena Chakraborty (Document 82-3) • Declaration of Dr. Beth Jordan (Document 82-2) • Amicus Curiae Written Report dated May 22, 2020 (Document 77) • Raw data regarding testing provided by Amicus Curiae for tests conducted March
15 through May 15, 2020 • The Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction (Document 82)
3. To fully understand and manage the impact of COVID-19 on DC DOC facilities, we want to know the true incidence of the disease, which is the number of new cases of infection as they arise in the entire facility population. Unless everyone in the facility is tested, we have to interpret the number of new cases within the context of the testing strategy. Below, I will outline the key concepts to understanding what inferences—if any—can be drawn from the data presented by Dr. Chakraborty and amici. I will then set out the parameters of a testing strategy that would give a more accurate sense of the true infection rate within DOC facilities.
4. In assessing the spread of the virus, experts rely upon the test positivity rate, i.e. the proportion of total tests administered that result positive (# positive tests / # of total tests administered), not the total absolute number of positive test results standing alone. Where the total number of positive test results are going down, that does not mean that the spread of the virus is under control if the overall number of tests administered—the denominator—has gone down as well.
5. Further, if the denominator is too small, i.e. if there have not been enough tests conducted, very little information can be drawn from test results. The numbers presented by DOC do not provide enough evidence to show that DOC has stopped or

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 9
even slowed the spread of the virus, because, while the number of positive tests results has gone down, so has the number of tests administered.
6. The DOC graph entitled “Current Positives, Cumulative Positives, and Cumulative Recovered” (Declaration of Reena Chakraborty (Document 82-3), Attachment 3) purports to show a decline in positive test results (the yellow line). However, the graph omits a piece of information essential to putting these results in context: the number of tests conducted. As stated above, the number of tests is necessary to calculate the key metric: test positivity rate (i.e. the percentage of positive results among tests conducted). Comparing the number of positives and the cumulative positive / cumulative recovered cases (purple and green lines) is less informative.
For ease of reference, this graph is reproduced below:

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4 of 9
7. The graph1 below charts the number of positive tests alongside the total number of tests conducted at weekly intervals, relying on the raw data provided by amici. Here, I draw particular attention to the green line that shows the number of tests conducted and the yellow line that shows the number of reported positive tests.
8. As this graph demonstrates, especially in the more contemporary date ranges, the decline in the number of positive tests potentially reflects decline in testing overall versus any emerging trend in the containment of COVID-19.
9. When testing uncovers a high test positivity rate – a high number of positive tests among all tests taken – this suggests the need to further expand testing. Thus, the observation of a peak in positive test results on May 2, 2014 (Chakraborty Declaration at ¶8) should have triggered a significant uptick in testing to better understand where and to whom the virus had spread. Instead, the opposite occurred and half as many tests were conducted the subsequent week 5/9-5/15 (from 50 to 24), as shown on the graph above.
10. Unfortunately, given the sharp decline in overall testing as May progressed, the “general downward trend” observed in positive test results after May 2, 2020 (Chakraborty Declaration at ¶3) is not meaningful from a clinical or epidemiological perspective.
11. Selection criteria for who is tested will affect the number of positives and the percentage of positives. Both the total number of positives and the percentage of positives may be affected by the selection of who is tested (e.g. if only people with severe symptoms are
1 Depicted along with a corresponding data table and 14-day positive testing rate chart in Attachment A.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 5 of 9
tested, the percentage of positives will presumably be higher). The evidence I have seen indicates that the testing criteria has changed, which is appropriate and in line with CDC recommendations and our evolving understanding of the disease, in which up to 35% of individuals with COVID-19 infection have no symptoms at all. Dr. Beth Jordan gives an example of a change in testing criteria when she explains that as of May 18, 2020, DOC expanded its testing criteria to test cellmates of any resident who recently rested positive as well as all new residents (Jordan Suppl. Declaration at ¶10). Where the selection criteria for who is tested has changed, comparison between the absolute numbers becomes less informative- it is like comparing apples to oranges.
12. For reasons set out above, the testing rate data presented by amici and Dr. Chakraborty are too limited to permit any inference about the true infection rate. However, as the test positivity rate chart (Att. A) shows, even the anecdotal data presented suggest a relatively high positivity rate. Previously, the standard WHO benchmark that the virus is under control has been 10% positive results or less with expansive, ongoing testing. Now, the WHO has revised the 10% estimate further downward, to 5% or lower for at least 14 days where extensive testing is conducted.2 Unless testing is expansive and the test positivity rate is declining and, optimally, <5%, it is difficult to conclude that the disease is completely contained.
13. I commend the DC DOC for conducting expanded testing among 400 individuals on May 22, 2020, including entire housing units with recent COVID-19 cases, the enhanced monitoring unit, all non-COVID patients in the infirmary, and a sampling of other units throughout DOC facilities (Jordan Declaration at ¶13).
14. While expanded testing is a significant advance in DC DOC’s approach, it remains less optimal than universal testing. To stop the spread of the virus the DOC needs facilitywide surveillance and needs to test all residents and staff at least once. Surveillance testing—and, in the absence of highly effective contact tracing, retesting—enables a clinical and public health response that is informed by real data. There should not be gaps in the testing- we cannot afford to have blind spots. Failure to test all residents and all staff means that the virus will continue to move among the unmonitored population. Residents who test negative should be retested because of the relatively high rate of false negative results and uncontrolled factors that may increase spread of the virus (such as visitors, contractors, and staff leaving and entering the facilities). Staff, including contractors and any other repeat visitors, should be tested repeatedly in light of this outside exposure. If there are gaps in testing, i.e. inmates or staff who are not tested, then there must be rigorous contact tracing to determine the people contacted by those who tested positive in addition to another round of testing in approximately one to two weeks.
2 https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states: “The WHO has said that in countries that have conducted extensive testing for COVID-19, should remain at 5% or lower for at least 14 days.”

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 6 of 9
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
_______________________ Dr. Jaimie Meyer May 29, 2020 Wilton, Connecticut

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 7 of 9 ATTACHMENT A

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 8 of 9

Row Labels 3/14/2020 - 3/18/2020 3/19/2020 - 3/23/2020 3/24/2020 - 3/28/2020 3/29/2020 - 4/2/2020 4/3/2020 - 4/7/2020 4/8/2020 - 4/12/2020 4/13/2020 - 4/17/2020 4/18/2020 - 4/22/2020 4/23/2020 - 4/27/2020 4/28/2020 - 5/2/2020 5/3/2020 - 5/7/2020 5/8/2020 - 5/12/2020 5/13/2020 - 5/15/2020

negative pending 1 1 1 7
11 22 15 14 10 19 15 13
3

positive

Grand Total Percent Po

1

0

1

0

6

7 85.71429

8

15 53.33333

30

41 73.17073

15

37 40.54054

30

45 66.66667

25

39 64.10256

24

34 70.58824

18

37 48.64865

12

27 44.44444

13

26

50

1

4

25

2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 9 of 9 3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-2 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 9
EXHIBIT B Redacted

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-2 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-2 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-2 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4 of 9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-2 Filed 05/29/20 Page 5 of 9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-2 Filed 05/29/20 Page 6 of 9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-2 Filed 05/29/20 Page 7 of 9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-2 Filed 05/29/20 Page 8 of 9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-2 Filed 05/29/20 Page 9 of 9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-3 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 12
EXHIBIT C

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-3 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 12
DECLARATION OF JONATHAN W. ANDERSON CHIEF OF THE SPECIAL LITIGATION DIVISION AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
SERVICE
I, Jonathan W. Anderson, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Jonathan W. Anderson. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am the Chief of the Special Litigation Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since 2016. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. Among other duties, I represent people in post-conviction criminal proceedings in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
3. I participated in the litigation of In re Sentenced Misdemeanants, 2020 CNC 000120.
4. In that litigation, the United States filed two separate responses arguing that the Superior Court should not act on the motion filed by the Public Defender Service. The United States’ pleadings also included the government’s position on the release of specific people serving misdemeanor sentences at the jail. I reviewed both of the United States’ pleadings.
5. Some cases discussed in the pleadings were moot and the United States did not take a position. The United States took a position in 59 sentenced misdemeanor cases. The United States opposed release in 48 of those cases.
6. The United States indicated it would not oppose release (if a Rule 35 were filed) in 11 cases. In most of those 11 cases, however, the United States indicated that opposed sentences of time served and instead advocated for suspended sentences where the individuals would be released and resume their lives in the community, but then once again uproot their lives and return to the jail after the pandemic was over. This likely required the parties to nonetheless litigate the motion and a judge to decide between two different positions, likely delaying the individual’s release.
7. My review of the facts of the cases also revealed that a significant number of the defendants for whom the government opposed relief were more than fifty years old, some were older than sixty, and some had underlying health conditions that made them particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, including hypertension and diabetes. Furthermore, a number of people where serving misdemeanor sentences for drug and property crimes only.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-3 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 12
8. In United States v. Carla Henderson, 2019 CF3 000166, the government opposed relief in the case of one 52-year-old woman who was serving a sentence for misdemeanor theft and unlawful entry of a commercial establishment—a restaurant—that had not asked for incarceration in its original victim impact statement.
9. United States v. Robert Cooper, 2017 CMD 016011 & 2019 CMD 012948, involved misdemeanor thefts of items from a Home Depot and Harris Teeter. The government opposed Mr. Cooper’s release. I am aware that the defense counsel in that case filed an Emergency Mandamus Petition in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The Rule 35 was granted, over the government’s opposition, by the Superior Court before the Court of Appeals ruled on the mandamus petition.
10. I have received and reviewed data provided to me May 29, 2020 by the Office of the Attorney General in a spreadsheet entitled “Banks_v_Booth Facility Counts by Inmate Status_03.01.2020 to 5.29.2020” (hereinafter referred to as “Facility Counts”).
11. Based on the Facility Counts data, on March 17, 2020, there were 102 sentenced misdemeanants at CDF and CTF. On March 30, there were 79 sentenced misdemeanants at CDF and CTF. On April 13, there were 10 sentenced misdemeanants at CDF and CTF. On May 29, there were 2 sentenced misdemeanants at CDF and CTF.
12. Attachment A is a chart regarding the number of sentenced misdemeanants at both the Jail (CDF) and CTF and is based on the Facility Counts data and highlights some relevant dates, including the filing of the complaint in the above-captioned case.
13. Based on the Facility Counts data, on March 17, 2020, there were 279 “parole violators” at CDF and CTF. On March 30, there were 231 “parole violators” at CDF and CTF. On May 14, there were 113 “parole violators” at CDF and CTF. On May 29, there were 121 “parole violators” at CDF and CTF.
14. Attachment B is a chart regarding the number of “parole violators” at both the Jail (CDF) and CTF, is based on the Facility Counts data and highlights some relevant dates, including the filing of the complaint in the above-captioned case.
15. I have reviewed the Declaration of Reena Chakraborty (Document 82-3) and the data contained therein.
16. Based on the data in Facility County, Attachment C to this document shows the combined inmate population at the Jail (CDF) and CTF and highlights some relevant dates, including the filing of the complaint in the above-captioned case.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-3 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4 of 12
17. Based on the data contained in Doc. 82-3 (attachment 2), Attachment D to this document shows single-cell confinement at the Jail (CDF) and highlights some relevant dates, including the filing of the complaint in the above-captioned case.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 29th day of May 2020, in Washington, D.C.
_______________________________ Jonathan W. Anderson Chief, Special Litigation Division Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-3 Filed 05/29/20 Page 5 of 12
ATTACHMENT A

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-3 Filed 05/29/20 Page 6 of 12
Sentenced Misdemeanant Population at CDF and CTF
140 Good Time Credit Act, 16-Mar
120 DOC Issues new GTC Policy, 17-Mar
100 In re Sentenced Misdemeanants, 25-Mar Banks v Booth complaint filed, 29-Mar
80
60
40 Banks v Booth TRO issued, 18-Apr
20
0
NOTE: There was an apparent error in the data provided by the OAG. On the date range of March 27th to 29th, a sharp decline from 56 to 30 and then immediate recovery to 54 sentenced misdemeanant detainees was noted in the CDF data. It is suspected this was caused by an error in the inmate status tracking system, due to the total number of inmates being held at CDF being unaffected for this date. The data point for March 28th was omitted from this graph for ease of trend viewing.

1-Mar 3-Mar 5-Mar 7-Mar 9-Mar 11-Mar 13-Mar 15-Mar 17-Mar 19-Mar 21-Mar 23-Mar 25-Mar 27-Mar 29-Mar 31-Mar 2-Apr 4-Apr 6-Apr 8-Apr 10-Apr 12-Apr 14-Apr 16-Apr 18-Apr 20-Apr 22-Apr 24-Apr 26-Apr 28-Apr 30-Apr 2-May 4-May 6-May 8-May 10-May 12-May 14-May 16-May 18-May 20-May 22-May 24-May 26-May 28-May

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-3 Filed 05/29/20 Page 7 of 12
ATTACHMENT B

Good Time Credit Act, 16-Mar 300
250
200 150

100

50

0

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-3 Filed 05/29/20 Page 8 of 12

Parole Violator Population at CDF and CTF
DOC Issues new GTC Policy, 17-Mar In re Sentenced Misdemeanants, 25Mar Banks v Booth complaint filed, 29Mar
Banks v Booth TRO issued, 18-Apr

1-Mar 3-Mar 5-Mar 7-Mar 9-Mar 11-Mar 13-Mar 15-Mar 17-Mar 19-Mar 21-Mar 23-Mar 25-Mar 27-Mar 29-Mar 31-Mar 2-Apr 4-Apr 6-Apr 8-Apr 10-Apr 12-Apr 14-Apr 16-Apr 18-Apr 20-Apr 22-Apr 24-Apr 26-Apr 28-Apr 30-Apr 2-May 4-May 6-May 8-May 10-May 12-May 14-May 16-May 18-May 20-May 22-May 24-May 26-May 28-May

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-3 Filed 05/29/20 Page 9 of 12
ATTACHMENT C

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-3 Filed 05/29/20 Page 10 of 12

2000

Good Time Credit Act, 16-Mar

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Population Data at CTF and CDF
DOC Issues new GTC Policy, 17-Mar In re Sentenced Misdemeanants, 25-Mar Banks v Booth complaint filed, 29-Mar Banks v Booth TRO issued, 18-Apr

1-Mar 3-Mar 5-Mar 7-Mar 9-Mar 11-Mar 13-Mar 15-Mar 17-Mar 19-Mar 21-Mar 23-Mar 25-Mar 27-Mar 29-Mar 31-Mar 2-Apr 4-Apr 6-Apr 8-Apr 10-Apr 12-Apr 14-Apr 16-Apr 18-Apr 20-Apr 22-Apr 24-Apr 26-Apr 28-Apr 30-Apr 2-May 4-May 6-May 8-May 10-May 12-May 14-May 16-May 18-May 20-May 22-May 24-May 26-May 28-May

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-3 Filed 05/29/20 Page 11 of 12
ATTACHMENT D

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-3 Filed 05/29/20 Page 12 of 12

Percent

Single-Celled Detainment Trends at DCDOC

DOC issues new GTC

100

policy, 18-Mar

90

Good Time Credit

Bill Goes Into Effect,

17-Mar 80

73.1

68.5 70

In re Sentenced Misdemeanants, 26-Mar
72.1

Banks v Booth complaint filed,
30-Mar
77.8

Banks v Booth TRO issued, 19-Apr

94

94.7

68.2

60

59.3

58.2

52.6

50

47.2

48.3

44.6

46

42.7

40 34.3

36

38

30

20

10

0 4-Mar

14-Mar

24-Mar

3-Apr CTF

13-Apr CDF

23-Apr DOC

94.7 69 59
3-May

97.7 95.4
72.7 69.5
63.5 60.1

13-May

23-May

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-4 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT D

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-4 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF KIRAN BHATT STAFF INVESTIGATOR AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Kiran Bhatt, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Kiran Bhatt. I make these statements based on my personal knowledge.
2. I am a staff investigator in the Trial Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since August 28, 2017. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as a staff investigator at PDS is to conduct investigations for criminal proceedings in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
3. As part of my duties as a staff investigator I, along with four of my colleagues, were asked to determine the government’s position on 153 bond review motions decided in D.C. Superior Court from March 26, 2020 through April 22, 2020.
4. To determine the government’s position on the motions, we divided a list of defendants for whom bond review motions were determined during this period. We then used the JUSTIS database to look up each case number and determine the government’s response to the defendant’s bond review motion.
5. Once we ascertained the government’s position, we each recorded on a spreadsheet whether the government opposed the motion, did not oppose the motion, or affirmatively joined the motion.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-4 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 3
6. Once all 153 cases were compiled and entered, the spreadsheet indicated that the government opposed the release of 142 defendants during this time frame. The government did not oppose the release of 11 defendants.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 29th day of May 2020, in Washington, D.C.
___________________________ Kiran Bhatt Staff Investigator Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-5 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT E

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-5 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF RASHIDA EDMONDSON ACTING CHIEF OF THE PAROLE DIVISION AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
SERVICE
I, Rashida Edmondson, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Rashida Edmondson. I make these statements based on my personal knowledge.
2. I am the Acting Chief of the Parole Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since March 1, 2020. Prior to March 1, 2020, I had been the Deputy Chief of the Parole Division since July 2018 and a staff attorney in the Parole Division at PDS since November 2007. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as Acting Chief of the Parole Division is to manage the attorneys of the Parole Division, who provide representation to DC Code Parolees and Supervised Releasees facing revocation in front of the United States Parole Commission (Commission). I represent the Parole Division in communication with the Commission and other Criminal Justice Agencies in DC and on various working groups and task forces. I also maintain an active caseload in front of the Commission.
3. Based on information I obtained as the Acting Chief of the Parole Division on May 27 and 28, 2020, the Parole Division of PDS currently represents at least 74 clients who are detained in DOC custody at the Central Detention Facility or the Correctional Treatment Facility.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-5 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 4
4. Based on information I obtained as the Acting Chief of the Parole Division on May 27 and 28, 2020, 11 of those 74 individuals are being held awaiting a decision on technical violations only. Also referred to as administrative violations, these are behaviors that are not new criminal arrests, but violations of the conditions of release. They include allegations related to drug testing, reporting, program participation, employment, etc. This group of 11 includes people who are being held only on allegations of failing to report or drug testing violations.
5. Twenty of the 74 individuals are completing sentences imposed by the United States Parole Commission solely for technical violations. Through letter and email on March 13, 2020 and March 18, 2020, in my capacity as Acting Chief, I requested the Commission to release all of the individuals being held for the completion of sentences for technical violations only. Since then, I have sent individual requests with case specific information for each of the individuals held on technical violations only that the Parole Division represents to have their previously imposed sentences modified to time served with immediate release. These twenty individuals have been denied release.
6. Eighteen of the 74 individuals are awaiting a hearing by the United States Parole Commission and an adjudication of whether violation occurred and final release or sentencing decision on a new arrest matter that has either been disposed of in their favor (i.e., an acquittal, dismissal, or “no papering”) or is pending, but the individual has been released by a judge in D.C. Superior Court based, in part, on a finding of a lack of dangerousness. In my March 13, and March 18, 2020 communications, I also requested the release of all individuals being held for these reasons. Since that time, I have also made individual requests for the release of each of these individuals. These eighteen individuals have been denied release.
7. Final Revocation Hearings are traditionally held inside the Central Treatment Facility (CTF). At these hearings the releasee is represented by an attorney and has the right to confront and cross examine the witnesses against them and to bring in their own witnesses in support. Releasees have the right to bring in additional evidence in support that is gathered from the community. Final revocation hearings have been postponed indefinitely. There is no mechanism for the people held pending a decision to contest the violation charges, their continued detention, or to receive a decision on release or final sentencing.
8. The Commission has continued to issue new warrants and to begin new revocation periods since our March 2020 request that the Commission stop any new arrests. The number of releasees arrested and brought for probable cause initially declined with zero new probable cause hearings held on April 13, 2020. The Commission has conducted probable cause hearings and held newly arrested releasees in custody on each Tuesday and Friday since April 13, 2020.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-5 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4 of 4
9. I have learned that today, May 29, 2020, a parole division attorney represented four individuals at probable cause hearings. All four individuals were held in custody by the Commission. Three of the individuals are held for technical violations only. The youngest of the three is 48 years old and the other two are older than 60 years old. All three have been diagnosed with concerning underlying medical conditions. The four cases from May 29, 2020 probable cause hearings are not included in the 74 cases discussed supra.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on the 29th day of May 2020, in Washington, D.C.
_________________________ Rashida Edmondson Acting Chief, Parole Division Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-6 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT F

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-6 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF JAMES GUILLORY
1. My name is James Guillory. I am 20 years old. I am currently incarcerated at the Correctional Treatment Facility of the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC) on the D2A unit in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I was told on Thursday, May 28, 2020, that I was going to be transferred the next day from CTF to a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facility.
3. This morning, I was taken from my cell around 5:30 AM and told I was being transferred. My property was taken, and I was asked to sign a release of information to send my medical records from the DOC to BOP.
4. I was taken off of my unit with three other men from my unit. DOC staff walked us from our cells to the Medical 96 Unit, then from Medical 96 to the catwalk. We then took the catwalk to CDF. We did not stop at Medical 96 or receive any medical services. We went to Medical 96 to access the catwalk.
5. We had to take an elevator to get to CDF. In the elevator, I was with 1 officer and 4 other prisoners. We were wearing masks. We were not 6 feet apart, and there was not enough room in the elevator for us to stay 6 feet apart.
6. When I arrived at CDF, I was put in a cell in R&D. R&D stands for Release and Departure. My cell at R&D had about 10 other people in it. There were about 8 cells, each containing at least ten people. There were at least 100 people in those 8 cells this morning. It was very crowded.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-6 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 4
7. The people in those cells at R&D in those cells was there because they were told they were transferring to a Bureau of Prisons facility. One person was told he was being released, but as far as I am aware, everyone else was there to be transferred to BOP facilities. To my knowledge, 73-74 people were actually placed in vans or buses to be transported from DOC to various BOP facilities today. At about 11:00 am, I heard a U.S. Marshal say how many people were being transferred, and also some of the men in my cell were keeping an informal count of how many people were leaving.
8. My cell in R&D was very dirty. Paperwork, tissues, and candy wrappers were all over the floor. There was one bathroom at the end of the cell. There was no toilet paper. There was no soap. I was not able to wash my hands after using the toilet or before or after eating. There was urine on the toilet in the cell. The cell smelled dirty, like body odor and urine, and did not smell like disinfectant. The cell did not look like it had been cleaned recently.
9. My cell was about 10-15 feet long. My cell was about twice the size of a visitation room at CTF. There were two long benches on each side of the cell. Everybody in the cell either had to sit on those benches, stand, or sit on the floor. The toilet was an open toilet at the back of the cell. We were not 6 feet apart, and there was not enough room in the cell for us to sit or stand 6 feet apart. We were not given any instructions about social distancing.
10. I was not tested for COVID-19 today before I was moved to R&D. I was tested for COVID-19 a week ago, on around Friday, May 22, 2020. I got the results of that test on Sunday or Monday, and was told I was negative. I have not been tested again since then.
11. I did not see anybody being tested for COVID-19 on my unit today. No medical staff came to my unit before I and the others who had been told we were being transferred were taken off of the unit. There is no way the other people on my unit who were also being transferred today could have been tested today without me seeing it, because we were together from 3:30am until they were called by name out of the cell to prepare for their transfer, and I could see them from that time until they left CDF.
12. I did not see anybody being tested for COVID-19 in R&D today. There was one nurse in R&D who came to the cell I was in. The nurse called for one person in my cell by name to ask him if he had shortness of breath or coughing. He said no and then she took his temperature with a forehead thermometer. She then left, and that person was later transferred. I never saw that person tested for COVID-19.
13. There were people in my cell who were coughing or sneezing. No one ever gave them a medical exam or a COVID-19 test while they were in R&D.
14. No one who was in R&D with me awaiting transfer told me that they had been tested for COVID-19 today, either on their units or at any other time.
15. When someone was getting transferred, a Marshal would call their name. When the Marshal called their name, that person would get up and leave the cell. I could still see everyone when they left the cell. When they left the cell, they would change out of their
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-6 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4 of 4
orange jumpsuit into a white paper jumpsuit. After the person changed into a white jumpsuit, they were put in shackles on their feet and wrists, and their wrists were shackled to their waist. Then that person would go into another cell full of other people in white jumpsuits and shackles. I could see into the cells of people wearing white jumpsuits. Once the cell of people in white jumpsuits was full, the people in the white jumpsuits were then taken out the back door of that cell. The back door leads directly outside to where vans or buses are parked. The people in white jumpsuits were loaded on a bus or van. I did not see any of the people in white jumpsuits get tested for COVID-19 before they were taken out the back door and put on the bus or van.
16. One person I saw in orange change into white paper did not have a face mask. A correction officer told him to put on a face mask, but he didn’t have one. A U.S. Marshal handed the man a face mask. The man could not put on his own face mask because of the shackles, and so a CO put the mask on his face. The CO did not change his gloves from the gloves he touched everyone else with before touching the man’s face.
17. Around lunch time, I was told that I was not going to be transferred because I was a scratch. I was not told why I was a scratch. I was then left in the R&D cell until after 2 pm, then taken back to my unit.
18. I was served lunch in the R&D cell. I could not wash my hands before or after eating. I asked for hand sanitizer before eating, and the person bringing the trays said she didn’t have hand sanitizer to give us. The food trays for lunch were slid through a slot in the cell door, and we all ate in the cell together. They tried to hand us some spoons without plastic wrap around them, and we did not want to use them because we thought they might have COVID-19 germs. We asked for plastic wrapped spoons, but we never got any.
I, Amy Phillips, certify that I have read the foregoing to James Guillory and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on May 29, 2020.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 29, 2020.
_________________________ Amy Phillips Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 33
EXHIBIT G

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DATE:

January 18, 2018

Page 1 of 25

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:
OPI: REVIEW DATE:

4030.1J November 15, 2016 OPERATIONS January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

Approving

Quincy L. Booth

Authority:

Director

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER: Attachments:

4030.1K
Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1- Deputy Director Attachment F – Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

SUMMARY OF CHANGES:

Section Entire Policy

Change Minor Changes throughout entire policy.

APPROVED: Signature on File

_______________________ Quincy L. Booth, Director

_____1/18/2018_____ Date Signed

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 2 of 25

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE. To provide administrative procedures through which inmates of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC) may seek resolution of complaints.
2. POLICY
a. It is DOC policy to provide administrative means for expression and resolution of inmate issues and complaints through informal resolution. Many matters can and should be resolved directly and promptly between the inmate and authorized institutional staff and resolution shall be the primary goal.
b. If informal resolution does not provide a successful solution for the complaint or in the event of an emergency grievance, inmates may use the formal grievance process.
c. The grievance process has at least one level for appeal.
d. All complaints and grievances shall be considered and resolved in a fair and impartial manner.
e. Grievances are considered legal correspondence. Staff shall not open or inspect a sealed envelope that is labeled “Grievance” and addressed to the Grievance Coordinator or the Director.
f. DOC employees, contractors, interns and volunteers shall not retaliate or allow one inmate to retaliate against another inmate for the good faith use of, or participation in, the inmate grievance process.
3. APPLICABILITY
a. This directive applies to any DOC facility and to contractors who house or provide services to inmates under the care and custody of the DOC.
b. Inmates housed in contract facilities shall adhere to the procedures for the inmate grievance process as outlined in this directive.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 3 of 25

4. NOTICE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION. In accordance with the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, D.C. Official Code §2-1401.01 et seq., (Act) the District of Columbia does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, genetic information, disability, source of income, status as a victim of an intrafamily offense, or place of residence or business. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that is also prohibited by the Act. Discrimination in violation of the Act will not be tolerated. Violators will be subject to disciplinary action.

5. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES. The expected results of this program are:
a. Open lines of communication will identify, prevent and resolve matters thereby reducing the need for complaints and grievances.
b. Inmate grievances will be resolved through formal procedures when informal means have failed.
c. Written responses based upon investigation and resolution when appropriate, including the reasons for the decision, shall be given to all inmate complaints and grievances within the prescribed time limits.
d. Inmates will use this procedure and pursue claims in court only if dissatisfied with resolutions obtained from the IGP.

6. DIRECTIVES AFFECTED

a. Directive Rescinded

PP 4030.1J

Inmate Grievance Procedures (IGP) (11/15/16)

b. Directives Referenced

PM 1300.1H

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 5 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 4 of 25

PS 2000.2 PP 3350.2 PP 3800.3 PP 4020.1 PP 4070.1 PM 5300.1
PM 5300.2 7. AUTHORITY

Retention and Disposal of Department Records
Elimination of Sexual Abuse, Assault, and Misconduct
ADA: Communications for Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Inmate Orientation Program
Inmate Telephone Access
Inmate Disciplinary and Administrative Housing Hearing Procedures
Juvenile Disciplinary and Administrative Housing Hearing Procedures

a. DC Code § 24-211.02 Powers; Promulgation of Rules
b. Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
c. D.C. Code § 2-531, et seq., D.C. Freedom of Information Act
8. STANDARDS REFERENCED. American Correctional Association (ACA) 4th Edition Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities 4-ALDF-2A-05, 4-ALDF-2A27, 4-ALDF-6B-01, 4-ALDF-4C-01, 4-ALDF-4D-22-07 and 4-ALDF-6A-07.
9. RESPONSIBILITIES
a. Wardens shall ensure that an investigation is conducted and an adequate response is prepared for each grievance in accordance with the procedures set forth in this directive.
b. The Deputy Director(s) shall ensure that an investigation is conducted and an adequate response is prepared for each appeal to a grievance in accordance with the procedures set forth in this directive.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 6 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 5 of 25

c. Each facility and housing unit shall maintain a supply of Informal Resolution/Grievance Forms.
d. Each facility and housing unit shall maintain a supply of IGP Appeal forms.
e. Each Housing Unit and Community Correctional Center (CCC) supervisor shall ensure that forms are available and accessible to inmates during his or her tour of duty.
f. The inmate grievance procedures shall be available to inmates regardless of any disciplinary, classification, or other administrative or legal conditions affecting them.
g. The IGP Coordinator shall be responsible for coordinating the resolution of informal and formal grievances in accordance with this directive.
h. The IGP Coordinator shall be responsible for coordinating activities and operations associated with informal complaint resolution and grievances.
i. The inmate should make an attempt to resolve any issue by communicating with a staff person before initiating an informal complaint.
10. GRIEVABLE ISSUES
a. Grievance Issues. Inmates may request informal resolution and/or grieve the following matters through the grievance process.
1) Matters relating to the conditions of safety, care and supervision such as
a. Safety, b. Sanitation c. Facility Management, d. Improper staff action, e. Inappropriate use of force by staff, f. Housing, g. Facility Transfer

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 7 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 6 of 25

h. Transportation i. Discrimination j. Protection from harm, k. Sexual harassment and sexual safety, ;
2) Matters relating to inmate programs, activities and services such as
a. Access to Courts (e.g. law library, legal mail, notary, attorney calls), b. Access to and quality of health care, c. Access to personal hygiene, d. Canteen, e. Case Management Service, f. Food Service, g. Inmate Finance, h. Mail, i. Programs and Activities, j. Religious services and practices k. Communications (Mail, Visitation, Telephone, Legal)
3) Matters relating to inmate property;
4) Matters relating to individual staff treatment and inmate actions;
5) Matters relating to sentence computations, good time and jail credits, detainers, and late release;
6) Denial of access to the informal resolution or IGP processes;
7) Reprisals against inmates for utilizing the IGP process;
8) Matters pertaining to inmate treatment and legal rights established by federal and local law and regulations; and
9) The application of DOC rules, policies and/or procedures except those listed in § b ¶1 below (those matters have established appeal procedures).

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 8 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 7 of 25

10) All Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) complaints regarding sexual abuse and sexual violence shall be made immediately to any DOC staff person.
b. Non-Grievable Issues. In accordance with this directive the following issues cannot be grieved under this process.
1) Institutional or Court Ordered Work Release decisions,
2) Classification Committee decisions

3) Requests under the Freedom of Information Act and HIPAA
4) Inmate class action grievances or petitions;
5) Final decisions on grievances after appeals are exhausted;
6) Inmate Accident Claims, Tort Claims;
7) Complaints filed on behalf of other inmates;
8) Federal and local court decisions, laws and regulations;
9) Policies, procedures, decisions or matters to include but not be limited to transfers, sentence computations, warrants, detainers, writs, holds and parole/probation/release treatment decisions issued by the U.S. Parole Commission. the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or other Agencies, States and Jurisdictions;
10) Disciplinary Board and Housing Hearing rulings cannot be grieved under this policy, but can be appealed to the Warden in accordance with PM 5300.1, Inmate Disciplinary and Administrative Housing Hearing Procedures, and PM 5300.2, Juvenile Disciplinary and Administrative Housing Hearing Procedures.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 9 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 8 of 25

11. INMATE NOTIFICATION
a. The Warden, CCC Administrator or other contract facilities shall ensure that this directive and any other written directives pertaining to the Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) are readily available to all inmates/offenders.
b. The inmate grievance procedure is outlined in The Inmate Handbook, and further notification of the procedures shall also be given to each inmate during intake orientation.
c. This directive shall be readily available in the law library, case manager offices, and posted on inmate bulletin boards..
d. The Warden shall ensure that non-English speaking inmates, inmates who cannot read or are otherwise disabled (physically or mentally), receive assistance in order to understand and access the inmate grievance procedures.

12. STAFF NOTIFICATION/TRAINING
a. The Deputy Director(s) shall ensure that this directive and any other written directives pertaining to the IGP are made available to all staff assigned to DOC and DOC contract facilities.
b. The Department’s Training Academy shall include a discussion of this directive as part of its Pre-Service, Basic Correctional Training (BCT) and InService training curriculum for employees.
c. Staff members shall have an opportunity to ask questions regarding the IGP and will be given an opportunity to have these questions answered orally.
d. The Training Administrator shall maintain the signed acknowledgements indicating that staff members have reviewed a copy of the IGP policy.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 10 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 9 of 25

13. SUPERVISION AND MANAGEMENT
a. The Warden or designee, Deputy Warden and designated program managers shall visit housing units and inmate activity areas at least weekly to encourage informal contact with staff and inmates and to informally observe living and working conditions.
b. The Chief Case Manager, Case Managers, Correctional Supervisors and Housing Unit Officers shall make every attempt to keep the channels of communication open between staff and inmates and shall informally resolve issues expeditiously whenever possible.
c. When managers determine that the results of an inmate grievance point to general deficiencies, appropriate action shall be taken. This action may include recommendations for procedural changes, refresher training, counseling, and corrective actions as appropriate.
14. INVESTIGATING GRIEVANCES. Managers shall investigate and respond to informal and formal grievances. Persons implicated or involved in a grievance are prohibited from investigating that grievance.

15. CONFIDENTIALITY. Records concerning an individual’s participation in the IGP are considered confidential. These records shall be made available in accordance with the established procedures for confidential records and information, as contained in the D. C. Freedom of Information Act and agency PP 1300.1, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
16. INMATE GRIEVANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (IGAC). The CDF and CTF shall establish and maintain an IGAC, composed of three (3) to five (5) inmates. The committee shall consist of IGP Coordinator, one program manager and one uniformed supervisor. CCC shall maintain an IGAC composed of three (3) inmates, IGP Coordinator, and a Case Manager. The IGAC shall meet monthly and has the following responsibilities:

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 11 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 10 of 25

a. Discussing general inmate concerns and grievance matters as defined in this directive;
b. Providing recommendations and comments to the Warden/Office of Community Corrections (OCC) Administrator regarding the operation, effectiveness, and credibility of the IGP process;
c. Providing recommendations to the Deputy Director(s) and the OCC Administrator for improved activities and conditions;
d. Reviewing the IGP Policy and Procedure during annual reviews, and
e. Preparing and forwarding minutes of IGAC meetings to the Warden for review and other appropriate action.
17. INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP) COORDINATOR
a. The Warden shall appoint an IGP Coordinator who shall:
1) Coordinate activities and operations associated with informal complaint resolution and IGP retrieval, distribution, tracking, database entry, monitoring and establishment of response dates given by the IGP Coordinator to the Office Chiefs for response.
2) Collect Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Forms from each housing unit IGP mailbox on a daily basis (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays).
3) Ensure informal resolution has been attempted (excluding emergency grievances).
4) Contact the appropriate manager for additional response/resolution.
5) Maintain the JACCS electronic data input and tracking.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 12 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 11 of 25

6) Apprise the affected Warden when suspense dates are not met.
7) Ensure the inmate receives a copy of the completed grievance.
8) If the inmate is transferred to a contract facility, other jurisdictions, or between facilities (CDF & CTF), the IGP Coordinator shall forward the response to the IGP Coordinator where the inmate is located.
9) The IGP Coordinator where the inmate is located shall ensure that the response to the grievance is forwarded to the inmate and a copy is placed in the inmate’s official institutional record.
10) Not less than quarterly, conduct a random sample of grievance decisions and document whether the assigned manager took appropriate action by the imposed deadline.
11) Bring matters of concern or potential problems to the Warden’s and/or other appropriate manager’s attention.
b. The Director and Deputy Director(s) shall assign staff to perform the above stated duties at the respective appeal levels.

18. TIME REQUIREMENT FOR INITIAL INMATE COMPLIANT
a. The inmate is to attempt to advise a staff member of his /her complaint as soon as possible after the issue arises, but in no case should the time period be more than five (5) business days from the date of the incident causing the issue (see Attachment A), unless the inmate can provide a reasonable explanation for a delay. Normally, the inmate should discuss the issue with a staff person with all available information to assist in the resolution of a complaint.
b. Failure of the inmate to properly attempt to resolve the complaint may result in the inmate informal resolution form being rejected.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 13 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 12 of 25

19. INFORMAL RESOLUTION PROCESS
a. With the exception of emergency grievances, inmates are required to utilize the informal resolution process concerning disputes, or complaints that were not reasonably addressed after submission of a request slip (Attachment B) or verbal requests.
b. Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Forms.
1) Inmates shall be able to request informal resolution within five (5) days after a request for services by a staff person has not been satisfied.
2) Inmates may request the inmate informal resolution/grievance form (Attachment C) from any staff member who is assigned to his or her housing unit and the staff member shall give the inmate the form during his or her shift or tour of duty.
3) The inmate shall place the informal resolution form in the IGP box for the IGP coordinator to record and disseminate to various departments.
4) The designated department shall research necessary information to determine if a remedy is possible. All informal resolutions relating to Contractors services shall be forwarded to the Contract Monitors
5) The department designee shall develop a response to present to the inmate in an attempt to resolve the issue informally.

6) Department designee shall respond to the inmate complaint within seven (7) business days by submitting the signed official response on the original form to the IGP coordinator who will forward the response to the inmate.
7) The IGP Coordinator shall ensure that the inmate receives a copy of the completed informal resolution/grievance form.
8) The IGP Coordinator shall scan the informal resolution into PaperClip

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 14 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 13 of 25

9) If the issue could not be resolved by the Department designee, the inmate may submit the original complaint to the IGP Coordinator by placing the form in the housing unit IGP box. This action will initiate a formal grievance.
10)The IGP Coordinator or designee shall collect inmate informal formal grievance/grievance forms from each housing unit locked grievance box daily, Monday through Friday.
11)The IGP Coordinator shall generate an inmate receipt using the Crystal Reports (Attachment D) Informal Resolution/Grievance Form Request Receipt (Attachment C).
12)IGP Coordinator or designee shall enter data into JACCS and DOC’s Data tracking system.
13)The inmate shall receive a response within fifteen (15) business days of receipt by the IGP Coordinator.
14)In accordance with this directive, the IGP Coordinator may request an extension of the fifteen (15) business days when the response requirement relates to extenuating circumstances. Examples include but are not limited to; when a staff member is not available due to leave or otherwise unavailable or when there is an unexpected emergency or the matter is pending a broader investigation.
20. CRITERIA FOR FILING A FORMAL GRIEVANCE
a. An inmate may file a formal grievance when:
1) The inmate is not satisfied with the results of the informal resolution process, in which case the inmate shall file the formal grievance within five (5) business days of receipt of the informal resolution response, or

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 15 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 14 of 25

2) The inmate has not received a response within fifteen (15) business days of filing the complaint.
b. Each grievance must pertain to one specific incident, charge or complaint.
c. Inmates shall not submit redundant or duplicate copies of the same grievance.
21. FORMAL GRIEVANCE PROCESS
a. The inmate shall place the original Inmate Informal Resolution\Grievance form in the locked grievance box marked “GRIEVANCES.” IGP collection boxes are located in each housing unit.
b. Inmates in restrictive housing units shall place the grievance form in the locked box marked “” “IGP” during their individual recreation time or may also submit the grievance to their assigned case manager or a supervisor, having first placed the grievance form in a sealed envelope. The case manager or supervisor shall then place the grievance form in the locked box marked “ “IGP”.
c. The Grievance Coordinator shall log all grievances into the JACCS system.
d. The IGP Coordinator shall generate an inmate receipt using the Crystal Reports (Attachment D) Informal Resolution Request Receipt (Attachment C).
e. The IGP Coordinator shall forward the inmate receipt to the inmate via institutional mail.
f. The IGP Coordinator shall contact the appropriate program manager or staff member and establish a response due date. Contract monitor shall be notified for all responses related to contracted services.
g. The IGP Coordinator or designee shall log the complaint and make appropriate entries into an informal complaint tracking system.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 16 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 15 of 25

h. Department designee shall respond to the inmate complaint within seven (7) business days by submitting the signed official response on the original form to the inmate.
i. The manager or contract monitor is responsible for responding to the grievance shall ensure that the Grievance Coordinator receives the original grievance with the response and any corresponding documentation to ensure that the grievance is appropriately logged.

j. Unless an extension is granted due to extenuating circumstances, the inmate shall receive a response within fifteen (15) calendar days of submission.
22. REQUEST FOR WARDEN’S ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
a. Within five (5) business days of receiving the Formal Grievance response from the IGP Coordinator, the inmate may elect to appeal the decision by submitting the original inmate informal resolution/grievance form to the Warden.
b. Inmates shall submit the original form to the IGP Coordinator for a request for the Warden’s administrative remedy.
c. If the original form cannot be obtained, an inmate may submit his or her grievance on standard, letter-sized paper. This grievance shall contain the following information:
1) The name and DCDC number of the inmate filing the grievance;
2) The name of the housing unit/number and cell number and/or community correctional center where the inmate is housed;
3) The nature of the complaint or grievance, date of occurrence, and the remedy sought;
4) The inmate’s signature; and

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 17 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 16 of 25

5) The date submitted.
d. The Warden shall review the Formal Grievance form and issue a response within fifteen (15) business days of receipt of the form.
e. The Warden’s office shall ensure appropriate remedies for valid grievances are provided.
23. PROCEDURES FOR FILING AN EMERGENCY GRIEVANCE
a. Emergency grievances shall be defined as matters in which an inmate would be subjected to substantial risk of personal injury or serious and irreparable harm if the inmate filed the grievance in the routine manner with the normally allowed response time.
b. The inmate must prominently label and identify the grievance as an “Emergency Grievance” at the top of the Inmate Informal Resolution Grievance Form (Attachment C) and state the nature of the emergency.
c. The inmate shall file the emergency grievance in a sealed envelope and shall mark the envelope as an emergency grievance. The inmate shall address his or her emergency grievance to the lowest administrative level at which an appropriate remedy can be achieved (i.e., OCC Administrator, Warden, or Director).
d. If it is necessary for an inmate to file an emergency grievance on the weekend or a holiday the sealed envelope shall be given to the Shift Supervisor. The Shift Supervisor will ensure that the Duty Administrative Officer is notified upon receipt of the emergency grievance.
e. If an inmate’s grievance is of a sensitive nature and he/she has reason to believe that he/she would be adversely affected if it was to become known at the institutional level, he/she may file the grievance directly with the Director. All such emergency grievances may be placed in the locked grievance box or forwarded via regular institutional mail.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 18 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 17 of 25

f. The IGP Coordinator shall immediately review and consult with the Warden, to determine if the complaint is of an emergency nature as defined in this directive.
g. The IGP Coordinator shall inform the inmate if the grievance is not accepted as an emergency grievance and informed that the grievance shall be treated as a regular grievance.
h. The following special provisions shall apply to emergency grievances:
1) An emergency grievance shall be responded to within seventy-two (72) hours of its receipt.
2) Within forty-eight (48) hours of receiving a response to the emergency grievance, an inmate may appeal to the next level of the IGP appeal process, unless the emergency went directly to the director.
24. EMERGENCY GRIEVANCE FOR PREA ALLEGATIONS
a. Inmates may, but are not required to, file a complaint of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual misconduct directly with the Director as an emergency grievance.
b. The Director shall immediately forward the complaint to the PREA Coordinator, who will initiate the investigation with the Office of Investigative Services.
c. OIS shall issue a final agency decision on the merits of the grievance within ninety (90) days of the initial filing of the grievance. OIS may request an extension of time to respond, of up to seventy (70) days if ninety (90) days is insufficient to make an appropriate decision.
d. OIS shall notify the inmate in writing of any such extension and provide a date by which a decision will be made.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 19 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 18 of 25

e. After receiving an emergency grievance alleging that an inmate is subject to a substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse, DOC shall provide an initial response within forty-eight (48) hours and shall issue a final decision within five (5) days.
f. The initial response and final agency decision shall document DOC’s determination whether the inmate is at substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse and the action taken in response to the emergency grievance.
25. FILING AN APPEAL LEVEL 1
a. Central Detention and Correctional Treatment Facilities
1) If an inmate is not satisfied with the Warden’s response to a grievance, he or she may file an Appeal Level 1 appeal to the Deputy Director for Operations.
2) This appeal shall be filed within five (5) days of receipt of the grievance response from the Warden, using the Appeal Level 1 – Deputy Director form (Attachment E). The appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the original Inmate Informal Resolution Grievance form with supporting documentation. If the Appeal Level 1 – Deputy Director form cannot be obtained; an inmate may submit the grievance on separate paper.
3) The Deputy Director shall respond to an appeal within twenty-one (21) days following its receipt.
b. Contract Community Correctional Center (CCC)
1) CCC Inmate Appeal Process. If an inmate housed in a contract community correctional center is not satisfied with his or her response from the contract CCC Administrator he or she may file an appeal to the Deputy Director for Operations within five (5) days, using IGP Form 1 Appeal Level 1 – Deputy Director (Attachment E). If an IGP Form 1 Appeal Level 1 – Deputy Director cannot be obtained; an inmate may submit the grievance on standard letter-size paper. This appeal must be

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 20 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 19 of 25

accompanied by copies of the original grievance and responses, and appropriate supporting documentation from the OCC Administrator.

2) The Deputy Director or designee shall respond to the appeal within twenty-one (21) days of receipt.
3) The IGP Coordinator shall input required data into the JACCS Appeal Log.
26. FILING AN APPEAL LEVEL 2
a. Level 2 is a final appeal an inmate housed at the CDF, CTF or a contracted facility who is dissatisfied with an appeal decision rendered by the Deputy Director may submit. His or her grievance to the Director within five (5) days following the receipt of a grievance appeal response.
b. The Appeal Level 2 – Director (Attachment F) shall be used for filing an appeal to the Director.
c. Appeals to the Director must be accompanied by the original grievance and appeal along with the corresponding responses. If an IGP Form 2 Appeal Level 2 – Director cannot be obtained; an inmate may submit the grievance on separate paper.
d. The Director shall respond to an inmate’s appeal within thirty (30) days of receipt of the appeal.
e. The Director shall be the final level of appeal for each inmate who files a grievance consistent with the DOC Inmate Grievance Procedure.
f. The Director’s designee shall input required data into the JACCS Appeal Log.
27. INMATE ASSISTANCE IN SUBMITTING A GRIEVANCE- An inmate may assist another inmate at the same facility in preparing a grievance or an appeal. Assistance in preparing the grievance or appeal may include an inmate writing the document for another inmate who cannot write, has limited understanding of

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 21 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 20 of 25

English, whose handwriting is not legible, or who is unable to type. The complaining inmate must sign the grievance or appeal and submit it to staff.
28. DOC PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING A GRIEVANCE
a. IGP Coordinator
1) The IGP Coordinator or designee shall collect inmate grievances from each housing unit grievance box daily, Monday through Friday.
2) The IGP Coordinator shall inform the inmate in writing:
a) Resolution of informal and formal grievances;
b) When a non-emergency grievance will receive informal resolution because the inmate failed to follow this step of the process;
c) When the matter cannot be grieved under the IGP and/or should be otherwise appropriately addressed.
d) If a grievance is not accepted as an emergency grievance the inmate must be informed that the grievance shall be treated as regular grievance.
3) The IGP Coordinator shall generate an inmate receipt using the Crystal Reports Informal Resolution Request Receipt or IGP Grievance Receipt.
4) The IGP Coordinator shall forward the inmate receipt via institutional mail.
5) The IGP Coordinator shall input required data into JACCS and DOC Data tracking, which includes but is not limited to:
a) Grievance Entry Information - The IGP Coordinator shall enter the JACCS Grievance Type Code to indicate the subject of each complaint

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 22 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 21 of 25

in order to permit efficient reporting, tracking and monitoring of informal resolution and grievances.
b) Enter new date if extension is granted.
6) Review of Information. 7) Determine if the grievance was referred for investigation. 8) The new date that a response is due when an extension has been
granted.
9) Enter Appeal Level 2 ruling into PaperClip(when applicable).
10)The IGP Coordinator shall scan the original complaint/grievance into PaperClip.
11)The IGP Coordinator shall then forward the complaint/grievance to the appropriate Department Designee for investigation and resolution.
12)The IGP Coordinator will monitor response due dates for grievances filed using the Crystal Reports IGP Grievances Due Next 7 Days and IGP Overdue Grievances features.
b. The Department Designee shall:
1) Investigate grievances. The manager shall impartially investigate each grievance and make every effort to reach a reasonable resolution.
2) Respond to Grievances.
3) Provide a written memorandum of response to the IGP Coordinator within seven (7) business days following receipt of the grievance.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 23 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 22 of 25

4) F4. Forward a written notice of the findings and the decision to the inmate. If the grievance is returned for failure to comply with administrative procedure, the Return of Grievance form (Attachment G) will be sent to the inmate.
5) In consultation with the IGP Coordinator, determines that a sufficient response to a grievance cannot be rendered within the prescribed time limitation, the following shall occur:
a. The affected inmate must be notified in writing of the need for the extension and of the specific length of the extension.
b. Otherwise, when a grievance does not receive a response within the prescribed response time, as established in this policy, the inmate may proceed to the next step in the grievance procedure.
29. EXCESSIVE FILING OF GRIEVANCES. If it is documented by the Warden or designee that an inmate is deliberately abusing the grievance system through excessive filing of grievances and/or repeated refusal to follow procedures, the Warden or designee will notify the inmate, in writing, that additional grievances will not be considered until all pending grievances have been resolved. More than five (5) active grievances is considered excessive.
If an inmate’s excessive grievance filing is determined to be a result of the inmate’s inherent intent of deception, i.e., lying, a disciplinary report shall be written by the IGP Coordinator, in accordance with PM 5300.1, Inmate Disciplinary and Administrative Housing Hearing Procedures or PM 5300.2, Juvenile Disciplinary and Administrative Housing Hearing Procedures.
30. TRANSFERS/RELEASES
a. If a grievance is submitted for response and the inmate is transferred or released from DOC custody, resolution of the grievance will continue. It will be the responsibility of the inmate to inform the IGP Coordinator of the pending release or transfer and to provide a forwarding address for the

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 24 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 23 of 25

response to be sent to. The IGP Coordinator will make every effort to forward the IGP response to a transferred or released inmate.
b. If an inmate wishes to file a grievance against either facility CDF or CTF after transfer, he/she can do so by following the DOC grievance process posted in all housing units.
31. REPORTING
a. The IGP Coordinator shall print the Crystal Report IGP Complaint Log that records all formal grievances entered in JACCS under the IGP. Not later than the 10th day of each month, a copy of this log, reflecting grievances filed during the previous month, shall be forwarded through the Warden, Deputy Wardens and Chief Case Manager..
b. Each DOC official who renders a decision on an Inmate Grievance Appeal shall enter required data in the JACCS IGP screen.
c. The IGP Coordinator shall print the Crystal Report Unresolved Grievance Log that tracks and monitors the progress of grievances remaining unresolved more than fifteen (15) business days after receipt. No later than the tenth (10th) day of each month, the Warden shall forward a copy of this log along with a Plan of Action for completion through the Deputy Director to the Director.
d. All records, logs, and reports that pertain to inmate informal resolution and grievances shall be maintained in accordance with PS 2000.2, Retention and Disposal of Department Records.
e. The Director shall provide to the Council on a quarterly basis internal reports relating to living conditions in the Central Detention Facility, including inmate informal and formal grievances and a copy of the Unresolved Grievance Logs.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 25 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 24 of 25

32. IGP EVALUATION
a. The IGP Coordinator shall submit monthly reports to the Warden that shall include, but not be limited to, IGP processing or procedural issues, emergent and systemic deficiencies, and general complaints and concerns that warrant attention.
b. The Risk Manager shall review IGP reports and conduct quarterly audits, and, in conjunction with the Warden, determine plans of action where warranted to improve safety and program performance.
c. At a minimum, the reviews described above, shall include assessments of the following operational factors:
1) Compliance with Response Time – An assessment to determine if inmate grievances are responded to within the prescribed time periods.
2) Availability of Forms – A determination of the accessibility and availability of the forms used to submit grievances.
3) Response to Grievances – An analysis to determine if appropriate responses and remedies are being provided in response to grievances.
4) Credibility of the System – An assessment of inmate knowledge of, satisfaction with, and confidence in the IGP.
5) Conclusions and Recommendations – An evaluation of the data generated through the IGP process (i.e., number of grievances, types of grievances filed, number and types of grievances by institutions). This data shall be used to develop specific conclusions and recommendations regarding Department operations and the DOC IGP.
d. Annual Statistical Summary Report. The Office of Information Technology Division shall maintain the database and provide an annual statistical

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 26 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2018

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

SUPERSEDES:

4030.1J November 15, 2016

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2019

SUBJECT:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)

NUMBER:

4030.1K

Attachments:

Attachment A - Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames

Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C - Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form

Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – Appeal Level 1 - Deputy Director Attachment F - Appeal Level 2 - Director Attachment G – Inmate Grievance Return Form

Page 25 of 25

summary of the DOC IGP and submit it to the Director. This summary shall be provided by the 21st day of October for the preceding fiscal year.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Inmate Grievance Process and Time Frames Attachment B – Inmate Request Slip Attachment C – Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form Attachment D – Crystal Report IGP Receipt Attachment E – IGP Appeal Level 1 Form (Appeal to Deputy Director) Attachment F – IGP Appeal Level 2 Form (Appeal to Director) Attachment G- Inmate Grievance Return Form

DOC/PP4030.1K/1/18/2018

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2PP74o0f303.31
Attachment A

INMATE INFORMAL RESOLUTION/GRIEVANCE PROCESS AND TIME FRAMES

NOTE: If an inmate requests a grievance or appeal form, the inmate is to be provided with the form within 1 business day of the request.

Inmate files an Informal Resolution by placing the informal resolution in the IGP box for the IGP Coordinator to record and disseminate to various departments within five (5) business days of the triggering incident or situation.

The Department Designee will respond to IGP coordinator within seven (7) business days of receipt of form. The IGP coordinator will respond to the inmate.

Inmate accepts response. Informal Resolution is resolved.

Inmate does not accept response from department designee, inmate then has five (5) business days to submit original inmate informal??? Should be formal now resolution/grievance form to the IGP Coordinator.

IGP Coordinator will conduct an investigation and respond to the inmate’s grievance within fifteen (15) business days of receipt of the form.

Inmate accepts decision and formal grievance is resolved.

The IGP Coordinator shall generate an inmate receipt utilizing the Crystal Report Informal Resolution Request Receipt.

Inmate does not accept response from the IGP Coordinator, the inmate then has five (5) business days to submit the original inmate informal??? Should be formal resolution/grievance form to the Warden through the IGP Coordinator.
The Warden will issue a response to the inmate within fifteen (15) business days of receipt of the form. If the inmate does not accept the decision then he/she can start the appeal process.

Inmate will send original form along with form-1Deputy Director Appeal to the IGP Coordinator within five (5) business days.

The Deputy Director will respond to the inmate within twenty-one (21) business days of receipt. If inmate does not accept the response then he or she will have five (5) business days to submit form 2Director Appeal to the IGP Coordinator.

The Director will respond to the inmate within twenty-one (21) business days of receipt of the form. The Director’s Response is final.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 28 of 33

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

PP 4030.1 Attachment B

INMATE REQUEST SLIP

DATE ______

NAME ___________________ DCDC_______UNIT_ __CELL____

PLEASE CHECK ( ) FOR THE SERVICES YOU ARE IN NEED OF

{ } RECORDS OFFICE { } CHAPLAINS OFFICE { } FINANCIAL ACCOUNT BALANCE { } INMATE PROPERTY { } FACE SHEET (UNAVAILABLE IF YOUR SENTENCE IS OVER 1 YEAR) { } OTHER

{ } CASE MANAGER { } INMATE CLOTHING { } LEGAL CALL { } NOTARY { } LAW LIBRARY

PLEASE EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF YOUR REQUEST BELOW

` DATE:

OFFICIAL/CASE MANAGER COMMENTS STAFF SIGNATURE:

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 29 of 33

PP 4030.1

Attachment C

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
INMATE INFORMAL RESOLUTION/GRIEVANCE FORM

TO BE COMPLETED BY INMATE GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR
GRIEVANCE NUMBER:
#________________________

STEP 1: INFORMAL RESOLUTION (To be completed by Inmate)
 Inmate has five (5) days after triggering incident to submit request.  . Place this form in the housing unit IGP box. The IGP coordinator will respond within seven (7) business days..

INMATE NAME:

DCDC#:

UNIT:

CELL:

DATE:

SELECT OFFICE/SERVICES NEEDED:

o Facility Transfer o Fire Safety and Sanitation o Program and Activities o Personal Hygiene o Case Management Services o Health Care o Communications (mail, visits, telephone,
legal)

o Property o Sentence computation, jail credit, over detention o Finance o Rules and Regulations o Staff Treatment o Food Service o Religious Services

o Facilities Management
o Discrimination o Transportation o Safety and Security o Contract Facility
o Other

PLEASE EXPLAIN NATURE OF COMPLAINT: _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________Inmate Signature:______________________
__________________ *** FOR DOC COMPLETION BELOW THIS LINE***_______________________________
ACTION TAKEN: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CASE MANAGER SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE__________________  FOR INMATE: Has this issue been resolved? YES or NO If not, please check the “NO” box and place this form in the housing unit IGP Box. Inmate has five (5) business days to submit this form back to IGP Coordinator.

S_T_E__P__2_:__F_O__R__M__A__L__I_N__M__A__T_E__G__R__I_E__V_A__N__C_E___(_IG__P COORDINATOR RESPONSE)
DATE RECEIVED:______________  Inmate Grievance Coordinator will respond to grievance within fifteen (15) business days of receipt.
ACTION TAKEN: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________
INMATE GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR SIGNATURE___________________ DATE_______________  Inmate has five (5) business days to submit a request for Administrative Remedy to the Warden.

STEP 3: REQUEST FOR WARDEN’S ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
 The Warden will issue a response to the grievance within fifteen (15) business days of receipt.

ACTION TAKEN:______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________.

WARDEN SIGNATURE________________________ DATE________________

 An Appeal - Level 1 - Deputy Director form can be filed five (5) business days of receipt after response from the Warden. This

grievance must be attached to the appeal.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 30 of 33PP 4030.1 Attachment D
CRYSTAL REPORT IGP
Receipt

Grievant's Last Name, First Name, Middle Name

DCDC#

Booking#

Institution IGP/IRC Date IGP/IRC Number IGP/IRC Code

Housing Unit
(type not specified) Subject of Complaint

Staff Recipient Name Staff Recipient Signature

The above-listed IGP or IRC has been received by the DC Department ofCorrections and will be processed in accordance with IGP/IRC policies andprocedures.

OMITS/lg: October 29,2009

I

G - IGP and IRe Receipt

The Jail and Community Corrections System (JACCS) is the sole source of all data used for this report. Records listed reflect information in JACCS as of the date and time the report is run.

Receipt printed: 6116/2014 2:0S:ISPM

District of ColumbiaCase 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 31 of 33
Department of Corrections
IGP Form 1
APPEAL Level 1 – DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Type or use ballpoint pen. If additional space is needed, attach an original and three copies.

From: LAST NAME, FIRST NAME, MIDDLE INITIAL

DCDC No.

PART A – REASON FOR APPEAL

CELL/BLOCK No.

PP 4030.1 Attachment E
FACILITY

DATE PART B – RESPONSE

SIGNATURE OF INMATE/OFFENDER

If dissatisfied with this response, you may appeal to the Director. Your appeal must be forwarded to the Director within 5 work days. To file an appeal to the Director, obtain an IGP Form 2 from your case manager and state your objections to this decision and forward a copy of this decision and any supporting documents you may have along with your appeal.

DATE

IGP No.

COMPLAINT TYPE CODE

SIGNATURE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Original – Inmate/Offender Copy Warden Copy Inmate/Offender File

District of ColumbiaCase 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20
Department of Corrections
IGP Form 2
APPEAL Level 2 - DIRECTOR

Page 32 of 33

PP 4030.1 Attachment F

Type or use ballpoint pen. If additional space is needed, attach an original and three copies.

From: LAST NAME, FIRST NAME, MIDDLE INITIAL

DCDC No.

PART A – REASON FOR APPEAL

CELL/BLOCK No.

FACILITY

DATE PART B – RESPONSE

SIGNATURE OF INMATE/OFFENDER

This is the final level of review in the DC Department of Corrections.

DATE

IGP No.

COMPLAINT TYPE CODE

SIGNATURE OF Director or Designee

Original – Inmate/Offender Copy Warden Copy Inmate/Offender File

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 33 of 33

PP 4030.1

Attachment G

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE RETURN OF GRIEVANCE FORM
State Form # 45475

TO BE COMPLETED BY THE INMATE GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR
GRIEVANCE NUMBER:
#________________________

TO: INMATE NAME AND DOC NUMBER

FACILITY:

DATE OF GRIEVANCE:

HOUSING ASSIGNMENT:

DATE GRIEVANCE RECEIVED:

DATE GRIEVANCE RETURNED:

THE ATTACHED GRIEVANCE IS BEING RETURNED TO YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR POLICY PP 4030.1, “INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES.” THIS GRIEVANCE IS BEING RETURNED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S):

_____

No indication you have attempted to resolve this grievance informally. If you have attempted to resolve this grievance informally, please include the required information regarding the action taken and the response received. If you did not attempt to resolve this grievance informally, you have five (5) business days from the date below to attempt to do so; otherwise this grievance will not be considered.

_____

This grievance concerns a Classification or Disciplinary Hearing action. These types of actions are to be appealed through their own appeal process and not through the grievance process.

_____

There is no indication that you were personally affected by a Department or facility action or policy/procedure.

_____

This grievance appears to be on behalf of a group and group grievances are not permitted.

_____

This grievance is not signed and/or dated and/or does not include your commitment name and DOC number.

_____

This grievance contains multiple issues. Grievances are to address only one (1) issue unless there is a direct relationship between multiple issues. You may submit separate grievances for the separate issues.

_____

This grievance is not legible, understandable, presented in a courteous manner .

_____

This grievance concerns an issue that cannot be resolved by the Department of Corrections because the issue is beyond the authority of the Department. This issue may be addressed to: ________________________________________

_____

This grievance/appeal was not submitted within the five (5) day time frame. Unless you can show just reason(s) for this delay, this grievance/appeal will not be reviewed.

_____

The issue in this grievance is addressed in Grievance # __________________.

_____

This grievance exceeds the number of active grievances that you are allowed to have in the system (five (5). To proceed with this grievance, you must withdraw at least one (1) currently pending grievance.

_____

Other: __________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________.

PRINTED NAME OF INMATE GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR:

SIGNATURE OF INMATE GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR:

DATE OF RESPONSE:

PROCEDURES COORDINATOR DATE OF RESPONSE
If you wish to proceed with this grievance, you have five (5) business days from the date of response to initiate an informal grievance, if not
already done, or to return the corrected grievance to the Inmate Grievance Coordinator.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-8 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT H

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-8 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 5
DECLARATION OF IESHAAH MURPHY SUPERVISING ATTORNEY AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
I, Ieshaah Murphy, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Ieshaah Murphy. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am a supervising attorney in the Trial Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (hereinafter “PDS”) and have served in this role since February 19, 2017. Prior to working as a supervising attorney, I was a staff attorney in the Trial Division at PDS. PDS is a federally funded, independent organization dedicated to representing indigent adults and children accused of crimes in the District of Columbia. My principal responsibility as a supervising trial attorney at PDS is to represent people in criminal proceedings in the District of Columbia Superior Court and to supervise the practice of PDS’s trial attorneys.
3. I represent Mr. Edwards Banks, a man who is currently incarcerated at the Central Detention Facility in the District of Columbia.
4. On March 24, 2020, I filed an emergency grievance on Mr. Banks’ behalf with Director Quincy Booth by e-mailing Director Booth an emergency grievance form signed by Mr. Banks.
5. A true and correct copy of my March 24th e-mail to Director Booth is attached to this declaration.
Executed on the 28th day of May 2020, in Washington, D.C.
_______________________________ Ieshaah Murphy Supervising Attorney Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-8 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 5

Steven Marcus
From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Ieshaah Murphy Tuesday, March 24, 2020 7:37 PM Steven Marcus FW: Edward Banks DCDC 277509 Emergency Grievance Edward Banks 277509 Emergency Grievance.pdf

From: Ieshaah Murphy Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 7:37 PM To: 'quincy.booth@dc.gov' <quincy.booth@dc.gov> Subject: Edward Banks DCDC 277509 Emergency Grievance
Hello Mr. Booth,
I represent Edward Banks. Please find attached an Emergency Grievance filed by Mr. Banks. One of my colleagues attempted to provide a copy to staff at the DC jail, but they refused to accept it.
Thank you,
Ieshaah A. Murphy Supervising Attorney | Trial Division Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20004 Direct: (202) 824-2453 | Fax: (202) 824-2896 Email: imurphy@pdsdc.org
This message may contain privileged and confidential information and/or attorney-client work product.
Confidentiality Notice The information contained in this e-mail message or in any attachments may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail message or any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and permanently delete the e-mail message and any attachments immediately. You should not retain, copy, use or disclose to any other person any part of this e-mail message or of any attachments for any purpose. Any metadata contained in any attachment was sent inadvertently and should not be examined.

1

~ M E ~ lrcN C'J ANC.f: .~~"' Case 1:20-cv-00849-CGKK'-{Docum(e,.n.t~8\9-8 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4 to>f -5\ q PP 4030.l

* * *~---·------------~ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

v,
TO BE COMPLETED BY INMATE

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
DOC INMATE INFORMAL

GR IEVANCE COORDINATOR
GRIEVANCE NUMBER:

RESOULUTION/GRIEVANCE FORM TOHFECDOERPRAEACTTMIOlliNNST ...__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.

#

STEP 1: INFORMAL RESOLUTION (To be completed by Inmate)

• Inmate has five (5) days after triggering incident to submit request.

o, • Submit this form to your housing unit Case Manager. Case Managers will respond to request within five (5) business days.

INMATE NAME: 6'\NJA

DCDC# :
d\11 ..

UNIT:
w -Z...

SELECT OFFICE/SERVICES NEEDED:

o Facility Transfer llJI Fire Safety and Sanitation o Program and Activities llJI Personal Hygiene o Case Management Services llJI Health Care >ll Communications (mail, visits, telephone,
legal)

o Property o Sentence computation, jail credit, over detention
o Finance o Rules and Regulations o Staff Treatment o Food Service

llJI Facilities Management
o Discrimination o Transportation o Safety and Security o Contract Facility
o Other

PLEASE EXPLAIN NATURE OF COMPLAINT: ~----,--,--,-----,,-.,..,-------c Durinq the COVID-19 pandemic, DOC has failed to 1) take all actions

cc----,--,cc
within its

-----,-------
power to

c,---------:-:----:---,---
reduce the inmate

- - - , - - - - - ; - ;-::--::---
population,

-

2) make sure the each inmate receives, free of charge, an indivdiual supply of hand soap for frequent handwashing; paper

towels, toilet paper. runninq water. and facial tissue. 3) *PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SHEET* Inmate Si nature:

*** FOR DOC COMPLETION BELOW THIS LINE***

ACTION TAKEN: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --

CASE MANAGER SIGNATURE

DATE_ __ _ _ __

• Inmate has five (5) business days to submit grievance to IGP Coordinator after response from Case Manager.

STEP 2: FORMAL INMATE GRIEVANCE (IGP COORDINATOR RESPONSE)
DATE RECEIVED:_ _ _ __ • Inmate Grievance Coordinator will respond to grievance within fifteen ( 15) business days of receipt.
ACTION T A K E N : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

INMATE GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR SIGNATURE_ _ _ _ _ __ DATE_ _ _ _ __ • Inmate has five (5) business days to submit a request for Administrative Remedy to the Warden.
STEP 3: WARDEN'S REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
• The Warden will issue a response to the grievance within fifteen (15) business days of receipt.
ACTION TAKEN:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WARDENSIGNATURE:----:------:------- DATE ■ An Appeal - Level I - Deputy Director form can be filed five (5) business days of receipt of response fro-m-th_e_W_ar-d-en-.-T-h-is
grievance must be attached to the appeal.

r
Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-8 Filed 05/29/20 Page 5 of 5

*Page 2 of 2* Emergency Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form For:

;>o' E>'N~~ ~N\Ji<.S -z 11
[INMATE NAME] [DCDC #]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, DOC has failed to (continued from original form): 3) provide no-touch trash cans for tissue/paper towel disposal 4) ensure access to hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol when inmates do not have access to hand soap and running water
5) provide access to showers for inmates on each unit and increased access to clean laundry 6) require that all DOC staff wear personal protective equipment, including masks and gloves 7) take each inmate ' s temperature daily to identify potential COVID-19 infections 8) verbally assess each inmate daily to identify potential COYID- 19 infections 9) conduct immediate testing for anyone displaying symptoms of COVID-19 10) provide masks for any individual displaying or reporting COVID-19 symptoms 11) communicate with inmates to provide information about COVID-19, reducing the risk of transmission, and any changes in policies or practices
12) provide inmates with an adequate supply of disinfectant hand wipes and disinfectant products effective against the virus that causes COVID-19 (at the manufacturer' s recommended concentration) to clean cells and other surfaces
13) clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces and common areas with disinfectant products effective against the virus that causes COVID-19 (at the manufacturer's recommended concentration) every two hours
14) ensure individuals identified as having or having been exposed to COVID-19 are properly quarantined in a non-punitive setting, with continued access to showers, recreation, mental health services, reading materials, and personal property
15) respond to all emergency requests for medical attention within an hour 16) increase access to unmonitored, confidential legal calls to reduce the need for defense teams to enter into the facility
17) facilitate video and telephone conferencing as an alternative to in-person court appearances 18) have a medical expert monitor the facility to assure compliance with -these conditions

~

Signature

Date

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-9 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT I

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-9 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 5
DECLARATION OF NATALIE EPPS STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE I, Natalie Epps, certify under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
1. My name is Natalie Epps. I make these statements based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am an attorney in the Parole Division at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia.
3. I represent Keon Jackson, a man who was incarcerated at the Correctional Treatment Facility in the District of Columbia in March.
4. On March 24, 2020, I filed an emergency grievance on Mr. Jackson’s behalf with Director Quincy Booth by e-mailing Director Booth Mr. Jackson’s signed emergency grievance.
5. A true and correct copy of my March 24th e-mail to Director Booth is attached to this declaration.
Executed on the 28th day of May 2020, in Washington, D.C.
/s/ Natalie Epps Natalie Epps Staff Attorney Public Defender Service for DC 633 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-9 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 5

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Natalie Lawson Tuesday, March 24, 2020 8:53 PM quincy.booth@dc.gov Keon Jackson, 334-073 Emergency Grievance Keon Jackson Emergency Grievance.pdf

Dear Director Booth,
I represent Keon Jackson, DCDC No. 334073. Attached is an Emergency Grievance filed by Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson will also provide a copy to his case manager.
Regards,
Natalie Epps, Staff Attorney Parole Division Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia

1

*

• * t=:_M'-.~lC'.a-ts--..e.~-1-1-.1.:2"1-0'r"--cwv\/--00-8c4"-9'_'-n"C-"\K,-K:1.r-.-D-\Jo~c-uNm-Cen.-t.r8L:_9.-9,_.. ._F_i,(lUe.Od'-J0"\5f'/\2tC)9:"/•2j 0\1,,~P•a".,g.,J"eitll"6.4_'fof~ 5 A

11

1
11' ,111111 1
,11l,1111 111H

DIS I RIC I ()I, COi lJMBIA

11 t11I I t •~,11'1 I 11 It fi \ tt41\,H ti

IJl·.PAR l'Ml~N I o i: ( '()Kltl C l IC IN~

!,IHI V"t l( I I llflllf•lli1' !11f/

DOC INMATE INl-'ORMAL

<rl( II VA N< l NI IMIU R

1O'MeP-O---••DNTT -• RESOULUTION/GRIEV AN(l ~ 1-"0KM

II

ST1<:r I: INFORMAL RESOLUTION (To I~ l'om1,lch1fl hy l111n11h'1
• lninote 1111~ the(~) llny, oiler 1ri~cri111_,1 incident h• " '''""t rct111,,qt
' e. • ~uhm it tlw, form tu your hnu, ing UIIII l 'o, c M1111uller t'u.,l' Mnnnj!cr, ~ ill tt•-1•111111It• 11.1q 11, Q( wlll,111 11 ~.. I h1,- 1t1p" il,i,;,

St Ll·C r OFl·ll'I JSt:RVI CFo,; NLEDI.I>

I~11t"\ I~o

, h 1cility ·1rnn-,fcr
,c I·ire !-iulcty and Sanilat ion , Program and Activitic-. ,c Personal Ilygienc c Case Management Service, • Ilcalth Care M Communications (mail. vbit'i, telephone.
lcp_JI)

, l'n,pcr1y
, o,;cnh.:ncc c11mr11tuli1111, 1nll l •l'1III 11\IN 1lt ll 11l11,,, , ' I IIHlllCC
, ({ uh:• u11d l<q1.11l11tl1111~
•• ',tun ., rc,,tnic111 , , I oc,<l 1'l•rvk c

• I 11• 1111,1,:i
M,11111wi111P11I
I }ltll "lllll/1111111 I tu11, 1,111 ,ut I•111 1).lf!->1\' U1ttl I), I IH II\! I 111!11 ,1, I I ,1, 1111 1
1 ,1111 1

PLFASI· EX PLAIN NAl URr-. OF COMPLAIN I:
,,.,q DurlnQ the COVID-19 pandemic, DOC has failed to 1) take ona CIIOIIS within llt JJOW9f to rwl,u,., llt1Ml11 ll(1(111ftt111 ,11,
,,,,,Q, 2) make_!Ure the each inmate receives, free of charge, an lndlvdluol llUppfy c,111M<l 9(.l/1JJ h,r hti1f11«.hl l,1111(l11,ief,1,,,,

JV towel§, toilet Qaper,_runnlnq wat~.r. and facial tissue. 3) 'Pl[ ASE: SlL Ar I ACIILIJ UHL LI •

\

.:71._ _ _

_

.

Juu111tr ~lguutu1 L,4-Y-J

••• FOR l>OC <,:OMPLt;TlQN Ut;LOW lJUS LINt; •♦♦

ACTION TAKF.N:

CA.Sf'. Mi\NA<itM .SU;NATI/Mf-:
• Inmate has live (5J bu~mc~s dJy'I to , uhm,t grievance 111 I<,I' ( ,,ordl11"11,1 l111t:, , ~~Jtim-. r11,,,, I •~• l'A1111,,1,, ,
STEP 2: FORMAL INMATE GRIEVANC E (U;P t;OOkUINATON ICfl,SPONNl•'. I l•A I fl. Uf1,' .-l~flfh
,v, • Inmate Gnevance Coordinator will rc<1[)(1nd 10 v 11.v1in1.e w,tlw, 1,0crn ( I ~I t,u,:i1111. ,11 ,1.,v- 1,f tf•t
ACTION TAKF.N: _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _M _ __

l'liMATF. (; Rl f'.VAN( 'f. ( 'OOJUJl!ltA rote ,ti{,•u , (, JO'

,,,,,.,1 • Inmate ha, li,e (5J bvs1oe,c; da,,~ to c:uhm,t " req11ec:t for /\1lmrr,,.,fr,1ftv~ i:,

1 11t ,1,, W"'''' 11

STEP 3: WARDE~•~ Rt:fJ (j f_,ST fOR AIJMt,f~,n kt\ I IVt . Mt\1f- h V

.,,.,1,,,. • The ~a,den \lrtll ~s.ue a r~,e 10th< llllC"lt11'l(.C

f1f11 "" I I', , t,,.., w . ,1, , ,., ,,. ..,,.,

.\CTlO~ TAKE!li :

w AfWf' " qJ(,'IA.Jf MJ'

I, -'t I J'

• Ar.~ _-,~el 1 . l)tp(,"', r)lrw,,,, ''"'"' ,,.,,~,. r•i•tJ r ,, ,- ,.,,r.:,,~. ,,7,. ,,,, ,1,,, . ,..,. ,,,,,, ,,_ " ~-· , ,

~~r..u ~ f~ ~ , o d 1,, tlle ~...: I

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 89-9 Filed 05/29/20 Page 5 of 5
*Page 2 of 2• F.mer2cncy Inmate Informal Resolution/Grievance Form For:
~eO/J -S/i«t6DN 3>>~ 01-S
IINMATE NAMEJ IDCDC #]
During the COVID-19 pandemic. DOC has failed to (continued from original form): 3) provide no-touch trash cans for tissue/paper towel disposal 4) ensure access to hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol when inmates do not have access to hand soap and running water 5) provide access to showers for inmates on each unit and increased access to clean laundry 6) require that all DOC staff wear personal protective equipment, including masks and gloves 7) take each inmate·s temperature daily to identify potential COVID-19 infections 8) verbally assess each inmate daily to identify potential COVID-19 infections 9) conduct immediate testing for anyone displaying symptoms of COVID-19 10) provide masks for any individual displaying or reporting COVID-19 symptoms 11 ) communicate with inmates to provide information about COVID-19, reducing the risk of transmission, and any changes in policies or practices 12) provide inmates with an adequate supply of disinfectant hand wipes and disinfectant products effective aga inst the virus that causes COVID-19 (at the manufacturer·s recommended concentration) to clean cells and other surfaces 13) clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces and common areas with disinfectant products effective against the virus that causes COVID-19 (at the manufacturer·s recommended concentration) every two hours 14) ensure individuals identified as having or having been exposed to COVID-19 are properly quarantined in a non-punitive setting. with continued access to showers. recreation, mental health services. reading materials. and personal property 15) respond to all emergency requests for medical attention within an hour 16) increase access to unmonitored. confidential legal calls to reduce the need for defense teams to enter into the facility 17) facilitate video and telephone conferencing as an alternative to in-person court appearances 18) have a medical expert monitor the facility to assure compliance with these conditions
(S. z</,ZO
Date

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 58

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiff,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: 20-00849 (CKK)

:

:

:

:

:

:

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LABOR

MEMORANDUM OF

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

The Fraternal Order of Police for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections

Labor Committee (FOP/DOC), through its attorneys with HANNON LAW GROUP, LLC,

respectfully present this memorandum as amicus curiae in support of the position of Plaintiffs.

BACKGROUND On May 15, 2020, Jaimie Meyer, M.D., expert witness for the Plaintiffs in the above

captioned case, submitted a declaration to the Court on behalf of Plaintiffs opining that facility-

wide testing would benefit not only the individual tested but also the population as a whole in the

facility. On May 18, 2020, this Court issued a minute order directing the DOC to explain its

Dr. Meyers is also a consultant to the

FOP/DOC. We now ask the Court to consider the additional points presented here and in the

Second Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Meyer s, attached. The FOP/DOC has been advocating

mandatory and universal testing to the DOC since early in this pandemic.

ARGUMENT

The FOP/DOC believes that DOC should adopt best practices which are designed from

objective scientific principles. As the Court is aware, some congregate settings such as jails, 1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 58
detention facilities, and nursing homes have failed to control COVID-19 infections. Facilities across the country who have failed to control COVID-19 in their populations
are now recognizing the necessity of universal testing as an effective tool to re-set the clinical picture. Universal testing has identified in alarming numbers infected but asymptomatic persons in facilities that employ them. As recently discussed in a The Marshall Project article, many facilities across the country are only testing those who develop symptoms, or are not testing other individuals inside the jail who may be positive but go undetected, like Correctional Officers or prison guards. See Cary Aspinwall & Joseph Neff, These Prison are Doing Mass testing for COVID-19 And Finding Mass Infections, THE MARSHALL PROJECT (Apr. 24, 2020), attached as Exhibit 1. This is problematic because symptom-based testing protocols will overlook asymptomatic individuals who are contagious and contribute to community spread. See id.
Universal testing is desirable for the D.C. Jail in its current situation. With this amicus curiae brief, Dr. Jamie Meyer has offered a Second Supplemental Declaration opining that the D.C. Jail would benefit from universal testing. Dr. Meyer opines that there would be inadequate data to assess all of the potential sources of transmission of COVID-19 unless staff and Correctional Officers are tested as well. Meyer Decl. ¶ 5, attached as Exhibit 2. Current DOC policy of requesting staff members to seek testing through their primary care physician is an impediment to a timely understanding of the disease in the jail. Id. at ¶ 6. Dr. Meyer further opines that universal testing at the D.C. Jail and re-testing on a regular basis would allow the DOC to more effectively manage containment efforts at the facility.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 3 of 58

Dated: May 2 , 2020

Respectfully submitted,
HANNON LAW GROUP, LLP
J. Michael Hannon, D.C. Bar #352526 333 8th Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel: (202) 232-1907 Fax: (202) 232-3704 jhannon@hannonlawgroup.com
Attorneys for the FOP/DOC

3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 4 of 58
EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 5 of 58

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 6 of 58

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 7 of 58

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 8 of 58

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 9 of 58
EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 10 of 58
Second Supplemental Declaration of Jaimie Meyer, M.D.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, I hereby declare as follows:
1. I am Dr. Jaimie Meyer, an Assistant Professor of Medicine at Yale School of Medicine and Assistant Clinical Professor of Nursing at Yale School of Nursing in New Haven, Connecticut. I am a physician who is board certified in Infectious Disease, Addiction Medicine, and Internal Medicine, with expertise in infectious diseases in prisons and jails. I previously submitted a declaration in this case dated March 29, 2020, along with a copy of my CV. I also previously provided a Supplemental Declaration on May 15, 2020, which was docketed in ECF 70-2.
2. Since my last declaration on May 15, 2020, I learned of the Court’s May 18, 2020 Minute Order, which included in relevant part, “The Court understands that DOC has decided to test all inmates who are transferred to other facilities. The DOC shall explain its position on testing inmates who are being released from custody and testing all inmates currently detained.” (Emphasis supplied). In this supplemental declaration, I urge the Court to require universal testing of everyone who resides and works in the facility, including inmates, Correctional Officers, and staff.
3. In ¶ 7 of my May 15, 2020 Supplemental Declaration, I opined that testing is critical for disease containment and beneficial, not only for the individual being tested, but also for the benefit it confers on the population writ large. I proposed “[o]ne solution to the problem of limited testing is to conduct facility-wide surveillance and test all residents and staff at least once. Surveillance testing (and, ideally retesting), enables a clinical and public health response that is informed by real data.”
4. The current gold standard for testing involves a nasal swab that looks for the genetic material of SARS-CoV-2, which is identified using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The test is FDA-approved, widely available, and has strong test characteristics, including high sensitivity and specificity (in other words, low rates of false positives and false negatives, especially in areas where the disease is highly prevalent). PCR testing would be a reasonable method for conducting facility-wide surveillance testing.
5. Testing only inmates would not identify all of the sources of infection in the facility. Not testing staff is a blind spot. As noted in CDC’s May 15, 2020 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), “Because staff members move between correctional facilities and their communities daily, they might be an important source of virus introduction into facilities.”1 The MMWR also noted that about one-half of facilities reported COVID-19 cases among staff but not among inmates. Without testing Correctional Officers and staff at the jail, there would be inadequate data to assess
1 MMWR May 15, 2020; available at: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e1.htm?s_cid=mm6919e1_w#T1_down

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 11 of 58
all of the potential sources of transmission of COVID-19. Including staff in testing efforts is an important component for the health and safety of the population at large, both inside of the facility and outside in the larger community.
6. Current DOC policy requires staff to request testing from their primary care providers if they experience symptoms consistent with COVID-19. This presents a major barrier to a timely understanding of the prevalence of disease in the facility. In contrast, broad-based testing that is inclusive of staff would allow for a comprehensive understanding of the current situation in the facility.
7. As testing becomes increasingly available in states across the U.S., congregate settings are embracing broad-based testing approaches, which is what I recommend for the D.C. Jail. In detention facilities, nursing homes, and other congregate settings that have engaged in universal testing, alarmingly high rates of COVID-19 infections were found, including among people without symptoms. One of the major challenges with this particular virus is identifying individuals who are asymptomatic but nonetheless capable of transmitting to others. At Neuse State Prison in Goldsboro, North Carolina, for example, a week after universal testing had been deployed to all inmates, 4 new cases were identified. Importantly, 90% of the newly diagnosed inmates had been asymptomatic and thus would have not otherwise qualified for testing.2 The Connecticut Department of Corrections recently employed universal testing among staff and residents and were forced to lock one facility down after identifying 105 new cases among asymptomatic inmates.3 From an objective data-driven approach, it is nearly impossible to contain or reduce transmissions of a highly infectious disease while operating in a data vacuum.
8. I further believe that universal testing of all inmates and staff would allow DOC to reset the clinical environment to overcome past problems with identifying and containing the virus. With accurate data on all inmates and staff, DOC can promptly medically isolate and marshal clinical resources for infected inmates, exclude staff from the facility who are infected so they may receive clinical care and complete home isolation, and focus use of PPE where it is most needed.
9. Broad-based testing has been addressed by the CDC in the context of nursing homes, another congregate setting with extremely high rates of infections. There, the CDC
2 Kevin Johnson, Mass virus testing in state prisons reveals hidden asymptomatic infections; fed joins effort, USA TODAY (Apr. 27, 2020, 3:04 PM), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/04/25/coronavirus-testing-prisons-revealshidden-asymptomatic-infections/3003307001/. 3 Kelan Lyons, Osborn prison on lockdown after 105 asymptomatic inmates test positive for COVID-19, The CT Mirror (May 15, 2020), https://ctmirror.org/2020/05/15/osborn-prison-onlockdown-after-105-asymptomatic-inmates-test-positive-for-covid-19/.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 12 of 58
recommends all nursing homes and staff be tested.4 In a familiar context, Judge Randolph Moss recently found in the case of Costa v. Barzon, Case 1:19-cv-03185RDM, ECF 82 (D.D.C.), that a point prevalence survey should include staff as well as patients at Saint Elizabeth’s Hospital.
10. I am advised by the Fraternal Order of Police, Department of Corrections Labor Committee, that there is no evidence of effective contact tracing among staff, despite the Open Letter of Director Booth, dated May 5, 2020. I am advised that DOC has refused the requests of the Labor Committee to provide information on which staff: (1) have been infected; or (2) have been in “close contact” with an infected inmate or other staff member. Contact tracing is not effective without sharing such data. Both the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Health & Human Services authorizes the sharing of such information in correctional settings,5 as does DOC’s own Program Manual, No. 1300.3B, “Health Information Privacy (HIPAA), December 19, 2020, attached as Exhibit A. With the sharing of such data, along with universal testing, the spread of COVID-19 infection in the D.C. Jail can be effectively contained.
11. In addition to baseline broad-based testing, I would also recommend re-testing on a regular basis. Optimally, re-testing at reasonable intervals would serve two purposes: (1) accommodate and protect against false negatives which are possible in asymptomatic individuals; and (2) accommodate turnovers in the inmate population. Given that the duration of active infection and contagiousness is 10-14 days, it would be reasonable to retest everyone who resides and works in the facility at least monthly as resources are available.
12. Finally, both amici curiae and the Labor Committee report a high level of unrest and anxiety at the Jail among both inmates and staff. Understanding that the DOC has a coherent policy of universal testing, combined with defined actions applying the resultant data, would assist in alleviating these anxieties and send a clear message of consistency.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
_______________________ Dr. Jaimie Meyer May 22, 2020
Wilton, Connecticut
4 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION: PERFORMING FACILITY-WIDE SARS-COV-2 TESTING IN NURSING HOMES (May 19, 2020). 5 https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/covid-19-hipaa-and-first-responders-508.pdf

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 13 of 58
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 14 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
PROGRAM MANUAL

EFFECTIVE DATE: SUPERSEDES:
OPI: REVIEW DATE:

December 19, 2019

Page 1 of 43

1300.3A January 18, 2018

FOIA

December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

Approving

Quincy L. Booth

Authority

Director

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPAA)

NUMBER: Attachments:

1300.3B Attachment 1 Designated Record Sets Attachment 2 Access to Application

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Change Minor changes made throughout.

APPROVED: Signature on File
____________________________ Quincy L. Booth, Director

_________12/19/19_________ Date Signed

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 15 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 3 of 43

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE. To provide uniform guidelines for the implementation of the District of Columbia Health Information Privacy and Security Policies, and the Security and Privacy Rules of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH Act) and its Final Rules.

2. POLICY. It is the policy of the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC) that the DOC maintain full compliance with HIPAA by seeking to maintain the confidentiality and

the health care industry to more efficiently process healthcare claims and certain other related transactions. To this end, DOC shall provide guidelines to establish sound and appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards against any reasonably anticipated unauthorized use or disclosure, or any reasonably anticipated threat or hazard to the privacy, security or integrity of protected health information (PHI).

3. APPLICABILITY. The policy applies to DOC employees, contractors, volunteers, visitors and inmates as well as to DOC business associates and their employees.

4. NOTICE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION

a. In accordance with the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, D.C.

Official Code § 2-1401.01 et seq., (

the Act ), the District of

Columbia does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national

origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation,

gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities,

matriculation, political affiliation, genetic information, disability, source of

income, status as a victim of an intrafamily offense, or place of residence or

business. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination which is also

prohibited by the Act. Discrimination in violation of the Act will not be

tolerated. Violators will be subject to disciplinary action.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 16 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 4 of 43

5. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

a. To safegaurd the confidentiality, integrity, and authorized availability of all protected health information that DOC creates, receives, maintains or transmits.

b. To protect against any reasonably anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such information.

c. To protect against any reasonably anticipated uses or disclosures of such information that are not permitted or required under the HIPAA.

d. Protected health information shall be used, stored and disclosed in accordance with HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules as implemented in this directive.

e. All employees shall receive appropriate training in what constitutes protected health information and guidance on the appropriate use and disclosure of PHI.

f. Each designated record set that is maintained shall be identified and the titles of persons or offices responsible for receiving and processing access requests shall be identified. Documentation shall be maintained and recorded on the DOC Designated Record Set form (Attachment 1).

6. DIRECTIVES AFFECTED

a. Directives Rescinded

1) PM 1300.3A

Health Information Privacy (HIPAA) (1/18/18)

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 17 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 5 of 43

b. Directives Referenced

1) PP 2420.4 2) SOP 2420.8-17

Email and Internet Use Disaster Recovery Plan

7. AUTHORITY
a. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Pub. L. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936, 45 C.F.R. Parts 160, 162 & 164.
b. Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act), 42 USC §17921 et seq.
c. D.C. Code §7-242 (Use and Disclosure of Health and Human Services Information.)
d. D.C. Code §7-1605 (Confidentiality of Medical Records and Information.)
e. D.C. Code §7-1201 et seq. (Confidentiality of Mental Health Information.)
f. D.C. §22-3903 (HIV Testing of Certain Criminal Offenders, Rules)
g. 42 U.S.C. §290dd-2 (Confidentiality of Substance Abuse Treatment Records.)

8. STANDARDS REFERENCED. American Correctional Association 4th Edition Performance Based Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities: 4-ALDF-4D-14
9. EXCLUSIONS
a. Employment Records. Health information in employment records held by DOC in its role as employer is not subject to this policy. DOC shall continue to use and disclose DOC employee records in accordance with DPM Chapter

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 18 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 6 of 43

Management and P regulations, policy and procedure.

b. Educational Records. Educational records are subject to the protection of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, as amended, 20 U.SC. 1232g.

c. Security Restrictions for Inmates. Inmates shall be given the opportunity to inspect their PHI unless a determination is made, on a case-by-case basis, that the safety of inmates or staff may thereby be jeopardized.

d. Copy Restrictions for inmates. Inmates shall not be permitted to keep with them a copy of their PHI while they are in the custody of the DOC, because to do so would jeopardize the physical safeguards of the documents and may risk the health, safety, security, custody, or rehabilitation of the inmate or other inmates, or the safety security or order of the facility or staff persons.

e. Privacy Practices Notice. HIPAA excludes Correctional/Jail facilities from privacy Practices Notice requirement.

f. Psychotherapy Notes. never be disclosed to anyone, with or without authorization, except in litigation brought by the individual against the mental health professional alleging malpractice or wrongful disclosure of mental health information. As a precaution, these notes shall be official record of mental health information so as to avoid incidental disclosure in connection with an otherwise valid disclosure of the records.

10. DEFINITIONS

a. Access. To inspect and/or obtain a copy of protected health information. As additionally applied to electronic protected health information, ability or the means necessary to read, write, modify, or communicate data/information or otherwise use any system resource.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 19 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 7 of 43

b. Administrative Safeguards. Administrative actions, and policies and procedures, to manage the selection, development, implementation, and maintenance of security measures to protect electronic protected health information and to manage the conduct of th relation to the protection of that information.

c. Agency. The D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC), designated as a health care component of the District of Columbia, a hybrid entity.

d. Authorization. A document signed and dated by an individual (or his representative) who authorizes use and disclosure of protected health information for a stated reason other than treatment, payment or health care operations. An authorization shall, at a minimum, further contain a description of the protected health information, the names or class or persons permitted to make a disclosure, the names or class of persons to whom the covered entity may disclose, an expiration date or event, an explanation of the individual a statement about potential re-disclosures.

e. Breach. The unauthorized acquisition, access, use, or disclosure of PHI in a manner which compromises the security or privacy of the PHI, except where an unauthorized person to whom the PHI is disclosed would not reasonably have been able to retain the PHI.

f. Business Associate (BA). A person or entity which , on behalf of DOC/District government, creates, receives, maintains or transmits protected health information for a function or activity for the DOC/District government, including claims processing or administration, data analysis, processing or administration. A subcontractor that does the same on behalf of a BA is equally subject to the HIPAA business associate provisions. BA may include Patient Safety Organizations, Health Information Organizations, E-Prescribing Gateways, protected health information data transmission service providers with routine access to protected health information and vendors of personal health records with access to protected health information that offer access to individuals on behalf of covered entities.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 20 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 8 of 43

g. Business Associate Agreement. A contract between a covered entity and a business associate that 1) establishes the permitted and required uses and disclosures of PHI by the business associate, 2) provides that the business associate shall use PHI only as permitted by the contract or as required by law, use appropriate safeguards, report any disclosures not permitted by the contract, sets forth that agents to whom it provides PHI shall abide by the same restrictions and conditions, make PHI available to individuals and make its record available to US Department of Health and Human Services, 3) authorizes termination of the contract by the Department if the Department determines that there has been a violation of the contract.

h. Covered Entity. A health plan, health care clearinghouse or a health care provider who electronically transmits any covered transactions.

i. Covered Component. DOC: a designee of a Covered Entity.

j. Designated Record Set. A group of records maintained by or for a covered entity that maintain the medical records and billing records about individuals maintained by or for a covered health care provider, b) the enrollment, payment, claims adjudication, and case or medical management record systems maintained by or for a health plan, or c) used, in whole or in part, by or for the covered entity to make decisions about individuals. (Attachment 1).

k. Disclosure: Release, transfer, provision of access to, or divulging of PHI outside of DOC.

l. Encryption. The use of an algorithmic process to transform data into a form in which there is a low probability of assigning meaning without use of a confidential process or key.

m. Hybrid entity. District of Columbia: a single legal entity which is a covered entity, whose business activities include both covered and non-covered functions and designates health care components.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 21 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 9 of 43

n. Individual. The person who is the subject of PHI.

o. Information System. An interconnected set of information resources under the same direct management control that shares common functionality. A system normally includes hardware, software, information, data, applications, communications and people.

p. Integrity. The property that data or information have not been altered or destroyed in an unauthorized manner.

q. Law enforcement official. An officer or employee of any agency or authority of the United States, a State, a territory, a political subdivision of a State or territory, or an Indian tribe, who is empowered by law to investigate or conduct an official inquiry into a potential violation of law, or prosecute or otherwise conduct a criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding arising from an alleged violation of law.

r. Malicious software or malware. Software, such as a virus, designed to damage or disrupt a system.

s. Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The Office for Civil Rights, that part of the US

Privacy and Security Rules.

t. Psychotherapy notes. Notes recorded (in any medium) by a health care provider who is a mental health professional documenting or analyzing the contents of conversation during a private counseling session or a group, joint, or family counseling session and that are separated from the rest of the Psychotherapy notes excludes medication prescription and monitoring, counseling session start and stop times, the modalities and frequencies of treatment furnished, results of clinical tests, and any summary of the following items: diagnosis, functional status, the treatment plan, symptoms, prognosis, and progress to date.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 22 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 10 of 43

u. Protected Health Information/Electronic (PHI & EPHI). Health information that a covered entity [or covered component] creates or receives that identifies an individual and relate to past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition, which may be 1) oral (e.g., clinical conversation at nursing station, physician-family or physician-patient conversation at beside), 2) written/printed (e.g., medical record, surgery schedule, billing statement,

digitally stored z-ray images, clinical photograph, patient information sent via text or email).

v. Public health authority. An agency or authority of the United States, a State, a territory, a political subdivision of a State or territory, or an Indian tribe, or a person or entity acting under a grant of authority from or contract with such public agency, including the employees or agents of such public agency or its contractors or persons or entities to whom it has granted authority, that is responsible for public health matters as part of its official mandate.

w. Physical safeguard. Physical measures, policies, and procedures to protect

equipment, from natural and environmental hazards, and unauthorized intrusion.

x. Required by law. A mandate contained in law that compels an entity to make a use or disclosure of protected health information and that is enforceable in a court of law, which includes, but is not limited to, court orders and courtordered warrants, subpoenas or summons issued by a court, grant jury, a governmental or tribal inspector general, or an administrative body authorized to require the production of information; a civil or an authorized investigative demand; Medicare conditions of participation with respect to health care providers participating in the program; and statutes or regulations that require the production of information, including statutes or regulations that require such information if payment is sought under a government program providing public benefits.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 23 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 11 of 43

y. Technical Safeguard. The technology and the policy and procedures for its use that protect electronic protected health information and control access to it.

z. TPO. Treatment, payment and [health care] operations, three categories of uses and disclosures that Covered Entities can generally make without a patient authorization.

aa. Use. The sharing, employment, application, utilization, examination, or analysis of PHI within DOC.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 24 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 12 of 43

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Purpose and Scope

Page 2

Policy

Page 2

Applicability

Page 2

Notice of Non-Discrimination

Page 2

Program Objectives

Page 3

Directives Affected and Referenced

Page 3

Authority

Page 4

Standards Referenced

Page 4

Exclusions

Page 4

Definitions

Page 4-10

Table of Contents

Page 11-13

Introduction

Page 14

Chapter 1

Privacy Rule

Page 16

Access to PHI

Page 16

Amendments of PHI

Page 16

Accountings of Disclosures

Page 17

Rights to Restrictions of Uses and Disclosures

Page 17

Chapter 2

Complaints about Uses & Disclosures of PHI

Page 19

Chapter 3

Security Rule

Page 20

Administrative Safeguards

Page 20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 25 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 13 of 43

Sanctions Security Responsibility Information System Workforce Security/Clearance Authorization and/or Supervision Employee Separation Security Monitoring and Protection Reporting of, and Response to Security Incidents Contingency/Disaster Plan Data Backup Plan Disaster Recovery Plan Emergency Mode Testing and Revision Application and Data Criticality Analysis Periodic & Triggered Evaluations Policy Business Associates and Agreements Physical Safeguards Facility Security Plan Facility Contingency Plan Facility Maintenance Records Workstation Use and Security

Page 20 Page 20 Page 20 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 25 Page 26 Page 26 Page 26 Page 27 Page 27 Page 27 Page 29 Page 30 Page 30 Page 30 Page 31 Page 31 Page 32

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 26 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 14 of 43

Device and Media Protection

Page 32

Technical Safeguards

Page 34

Unique User and Password

Page 34

Emergency Access Procedure

Page 35

Automatic Logoff

Page 36

Acceptable Encryption

Page 36

Audit Controls

Page 37

Data Integrity

Page 38

Persons or Entity Authentication

Page 39

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 27 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 15 of 43

INTRODUCTION

The health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), passed by Congress and signed into law in 1996, went into effect on July 1, 1997. Its privacy rules established standards for the protection, privacy, security, disclosure and nondisclosure of health information about individuals. Requirement to comply with the
are also the HIPAA security regulations, which established standards for ensuring the integrity, confidentiality and availability of electronically managed health information. Final HIPAA security regulations were published on February 20, 2005. Most recently, the American recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 became law on February 17, 2009, part of which is the Health information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the HITECH Act). The HITECH Act both expands the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules and increases the penalties for violations of HIPAA.

DOC is a component of a

y

rict of Columbia government),

which provides the following services to its inmate population through business

associates: health care (Unity health Care, Inc.), food service (ARAMARK), and security

(Corrections Corporation of America (CCA)). Under HIPAA Privacy Rules, DOC,

CCA/CTF and ARAMARK shall put appropriate administrative, technical and physical

safeguards in place to protect the privacy of protected health information about inmates

and employees. DOC, CCA/CTF and ARAMARK shall maintain policies, procedures

and practices to enforce HIPAA privacy rules.

Only designated employees with particular job functions are authorized to use and

disclose

-force, shall

be responsible for learning and understanding the parts of the rule that generally govern

the agency; and where applicable, specifically affects their compliance during daily

performance of their individual duties.

1. DOC Privacy Officer Roles and Responsibility. The Privacy Officer is responsible for:

a. Understanding the HIPAA Privacy Rule and how it applies within the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC).

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 28 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 16 of 43

b. Developing policies and procedures for the implementation of the HIPAA Privacy Rule, and monitoring compliance with the policies and procedures.

c. HIPAA Privacy Rule.

d. Developing and implementing HIPAA privacy training for employees of the DOC.

e. Notifying the HIPAA Security Officer of a Business Associate Agreement that implicates EPHI prior to the effective date of the agreement.

f. Receiving and responding to complaints of alleged non-compliance with HIPPA Privacy Rule.
2. HIPAA Security Officer Roles and Responsibility. The HIPAA Security Officer shall be responsible for understanding the HIPAA Security Rule and how it applies within the DOC, and, in collaboration with the Privacy Officer, his duties shall include:
a. The development of policies and procedures for the implementation of the HIPAA Security Rule, and monitoring compliance with the policies and procedures.
b. Overseeing the security of EPHI maintained by DOC.
c. Periodic assessments to determine any need for agency Security policy modifications.
d. Responding to actual or suspected breaches in the confidentiality or integrity of EPHI.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 29 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 17 of 43

CHAPTER 1

PRIVACY RULE

1. INMATE ACCESS TO PHI

a. All access requests shall be forwarded to the DOC Privacy Officer, who shall provide a response.

b. Inmates in the custody of the DOC shall not keep a copy of their medical records with them during the period of their incarceration because to do so would not ensure appropriate physical safeguards of the documents and may jeopardize the health, safety, security, custody, or rehabilitation of the inmate or other inmates, or the safety, security or order of the facility or staff persons. They may, however, authorize disclosure of the records to a third party outside the agency.

c. The cost of copying the records shall be 25 cents per page, chargeable to the requester.

d. If an access request is denied, notice of denial shall include: a) basis for denial, b) procedure by which the requester may appeal the denial, and c) the procedure by which the patient may file a complaint with the Secretary of HHS.

2. AMENDMENTS OF PHI

a. All requests for an amendment of PHI shall be written and addressed to the DOC Privacy Officer, to include reason(s) justifying amendment and an authorization that identifies parties that should be notified of the amendment.

b. A final decision on the request shall be made within 60 days of the request.

c. If the request is granted, the DOC Privacy Officer shall promptly notify the requester and the parties identified in the request.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 30 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 18 of 43

d. If the request is denied, the DOC Privacy Officer shall notify the requester in

and/or complaint to the Secretary of HHS.

3. ACCOUNTINGS OF DISCLOSURES

a. A request for accounting shall be written and addressed to the DOC Privacy Officer who shall provide a response within 60 days of receipt.

b. Accounting shall cover disclosures made within 6 years of the date request for accounting was received.

c. Accounting shall not include disclosures that the Privacy Rule does not require to be documented.

d. An accounting shall include a) date of disclosure, b) name and, if known, the address of the person or entity to whom the disclosure was made, c) description of the PHI disclosed, and d) purpose for the disclosure.

e. DOC Privacy Officer shall suspend the right to an accounting if the agency has received a documented notice from a health oversight committee or a law

activities.

f. A written record of suspension of right to an accounting shall be maintained

4. RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL (INMATE) TO REQUEST RESTRICTIONS OF USES AND DISCLOSURES
a. A request for restrictions of uses and disclosures shall be written and addressed to the DOC Privacy Officer, who shall provide a response.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 31 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 19 of 43

b. If the request is granted, the DOC Privacy Officer shall provide a written notice of the grant to the requester and a copy of the notice, together with the written request, shall be maintained along with records.

c. A grant of uses and disclosures restriction does not apply to emergency treatment need.

5. DATA SHARING

a. Data shall be collected and shared on the basis of privacy, security, transparency, legal conformity, data protection and accountability considerations.

b. Any data sharing proposal, either by agreement or other means, shall be reviewed for HIPAA conformance by the Privacy Officer and the General Counsel prior to execution.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 32 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 20 of 43

CHAPTER 2

INMATE COMPLAINTS ABOUT USES & DISCLOSURES OF PHI

1. An inmate complaint about uses and disclosures of PHI shall be written and addressed to the DOC Privacy Officer, and question about filing a privacy complaint with the agency or with the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary may be directed to the DOC Privacy Officer.

2. The DOC Privacy Officer shall log the complaint, noting receipt date, substance of the complaint and other pertinent information.

3. The DOC Privacy Officer shall investigate the complaint and produce an investigation report and, in collaboration with the DOC Office of Human Resource, determine appropriate sanction, if found that violation occurred.

4. Once the investigation has been completed and closed, the DOC Privacy Officer shall provide a written notice of the investigation outcome to the complainant.

5. Retaliation against a complainant or anyone that assisted in the filing the complaint is prohibited.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 33 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 21 of 43

CHAPTER 3

SECURITY RULE

1. ADMINISTRATIVE SAFEGUARD. The procedures below shall be followed. a. SANCTION

1)

Electronic Protected Health Information Database

shall ll be subject to disciplinary action.

2) Action may range from verbal warnings to termination and referral for criminal prosecution, depending on the nature and circumstances of the violation.

3) All employees that are given access also assume the responsibility to be familiar with the HIPAA policy.

2. HIPAA SECURITY

RESPONSIBILITY

a. The Chief of the Office of Information Technology (IT) shall serve as HIPAA Security Officer and, in collaboration with the Privacy Officer, develop as well as implement HIPAA security guidelines, which shall include:

1) Training of employees on the purpose and requirements of the HIPAA policy and Security Rule.

2) Periodic assessments to determine any need for agency HIPAA policy modifications.

3. INFORMATION SYSTEM

a. The HIPAA Security Officer or designee shall:

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 34 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 22 of 43

1) Monitor all systems applications involving ePHI and routinely review for overall compliance purposes to discourage, detect, and/or prevent security violations. (Attachment 2)

2) Identify, investigate, report, document, and respond to all suspicious events and/or inappropriate activity.

3) Ensure that all audit logs from systems application concerning ePHI shall capture information and events which may include:

a) Machine startup and shutdown.

b) Successful/unsuccessful login and logout of users.

c) Add, modify, or delete actions on all data files.

d) Use of all privileged accounts and utilities.

e) Changes to user accounts or privileges.

f) Automatic logout of a user after exceeding a locally defined time of inactivity or excessive login attempts.

g) Software or hardware modification.

h) All access to security files, attributes, and/or parameters.

i) Detection of a virus.

j) Changes to log files.

k) Detectable hardware and software errors.

l) Network ling failures.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 35 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 23 of 43

m) Overrides of network abnormality alarms and alerts, and

n) Changes to network security configuration.

4) Develop audit logs shall contain:

a) Date

b) Time

c) Any applicable error

d) The user identification of the person who caused the event

e) The application(s) that created the audit event

f) The application(s) responsible for executing the event

g) The DOC Workstation that initiated the event and the location thereof, and

h) A detailed description of the event.

5) Conduct monitoring and review process, which shall include an audit of system activity and the associated reports at a level commensurate with the criticality of the systems application in question.

6) Retain any and all documentation pertaining to the review of audit logs for six (6) years.

4. WORKFORCE SECURITY/CLEARANCE a. All employees shall be adequately screened during the hiring process.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 36 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 24 of 43

b. The screening process may include character references, professional license validation, criminal background check, and/or confirmation of academic and/or professional qualifications.

c. The type of screening performed shall be determined by DOC Human Resource Management (DOC HR) personnel based upon a risk analysis relevant to the level of access being authorized.

d. When defining a position, DOC HR personnel shall identify the security responsibilities and supervision required for the position.

5. AUTHORIZATION AND/OR SUPERVISION
a. Only authorized employees, and those who have a need to know because of their job assignments, shall have access to PHI.
b. Each manager requires that employees within his or her purview receive training in:
1) Appropriate use of PHI access rights, inclusive of password management.
2) Level of PHI access required to perform the essential functions for the job
3) Authenticating into the system
4) Level of access authorized and granted to employee including any modifications thereto, and/or the termination thereof, shall be routinely documented.
5) Access shall be promptly modified or terminated consistent with the minimum level necessary for the individual to complete his or her job duties. Action taken shall be documented.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 37 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 25 of 43

6) Any potential violation of this policy shall be promptly reported to the HIPAA Security Officer, who shall, without delay, take actions to remedy and mitigate.

6. EMPLOYEE SEPARATION

a. Upon access, to all agency information systems, networks, system applications, and/or physical locations which contain PHI shall be immediately terminated. If the separation is by termination or willing resignation, the revocation of access right shall be effected prior to the (Attachment 2).

b. The HIPAA Security Officer or designee shall document separation to confirm that:

1) Portable computers, peripherals, and/or files were collected
2) Keys, tokens and/or cards that allow physical or information systems access were collected
3) The former employee has been removed from access lists and/or global email lists
4) Any and all user accounts for the former employee have been removed from the information system(s), and
5) Physical locks and/or keys, if necessary, have been changed.

c. Within 1 business day of the separation, the HIPAA Security Officer or designee shall confirm all physical and systems access to PHI has been revoked, disabled, and/or removed through the appropriate test procedures.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 38 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 26 of 43

d. Records documenting the termination processing outlined in this policy shall be maintained for a minimum of six (6) years.

7. SECURITY MONITORING AND PROTECTION

a. Employees whose job duties could potentially require access to PHI shall receive training in awareness of HIPAA, to include: risk areas, access granting and revocation procedures, access levels, password management, virus protection, identifying and reporting security breaches, and associated disciplinary procedures.

b. Passwords are required and shall be changed routinely and as outlined in the DC Government/OCTO Web Mail programs. Employees shall maintain their

c. All system users shall report any suspicious activity, such as sharing confidential agency data and using systems in a way that is not compliant with security procedures.
8. REPORTING OF, AND RESPONSE TO SECURITY INCIDENTS
a. If a security incident occurred, each employee that was involved in, or witnessed the incident shall submit a written report of the incident to both the Privacy Officer and the HIPAA Security Officer. The HIPAA Security Officer shall take appropriate steps to resolve the incident.
b. A log of security incidents shall be maintained by the HIPAA Security Officer, to include:
1) A detailed description of the security incident
2) Time and date reported

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 39 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 27 of 43

3) Time and date of the occurrence

4) The name of the individual who reported the incident, and

5) The employee assigned to resolve the incident.

c. The HIPAA Security Officer shall maintain records of security incidents for a minimum of six (6) years.

9. CONTINGENCY/DISASTER PLAN

a. DATA BACKUP PLAN. The Office of Information Technology (IT) shall maintain servers in the Computer Room and perform local and remote backup each night on key servers. IT shall conduct daily review of backup logs to confirm successful operations were performed in accordance with The following procedures shall be followed when backing up data:

1) All ePHI shall be stored on network servers in order for it to be automatically backed up by the system.

2) ePHI shall not be saved on the local C-drive of any workstation.

3) ePHI stored on portable media shall be saved to the network to create a backup of the ePHI.

4) The Data Backup shall apply to all files that may contain ePHI.

5) Data Backup shall be tested on at least an annual basis so the exact copies of ePHI can be retrieved and made available.

b. DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN. The Department of Corrections shall perform routine backup and disaster recovery and continuity of operations.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 40 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 28 of 43

ePHI application, files and data shall be backed up regularly in accordance with SOP 2420.8 to enable recovery in the event of disaster or other disruption of computing services.

c. MASS MEDIA COVERAGE. The DOC Office of Government and Public Affairs (OGPA) shall coordinate requests for information regarding the release of official government information. Any dissemination of information such as HIPPA, access to medical, mental health shall be approved by the FOIA Officer and OGPA. HIPPA information is protected and privileged.

10. EMERGENCY MODE

a. The HIPAA Security Officer shall set up an emergency mode operation plan, outlining the procedure to follow in order to protect the security of ePHI during and immediately after a crisis.

b. The procedure shall be tested periodically.

11. TESTING AND REVISION

a. Testing procedures shall be developed for the data backup, disaster recovery, and emergency mode operations plan, and the testing shall be conducted on a periodic basis so that critical business processes can continue in a satisfactory manner even if primary delivery method is unavailable at a particular time.

b. The HIPAA Security Officer shall verify that each system that collects, maintains, uses, or transmits ePHI has a documented testing and revision plan.

12. APPLICATION AND DATA CRITICALITY ANALYSIS

a. In the event of a disaster or emergency, criticality analysis shall be done as a basis of disaster recovery plan for the recovery prioritization of ePHI and ePHI systems.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 41 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 29 of 43

b. Critical areas of the business that shall be assessed include: 1) Critical business functions

2) Critical infrastructure

3) Critical ePHI or records

c. The specific components of applications and data criticality analysis shall include:

1) Network architecture diagrams and system flowcharts that show current structure, equipment addresses, communication providers and system interdependencies
2) Identification and analysis of key applications and systems used to support critical business processes.

3) A prioritized list of key applications and systems and their recovery time objectives.

4) Documented results of an analysis of the internal and external interfaces with key applications and systems.

5) Adequate redundancies within the network infrastructures to reduce or eliminate single points of failure.

6) Mitigating controls or work-around procedures in place and tested for single points of failure that are unable to be eliminated.

d. Criticality of specific applications and data relative to each area where PHI is stored shall be assessed for the purpose of developing data backup plan, disaster recovery plan and emergency mode operation plan. This shall be done periodically, at least annually, to verify that appropriate procedures are in place for data and applications at each level of risk.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 42 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 30 of 43

13. PERIODIC & TRIGGERED EVALUATIONS REQUIREMENTS

a. DOC shall undertake periodic evaluations of its security safeguards to determine the extent of compliance with the standards implemented under the HIPAA Security Rule. In addition, an evaluation shall specifically be undertaken if there is an environmental or operational change that could impact the confidentiality, integrity, and/or availability of ePHI, such as:

1) Known security incidents or breaches

2) Significant new threats or risks to the security of ePHI

3)

rastructure

4) Changes to information security requirements or responsibilities, and

5) New security technologies that are available and new security recommendations.

6) The evaluation shall be conducted by the HIPAA Security Officer or designee, and/or certified by a third party.

b. An evaluation shall include reasonable and appropriate activities, such as:

1) A review of D HIPPA to evaluate its appropriateness and efficacy in protecting against any reasonably anticipated threats or hazards to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability or ePHI.

2)

HIPPA policy against actual practices.

3) An identification of current and/or potential threats and risks to ePHI and ePHI Systems.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 43 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 31 of 43

4) An ass and appropriate protections against the risks identified for ePHI Systems.
5) determine whether such has been implemented properly and whether those controls and processes appropriately protect ePHI. An authorized workforce member shall be designated to conduct the testing.

c. The evaluation process and outcome shall be documented and the report maintained by the HIPAA Security Officer.

d. If warranted by the result of the evaluation, HIPAA security policy shall be updated.

14. BUSINESS ASSOCIATES AND AGREEMENTS

a. The General Counsel shall determine the legal sufficiency of the HIPAA eements (BAA),
Memorandua of Understanding (MOU) and Memoranda of Agreement (MOA).

b. The DOC Privacy Officer shall have access to the database of all BAA/MOU/MOA and determine which should have HIPAA Clause inserted into them.

c. Physical Safeguards

1) Facility Security Plan

a) DOC shall safeguard facilities and equipment containing its PHI against unauthorized physical access, tampering and theft, and periodic auditing shall be conducted to confirm that safeguards are continuously maintained.

b) Each such facility shall be locked at all times, and accessible by computerized keypad only to employees with need of access and with access code.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 44 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 32 of 43

15. FACILITY CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
a. Each facility that contains ePHI shall have emergency access procedures in place that allow facility access for appropriate workforce members to access ePHI as well as support restoration of lost ePHI.
b. The workforce members with emergency access shall include a primary contact person and back-up person when facility access is necessary after business hours by persons who do not currently have access to the facility outside of regular business hours.
16. FACILITY ACCESS CONTROLS AND VALIDATION PROCEDURES
a. resources without an authorization.
b. The HIPAA Security Officer shall maintain a record of all physical or system access authorizations.
c. All system users, including technical maintenance personnel, shall receive system security awareness training.
d. All end user personnel shall sign an End User Policy Notification Form.
e. The HIPAA Security Officer shall periodically review PHI access levels granted to each end user and process access termination as necessary.
17. FACILITY MAINTENANCE RECORDS
a. Repairs or modifications to the physical building for each facility where ePHI can be accessed shall be logged and tracked.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 45 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 33 of 43

b. The log shall include at a minimum events that are related to security (for example, repairs or modifications of hardware, walls, doors, and locks).

18. WORKSTATION USE AND SECURITY

a. All workstations used by workforce members to access ePHI shall be set to automatically lock the computer when it is left unattended, necessitating the user to enter a password to unlock the workstation.

b. The standard setting for the computer to lock after a period of inactivity is not to exceed 15 minutes, with a recommended inactivity timeout of 5 minutes.

c. Users with access to ePHI shall:

1) Manually lock their workstation computer using the Ctrl-Alt-Delete-Enter keys when the computer is left unattended for any period of time.

2) Adequately shield observable confidential information from unauthorized disclosure and access on computer screens.

3) Protect printed versions of ePHI that have been transmitted via fax or multi-use machines by promptly removing documents from shared devices.

19. DEVICE AND MEDIA PROTECTION

DOC shall protect all hardware and electronic media that contain ePHI. These

electronic media include: computers, laptops, personal digital assistants (PDAs),

such as

, and smartphones, USB drives, backup tapes, CDs, flash

drives and memory keys/cards.

a. Portable Media Security

1) DOC shall protect all hardware and electronic media that contain ePHI. These electronic media include: computers, laptops, personal digital

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 46 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 34 of 43

assistants (PDAs), such as

and smartphones, USB drives,

backup tapes, CDs, flash drives and memory keys/cards.

2) ePHI that is contained in portable electronic media shall be encrypted so that access to the ePHI can only be attained by authorized individuals with knowledge of the decryption code.

3) Workforce members shall limit the quantity of ePHI on portable electronic media to the minimum necessary for the performance of their duties.

4) All workforce members shall receive permission from their supervisor before transporting ePHI outside of the secured physical perimeter of the DOC facilities.

5) Portable media that contain ePHI shall not be left visible in vehicles or any other unsecured location.

6) Loss of portable media shall immediately be reported to a supervisor and/or the HIPAA Security Officer.

b. Electronic Media Disposal - Prior to disposition:

1) Hard drives shall be either wiped clean by IT or destroyed to prevent recognition or reconstruction of the information, and the hard drive tested to verify the information cannot be retrieved.

2) PDAs shall have all stored ePHI erased or shall be physically destroyed.

3) Storage media, such as backup tapes, USB flash drives and CDs, shall be physically destroyed (broken into pieces) before disposing of the item.

c. Electronic Media Reuse

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 47 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 35 of 43

1) All ePHI shall be removed from hard drives when the equipment is transferred to a worker who does not require access to the ePHI, and hard drives shall be wiped clean by IT before transfer.

2) All other media shall have all the ePHI removed and tested to confirm the

being cleaned, the media shall be overwritten or destroyed.

d. Device Maintenance and Repair. All ePHI shall be removed from hard drive and the memory of devices (computer servers, copiers, printers and other devices capable of storing electronic data) before maintenance or repair service.

e. Device and Media Acquisition. Security requirements and/or security specifications shall be included in information system acquisition contracts.
f. Technical Safeguards 1) Unique User ID and Password - ePHI
a) User ID

1) Each authorized user shall be assigned a unique user ID that identifies the individual employee or third party.

2) The unique user ID shall permit activities performed on the DOC network, systems and applications to be traced to the individual employee or third party.

3) The authorized user shall not share his/her unique user ID with other individuals.

4) In circumstances where there is a clear business need, the HIPAA Security Officer may assign a generic or group user ID to more than one individual.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 48 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 36 of 43

b) Password
1) At a minimum, all system-level passwords (e.g., root, enable, NT admin, application administration accounts, etc.) shall be changed on a quarterly basis.
2) All production system-level passwords shall be part of an administered global password management database.
3) All user-level passwords (e.g., email, web, desktop computer, etc.) shall be changed at least every 90 days.
4) User accounts that have system-level privileges granted through group memberships or programs shall have a unique password from all other accounts held by that user.
5) Passwords shall not be inserted into email messages or other forms of electronic communication.
6) All user-level and system-level passwords shall be strong(difficult to guess), a minimum of six characters and containing digits, letters and symbols.
20. EMERGENCY ACCESS PROCEDURE
a. Emergency access should be used only when normal processes to access ePHI are insufficient.
b. system or applications containing ePHI, the IT Help Desk should be contacted.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 49 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 37 of 43

c. The IT help desk shall fax or email the minimum necessary ePHI after verifying the identity of the requesting authorized user.

d. Verification shall include the name, position, callback number of the authorized user, all of which shall be tested before emergency access is granted.

e. Emergency access shall be terminated as soon as it is no longer necessary.

f. All activities related to emergency access shall be documented by the HIPAA Security Officer or designee.

21. AUTOMATIC LOGOFF. Users of the ePHI system shall log off unattended personal computer stations or engage the security screen features. Users shall also terminate communication links when they are not in use in accordance with

22. ACCEPTABLE ENCRYPTION
a. Based on security risk assessment, encryption shall be used to protect all data containing ePHI stored or transmitted on certain DOC devices and hardware, such as laptops, PCs, portable digital assistants (PDAs) and removable media devices.
b. Data at Rest: These items shall be protected by either encryption or firewall with strict access controls that authenticate the identity of those individuals accessing the ePHI.
c. Removable Media: These items (CD-ROMs, backup tapes, and USB memory drives) shall be encrypted, if they contain ePHI.
d. Transmission Security:
1) All emails with ePHI transmitted outside of DOC network shall be encrypted.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 50 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 38 of 43

2) Any ePHI transmitted through a public network (e.g., Internet) to and from vendors, clients or other third parties shall be encrypted or be transmitted through an encrypted tunnel.
3) ePHI shall be transmitted through a tunnel encrypted (such as virtual private networks (VPN) or point-to-point tunnel protocols (PPTP) like SSL).
4) ePHI shall not be transmitted through the use of web email programs.
e. Portable Devices:
1) ePHI stored on portable devices (e.g., laptops, PDAs, etc.) shall be encrypted.
2) Portable devices shall not be used for the long-term storage of any ePHI.
3) Portable devices that store or transmit ePHI shall have installed in them proper protection mechanisms, such as antivirus software, firewall software, etc.
23. AUDIT CONTROLS
a. Audit controls shall be set up so that system users are accountable for their actions and to deter improper actions. To this end, the HIPAA Security Officer shall ensure the following:
b. Appropriate DOC workforce in charge of systems, applications, and devices that receive, store, transmit, or otherwise access ePHI are educated about the audit control features and functionality of their systems.
c. Appropriate audit control features are turne applications, and devices that receive, store, transmit, or otherwise access ePHI.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 51 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 39 of 43

d. The need to upgrade systems, applications or devices that receive, store, transmit or otherwise access ePHI that do not have adequate audit control features and functionality.

e. Audit control features and functionality are considered in purchase decisions for systems, applications, and devices that receive store, transmit, or otherwise access ePHI.

f. Adequate systems storage is available for the storage of audit control information.

g. On a yearly basis, relevant systems/applications are inventoried and assessed, and infrastructure is reviewed and tested.

h. The HIPAA Security Officer shall also determine:

1) What information should be captured by audit control features and functionality within each system, application and device.

2) Which audit control reports shall be generated from each system, application and device.

3) How often audit control reports should be generated and in what manner.

4) Who shall receive and review the audit control information.

5) Procedures for documenting and reporting audit control discrepancies.

6) The length of time and the manner in which DOC shall store the generate audit control information.

24. DATA INTEGRITY

a. The HIPAA Security Officer shall ensure there is data integrity control against the risk of:

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 52 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 40 of 43

1) Unintentional modification or deletion by authorized or unauthorized user or program, and

2) Intentional modification or deletion by an authorized or unauthorized user.

25. PERSON OR ENTITY AUTHENTICATION

a. Only properly authenticated and authorized persons or entities shall access ePHI maintained by the DOC.

b.

c. The HIPAA Security Officer shall perform periodic validation that no redundant authentication credentials have been issued or are in use.
d.
26. CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT CUSTODIAL SITUATIONS
For the purposes of the following disclosures in subsection a-g below, an individual is no longer an inmate when released on release, parole, probation, supervised release, or otherwise is no longer in lawful custody. A covered entity may disclose to a correctional institution or a law enforcement official having lawful custody of an inmate or other individual protected health information about such inmate or individual, if the protected health information is necessary for:
a. The provision of health care to such individuals;
b. The health and safety of such individual or other inmates;
c. The health and safety of the officers or employees of or others at the correctional institution;

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 53 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 41 of 43

d. The health and safety of such individuals and officers or other persons responsible for the transporting of inmates or their transfer from one institution, facility, or setting to another;

e. Law enforcement on the premises of the correctional institution; or

f. The administration and maintenance of the safety, security, and good order of the correctional institution.

g. A covered entity that is a correctional institution may use protected health information of individuals who are inmates for any purpose for which such protected health information may be disclosed.

27. DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS

Disclosures of PHI for law enforcement purposes are permitted as set forth below.. Except when required by law, the disclosures to law enforcement summarized are subject to a minimum necessary determination by the covered entity. When reasonable to do so, DOC as the covered entity may rely upon the representations of the law enforcement official (as a public officer) as to what information is the minimum necessary for their lawful purpose. Moreover, if the law enforcement official making the request for information is not known to the covered entity, the covered entity shall verify the identity and authority of such person prior to disclosing the information.

a. To comply with a court order or court-ordered warrant, a subpoena or summons issued by a judicial officer (signed by a judge), or a grand jury subpoena (signed by a judge). HIPAA recognizes that the legal process in obtaining a court order and the secrecy of the grand jury process provides

b. To respond to an administrative request, such as an administrative subpoena or investigative demand or other written request from a law enforcement official. Because an administrative request may be made without judicial involvement, the Rule requires all administrative requests to include or be accompanied by a written statement that the information requested is relevant and material, specific and limited in scope, and de-identified information cannot be used.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 54 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 42 of 43

c. To respond to a request for PHI for purposes of identifying or locating a suspect, fugitive, material witness or missing person; but the covered entity shall limit disclosures of PHI to name and address, date and place of birth, social security number, ABO blood type and rh factor, type of injury, date and time of treatment, date and time of death, and a description of distinguishing
dental records, body fluid or tissue typing, samples, or analysis cannot be disclosed under this provision, but may be disclosed in response to a court order, warrant, or written administrative request.
d. To respond to a request for PHI about a victim of a crime, and the victim agrees and executes a HIPAA compliant release. If, because of an
covered entity may disclose the PHI if law enforcement officials represent that the PHI is not intended to be used against the victim, is needed to determine whether another person broke the law, the investigation would be materially and adversely affected by waiting until the victim could agree, and the covered entity believes in its professional judgment that doing so is in the best interests of the individual whose information is requested.
e. Child abuse or neglect may be reported to any law enforcement official authorized by law to receive such reports and the agreement of the individual is not required.
f. Adult abuse, neglect, or domestic violence may be reported to a law enforcement official authorized by law to receive such reports:
g. If the individual agrees and the covered entity is provided a HIPAA compliant release executed by the individual;
h. If the report is required by law; or If expressly authorized by law, and based on the exercise of professional judgment, the report is necessary to prevent serious harm to the individual or others, or in certain other emergency situations.
i. Notice to the individual of the report may be required per HIPAA.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 55 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 43 of 43

j. To report PHI to law enforcement when required by law to do so such as gunshot or stab wounds, or other violent injuries; and the Rule permits disclosures of PHI as necessary to comply with these laws.

k. To alert law enforcement to the death of the individual, when there is a suspicion that death resulted from criminal conduct.

l. Information about a decedent may also be shared with medical examiner to assist them in identifying the decedent, determining the cause of death, or to carry out their other authorized duties.

m. To report PHI that the covered entity in good faith believes to be evidence of ..

n. When responding to a medical emergency, as necessary to alert law enforcement about criminal activity, specifically, the commission and nature of the crime, the location of the crime or any victims, and the identity, description, and location of the perpetrator of the crime.

o. When consistent with applicable law and ethical standards:

p. To a law enforcement official reasonably able to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of an individual or the public. Such as to identify or apprehend an individual who appears to have escaped from lawful custody.

q. For certain other specialized governmental law enforcement purposes, such as to federal officials authorized to conduct intelligence, counter-intelligence, and other national security activities under the National Security Act or to provide protective services to the President and others and conduct related investigations.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 56 of 58

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SUPERSEDES:

1300.3A

PROGRAM MANUAL

REVIEW DATE:

January 18, 2018 December 19, 2020

SUBJECT:

HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY (HIPPA)

NUMBER:

1300.3B

Attachments:

Attachments 1 2

Page 44 of 43

28. LITIGATION DISCOVERY DISCLOSURE

A covered entity may disclose protected health information in the course of any judicial or administrative proceeding:

a. In response to an order of a court or administrative tribunal, provided that the covered entity discloses only the protected health information expressly authorized by such order; or

b. In response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process, that is not accompanied by an order of a court or administrative tribunal, if :
1) The covered entity receives a satisfactory HIPAA compliant release executed by the individual whose PHI is sought release provided that the covered entity discloses only the protected health information expressly authorized by such release; or

2) The covered entity receives satisfactory assurance that the parties to the dispute giving rise to the request for information have agreed to a qualified protective order issued by the court or administrative tribunal with jurisdiction over the dispute that prohibits the parties from using or disclosing the protected health information for any purpose other than the litigation or proceeding for which such information was requested; and requires the return to the covered entity or destruction of the protected health information (including all copies made) at the end of the litigation or proceeding.

DOC/PM 1300.3/12/19/2019

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 57 of 58

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 98 Filed 06/08/20 Page 58 of 58

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 99 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs v.
QUINCY L. BOOTH, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 20-849(CKK)

ORDER (June 18, 2020)
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is, this 18th day of June, 2020, hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ [70] Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Court ORDERS the following relief:
First, the Court does not order the release of any inmates. However, the Court does ORDER the United States to provide the Court with a detailed plan for the review and possible further reduction of DOC inmates under their supervision/care by JULY 1, 2020. The Court further ORDERS the United States Parole Commission to provide the Court with a detailed plan for the review and possible further reduction of DOC inmates under their supervision/care by JULY 1, 2020.
As to the conditions of Plaintiffs’ confinement, the Court ORDERS the following.
First, the Court ORDERS that Defendants implement a medical care system on general population units that ensures inmates receive attention from a medical provider within 24 hours of reporting health issues. If this system continues to use sick call slips, Defendants shall ensure that inmates have consistent and immediate access to such sick call slips and that said slips are collected at regular intervals. Defendants shall provide the Court with details of their enhanced medical care system by JUNE 29, 2020.
Second, the Court ORDERS that Defendants comply with District of Columbia and Centers for Disease Control regulations on social distancing in DOC facilities. Defendants shall address challenges which have prevented the implementation of social distancing including but not limited to lack of education and staffing shortages. Defendants shall provide the Court an update on their improvements to enforcing social distancing by JUNE 29, 2020.
Third, Defendants shall continue the services of their newly-contracted environmental health and safety vendor. Defendants shall further continue their contract to provide COVID-19 cleaning services on the secure and non-secure sides of the DOC facility, including the common areas of all housing units. Defendants shall further continue their efforts to hire a registered sanitarian. Defendants shall ensure that inmates have access to the necessary materials to clean their cells, including cleaning solutions which protect against COVID-19 and adequate cleaning textiles and tools. Defendants shall further ensure that DOC staff and inmates are informed of
1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 99 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2 of 2
and trained on the proper techniques for mixing and preparing cleaning solutions as necessary. Defendants shall provide the Court an update on their improvements to sanitation by JUNE 29, 2020.
Fourth, Defendants shall ensure that conditions in isolation units are non-punitive. This includes ensuring reliable and regular access to legal calls, personal telephone calls, daily showers, and clean clothing and clean linens to all inmates on isolation status. Defendants shall provide the Court an update on their improvements to conditions in isolation cells by JUNE 29, 2020.
Fifth, Defendants shall ensure that all inmates have access to confidential, unmonitored legal calls of a duration sufficient to discuss legal matters. Insofar as inmates’ access to confidential, unmonitored legal calls is reliant on the use of new technology, Defendants shall swiftly implement the use of such technology. Defendants shall provide the Court an update on their improvements to the legal call system by JUNE 29, 2020.
Finally, the Court notes that Defendants have increased testing for COVID-19, now testing any resident to be transferred to Saint Elizabeths Hospital or to a federal correctional facility. Defendants also test any cell mate of an inmate who tests positive and all new residents upon intake. Defendants continue to test those inmates who report positive for COVID-19 symptoms. The Court ORDERS that Defendants continue implementing this increased testing. The Court further ORDERS that Defendants update the Court on any changes to the testing protocol at DOC facilities, including the further testing of asymptomatic inmates.
After the Court has received the ordered updates, the Court shall schedule a further hearing to discuss next steps and the continued role of the amici of the Court.
SO ORDERED. /s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs v.
QUINCY L. BOOTH, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 20-849(CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION (June 18, 2020)
This case is brought by various inmates of the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections (“DOC”) detained in the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”). Plaintiffs bring claims against Quincy Booth, in his official capacity as Director of the DOC, and Lennard Johnson, in his official capacity as Warden of the DOC. Plaintiffs’ claims relating to the conditions of their confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic are brought pursuant to the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs’ claims relating to release from confinement are brought pursuant to writs of habeas corpus.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ [70] Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, which is opposed. Upon consideration of the pleadings,1 the relevant legal authorities, and the record

1 The Court’s consideration has focused on the following documents: • Pls.’ Am. Mot. for a PI (“Pls.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 70; • Opp’n by U.S. to Pls.’ Mot. for a PI (“Def. U.S.’s Opp’n”), ECF No. 80; • Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ Am. Mot. for a PI (“D.C. Defs.’ Opp’n”), ECF No. 82; • Pls.’ Reply Brief in Support of Am. Mot. for a PI (“Pls.’ Reply”), ECF No. 89; • Defs.’ Notice of Supp. Decs. (“Defs.’ Notice”), ECF No. 94; • Defs.’ Notice of Supp. Authority (“Defs.’ Auth.”), ECF No. 95; and • Pls.’ Res. to Defs.’ Notice of Supp. Authority (“Pls.’ Res.”), ECF No. 96.

1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2 of 40
for purposes of this motion, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ [70] Motion. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest favors injunctive relief. However, as will be further explained below, the Court concludes that some of the relief requested by Plaintiffs is not appropriate at this time.
I. BACKGROUND The Court previously recounted the background of this case in its Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). ECF No. 51. However, for ease of reading, the Court shall recount that background here. Prior to proceeding through the procedural background of this case, the Court notes that the hearings held in this matter have been conducted either telephonically or through video conferencing. Due to the restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia postponed all civil hearings to occur before July 15, 2020. In Re: Further Extension of Postponed Court Proceedings in Standing Order 20-9 and Limiting Court Operations in Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic, Standing Order No. 20-29 (BAH), May 26, 2020. As such, in compliance with the standing order and recommended precautionary measures, the Court has conducted these emergency matters virtually. On March 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this matter. That same day, Plaintiffs also filed a Motion to Certify a Class of all persons confined or to be confined in DOC facilities, a Motion for a TRO, and a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. ECF Nos. 3, 5, 6.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 3 of 40
On March 31, 2020, the Court ordered that a teleconference be held to discuss scheduling for Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for a TRO. March 31, 2020 Minute Order. During the hearing, the Court ordered Defendants to provide specific, relevant information to the Court over the following two days. For example, the Court ordered Defendants to provide a list of the names of the approximately 94 inmates who had been sentenced to misdemeanors and who could be released; the numbers of people who had been tested for COVID-19 and a break-down of the identities of those individuals (such as inmates, visitors, etc.) and the results of those tests; the date on which Defendants began testing people coming into the jails; the number and a breakdown of the results of COVID-19 tests which had been done on those who were incarcerated prior to the date on which Defendants began testing all incoming inmates; all relevant written procedures and practices concerning COVID-19; and Defendants’ process which was in place or would be put in place to allow legal counsel to communicate with their clients electronically or by other means. April 1, 2020 Minute Order. The Court also ordered Defendants to provide Declarations about the processes and procedures in place and the conditions of DOC facilities in light of COVID-19. Id. The Court further set a briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO and stayed Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Complaint, and Motion for Class Certification pending the resolution of the TRO. Id. A court reporter was present at the hearing, and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 18.
On April 1, 2020 and April 2, 2020, Defendants filed Responses to the Court’s Order. ECF Nos. 19, 20, 21.
On April 2, 2020, the Fraternal Order of Police for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections Labor Committee filed for leave to submit an amicus curiae brief in support of
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 4 of 40
Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO. ECF No. 23. After considering Defendants’ opposition, the Court granted the motion, finding that the amicus brief could assist the Court in its analysis of certain, relevant issues. April 3, 2020 Minute Order.
On April 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion to Expedite the Hearing on the Application for a TRO. ECF No. 24. In consideration of Plaintiffs’ arguments, the Court scheduled a videoconference on the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO for April 7, 2020. April 3, 2020 Minute Order.
Prior to the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO on April 3, 2020, and Plaintiffs filed their Reply in support of their Motion on April 4, 2020. ECF Nos. 25, 26.
On April 7, 2020, the court conducted a two-hour video conference on the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO. A court reporter was present, and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 37. Also on that day, the Court conducted a second teleconference with the parties. The parties determined that they would confer and propose names for an amicus of the Court to inspect the conditions of CTF and CDF. April 8, 2020 Minute Order.
On April 8, 2020, the Court again conducted a teleconference with the parties to ascertain their proposed amicus of the Court. The parties ultimately agreed to the appointment of Grace Lopes and Mark Jordan as amici of the Court to provide information on the actual conditions of CTF and CDF and to make findings on Defendants’ responses to COVID-19. A court reporter was present, and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 33. On April 9, 2020, the Court issued a consent order appointing Ms. Lopes and Mr. Jordan as amici. ECF No. 34.
The amici reviewed records from the DOC facilities and conducted unannounced and unescorted site visits on multiple shifts at both CDF and CTF on April 10, 11, and 12, 2020.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 5 of 40
Defendants cooperated with amici in providing them with necessary materials and in providing them access to the facilities, staff, and inmates during their visits.
On April 15, 2020, the Court held a telephone conference at which the amici presented their oral preliminary findings and both parties as well as the Court asked questions. A court reporter was present, and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 45.
On April 18, 2020, the amici submitted their final written report. Attachment 1.2 The Court incorporates that report into this Memorandum Opinion. The Court further notes that on April 17, 2020, following the amici’s oral presentation of their preliminary findings, Mr. Booth provided a memorandum to all DOC employees and contractors entitled “Reminders and Updated COVID-19 Policies and Procedures.” Exhibits to Report Submitted by Amicus Curiae, Attachment 2, Ex. 11. In this memorandum, Mr. Booth addressed some of the deficiencies identified by the amici.
On April 19, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO. Specifically, the Court ordered that Defendants follow many of the recommendations set out in the amici report relating to the conditions of confinement at DOC facilities. However, the Court did not order the release of any inmates. ECF Nos. 50, 51.
On April 22, 2020, the Court held a teleconference during which the parties agreed to propose a schedule for briefing Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction. April 23, 2020 Minute Order. A court reporter was present, and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 57.
2 On April 19, 2020, the amici filed a corrected version of their Report with minor edits. The corrected version is attached to this Memorandum Opinion.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 6 of 40
On April 28, 2020, the Court entered a consent Order setting out a schedule for briefing on Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, structuring the role of the amici, and extending the TRO Order pending the Court’s resolution of Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 62.
On May 1, 2020, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order joining the United States as a necessary party limited to issues involving the release of inmates under Plaintiffs’ claims for writs of habeas corpus. ECF Nos. 63, 64.
On May 11, 2020, the Court held a telephone conference at which the amici presented their oral preliminary findings in response to particular questions and both parties as well as the Court asked additional questions. A court reporter was present, and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. ECF No. 69, Attachment 3. And, on May 22, 2020, the amici submitted their final written report. Attachment 4. The Court incorporates that report into this Memorandum Opinion. The Court has excerpted portions of the report in this Memorandum Opinion, focusing on the issues which are most exigent and most relevant to the resolution of Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
As explained in the report, in preparation for their oral findings and their final written report, the amici reviewed records from the DOC facilities, conducted telephonic and in-person interviews with members of the DOC, and conducted unannounced and unescorted site visits on multiple shifts at both CDF and CTF on May 7 and 8, 2020. Amici also conducted an unannounced and unescorted site visit at CDF during the PM shift on May 14, 2020. Defendants cooperated with amici in providing them with necessary materials and in providing them access to the facilities, staff, and inmates during their visits.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 7 of 40
Finally, on May 27, 2020, the Fraternal Order of Police for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections Labor Committee filed for leave to submit an amicus curiae brief in support of Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 83. After considering Defendants’ opposition, the Court granted the motion, finding that the amicus brief could assist the Court in its analysis of certain, relevant issues. June 8, 2020 Minute Order.
In resolving Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, the Court relies on the record evidence as it currently stands, including the findings in the amici’s final report. In consideration of the above information, the materials which have been provided, and the present factual record, the Court now issues its decision on Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
II. LEGAL STANDARD A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary form of relief. An application for a preliminary injunction is analyzed using factors applicable to a motion for a TRO. See, e.g., Gordon v. Holder, 632 F.3d 722, 723-24 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (applying preliminary injunction standard to district court decision denying motion for TRO and preliminary injunction); Sibley v. Obama, 810 F. Supp. 2d 309, 310 (D.D.C. 2011) (articulating TRO elements based on preliminary injunction case law). Preliminary injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)); see also Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam) (“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). A plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief “must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits,
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 8 of 40
[2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1038 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Sherley, 644 F.3d at 392 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20) (alteration in original; internal quotation marks omitted)). When seeking such relief, “the movant has the burden to show that all four factors, taken together, weigh in favor of the injunction.” Abdullah v. Obama, 753 F.3d 193, 197 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1292 (D.C. Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The four factors have typically been evaluated on a ‘sliding scale.’” Davis, 571 F.3d at 1291. Under this sliding-scale framework, “[i]f the movant makes an unusually strong showing on one of the factors, then it does not necessarily have to make as strong a showing on another factor.” Id. at 1291-92.
The Court notes that it is not clear whether the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s (“D.C. Circuit”) sliding-scale approach to assessing the four preliminary injunction factors survives the Supreme Court's decision in Winter. See Save Jobs USA v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 105 F. Supp. 3d 108, 112 (D.D.C. 2015). Several judges on the D.C. Circuit have “read Winter at least to suggest if not to hold ‘that a likelihood of success is an independent, free-standing requirement for a preliminary injunction.’” Sherley, 644 F.3d at 393 (quoting Davis, 571 F.3d at 1296 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring)). However, the D.C. Circuit has yet to hold definitively that Winter has displaced the sliding-scale analysis. See id.; see also Save Jobs USA, 105 F. Supp. 3d at 112. In light of this ambiguity, the Court shall consider each of the preliminary injunction factors and shall evaluate the proper weight to accord the likelihood of success only if the Court finds that its relative weight would affect the outcome.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 9 of 40
III. DISCUSSION The Court will proceed to analyze each of the requirements for granting a preliminary injunction. A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits The Court will begin by analyzing whether or not Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims for inadequate conditions of confinement and their habeas claims for release of inmates. 1. Conditions of Confinement In order to meet the first requirement for granting injunctive relief on their conditions of confinement claims, Plaintiffs must show that they have a likelihood of success on the merits of their Fifth Amendment claim for pre-trial detainees and of their Eighth Amendment claim for post-conviction detainees. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing as to some of the conditions of their confinement. It is undisputed that the proper avenue for relief for pre-trial detainees, such as Plaintiffs Phillips and Smith, is the Fifth Amendment due process clause and the proper avenue for relief for post-conviction detainees, such as Plaintiff Banks, is the Eighth Amendment. However, the parties dispute whether or not the standards for sustaining a claim under the different Amendments are the same. The parties agree that to show a violation of the Eighth Amendment, jail officials must have (1) exposed inmates to an unreasonable risk of serious damage to their health and (2) acted with deliberate indifference in posing such a risk. D.C. Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 82, 25. However, the parties disagree on the standard for showing a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Defendants contend that the two standards are the same. Id. at 26. However, under the due process clause, Plaintiffs argue that they need only show that the Defendants knew or should have known that the conditions posed an excessive risk to the health of the inmates. The
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 10 of 40
main difference being that the due process clause analysis does not require a finding of deliberate indifference. As explained in the Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs. ECF No. 51, 9-12.
The rights of pre-trial detainees are different than the rights of post-conviction detainees. Because pre-trial detainees are presumed innocent, they are “entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322 (1982). “While a convicted prisoner is entitled to protection only against ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment [under the Eighth Amendment], a pretrial detainee, not yet found guilty of any crime, may not be subjected to punishment of any description.” Hardy v. District of Columbia, 601 F. Supp. 2d 182, 188 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Hill v. Nicodemus, 979 F.2d 987, 991 (4th Cir. 1992)).
In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), the United States Supreme Court considered the differences between pre-trial and post-conviction detainees in deciding that, to state an excessive force claim, a pre-trial detainee need only show that the use of force was objectively unreasonable. 135 S. Ct. at 2473-74. The officers’ subjective state of mind in using the force was irrelevant. Id. While Kingsley relates to excessive force rather than prison conditions, in making its decision, the Kingsley court relied on Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), a case pertaining to prison conditions. According to the Kingsley court, “as Bell itself shows (and as our later precedent affirms), a pretrial detainee can prevail by providing only objective evidence that the challenged governmental action is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective or that it is excessive in relation to that purpose.” Id. Together Kingsley and Bell provide persuasive authority that a pre-trial detainee need only show that
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 11 of 40
prison conditions are objectively unreasonable in order to state a claim under the due process clause.
The parties did not cite, and the Court could not find, a D.C. Circuit case interpreting Kingsley in the context of a claim for deficient prison conditions. However, many circuit courts have extended Kingsley’s objective standard to apply to other due process claims by pre-trial detainees. For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that, following Kingsley, in the context of challenged prison conditions for pre-trial detainees, “the Due Process Clause can be violated when an official does not have subjective awareness that the official’s acts (or omissions) have subjected the pretrial detainee to a substantial risk of harm.” Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 35 (2d 2017); see also Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying Kingsley standard to failure to protect claims by pretrial detainees); Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816, 823 (7th Cir. 2019) (finding that “Kingsley’s objective inquiry applies to all Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims brought by pretrial detainees”). And, at least one district court within this Circuit has also applied Kingsley’s objective standard to due process claims brought by pre-trial detainees. See United States v. Moore, Case No. 18-198-JEB, 2019 WL 2569659, *2 (D.D.C. June 21, 2019) (explaining that a pretrial detainee could prevail on a due process claim “if she either introduces evidence of a subjective intent to punish or demonstrates that a restriction is objectively unreasonable or excessive relative to the Government’s proffered justification”).
Based on the pertinent reasoning of Kingsley and the persuasive authority of other courts, the Court concludes that pre-trial detainee Plaintiffs Phillips and Smith do not need to show deliberate indifference in order to state a due process claim for inadequate conditions of confinement. As such, under the due process clause, pre-trial detainee Plaintiffs Phillips and
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 12 of 40
Smith are likely to succeed on the merits by showing that the Defendants knew or should have known that the jail conditions posed an excessive risk to their health and intentionally or recklessly failed to act. And, under the Eighth Amendment, post-conviction detainee Plaintiff Banks must show that the jail conditions exposed him to an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his health and that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference in posing such a risk.
Despite recognizing that pre-trial detainee Plaintiffs need not demonstrate deliberate indifference to show a likelihood of success on their due process claims, the Court will also analyze the deliberate indifference prong as such a showing is still required for post-conviction Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim.
a. Unreasonable risk to Plaintiffs’ Health Now that the Court has determined the standards under the due process clause and the Eighth Amendment, the Court will assess whether or not Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success in proving that they have been exposed to an unreasonable risk of damage to their health. Determining whether or not Plaintiffs have been exposed to an unreasonable risk is an objective analysis which “requires a court to assess whether society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993) (emphasis in original). In sum, Plaintiffs “must show that the risk of which [they] complain[] is not one that today’s society chooses to tolerate.” Id. Both parties and the Court recognize the seriousness of the threat posed by COVID-19. Despite the seriousness of the threat, in their briefing for Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in establishing that they have been exposed to an unreasonable risk to their health. ECF No. 25, 15-17. While Defendants previously
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 13 of 40
disputed the unreasonable risk factor, in their briefing for this Motion, Defendants make little mention of unreasonable risk, focusing instead on deliberate indifference.
Lacking substantial argument on this issue from Defendants, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have been exposed to an unreasonable risk to their health. It is undisputed that as of May 15, 2020, the rate of infection in DOC facilities was 13.5%, which is nearly 14 times higher than the rate of infection for other District of Columbia residents. Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 70, 29. The Court notes that this percentage represents an increase from April 4, 2020, when the infection rate in DOC facilities was only 7 times the infection rate of the District of Columbia at large. ECF No. 51, 13.
In a supplemental declaration, Defendants state that on May 22, 2020, the DOC tested a sample of 304 asymptomatic DOC residents which revealed a positive testing rate of 4.6%. Dec. of Beth Jordan, ECF No. 94, ¶ 7. While any progress in decreasing the positive testing rate of asymptomatic inmates is to be lauded, such progress does not negate the fact that those detained in DOC facilities are far more likely to be exposed to and infected by COVID-19. Defendants further highlight a downward trend in the number of new positive cases. Again, the Court commends Defendants on this progress; however, this progress post-dates the Court’s TRO Order and the mandated steps for improvement of conditions at DOC facilities. Additionally, Defendants’ identification of potentially infected inmates relies primarily on self-reporting, which may be affected by deficiencies with the sick call system and the punitive conditions of isolation units discussed further below. See Supra III.A.1.b.
Plaintiffs’ statistical data is also supported by Plaintiffs’ unrefuted expert declaration. In her Declaration, Dr. Jaimie Meyer, who reviewed reports on conditions in DOC facilities,
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 14 of 40
reaffirmed that “people living and working in DC DOC facilities remain at risk of serious harm due to COVID-19 infection.” Dec. of Jaimie Meyer, ECF No. 70-2, ¶ 3.
The Court further considers the conditions in the DOC facilities which pose an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiffs’ health. These conditions include issues with medical care, social distancing, sanitation, and conditions in isolation units. These conditions will be discussed in greater detail in the Court’s discussion of deliberate indifference. See Infra Sec. III.A.1.b. However, for purposes of establishing an unreasonable risk to Plaintiffs’ health, the Court notes that Defendants’ policies, and the delayed and insufficient implementation of many of those policies, has prevented Plaintiffs from being able to take the preventative and precautionary steps that the larger, non-detained population has been able to take to slow the spread of COVID-19.
The Court recognizes that Defendants’ response to this sudden and unprecedented pandemic is ongoing. And, the Court recognizes that additional evidence will likely be provided as litigation proceeds. But, based on the current record, the Court credits Plaintiffs’ argument that they experience a significantly higher rate of infection and risk of harm than the population at large. Plaintiffs’ argument is supported by statistical evidence, Plaintiffs’ expert evidence, the declarations of DOC inmates and staff, and the amici reports. Accordingly, based on the limited record before the Court, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood that they will be able to show that they have been exposed to an unreasonable risk of damage to their health.
b. Deliberate Indifference The Court will next determine whether or not Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success in establishing Defendants’ deliberate indifference. A showing of deliberate indifference requires “that officials had subjective knowledge of the serious medical need and recklessly
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 15 of 40
disregarded the excessive risk to inmate health or safety from that risk.” Baker v. District of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302, 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In order to establish deliberate indifference, “the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
There does not appear to be any dispute that Defendants are aware of the threat that COVID-19 poses to the health of Plaintiffs. Instead, the only dispute is whether or not Defendants have recklessly disregarded the risk to Plaintiffs’ health. In analyzing this standard, the Court recognizes that COVID-19 poses an unprecedented challenge and that the precautionary measures taken by Defendants are rapidly evolving.
In its Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiffs’ TRO, the Court thoroughly recounted the conditions at DOC facilities as they stood at that time. ECF Nos. 50, 51. The Court will not recount that information in full and instead fully incorporates its findings from that Memorandum Opinion. Instead, the Court will focus on any new arguments presented by the parties. The Court will focus on difficulties noted in providing medical care to inmates in the general population units, in social distancing, in sanitation, in conditions on isolation units, and in access to legal calls.
To begin, the Court notes that much of Defendants’ argument opposing injunctive relief is based on steps which Defendants have taken subsequent to the Court’s TRO Order to remedy the cited deficiencies. While the Court appreciates that efforts have been made to improve conditions, “Defendants cannot claim that the need for an injunction is now moot because the [Defendants have] ‘ceased [their] wrongful conduct.’” Costa v. Bazron, Case No. 19-3185, 2020 WL 2735666, *4 (May 24, 2020 D.D.C.) (quoting Taylor v. Resolution Trust Corp., 56 F.3d
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 16 of 40
1497 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). The inability of Defendants’ actions to moot the need for injunctive relief is true particularly where those actions “follow[ed] the entry of a TRO.” Id. A “‘court’s power to grant injunctive relief survives discontinuance of the illegal conduct,’ ... because the ‘purpose ... is to prevent future violations.’” U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Daniel Chapter One, 89 F. Supp. 3d 132, 143 (D.D.C. 2015), aff'd, 650 F. App'x 20 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953)). In so finding, the Court is in no way impugning the good faith behind Defendants’ efforts to ameliorate conditions at DOC facilities. However, “[i]f compliance with the terms of a TRO were sufficient to defeat entry of a preliminary injunction, few—if any—cases would make it past the TRO stage.” Costa, 2020 WL 2735666, at *4.
The Court begins by assessing Defendants’ efforts in supplying general population inmates with adequate medical care. During their oral presentation, amici “described significant barriers to access to health care” for inmates on non-quarantine, non-isolation units. Attachment 4, 9. Most inmates who access care on general population units rely on the sick call process by which they request sick call forms from correctional officers and submit those forms to health care staff through designated collection boxes. Id. at 10. In their inspections, amici found that the sick call forms were not readily available to inmates and that many correctional officers were unable to produce the forms when requested to by amici. Id.; see also Attachment 3, 17: 2-4. Without consistent access to sick call forms, “the sick call process does not provide reliable, timely access to health care for inmates.” Attachment 4, 10. For example, at CDF, 20% of sick call forms were collected two to three days after submission and 5% were collected four days after submission. Attachment 3, 18: 16-22. And, at CTF, 24% of the sick call forms were collected two to three days after submission and 12% were collected 4 to 5 days after they were
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 17 of 40
submitted. Id. at 18: 25-19: 3. In at least one case, an inmate at CDF had to wait over a week for medical assistance. Id. at 19: 22-23. Another inmate at CDF who requested care for COVID-19 symptoms was not seen for approximately four days and later tested positive for COVID-19. Id. at 20: 1-7.
The difficulties with obtaining medical care through the sick call process, which were documented by amici, are also supported by the declarations of various inmates. One inmate reported that “they ran out of sick slips” in his housing unit so no residents in that unit were able to utilize the system. Ex. 4, Dec. of LeDauntae Perry, ECF No. 70-5, ¶ 8. Another inmate reported that “[s]ick call slips and Inmate Grievance Procedure forms were not … available on my unit between the dates of April 23, 2020 and May 12, 2020.” Ex. 30, Dec. of Kenneth Knight, ECF No. 70-31, ¶ 5. A housing unit in CTF, which houses inmates over 50 years of age, reportedly did not have sick call slips “[f]or the entire week of May 4, 2020.” Ex. 5, Dec. of Joseph Stankavage, ECF No. 70-6, ¶ 15. This delay in obtaining medical care allows those who may be infected with COVID-19 to spread the infection to others.
Defendants contend that, as of May 18, 2020, they have enhanced the sick call process by tasking medical providers with visiting housing units daily to retrieve sick call slips thus ensuring that inmates are seen by a high-level medical provider within 24 hours. Dec. of Beth Jordan, ECF No. 82-2, ¶ 9. However, it is not evident that this new system will address the issues that amici identified involving difficulties accessing sick call forms. Additionally, Defendants failed to make these improvements until recently, despite having been previously alerted to the insufficiencies with the medical care system in the Court’s TRO Order. ECF No. 50, 1. And, the Court has no evidence as to how or whether this new procedure works in practice.
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 18 of 40
Defendants primarily rely on inmates to self-report symptoms of COVID-19. If inmates cannot adequately access medical care, then they will not be effectively or efficiently tested for infection. Absent testing, sick inmates may continue to reside in the general population and infect others. Following amici’s initial report, Defendants were on notice of the deficiencies in the sick call process; however, many of these deficiencies continue to hinder Defendants’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Court next examines Defendants’ efforts in maintaining social distancing. In its TRO Memorandum Opinion, the Court described in detail the insufficiencies in social distancing practices at DOC facilities. ECF No. 51, 13-15. Following the TRO Order, amici have reported some improvements in social distancing practices. Amici cited additional educational materials on social distancing as well as reports that “staff are being disciplined for the failure to enforce social distancing.” Attachment 3, 42: 14-16. Amici further reported that, because fewer inmates are allowed out of their cells at any given time, “at least some housing units are less chaotic.” Id. at 43: 1-2. Despite these improvements, amici reported that social distancing in DOC facilities “certainly is not prevalent, certainly not during our visits.” Id. at 42: 18-19. Amici further stated that “there still isn’t a prevalence of social distancing.” Id. at 43: 14-15. Amici attributed this deficiency, in part, to insufficient staffing on the housing units. Id. at 43: 16-18.
In arguing that it has made progress in enforcing social distancing, Defendants cite a decrease in the overall inmate population as well as an increase in the percentage of inmates housed in single cells. Dec. of Rena Chakraborty, ECF No. 82-3, ¶¶ 5-6. Defendants have also provided inmates and staff with increased educational information about social distancing. Dec. of Lennard Johnson, ECF No. 82-1, ¶¶ 6-7. Defendants echo the amici finding that staff are being monitored for inmate compliance with social distancing requirements and are being
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 19 of 40
disciplined for failures. Id. at ¶ 6. Given the steps which have been taken to enforce social distancing, Defendants contend that they cannot be blamed for isolated instances of clustering.
The Court commends Defendants for their increased focus on social distancing policies. However, better policies mean little if they are not correctly implemented in practice. Daskalea v. District of Columbia, 227 F.3d 433, 442 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (explaining that “a ‘paper’ policy cannot insulate a municipality from liability where there is evidence, as there was here, that the municipality was deliberately indifferent to the policy’s violation.”). And, amici found more than isolated instances of clustering. They specifically stated that social distancing “is not prevalent.” Attachment 3, 42: 18-19.
In addition to the amici findings, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that social distancing is still inadequately enforced. One inmate reported that he was never told to socially distance himself from others. Ex. 2, Dec. of Brian Thomas, ECF No. 70-3, ¶ 17. Another inmate on a different housing unit stated that, sometimes, more than 10 inmates are allowed out of their cells at one time, resulting in clustering. Ex. 11, Dec. of Tony Horne, ECF No. 70-12, ¶ 9. One inmate reported that, on May 12, 2020, DOC staff forced him into an elevator with approximately a dozen other inmates from various housing units to travel to the medical unit. Ex. 5, Dec. of Joseph Stankavage, ECF No. 70-6, ¶ 3. Once at the medical unit, the inmate had to await medical attention in a small room with 15 to 20 other inmates. Id. at ¶ 6. These inmate declarations are supported by video footage from DOC facilities showing approximately 10 inmates out of their cells congregating around telephones and DOC staff. Ex. 32.
As such, the Court finds that many of the deficiencies in social distancing practices which were identified in the Court’s TRO Order remain present today. Plaintiffs have provided expert evidence that social distancing is a crucial part of containing the spread of COVID-19. Dec. of
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 20 of 40
Marc Stern, ECF No. 1-1, ¶ 13. With the closures of schools, theaters, and restaurants, governments across the nation have emphasized social distancing as a way to slow the spread of the disease. In the District of Columbia, Mayor Muriel Bowser has implemented an order for social distancing which requires individuals “to maintain a distance of at least six (6) feet from persons not in their household.” Phase One Order, https://coronavirus.dc.gov/phaseone (May 27, 2020). Despite widespread understanding of the importance of social distancing, Defendants have taken insufficient and delayed steps to ensure that social distancing is occurring consistently.
The Court next examines the status of sanitation efforts at DOC facilities. In its TRO Order, the Court noted the deficiencies in sanitation. The court ordered DOC to retain a registered sanitarian and to provide appropriate cleaning products, and training on the use of those products, to inmates and staff. ECF No. 50, 2-3.
Defendants have made progress on ensuring adequate sanitation. Defendants have received authorization to post a vacancy for a full-time sanitarian at the DOC. Attachment 4, 14. Until a sanitarian can be hired, beginning on May 18, 2020, Defendants contracted with a vendor to provide services related to environmental health and safety. Id. Additionally, as of May 12, 2020, Defendants contracted for professional cleaning services on the secure and non-secure sides of the DOC facility, including the common areas of all housing units. Id. at 15. And, Defendants have created new protocols to ensure that cleaning supplies are available and to require correctional officers to verify that cells are cleaned daily. Dec of Michele Jones, ECF No. 82-6, ¶¶ 5, 9.
However, there are other aspects of sanitation which have not improved. The amici noted that during their visits, availability of cleaning materials and cleaning equipment was not
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 21 of 40
uniform between the housing units. Attachment 3, 40: 24-41: 3. Defendants began providing inmates with paper towels sprayed with cleaning solution; however, because the paper towels are not absorbent, many inmates continue to have difficulties cleaning their cells. Id. at 41: 9-15. Some inmates continue to rely on ripped towels and ripped t-shirts to clean their cells. Id. at 41: 13-15. Amici noted that this issue is “[a]bout the same” as it was prior to the Court’s TRO Order. Id. at 44: 2. Amici concluded that “appropriate sanitation is … a continuing issue at both facilities, and clearly especially deficient at the jail [CDF].” Id. at 41: 20-22.
Plaintiffs have provided evidence from inmates which echoes these noted deficiencies. Many inmates explained that they lack cleaning supplies to clean their cells. See, e.g., Ex. 14, Dec. of Delonte Ingraham, ECF No. 70-15, ¶ 47 (“On April 27, our unit ran out of cleaning supplies”); Ex. 16, Dec. of Jarvis Burl, ECF No. 70-17, ¶ 8 (“I have not been provided any cleaning supplies to clean my cell”) Ex. 12, Dec. of Delonte Johnson, ECF No. 70-13, ¶ 3 (“During the period from April 22, 2020 to May 8, 2020 I did not have access to any chemicals to clean my cell”). At least one inmate reported having to clean the cells of inmates who tested positive for COVID-19 with Oasis Pro Laundry Fresh Room Refresher, a product which does “not have activity against and is not approved for disinfection for COVID-19.” Ex. 1, Dec. of Jaimie Meyer, ECF No. 70-2, ¶ 11; Ex. 21, Dec. of Elijah Warren, ECF No. 70-22, ¶ 21. Even when residents have adequate access to cleaning materials, often they have not been informed on how to effectively use those materials. Ex. 14, Dec. of Delonte Ingraham, ECF No. 70-15, ¶ 44 (“Since April 19, my unit has not received any instructions on which cleaning chemicals to use on which surfaces”).
Without proper cleaning materials used effectively, COVID-19 can linger on surfaces allowing the virus to spread swiftly in contained environments such as DOC facilities. Ex. 1,
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 22 of 40
Dec. of Jaimie Meyer, ECF No. 70-2, ¶ 11. “Cleaning and disinfecting practices can mitigate this risk of disease transmission but remains inadequate in the DC DOC.” Id. While progress has been made, most of that progress post-dates the Court’s TRO Order. And, many of the issues initially identified by the amici persist.3
Next, the Court considers conditions in isolation units. In its TRO Order, the Court ordered Defendants to make conditions in the isolation unit non-punitive by providing reliable access to telephone calls, daily showers, and clean clothing and linens. ECF No. 50, 2. In conducting their review, the amici noted some continuing issues in the isolation units. While inmates in the isolation unit at the infirmary in CTF had access to calls through a rolling telephone cart, inmates in isolation at CDF had continued difficulties with personal and legal calls. Attachment 3, 29: 12-30: 8. The rolling telephone cart was not available to isolation inmates in a particular segment of the housing unit. Instead, they had to make calls from the office area which was not always available. Id. at 30: 3-10. While there has been improvement in the isolation units with access to legal and personal calls, “[i]t appears that additional progress may be necessary.” Id. at 33: 10-12. The amici also noted that while showers were being provided to inmates in isolation, sometimes several days would pass between showers. Id. at 34: 15-18. Amici attributed the lack of shower access to inadequate staffing combined with other incidents and disturbances. Id. at 34: 19-23. Amici further explained that staff and inmates had reported clothing and linen exchanges. However, those exchanges were occurring with increased
3 The Court notes that Defendants contend that they have now provided each inmate with a microfiber towel for cleaning. Defendants cite paragraph 12 of the declaration of either Kathleen Landerkin or Michele Jones. However, neither declaration contains a paragraph 12, and the Court did not see mention of a microfiber towel. See generally, Dec. of Kathleen Landerkin, ECF No. 82-5; Dec. of Michele Jones, ECF No. 82-6. Additionally, these towels were not provided until after the amici’s visit, and the Court has no evidence of how this new cleaning tool works in practice.
22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 23 of 40
frequency only very recently. It was too early for amici to be able to judge whether or not those exchanges occurred with consistency. Id. at 35: 9-16.
Defendants contend that conditions on the isolation unit are greatly improved. According to Defendants, following the amici review, all residents in isolation units have access to the rolling telephone carts. Dec. of Kathleen Landerkin, ECF No. 82-5, ¶ 11. Defendants also highlight that residents in isolation units are checked by medical staff at least twice daily. Dec. of Beth Jordan, ECF No. 82-2, ¶ 4.
Again, the Court credits Defendants for their progress in making isolation units less punitive environments. However, the Court notes that this progress occurred only subsequent to the Court’s TRO Order. Moreover, there remains progress to be made. While Defendants claim that all inmates in isolation units now have access to the rolling telephone cart for personal and legal calls, this was not the case during the amici visits. Additionally, amici noted that Defendants had only recently increased the frequency of the clothing and linen exchanges for those in isolation. And, amici found that many inmates in isolation were having to wait several days between showers. Amici’s findings are supported by declarations of inmates who have been in the isolation units. Ex. 7, Dec. of Romiel Hightower, ECF No. 70-8, ¶ 9 (“I had many fewer opportunities to shower, only once every three or four days after lots of complaining”); Ex. 13, Dec. of Anthony Robertson, ECF no. 70-14, ¶ 10 (“Between April 23rd and April 28th [in isolation unit], I was not able to shower”). The lack of daily access to showers for those in isolation violates Defendants’ own policies and procedures. See Attachment 2, Ex. 11, 2 (“All residents housed in isolation units shall be allowed to shower each day.”). The continuation of punitive conditions on the isolation units serves as a barrier to containing the spread of COVID19 as Defendants primarily rely on inmates to self-report symptoms.
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 24 of 40
Finally, the Court addresses inmates’ access to confidential legal calls. In its TRO Order, the Court required Defendants to “ensure that all inmates, including those on isolation, have access to confidential, unmonitored legal calls of a duration sufficient to discuss legal matters.” ECF No. 50, 3. As previously explained, inmates in isolation have access to a rolling telephone cart to make personal and legal calls. Lacking telephone carts, those in general population units have been forced to make calls through the case managers’ office; however, these calls are not confidential. Dec. of Camile Williams, ECF No. 82-9, ¶ 4. Defendants state that they have recently obtained 50 cellphones and 10 wired headsets to allow inmates to make confidential calls. Id. at ¶ 5. Defendants have ordered an additional 50 wireless headsets which will arrive in June 2020. Id. Additionally, Defendants state that they have harnessed digital tablets to allow inmates to message securely with their attorneys. Dec. of Amy Lopez, ECF No. 82-8, ¶¶ 4-6. Defendants currently have 500 tablets and expect an order of 1,000 more to arrive in June 2020. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 8.
The use of cellphones, wireless headsets, and tablets is a recent development and was not seen during the amici visit. Amici reported that, in order to obtain 30-minute unmonitored legal calls, attorneys are required to email DOC case managers to register for the call system. Attachment 3, 31: 13-15. Once the attorney has registered, the attorney notifies the client by mail and provides contact information. Id. at 31: 23-32: 4. Due to mail delays, some inmates have difficulty accessing this information. Id. at 32: 4-8. When these calls are conducted, they are conducted in the presence of a case manager, so the calls are not confidential. Id. at 33: 13-23. Amici witnessed two to three inmates “conducting legal calls in the case manager’s office with the case manager clearly within earshot.” Id. at 33: 18-21; see also Ex. 9, Dec. of Kennard Johnson, ECF No. 70-10, ¶ 16 (“On April 27, 2020, I had a legal call in the case manager’s
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 25 of 40
office. The case manager was sitting right there during the legal call and could hear the conversation.”).
In addition to the case manager system, inmates in general population can use phones in the housing units to contact their legal counsel. However, a barrier to the use of phones in the housing units is the fact that inmates are frequently locked in their cells and sometimes “do not receive an hour out of their cells daily.” Attachment 3, 17: 13-17. When inmates are let out of their cells, it may be in the middle of the night. Id. at 36: 10-19. So, while general population inmates may be allowed to call their attorneys from phones in the housing units, the inability to leave their cells during business hours prevents inmates from being able to reach their attorneys. Ex. 10, Dec. of Eric Cooper, ECF No. 70-11, ¶ 13 (“Sometimes I am not let out for my hour of recreation time. Sometimes when they do let me out it is done at 3:00 in the morning so I cannot call my family or attorney.”).
The Court credits Defendants for their efforts to obtain new technology to ensure inmates have access to confidential legal calls. However, it appears that some of these new processes have not yet reached the implementation stage. Defendants report that they “have been working to set up accounts for each resident” to be able to use the tablets to message their attorneys. Dec. of Amy Lopez, ECF No. 82-6, ¶ 6 (emphasis added). Defendants “have also been working” with defense attorneys to ensure that they have access to the messaging system. Id. (emphasis added). Similarly, as to the cellphones, Defendants report that “[c]ase managers will use these cell phones to facilitate secure, unmonitored attorney calls.” Dec. of Camile Williams, ECF No. 82-9, ¶ 5 (emphasis added). Defendants do not provide a timeline for the implementation of this new technology. As such, nearly four months into the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendants have not yet
25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 26 of 40
developed a consistent procedure for all inmates to be able to make and receive confidential legal calls.
Based on the current record, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that Defendants are aware of the risks that COVID-19 poses to Plaintiffs’ health and have disregarded those risks by failing to take comprehensive, timely, and proper steps to stem the spread of the virus. Again, the Court acknowledges that additional development of the record may show that Defendants are taking sufficient precautions and that Defendants’ response continues to evolve. However, on the current record, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success in showing deliberate indifference.
c. Municipal Liability Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims because Plaintiffs have failed to establish a municipal policy or custom necessary for liability. “‘[E]pisodic failures of process do not make out a constitutional violation.’” Lightfoot v. District of Columbia, 246 F.R.D. 326, 335 (D.D.C. 2007) (quoting Lightfoot v. District of Columbia, 448 F.3d 392, 402 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Silberman, S.J., concurring)). Instead, “[p]laintiffs who seek to impose liability on local governments under § 1983 must prove that ‘action pursuant to official municipal policy’ caused their injury.” Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011) (quoting Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)); see also Martin v. Malhoyt, 830 F.2d 237, 255 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“One instance, however egregious, does not a pattern or practice make.”). Generally, in order to establish a policy or custom sufficient to confer liability, a plaintiff must establish an express municipal policy, actions of a policy maker, consistent conduct by non-policy makers, or
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 27 of 40
deliberate indifference to the risk of constitutional injury. See Baker v. District of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302, 1306-07 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs cannot make such a showing because their evidence of misconduct amounts to no more than anecdotes and hearsay. Defendants further assert that they have established policies to address the conditions, and the imperfect implementation of those policies is insufficient to establish municipal liability. The Court disagrees.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to establish municipal liability because the challenged conditions are the actions of a policy maker and because Defendants have exhibited deliberate indifference.
First, the challenged conditions represent the policies and procedures approved of by Defendant Booth, the final policy maker at DOC facilities. See Triplett v. District of Columbia, 108 F.3d 1450, 1453 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (recognizing director of DOC as final policy maker). Defendant Booth has personally approved plans and policies for addressing COVID-19. See ECF No. 40-2 (emergency plan for COVID-19, signed by Defendant Booth); Attachment 2, Ex. 11 (update memorandum from Defendant Booth on COVID-19 procedures). Because a final policy maker was involved in addressing the conditions of the DOC facilities in response to COVID-19, and because this was a matter within his authority, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of municipal liability. See Costa, 2020 WL 2735666, at *14 (finding likelihood of municipal liability where the director of the hospital was personally involved in the hospital’s response to COVID-19); see also Thompson v. District of Columbia, 832 F.3d 339, 347-48 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (explaining that a “single action can represent municipal policy where the acting official has final policymaking authority over the particular area, or ... particular issue” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
27

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 28 of 40
Second, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim of municipal liability through a showing of deliberate indifference. A municipality is liable where the government failed “to respond to a need (for example, training of employees) in such a manner as to show ‘deliberate indifference’ to the risk that not addressing the need will result in constitutional violations.” Baker, 326 F. 3d at 1306-07. The standard for deliberate indifference for purposes of municipal liability is lower than the standard for deliberate inference for purposes of Eighth Amendment violations because a showing of subjective indifference is not required. Rather the plaintiff must show that the government “knew or should have known of the risk of constitutional violations, an objective standard.” Id. at 1307. For the reasons discussed above, the Court has already found that Defendants’ conduct meets this standard of deliberate indifference. See Supra III.A.1.b.
Based on both the conduct of a final policy maker and deliberate indifference, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their municipal liability claims for the conditions of their confinement.
d. Exhaustion Finally, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims because Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions ... by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 520 (2002) (holding that the PLRA’s “exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoners seeking redress for prison circumstances or occurrences”).
28

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 29 of 40
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs cannot bring their conditions of confinement claims because they have not exhausted the DOC’s Inmate Grievance Procedures.
However, Defendants appear to be mistaken. Plaintiff Banks has submitted evidence that he filed an emergency grievance with Defendant Booth on March 24, 2020. See Ex. H, ECF No. 89-8. DOC policies require a response to emergency grievances within 72 hours. Ex. G, ECF No. 89-7, 17. However, Plaintiff had not received a response when this lawsuit was filed six days later on March 30, 2020. “[A] prison’s failure to timely respond to an inmate’s properly filed grievance renders its remedies ‘unavailable’ under the PLRA.” Robinson v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, 831 F.3d 148, 153 (3d Cir. 2016); see also Lineberry v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 923 F. Supp. 2d 284, 293 (D.D.C. 2013) (“If . . . prison officials . . . ignore such a request . . . exhaustion may be excused.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Because at least one Plaintiff has pursued available administrative remedies through the emergency grievance process, “the plaintiff class has met the filing prerequisite.” Jackson v. District of Columbia, 254 F.3d 262, 269 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court acknowledges that it has not yet ruled on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify a Class. ECF No. 3. However, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ evidence of exhaustion sufficient to show a likelihood of success on the merits of exhaustion.
2. Claims for Release While the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on their claims for Eighth and Fifth Amendment violations based on the conditions of their confinement, the Court further finds that Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their habeas claims for release. Plaintiffs have failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of
29

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 30 of 40
their habeas claims because, without Court intervention, Defendants have already taken substantial steps to decrease the inmate population at DOC facilities.4
In the Court’s TRO Order, the Court did not order Defendants to take any actions for the release of inmates. See ECF No. 50. Even before the Court issued its TRO Order, the adjudication of individualized petitions for release and the doubling of the maximum number of sentencing credits that a misdemeanant could receive had already led to the release of all but nine inmates convicted of misdemeanors. ECF No. 51, 27.
Since the Court’s TRO Order, the population of the DOC facilities has continued to decline. In their oral report, the amici of the Court noted a “significant reduction” in the population of DOC facilities. Attachment 3, 7: 11-16. On March 24, 2020, the total inmate population at DOC facilities was 1,739. Dec. of Aaron Sawyer, ECF No. 80-1, ¶ 7. And, as of June 16, 2020, that population had decreased to 1,260. This reduction represents a population decrease of approximately 28%. See Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 70, 1-2 (lauding Arlington County Detention Center for decreasing its inmate population by slightly less than a third).
This reduction has been accomplished through many avenues. As has already been discussed, both the Superior Court for the District of Columbia and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia have adjudicated individual petitions for release relating to the COVID-19 crisis. Additionally, the DOC doubled the maximum number of sentencing credits that a misdemeanant could receive in order to expedite the release of non-dangerous misdemeanants. And, the Metropolitan Police Department and the United States Attorney’s
4 Throughout their briefing, the parties devote considerable space to arguing about whether or not the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) applies to Plaintiffs’ habeas requests for release. Because the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not shown a sufficient need for the release of inmates, at this time, the Court does not need to determine whether or not the PLRA would apply to Plaintiffs’ habeas claims.
30

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 31 of 40
Office have made efforts to classify more offenses as citations not requiring detention. Attachment 3, 49: 1-3.
The United States Marshals Service has also taken steps to reduce the inmate population. As of April 14, 2020, the Marshals Service ceased processing federal arrests through DOC facilities. Dec. of Aaron Sawyer, ECF No. 80-1, ¶ 12. And, in early June 2020, the Marshals Service moved approximately 120 sentenced and designated inmates from DOC facilities to BOP quarantine facilities where they will await transfer to other BOP facilities. Id. at ¶¶ 7-9. In addition, the Marshals Service has transferred approximately 15 inmates at high risk for contracting COVID-19 and is working to transfer approximately 20 more high-risk inmates. Id. at ¶ 10. The Marshals Service has further collaborated with the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia in an effort to transfer 50-100 inmates who are committed to other institutions but are being temporarily detained in DOC facilities. Id. at ¶ 11. The Court commends the Marshals Service’s success in moving inmates from DOC facilities particularly given the travel restrictions and other regulations stemming from COVID-19 and their other responsibilities.
Additionally, the United States Parole Commission has made progress in reducing the inmate population at DOC facilities. Starting in mid-March 2020, the Parole Commission has reduced the number of warrants issued for parole and supervised release violations to those posing an imminent risk to public safety. Dec. of Stephen J. Husk, ECF No. 80-3, ¶ 5. And, on April 3, 2020, the Parole Commission began reviewing supervised release violators to consider reducing the prison term imposed for offenders 60 years of age or older who meet certain requirements. Id. at ¶ 7. During April 2020, the Parole Commission further individually reviewed each inmate confined on a parole matter and considered them for possible release. Id. at ¶ 8.
31

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 32 of 40
Throughout the end of May and the beginning of June 2020, the Parole Commission has also been reviewing approximately 90 offenders who have detainers against them to apply heightened scrutiny to see if the detainer may be removed. Id. at ¶ 13. These efforts have resulted in the DOC inmate population under the Parole Commission’s jurisdiction being reduced from 270 on March 16, 2020 to 121 as of May 21, 2020. Id. at ¶ 6.
Plaintiffs complain that the steps that Defendants have taken are too little too late. While the Court agrees that more can yet be accomplished, the Court finds that Defendants have taken concrete steps, dating from before the TRO Order, to reduce the inmate population at DOC facilities. Without Court intervention, the DOC inmate population has already decreased by approximately 28%, and Defendants have indicated steps that will be taken to continue to reduce the population. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on their habeas claims for release.
The Court acknowledges that reducing the inmate population will likely slow the spread of COVID-19. However, in addition to individual inmates who have requested reviews for release, Defendants have already initiated systematic approaches to inmate population reduction without Court intervention. The Court finds it necessary and proper for Defendants to continue updating the Court on their approaches to inmate population reduction and for the Court to continue reviewing those approaches. However, at this time, the Court does not find that additional intervention is warranted on this issue.
For the reasons explained above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success on their habeas claims for release. The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ Motion on this ground.
32

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 33 of 40
B. Irreparable Harm Next, the court considers whether or not Plaintiffs have made a showing of irreparable
harm on their constitutional claims for conditions of confinement. “[P]erhaps the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction is a demonstration that if it is not granted the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm before a decision on the merits can be rendered.” Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 990 F. Supp. 2d 9, 38 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948.1 (2d ed.2013)). “[P]roving irreparable injury is a considerable burden, requiring proof that the movant’s injury is certain, great and actual—not theoretical— and imminent, creating a clear and present need for extraordinary equitable relief to prevent harm.” Power Mobility Coal. v. Leavitt, 404 F. Supp. 2d 190, 204 (D.D.C. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original).
Plaintiffs’ theory of irreparable harm rests on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the resulting health complication. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ risk of contracting COVID-19 and the resulting complications, including the possibility of death, is the prototypical irreparable harm. See Harris v. Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles County, 366 F.3d 754, 766 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding irreparable harm from pain, infection, and possible death due to delayed treatment from the reduction of hospital beds). “Facing requests for preliminary injunctive relief, courts often find a showing of irreparable harm where the movant’s health is in imminent danger.” AlJoudi v. Bush, 406 F. Supp. 2d 13, 20 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing Wilson v. Group Hosp. & Med. Servs., Inc., 791 F. Supp. 309, 314 (D.D.C. 1992) (granting preliminary injunction where cancer patient's “health and future remain[ed] in serious doubt” and insurance would not pay for lifesaving treatment)).
33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 34 of 40
Defendants do not appear to contest that the risk of contracting COVID-19 constitutes irreparable harm. Instead, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm “given that the considerable efforts of DOC are working to slow and prevent the spread of COVID-19 in its facilities.” D.C. Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 82, 37. Defendants further argue that “the three plaintiffs have failed to show that they are facing any risk of imminent harm themselves” as each Plaintiff has not submitted an individualized declaration of potential risk. Id.
The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs have submitted evidence that “people living and working in DC DOC facilities remain at risk of serious harm due to COVID-19 infection.” Dec. of Jaimie Meyer, ECF No. 70-2, ¶ 3. While the Court lauds the progress Defendants have made, such progress is not sufficient to negate Plaintiffs’ risk of harm from contracting COVID-19. This risk of harm applies to Plaintiffs as COVID-19 is an infectious disease which spreads quickly and fatally in congregate settings, such as DOC facilities. “The risk posed by infectious diseases in jails and prisons is significantly higher than in the community, both in terms of risk of transmission, exposure, and harm to individuals who become infected.” Dec. of Jaimie Meyer, ECF No. 5-2, ¶ 9. As inmates at DOC facilities, this increased risk of exposure, contraction, and harm applies to Plaintiffs. The fact that the increased risk is widespread among inmates at DOC facilities does nothing to reduce Plaintiffs’ potential for irreparable harm.
Defendants, as well as society at large, are facing an unprecedented challenge. The risks of contracting COVID-19 are very real for those both inside and outside DOC facilities. However, Plaintiffs have produced evidence that inadequate precautionary measures at DOC facilities have increased their risk of contracting COVID-19 and facing serious health consequences, including death. Given the gravity of Plaintiffs’ asserted injury, as well as the
34

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 35 of 40
permanence of death, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement of facing irreparable harm unless injunctive relief is granted.
C. The Balance of Hardships and the Public Interest The Court moves to the final factors to be considered in granting a temporary restraining
order—the balance of the equities and the public interest. In this case, where the government is a party to the suit, the harm to Defendants and the public interest merge and “are one and the same, because the government’s interest is the public interest.” Pursuing America’s Greatness v. FEC, 831 F.3d 500, 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original). The Court finds that the public interest weighs in favor of granting injunctive relief on Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims for the conditions of their confinement.
First, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood that they will prevail on the merits of their due process and Eighth Amendment claims. And, “[i]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Simms v. District of Columbia, 872 F. Supp. 2d 90, 105 (D.D.C. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no harm to the Government when a court prevents unlawful practices.
Additionally, granting injunctive relief which lessens the risk that Plaintiffs will contract COVID-19 is in the public interest because it supports public health. No man’s health is an island. If Plaintiffs contract COVID-19, they risk infecting others inside the DOC facilities. Plaintiffs also risk infecting DOC staff members who work inside DOC facilities but also live in the community, thus increasing the number of people vulnerable to infection in the community at large. Additionally, if Plaintiffs contract COVID-19 and experience complications, “they will be transported to community hospitals— thereby using scarce community resources (ER beds, general hospital beds, ICU beds).” Dec. of Marc Stern, ECF No. 1-1, ¶ 13. As such, ordering
35

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 36 of 40
Defendants to take precautions to lower the risk of infections for Plaintiffs also benefits the public.
Defendants argue that imposing injunctive relief will disrupt efforts already underway to address the COVID-19 crisis. Defendants contend that injunctive relief would impose an undue burden which would divert time and resources from the precautions already being undertaken.
However, the Court finds that the relief which will be granted, to be detailed below, is narrowly tailored and does not impose an undue burden on Defendants. The Court begins by noting that the D.C. Circuit “has rejected any distinction between a mandatory and prohibitory injunction.” League of Women Voters of United States v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Declarations by DOC officials claim that Defendants are already complying with much of the requested relief. See, e.g., Dec. of Lennard Johnson, ECF No. 82-1, ¶ 6 (social distancing enforced); ¶ 8 (clean linens and clothing for inmates); ¶ 10 (availability of free legal calls); Dec. of Beth Jordon, ECF No. 82-2, ¶ 4 (description of practices in isolation units); ¶ 5 (quarantine and isolation standards); ¶¶ 8-9 (enhanced sick call process); ¶ 10 (testing). The Court’s Order simply ensures that the precautions are being taken consistently and effectively. Moreover, the Court does not order Defendants to take precautions that are not already being undertaken by much of the population. In lessening the number of inmates infected with COVID-19, Defendants actually lessen the healthcare burden that they will be facing in the weeks and months to come.
Defendants further argue that ordering injunctive relief will impose on the broad discretion of the executive in operating correctional institutions. The Court acknowledges the public interest in permitting the government discretion to carry out its authorized functions. However, “[c]ourts may not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy
36

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 37 of 40
would involve intrusion into the realm of prison administration.” Brown, 563 U.S. at 511. The D.C. Circuit has previously authorized injunctive relief against correctional facilities, even where the injunctive relief imposes a particular set of conditions. See Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F.2d 521, 551-52 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (finding specific conditions not unduly intrusive because there was “no alternative if the rights of pretrial detainees are to be respected”). And, other courts have also found that the balance of the equities favors injunctive relief to ensure that inmates are adequately protected from the threat of COVID-19. See Seth v. McDonough, Case No. 20-cv1028, 2020 WL 2571168 (D. Md. May 21, 2020) (granting injunctive relief requiring correctional facility to take actions on testing, PPE, training, education, supervision, and medical care due to COVID-19); Cameron v. Bouchard, Case No. 20-10949, 2020 WL 1929876 (E.D. Mich. April 17, 2020) (injunctive order mandating correctional facility take certain steps involving sanitation, PPE, and medical care in response to COVID-19); Mays v. Dart, Case No. 20-C-2134, 2020 WL 1987007 (N.D. Ill. April 27, 2020) (granting injunctive relief ordering correctional facility to conduct specific testing, enforce social distancing, provide specified sanitation materials, and more).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in favor of granting injunctive relief.
D. Specific Relief Granted While the Court has concluded that, on the current factual record, Plaintiffs are entitled to
some injunctive relief, the Court is not granting the totality of the relief requested. First, the Court does not order the release of any inmates. However, the Court does
ORDER the United States to provide the Court with a detailed plan for the review and possible further reduction of DOC inmates under their supervision/care by JULY 1, 2020. The Court
37

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 38 of 40
further ORDERS the United States Parole Commission to provide the Court with a detailed plan for the review and possible further reduction of DOC inmates under their supervision/care by JULY 1, 2020.
As to the conditions of Plaintiffs’ confinement, the Court ORDERS the following. First, the Court ORDERS that Defendants implement a medical care system on general population units that ensures inmates receive attention from a medical provider within 24 hours of reporting health issues. If this system continues to use sick call slips, Defendants shall ensure that inmates have consistent and immediate access to such sick call slips and that said slips are collected at regular intervals. Defendants shall provide the Court with details of their enhanced medical care system by JUNE 29, 2020. Second, the Court ORDERS that Defendants comply with District of Columbia and Centers for Disease Control regulations on social distancing in DOC facilities. Defendants shall address challenges which have prevented the implementation of social distancing including but not limited to lack of education and staffing shortages. Defendants shall provide the Court an update on their improvements to enforcing social distancing by JUNE 29, 2020. Third, Defendants shall continue the services of their newly-contracted environmental health and safety vendor. Defendants shall further continue their contract to provide COVID-19 cleaning services on the secure and non-secure sides of the DOC facility, including the common areas of all housing units. Defendants shall further continue their efforts to hire a registered sanitarian. Defendants shall ensure that inmates have access to the necessary materials to clean their cells, including cleaning solutions which protect against COVID-19 and adequate cleaning textiles and tools. Defendants shall further ensure that DOC staff and inmates are informed of and trained on the proper techniques for mixing and preparing cleaning solutions as necessary.
38

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 39 of 40
Defendants shall provide the Court an update on their improvements to sanitation by JUNE 29, 2020.
Fourth, Defendants shall ensure that conditions in isolation units are non-punitive. This includes ensuring reliable and regular access to legal calls, personal telephone calls, daily showers, and clean clothing and clean linens to all inmates on isolation status. Defendants shall provide the Court an update on their improvements to conditions in isolation cells by JUNE 29, 2020.
Fifth, Defendants shall ensure that all inmates have access to confidential, unmonitored legal calls of a duration sufficient to discuss legal matters. Insofar as inmates’ access to confidential, unmonitored legal calls is reliant on the use of new technology, Defendants shall swiftly implement the use of such technology. Defendants shall provide the Court an update on their improvements to the legal call system by JUNE 29, 2020.
Finally, the Court notes that Defendants have increased testing for COVID-19, now testing any resident to be transferred to Saint Elizabeths Hospital or to a federal correctional facility. Defendants also test any cell mate of an inmate who tests positive and all new residents upon intake. Defendants continue to test those inmates who report positive for COVID-19 symptoms. The Court ORDERS that Defendants continue implementing this increased testing. The Court further ORDERS that Defendants update the Court on any changes to the testing protocol at DOC facilities, including the further testing of asymptomatic inmates.
After the Court has received the ordered updates, the Court shall schedule a further hearing to discuss next steps and the continued role of the amici of the Court.
39

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100 Filed 06/18/20 Page 40 of 40 IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ [70] Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the balance of the hardships and the public interest weigh in their favor for their constitutional claims involving the conditions of their confinement. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to the injunctive relief which is detailed above. However, the Court finds that some of the relief requested by Plaintiffs, such as the immediate release of inmates and the appointment of a downsizing expert, is inappropriate at this time on the current factual record.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. /s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge
40

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 54

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1

Table , Number of Cells Housing One Inmate and Two Inmates at the Central Detention Facility, March 15 - April 13, 2020

Exhibit 2

Tabl e, Number of Cells Housing One or Two Inmates at the Con-ectional Treatment Facility , March 15, 2020-April 13, 2020

Exhibit 3

Chart, Urgent Care Visits at Central Detention Faci lity and Correctional Treatment Facility by Day, Feb ruary 15, 2020 - Apri'l 15, 2020

Exhibit 4

Chart, Sick Call Requ ests and Encounters By Day, February 15, 2020April 12, 2020

Exhibit 5

Chart , Urgen t Care Medical Encount ers with Clinical Summary Descriptions Including Word COVID by Day , February 15, 2020 - April 15,2020

Exhibit 6 Medical Stay in Place Policy Directive , April 4, 2020

Exhibit 7

CDC Interim Guidelines on Management of Coronovirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities, March 23, 2020

Exhibit 8

Table , Dates and Quantities of Cleaning Suppl ies and Soap Delivered to the CDF and CTF, By Date, December 3 1, 2019-April 13, 2020

Exhibit 9

Photograph of empty cleaning supply containers , Con-ectional Treatment Faci lity, Building D, April 12, 2020

Exhibit IO Photograph of Shower, Correctional Treatment Facility , Building D, April 12, 2020

Exhib it 11

Memorandum from Quincy L. Booth, Director to All DOC Employees and Contractors , April 17, 2020 , Reminders and Updated COVID-19 Policies and Procedures

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2 of 54
Ex.1

N..,,berofCell& Housing One lnmata and Two lnmlll.H at the Central Deler,\ion Faeility Marc:h15. April13, 2020
BaNd on Dapartme'11enC' orr•ctions Data

Celhii Housing One Inmate Cells Hous ing Two Inmates Total Population
Percen tage Inmales Single Celled Percentage Inmates Double Celled

3/lsr.11120 :11l1lr.!020 3117t'l020 3118/ZD:!O :1118'iCm Sl20/2020

462

467

449

445

447

502

412

408

413

408

396

362

1290

12B7

1276

1280

1242

1229

:itl1121120 3122/2020 ll2:l/20ZO

~7

512

520

354

350

346

1218

1215

1ns

lfW2020 452 370 1195

312!512020 me.r.zoz:oitl7/2020

457

458

451

358

353

351

1176

1167

1156

l/211/Z020 317:111:11132107:0/202D 3/311:21120

486

467

474

467

339

339

334

333

1147

1148

1146

1136

36%

36%

35%

35%

36%

41%

42%

42%

43%

38%

39%

39%

39%

41%

41%

41%

41%

64%

63%

65%

64%

64%

59%

58%

58%

57%

62%

61%

60%

61%

59%

59%

58%

59%

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 3 of 54

Cells Housing One Inmate Cells Housing Two lnmales Total Population
Percentage Inmates Single Celled Pe,centoge Inmates Double Celled

4/1/202Jl 470 326 1125

0/2020 472 317 1109

42%

43%

58%

57%

,4,Q/2020 458 318 1097
42% 58%

4Wl020
464 312 1091
43% 57%

4&2G2G 478 300 1093

4'W2020 478 306 1093

4f'ftvn0 475
300 1078

4Alf2020 478 297 1075

4NZ020 469 299 1071

U1Q.l2020 U11Q020

452

455

301

292

1058

1042

4/12/2020 452 293 10<!1

4/llf.2020 452 293 1041

44%

44%

44%

44%

44%

43%

44%

43%

43%

56%

56%

56%

55%

56%

57%

56%

56%

56%

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 4 of 54
Ex. 2

Number of C•II• Houoing Or,e lrmale and Two Inmates aLthe Com,ctional Treatn,ant Facility
March 15 - April 13, 2020
e.. ed on Oepartmenl or Comictions Dllta

Cells Housing One lnmalc Celt, Housing Two lnmales Total Population
Percenlage Inmates SongleCoiled Percenlago lnmales Double Celled

311521120 3/16f.ZD20 3117/2020 lf18/2020

306

395

391

3!11

B2

83

78

75

575

561

547

541

lf1W2020 390 74 538

l/lG/2020 384 72 528

3fl1/2020 389 68 525

l/22/202G 389 69 527

312lt2D20 3l24/2020

383

372

67

72

517

516

3/25fl020 372
n
516

~ 362
79 510

3127/21)211 l/211Q020

349

339

71

n

49 1

483

~020 344 69 482

69%

70%

71%

72%

72%

73%

74%

74%

74%

72%

72 %

69%

71%

70%

71%

29%

30%

29%

28%

28 °.4

27%

26%

26%

26%

28%

28%

31%

29%

30%

29%

3/3Gm20 342 69 460

3fl112020 346 65 476

71 %

73%

29%

27%

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 5 of 54

Cells Housing One lnmale Cells Housing Two lnmales Tolal Populirlion
Percentage Inmates S~le Celled Percentage Inmates Double Celled

.U1/2020 349 62 473

"2l2G20 349 !,5
459

74%

76%

26%

2'1%

4f.llZD20 342 53 448

4/4/2020 330 47 424

76%

78%

24%

22%

"15/20:IO olN20ZD

332

332

46

46

424

424

mt11>20
3:Z4 47 418

"1112112'11UJ/2020

307

303

54

53

415

409

,, 4f1Gr.1020 41111"11>240112/2020 .U13/2020

315

360

375

379

47

20

13

409

400

401

401

78 %

78%

78 %

74%

74%

77 %

90%

94 %

95%

22%

22%

22%

26 %

26%

23 %

10%

6%

5%

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 6 of 54
Ex. 3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 7 of 54

Urgent Care Visits at CDF And CTF, by Day February 15 - April 15, 2020
Based on Unity Health Care Data
200
Total Urgent Care Visits = 3,439
180
Urgent Care Visits at CDF = 2,488
Urgent Care Visits at CTF = 951
160
1'1-0
120
100
80
60
40
20 I I I II I
■ CDF ■ CTF

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 8 of 54
Ex. 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 9 of 54

0

"0 '

2/15/2020

2/16/2020

2/17/2020

2/18/2020

2/19/2020

2/20/2020

2/21/2020

2/22/2020

2/23/2020

2/24/2020

2/25/2020

2/26/2020

2/27/2020

2/28/2020

2/29/2020

3/1/2020

3/2/2020

3/3/2020

3/4/2020

3/5/2020

3/6/2020

3/7/2020

3/8/2020

3/9/2020

• 3/10/2020

n
0.,,

3/11/2020

• 3/12/2020

n..,.,.

3/13/2020 3/14/2020

3/15/2020

0- 3/16/2020
ii,

-

:::, 3/17/2.020

~

3/18/2020

3/19/2020

3/20/2020

3/21/2020

3/22/2020

3/23/2020

3/24/2020

3/25/2020

3/26/2020

3/27/2020

3/28/2020

3/29/2020

3/30/2020

3/31/2020

4/1/2020

4/2/2020

4/3/2020

4/4/2020

4/5/2020

4/6/2020

4/7/2020

4/8/2020

4/9/2020 4/10/2020 4/11/2020

-

4/12/2020

.....
0 a

,....
V, 0

'8"

N
"0 '

..,

o· o· n· U) Cl) Cl)

0.....
!.

===n ~p,;"":,,;-
n n n

:!:
I'>

I'.>) "' "'

,:"

tT1 trJ tT1 :n:, :o:, :n:t

~

s 0 0 0
§ §
ft n..,. ,n.,...

ril ci! ciJ

g ...... ...... "' I'.>)

n n gic:.,-.

..., c:,
"rj "'11

=t"-l
I'>
= 0
:I
~ ~
:l
II

::, 11 II
s..,. VI i+.."..i
0 N O'\
I VI O

tll i,.,
,I>..
""'

c.. II
l;,J VI .
'°

~

n

!:":"

to n

...... Cl:)
Cl>

'TJ _~_.

(1) (1)

a Q.. cr' :,;,

o::,

0
(.\) ..0

c:~ ~

::, - ;a.

- • (.JI Vl
'< g_ 0(((.S1.\.)"):.:):."-:.r►..CI...:..l,.:...n0(t:;..:r\),.1 g Q; ..
'"IN...,. (1) 0 (1)
t:P'-) ;;i
~ 0" cr'
Pl '-<

t;j

~

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 10 of 54
Ex. 5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 11 of 54

Urgent Care Medical Encounters With Clinical Summary Descriptions Including The Word "Covid ," by Day February 15 - April 15, 2020 Based on Unity Health Care Data
80

70

References to "Covid" included , but were not limited to, the following :

- "Covid 19 provider assessment"

50

- "Covid 19 provider initial assessment"

- "Covid 19 provider follow up assessment"

- "Covid 19 PUI provider assessment" or "PUI for covid 19 assessment"

so

40

30

20
l l 11 I 11.

■ CDF ■ CTF

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 12 of 54
Ex. 6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 13 of 54

Johnson, Lennard (DOC)

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Blackmon, Keena (DOC) Friday, April 03, 2020 9:28 PM DOC CDF Mailing List; DOCHQMa ifinglist EFFECTIVESATURDAY, APRJL4, 2020: Medical Stay-In-Place

DOC
T~I!'.Dl!PAfn'MENT
()I! cO'AAf;C'l'tOH&

Medical Stay~ln-Place

Saturday, April 4, 2020- Your health and safety is extremely important-to us. Together, everyone needs to play their patt in helping to flatten the curve. To mitigate the possible spread of coronavirus (COVID-19) through DCDepartment of Corrections (DC DOC)facilities, the Department will implement a medical stay-inplace, effective immediately, which will further limit movement of residents and help "flatten the curve", as we anticipate the pandemic's peak in the next several weeks.

During the medical stay in place, the following activities will occur:

• Residents will largely be restricted to their cells with the exception of a modified recreation schedule,

where g~oups no larger than five are out at any one ti[!le, and prac~ice social distancing of six'feet to

the fullest extent possible;

!
I

• All non-urgent medical visits will be re-scheduled to min imize movement. To the extent possible

medical care will be provided on the unit;

• Commissary will continue once a week as scheduled;

• Laun~ry will continue once a week as scheduled; • · Out of cell time 9f 30 minutes each day for phone calls, showers, and cell w ipe down; • Parole Commission and Video Court Hearings would continue;

• Medical escorts will continue for matters that cannot be handled on the unit;

• DiscipJinary hearings will continue as scheduled;

• Culinary and Environmental details will continue as scheduled;

• _Mail services will continue as scheduled;

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 14 of 54
• Stop all group activities and minimize the number of residents participating in recreation on tier (no more than 10 at a time);
• Ceaseall movement between facilities unless in an emergency situation; • Ceaseall video visitation; and • Ceaseall visits with attorneys unless actively in trial for the same reason listed above. These changesare for the health and safety of our workforce, residents, and contractors. Pleasecontinue to utilize health and safety precautions to help keep our DOCfacilities, staff, and residents safe and healthy. Follow the guidance below on how to reduce your risk of infection and slow its spread. • Thoroughly wash your hands for at least 20 seconds. • Avoid close contact with people who are sick. • Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth • Sanitize your equipment. • Follow the safety protoco ls in place at each of the DOCfacilities. • If you are sick, contact your healthcare provider and request sick leave through
your supervisor. Thank you for your continued commitment to serving our city and our neighbors. For the latest information on the District Government's response to COVID-19 (Coronavirus), please visit coronavirus .dc.gov.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 15 of 54
Ex. 7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 16 of 54

This interim guidance is based on what is currently known about the transmission and severity of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as of March 23, 2020.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will update this guidance as needed and as additional informat ion becomes available. Pleas e check the follow ing CDC websi t e periodically for upda t ed interim guidance: https .://V'{FW.c.dc:,£ov/c91:onavirl!,§/2019-ncov /index.htm l.
This document provides interim guidance specific for correctional facilities and detention centers during t he outbreak of COVID-19, to ensure continuation of essential public services and protection of the health and safety of incarcerated and detained persons, staff, and visitors. Recommendations may n eed to be revised as more information becomes avai lable.

In this guidance
• Who is the intended audience for this guidance?
• Why is this guidance be ing issued?
• What topics does this guidance include?
• Definitions of Commonly Used Terms Facilities with Limited Onsite Healthcare Services
• COVID-19 Guidance for Correctional Facilities
• Operational Preparedness • Prevention
• Management • Infection Control
• Clinical Care of COVID-19 Cases
• Recommended PPE and PPE Training for Staff and Incarcerated/Detained Persons
• Verbal Screening and Temperature Check Protocols for Incarcerated/ Detained Persons, Staff, and Visitors

Who is the intended audience for this guidance?
This document is intended to provide guiding principles for heal t hcare and non -heal t hca re administ rators of correctional and detention facilities (including but not limite d to federal and state p risons, local jails, and detention centers), law enforcement agencies that have custodial authority for deta ine d p opulations (i.e., US Immigra t ion and Customs Enfo rcement and US Marshals Service), and their respective health departme n ts , to assist in preparing for p otential introduct ion, spread, and mitiga tion of COVID-19 in their facilities . In general, the do cument uses t erminology referring to correctiona l environments but can also be applied to civil and pr e-t rial det ention setting s.
This guidance will not necessarily address every possible custodial setting and may n ot use legal termino logy specific to individual agencies' au t horities or processes. The guidance may need to be adapted based on individual facilities' physical space, staffing, population, operations, and other resources and conditions. Facilities should con tact CDC or the ir state, local, ter ritorial, and/or tribal pub lic healt h department if they need assistance in applying these principles or addressing top ics that are not specifical ly covered in thi s guidance.

cdc.gov/coronavirus

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 17 of 54
Whyis this guidance being issued?
Correctional and detention facilities can include custody, housing, education, recreation, healthcare, food service, and workplace components in a single physical setting. The integration of these components presents unique challenges for control of COVID-19 transmission among incarcerated/detained persons, staff, and visitors . Consistent application of specific preparation, prevention, and management measures can help reduce the risk of transm issio n and severe disease from COVID-19.
• Incarcerated/deta ined persons live, work, eat, study, and recreate within congregate environments, heightening the potential for COVID-19 to spread once introduced .
• In most cases, incarcerated/detained persons are not permitted to leave the facility.
• There are many opportunities for COVID-19 to be introdu ced into a correctional or detention facility, including daily staff ingress and egress; transfer of incarcerated/detaine d persons between facilities and systems, to court appearances, and to outside medical visits; and visits from family, legal representatives, and other community members. Some settings, particularly jails and detention centers, have high turnover, admitting new entrants daily who may have been exposed to COVID-19 in the surrounding community or other regions.
• Persons incarcera ted/deta ined in a particular facility often come from a variety of locations, increasing the potential to introduce COVID-19 from different geographic areas.
• Options for medical isolation of COVID-19 cases are limited and vary depending on the type and size of facility, as well as the current level of available capacity, which is partly based on medical isolation needs for other conditions.
• Adequate levels of custody and healthcare staffing must be maintained to ensure safe operation of the facility, and options to practice social distancing through work alternatives such as working from home or reduced/alternate schedules are limited for many staff roles.
• Correctional and detention facilities can be complex, multi-employer settings that in clude government and private employers . Each is organizationally distinct and responsible for its own operational , personnel, and occupational health protocols and may be prohibited from issuing guidance or providing services to other employers or their staff within the same setting. Similarly, correctional and detention facilities may house individuals from multiple law enforcement agencies or jurisdictions subject to different policies and procedures.
• Incarcerated/detained persons and staff may have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe disease from COVID-19.
• Because limited outside information is available to many incarcerated/detained persons, unease and misinformation regarding the potential for COVID-19 spread may be high , potentially creating security and morale challenges.
• The ability of incarcerated/detained persons to exercise disease prevention measures (e.g., frequent hand washing) may be limited and is determined by the supplies provided in the facility and by security considerations. Many facilities restrict access to soap and paper towe ls and prohibit alcohol-based hand sanitizer and many disinfectants.
• Incarcerated persons may hesitate to report symptoms of COVID-19 or seek medical care due to co-pay requirements and fear of isolation.
CDC has issued separate COVID-19 guidance addressing healthcare infection control and clinical care of COVID-19 cases as well as close contacts of cases in community-based settings. Where relevant, community-focused guidance documents are referenced in this document and shou ld be monitored regularly for updates, but they may require adaptation for correctional and detention settings.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 18 of 54
This guidance document provides additional recommended best practices specifically for correctional and detention facilities . At this time, different facility types (e.g., prison vs. jail) and sizes are not differentiated. Administrators and agencies should adapt these guiding principles to the specific needs of their facility.
What topics does this guidance include?
The guidance below includes detailed recommendations on the following topics related to COVID-19 in correc tional and detention settings :
-J Operational and communications preparations for COVID-19
V Enhanced deaning/disinfec t ing and hygiene p ractices .J Social distancing strategi es to increase space between individuals in the facility
-J How to limit transmission from visitors -J Infection control , including recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) and potent ial alternatives
during PPE shortages
.J Verbal screening and temperature check protoco ls for incoming incarcerated/detained individuals , staff,
and visitors
-J Medical isolation of confirmed and suspec t ed cases and quarantine of contacts , including considerations
for cohorting when individual spaces are limited
-J Healthcare evaluation for suspected cases, including testing for COVID-19
-./ Clinical care for confirmed and suspected case s
-J Considerations for persons at higher risk of severe disease from COVID-19
Definit ions of Commonly Used Terms
Close contact of a COVID-19 case-In the contex t of COVID-19 , an individual is considered a dose contact if they a) have been within approximately 6 feet of a COVID-19 case for a prolonged period of time orb) have had direct contact with infectious secretions from a COVID-19 case (e.g., have been coughe d on). Close contact can occur while caring for, living with, visiting, or sharing a common space with a COVID-19 case. Data to inform the definition of dose contact are limited . Considerations when assessing close contact include the duration of exposure (e.g., longer exposure time likely increases exposure risk) and the clinical symptoms of the person with COVID-19 (e.g., coughing likely increases exposure risk, as does exposure to a severely ill patient).
Cohorting-Cohorting refers to the practice of isolating multiple laboratory -confirmed COVID-19 cases together as a group, or quarantining close contacts of a par t icular case together as a group . Ideally, cases should be isolated individually, and dose contacts should be quarantined individually. However, some correctional facilities and detention centers do not have enough individual cells to do so and must consider cohorting as an alternative. See Quara n tine and Medical Isol atio n sections below for specific details about ways to implement cohorting to minimize the risk of disease spread and adverse health outcomes.
Community transmission of COVID-19-Community transmission of COVID-19 occurs when individuals acquire the disease through contact with someone in their local commun ity, rather than through travel to an affected location. Once community transmission is identified in a partic ular area, correc t ional facilities and detention centers are more likely to start see ing cases inside their walls. Facilities should consult with local public health departments if assistance is needed in determining how to define "local community" in the context of COVID-19 spread . However, because all states have reported cases, all facilities shou ld be vigilant for introduction into their populations.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 19 of 54
Confirmed vs. Suspected COVID-19 case-A confirmed case has received a positive result from a COVID-19 laboratory test, with or without symptoms. A suspected case shows symptoms of COVID-19 but either has not been tested or is awaiting test results . If test results are positive, a suspected case becomes a confirmed case.
Incarcerated/detained persons-For the purpose of th is document, "incarcerated/detained persons" refers to persons held in a prison, jail, detention center, or other custodial setting where these guidelines are generally applicable. The term includes those who have been sentenced (i.e., in prisons) as well as those held for pre -tria l (i.e., jails) or civil purposes (i.e, detention centers). Although this guidance does not specifically reference individuals in every type of custodia l setting (e.g., juven ile facilities, community confinement facilities), facility administrators can adapt this guidance to apply to their specific circumstances as needed.
Medical Isolation-Medical isolation refers to confining a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case (ideally to a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes), to prevent contact with others and to reduce the risk of transmission. Medical isolation ends when the individual meets pre-established clinical and/or testing criteria for release from isolation, in consultation with clinical providers and public heal th officials (detailed in guidance kelow . In this context, isolation does NOT refer to punitive isolation for behav ioral infractions within the custodial setting. Staff are encouraged to use the term "medica l isolation" to avoid confusion.
Quarantine-Quarantine refers to the practice of confining individuals who have had close contac t with a COVID-19 case to determine whether they develop symptoms of the disease. Quarantine for COVID-19 should last for a period of 14 days. Ideally, each quarantined individual would be quarantined in a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes. If symptoms develop during the 14-day period , the ind ividual should be placed under medical isolation and evaluated for COVID-19. If symptoms do not develop , movement restrictions can be lifted, and the individual can return to their previous residency status within the facility .
Social Distancing-Social distancing is the practice of increas ing the space between individuals and decreasing the frequency of contact to reduce the risk of spreading a disease (ideally to maintain at least 6 feet between all individuals, even those who are asymptomatic). Social distancing stra t egies can be applied on an in dividual level (e.g., avoiding physical contact), a group leve l (e.g., canceling group activities where individuals will be in close contact), and an operational level (e.g., rearranging chairs in the din ing hall to increase distance between them) . Althoug h social distancing is challenging to practice in correctional and detention environments, it is a cornerstone of reducing transmission of resp ira tory diseases such as COVID-19. Additional information about social distancing, including information on its use to reduce the spread of other viral illnesses, is available in this CDC publication.
Staff-In this document, "staff" refers to all public sector employees as well as those working for a private contractor within a correctional facili ty (e.g., private healthcare or food service). Except where noted, "staff " does no t distinguish between hea lthcare, custody, and other types of staff including private facility operators.
Symptoms- Symptoms of COVID--19 include fever , cough, and shortness of breath . Like other respira t ory infections, COVID-19 can vary in severity from mild to severe. When severe , pneumonia , respiratory failure , and death are possible. COVID-19 is a novel disease, therefore the full ra nge of signs and symptoms, the clinical course of the disease, and the individuals and populations most at risk for disease and comp lications are not yet fully understood. Monitor the CDC website for updates on these topics .
Facilities with Limited Onsite Healthcare Services
Although many large facilities such as prisons and some jails usually employ onsite healthcare staff and have the capacity to evaluate incarcerated/detained persons for potent ial illness within a dedicated healthcare space, many smaller facilities do not. Some of the se facilities have access to on-call healthcare staff or providers who visit the facility every few days. Others have neither onsi t e healthcare capacity no r onsite medical isolation/quarantine space and must trans fer ill patients to other correctional or detention facilit ies or local hospitals for evaluation and care.
4

Case 1. :20-cv-0.0849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2-,0. o•fI 54
The majority of the guidance below is designed to be app lied to any correc t ional or detention facility, either as written or with modifications based on a facility's individual structure and resources. However, topics related to healthcare evaluation and clinical care of confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases and the ir close contacts may not apply directly to facilities with limited or no onsite healthcare services. It will be especially important for these types of facilities to coordinate closely with their state, local, tribal, and/or terr itorial health department when they encounter confirmed or suspected cases among incarcerated/detained persons or staff, in order to ensure effective medical isolation and quarantine, necessary medical evaluation and care, and medical transfer if needed. The guidance makes note of strategies tailored to facilities without onsite healthcare where possible.
Note that all staff in any sized facility, regardless of t he presence of onsite healthcare services, should observe guidance on reco111mende_gj>PEin order to ensure their own safety when in teracting with confirmed and
suspected COVID-19 cases. Facilities shou ld make contingency plans for the likely event of Pf!_l_sh_ortag_~~
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID-19 Guidance for Correctional Facilities
Guidance for correctional and detention facilities is organized into 3 sections: Operational Preparedness, Prevention, and Management of COVID-19 . Recommendations across these sect ions can be applied simulta neously based on the progress of the outbreak in a particu lar facility and the surrounding community .
• Operationa~ Preparedness. This guidance is intended to help facilities prepare for potent ial COVID-19 transmission in the facility . Strategies focus on operational and communications plann ing and personnel practices .
• Preyention . This guidance is intended to help facilities prevent spread of COVID-19 from outside the facility to inside . Strategies focus on reinforcing hygiene practices, intensifying cleaning and disin fection of the facility, screening (new intakes, visitors, and staff), continued communica ti on with incarcerated/ detained persons and staff, and social distancing measures (increasing dis tance betw een individuals) .
• M~n_,i!ge!l_lent . This guidance is intended to help facilities clinically manage confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases inside the facility and prevent further transmiss ion. Strategies include med ical isolation and care of incarcerated/ detained persons with symptoms (including considerations for cohorting), quarantine of cases' close contacts, restricting movement in and out of the facility, infection control practices for individuals interacting with cases and quarant in ed contacts or contaminated items, in tensified social distancing, and cleaning and disinfecting areas visited by cases .
Operational Preparedness
Administrators can plan and prepare for COVID-19 by ensuring that all persons in th e facility know the symptoms of C9 VID-19 and how to respond if they develop sym ptoms . Other essential actions include developing contingency plans for reduced workforces due to absences, coordinating with public health and correctional partners, and communicating d early with staff and inca rcerate d/ detained persons about these preparations and how they may temporarily alter daily life.
Communication & Coordination
✓ Develop information-sharing systems with partners.
o Identify points of contact in relevant state, local , tribal, and/or territorial public health departments before cases develop. Actively engage with the he alth department to understand in advance wh ich entity has jurisdiction to implemen t pub lic health contro l meas ures for COVID-19 in a particular correctional or detention facility.
o Create and test communications plans to disseminate critical info rmation to incarcerated/de tained persons, staff, contractors, vendors, and visitors as the pandemic progresses.
s

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 21 o.f• 54
o Communicate with other correctional facilities in the same geographic area to share information including disease surveillance and absenteeism patterns among staff.
o Where possible, put plans in place with other jurisdictions to prevent conftrn1_~dand s~_spected CO.VIp-19 cases and their close COJ].tag:~from being transferred between jurisdictions and facilities unless necessary for medical evaluation, med ical isolation/quarantine, clinical care, extenuating security concerns, or to prevent overcrowding.
o Stay informed about updates to CDC guidance via the C_p( CO~I_Q_-19website as more information becomes known.
-/ Review existing pandemic flu, all -hazards, and disaster plans, and revise for COVID-19.
o Ensure that physical locations (dedicated housin g areas and bathrooms) have been identified to isolate confirmed COVID-19 cases and individuals displaying COVID-19 symptoms, and to quarantine known close contacts of cases. (Medical isolation and quarantine locations should be separate). The plan should include contingencies for multiple locations if numerous cases and/ or contacts are identified and require medical isolation or quarantine simul t aneously . See Medical Isolation and Quarantine sections below for details regarding individual medical isolation and quarantine locations (preferred) vs. cohorting.
o Facili-i;_iewsithout onsit;_ehe,,ilthcare capa cit, should make a plan for how they will ensure that suspected COVID-19 cases will be isolated, evaluated, tested (if indicated), and provided necessary medical care.
o Make a list of possible s..9cialdi~~ncing__§_trategiest hat could be implemented as needed at different stages of transmission intensity .
o Designate officials who will be authorized to make decisions about escalating or de -escalating response efforts as the epidemiologic context changes.
V Coordinate with local law enforcement and court officials.
o Identify lawful alternatives to in-person court appearances, such as virtual court, as a social distancing measure to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission.
o Explore strategies to prevent over -crowding of correctional and detention facilities during a commun ity outbreak.
,/ Post !Jg!l~~ throughout the facility communicating the following:
o For all: symptoms of COVID-19 and hand hygiene instruc tions o For incarcerated/detained persons: report symptoms to staff
o For staff: stay at home when sick; if symptoms develop while on duty, leave the facility as soon as possible and follow CDC-recommended steps for persons who are ill with COVID-19 symptoms including self-isolating at home, contacting their healthcare provider as soon as possib le to determine whether they need to be evaluated and tested, and contacting their supervisor.
o Ensure that signage is understandable for non-English speaking persons and those with low literacy, and make necessary accommodations for those with cognitive or inte llectua l disabilities and those who are deaf, blind, or low-vision .
Personnel Practices ../ Review the sick leave policies of each employer that operates in the facility.
o Review policies to ensure that they actively encourage staff to stay home when sick.
o If thes e policies do not encourage staff to stay home when sick, discuss with the contract company. o Determine which officials will have the authority to send symptomatic staff home .
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 22 of 54
,/ Identify staff whose duties would allow them to work from home. Where possible, allowing staff to work from home can be an effective social distancing strategy to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. 0 Discuss work from home options with these staff and determine whether they have the supplies and technological equipment requ ired to do so. o Put system s in place to implement work from home programs (e.g., time tracking, etc.) .
..J Plan for staff absences. Staff should st ay home when they are sick, or t hey may need to stay home to care for a sick household member or care for children in the event of school and childcare dism issals . o Allow staff to work from home when possible, within the scope of thei r duties . o Identify critical job functions and plan for alternative coverage by cross-training staff where poss ible . o Determine minimum levels of staff in all categor ies required for the facility to function safely. If possible, develop a plan to secure additional staff if absenteeism due to COVID-19 threatens to bring staffing to minimum levels . o Consider increasing keep on person (KOP) medication orders to cover 30 days in case of hea lthcare staff shortages.
-./ Consider offering revised duties to staff who are at higher risk of severe illness with COVID-19 . Persons at higher risk may include older adults and persons of any age with serious underlying med ical conditions including lung disease, heart disease, and diabetes. See CDC's weqgte for a comp lete list , and check regularly for updates as more data become available to inform this issue.
o Facility administrators should consult with their occupational health providers to determine whether it would be allowable to reassign duties for specific staff members to reduce their likelihood of exposure to COVID-19 .
../ Offer the seasonal influenza vaccine to all incarcerated/detained persons (existiQg population and new intakes) and staff throughout the influenza season. Symp t oms of COVID-19 are similar to those of influenza. Preventing influenza cases in a facility can speed the detection of COVID-19 cases and reduce pressure on healthcare resources .
../ Reference the Occup~tional Safety and Health Administration website for recommendations regarding worker health .
..J Review CDC's guidance for businesses and employers to identify any additional strategies the facility can use within its role as an employer.
Operations & Supplies ../ Ensure that sufficient stocks of hygiene supplies, deaning supplies, PPE, and medical supplies
(consistent with the healthcare capabilities of the facility) are on hand and available, and have a plan in place to restock as needed if COVID-19 transmission occurs within the facility.
o Standard medical supplies for daily clinic needs o Tissues o Liquid soap when possible. If bar soap must be used , ensure t hat it does not irr itate the skin and
thereby discourage frequent hand washing. o Hand drying supplies o Alcohol-based hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol (where per m issible based on secur ity
restrictions)
o Cleaning supplies, including EPA-registered disinfectants effective against the virus that causes COVID-19
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 23 of 54
o Recommended PPE(facemasks, N95 respirators, eye protection, disposable medical gloves, and
disposable gowns/one -piece coveralls) . See PPE section and Table 1 for more detailed informa t ion, including recommendations for extending the life of all PPE categories in the event of sho rt ages, and when face masks are acceptable alternatives to N95s.
o Sterile viral transport media and steril e swabs to collect nasophary:ngeal specimens if COVID-19
testing is indicated
..J Make contingency plans for the probable event of PPE shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for non-healthcare workers. o See CDC guidance optimizing PPE supplies .
..J Consider relaxing restrictions on allowing alcohol-based hand sanitizer in the secure setting where security concerns allow. If soap and water are not available, CDC recommends cleaning hands with an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol. Consider allowing staff to carry individual-sized bottles for their personal hand hygiene while on duty .
..J Provide a no-cost supply of soap to incarcerated/detained persons, sufficient to allow frequent hand washing. (See Hygiene section below for additional detail regarding recommended frequency and protoco l for hand washing.) o Provide liquid soap where possible . If bar soap must be used, ensure that it does not irr itate the skin and thereby discourage frequent hand washing .
..J If not already in place, employers operating within the facility should establish a i:_esp_!!'atory pro~ctio~ _program as appropriate, to ensure that staff and incarcerated/detained persons are fit tested for any respiratory protection they will need within the scope of their responsibilities.
✓ Ensure that staff and incarcerated/detained persons are trained to correctly don, doff, and dispose of PPE that they will need to use within the scope of their responsibilities. See Table 1 for recommended PPE for incarcerated/ detained persons and staff with varying levels of contact with COVID-19 cases or their close contacts.
Prevention
Cases of COVID-19 have been documented in all 50 US stat es. Correct ional and detention facilities can prevent introduction of COVID-19 from the community and reduce transmission if it is already inside by reinforcing good hygiene practices among incarcerated/detained persons, staff, and visitors (including increasing access to soap and paper towels), intensifying cleaning/disinfection practices, and implementing social distancing strategies.
Because many individuals infected with COVID-19 do not display symptoms, the virus could be present in facilities before cases are identified. Both good hygiene practices and social distancing are crit ical in preventing further transmission .
Operations
...J Stay in communication with partners about your facility's current situation. o State, local, territorial, and/or tribal health departments o Other correctional facilities
..J Communicate with the public about any changes to facility operations, including visitation programs.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 24 of 54
-J Restrict transfers of incarcerated/ detained persons to and from other jurisdictions and
facilities unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/qu .arantine, clinical care, extenuating security concerns, or to prevent overcrowding.
o Strongly consider postponing non-urgent outside medical visits. o If a transfer is absolutely necessary, perform verbal screening an d a temperature check as outl ined in
the Sc_reening sect ion below, before the individual leaves the facility. If an individual does n ot clear the screening process, delay the transfer and follow the protoco l for a suspe~tec! COVID-19 caseincluding putting a face mask on the in dividua l, immedia tely placing them under medica l isolation, and evaluating them for possible COVID-19 testing. If the transfer must still occu r, ensure that the receiving facility has capacity to properly isolate the individual upon arrival. Ensure that staff transporting the individual wear recommended PPE (see Table l) and that the transport vehicle is cleaned thoroughly after transport.
v Implement lawful alternatives to in-person court appearances where permissible. v Where relevant, consider suspending co-pays for incarcerated/detained persons seeking
medical evaluation for respiratory symptoms .
-J Limit the number of operational entrances and exits to the facility.
Cleaning and Disinfecting Practices
-.J Even if COVID-19 cases have not yet been identified inside the facility or in the surrounding community, begin implementing intensified cleaning and disinfecting procedures according to the recommendations below. These measures may prevent spread of COVID-19 if introduced.
V Adhere to CDC recommendations for deaning and disinfection dur ing t he COVID-19 response. Monitor
these recommendations for updates. o Several tim es per day, clean and disinfect surfaces and objects that are frequently touched, especially in common areas. Such surfaces may include objects/surfaces not ordinarily cleaned daily (e.g., doorknobs, light switches, sink handles, countertops, toilets, toilet handles, recreation equipment, kiosks, and telephones). o Staff should clean shared equipment several times per day and on a conclusion of use basis (e.g., radios, service weapons, keys, handcuffs). o Use household cleane rs and EPA-registere _d disinfectants effective against the virus that causes COVID-19 as appropriate for the surface, following label instructions. This may require lifting restrictions on undiluted disinfectants. o Labels contain instructions for safe and effective use of the clean ing produ ct, including precautions that should be taken when applying the product, such as wearing gloves and making sure there is good ventilation dur ing use.
V Consider increasing the number of staff and/or incarcerated/detained persons trained and
responsible for deaning common areas to ensure continual cleaning of these areas throughout the day.
V Ensure adequate supplies to support intensified cleaning and disinfection practices, and have a
plan in place to restock rapidly if needed.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 25 of 54
Hygiene
-J Reinforce healthy hygiene practices, and provide and continually restock hygiene supplies
throughout the facility, including in bathrooms, food preparation and dining areas, intake areas, visitor entries and exits, visitation rooms and waiting rooms, common areas, medical, and staff-restricted areas (e.g., break rooms) .
../ Encourage all persons in the facility to take the following actions to protect themselves and others from COVID-19. Post signage throughout the facility, and communicate this information verbally on a regular basis. Sample signage and other communicat ions materials are available on the CDCwebsite. Ensure that materials can be understood by non -English speakers and those with low literacy, and make necessary accommodations for those with cognitive or in tellectua l disab ilities and those who are deaf, blind, or low -vision . o Practice good cough etiquett e: Cover your mouth and nose with your elbow (or ideally with a tissue) rather than with your hand when you cough or sneeze, and throw all tissues in the trash immediately after use . o Practice good hand hygiene : Regularly wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, especially after coughing, sneezing, or blow ing your nose; after us ing the bathroom; before eating or preparing food; before taking medication; and after touching garbage. o Avoid touching your eyes, nose, or mouth without cleaning your hands first. o Avoid sharing eating utensils, dishes, and cups.
o Avoid non-essential physical contact .
../ Provide incarcerated/ detained persons and staff no-cost access to: o Soap-Provide liquid soap where possible. If bar soap must be used, ensure that it does not irritate the skin, as this would discourage frequent hand washing. o Running water, and hand drying machines or disposable paper towels for hand washing o Tissues and no-touch trash receptacles for disposal
✓ Provide alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol where permissible based on security restrictions. Consider allowing staff to carry ind ividual-sized bottles to maintain hand hygiene.
-J Communicate th.at sharing drugs and drug preparation equipment can spread COVID-19 due to
potential contamination of shared items and close contact between individuals.
Prevention Pract ices for Incarcerated/Detai ned Persons
✓ Perform pre-intake screening and tempera,ture checks for all new entrants. Screening should take place in the sallyport, before beginning the intake process, in order to ident ify an d immediately place individuals with symptoms under medical isolation. See Screening section below for the wording of screening questions and a recommended procedure to safe ly perform a temperature check. Staff performing temperature checks should wear recommended PPE (see PPE section below).
o If an individual has symptoms of COVID-19 (fever, cough, shortness of breat h): • Require the individual to wear a face mask.
• Ensure that staff who have direct contact with the symp tomatic individual wear recommended PPE. • Place the individual under medical isolation (ideally in a room near the screening location,
rather than transporting the ill individual through t he facility), and refer to healthcare staff for further evaluation. (See J_nfection Con!X.Q!and Clinica l C~1~ sections be low.) • Facilities without onsite healthcare staff should contact their state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health department to coordinate effective medical isolation and nec essary medical care .
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 26 of 54
o If an individual is a close con tact of a known COVID-19 case (but has no COVID-19 symptoms): • Quarantine the individual and monitor for symptoms two times per day for 14 days. (See Quar ~ti n~ section below.) • Facilities without onsite healthcare staff should contact their state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health department to coordinate effective quarantine and necessary medical care.
y Implement socia l distancing strategies to increase the physical space between incarcerated/
detained persons (ideally 6 feet between all individuals, regardless of the presence of symptoms). Strategies will need to be tailored to the individual space in the facility and the needs of the population and staff Not all strategies will be feasible in all facilities. Examp le strategies with varying levels of intensity include:
o Common areas:
• Enforce increased space between individuals in holding cells, as well as in lines and waiting areas such as intake (e.g., remove every other chair in a wait ing area)
o Recreation: • Choose recreation spaces where individuals can spread out • Stagger time in recreation spaces • Restrict recreation space usage to a single housing unit per space (where feasible)
o Meals: • Stagger meals • Rearrange seating in the dining hall so that there is more space between individuals (e.g., remove every other chair and use only one side of the table) • Provide meals inside housing units or cells
o Group activities: • Limit the size of group activities • Increase space between individuals during group activities • Suspend group programs where participants are likely to be in closer contact than they are in their housing environment • Consider alternatives to existing group activities, in outdoor areas or other areas where individuals can spread out
o Housing: • If space allows, reassign bunks to provide more space between individuals, ideally 6 feet or more in all directions . (Ensure that bunks are cleaned thoroughly if assigned to a new occupant.) • Arrange bunks so that individuals sleep head to foot to increase the distance between them • Rearrange scheduled movements to minimize mixing of individua ls from different housing areas
o Medical: • If possible, designate a room near each housing unit to evaluate individua ls with COVID-19 symptoms, rather than having them walk through the facility to be evaluated in the me dical unit. If this is not feasible, consider staggering sick call. • Designate a room near the intake area to evaluate new entrants who are flagged by the intake screening process for COVID-19 symptoms or case contact, before they move to other parts of the facility.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 27 of 54
..J Communicate dearly and frequently with incarcerated/ detained persons about changes to their daily routine and how they can contribute to risk reduction.
-J Note that if group activities are discontinued, it will be important to identify alternative forms
of activity to support the mental health of incarcerated/detained persons.
-v Consider suspending work release programs and other programs that involve movement of
incarcerated/ detained individuals in and out of the facility.
✓ Provide ug -to -date information about COVID-19 to incarcerated/detained persons on a regular basis, including:
o Symptoms of COVID-1~ and its health risks
o Reminders to report COVID-19 symptoms to staff at the first sign of illness
-v Consider having healthcare staff perform rounds on a regular basis to answer questions about
COVID-19.
Prevention Practices for Staff
✓ Remind staff to stay at home if they are sick. Ensure that staff are aware that they will not be able to enter the facility if they have symptoms of COVID-19, and that they will be expected to leave the facility as soon as possib le if they develop symptoms while on duty .
-v Perform verbal screening (for COVID-19 symptoms and close contact with cases) and
temperature checks for all staff daily on ent ·ry. See Screening section be low for wor ding of screening questions and a recommended procedure to safely perform t emperature checks.
o In very small facilit ies with only a few staff, consider self-monitoring or virtua l monitoring (e.g., reporting to a central authority via phone) .
o Send staff home who do not clear the screening process , and adv ise them to follow CDCrecommended steps for persons who are_ill with COVID-19 symptoms.
v Provide staff with up-to-date information about COVID-19 and about facility policies on a
regular basis, including:
o Symptoms of COVID-19 and its health risks o Employers' sick leave policy o If staff develop a fever, cough, or shortness of breath while at work: immed iat ely put on a
face mask, inform supervisor, leave the facility , and follow CDC-recommended steps for persons who are ill with COVJD-19 symp toms.
o If staff test positive for COVID-19: inform workplace and personal contacts immediately, and do not return to work until a decision to discontinue home medical isolation precautions is made . Moni tor CDC guidance on discontinuing home isolation regularly as circums t ances evolve rapidly .
o If a staff member is identified as a close contact of a COVID-19 case (either within the facility or in the community): self-quarantine at home for 14 days and return to work if symptoms do not develop. If symptoms do develop, follow CD~-recom._r.D.ended_!,Jepfos~___pei:sons_who are ill with COVID-19 ~ toms .
-J If a staff member has a confirmed COVID-19 infection, the relevant employers should inform
other staff about their possible exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace, but should maintain confidentiality as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
o Employees who are clos~~.9ntacts of the case should then self -monitor for s_wptoms (i.e., fever , cough, or shortness of breath) .
12

--- Case 1:20-cv-00849-CK- K Document 100-2 -Filed 06/18/20- Pag-e 28 of 54
../ When fea,ible and consistent with security priorities, encourage staff to maintain a distance of 6 feet or more from an individual with respiratory symptoms while interviewing, escorting, or interacting in other ways.
✓ Ask staff to keep interactions with individuals with respiratory symptoms as brief as possible.
Preventio n Practices for Visitors
-J If possible, communicate with potential visitors to discourage contact visits in the interest of
their own health and the health of their family members and friends inside the facility.
-v Perfor ·m verbal screening (for COVID-19 symptoms and close contact with cases) and
temperature checks for all visitors and volunteers on entry. See Sc.reening section be low for wording of screening questions and a recommended procedure to safely perform temperature checks.
o Staff performing temperature checks should wear rgco_mIQ~,nd~p.PEE.
o Exclude visitors and volunteers who do not clear the screening process or who decline screening. ✓ Provide alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol in visitor entrances, exits, and
waiting areas .
..J Provide visitors and volunteers with information to prepare them for screening. o Instruct visitors to postpone their visit if they have symptoms of respiratory illness. o If possible, inform potential visitors and volunteers before they trave l to the facility that they shou ld expect to be screened for COVID-19 (including a temperature check), and will be unable to enter the facility if they do not clear the screening process or if they decline screening. o Display §ignag~ outside visiting areas explaining the COVID-19 screening and temperature check process. Ensure that materials are understandable for non-English speakers and those with low literacy.
✓ Promote non-contact visits: o Encourage incarcerated/detained persons to limit contact visits in the interest of their own health and the heal th of their visitors. o Consider reducing or temporarily eliminating the c.ost of phone calls for incarcerated/detained persons. o Consider increasing incarcerated/detained persons' telephone privileges to promote mental health and reduce exposure from direct contact with community visitors .
..J Consider suspending or modifying visitation programs, if legally permissible. For example, provide access to virtual visitation options where available. o If moving to virtual visitation, clean electronic surfaces regularly. (See Cleaning guidance below for instructions on cleaning electronic surfaces.) o Inform potential visitors of changes to, or suspension of, visitation programs, o Clearly communicate any visitation program changes to incarcerated/detained persons, along with the reasons for them (including protecting their health and thei r family and community members' health). o If suspending contact visits, provide alternate means (e.g., phone or video visitat ion ) for incarcerated/detained ind ividuals to engage with legal representatives, clergy, and other individuals with whom they have legal right to consul t.
NOTE: Suspending visitation would be done in the interest of incarcerated/detained persons' physical health and the health of the general public. However, visitation is important to maintain mental health .
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 29 of 54
If visitation is suspended, facilities should explore alternative ways for incarcerated/detained persons to
communicate with their families, friends, and other visitors in a way that is not financially burden some for them. See above suggestions for promoting non-contact visits.
-J Restrict non-essential vendors, volunteers, and tours from entering the facility.
Management
If there has been a suspected COVID-19 case inside the facility (among incarcerated/deta ined persons, staff, or visitors who have recently been inside), begin implementing Management strategies while test results are pending. Essential Management strategies include placing cases and individuals with symptoms under medical isolation, quarantining their close contacts, and facilitating necessary medical care , while observing relevant infection control and environmental disinfection protocols and wearing recommend ed PPE.
Operations ..J Implement alternate work arrangements deemed feasible in the Operational Preparedness section .
..J Suspend all transfers of incarcerated/detained persons to and from other jurisdictions and facilities (including work release where relevant), unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/quarantine, care, extenuating security concerns, or to prevent overcrowding.
o If a transfer is absol utely necessary, perform verbal screening and a temperature check as outlined in the Screening section below, before the individual leaves the facility. If an individual does not clear the screening process, delay the transfer and follow the pJOtocol for a susl"}ectedCOVID--19 caseincluding putting a face mask on the individual, immediately placing them under medical isolation, and evaluating them for possible COVID-19 testing. If the transfer must still occur, ensure that the receiving facility has capacity to appropriately isolate the individual upon arrival. Ensure that staff transporting the individual wear recommended PPE (see Tabl_e 1.)and that the transport veh icle is cle~ed thoroughly after transport.
✓ If possible, consider quarantining all new intakes for 14 days before they enter the facility's general porulation (SEPARATELYfrom other individuals who are quarantined due to contact with a COVID-19 case). Subsequently in this document, this practice is referred to as routine intake quarantine .
..J When possible, arrange lawful alternatives to in-person court appearances.
,J Incorporate screening for COVID-19 symptoms and a temperature check into release planning.
o Screen all releasing individuals for COVID-19 symptoms and perform a temperature check. (See Screenin section below.)
• If an individual does not clear the screening process, follow the protocol for a suspected COVID-19 case -including putting a face mask on the individual, immediately placing them under medical isolation, and evaluating them for possible COVID-19 testing .
• If the individual is released before the recommended medical isolation period is complete, discuss release of the individual with state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health departments to ensure safe medical transport and continued shelter and med ical care , as part of release planning . Make direct linkages to community resources to ensure proper medical isolation and access to medical care.
• Before releasing an inc arcera ted/detained individual with COVID-19 symptoms to a communitybased facility, such as a homeless shelter, contact the facility's staff to ensure ade qua te time for them to prepare to continue medical isolat ion, or contact local public health to exp lore alternate housing options.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 30 of 54
.J Coordinafe with state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health departments.
o When a COVID-19 case is suspected, work with public health to determine act ion. See M~_clEj_1-c Isola ti on section below.
o When a COVID-19 case is suspected or confirmed, work with public health to identify close contacts who should be placed under quarantine. See Quarantine section below.
o Facilit ies with limited onsite medical isolation, quarantine, and/or healthcare services should coordinate closely with state, local, triba l, and/or territorial health departments when they encounter a confirmed or suspected case, in order to ensure effective medical isolation or quarantine, necessary medical evaluation and care, and medical transfer if needed. See Facilities with Limited Onsite Healthcare Services section.
Hygiene
-J Continue to ensure that hand hygiene supplies are well-stocked in all areas of the facility.
(See ~Qq_y.e)
../ Continue to emphasize practicing good hand hygiene and cough etiquette. (See above.)
Cleaning and Disinfecting Practices ,j Continue adhering to recommended cleaning and disinfection procedures for the facility at
large. (See above. )
,/ Reference specific cleaning and disinfection procedures for areas where a COVID-19 case has spent time (belo__!)1. 1
Medical Isolation of Confirmed or Suspected COVID-19 Cases
NOTE: Some recommendations below apply primarily to facilities with onsite healthcare capacity. Facilities with Limited Onsite _Healthcare Services , or without sufficient space to implement effective medical isolation, should coordinate with local public health officials to ensure that COVID-19 cases will be appropriately isolated, evaluated, tested (if indicated), and given care.
-J As soon as an individual develops symptoms of COVID-19, they should wear a face mask (if it
does not restrict breathing) and should be immediately placed under medical isolation in a separate environment from other individuals.
J Keep the individual's movement outside the medical isolation space to an absolute minimum.
o Provide medical care to cases inside the medical isolation space. See Infection Control and Clinical _ (~_resections for additional details.
o Serve mea ls to cases inside the medical isolation space. o Exclude the individual from all group activities . o Assign the isolated individual a dedicated bathroom when possible . ✓ Ensure that the individual is wearing a face mask at all times when outside of the medkal isolation space, and whenever another individual enters. Provide clean masks as needed. Masks should be changed at least daily, and when visib ly soiled or wet. ✓ Facilities should make every possible effort to place suspected and confirmed COVID-19 cases under medical isolation individually. Each isolated individual should be assigned their own housing space and bathroom where possible. Cohorting should only be prac t iced if there are no other available options .
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 31 of 54
o If cohorting is necessary:
• Only individuals who are laboratory confirmed COVID-19 cases should be placed under medical isolation as a cohort. Do not cohort confirmed cases with suspected cases or case contacts.
• Unless no other options exist, do not house COVID-19 cases with ind ividuals who have an undiagnosed respiratory infection .
• Ensure that cohorted cases wear face masks at all times. ✓ In order of preference, individuals under medical isolation should be housed:
o Separately, in single cells with solid walls (i.e., not bars) and solid doors that close fully o Separately, in single cells with solid walls but without solid doors o As a cohort, in a large , well-ventilated cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes fully. Employ
sogi).}d_igan_f_ipg_gr_ate ies related tQ_p_o~ _~ing in the Preventjg_n s~ctiol}_il,bo__y. e o As a cohort, in a large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls but without a solid door . Employ social
<i_ist?ncingstrategies £.tlated tQJ10usingj _n the_E.r_evention section above. o As a cohort, in single cells without solid walls or solid doors (i.e., cells enclosed entirely with bars),
preferably wit h an empty cell between occupied cells. (Although indiv iduals are in single cells in this scenario, the airflow between cells ess entially makes it a cohort arrange me nt in the context of COVID-19.) o As a cohort, in multi-person cells without solid walls or solid doors (i.e., cells enclosed entirely with bars), preferably with an empty cell between occupied cells. Employ ~9 ci-:1cLf10~.istciDg strat~gies related to ho u sing in the Prevention section above. o Safely transfer individua l(s) to another facility with available medical isola tion capacity in one of the above arrangements (NOTE-Transfer should be avoided due to the potential to introduce infection to another facility; proceed only if no other options are available .)
If the ideal choice does not exist in a facility, use the next best alternative. ✓ If the number of confirmed cases exceeds the number of individual medical isolation spaces
available in the facility, be especially mindful of case~ who are at higher i:_iskofl!evere illness from COV~D-19. Ideally, they should not be cohorted with other infecte d ind ivid uals. If cohor t ing is unavoidable, make all possible accommodations to prevent transmission of other infec tious diseases to the higher -risk individual. (For example, allocate more space for a higher-r isk individual wit h in a shared medical isolation space.)
o Persons at higher risk may include older adults and persons of any age wit h serious underlying medical conditions such as lung disease, heart disease, and diabetes . See C_Qi='sw~bsite for a complete list , and check regularly for updates as more data become available to inform this iss u e.
o Note that incarcerated/deta ined populations have higher prevalence of infec t iou s and chronic diseases and are in poorer health than the general population, even at younger ages.
,J Custody staff should be designated to monitor these individuals exclusively where possible. These staff should wear recommended PPE as appropriate for their level of contact with the individual under medical isolation (see PPJ: section below) and should limit the ir own movement between different parts of the facility t o the extent possible .
-J Minimize transfer of COVID-19 cases between spaces within the healthcare unit.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 32 of 54
.J Provide individuals ·under medical isolation with tissues and, if permissible, a lined no-touch
trash receptacle. Instruct them to: o Cover their mouth and nose with a tissue when t h ey cough or sneeze o Dispc;,se of used tissues immediately in the lined t ras h receptacle o Wash hands immediately with soap and water for at least 20 seconds . If soap and water are not available, clean hands with an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol (where security concerns permit). Ensure that hand washing supp}ies are continually restoc ked .
-./ Maintain medical isolation until all the following criteria have been met. Monitor the CDC website for updates to these criteria.
For individuals who will be tested to determine if they are still contagious: • The individual has been free from fever for at least 72 hours without the use of fever-reducing medications AND • The individual's other symptoms have improved (e.g., cough, shortness of breath) AND • The individual has tested nega tiv e in at least two consecuti ve respiratory specimens collected at least 24 hours apart
For individuals who will NOT be tested to determine if they are still contagious: • The individual has been free from fever for at least 72 hours without the use of fever-redu cing medications AND • The individual's other symptoms have improved (e.g., cough, shortness of breath) AND • At least 7 days have passed since the first symptoms appeared
For individuals who had a confirmed positive COVID-19 test but never showed symptoms: o At least 7 days have passed since the date of the individual's first positive COVID-19 test AND o The individual has had no subsequent illness
-./ Restrict cases from leaving the facility while under medical isolation precautions, unless released from custody or if a transfer is necessary for medical care, infection control, lack of medical isolation space, or extenuating security concerns. o If an incarcerated/detained in dividual who is a COVID-19 case is released from custody during their medical isolation period, contact public health to arrange for safe transport and continuation of necessary medical care and medical isolation as part of release planning.
Cleaning Spaces where COVID-19 Cases Spent Time
Thoroughly dean and disinfect all areas where the confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case spent time. Note-these protocols apply to suspected cases as well as confirmed cases, to ensure adequate disinfection in the event that the suspected case does, in fact, have COVID-19. Refer to the Defi_nitio~s section for the distinction between confirmed and suspected cases.
o Close off areas used by the infected individua l. If possible, open outside doors and windows to increase air circulation in the area. Wait as long as practic al, up to 24 hours under the poorest air exchange conditions (consult CDC Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Heahh-Care Facilities for_wait time based on different yentilation conditions ), before beginning to clean and disinfect, to minimize potential for exposure to respiratory droplets.
o Clean and disinfect all areas (e.g., cells, bathrooms, and common areas) used by the infected individual, focusing especially on frequently touched surfaces (see list above in Prevel'!tion sect ion).
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 33 of 54
✓ Hard (non-porous) surface cleaning and disinfection
o If surfaces are dirty, they should be cleaned us ing a detergent or soap and water pr ior to disinfection.
o For disinfection, most common EPA-regis tered household disinfectants should be effect ive. Choose cleaning products based on security requirements within the facility.
• Consult a list of prQ<lucts t:4_<1_a!r:e EPj\-approv_ed for use against the viru~~Jhat _c@~_es CO\i~JD-l!i. Follow the manufacturer's instructions for all cleaning and disinfection p ro ducts (e.g., concentration, application method and contact time, etc.).
• Diluted household bleach solutions can be used if appropr iate for the surface. Follow the manufacturer's instructions for application and proper ventilation, and check to ensure the product is not past its expiration date. Never mix household bleach with ammonia or any other cleanser . Unexpired household bleach will be effective against coronaviruses when properly diluted. Prepare a bleach solution by mixing:
- 5 tablespoons (113rd cup) bleach per gallon of water or
- 4 teaspoons bleach per quart of water
V Soft (porous) surface cleaning and disinfection
o For soft (porous) surfaces such as carpeted floors and rugs, remove visible contamination if present and clean with appropriate cleaners indicated for use on these surfaces. After cleaning : • If the items can be laundered, launder items in accordance with the manufac t urer's instructions using the warmest appropriate water setting for the items and then dry items completely.
• Otherwise, use products that are EPA-approved for use against the virus that causes COVID--19 and are suitable for porous surfaces .
✓ Electronics cleaning and disinfection o For electronics such as tablets, touch screens, keyboards, and remote controls, remove visible contamination if present.
• Follow the manufacturer's instructions for all cleaning and disinfection products.
• Consider use of wipeable covers for electronics .
• If no manufacturer guidance is available, consider the use of alcohol-based wipes or spray containing at least 70% alcohol to disinfect touch screens . Dry surfaces thoroughly to avoid pooling of liquids .
Additiona l information on cleaning and disinfection of communal facilities such can be found on CDC's website.
,j Ensure that staff and incarcerated/detained persons performing cleaning wear recommended PPE. (See PPE section below.)
✓ Food service items. Cases under medical isolation should throw disposable food service it ems in the trash in their medical isolation room. Non -disposable food service items should be handled with gloves and washed with hot water or in a dishwasher . Individuals handling used food service items should clean their hands after removing gloves.
V Laun dry fi:_OJaTCIOVID-19 cases can be washed with other individuals' laundry.
o Individuals handling laundry from COVID-19 cases should wear disposab le gloves, discard after each use, and clean their hands after .
o Do not shake dirty laundry . This will minimize the possibility of dispersing virus through the air . o Launder items as appropriate in accordance with the manufacturer's instruct ions . If possible,
launder items using the warmest appropriate water setting for the items and dry ite m s completely.
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 34 of 54
o Clean and disinfect clothes hampers according to guidance above for surfaces. If permissible,
consider using a bag liner that is either disposable or can be laundered .
..J Consult cl~anmg r~commenilations _~bove to ensure that transport vehicles are thoroughly cleaned after carrying a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case.
Quarantining Close Contacts of COVID-19 Cases
NOTE: Some recommendations below apply primarily to facilities with onsite healthcare capacity. Facilities without onsite healthcare cap}lcity , or without sufficient space to implement effective quarantine, should coordinate with local public health officials to ensure that close contacts of COVID-19 cases will be effectively quarantined and medically monitored .
.J Incarcerated/detained persons who are close contacts of a c:g_nfinned or susp_ected COVID-19 case
(whether the case is another incarcerated/detained person, staff member, or visitor) should be placed under quarantine for 14 days (see CDC guidelines).
o If an individual is quarantined due to contact with a suspected case who is subsequently tested for COVID-19 and receives a negative result, the quarantined individual should be released from quarantine restrictions .
-J In the context of COVID-19, an individual (incarcerated/detained person or staff) is considered
a close contact if they:
o Have been within approximately 6 feet of a COVID-19 case for a prolonged p erio d of t ime OR
o Have had direct contact with infectious secretions of a COVID-19 case (e.g., have been coughed on)
Close contact can occur while caring for, living with, visiting, or sharing a common space with a COVID-19 case. Data to inform the definition of close contact are limited . Considerations when assessing close contact include the duration of exposure (e.g., longer exposure time likely increases exposure risk) and the clinical symptoms of the person with COVID-19 (e.g., coughing likely increases exposure risk , as does exposure to a severely ill patient) .
.J Keep a quarantined individual's movement outside the quarantine space to an absolute
minimum.
o Provide medical evaluation and care inside or near the quarantine space when possible. o Serve meals inside the quarant ine space . o Exclude the quarantined individual from all group activi ties. o Assign the quarantined individual a dedicated bathroom when poss ible .
..J Facilities should make every possible effort to quarantine dose contacts of COVID-19 cases individually. c_ohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected . Cohorting shou ld only be practiced if there are no other available options. o If cohorting of close contacts under quarantine is abso lut ely necessary, symptoms of all individuals should be monitored closely, and individuals with symptoms of COVID-19 should be placed under !Tiedic~li soJ;!tion immediate ly. o If an entire housing unit is under quarantine due to contact with a case from the same housing unit, the entire housing unit may need to be treated as a cohort and quarant ine in place.
o Some facilities may choose to quarant ine all new intakes for 14 days before moving them t o the facility's general population as a general rule (not because they were exposed to a COVID-19 case). Under this scenario, avoid mixing individuals quarantined due to exposure to a COVID-19 case with individuals undergoing routine intake quarantine.
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 35 of 54
o If at all possible, do not add more individuals to an existing quarantine cohort after the 14-day
quarantine clock has started .
v If the number of quarantined individuals exceeds the number of individual quarantine spaces
available in the facility, be especially mindful of ~ose who are at hi he~rj~k of severe illness from COVID-1~ . Ideally, they should not be cohorted with other quarantined individuals. If cohorting is unavoidable, make all possible accommodations to reduce exposure risk for the higher -risk individuals . (For example, intensify social distancing strategies for higher-risk individua ls.)
,J In order of preference, multiple quarantined individuals should be housed:
o Separately, in sing le cells with solid walls (i.e., not bars) and solid doors that close fully o Separately, in single cells with solid walls but without solid doors
o As a cohort, in a large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls, a solid door that closes fully, and at lea st 6
feet of personal space assigned to each individual in all directions o As a coho rt, in a large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls and at least 6 feet of personal space
assigned to each individual in all directions, but without a solid door o As a cohort, in single cells without solid walls or solid doors (i.e., cells enclosed en t irely with bars),
preferably with an empty cell between occupied cells creating at least 6 feet of space between individuals. (Although individuals are in single cells in this scenario, the airflow between cells essentially makes it a cohort arrangernen t in the context of COVID-19 .)
o As a cohort, in multi-person cells without solid walls or solid doors (i.e., cells enclosed ent irely with bars), preferably with an empty cell between occupied cells. Emp loy soda l distancing strategies related to housing in the Prevention section to maintain at least 6 feet of space between individuals housed in the same cell.
o As a cohort, in individuals' regularly assigned housing unit but wit h no movement outside the unit (if an entire housing unit has been exposed). EmpJonocial distancing strategies related to housing in the Prevention sect_ion above to maintain at least 6 feet of space between ind ividuals.
o Safely transfer to another facility with capacity to qua rantine in one of the above arrangements
(NOTE-Transfer should be avoided due to the potential to introduce infection to another facili ty; proceed only if no other options are available.)
V Quarantined individuals should wear face masks if feasible based on local supply, as source
control, under the following circumstances (see PPE section and Table 1):
o If cohorted, quarantined individuals should wear face masks at all times (to prev ·ent transmission from infected to uninfected individuals).
o If quarantined separately, individuals should wear face masks whenever a non-quarantined individual enters the quarantine space.
o All quarantined individuals should wear a face mask if they must leave the quarantine space for any reason.
o Asymptomatic individuals under routine intake quarantine (with no known exposure to a COVID-19 case) do not need to wear face masks.
,J Staff who have close contact with quarantined individuals should wear recommended PPE if fea .sible based on local supply, feasibility, and safety within the scope of their duties (see PPE section and Table 1).
o Staff supervising asymptomatic incarcerated/detained persons und er routine intake_guarantine (with no known exposure to a COVID-19 case) do not need to wear PPE.
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 36 of 54
./ Quaranti~ed individuals should be monitored for COVID-19 symptoms twice per day, including temperature checks.
o If an individual develops symptoms, they should be moved to medical isolation immediate ly and further evaluated . (See Medical Isolation section above .)
o See Screening section for a procedure to perform temperature checks safely on asymptoma t ic close conta{ts of COVID-19 cases.
-J If an individual who is part of a quarantined cohort becomes symptomatic:
o If the individual is tested for COVID-19 and tests positive: the 14-day quarantine clock for the remainder of the cohort must be reset to 0.
o If the individual is tested for COVID-19 and tests negative: the 14-day quarantine clock for this individual and the remainder of the cohort does not need to be reset. This individual can return from medical isolation to the quarantined cohort for the remainder of the quarantine period.
o If the individual is not tested for COVID-19: the 14-day quarantine clock for the remainder of the cohort must be reset to 0 .
.J Restrict quarantined individuals from leaving the facility (including transfers to other
facilities) during the 14-day quarantine period, unless released from custody or a transfer is necessary for medical care, infection control, lack of quarantine space, or extenuating security concerns.
,J Quarantined individu.-ls can be released from quarantine restrictions if they have not developed symptoms during the 14-day quarantine period.
v Meals should be provided to quarantined individuals in their quarantine spaces. Indiv idu als
under quarantine should throw disposable food service items in the trash. Non-disposable food service items should be handled with gloves and washed with hot water or in a dishwasher. Individuals handling used food service items should clean their hands after removing gloves .
-J Laundry from quarantined individuals can be washed with other individuals' laundry.
o Individuals handling laundry from quarantined persons should wear disposab le gloves, discard after each use, and clean their hands after.
o Do not shake dirty laundry. This will minimize the poss ibility of dispersing virus through the air .
o Launder items as appropriate in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. If possible , launder items using the warmest appropriate water setting for the items and dry items comple t ely.
o Clean and disinfect clothes hampers according to guidance above for surfaces. If permissible, consider using a bag liner that is either disposable or can be laundered .
Management of Incarcerated/Detained Persons with COVI0-19 Symptoms
NOTE: Some recommendations below apply primarily to facilities with onsite healthcare capacity. Facilities without onsite healthcare capacity or without sufficient space for medical isolation should coordinate with local public health officials to ensure that suspected COVID-19 cases will be effectively isolated, evaluated, tested (if indicated), and given care.
-J If possible, designate a room near each housing unit for healthcare staff to evaluate individuals
with COVID-19 symptoms, rather than having them walk through the facility to be evaluated in the medical unit.
-J Incarcerated/detained individuals with COVID-19 symptoms should wear a face mask and
should be placed under medical isolation immediately. Discontinue the use of a face mask if it inhibits breathing. See Medical Isolation section above.
21

.

-

. --~

. --..--

-

-

- --

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 37 of 54

.J Medicalstaff should evaluate symptomatic individuals to determine whether COVID-19 testing
is indicated. Refer to CDC guidelines for information on evaluation and testing. See Infection Control and -C-linical C- a-r-e sections below as well.
✓ If testing is indicated (or if medical staff need clarification on when testing is indicated), contact the state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health department. Work with public health or private labs as available to access testing supplies or services.

o If the COVID-19 test is positive, continue med ical isolation. (See Medit:,c}_Usolationsection above. )

o If the COVID-19 test is negative, return the indiv idual to thei r prior housing assignmen t unless they require further medical assessment or care.

Management Strategies for Incarcerated/Detained Persons without COVID-19 Symptoms
✓ Provide clear information to incarcerated/detained persons about the presence of COVID-19 cases within the facility, and the need to increase social distancing and maintain hygiene precautions.
o Cons ide r having healthcare staff perform regular rounds to answer questions about COVID-19 .
o Ensure that information is provided in a manner that can be understood by non-Englis h speaking individuals and those with low literacy, and make necessary accommodations for those with cognitive or intellectual disa bilities and those who are deaf, blind, or low-vis ion .
../ Implement daily temperature checks in housing units where COVID-19 cases have been identified, especially if there is concern that incarcerated/ detained individuals are not notifying staff of symptoms. See Screening section for a procedure to safe ly perform a temperature check.
-J Consider additional options to intensify social distancing within the facility.

Management Strategies for Staff
../ Provide dear information to staff about the presence of COVID-19 cases within the facility, and the need to enforce social distancing and encourage hygiene precautions. o Consider having healthcare staff perform regu lar rounds to answer quest ions about COVID-19 from staff.
-,/ Staff identified as close contacts of a COVID-19 case should self-quarantine at home for 14 days and may return to work if symptoms do not develop.
o See ~bove for definition of a close contact . o Refer to CDC guidelines for furthe r recommendations regar ding home quarantine for staff.

Infection Control
Infection control guidance below is applicable to all types of correctional facilities. Individual facilities should assess their unique needs based on the types of exposure staff and incarcerated/ detained persons may have with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases.
-J All individuals who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to COVID-19 cases or
infectious materials (including body substances; contaminated medical supplies, devices, and equipment; contaminated environmental surfaces; or contaminated air) should follow infection control practices outlined in the CDC Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Corona-virus Disease 2019 (CO,[ID-19 in Healthcare~ettings . Monitor these guidelines regularly for updates.

2Z

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 38 of 54
o Implement the above guidance as fully as possible within the correctional/detent ion context . Some of the specific language may not apply directly to healthca re settings with in correction al facilities and detention centers, or to facilities without onsite healthcare capacity, and may need to be adapt ed to reflect facility operations and custody needs.
o Note that these recommendations apply t o staff as well as to incarcerated/detained indiv iduals who may come in contact with contaminated materials during the course of thei r work placement in the facility (e.g., cleaning).
--./ Staff should exercise caution when in contact with individuals showing symptoms of a respiratory infection. Contact should be minimized to the extent possible until the infected individual is wearing a face mask. If COVID-19 is suspected , staff shou ld wear recommended PPE (see PPE section) .
✓ Refer to PPE section to determine recommended PPE for individuals persons in contact with confirmed COVID- 19 cases, contacts, and potentially contaminated items.
Clinical Care of COVID-19 Cases
✓ Facilities should ensure that incarcerated/detained individuals receive medical evaluation and treatment at the first signs of COVID-19 symptoms. o If a facility is not able to provide such evaluat ion and tr eatment, a p lan should be in place to safely transfer the individual to another facility or local hospital. o The init ial medical evalua tion sho uld determine whether a symp t omatic individual is at higher risk fur_~~vereili_ne~s from CO_yID-19. Persons at higher risk may include older adu lts and persons of any age with serious underlying medica l conditions such as lung disea se, heart disease, and diabe t es . See CDC'L_website for a complete list, and check regularly for updates as more data become available to inform this issue .
✓ Staff evaluating and providing care for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases should follow the CDC Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Di~ease (COVID-19) and monitor the guidance website regularly for updates to these recommendations.
-J Healthcare staff should evaluate persons with respiratory symptoms or contact with a
COVID-19 case in a separate room, with the door closed if possible, while wearing rec om mended PPE and ensuring that the suspected case is wearing a face mask.
o If possible, designate a room near each ho u sing uni t to evaluate individuals with COVID-19 symptoms, rather than having them walk through the facility to be evaluated in the med ical unit.
-J Clinicians are strongly encouraged to test for other causes of respiratory illness (e.g.,
influenza).
-J The facility should have a plan in place to safely transfer persons with severe illness from
COVID-19 to a local hospital if they require care beyond what the facility is able to provide .
...J When evaluating and treating persons with symptoms of COVID-19 who do not speak English, using a language line or provide a trained interpreter when possible.
Recommended PPE and PPE Training for Staff and Incarcerated/Detained Persons
✓ Ensure tha.t all staff (healthcare and non-healthcare) and incarcerated/detained persons who will have contact with infectious materials in their work placements have been trai'ned to correctly don, doff, and dispose of PPE relevant to the level of contact they will have with confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases.
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 39 of 54
o Ensure that staff and incarcerated/detained persons who requ ire respiratory protect ion (e.g., N95s) for their work responsibilities have been medically cleared, trained, and fit -tested in the context of an employer's respiratory _protection prog!..::i,m.
o For PPE training materials and posters, please visit the CDC website on Pro_tecti_i::tg.U.ealthcare Personnel.
-J Ensure that all staff are trained to perform hand hygiene after removing PPE. -J If administrators anticipate that incarcerated/detained persons will request unnecessary PPE,
consider providing training on the different types of PPE that are needed for differing degrees of contact with COVID-19 cases and contacts, and the reasons for those differences (see Table 1). Monitor linked CDC guidelines in Table 1 for updates to recommended PPE.
,/ Keep recommended PPE near the spaces in the facility where it could be needed, to facilitate quick access in an emergency .
.J Recommended PPE for incarcerated/detained individuals and staff in a correctional facility will
vary based on the type of contact they have with COVID-19 cases and the ir cont acts (see Table 1). Each type of recommended PPE is defined below. As above, note that PPE shortages are anticipated in every category during the COVID-19 response.
o N95 respirator
See below for guidance on when face masks are acceptab le alternatives for N95s. N95 respirators should be prioritized when staff anticipate contact with infectious aerosols from a COVID-19 case.
o Face mask o Eye protection-goggles or disposable face shield that fully covers the front and sides of the face o A single pair of disposable patient examination gloves
Gloves should be changed if they become torn or heavily contaminated. o Disposable medical isolation gown or single-use/disposable coveralls, when feasible
• If custody staff are unable to wear a disposable gown or coveralls because it limits access to their duty belt and gear, ensure that duty belt and gear are disinfected after close contac t with the individual. Clean and disinfect duty belt and gear prior to reuse us ing a household cleaning spray or wipe, according to the product label
• If there are shortages of gowns, they should be prioritized for aeroso l-generat ing procedures, care activities where splashes and sprays are anticipated, and high-contact patient care activities that provide opportunities for transfer of pathogens to the hands and clothing of staff .
) Note that shortages of all PPE categories are anticipated during the COVID-19 response, particularly for non-healthcare workers. Guidance for optimizing the supply of each category can be found on CDC's website:
o Guid~ce in the event Qfa short~ge of N95 _~espiratQ.!'S
• Based on local and regional situational analysis of PPE suppl ies , face masks are an acceptable alternative when the supply chain of respirators cannot meet the demand. During this time, available respirators should be prioritized for staff engaging in activities that would expose them to respiratory aerosols, which pose the highest exposure risk.
o Guidance in the event of a shortage of face masks o Guidance in the event of a shortage of eye protection o Guida.nee in the event _of a sho rtag_e of gQWns/coveralls
24

-- Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 40 o- .·f.--54
Table1.RecommendPeedrsonaPlrotectivEequipme(nPtPEf)orIncarcerated/DetaiPneerdsonasndStaffina CorrectionFaalcilitdyuring
theCOVID-R19esponse

I Asymptomatic incarcerated/detained persons(under Apply face masksfor sourcecontrol asfeasible basedon local supply,

i I quarantine asclosecontactsof a COVID-19case*)

especially] oused: a cohort

II Incarcerated/detainedpersonswho are confirmed or suspectedCOVID-19cases,or showing symptomsof

COVID-19

Incarcerated/detainedpersonsin a work placement

handling laundry or usedfood serviceitems from a

'

✓

✓

; COVID-19caseor casecontact

l---

----

l_____,__

··-·-- -~--'

Incarcerated/detained personsin a work placement , Additional PPEmay be needed basedon

cleaning areaswhere a COVID-19casehasspent time : the product label.SeeCDCguidelines for

I

_ _.._mI_o_r_e_d_et_a_ils_._ _

✓ ✓

;

I

~Staff

--------

Staff having direct contact with asymptomatic

. ·- ----- - -- - -- - ------.--,---

incarcerated/detainedpersonsunder quarantine
I asclosecontactsof a COVID-19case* (but not
! performing temperature checksor providing

Facemask,eye protection, and glovesas local supply and scopeof duties allow.

medical care)
IStaff performing temperat ure checkson any group

i of people (staff,visitors,or incarcerated/detained
persons), or providing medical care to asymptomatic
quarantined persons ---
Staffhaving direct contact with (including transport)
or offering medicalcareto confirmed or suspected

✓

✓

I

1
✓ I

COVID-19 cases(seeCDCinfection

-

- ---......... -

-

contr-o· l_guidelines)

Staffpresentduring a procedure on a confirmed

or suspectedCOVID-19casethat may generate

i respiratoryaerosols(seeCDCinfection control

✓

- I: gu-id- elines) - -- - ·- -- -·-

-----~

j Staff handling laundry or usedfood service items

I

I I
I ✓
--It--

from a COVID-19caseor casecontact Staffcleaning an areawhere a COVID-19casehas spent time

PPE r Ad-di-ti-onal m-ay-be- need-ed- b~se_do_n -~
!the product label.See~DCguidelines for

~ ---------

- ----------

i more details. - - __ _ ____

_ __

_ ______

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

-t

✓

✓

L__ __

_ __,

* Ifafacilitychoosesto routinelyquaranitneallnewintakes(withoutsymptomsor knownexposureto aCOVID-1c9ase)before integrating

intothefacility'sgeneral population, facemasksare not necessar.y

** A NIOSH-approveNd95is preferred. However, basedonfocal andregionalsituational analysisof PPEsupplies, facemasksarean

acceptablealternativewhenthe supplychainof respiratorscannotmeetthe demand.Duringthistime,availablerespiratorshould be

prioritizedfor proceduresthat arelikelyto generaterespriatoryaerosolsw, hichwouldposethe highestexposureriskto staf.f

25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 41 of 54
Verbal Screeningand Temperature Check Protocolsfor Incarcerated/Detained Persons,Staff,and Visitors
The guidance above recommends verbal screening and temperature checks for incarcerated / detained persons, staff, volunteers, and visitors who enter correctional and detention facilities, as well as incarce rated/detained persons who are transferred to another facility or released from custody. Below, verbal screening questions for COVID-19 symptoms and contact with known cases, and a safe t emperature check procedure are detailed.
·J Verbal screening for symptoms of COVID-19 and contact with COVID-19 cases should include
the following questions: o Today or in the past 24 hours , have you had any of the following sym ptoms? • Fever, felt f everish, or had chills? • Cough? • Diff,.culty breathing? o In the past 14 days, have you had contact with a person known to be infected with the novel coronavirus (COVID-19)?
.J The following is a protocol to safely check an individual's temperature:
o Perform hand hygiene o Put on a face mask, eye protection (goggles or disposable face shield that fully covers the fron t an d
sides of the face), gown/coveralls, and a single pair of disposable gloves o Check individual's temperature o If performing a temperature check on multiple individuals, ensure that a clean pair of
gloves is used for each individual and that the thermometer has been thoroughly cleaned in between each check. If disposable or non-contact thermometers are used and the screener did not have physical contact with an individual, gloves do not need to be changed before the next check . If non -contact thermometers are used, they should be d _~_,1ned routinely as recommen_g_~_g..J}:'~___CDfoCr infection control. o Remove and discard PPE o Perform hand hygiene
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 42 of 54
Ex. 8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 43 of 54

Dates and Quant ities of Cleaning Supplies and Soap Delivered to the CDFand CTF,by Date December 31, 2019 - April 13, 2020

Summary
Date of De'i ery
12/31/2019 1/7/2020 1/8/2020 1/10/2020 1/14/2020 1/16/2020 1/21/2020 1/22/2020 1/31/2020 2/6/2020 2/10/2020 2/12/2020 2/19/2020 2/26/2020 2/27/2020 3/4/2020 3/6/2020 3/9/2020 3/10/2020 3/12/2020 3/13/2020 3/17/2020 3/18/2020 3/19/2020 3/23/2020 3/24/2020 3/25/2020 3/28/2020 3/31/2020 4/3/2020 4/7/2020 4/8/2020 4/13/2020 GrandTotal

Product

Bar Soap5oz (100ba!l)
31
20 7 20
25 7 20 7
20 13 6 0 2
12 12 5 207

EcolabAB Foam Ecolab EcolabEFoam EcolabMultl-Quat

Handsoap Disinfectant Hand Sanitizer

Sanitizer

(6, 25 oz)

Cleaner

(6,25oz)

(2.5 gallons)

12.5irallonsl

2

3

3

8

10

5

5

1

3

4

4

5

4

3

10

15

1

4

4

3

5

6

3

3

1

1

6

5

3

31

30

4

8

14

16

8

8

11

10

3

6

10

7

12

6

1

8

5

11

4

4

1

8

5

10

4

3

2

2

8

2

13

2

5

2

9

108

139

127

49

EcolabOrange EcoIiib Peroxide GrandTotal

Fonie

Multi Surface

(2.5 gallons) (2.0 gallons)

31

2

3

9

20

7

8

36

21

7

3

19

50

1

4

19

8

32

1

3

3

24

3

68

8

8

54

6

7

43

20

13

6

9

56

1

0

5

6

41

4

1

4

6

49

3

16

2

3

35

2

3

21

58

34

722

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 44 of 54
Ex. 9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 45 of 54

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 46 of 54
Ex.10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 47 of 54

++--

l +/__
I
,1_ ____j_._a;

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 48 of 54
Ex. 11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 49 of 54

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
* * *
DOC
TH• D11.PAATMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Office of the Director

TO:

All DOC employees and contractors

FROM: Quincy L. Booth , Director

DATE: April l 7, 2020

SUBJECT: Reminder s and Updated COVID-19 Polic ies and Procedures

This memorandum serves as a reminder to all District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC) staff and contractors of the agency's COVID-19 policies and procedures , informed by some new guidance from Mayor's Order 2020-06 , dated April 15, 2020. lt is imperative that the following policies and procedures are enforced and maintained:
l. Social Distan cing Measures
a. Correctional officers must enforce social distanc ing in DOC 's correctional facilities at all times.
b. There shall be multiple daily am10uncements over the agency ' s public address (PA) system reminding staff and residents of social distancing . Specifically , the PA announcement shall remind residents to stay at least six feet apart from each other and not to gather in groups.
c. Strict limi ts on the number of persons out of their cells at one time will heJp with social distancing. In general, only six residents from a unit will be out at one time for out of cell time , plus an occasional two to three cleaning detailees.
2000 14th St., NW - 7th Floor IWashington , DC 20009 1Tele phon e: 202 -671-2042 1Fax : 202-671-2514

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 50 of 54
d. Group activities, such as classes, shall continue to be suspended for the duration of the emergency period.
2. Resident out of cell time
a. All DOC residents , except those on isolation units, shall be allowed one hour of out of cell time each day.
b. PA announcements shall be made daily to remind DOC staff and residents that out of cell time is one hour per day.
3. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), COVID - 19and Sick Call Educa tion Training
a. DOC shall conduct PPE refresher courses for its staff during roll call of each shift, until otherwise directed . These courses are and shall continue to be documented by DOC.
b. DOC's medical staff and sick call staff shall visit DOC's housing units to refresh staff and residents on PPE use, COVID-19 prevention and how to submit sick call slips for medical visits, until otherwise directed. These visits shall be documented by DOC.
c. All DOC staff shall wear PPE in compliance with Centers for Disease Control guidelines while working in DOC's correctiona l facilities .
4. Isolation Units
a. All residents housed in isolation units shall be allowed to showe r each day.
b. All residents housed in isolation units shall be allowed , each day , free 30minute legal calls to their attorney of record on an tm-secure and nonmonitored telephone line. Notably , a "rolling phone" will be transporting to the residents' cells for legal calls.
c. DOC shall provide tablets with entertainment and education content preprogramed and activity packets (pamphlets with education materials) to residents housed on isolation units who feel well enough to use them.
5. Unit Common Area and Cell Cleaning
2000 l4'h St., NW - 7'11Floor IWashington, DC 200091Telephone: 202-671 -20421Fax: 202-671-2514

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 51 of 54
a. At the beginning of each shift , correctional officers working in DOC housing units shall document the amount of cleaning product and equipment available in the housing unit. Any shortages of cleaning product and equipment shall be documented by the correctional officer on duty and he/she shall notify his/her supervisor of any shortages so that additional cleaning product and the equipment may be ordered for the housing unit.
b. During a resident's out of cell time , correctiona l officers shall spray towels with cleaning product and provide the resident with the cleaning product sprayed paper towels and dry paper towels to clean his/her cell.
c. During each shift, correctional officers working in housing units shall verify and document that the housing unit's common areas are cleaned in accordance with DOC's cleaning schedules.
d. DOC shall post listings of all cleaning products and equipment available to residents in each housing unit.
e. Cleaning product are diluted appropriately by DOC's environmental team before being provided to the units; there is no need for further dilution.
6. Linen and Laundry Exchanges
a. Each week , DOC shall provide its residents with fresh clothing and undergarments (laundry) and towels and sheets (linens) and collect the residents' used items as part of the agency's laundry and linen exchanges.
b. If a resident refuses to participate in either exchange, he/she will still be provided with fresh laundry and linen, if supplies are available.
7. Contractor and Staff Screening and Hygiene
a. All staff and contractors who enter DOC's facilities (except emergency personnel responding to an emergency) shall continue to undergo a COVID 19 screening, including a temperature check with a contactless infrared them1ometer, and answering of brief questions designed to spot early signs ofCOVID-19 infection.
2000 14th St. , NW- 7th Floor IWashi.ngton , DC 20009 1Telephone: 202-671-20421 Fax : 202-671-2514

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 52 of 54
b. All entrants who fail the COVID-19 screening shall be denied entry to DOC's facilities.
c. All staff responsible for COVID-19 screenings shall be re-trained on the use of contactless infrared thermometers.
d. Non-essential visitors shall continue to be excluded for the duration of the emergency.
e. Following the screening and before starting their tour of duty, entrants shall wash their hands with soap and water for at least twenty seconds to prevent the spread of disease.
f. Staff who have been detenn ined to have recently been in sustained , close contact with another staffer or inmate who tests positive for COVID-19 will be inf01med, consistent with privacy protections, and directed according to protocol.
Access to Legal Calls
a. All residents shall be allowe.d, each day, free 30-minute legal calls to their attorney of record on a non-secure and un-mo nitored telephone line.
b. DOC staff shall cooperate to facilitate residents' receipt of incoming calls from their attorney . Specifically, DOC's Case Management team has and will continue to coordinate legal calls between DOC's residents and their attorney.
Medical Care
a. DOC staff who observe a resident exhibit ing symptoms of COVlD-19 shall direct the resident to medical care, and medical staff will determine appropriate next steps for the inmate's health and the healt h of those nearby .
ll . Tablets
a. Inmates may have the tablets in their cells at least for the duration of the Public Health Emergency.
2000 14th St., NW - 7tl,Floor I Washington, DC 200091Telephone: 202-67 l-20421Fax: 202-671-2514

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 53 of 54
b. To facilitate the sharing of the tablets by residents, all tablets shall be sanitized between use by different residents .
ALSO, PLEASE BE ADVISED:
I. Single Cells: DOC is balancing the competing needs to protect residen ts' mental health and prevent anxiety , self-hmm , and suicide with the goal of providing single cells where possible to reduce the spread of COVID-19 . Cooperate as directed in facilitating resi dent moves to make better use of our space as our population decreases. 2. Medical Reserve Corps Assistance: You may see new staffers on the units , as DOC is request ing staff augmentation through the Medical Reserve Corps (Corps). Corps members (thirty are being requested) may perform such tasks as assisting with temperah1re checks for incoming staff and contractors~ checking residents' temperahlres daily; helping in the medical uni t and isolation units; and performing such other duties as may be required. Their valued service will be of great assistance as needs are higher during this challenging time. 3. Provision of Tablets Presently , DOC does not have a tabl et for every resident. Thus, we are requesting additional tablets to eliminate the need to share , and to enable residents to communicate with their attorneys through the tablets , as well as to enjoy the entertainment , inspirational, and educat ional offerings that are pre-loaded. Activity pac kets shall also be provided to residents upon request. 4. Quarantine of new arrivals. Be advised that new intakes to the facility are placed in an "enha nced monitoring" for 14 days and should be presumed not to have COVID-19. However, if the new intake develops COVID-19 symptoms during the "enhanced monitoring" period, they will be tested for COVID-19 and moved to a quarantine hous ing in until the agency receives their test results. If they test positive , they will be housed in an isolation unit for treatment. If they test negative, they will remain in a quarantine unit unti I they are no longer symptomatic.
2000 14th St., NW- 7th Floor IWashington , DC 20009 1Telephone: 202-67\-20421 Fax : 202-67 1-2514

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-2 Filed 06/18/20 Page 54 of 54 5. Mobile testing: As mobile testing becomes available, DOC will request its deployment to its facilities to screen staff and residen ts, per CDC and DOH guidelines.
TH(S MEMO SHALL BE READ DURING ROLL CALL DURING THE NEXT SEVEN CONSECUTIVE DAYS AND POSTED ON ALL APPROPRIATE BULLETIN BOARDS.
2000 14th St., NW - 7th Floor IWashington, DC 20009 1Telephone: 202-671-2042 1Fax: 202-671-2514

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 68

1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

2

3

**************** )

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

) Civil Action

4

) No. 20-CV-00849

Plaintiffs,

)

5

)

vs.

)

6

)

QUINCY L. BOOTH, et al.,

) Washington, DC

7

) May 11, 2020

Defendants.

) 2:00 p.m.

8

)

**************** )

9

10

TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

11

BEFORE THE HONORABLE COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12

13

APPEARANCES:

14

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

ARTHUR B. SPITZER

15

(Appearing

SCOTT MICHELMAN, ESQ.

Telephonically)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF

16

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

915 15th Street, Northwest

17

Second Floor

Washington, DC 20005

18

19

STEVEN D. MARCUS, ESQ.

JENNA MARIE COBB, ESQ.

20

JONATHAN ANDERSON, ESQ.

PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE

21

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

633 Indiana Avenue, Northwest

22

Washington, DC 20004

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2 of 68

2

1

APPEARANCES, CONT'D:

2

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

ANDREW SAINDON, ESQ.

(Appearing

MICAH IAN BLUMING, ESQ.

3

Telephonically)

PAMELA DISNEY, ESQ.

FERNANDO AMARILLAS, ESQ.

4

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

5

441 Fourth Street, Northwest

Sixth Floor

6

Washington, DC 20001

7

APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY:

8

ERIC GLOVER, ESQ.

9

MICHELLE WILSON, ESQ.

GENERAL COUNSEL

10

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS

11

2000 14th Street, Northwest

Washington, DC 20009

12

GRACE LOPES

13

MARK JORDAN

(AMICI CURIAE)

14

15

REPORTED BY:

(Telephonically)

16

17

18

19

LISA EDWARDS, RDR, CRR Official Court Reporter United States District Court for the
District of Columbia 333 Constitution Avenue, NW Room 6706 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 354-3269

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 3 of 68

3

1

THE COURT: All right. It's 2:00. This is Judge

2

Kollar-Kotelly. This is in the matter of Banks, et al.,

3

versus Booth, et al., 20-CV-849.

4

I have from the court staff the deputy courtroom

5

clerk, my law clerk and the court reporter.

6

Somebody has not muted their phone.

7

I have certain people which I will call on. These

8

will be speakers or potential speakers. They will be the

9

amici experts; Plaintiffs, whom they've identified; the

10

Defendants, including the Department of Corrections counsel;

11

as well as the United States.

12

So let me find out whether -- Ms. Lopes, are you

13

on the phone?

14

MS. LOPES: Good afternoon. Yes.

15

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

16

Mr. Jordan, are you on the phone?

17

MR. JORDAN: Yes, your Honor. Good afternoon.

18

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

19

Mr. Marcus, are you on the line?

20

MR. MARCUS: Good afternoon, your Honor.

21

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

22

Mr. Anderson, are you on the line?

23

MR. ANDERSON: Yes, your Honor. Good afternoon.

24

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

25

Ms. Cobb?

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 4 of 68

4

1

MS. COBB: Yes, your Honor. Good afternoon.

2

THE COURT: Mr. Perloff?

3

Maybe's not on the line yet.

4

Scott Michelman?

5

He's not on the line yet. I should give him a few

6

moments in case he's muted.

7

MR. MICHELMAN: I'm sorry. I was on mute, your

8

Honor. This is Mr. Michelman. I was on mute. My

9

apologies.

10

THE COURT: I know it takes a moment. Thank you

11

for muting.

12

Mr. Perloff, are you on now or not?

13

MR. SPITZER: Your Honor, I believe he's listening

14

on the public line.

15

THE COURT: Okay. Then that's all right.

16

Mr. Spitzer, are you on?

17

MR. SPITZER: Yes. I'm here, your Honor.

18

THE COURT: For the Defendant, Mr. Saindon?

19

MR. SAINDON: Good afternoon. I'm here.

20

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

21

Mr. Amarillas?

22

MR. AMARILLAS: Yes. I'm here, your Honor. Good

23

afternoon.

24

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

25

Mr. Bluming?

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 5 of 68

5

1

MR. BLUMING: Yes. Good afternoon, your Honor.

2

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

3

Ms. Disney?

4

MS. DISNEY: Yes, your Honor. Good afternoon.

5

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

6

Mr. Glover?

7

MR. GLOVER: Yes, your Honor. Good afternoon.

8

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

9

Ms. Wilson?

10

MS. WILSON: Good afternoon. I'm here.

11

THE COURT: And, Mr. Walker, are you on for the

12

United States?

13

MR. WALKER: I am on, your Honor. And good

14

afternoon.

15

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

16

Somebody just came on. Did somebody come on that

17

I had not called earlier?

18

What I would ask is we do have a public line

19

that's automatically muted. So anybody who is not going to

20

be on speaker, I'd ask that they be on that, simply so that

21

when everybody comes on and off we don't keep hearing these

22

clicks, particularly if they're not going to speak.

23

What I would ask is that, other than the principal

24

speakers -- and the principal speakers obviously can refer

25

to somebody else to answer the question, and that's fine;

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 6 of 68

6

1

and I'll remind myself to give you a moment to unmute so we

2

don't have that background jangling noise. So I will call

3

on you.

4

We are here based on the order that I signed on

5

April 28th, 2020, which was a consent order. And the amici

6

were directed to go back to the facilities and to provide an

7

oral report today answering -- there were five questions.

8

And so I think the way I'm going to do this is

9

I'll state the question and then call on either Ms. Lopes or

10

Mr. Jordan. Just indicate whoever wants to answer it. And

11

once it's been answered, if I have questions, I'll do

12

followup and I'll let the party, since we only have five

13

questions, if there's a followup question that you want to

14

ask, before we move on to the second question.

15

So let me start with the first question: How

16

are --

17

MS. LOPES: Your Honor --

18

THE COURT: Sure. Who is this?

19

MS. LOPES: This is Grace Lopes.

20

Your Honor, we had some background information

21

that we wanted to provide to the Court and the parties first

22

that we thought would be helpful before we got into

23

Question 1.

24

THE COURT: Perfect.

25

MS. LOPES: Some of that background information I

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 7 of 68

7

1

will provide and some Mr. Jordan will be providing. He'll

2

be addressing the first two questions and I'll be addressing

3

the last three questions.

4

THE COURT: That's fine.

5

MS. LOPES: As a threshold matter, your Honor,

6

there have been some changes that are material to the

7

parties' consideration and the clients' consideration of the

8

information that we'd like to convey this afternoon with

9

respect to the five questions. So we thought it would be

10

important to outline those changes now.

11

First, with respect to the jail, the population at

12

the jail has decreased since our previous report to the

13

Court in April. Last week, we were at the jail on May 7th

14

and the population was 969 inmates, a significant reduction

15

over the 1,020 who were there just a few weeks earlier when

16

we reported on the population.

17

There's also been a change in terms of housing

18

status, et cetera. As the Court may recall, there are 18

19

housing units at the jail. Most, albeit not all, have 80

20

cells. They're single versus double. Some cells are single

21

cells; some cells are double cells.

22

We haven't had an opportunity to evaluate the data

23

with respect to the prevalence of double celling versus

24

single celling, though there are indications that there is

25

less double celling at the jail now. And hopefully we'll be

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 8 of 68

8

1

able to provide that data to the Court and the parties in

2

our final report.

3

The Defendants do report that there are

4

limitations in their ability to operate some cells that are

5

currently vacant now because of maintenance-related issues.

6

We don't know the prevalence of those issues at this time.

7

At the time of our May 7th site visit, there were

8

15 housing units open. Three were closed. Ten were

9

quarantine units and one was an isolation unit for inmates

10

who were positive for COVID-19.

11

That is a shift from the distribution and

12

characterization or classification of housing units relative

13

to our prior visit because, as you'll hear in a minute,

14

there are more inmates who are COVID-19 positive at the jail

15

now than there were during our previous site visit.

16

With respect to the correctional treatment

17

facility, the population there this past Friday when we were

18

there also had decreased. And the population count was 364

19

inmates. It had been just a few weeks earlier hovering at

20

around 400 inmates.

21

As you may recall, the CTF has the inpatient

22

infirmary, a 26-room, 40-bed infirmary. And that infirmary

23

served both facilities. It has 27 housing units. Most have

24

the capacity of -- not all -- for 50 beds. There are four

25

that have as many as 96 beds and then a handful of smaller

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 9 of 68

9

1

units.

2

No units with double cells at the time of our

3

visit last week to the CTF. And that again is in contrast

4

to our prior site visit in April at the CTF.

5

Eleven units at the CTF were closed. And in

6

contrast to our previous visit, there were only four inmates

7

on isolation status at the CTF. Those inmates were all

8

housed in the inpatient infirmary.

9

There were no isolation housing units operating at

10

all at the CTF and only one quarantine unit. There had been

11

eight during our previous site visit.

12

So there's been a significant shift in the

13

COVID-19-positive population at the facilities, which

14

Mr. Jordan will be getting into in detail.

15

In terms of methodology with respect to this stage

16

of our assessment, we obtained data of course from the site

17

visits, observations and interviews; also, a review of

18

documents that the Defendants produced in response to our

19

request and analysis of various data sets that the

20

Defendants also produced.

21

We've conducted unannounced and unescorted site

22

visits on two dates at the jail and the CTF. We conducted

23

observations in many of the housing units at both

24

facilities, including cells and day rooms. We visited

25

general population, maximum- and medium-security housing

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 10 of 68

10

1

units; we visited mental health units, special management

2

units, both isolation units, one in each facility, that were

3

operating. And when I say isolation unit at the CTF, I mean

4

the infirmary, which has the inmates in isolation status

5

now.

6

We visited quarantine units; we visited

7

non-quarantine units and the medical units at both

8

facilities and the visitor entry screening areas; and we

9

also were on the administrative side briefly at both

10

facilities.

11

We conducted structured and informal interviews in

12

person and by telephone, including with the deputy director

13

of the DOC, the DOC deputy director for case management

14

services.

15

And we conducted in-depth, structured interviews

16

with the medical director for the contractor who provides

17

health services at both facilities -- that's Unity

18

Healthcare -- the nursing director for Unity Healthcare,

19

which has the responsibility for both facilities; the

20

warden, who has responsibility for both facilities; the

21

deputy warden at the correctional treatment facility; and

22

again, with dozens and correctional officers and some of

23

their supervisors assigned to posts throughout both

24

facilities.

25

And again, we spoke in smaller groups this time,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 11 of 68

11

1

smaller groups of -- the smaller groups of inmates and

2

individually with inmates. By our estimate, over 100

3

inmates were interviewed during this phase who are either on

4

isolation, quarantine status or in the general population of

5

both facilities.

6

We did conduct data analysis. The Defendants

7

continue to provide us with access to the electronic health

8

records; and we have conducted analysis of those records,

9

which Mr. Jordan will be reviewing with the Court and the

10

parties in a moment, in addition to the electronic health

11

records.

12

We've also analyzed data sets related to COVID-19

13

testing; housing unit designations; admissions and housing

14

assignments; sick-call requests; the hiring of the

15

sanitarian; efforts to secure professional cleaning

16

services, records related to that; directives and

17

information related to implementation of the TRO as well

18

that were provided to DOC and/or contract staff by DOC

19

management.

20

And the Defendants have produced a significant

21

amount of the data we've requested. They also produced

22

certain data we did not request, such as video excerpts of

23

activity on certain CTF housing units, which we have

24

reviewed. And we have continued to receive documents in

25

response to our request on an ongoing basis from the

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 12 of 68

12

1

Defendants. Most recently, this past Saturday afternoon was

2

the most recent installment.

3

And we'd like to underscore that the Defendants

4

have been extremely cooperative and responsive, again,

5

throughout this stage of the process.

6

While we expect and will file our written report

7

by May 28th, we would like an opportunity to supplement the

8

information we provide today with respect to the first five

9

questions in light of more recent data we've received from

10

the Defendants as it appears appropriate.

11

THE COURT: Okay. And can I just ask, the

12

supplement that you were talking about, would you want

13

another oral one or are you going to be supplementing it in

14

written format?

15

MS. LOPES: In writing. In writing. We can do

16

that in the report.

17

THE COURT: Okay. That was the question. I'm

18

sorry. Go ahead.

19

MS. LOPES: Thank you.

20

And so with all of that in mind, I can turn this

21

over to Mr. Jordan, who at least preliminarily will address

22

what the data shows with respect to testing, and then

23

address the first two questions in the April 28th order.

24

THE COURT: Mr. Jordan?

25

MR. JORDAN: Thank you, your Honor.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 13 of 68

13

1

As Ms. Lopes mentioned, since our last report to

2

the Court three weeks ago, the impact of COVID-19 at the

3

jail and CTF has changed significantly.

4

The first positive case of COVID-19 in the DOC

5

facility was confirmed at the CTF on March 25th. The number

6

of cases at the CTF steadily increased until April 5th, when

7

it peaked, and then it began to decline.

8

April 16th was really the tail end of that

9

decrease, when two inmates tested positive.

10

Then there was not another positive case at the

11

CTF for approximately two weeks, until May 1st, when an

12

inmate who had been transferred from the jail tested

13

positive at the CTF.

14

As of last Friday, there were no isolation housing

15

units at the CTF; and the four inmates who were COVID-19

16

positive were housed in the medical infirmary.

17

There was one quarantine housing unit at that

18

time.

19

At the jail, the first positive case was confirmed

20

on April 8th, two weeks after the first case at CTF. For

21

the next week, the number of positive cases at the jail

22

continued to rise, eventually peaking on April 15th, and

23

then it began to decrease.

24

The most current data we have is through May 6th.

25

Inmates continue to present the symptoms and continue to be

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 14 of 68

14

1

tested, albeit in smaller numbers than in mid-April.

2

As of last Thursday at the jail, there was one

3

isolation housing unit and all but two housing units were

4

quarantined, which is a significant difference relative to

5

the last time we reported to the Court.

6

Unless there are any questions, I am prepared to

7

move to Question No. 1.

8

THE COURT: No questions from me.

9

Are there any questions from Plaintiffs' counsel?

10

MR. MARCUS: Yes, your Honor. This is Steven

11

Marcus.

12

First, a preliminary question: Ms. Lopes had

13

mentioned the written report. I believe she mentioned it

14

coming in on May 28th. And we have a --

15

MS. LOPES: May 20th.

16

MR. MARCUS: Okay. The 20th, then.

17

MS. LOPES: I misspoke, then. My apologies. The

18

20th.

19

MR. MARCUS: Okay. And I had a preliminary

20

question for Mr. Jordan.

21

You mentioned one resident was transferred from

22

the jail to CTF and then tested positive on May 1st. Do you

23

know why that resident was transferred?

24

MR. JORDAN: Let me clarify: More than one

25

resident were transferred. But the resident who did test

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 15 of 68

15

1

positive was from the CDF. It was a group of inmates.

2

And my understanding is that it was a -- I would

3

need to confirm this, but my understanding based on a lot of

4

interviews is it was a cohort of inmates from the CDF who

5

were in a specific program. And there is a program at the

6

CTF called the Young Men Emerging program. And they were

7

transferred from the CDF to that program at the CTF as a

8

group. One of them tested positive.

9

MR. MARCUS: Thank you.

10

That was all, your Honor.

11

THE COURT: Defense counsel, anything you wish to

12

ask?

13

MR. SAINDON: Nothing right now. Thank you, your

14

Honor.

15

THE COURT: And from the US, anything from you?

16

MR. WALKER: No. Thank you, your Honor.

17

THE COURT: So let's proceed.

18

I must say that I'm happy to hear that the numbers

19

have gone down. I have a couple of questions about that,

20

but I'll wait. And also, I'm happy the Department of

21

Corrections has continued to be cooperative with the amici

22

experts. Obviously, that makes it much better for all of us

23

in terms of being able to get a handle on this.

24

So let me let you proceed, then. Mr. Jordan,

25

you're starting with Question No. 1. Is that correct?

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 16 of 68

16

1

MR. JORDAN: That's correct. Thank you.

2

Question No. 1: At the jail, most inmates are

3

housed in quarantine units presently. In contrast, at CTF

4

most inmates are housed on non-quarantine housing units.

5

Access to healthcare at the jail and the CTF must

6

be understood in the context of the current operating

7

environment. On non-quarantine housing units, just like on

8

quarantine, and isolation housing units, DOC has adopted a

9

policy of confining inmates in their cells for 23 hours per

10

day and releasing them for one hour per day. There are

11

significant deviations in implementation of the policy,

12

which I will discuss in a minute.

13

Unlike quarantine housing units and isolation

14

housing units, medical staff do not routinely monitor

15

inmates on non-quarantine housing units; and those inmates

16

on non-quarantine housing units do not have daily

17

interactions with medical staff unless they are taking daily

18

medications.

19

On non-quarantine housing units, the primary

20

method by which inmates are able to access medical care is

21

through the submission of a sick-call request form.

22

Sick-call request forms are maintained by housing unit

23

correctional staff, and inmates must request a form from an

24

officer.

25

This lack of unimpeded access to forms is an

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 17 of 68

17

1

initial barrier to accessing medical care.

2

During our site visits, officers were unable to

3

consistently produce the forms readily. In one case, an

4

officer upon request gave us the wrong form.

5

In some cases, inmates said forms were not

6

available and they had to write requests on paper that were

7

not forms. And we observed this phenomenon in the sample

8

that we reviewed that I will discuss below.

9

In the current operating environment, the barriers

10

for inmates on non-quarantine housing units' access to

11

healthcare are much more significant than they would

12

otherwise be.

13

The problem appears particularly acute at the

14

jail, where because of higher housing unit population levels

15

and significant correctional officer staffing shortages,

16

inmates do not receive an hour out of their cells daily

17

consistent with the adopted policy.

18

Inmates are allowed out of their cells in small

19

groups around the clock. Based on the number of inmates

20

allowed out of their cells, which is impacted by the number

21

of staff working on the unit at any time, inmates and staff

22

report that two to three days can elapse between an inmate's

23

release for their hour of out-of-cell time. This greatly

24

reduces the opportunities inmates have to submit sick-call

25

request forms to medical staff.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 18 of 68

18

1

At the CTF, housing unit populations are lower and

2

inmates consistently reported that they receive their hour

3

of out-of-cell time every day during either the a.m. or the

4

p.m. shift.

5

Notwithstanding the identified barriers to

6

accessing medical care, we reviewed copies of all sick-call

7

request forms collected by medical staff between April 20th

8

and April 30th, 2020, at both facilities. We analyzed them

9

to determine whether the request forms were collected timely

10

and whether inmates were seen timely. There were a total of

11

136 requests from the jail and CTF. 82 percent of them were

12

from the jail; 18 percent of them were from the CTF. We

13

were able to analyze from the jail 63 requests to access --

14

requests for care to assess the timeliness of the

15

collection.

16

And just on a methodological note, we used the

17

date the forms were signed and dated by the inmate as a

18

proxy for the date that they were submitted to medical. Of

19

the 63 forms, 75 percent were picked up either the day of or

20

the day after they were submitted; 20 percent of them were

21

collected two to three days after they were submitted; and 5

22

percent were collected four days after they were submitted.

23

At the CTF, we analyzed the 17 requests that were

24

in the data. 65 percent were picked up the day of or the

25

day after they were submitted; 24 percent were collected two

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 19 of 68

19

1

to three days after they were submitted; and 12 percent were

2

collected 14 and 15 days, respectively, after they were

3

submitted.

4

From that data, we selected a sample of submitted

5

sick-call requests from both facilities to determine whether

6

inmates who submitted sick-call requests were seen by

7

medical and on what timeline.

8

In the future, we hope -- in the written report,

9

we hope to address whether the encounters addressed a

10

complaint in the sick-call request form. But at this point,

11

we limited our analysis strictly to timeliness.

12

We attempted to select only requests from inmates

13

housed on non-quarantine housing units. However, based on

14

our review, we do need to confirm the dates that all housing

15

units were designated as quarantine before we can be

16

confident that we limited it to non-quarantine housing

17

units.

18

Turning to the jail: We were able to analyze 24

19

requests for care for this analysis. In 16 of those 24, the

20

inmate was seen within two days of submission. In six of

21

the 24 cases, the inmate was seen three to five days after

22

the submission of the form. One inmate was seen eight days

23

after submission of the form; and in one case, there was no

24

record of the inmate having been seen after submitting the

25

form.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 20 of 68

20

1

We included in our sample nine requests that

2

included reported symptoms of coughing, shortness of breath,

3

loss of taste, and fever-related symptoms. Of those nine,

4

three were seen the day after the requests were submitted;

5

four were seen two days after the request was submitted; and

6

two additional were seen four and five days, respectively,

7

after the request was submitted.

8

It's noteworthy that in one of those two cases,

9

one that was seen four days after the request was submitted,

10

it was referred -- the case was referred for a COVID-19

11

test; and in that case, the inmate did test positive.

12

At the CTF, we reviewed 11 of the total 25

13

sick-call requests that had been submitted during our period

14

of review. Of those 11, six were seen two days after the

15

submission; three were seen three to four days after

16

submission; one was seen six days after submission; and one

17

was seen 15 days after the submission.

18

In none of those cases were there any symptoms

19

consistent with COVID, including cough or fever-related

20

symptoms or shortness of breath.

21

It is noteworthy that on May 5th, Unity Healthcare

22

issued a sick-call triage protocol. The protocol requires

23

that every sick-call request form be classified either as

24

Level 1, which requires emergency or urgent care, or

25

Level 2, which requires a scheduled appointment. Included

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 21 of 68

21

1

in the Level 1 criteria is shortness of breath,

2

hyperventilation, respiratory distress and COVID symptoms,

3

which are described as headaches, GI symptoms, shortness of

4

breath, cough and fever.

5

In sum, there are barriers to inmates on

6

non-quarantine housing units submitting sick-call requests.

7

And when those requests are submitted, there are at times

8

delays in both the collection of the sick-call requests and

9

in patients being seen by medical staff.

10

That is the end of my presentation with

11

Question 1. If there are questions, I could address those

12

now or move to Question 2.

13

THE COURT: I have a question about the protocol

14

that Unity Healthcare started: When did it go into effect?

15

They put it out May 5th. Is it operational at this point or

16

not?

17

MR. JORDAN: As far as -- it was issued. I do not

18

know if it's operational.

19

MS. LOPES: They've reported that it is.

20

THE COURT: Okay. And that's Ms. Lopes?

21

MS. LOPES: Yes.

22

THE COURT: Okay. That's okay. I just want to

23

make sure the comments are ascribed to the right people.

24

Plaintiffs' counsel, do you have any questions

25

about what has been presented so far?

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 22 of 68

22

1

MR. MARCUS: One question, Mr. Jordan. This is

2

Steven Marcus.

3

Do you know of any efforts on DOC's part to have

4

medical staff walk the non-quarantine housing units or make

5

periodic visits to non-quarantine housing units?

6

MR. JORDAN: I am not aware of any efforts. I'm

7

not aware of efforts.

8

I do know that their efforts on the quarantine and

9

isolation housing units is very staff intensive, as I'll

10

describe in a minute, with respect to what they are doing,

11

especially on the isolation units. There are a lot of hours

12

of medical staff work going to those units. And I don't

13

know if that impacts the non-quarantine units or not, but I

14

do know that they have extended a lot of resources

15

monitoring on those other units.

16

MR. MARCUS: One brief followup, Mr. Jordan: Were

17

you able to quantify the correctional officer -- the

18

shortage of correctional officers? You mentioned that as

19

one reason why there was impeded access to sick-calls forms.

20

Do you have any quantitative data on that front?

21

MR. JORDAN: I do not have quantitative data on

22

that front. We are still awaiting data on officers who are

23

unavailable for duty and vacancies. So we weren't able to

24

in the aggregate.

25

On the housing unit level, we routinely observed,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 23 of 68

23

1

and staff reported, managers reported, that they are

2

currently staffing lower than the levels that they normally

3

staff at because they do not have sufficient staff to staff

4

them at their normal levels. So there are some housing

5

units that would normally have five or even six correctional

6

officers that have three or four correctional officers.

7

MR. MARCUS: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

8

THE COURT: Defense counsel, DC, anything you want

9

to ask?

10

MR. SAINDON: Thank you, your Honor. Andrew

11

Saindon. A quick question for Mr. Jordan.

12

You said that at the jail, out of 24 requests, 16

13

were seen within a day or two of the request. But I didn't

14

catch the next category. What was that number?

15

MR. JORDAN: Six were seen three to five days

16

after the submission of the form; one was seen eight days

17

after the submission; and in one case, there was no record

18

of the inmate being seen.

19

MR. SAINDON: That's all I have. Thank you.

20

THE COURT: Mr. Walker, anything that you want to

21

ask?

22

MR. WALKER: No, your Honor. Thank you.

23

THE COURT: One quick question, and you may get to

24

it later: Who gets tested? I know that you indicated that

25

the -- I guess in the jail, in the breakdown, that two were

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 24 of 68

24

1

seen four to five days later who were tested, and it came

2

back positive.

3

So is it once they're seen that there's a decision

4

by the medical people as to whether to test?

5

MR. JORDAN: A medical provider -- and the medical

6

providers, Unity's providers, are advanced practitioners.

7

They include doctors, physician's assistants and nurse

8

practitioners. They will make a decision about who to test.

9

And it's based on their assessment of the patients. So it's

10

not only symptoms, but also objective data by all signs and

11

history, exposure. And so a provider has to make that

12

decision.

13

THE COURT: Okay. Let me let you move on, then,

14

to I guess Question 2.

15

MR. JORDAN: Question 2. Yes. Thank you, your

16

Honor.

17

As of May 8th -- I'm going to begin my discussion

18

with isolation units. And as of May 8th, there was one

19

isolation unit at the jail. At the CTF, all inmates in

20

isolation were housed in individual cells in the infirmary.

21

According to the management of the medical

22

program, the expectation is that inmates in isolation are

23

monitored by nursing staff twice per day and, additionally,

24

by advanced care providers twice per day.

25

A position called the COVID provider of the day

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 25 of 68

25

1

has been created; and this person is responsible for

2

coordinating daily rounds by medical providers and serving

3

as a communication liaison with DOC security staff.

4

We sampled the cohort of inmates who were on

5

isolation status at the jail and CTF as of April 19th, 2020,

6

and reviewed their electronic health records.

7

At the jail, there were 85 inmates on isolation on

8

or after April 19th at some point. That doesn't necessarily

9

meet concurrently, but at some point after April 19th. We

10

sampled 25 of those inmates, who collectively spent a total

11

of 257 days on isolation in our review period.

12

On 84 percent of the days in our review, the

13

inmates were seen at least two times by a medical provider.

14

On 92 percent of those days, the inmates were seen at least

15

once by a provider.

16

In most cases, when an inmate was not seen by a

17

provider on a given day, there is documentation in the

18

health record of an unsuccessful attempt due to the inmate

19

refusing, insufficient correctional staff to escort the

20

provider, or an incident that precluded the provider from

21

entering the unit.

22

On 84 percent of days, inmates were monitored by

23

nursing staff twice per day. And there was only one day

24

when an inmate did not have his or her vital signs taken at

25

least one time.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 26 of 68

26

1

At the CTF, 14 inmates were on isolation on or

2

after April 19th, and we reviewed a sample of seven of those

3

inmates, who collectively spent 71 days in isolation in our

4

review period.

5

On 76 percent of those days, the inmates were seen

6

twice daily by a provider. On 93 percent of days, they were

7

seen at least once by a provider -- I'm sorry. They were

8

seen once by a provider. At least once. I'm sorry. And

9

there were no days on which the inmates did not have their

10

vital signs taken at least once.

11

Now switching to quarantine units: On quarantine

12

housing units, nursing staff conduct temperature checks

13

twice per day. Providers do not routinely assess inmates on

14

quarantine housing units.

15

To assess the monitoring practices on these

16

quarantine units, we sampled inmates housed on quarantine

17

units at the jail and at CTF on or after April 19th of 2020.

18

At the jail, we reviewed health records of 20

19

inmates, who collectively spent 195 days on quarantine

20

status during our review period. On 62 percent of those

21

days, the inmates had their temperatures taken twice. On 29

22

percent of those days, the inmates had their temperatures

23

taken once. And in most cases, when an inmate's temperature

24

was not taken a second time, it was because the inmate

25

refused to have his or her temperature taken.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 27 of 68

27

1

On 7 percent of the days, an inmate did not have

2

his temperature taken. However, in all of those cases, the

3

inmate refused both temperature checks each of those days.

4

At CTF, we reviewed the health record of eight

5

inmates who spent 112 days on quarantine. On 96 percent of

6

those days, the inmates had two temperature checks; and on 4

7

percent, they had one temperature check.

8

In sum, on both isolation and quarantine housing

9

units, medical staff are conducting routine monitoring of

10

inmates to identify those who need urgent care. For inmates

11

in isolation, the level of routine monitoring is very high.

12

It frequently includes multiple visits from both nursing

13

staff and advanced medical providers on a daily basis.

14

And that concludes my presentation on Question 2.

15

THE COURT: Okay. When you say "collectively," I

16

take it you're talking about putting all the days together

17

for the -- it's not each inmate, but it's actually all

18

together for -- if you had 14, it's a total amount. Is that

19

correct, just to make sure?

20

MR. JORDAN: That's correct. So we took a sample

21

of inmates and calculated for each one how many days each

22

individual spent, and then we totaled those. So we really

23

calculated the number of inmate days on isolation.

24

THE COURT: Okay. Plaintiffs' counsel, any

25

questions?

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 28 of 68

28

1

MR. MARCUS: Yes. Steven Marcus here.

2

Mr. Jordan, when you said "seen by medical

3

provider" for residents on isolation units, does that

4

include the twice-daily temperature check or is that a

5

separate event you're describing?

6

MR. JORDAN: That's limited to advanced care

7

providers, so doctors, physician's assistants, nurse

8

practitioners.

9

MR. MARCUS: Okay. That's my only question.

10

THE COURT: So nursing would be doing the two

11

times per day and then you'd have these advanced care

12

people, which are separate. So they're seen four times a

13

day?

14

MR. JORDAN: That's correct. That is the goal.

15

They do not always achieve it, but that is what -- the

16

practice they're trying to implement.

17

THE COURT: DC, any questions?

18

MR. SAINDON: Not right now. Thank you, your

19

Honor.

20

THE COURT: All right. United States, any

21

questions?

22

MR. WALKER: No, your Honor. Thank you.

23

THE COURT: Then in terms of No. 3, is that you,

24

Mr. Jordan, or Ms. Lopes?

25

MS. LOPES: It's me, your Honor.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 29 of 68

29

1

MR. JORDAN: That is Ms. Lopes.

2

THE COURT: Okay.

3

MS. LOPES: Question 3 -- I'll just read it for

4

the record: Is the DOC providing consistent and reliable

5

access to legal calls, personal telephone calls, running

6

water, daily showers and clean clothing and clean linens to

7

all inmates on isolation status?

8

We limited our review to the isolation units that

9

have been operating recently. So that's one unit at the

10

jail and the infirmary at the CTF.

11

I'll take each category separately.

12

First, with respect to personal calls at the CTF,

13

inmates and staff reported that inmates can make personal

14

calls daily when they are in isolation status in the

15

infirmary at CTF. We observed that happening. A telephone

16

is actually placed on a rolling cart and it is moved from

17

cell to cell down the infirmary corridor so that inmates who

18

are housed in the infirmary can access the phone. We did

19

not receive any complaints from the inmates who are on

20

isolation in the infirmary about their daily access to the

21

phone.

22

And the situation at the jail is somewhat

23

different. So in the isolation unit that was operating at

24

the jail, when we were there last week, again, rolling carts

25

were used on some of the tiers and the same process of

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 30 of 68

30

1

moving the rolling cart with the telephone from cell to cell

2

was occurring.

3

But the rolling carts were not available to

4

inmates on one segment of the housing unit, on the Lower 1

5

tier. And those inmates did not have access to the

6

telephone at their cell door. They were reportedly

7

accommodated by being provided access to a telephone in an

8

office area on the housing unit.

9

The inmates reported that they do not always have

10

access to that office area. It is not a daily occurrence

11

for them. And there is some difficulty, apparently, getting

12

this rolling cart -- operating it on this lower tier, which

13

contributed to the problem. So that was one limitation.

14

It certainly was a step n the right direction

15

compared to what the situation was when we were there in

16

April when, you know, there was an inability, complete

17

inability, for inmates on isolation to make any personal

18

phone calls. But there was that limitation, and it was

19

evident in that part of the housing unit at the jail.

20

With respect to legal calls at both facilities,

21

the Defendants recently implemented a system -- and I don't

22

know how much, your Honor, you know about this system and

23

whether you want me to just explain how it works for these

24

30-minute unmonitored legal calls.

25

THE COURT: Yes. I would go ahead. I'm familiar

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 31 of 68

31

1

with it, but why don't we put it on the record for everybody

2

else.

3

MS. LOPES: Okay. A system was very recently

4

established where Defendants worked with their service

5

providers -- and there are different service providers at

6

both facilities -- to create or establish access for legal

7

calls through these 30-minute unmonitored legal calls.

8

Information about how this operates is posted on the DOC

9

website and signage is posted in the housing units. It was

10

first posted, I am told, at the beginning of May. The

11

signage -- the signage is intended to notify inmates and

12

apparently staff about how the system works.

13

And essentially, attorneys are required to email

14

the DOC case management kind of generic email address to

15

register for the system.

16

Case managers now, who work to implement the

17

system, are viewed as essential employees, pursuant to this

18

emergency order or under this emergency order that's in

19

effect in the District, so that a number of them have come

20

back to work. They weren't working until recently; and in

21

the last week or so, they have come back to work, many of

22

them, and are working to implement this new system.

23

The attorney then notifies -- once the attorney

24

registers through the case management office for

25

participation in this system, the attorney then is required

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 32 of 68

32

1

to notify their client by mail that they've registered for

2

the system and also notify their client about how to contact

3

them.

4

The clients or inmates explain that there are

5

delays and there have been delays in receiving their regular

6

mail. And so some of them still have had difficulty

7

receiving their regular mail, which may or may not affect

8

how this is working.

9

But legal calls are now happening with somewhat

10

greater frequency on the isolation units. And what we

11

observed on the isolation units is that the rolling -- the

12

phones on the isolation units, both the isolation in the

13

infirmary at the CTF and then the isolation units at the

14

jail, is that the phone on the rolling cart is being used

15

for that purpose. And we are told that those are

16

unmonitored calls, and the inmates are afforded

17

confidentiality because the calls take place in their cells

18

and not in the day rooms and not in the offices of the case

19

managers. So that is occurring.

20

We haven't had an opportunity to verify this data,

21

but on Saturday we did receive data from the Defendants on

22

three weeks of operations related to this system, the last

23

three weeks of operations related to this system.

24

And, you know, I have a lot of questions about the

25

data that we'll have to talk through with the Defendants.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 33 of 68

33

1

We just haven't had an opportunity to do that since we got

2

it on Saturday.

3

But there are indicated in these data reasons for

4

why calls were not completed. And as a general matter, in

5

the three-week period, roughly 15 percent of the calls that

6

were scheduled through this new system -- it was indicated

7

that they were not completed due to staffing shortages,

8

security issues, limitations of the availability of phones

9

on housing units and disruption.

10

So clearly, there's been improvement on the

11

isolation units in terms of access to legal calls. It

12

appears that additional progress may be necessary.

13

Clearly, on non-isolation units, there is a note,

14

I would think, that the Court and the parties should be

15

aware of, and this is a situation that we stumbled upon,

16

which was that legal calls that are scheduled through this

17

system are being conducted in the offices of case managers

18

with the case manager present. So I observed multiple --

19

two inmates, three inmates, conducting legal calls in the

20

case manager's office with the case manager clearly within

21

earshot when I was at the jail. So that -- and that appears

22

to be the practice. So that's one thing that I wanted to

23

raise.

24

With respect to running water at both facilities

25

for inmates in isolation, there was no apparent issue and no

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 34 of 68

34

1

complaints that we heard about with respect to the infirmary

2

or with respect to the isolation unit at the jail.

3

With respect to showers at the CTF and the

4

infirmary and access to showers in isolation at the jail,

5

first at the CTF, inmates and staff reported that inmates

6

were allowed out of their cells in the infirmary daily to

7

shower. There were no complaints, and expectations appeared

8

to be very clear that inmates had to be allowed out of their

9

cells to shower if they were on isolation status. There was

10

no blanket rule prohibiting showers that staff articulated

11

at the jail.

12

And staff and inmates both affirmed that inmates

13

are allowed out of their cells to shower when they are on

14

isolation status, but that it does not occur on a daily

15

basis. Some inmates reported multiple-day delays. They

16

recognized that they had been allowed to shower several days

17

earlier, but hadn't been allowed to shower within the past

18

couple of days.

19

And staffing -- it appears from talking to staff

20

and inmates that, again, what contributes to this is

21

staffing limitations combined with incidents and

22

disturbances that contribute to the inability of the

23

Defendants to provide daily access to showers.

24

So, you know, there is significant tension and

25

there are significant issues, particularly at the jail --

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 35 of 68

35

1

this is really an issue at the jail -- that contribute to

2

creating a lot of challenges for the staff and the inmates.

3

And there are a lot of issues. And that delays

4

the ability of the limited staff who are available to

5

provide consistent daily out-of-cell time. It's an issue.

6

It's moving in the right direction in terms of -- that it's

7

more frequent, but it's still not consistently being

8

afforded on a daily basis.

9

With respect to clean clothing and clean linens in

10

isolation, staff and inmates reported clothing and linen

11

exchanges had occurred that week and that there had been

12

very recent increased frequency. It's too premature to make

13

any judgments about consistency, but clearly there is a

14

recent effort to address it that was reported by both staff

15

and inmates. And while we were there, we observed linen

16

exchanges at both facilities occurring.

17

THE COURT: I have a question. When you say

18

"incidents or disturbances," can you give me an idea of what

19

we're talking about?

20

MS. LOPES: Yeah. There are fights. You know,

21

there are inmates that are angry. You know, there are

22

objects thrown; there's food thrown; there's bags of

23

substances thrown around. I mean, it's a tense environment,

24

and there are disturbances.

25

Because they're not getting a lot of out-of-cell

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 36 of 68

36

1

time, and feel that they're punished, inmates -- some, you

2

know, are refusing to go back in their cell. And there

3

are -- you know, there are issues between the inmates and

4

the staff around going back into cells that escalate and,

5

you know, issues related to getting out to use the phone.

6

The facility is on -- in the non-isolation housing

7

units, it is clear that the Defendants are trying to provide

8

recreation to everyone; and they're doing that by allowing

9

recreation to occur on a 24-hour basis.

10

So inmates -- they're told, and staff have

11

confirmed, and even our cursory review of the logbooks in

12

the housing units also confirm this, that inmates are being

13

afforded the opportunity to leave their cells to take a

14

shower or call home in some instances at 1:00, 2:00, and

15

3:00 a.m. because they weren't able to provide that

16

opportunity during, you know, the day or the evening. So

17

instead, you know, the staff will provide that opportunity

18

at 1:00, 2:00, or 3:00 a.m. And that leads to problems as

19

well.

20

So, you know, it's a tense environment. And, you

21

know, the inmates -- many inmates feel as though they're

22

being unduly punished because they are, you know, locked

23

down for a significant part of the day. They are, you know,

24

generally idle, and it's a very difficult and stressful

25

situation for them. It's also a very difficult and

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 37 of 68

37

1

stressful situation for the staff. They're understaffed.

2

And, you know, there's significant overtime. Staff are

3

tired. And it's a very stressful mix of factors, your

4

Honor.

5

THE COURT: What I was curious about, you labeled

6

these as disturbances. I take it the records themselves

7

indicate some of the descriptions of what you've indicated

8

were the problems. Is that correct?

9

MS. LOPES: Yes. Yes. Yes, your Honor.

10

THE COURT: Okay.

11

MS. LOPES: Yes.

12

THE COURT: So, Plaintiffs' counsel, any

13

questions?

14

MR. MARCUS: Yes. This is Steven Marcus here.

15

Ms. Lopes, when you observed the case managers in

16

their office during the scheduled legal calls, were case

17

managers wearing PPE as far as you could observe?

18

MS. LOPES: This all happens -- yes. Yes.

19

Wearing a mask. And I have to look at my notes about the

20

gloves, whether they were wearing gloves. Not wearing a

21

gown, but wearing a mask. Definitely they were wearing a

22

mask. And I'd have to look at my notes.

23

MR. MARCUS: Okay.

24

MS. LOPES: It'll take me a while to access that.

25

MR. MARCUS: Do you have a sense of how many

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 38 of 68

38

1

residents on the isolation unit or roughly how many

2

residents on isolation units at the jail don't get to shower

3

every day?

4

MS. LOPES: No. It's frequent enough that both

5

staff and inmates have reported it to us. But no.

6

MR. MARCUS: And as far as the residents who

7

receive their hour out of cell at 1:00, 2:00, or 3:00 in the

8

morning, are you aware of how frequent that is?

9

MS. LOPES: It's common. It's recognized as a --

10

you know, as something that they have to do in order to

11

afford everyone the opportunity to be out of their cell.

12

MR. MARCUS: Okay. And the rolling phone cart:

13

Did you observe the cart being wiped down between uses or

14

does a staff member push it from cell to cell?

15

MS. LOPES: A staff member or detail inmates. And

16

I didn't observe the -- with sanitation, but I know that

17

Mr. Jordan did.

18

MR. JORDAN: I did not observe the sanitation.

19

I will say that I did have conversations with

20

inmates when I was interviewing them in which they said it

21

was the detail's job, the inmate detail's job, to move the

22

cart from one cell to the next. And they had stated that

23

the detail had been locked down for a prolonged period on

24

the day that we were there, and that therefore other

25

inmates' access to the phone was limited because of that,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 39 of 68

39

1

because the detail inmate whose job it was to move the phone

2

was locked down. And that created a lot of frustration as

3

well on the unit.

4

THE COURT: Excuse me. Can I just ask, was there

5

sanitation of the phone between inmates, leaving aside the

6

cart?

7

MS. LOPES: We just didn't observe it, your Honor.

8

But we have observed it in housing units without the cart.

9

We certainly have observed it, you know, where they had the

10

phones mounted on the walls in the day rooms. We have

11

observed the cleaning of the phones. And the rolling carts,

12

we just didn't observe it and we didn't inquire about it.

13

We certainly can follow up on that.

14

THE COURT: I would appreciate it.

15

And what about if they're in the case manager's

16

office? Is there any cleaning of the phone between calls?

17

MS. LOPES: We'll have to check.

18

THE COURT: Okay. Sorry, Mr. Marcus. Go ahead.

19

MR. MARCUS: And I just have one last question.

20

Are the detail inmates that work on the isolation

21

units -- are those people who are also housed on those units

22

and have tested positive?

23

MS. LOPES: Yes.

24

MR. MARCUS: Okay.

25

MS. LOPES: Yes.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 40 of 68

40

1

THE COURT: DC, anything? Any questions?

2

MR. SAINDON: Nothing at this time. Thank you,

3

your Honor.

4

THE COURT: How about --

5

MR. GLOVER: Your Honor? Your Honor? This is

6

Eric Glover. I just wanted to clarify one issue that

7

Ms. Lopes brought up.

8

The agency did provide her with data with regard

9

to emergency calls conducted at the facility about that

10

recent issue over the weekend that she referenced. Those

11

emergency calls were slightly different than the standard

12

30-minute legal calls that the residents have. However,

13

when Ms. Lopes follows up with staff, I'll explain it

14

clearly. So I just wanted to be very clear.

15

THE COURT: Okay. And, United States, any

16

questions?

17

MR. WALKER: No questions from the United States.

18

Thank you, your Honor.

19

THE COURT: And I guess we're moving to Question

20

4.

21

MS. LOPES: That question is: Do DOC residents

22

have access to cleaning materials and cleaning equipment to

23

clean their cells?

24

Again, they have access at both facilities to

25

cleaning materials and cleaning equipment. Availability is

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 41 of 68

41

1

not uniform from housing unit to housing unit. So some

2

housing units have more cleaning supplies and cleaning

3

materials available than others.

4

The Defendants recently began to issue paper

5

towels which are sprayed with a peroxide solution to inmates

6

at the jail. It's highly regulated at the jail in the sense

7

that staff are involved, the paper towels are sprayed, and a

8

limited number are provided.

9

Inmates report that because it's so -- you know,

10

it's four or five paper towels that have been sprayed with

11

this peroxide solution that they're given, these are not

12

highly absorbent paper towels; and inmates report that it's

13

difficult to get their cells clean with what is provided so

14

that they continue to rely upon the ripped towels and the

15

ripped T-shirts to supplement in order to clean their cells.

16

At the CTF, access to the paper towels and the

17

peroxide solution is not as highly regulated; and inmates

18

appear to be able to use the solution and the paper towels

19

more independently and are better able to clean.

20

But appropriate sanitation is, you know, a

21

continuing issue at both facilities, and clearly especially

22

deficient at the jail.

23

And then I know for the next set of questions,

24

whether in the final report -- and I can say that the

25

Defendants -- from all of the documentation I've reviewed

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 42 of 68

42

1

and from the interviews I've conducted, the Defendants are

2

working to secure the contract with the professional

3

cleaning service for the secure side of the facility. That

4

would not include the cells, but it will include the common

5

areas and the day rooms in the housing units. And I believe

6

it's anticipated that it will start this week, which is

7

something we can confirm.

8

THE COURT: Okay. No. 5.

9

MS. LOPES: Is the DOC enforcing social

10

distancing?

11

There is -- there are increased -- an increased

12

volume of health educational materials on social distancing

13

that are posted throughout both facilities. Both management

14

and staff, supervisory staff and line staff, report that

15

staff are being disciplined for the failure to enforce

16

social distancing. There is some evidence of this on site.

17

The increased -- the increased evidence of social

18

distancing. But it certainly is not prevalent, certainly

19

not during our site visits.

20

And I would say even in the video excerpts of

21

activity on the housing units that the Defendants provided,

22

there were -- and that was just limited to the CTF -- there

23

were examples of failure to enforce social distancing, which

24

is -- you know, there are fewer inmates who are allowed out

25

of their cells at any one time relative to what the

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 43 of 68

43

1

situation was when we were there in April. So as a result,

2

at least some housing units are less chaotic.

3

Again, this has created -- by allowing fewer

4

inmates out at a time, you know, this has given rise to this

5

other problem of the 24-hour recreation schedule because of

6

the difficulty letting -- when you let fewer numbers of

7

inmates out at one time, they can't all during the day get

8

out of their cells to shower and use the phone, et cetera.

9

So the Defendants have expanded to this 24-hour recreation

10

cycle.

11

But there's evidence of some progress and attempts

12

to enforce social distancing, certainly the effort of an

13

attempt to enforce social distancing.

14

But I would say there still isn't a prevalence of

15

social distancing. And staffing limitations to some degree,

16

you know, undercut the ability of staff to enforce it when

17

there are an insufficient number of staff on the housing

18

units.

19

So that's where that stands, your Honor.

20

THE COURT: Okay. On this particular issue,

21

Plaintiffs' counsel, any questions?

22

MR. MARCUS: I just had one question, Ms. Lopes,

23

about paper towels and rags.

24

Did you see on this round where residents still

25

were using makeshift rags -- was that less prevalent than

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 44 of 68

44

1

your first visit or about the same?

2

MS. LOPES: About the same. About the same.

3

MR. MARCUS: Okay. And that was my only question.

4

I didn't have any questions aside from that.

5

THE COURT: DC?

6

MR. SAINDON: Yes, your Honor.

7

I don't recall, Ms. Lopes. Did you say when the

8

video excerpts -- from what days those were from?

9

MS. LOPES: I can tell you. Here we go. 4-27,

10

11:00 a.m. to 11:15 at the CTF. 4-27, 10:00 to 11:00 a.m.

11

at the CTF. 4-27, 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. at the CTF. And 4-27,

12

7:00 to 8:00 a.m. at the CTF.

13

MR. SAINDON: Okay. Thank you.

14

THE COURT: Anybody else from DC? Mr. Glover or

15

anybody?

16

MR. GLOVER: I don't have anything, Judge. Thank

17

you.

18

THE COURT: US, any questions?

19

MR. WALKER: No. Thank you, your Honor.

20

And my thanks to Ms. Lopes and Mr. Jordan as well.

21

THE COURT: Yes. Definitely.

22

I have a couple of overall questions that I'd like

23

to ask. I'm going to direct them to DC first; and then if

24

Ms. Lopes or Mr. Jordan have something to add additionally,

25

that would be helpful. And they're not exactly connected to

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 45 of 68

45

1

these four points.

2

From DC's perspective, in terms of the legal

3

calls, we're still having a problem, obviously, here. The

4

rolling carts obviously help to some degree. But I don't

5

see how you're doing -- if they're in the presence of their

6

case managers, that's not an unmonitored call. I mean, what

7

they're discussing is what they want to do with their cases,

8

pleas, sentences, other kind of things. Obviously,

9

that's -- nobody should be there.

10

Are you going to do anything else? If you don't

11

have the complete answer, that's fine. I'm just raising the

12

issue.

13

MR. GLOVER: Your Honor, this is Eric Glover.

14

THE COURT: Go ahead.

15

MR. GLOVER: This is Eric Glover. I don't know if

16

someone was speaking before me.

17

THE COURT: It doesn't sound like it. Go ahead,

18

Mr. Glover.

19

MR. GLOVER: Yes, your Honor.

20

We are looking at adding additional equipment to

21

the facilities to assist with -- or to assist with providing

22

legal calls to the residents.

23

However, your Honor, it is still a correctional

24

facility. And notwithstanding -- and understanding the

25

Court's concern about case managers or staff being present,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 46 of 68

46

1

there has to be eyes on the residents at the facility, just

2

for the safety and security of staff and residents.

3

But we are looking at other alternatives or

4

expanding our equipment to allow for legal calls, that being

5

additional cell phones.

6

And we have recently implemented -- we've recently

7

worked with the Public Defender Service and the Federal

8

Public Defender Services to implement an email program where

9

residents in isolation who have been provided with tablets

10

have the ability to email their attorneys to further be able

11

to -- allow them to communicate with them.

12

But we can't have at a correctional facility a

13

situation where there are absolutely no eyes on a resident.

14

There are security issues attached to that.

15

THE COURT: I understand that. But I still think

16

that, you know, there still needs to be some way of -- I'm

17

not sure -- I haven't been to the jail in eons. But I mean,

18

in terms of a way they're being able to distance or some

19

other way of doing it.

20

I understand they can't just be left in an office.

21

But I do think that if people are close enough to listen to

22

what they're talking about, it's obviously going to be --

23

it's going to hinder them from being frank in their

24

discussions or complaints or anything else they may have

25

with their lawyers.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 47 of 68

47

1

I understand you were looking at tablets, which

2

would be of some help in terms of doing it or some other way

3

of doing cell phones where they could go to a place where

4

you can't overhear them, but you could still see them.

5

MR. GLOVER: Yes, your Honor.

6

THE COURT: This is still a problem. This is

7

still -- from my perspective, this is still a problem.

8

I know that at least the scheduling has gotten

9

slightly better based on both FPD and PDS and the Department

10

of Corrections working around setting specific times, so

11

it's not sort of guesswork anymore about when they get to

12

have the calls, et cetera. So there's been some improvement

13

at least in that. And obviously, having 30 minutes instead

14

of ten makes a big difference.

15

But I am concerned about the fact that if somebody

16

is around that can hear what they say, they're obviously

17

going to temper what's said. So we need to come up with

18

something else. I'm not sure what, but I still thought that

19

the idea of cell phones, where they could move to a place

20

where they could be seen but nobody could hear what they're

21

actually saying, to my mind makes sense.

22

But I'll leave it to you to come up with a way of

23

doing it. But if they're overheard, if there is such a

24

situation that you can hear the conversation, that's not

25

really an unmonitored call. So I'm just throwing that out.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 48 of 68

48

1

I'm just indicating to you, having listened to this, there

2

are some are concerns here.

3

MR. GLOVER: Yes, your Honor. I will address that

4

with the executive staff, this issue.

5

THE COURT: Okay. I mean, I'm not ordering

6

something at this point. I'm just asking you to come up

7

with a better way.

8

The rolling carts seem to work to some degree as

9

long as it's consistent. But the issue of there being --

10

where you can overhear the conversation is clearly not from

11

my perspective an unmonitored call, even if they're not

12

trying to hear it.

13

And I'm not indicating that the case managers are

14

doing something wrong. But if you can't have a private

15

conversation, then people are just simply not going to be

16

honest and frank in their discussions. But I'm just

17

throwing out my concerns about it.

18

The other issue is, I'm curious to know in terms

19

of the lower population, is it due to releases by individual

20

judges? BOP doesn't seem to have had much success in moving

21

their group out. Is there a particular category of people

22

that has lowered it? Or what's happening? Or are fewer

23

people coming in or what? Do you know? If you don't,

24

that's fine.

25

MR. GLOVER: Your Honor, just briefly, it's a

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 49 of 68

49

1

combination of both. I know that MPD and the US Attorney's

2

Office have started making a more diligent effort to have

3

more offenses be classified with citations. And there has

4

been -- as the Court is well aware, there were multiple bond

5

hearings occurring at the Superior Court where residents

6

have been released as well.

7

THE COURT: Right. Okay.

8

What about the Parole Commission? Are they doing

9

anything?

10

MR. GLOVER: Your Honor, I'd have to -- I'd have

11

to follow up on that.

12

THE COURT: Mr. Walker, do you know? If you don't

13

know, that's fine. These are questions you weren't expected

14

to know the answer to. But I'm just curious.

15

MR. WALKER: I don't know that today, your Honor.

16

THE COURT: Okay. It would be helpful at some

17

point to find out what's happening with the Parole

18

Commission as to whether they have some system in place for

19

going through these, at least the ones where they're being

20

held for technical reasons as opposed to new charges. And I

21

know there have been some issues with the Bureau of Prisons

22

in terms of the receiving group having some concerns, which

23

leads me to my next question.

24

The last time I asked this question of DC about

25

doing tests prior to people being released or being

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 50 of 68

50

1

transferred, the answer I got was that the CDC did not

2

require it.

3

Is that still the same answer or are people being

4

tested before they're released or transferred?

5

MR. GLOVER: Your Honor, presently, residents are

6

not being released. However, we are reassessing our policy.

7

The director and I had a meeting with Chief Judge Howell

8

this morning, and we'll be getting back to her with any

9

changes regarding our policy regarding testing residents --

10

testing or screening of residents prior to their release

11

from the facilities.

12

THE COURT: I think quarantining them at the other

13

end is not perfection. I mean, it might be better than

14

nothing. But perhaps -- I'm just throwing this out, not

15

ordering it or anything else. We're not there yet.

16

But certainly in terms of releasing or frankly

17

sending people -- with the Bureau of Prisons with people

18

that are ready to be moved, that there were some assurances

19

that they were getting people that were not sick that would

20

probably move these people out a little faster.

21

But I know you've had discussions with the Chief

22

Judge about this, because there are some concerns,

23

obviously, in terms of our trying to from the federal court

24

and I'm sure from Superior Court in their own way, too, in

25

terms of trying to move people.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 51 of 68

51

1

The other question that I had for DC is, what's

2

happening with the staffing issues? And I realize that is

3

not a quickie, but as I recall there was some efforts to

4

getting additional staff through some mechanism which --

5

unfortunately, I don't have it in front of me.

6

Does anybody want to answer that from DC?

7

MR. SAINDON: Yes, your Honor.

8

MR. GLOVER: Go ahead.

9

MR. SAINDON: Go ahead, Eric.

10

MR. GLOVER: Mr. Saindon, please proceed.

11

MR. SAINDON: I want I was going to say, you

12

probably have more recent detail.

13

We had asked for assistance from Public Health,

14

and they provided some volunteer staffers to assist in

15

the -- doing the screening. And maybe Mr. Glover has

16

details there. But, again, it remains difficult to hire

17

full-time correctional officers because of the time required

18

to train them.

19

THE COURT: Right.

20

MR. GLOVER: In addition to that, your Honor,

21

Mr. Saindon is correct. We have reached out to the Medical

22

Reserve Corps, and we received staff from the Corps who have

23

been assisting with screening of residents.

24

We've also, as regards our staff who took leave

25

pursuant to the COVID pandemic -- we began sending out

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 52 of 68

52

1

return-of-work notices to staff for those staff who are

2

going to be able to return to work.

3

We are doing rolling hires. We're currently

4

reviewing applications for new staff to assist with the

5

facility.

6

And there's been a request for armed security to

7

assist with taking over of hospital details. So we've made

8

several different types of efforts to add more staff to the

9

facility and develop policies or enforce policies, getting

10

staff that was previously out on leave to return to the

11

facility.

12

THE COURT: I was just interested, since obviously

13

some of these problems that Ms. Lopes and Mr. Jordan have

14

identified seem to be staffing issues, which I understand is

15

harder to fill in the hole. But you had indicated, I

16

thought, after the last report that the efforts were being

17

made. And I guess it's the Public Health Service I was

18

thinking of there in terms of getting some additional

19

assistance.

20

Those are the only questions that I had that were

21

additional.

22

Mr. Marcus, are there any questions from you or

23

anything else you wish to bring up?

24

MR. MARCUS: Just a clarifying question for

25

Mr. Glover.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 53 of 68

53

1

The armed security you mentioned: Can you just

2

say a little bit more about that? Are those private

3

contractors? Where in the facility would those people be

4

working?

5

MR. GLOVER: I have yet to follow up with our

6

deputy director with the administration to get more details

7

about that. So I don't have that exact information right

8

now.

9

MR. MARCUS: Okay.

10

MR. GLOVER: But it's my understanding they will

11

not be at the facility. They would just be part of doing --

12

they will not be operating in the facility. Just hospital

13

details.

14

MR. MARCUS: Okay. And I'm not sure, Mr. Glover,

15

if you or Mr. Saindon would know the answer to this. But do

16

you know if there's capability in the District to test

17

everyone at the jail, the 1300 or so people who remain? Has

18

that conversation happened or have any inquiries been made?

19

MR. GLOVER: I am not familiar with any facility

20

that has the capability to test all the residents at the DOC

21

facilities. However, we are looking at every opportunity to

22

test as many residents as possible.

23

MR. MARCUS: Okay.

24

THE COURT: And my understanding is at least there

25

was some discussion of testing people that were being

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 54 of 68

54

1

released not only into the community, but potentially if

2

they were being transferred someplace else, which might

3

bring the population -- well, testing into the community, so

4

we didn't send somebody out that turns out to be sick going

5

home, who doesn't show -- who is asymptomatic and then goes

6

home.

7

But also, it might make it easier to move some

8

people out that should be moved out of the facility if the

9

receiving facilities were satisfied that they weren't

10

getting people that potentially were sick. But I'll leave

11

you to have that discussion with the Chief Judge at this

12

point.

13

Anything else from DC? Anything else you wish to

14

bring up or raise?

15

MR. SAINDON: This is Andrew Saindon.

16

No, your Honor. Thank you.

17

THE COURT: Mr. Walker, is there anything you want

18

to say?

19

MR. WALKER: No, your Honor. Thank you.

20

THE COURT: Thank you very much, Ms. Lopes and

21

Mr. Jordan, in terms of going in and going over and checking

22

back with what we had talked about.

23

And we certainly -- and I appreciate the

24

Department of Corrections being cooperative. The system

25

won't work unless they get the information. And so I

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 55 of 68

55

1

appreciate that.

2

And I certainly appreciate the help from Ms. Lopes

3

and Mr. Jordan. This has made this case certainly a better

4

case in terms of getting information that everybody can

5

accept that's neutral and that we can work with. So I thank

6

you very much for your time and energy and how careful you

7

are in terms of going through all of this. So I await with

8

interest the written findings.

9

Do you have any questions of the director or

10

anybody else, Ms. Lopes or Mr. Jordan?

11

MS. LOPES: No, your Honor.

12

We will reach back out to counsel for both sides

13

after this and determine whether there are any other areas

14

that they think would be helpful for us to clarify in the

15

final report based on what we've said today. And we

16

anticipate that the final report will supplement today's

17

presentation as well as address the remaining questions.

18

THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.

19

MS. LOPES: Thank you.

20

THE COURT: Everybody is excused. As I said

21

before, take care of yourselves. Thank you.

22

MS. LOPES: Thank you, your Honor.

23

MR. MARCUS: Thank you, Judge.

24

MR. SAINDON: Thank you, your Honor.

25

MR. GLOVER: Thank you, your Honor.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 56 of 68

56

1

MR. WALKER: Thank you, your Honor.

2

MR. JORDAN: Thank you, your Honor.

3

(Proceedings concluded.)

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 57 of 68

57

1

CERTIFICATE

2

3

I, LISA EDWARDS, RDR, CRR, do hereby

4

certify that the foregoing constitutes a true and accurate

5

transcript of my stenographic notes, and is a full, true,

6

and complete transcript of the proceedings produced to the

7

best of my ability.

8

Please Note: This hearing occurred

9

during the COVID-19 pandemic and is therefore subject to the

10

technological limitations of reporting remotely.

11

12

13

Dated this 11th day of May, 2020.

14

15

/s/ Lisa Edwards, RDR, CRR

Official Court Reporter

16

United States District Court for the

District of Columbia

17

333 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 6706

Washington, DC 20001

18

(202) 354-3269

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 58 of 68

58

/
/s [1] - 57:15
1
1 [8] - 6:23, 14:7, 15:25, 16:2, 20:24, 21:1, 21:11, 30:4
1,020 [1] - 7:15 100 [1] - 11:2 10:00 [1] - 44:10 11 [3] - 1:7, 20:12, 20:14 112 [1] - 27:5 11:00 [2] - 44:10 11:15 [1] - 44:10 11th [1] - 57:13 12 [1] - 19:1 1300 [1] - 53:17 136 [1] - 18:11 14 [3] - 19:2, 26:1, 27:18 14th [1] - 2:11 15 [4] - 8:8, 19:2, 20:17, 33:5 15th [2] - 1:16, 13:22 16 [2] - 19:19, 23:12 16th [1] - 13:8 17 [1] - 18:23 18 [2] - 7:18, 18:12 195 [1] - 26:19 19th [5] - 25:5, 25:8, 25:9, 26:2, 26:17 1:00 [3] - 36:14, 36:18, 38:7 1st [2] - 13:11, 14:22
2
2 [5] - 20:25, 21:12, 24:14, 24:15, 27:14
20 [2] - 18:20, 26:18 20-CV-00849 [1] 1:4 20-CV-849 [1] - 3:3 2000 [1] - 2:11 20001 [3] - 2:6, 2:18, 57:17 20004 [1] - 1:22 20005 [1] - 1:17 20009 [1] - 2:11 202 [2] - 2:18, 57:18 2020 [6] - 1:7, 6:5, 18:8, 25:5, 26:17, 57:13 20th [4] - 14:15,

14:16, 14:18, 18:7 23 [1] - 16:9 24 [5] - 18:25, 19:18,
19:19, 19:21, 23:12 24-hour [3] - 36:9,
43:5, 43:9 25 [2] - 20:12, 25:10 257 [1] - 25:11 25th [1] - 13:5 26-room [1] - 8:22 27 [1] - 8:23 28th [4] - 6:5, 12:7,
12:23, 14:14 29 [1] - 26:21 2:00 [5] - 1:7, 3:1,
36:14, 36:18, 38:7
3
3 [2] - 28:23, 29:3 30 [1] - 47:13 30-minute [3] 30:24, 31:7, 40:12 30th [1] - 18:8 333 [2] - 2:17, 57:17 354-3269 [2] - 2:18, 57:18 364 [1] - 8:18 3:00 [3] - 36:15, 36:18, 38:7
4
4 [2] - 27:6, 40:20 4-27 [4] - 44:9, 44:10, 44:11 40-bed [1] - 8:22 400 [1] - 8:20 441 [1] - 2:5
5
5 [2] - 18:21, 42:8 50 [1] - 8:24 5th [3] - 13:6, 20:21, 21:15
6
62 [1] - 26:20 63 [2] - 18:13, 18:19 633 [1] - 1:21 65 [1] - 18:24 6706 [2] - 2:17, 57:17 6th [1] - 13:24

7
7 [1] - 27:1 71 [1] - 26:3 75 [1] - 18:19 76 [1] - 26:5 7:00 [1] - 44:12 7th [2] - 7:13, 8:7
8
80 [1] - 7:19 82 [1] - 18:11 84 [2] - 25:12, 25:22 85 [1] - 25:7 8:00 [2] - 44:11, 44:12 8th [3] - 13:20, 24:17, 24:18
9
915 [1] - 1:16 92 [1] - 25:14 93 [1] - 26:6 96 [2] - 8:25, 27:5 969 [1] - 7:14 9:00 [1] - 44:11
A
a.m [7] - 18:3, 36:15, 36:18, 44:10, 44:11, 44:12
ability [5] - 8:4, 35:4, 43:16, 46:10, 57:7
able [13] - 8:1, 15:23, 16:20, 18:13, 19:18, 22:17, 22:23, 36:15, 41:18, 41:19, 46:10, 46:18, 52:2
absolutely [1] 46:13
absorbent [1] 41:12
accept [1] - 55:5 access [22] - 11:7, 16:5, 16:20, 16:25, 17:10, 18:13, 22:19, 29:5, 29:18, 29:20, 30:5, 30:7, 30:10, 31:6, 33:11, 34:4, 34:23, 37:24, 38:25, 40:22, 40:24, 41:16 accessing [2] - 17:1, 18:6 accommodated [1] -

30:7 according [1] - 24:21 accurate [1] - 57:4 achieve [1] - 28:15 Action [1] - 1:3 activity [2] - 11:23,
42:21 acute [1] - 17:13 add [2] - 44:24, 52:8 adding [1] - 45:20 addition [2] - 11:10,
51:20 additional [7] - 20:6,
33:12, 45:20, 46:5, 51:4, 52:18, 52:21
additionally [2] 24:23, 44:24
address [8] - 12:21, 12:23, 19:9, 21:11, 31:14, 35:14, 48:3, 55:17
addressed [1] - 19:9 addressing [2] - 7:2 administration [1] 53:6 administrative [1] 10:9 admissions [1] 11:13 adopted [2] - 16:8, 17:17 advanced [5] - 24:6, 24:24, 27:13, 28:6, 28:11 affect [1] - 32:7 affirmed [1] - 34:12 afford [1] - 38:11 afforded [3] - 32:16, 35:8, 36:13 afternoon [24] - 3:14, 3:15, 3:17, 3:18, 3:20, 3:21, 3:23, 3:24, 4:1, 4:19, 4:20, 4:23, 4:24, 5:1, 5:2, 5:4, 5:5, 5:7, 5:8, 5:10, 5:14, 5:15, 7:8, 12:1 agency [1] - 40:8 aggregate [1] - 22:24 ago [1] - 13:2 ahead [7] - 12:18, 30:25, 39:18, 45:14, 45:17, 51:8, 51:9 al [4] - 1:3, 1:6, 3:2, 3:3 albeit [2] - 7:19, 14:1 allow [2] - 46:4, 46:11 allowed [8] - 17:18, 17:20, 34:6, 34:8, 34:13, 34:16, 34:17,

42:24 allowing [2] - 36:8,
43:3 alternatives [1] -
46:3 AMARILLAS [2] -
2:3, 4:22 Amarillas [1] - 4:21 AMERICAN [1] - 1:15 AMICI [1] - 2:13 amici [3] - 3:9, 6:5,
15:21 amount [2] - 11:21,
27:18 analysis [5] - 9:19,
11:6, 11:8, 19:11, 19:19
analyze [2] - 18:13, 19:18
analyzed [3] - 11:12, 18:8, 18:23
Anderson [1] - 3:22 ANDERSON [2] 1:20, 3:23 Andrew [2] - 23:10, 54:15 ANDREW [1] - 2:2 angry [1] - 35:21 answer [8] - 5:25, 6:10, 45:11, 49:14, 50:1, 50:3, 51:6, 53:15 answered [1] - 6:11 answering [1] - 6:7 anticipate [1] - 55:16 anticipated [1] - 42:6 apologies [2] - 4:9, 14:17 apparent [1] - 33:25 appear [1] - 41:18 aPPEARANCES [1] 1:13 APPEARANCES [1] 2:1 appeared [1] - 34:7 Appearing [2] - 1:15, 2:2 APPEARING [1] - 2:7 applications [1] 52:4 appointment [1] 20:25 appreciate [4] 39:14, 54:23, 55:1, 55:2 appropriate [2] 12:10, 41:20 April [18] - 6:5, 7:13, 9:4, 12:23, 13:6, 13:8, 13:20, 13:22, 14:1,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 59 of 68

59

18:7, 18:8, 25:5, 25:8, 25:9, 26:2, 26:17, 30:16, 43:1
area [2] - 30:8, 30:10 areas [3] - 10:8, 42:5, 55:13 armed [2] - 52:6, 53:1 ARTHUR [1] - 1:14 articulated [1] 34:10 ascribed [1] - 21:23 aside [2] - 39:5, 44:4 assess [3] - 18:14, 26:13, 26:15 assessment [2] 9:16, 24:9 assigned [1] - 10:23 assignments [1] 11:14 assist [5] - 45:21, 51:14, 52:4, 52:7 assistance [2] 51:13, 52:19 assistants [2] - 24:7, 28:7 assisting [1] - 51:23 assurances [1] 50:18 asymptomatic [1] 54:5 attached [1] - 46:14 attempt [2] - 25:18, 43:13 attempted [1] - 19:12 attempts [1] - 43:11 ATTORNEY [1] - 2:4 attorney [3] - 31:23, 31:25 Attorney's [1] - 49:1 attorneys [2] - 31:13, 46:10 automatically [1] 5:19 availability [2] 33:8, 40:25 available [4] - 17:6, 30:3, 35:4, 41:3 Avenue [3] - 1:21, 2:17, 57:17 await [1] - 55:7 awaiting [1] - 22:22 aware [5] - 22:6, 22:7, 33:15, 38:8, 49:4
B
background [3] -

6:2, 6:20, 6:25 bags [1] - 35:22 Banks [1] - 3:2 BANKS [1] - 1:3 barrier [1] - 17:1 barriers [3] - 17:9,
18:5, 21:5 based [7] - 6:4, 15:3,
17:19, 19:13, 24:9, 47:9, 55:15
basis [5] - 11:25, 27:13, 34:15, 35:8, 36:9
beds [2] - 8:24, 8:25 BEFORE [1] - 1:11 began [4] - 13:7, 13:23, 41:4, 51:25 begin [1] - 24:17 beginning [1] - 31:10 below [1] - 17:8 best [1] - 57:7 better [6] - 15:22, 41:19, 47:9, 48:7, 50:13, 55:3 between [6] - 17:22, 18:7, 36:3, 38:13, 39:5, 39:16 big [1] - 47:14 bit [1] - 53:2 blanket [1] - 34:10 BLUMING [2] - 2:2, 5:1 Bluming [1] - 4:25 bond [1] - 49:4 Booth [1] - 3:3 BOOTH [1] - 1:6 BOP [1] - 48:20 breakdown [1] 23:25 breath [4] - 20:2, 20:20, 21:1, 21:4 brief [1] - 22:16 briefly [2] - 10:9, 48:25 bring [3] - 52:23, 54:3, 54:14 brought [1] - 40:7 Bureau [2] - 49:21, 50:17 BY [1] - 2:15
C
calculated [2] 27:21, 27:23
capability [2] 53:16, 53:20
capacity [1] - 8:24 care [11] - 16:20,

17:1, 18:6, 18:14, 19:19, 20:24, 24:24, 27:10, 28:6, 28:11, 55:21
careful [1] - 55:6 cart [9] - 29:16, 30:1, 30:12, 32:14, 38:12, 38:13, 38:22, 39:6, 39:8 carts [5] - 29:24, 30:3, 39:11, 45:4, 48:8 case [27] - 4:6, 10:13, 13:4, 13:10, 13:19, 13:20, 17:3, 19:23, 20:10, 20:11, 23:17, 31:14, 31:16, 31:24, 32:18, 33:17, 33:18, 33:20, 37:15, 37:16, 39:15, 45:6, 45:25, 48:13, 55:3, 55:4 cases [10] - 13:6, 13:21, 17:5, 19:21, 20:8, 20:18, 25:16, 26:23, 27:2, 45:7 catch [1] - 23:14 category [3] - 23:14, 29:11, 48:21 CDC [1] - 50:1 CDF [3] - 15:1, 15:4, 15:7 cell [18] - 17:23, 18:3, 29:17, 30:1, 30:6, 35:5, 35:25, 36:2, 38:7, 38:11, 38:14, 38:22, 46:5, 47:3, 47:19 celling [3] - 7:23, 7:24, 7:25 cells [25] - 7:20, 7:21, 8:4, 9:2, 9:24, 16:9, 17:16, 17:18, 17:20, 24:20, 32:17, 34:6, 34:9, 34:13, 36:4, 36:13, 40:23, 41:13, 41:15, 42:4, 42:25, 43:8 certain [3] - 3:7, 11:22, 11:23 certainly [10] - 30:14, 39:9, 39:13, 42:18, 43:12, 50:16, 54:23, 55:2, 55:3 CERTIFICATE [1] 57:1 certify [1] - 57:4 cetera [3] - 7:18, 43:8, 47:12 challenges [1] - 35:2

change [1] - 7:17 changed [1] - 13:3 changes [3] - 7:6, 7:10, 50:9 chaotic [1] - 43:2 characterization [1] - 8:12 charges [1] - 49:20 check [3] - 27:7, 28:4, 39:17 checking [1] - 54:21 checks [3] - 26:12, 27:3, 27:6 Chief [3] - 50:7, 50:21, 54:11 citations [1] - 49:3 Civil [1] - 1:3 CIVIL [1] - 1:15 clarify [3] - 14:24, 40:6, 55:14 clarifying [1] - 52:24 classification [1] 8:12 classified [2] 20:23, 49:3 clean [8] - 29:6, 35:9, 40:23, 41:13, 41:15, 41:19 cleaning [10] - 11:15, 39:11, 39:16, 40:22, 40:25, 41:2, 42:3 clear [3] - 34:8, 36:7, 40:14 clearly [7] - 33:10, 33:13, 33:20, 35:13, 40:14, 41:21, 48:10 clerk [2] - 3:5 clicks [1] - 5:22 client [2] - 32:1, 32:2 clients [1] - 32:4 clients' [1] - 7:7 clock [1] - 17:19 close [1] - 46:21 closed [2] - 8:8, 9:5 clothing [3] - 29:6, 35:9, 35:10 COBB [2] - 1:19, 4:1 Cobb [1] - 3:25 cohort [2] - 15:4, 25:4 collected [6] - 18:7, 18:9, 18:21, 18:22, 18:25, 19:2 collection [2] 18:15, 21:8 collectively [4] 25:10, 26:3, 26:19, 27:15 COLLEEN [1] - 1:11 Columbia [2] - 2:16,

57:16 COLUMBIA [5] - 1:1,
1:16, 1:21, 2:4, 2:10 combination [1] -
49:1 combined [1] - 34:21 coming [2] - 14:14,
48:23 comments [1] -
21:23 Commission [2] -
49:8, 49:18 common [2] - 38:9,
42:4 communicate [1] -
46:11 communication [1] -
25:3 community [2] -
54:1, 54:3 compared [1] - 30:15 complaint [1] - 19:10 complaints [4] -
29:19, 34:1, 34:7, 46:24
complete [3] - 30:16, 45:11, 57:6
completed [2] - 33:4, 33:7
concern [1] - 45:25 concerned [1] 47:15 concerns [4] - 48:2, 48:17, 49:22, 50:22 concluded [1] - 56:3 concludes [1] 27:14 concurrently [1] 25:9 conduct [2] - 11:6, 26:12 conducted [8] - 9:21, 9:22, 10:11, 10:15, 11:8, 33:17, 40:9, 42:1 conducting [2] 27:9, 33:19 CONFERENCE [1] 1:10 confident [1] - 19:16 confidentiality [1] 32:17 confining [1] - 16:9 confirm [4] - 15:3, 19:14, 36:12, 42:7 confirmed [3] - 13:5, 13:19, 36:11 connected [1] 44:25 consent [1] - 6:5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 60 of 68

60

consideration [2] 7:7
consistency [1] 35:13
consistent [5] 17:17, 20:19, 29:4, 35:5, 48:9
consistently [3] 17:3, 18:2, 35:7
constitutes [1] - 57:4 Constitution [2] 2:17, 57:17 CONT'D [1] - 2:1 contact [1] - 32:2 context [1] - 16:6 continue [4] - 11:7, 13:25, 41:14 continued [3] 11:24, 13:22, 15:21 continuing [1] 41:21 contract [2] - 11:18, 42:2 contractor [1] 10:16 contractors [1] 53:3 contrast [3] - 9:3, 9:6, 16:3 contribute [2] 34:22, 35:1 contributed [1] 30:13 contributes [1] 34:20 conversation [4] 47:24, 48:10, 48:15, 53:18 conversations [1] 38:19 convey [1] - 7:8 cooperative [3] 12:4, 15:21, 54:24 coordinating [1] 25:2 copies [1] - 18:6 Corps [2] - 51:22 correct [7] - 15:25, 16:1, 27:19, 27:20, 28:14, 37:8, 51:21 correctional [13] 8:16, 10:21, 10:22, 16:23, 17:15, 22:17, 22:18, 23:5, 23:6, 25:19, 45:23, 46:12, 51:17 Corrections [4] 3:10, 15:21, 47:10, 54:24 CORRECTIONS [1] -

2:10 corridor [1] - 29:17 cough [2] - 20:19,
21:4 coughing [1] - 20:2 counsel [9] - 3:10,
14:9, 15:11, 21:24, 23:8, 27:24, 37:12, 43:21, 55:12
COUNSEL [1] - 2:9 count [1] - 8:18 couple [3] - 15:19, 34:18, 44:22 course [1] - 9:16 court [3] - 3:4, 3:5, 50:23 Court [15] - 2:15, 2:16, 6:21, 7:13, 7:18, 8:1, 11:9, 13:2, 14:5, 33:14, 49:4, 49:5, 50:24, 57:15, 57:16 COURT [75] - 1:1, 3:1, 3:15, 3:18, 3:21, 3:24, 4:2, 4:10, 4:15, 4:18, 4:20, 4:24, 5:2, 5:5, 5:8, 5:11, 5:15, 6:18, 6:24, 7:4, 12:11, 12:17, 12:24, 14:8, 15:11, 15:15, 15:17, 21:13, 21:20, 21:22, 23:8, 23:20, 23:23, 24:13, 27:15, 27:24, 28:10, 28:17, 28:20, 28:23, 29:2, 30:25, 35:17, 37:5, 37:10, 37:12, 39:4, 39:14, 39:18, 40:1, 40:4, 40:15, 40:19, 42:8, 43:20, 44:5, 44:14, 44:18, 44:21, 45:14, 45:17, 46:15, 47:6, 48:5, 49:7, 49:12, 49:16, 50:12, 51:19, 52:12, 53:24, 54:17, 54:20, 55:18, 55:20 Court's [1] - 45:25 courtroom [1] - 3:4 COVID [4] - 20:19, 21:2, 24:25, 51:25 COVID-19 [8] - 8:10, 8:14, 11:12, 13:2, 13:4, 13:15, 20:10, 57:9 COVID-19-positive [1] - 9:13 create [1] - 31:6 created [3] - 25:1, 39:2, 43:3 creating [1] - 35:2 criteria [1] - 21:1

CRR [3] - 2:15, 57:3, 57:15
CTF [43] - 8:21, 9:3, 9:4, 9:5, 9:7, 9:10, 9:22, 10:3, 11:23, 13:3, 13:5, 13:6, 13:11, 13:13, 13:15, 13:20, 14:22, 15:6, 15:7, 16:3, 16:5, 18:1, 18:11, 18:12, 18:23, 20:12, 24:19, 25:5, 26:1, 26:17, 27:4, 29:10, 29:12, 29:15, 32:13, 34:3, 34:5, 41:16, 42:22, 44:10, 44:11, 44:12
CURIAE [1] - 2:13 curious [3] - 37:5, 48:18, 49:14 current [3] - 13:24, 16:6, 17:9 cursory [1] - 36:11 cycle [1] - 43:10
D
daily [16] - 16:16, 16:17, 17:16, 25:2, 26:6, 27:13, 28:4, 29:6, 29:14, 29:20, 30:10, 34:6, 34:14, 34:23, 35:5, 35:8
data [22] - 7:22, 8:1, 9:16, 9:19, 11:6, 11:12, 11:21, 11:22, 12:9, 12:22, 13:24, 18:24, 19:4, 22:20, 22:21, 22:22, 24:10, 32:20, 32:21, 32:25, 33:3, 40:8
date [2] - 18:17, 18:18
Dated [1] - 57:13 dated [1] - 18:17 dates [2] - 9:22, 19:14 days [39] - 17:22, 18:21, 18:22, 19:1, 19:2, 19:20, 19:21, 19:22, 20:5, 20:6, 20:9, 20:14, 20:15, 20:16, 20:17, 23:15, 23:16, 24:1, 25:11, 25:12, 25:14, 25:22, 26:3, 26:5, 26:6, 26:9, 26:19, 26:21, 26:22, 27:1, 27:3, 27:5, 27:6, 27:16, 27:21, 27:23, 34:16, 34:18, 44:8 DC [17] - 1:6, 1:17,

1:22, 2:6, 2:11, 2:18, 23:8, 28:17, 40:1, 44:5, 44:14, 44:23, 49:24, 51:1, 51:6, 54:13, 57:17
DC's [1] - 45:2 decision [3] - 24:3, 24:8, 24:12 decline [1] - 13:7 decrease [2] - 13:9, 13:23 decreased [2] - 7:12, 8:18 Defendant [1] - 4:18 Defendants [21] 1:7, 3:10, 8:3, 9:18, 9:20, 11:6, 11:20, 12:1, 12:3, 12:10, 30:21, 31:4, 32:21, 32:25, 34:23, 36:7, 41:4, 41:25, 42:1, 42:21, 43:9 DEFENDANTS [1] 2:2 Defender [2] - 46:7, 46:8 DEFENDER [1] 1:20 defense [2] - 15:11, 23:8 deficient [1] - 41:22 definitely [2] - 37:21, 44:21 degree [3] - 43:15, 45:4, 48:8 delays [5] - 21:8, 32:5, 34:15, 35:3 Department [4] 3:10, 15:20, 47:9, 54:24 DEPARTMENT [1] 2:10 depth [1] - 10:15 deputy [5] - 3:4, 10:12, 10:13, 10:21, 53:6 describe [1] - 22:10 described [1] - 21:3 describing [1] - 28:5 descriptions [1] 37:7 designated [1] 19:15 designations [1] 11:13 detail [6] - 9:14, 38:15, 38:23, 39:1, 39:20, 51:12 detail's [2] - 38:21 details [4] - 51:16,

52:7, 53:6, 53:13 determine [3] - 18:9,
19:5, 55:13 develop [1] - 52:9 deviations [1] -
16:11 difference [2] - 14:4,
47:14 different [4] - 29:23,
31:5, 40:11, 52:8 difficult [4] - 36:24,
36:25, 41:13, 51:16 difficulty [3] - 30:11,
32:6, 43:6 diligent [1] - 49:2 direct [1] - 44:23 directed [1] - 6:6 direction [2] - 30:14,
35:6 directives [1] - 11:16 director [7] - 10:12,
10:13, 10:16, 10:18, 50:7, 53:6, 55:9
disciplined [1] 42:15
discuss [2] - 16:12, 17:8
discussing [1] - 45:7 discussion [3] 24:17, 53:25, 54:11 discussions [3] 46:24, 48:16, 50:21 DISNEY [2] - 2:3, 5:4 Disney [1] - 5:3 disruption [1] - 33:9 distance [1] - 46:18 distancing [8] 42:10, 42:12, 42:16, 42:18, 42:23, 43:12, 43:13, 43:15 distress [1] - 21:2 distribution [1] 8:11 District [5] - 2:16, 2:16, 31:19, 53:16, 57:16 district [1] - 57:16 DISTRICT [7] - 1:1, 1:1, 1:11, 1:16, 1:21, 2:4, 2:10 disturbances [4] 34:22, 35:18, 35:24, 37:6 DOC [13] - 10:13, 11:18, 13:4, 16:8, 25:3, 29:4, 31:8, 31:14, 40:21, 42:9, 53:20 DOC's [1] - 22:3 doctors [2] - 24:7,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 61 of 68

61

28:7 documentation [2] -
25:17, 41:25 documents [2] -
9:18, 11:24 door [1] - 30:6 double [5] - 7:20,
7:21, 7:23, 7:25, 9:2 down [6] - 15:19,
29:17, 36:23, 38:13, 38:23, 39:2
dozens [1] - 10:22 due [3] - 25:18, 33:7, 48:19 during [12] - 8:15, 9:11, 11:3, 17:2, 18:3, 20:13, 26:20, 36:16, 37:16, 42:19, 43:7, 57:9 duty [1] - 22:23
E
earshot [1] - 33:21 easier [1] - 54:7 educational [1] 42:12 EDWARD [1] - 1:3 Edwards [1] - 57:15 EDWARDS [2] 2:15, 57:3 effect [2] - 21:14, 31:19 effort [3] - 35:14, 43:12, 49:2 efforts [8] - 11:15, 22:3, 22:6, 22:7, 22:8, 51:3, 52:8, 52:16 eight [4] - 9:11, 19:22, 23:16, 27:4 either [5] - 6:9, 11:3, 18:3, 18:19, 20:23 elapse [1] - 17:22 electronic [3] - 11:7, 11:10, 25:6 eleven [1] - 9:5 email [4] - 31:13, 31:14, 46:8, 46:10 emergency [5] 20:24, 31:18, 40:9, 40:11 Emerging [1] - 15:6 employees [1] 31:17 encounters [1] 19:9 end [3] - 13:8, 21:10, 50:13 energy [1] - 55:6

enforce [6] - 42:15, 42:23, 43:12, 43:13, 43:16, 52:9
enforcing [1] - 42:9 entering [1] - 25:21 entry [1] - 10:8 environment [4] 16:7, 17:9, 35:23, 36:20 eons [1] - 46:17 equipment [4] 40:22, 40:25, 45:20, 46:4 ERIC [1] - 2:8 Eric [4] - 40:6, 45:13, 45:15, 51:9 escalate [1] - 36:4 escort [1] - 25:19 especially [2] 22:11, 41:21 ESQ [10] - 1:15, 1:19, 1:19, 1:20, 2:2, 2:2, 2:3, 2:3, 2:8, 2:9 essential [1] - 31:17 essentially [1] 31:13 establish [1] - 31:6 established [1] 31:4 estimate [1] - 11:2 et [7] - 1:3, 1:6, 3:2, 3:3, 7:18, 43:8, 47:12 evaluate [1] - 7:22 evening [1] - 36:16 event [1] - 28:5 eventually [1] 13:22 evidence [3] - 42:16, 42:17, 43:11 evident [1] - 30:19 exact [1] - 53:7 exactly [1] - 44:25 examples [1] - 42:23 excerpts [3] - 11:22, 42:20, 44:8 exchanges [2] 35:11, 35:16 excuse [1] - 39:4 excused [1] - 55:20 executive [1] - 48:4 expanded [1] - 43:9 expanding [1] - 46:4 expect [1] - 12:6 expectation [1] 24:22 expectations [1] 34:7 expected [1] - 49:13 experts [2] - 3:9, 15:22

explain [3] - 30:23, 32:4, 40:13
exposure [1] - 24:11 extended [1] - 22:14 extremely [1] - 12:4 eyes [2] - 46:1, 46:13
F
facilities [24] - 6:6, 8:23, 9:13, 9:24, 10:8, 10:10, 10:17, 10:19, 10:20, 10:24, 11:5, 18:8, 19:5, 30:20, 31:6, 33:24, 35:16, 40:24, 41:21, 42:13, 45:21, 50:11, 53:21, 54:9
facility [18] - 8:17, 10:2, 10:21, 13:5, 36:6, 40:9, 42:3, 45:24, 46:1, 46:12, 52:5, 52:9, 52:11, 53:3, 53:11, 53:12, 53:19, 54:8
fact [1] - 47:15 factors [1] - 37:3 failure [2] - 42:15, 42:23 familiar [2] - 30:25, 53:19 far [4] - 21:17, 21:25, 37:17, 38:6 faster [1] - 50:20 Federal [1] - 46:7 federal [1] - 50:23 FERNANDO [1] - 2:3 fever [3] - 20:3, 20:19, 21:4 fever-related [2] 20:3, 20:19 few [3] - 4:5, 7:15, 8:19 fewer [4] - 42:24, 43:3, 43:6, 48:22 fights [1] - 35:20 file [1] - 12:6 fill [1] - 52:15 final [4] - 8:2, 41:24, 55:15, 55:16 findings [1] - 55:8 fine [5] - 5:25, 7:4, 45:11, 48:24, 49:13 first [15] - 6:15, 6:21, 7:2, 7:11, 12:8, 12:23, 13:4, 13:19, 13:20, 14:12, 29:12, 31:10, 34:5, 44:1, 44:23 five [10] - 6:7, 6:12,

7:9, 12:8, 19:21, 20:6, 23:5, 23:15, 24:1, 41:10
Floor [2] - 1:17, 2:5 follow [3] - 39:13, 49:11, 53:5 follows [1] - 40:13 followup [3] - 6:12, 6:13, 22:16 food [1] - 35:22 FOR [5] - 1:1, 1:14, 1:20, 2:2, 2:4 foregoing [1] - 57:4 form [9] - 16:21, 16:23, 17:4, 19:10, 19:22, 19:23, 19:25, 20:23, 23:16 format [1] - 12:14 forms [11] - 16:22, 16:25, 17:3, 17:5, 17:7, 17:25, 18:7, 18:9, 18:17, 18:19, 22:19 four [13] - 8:24, 9:6, 13:15, 18:22, 20:5, 20:6, 20:9, 20:15, 23:6, 24:1, 28:12, 41:10, 45:1 Fourth [1] - 2:5 FPD [1] - 47:9 frank [2] - 46:23, 48:16 frankly [1] - 50:16 frequency [2] 32:10, 35:12 frequent [3] - 35:7, 38:4, 38:8 frequently [1] 27:12 Friday [2] - 8:17, 13:14 front [3] - 22:20, 22:22, 51:5 frustration [1] - 39:2 full [2] - 51:17, 57:5 full-time [1] - 51:17 future [1] - 19:8
G
general [3] - 9:25, 11:4, 33:4
GENERAL [2] - 2:4, 2:9
generally [1] - 36:24 generic [1] - 31:14 GI [1] - 21:3 given [3] - 25:17, 41:11, 43:4

Glover [9] - 5:6, 40:6, 44:14, 45:13, 45:15, 45:18, 51:15, 52:25, 53:14
GLOVER [19] - 2:8, 5:7, 40:5, 44:16, 45:13, 45:15, 45:19, 47:5, 48:3, 48:25, 49:10, 50:5, 51:8, 51:10, 51:20, 53:5, 53:10, 53:19, 55:25
gloves [2] - 37:20 goal [1] - 28:14 gown [1] - 37:21 Grace [1] - 6:19 GRACE [1] - 2:12 greater [1] - 32:10 greatly [1] - 17:23 group [4] - 15:1, 15:8, 48:21, 49:22 groups [4] - 10:25, 11:1, 17:19 guess [4] - 23:25, 24:14, 40:19, 52:17 guesswork [1] 47:11
H
handful [1] - 8:25 handle [1] - 15:23 happy [2] - 15:18, 15:20 harder [1] - 52:15 headaches [1] - 21:3 health [9] - 10:1, 10:17, 11:7, 11:10, 25:6, 25:18, 26:18, 27:4, 42:12 Health [2] - 51:13, 52:17 healthcare [2] - 16:5, 17:11 Healthcare [4] 10:18, 20:21, 21:14 hear [6] - 8:13, 15:18, 47:16, 47:20, 47:24, 48:12 heard [1] - 34:1 hearing [2] - 5:21, 57:8 hearings [1] - 49:5 held [1] - 49:20 help [3] - 45:4, 47:2, 55:2 helpful [4] - 6:22, 44:25, 49:16, 55:14 hereby [1] - 57:3 high [1] - 27:11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 62 of 68

62

higher [1] - 17:14 highly [3] - 41:6, 41:12, 41:17 hinder [1] - 46:23 hire [1] - 51:16 hires [1] - 52:3 hiring [1] - 11:14 history [1] - 24:11 hole [1] - 52:15 home [3] - 36:14, 54:5, 54:6 honest [1] - 48:16 Honor [56] - 3:17, 3:20, 3:23, 4:1, 4:8, 4:13, 4:17, 4:22, 5:1, 5:4, 5:7, 5:13, 6:17, 6:20, 7:5, 12:25, 14:10, 15:10, 15:14, 15:16, 23:10, 23:22, 24:16, 28:19, 28:22, 28:25, 30:22, 37:4, 37:9, 39:7, 40:3, 40:5, 40:18, 43:19, 44:6, 44:19, 45:13, 45:19, 45:23, 47:5, 48:3, 48:25, 49:10, 49:15, 50:5, 51:7, 51:20, 54:16, 54:19, 55:11, 55:22, 55:24, 55:25, 56:1, 56:2 HONORABLE [1] 1:11 hope [2] - 19:8, 19:9 hopefully [1] - 7:25 hospital [2] - 52:7, 53:12 hour [5] - 16:10, 17:16, 17:23, 18:2, 38:7 hours [2] - 16:9, 22:11 housed [9] - 9:8, 13:16, 16:3, 16:4, 19:13, 24:20, 26:16, 29:18, 39:21 housing [54] - 7:17, 7:19, 8:8, 8:12, 8:23, 9:9, 9:23, 9:25, 11:13, 11:23, 13:14, 13:17, 14:3, 16:4, 16:7, 16:8, 16:13, 16:14, 16:15, 16:16, 16:19, 16:22, 17:10, 17:14, 18:1, 19:13, 19:14, 19:16, 21:6, 22:4, 22:5, 22:9, 22:25, 23:4, 26:12, 26:14, 27:8, 30:4, 30:8, 30:19, 31:9, 33:9, 36:6, 36:12, 39:8, 41:1, 41:2, 42:5,

42:21, 43:2, 43:17 hovering [1] - 8:19 Howell [1] - 50:7 hyperventilation [1]
- 21:2
I
IAN [1] - 2:2 idea [2] - 35:18, 47:19 identified [3] - 3:9, 18:5, 52:14 identify [1] - 27:10 idle [1] - 36:24 impact [1] - 13:2 impacted [1] - 17:20 impacts [1] - 22:13 impeded [1] - 22:19 implement [4] 28:16, 31:16, 31:22, 46:8 implementation [2] 11:17, 16:11 implemented [2] 30:21, 46:6 important [1] - 7:10 improvement [2] 33:10, 47:12 in-depth [1] - 10:15 inability [3] - 30:16, 30:17, 34:22 incident [1] - 25:20 incidents [2] - 34:21, 35:18 include [4] - 24:7, 28:4, 42:4 included [3] - 20:1, 20:2, 20:25 includes [1] - 27:12 including [4] - 3:10, 9:24, 10:12, 20:19 increased [6] - 13:6, 35:12, 42:11, 42:17 independently [1] 41:19 Indiana [1] - 1:21 indicate [2] - 6:10, 37:7 indicated [5] - 23:24, 33:3, 33:6, 37:7, 52:15 indicating [2] - 48:1, 48:13 indications [1] - 7:24 individual [3] 24:20, 27:22, 48:19 individually [1] 11:2

infirmary [16] - 8:22, 9:8, 10:4, 13:16, 24:20, 29:10, 29:15, 29:17, 29:18, 29:20, 32:13, 34:1, 34:4, 34:6
informal [1] - 10:11 information [9] 6:20, 6:25, 7:8, 11:17, 12:8, 31:8, 53:7, 54:25, 55:4 initial [1] - 17:1 inmate [18] - 13:12, 18:17, 19:20, 19:21, 19:22, 19:24, 20:11, 23:18, 25:16, 25:18, 25:24, 26:24, 27:1, 27:3, 27:17, 27:23, 38:21, 39:1 inmate's [2] - 17:22, 26:23 inmates [101] - 7:14, 8:9, 8:14, 8:19, 8:20, 9:6, 9:7, 10:4, 11:1, 11:2, 11:3, 13:9, 13:15, 13:25, 15:1, 15:4, 16:2, 16:4, 16:9, 16:15, 16:20, 16:23, 17:5, 17:10, 17:16, 17:18, 17:19, 17:21, 17:24, 18:2, 18:10, 19:6, 19:12, 21:5, 24:19, 24:22, 25:4, 25:7, 25:10, 25:13, 25:14, 25:22, 26:1, 26:3, 26:5, 26:9, 26:13, 26:16, 26:19, 26:21, 26:22, 27:5, 27:6, 27:10, 27:21, 29:7, 29:13, 29:17, 29:19, 30:4, 30:5, 30:9, 30:17, 31:11, 32:4, 32:16, 33:19, 33:25, 34:5, 34:8, 34:12, 34:15, 34:20, 35:2, 35:10, 35:15, 35:21, 36:1, 36:3, 36:10, 36:12, 36:21, 38:5, 38:15, 38:20, 39:5, 39:20, 41:5, 41:9, 41:12, 41:17, 42:24, 43:4, 43:7 inmates' [1] - 38:25 inpatient [2] - 8:21, 9:8 inquire [1] - 39:12 inquiries [1] - 53:18 installment [1] - 12:2 instances [1] - 36:14 instead [2] - 36:17,

47:13 insufficient [2] -
25:19, 43:17 intended [1] - 31:11 intensive [1] - 22:9 interactions [1] -
16:17 interest [1] - 55:8 interested [1] - 52:12 interviewed [1] -
11:3 interviewing [1] -
38:20 interviews [5] - 9:17,
10:11, 10:15, 15:4, 42:1
involved [1] - 41:7 isolation [50] - 8:9, 9:7, 9:9, 10:2, 10:3, 10:4, 11:4, 13:14, 14:3, 16:8, 16:13, 22:9, 22:11, 24:18, 24:19, 24:20, 24:22, 25:5, 25:7, 25:11, 26:1, 26:3, 27:8, 27:11, 27:23, 28:3, 29:7, 29:8, 29:14, 29:20, 29:23, 30:17, 32:10, 32:11, 32:12, 32:13, 33:11, 33:13, 33:25, 34:2, 34:4, 34:9, 34:14, 35:10, 36:6, 38:1, 38:2, 39:20, 46:9 issue [12] - 33:25, 35:1, 35:5, 40:6, 40:10, 41:4, 41:21, 43:20, 45:12, 48:4, 48:9, 48:18 issued [2] - 20:22, 21:17 issues [11] - 8:5, 8:6, 33:8, 34:25, 35:3, 36:3, 36:5, 46:14, 49:21, 51:2, 52:14 it'll [1] - 37:24
J
jail [44] - 7:11, 7:12, 7:13, 7:19, 7:25, 8:14, 9:22, 13:3, 13:12, 13:19, 13:21, 14:2, 14:22, 16:2, 16:5, 17:14, 18:11, 18:12, 18:13, 19:18, 23:12, 23:25, 24:19, 25:5, 25:7, 26:17, 26:18, 29:10, 29:22, 29:24, 30:19, 32:14, 33:21,

34:2, 34:4, 34:11, 34:25, 35:1, 38:2, 41:6, 41:22, 46:17, 53:17
jangling [1] - 6:2 JENNA [1] - 1:19 job [3] - 38:21, 39:1 JONATHAN [1] 1:20 Jordan [22] - 3:16, 6:10, 7:1, 9:14, 11:9, 12:21, 12:24, 14:20, 15:24, 22:1, 22:16, 23:7, 23:11, 28:2, 28:24, 38:17, 44:20, 44:24, 52:13, 54:21, 55:3, 55:10 JORDAN [17] - 2:13, 3:17, 12:25, 14:24, 16:1, 21:17, 22:6, 22:21, 23:15, 24:5, 24:15, 27:20, 28:6, 28:14, 29:1, 38:18, 56:2 JUDGE [1] - 1:11 Judge [6] - 3:1, 44:16, 50:7, 50:22, 54:11, 55:23 judges [1] - 48:20 judgments [1] 35:13
K
keep [1] - 5:21 kind [2] - 31:14, 45:8 Kollar [1] - 3:2 KOLLAR [1] - 1:11 Kollar-Kotelly [1] 3:2 KOLLAR-KOTELLY [1] - 1:11 Kotelly [1] - 3:2 KOTELLY [1] - 1:11
L
labeled [1] - 37:5 lack [1] - 16:25 last [13] - 7:3, 7:13, 9:3, 13:1, 13:14, 14:2, 14:5, 29:24, 31:21, 32:22, 39:19, 49:24, 52:16 law [1] - 3:5 lawyers [1] - 46:25 leads [2] - 36:18, 49:23 least [12] - 12:21,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 63 of 68

63

25:13, 25:14, 25:25, 26:7, 26:8, 26:10, 43:2, 47:8, 47:13, 49:19, 53:24
leave [5] - 36:13, 47:22, 51:24, 52:10, 54:10
leaving [1] - 39:5 left [1] - 46:20 legal [14] - 29:5, 30:20, 30:24, 31:6, 31:7, 32:9, 33:11, 33:16, 33:19, 37:16, 40:12, 45:2, 45:22, 46:4 less [3] - 7:25, 43:2, 43:25 letting [1] - 43:6 Level [3] - 20:24, 20:25, 21:1 level [2] - 22:25, 27:11 levels [3] - 17:14, 23:2, 23:4 liaison [1] - 25:3 LIBERTIES [1] - 1:15 light [1] - 12:9 limitation [2] - 30:13, 30:18 limitations [5] - 8:4, 33:8, 34:21, 43:15, 57:10 limited [8] - 19:11, 19:16, 28:6, 29:8, 35:4, 38:25, 41:8, 42:22 line [7] - 3:19, 3:22, 4:3, 4:5, 4:14, 5:18, 42:14 linen [2] - 35:10, 35:15 linens [2] - 29:6, 35:9 LISA [2] - 2:15, 57:3 Lisa [1] - 57:15 listen [1] - 46:21 listened [1] - 48:1 listening [1] - 4:13 locked [3] - 36:22, 38:23, 39:2 logbooks [1] - 36:11 look [2] - 37:19, 37:22 looking [4] - 45:20, 46:3, 47:1, 53:21 Lopes [19] - 3:12, 6:9, 6:19, 13:1, 14:12, 21:20, 28:24, 29:1, 37:15, 40:7, 40:13, 43:22, 44:7, 44:20,

44:24, 52:13, 54:20, 55:2, 55:10
LOPES [34] - 2:12, 3:14, 6:17, 6:19, 6:25, 7:5, 12:15, 12:19, 14:15, 14:17, 21:19, 21:21, 28:25, 29:3, 31:3, 35:20, 37:9, 37:11, 37:18, 37:24, 38:4, 38:9, 38:15, 39:7, 39:17, 39:23, 39:25, 40:21, 42:9, 44:2, 44:9, 55:11, 55:19, 55:22
loss [1] - 20:3 lower [4] - 18:1, 23:2, 30:12, 48:19 Lower [1] - 30:4 lowered [1] - 48:22
M
mail [3] - 32:1, 32:6, 32:7
maintained [1] 16:22
maintenance [1] 8:5
maintenancerelated [1] - 8:5
makeshift [1] - 43:25 management [7] 10:1, 10:13, 11:19, 24:21, 31:14, 31:24, 42:13 manager [2] - 33:18, 33:20 manager's [2] 33:20, 39:15 managers [9] - 23:1, 31:16, 32:19, 33:17, 37:15, 37:17, 45:6, 45:25, 48:13 March [1] - 13:5 Marcus [7] - 3:19, 14:11, 22:2, 28:1, 37:14, 39:18, 52:22 MARCUS [25] - 1:19, 3:20, 14:10, 14:16, 14:19, 15:9, 22:1, 22:16, 23:7, 28:1, 28:9, 37:14, 37:23, 37:25, 38:6, 38:12, 39:19, 39:24, 43:22, 44:3, 52:24, 53:9, 53:14, 53:23, 55:23 MARIE [1] - 1:19 MARK [1] - 2:13 mask [3] - 37:19,

37:21, 37:22 material [1] - 7:6 materials [4] - 40:22,
40:25, 41:3, 42:12 matter [3] - 3:2, 7:5,
33:4 maximum [1] - 9:25 maybe's [1] - 4:3 mean [6] - 10:3,
35:23, 45:6, 46:17, 48:5, 50:13
mechanism [1] 51:4
Medical [1] - 51:21 medical [24] - 10:7, 10:16, 13:16, 16:14, 16:17, 16:20, 17:1, 17:25, 18:6, 18:7, 18:18, 19:7, 21:9, 22:4, 22:12, 24:4, 24:5, 24:21, 25:2, 25:13, 27:9, 27:13, 28:2 medications [1] 16:18 medium [1] - 9:25 medium-security [1] - 9:25 meet [1] - 25:9 meeting [1] - 50:7 member [2] - 38:14, 38:15 Men [1] - 15:6 mental [1] - 10:1 mentioned [6] - 13:1, 14:13, 14:21, 22:18, 53:1 method [1] - 16:20 methodological [1] 18:16 methodology [1] 9:15 MICAH [1] - 2:2 MICHELLE [1] - 2:9 MICHELMAN [2] 1:15, 4:7 Michelman [2] - 4:4, 4:8 mid [1] - 14:1 mid-April [1] - 14:1 might [3] - 50:13, 54:2, 54:7 mind [2] - 12:20, 47:21 minute [3] - 8:13, 16:12, 22:10 minutes [1] - 47:13 misspoke [1] - 14:17 mix [1] - 37:3 moment [3] - 4:10,

6:1, 11:10 moments [1] - 4:6 monitor [1] - 16:14 monitored [2] -
24:23, 25:22 monitoring [4] -
22:15, 26:15, 27:9, 27:11
morning [2] - 38:8, 50:8
most [9] - 7:19, 8:23, 12:1, 12:2, 13:24, 16:2, 16:4, 25:16, 26:23
mounted [1] - 39:10 move [10] - 6:14, 14:7, 21:12, 24:13, 38:21, 39:1, 47:19, 50:20, 50:25, 54:7 moved [3] - 29:16, 50:18, 54:8 moving [4] - 30:1, 35:6, 40:19, 48:20 MPD [1] - 49:1 MR [86] - 3:17, 3:20, 3:23, 4:7, 4:13, 4:17, 4:19, 4:22, 5:1, 5:7, 5:13, 12:25, 14:10, 14:16, 14:19, 14:24, 15:9, 15:13, 15:16, 16:1, 21:17, 22:1, 22:6, 22:16, 22:21, 23:7, 23:10, 23:15, 23:19, 23:22, 24:5, 24:15, 27:20, 28:1, 28:6, 28:9, 28:14, 28:18, 28:22, 29:1, 37:14, 37:23, 37:25, 38:6, 38:12, 38:18, 39:19, 39:24, 40:2, 40:5, 40:17, 43:22, 44:3, 44:6, 44:13, 44:16, 44:19, 45:13, 45:15, 45:19, 47:5, 48:3, 48:25, 49:10, 49:15, 50:5, 51:7, 51:8, 51:9, 51:10, 51:11, 51:20, 52:24, 53:5, 53:9, 53:10, 53:14, 53:19, 53:23, 54:15, 54:19, 55:23, 55:24, 55:25, 56:1, 56:2 MS [36] - 3:14, 4:1, 5:4, 5:10, 6:17, 6:19, 6:25, 7:5, 12:15, 12:19, 14:15, 14:17, 21:19, 21:21, 28:25, 29:3, 31:3, 35:20, 37:9, 37:11, 37:18,

37:24, 38:4, 38:9, 38:15, 39:7, 39:17, 39:23, 39:25, 40:21, 42:9, 44:2, 44:9, 55:11, 55:19, 55:22
multiple [4] - 27:12, 33:18, 34:15, 49:4
multiple-day [1] 34:15
must [3] - 15:18, 16:5, 16:23
mute [2] - 4:7, 4:8 muted [3] - 3:6, 4:6, 5:19 muting [1] - 4:11
N
necessarily [1] 25:8
necessary [1] 33:12
need [4] - 15:3, 19:14, 27:10, 47:17
needs [1] - 46:16 neutral [1] - 55:5 new [4] - 31:22, 33:6, 49:20, 52:4 next [5] - 13:21, 23:14, 38:22, 41:23, 49:23 nine [2] - 20:1, 20:3 nobody [2] - 45:9, 47:20 noise [1] - 6:2 non [15] - 10:7, 16:4, 16:7, 16:15, 16:16, 16:19, 17:10, 19:13, 19:16, 21:6, 22:4, 22:5, 22:13, 33:13, 36:6 non-isolation [2] 33:13, 36:6 non-quarantine [13] - 10:7, 16:4, 16:7, 16:15, 16:16, 16:19, 17:10, 19:13, 19:16, 21:6, 22:4, 22:5, 22:13 none [1] - 20:18 normal [1] - 23:4 normally [2] - 23:2, 23:5 Northwest [4] - 1:16, 1:21, 2:5, 2:11 Note [1] - 57:8 note [2] - 18:16, 33:13 notes [3] - 37:19,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 64 of 68

64

37:22, 57:5 noteworthy [2] -
20:8, 20:21 nothing [3] - 15:13,
40:2, 50:14 notices [1] - 52:1 notifies [1] - 31:23 notify [3] - 31:11,
32:1, 32:2 notwithstanding [2]
- 18:5, 45:24 number [9] - 13:5,
13:21, 17:19, 17:20, 23:14, 27:23, 31:19, 41:8, 43:17
numbers [3] - 14:1, 15:18, 43:6
nurse [2] - 24:7, 28:7 nursing [6] - 10:18, 24:23, 25:23, 26:12, 27:12, 28:10 NW [2] - 2:17, 57:17
O
objective [1] - 24:10 objects [1] - 35:22 observations [2] 9:17, 9:23 observe [6] - 37:17, 38:13, 38:16, 38:18, 39:7, 39:12 observed [10] - 17:7, 22:25, 29:15, 32:11, 33:18, 35:15, 37:15, 39:8, 39:9, 39:11 obtained [1] - 9:16 obviously [10] - 5:24, 15:22, 45:3, 45:4, 45:8, 46:22, 47:13, 47:16, 50:23, 52:12 occur [2] - 34:14, 36:9 occurred [2] - 35:11, 57:8 occurrence [1] 30:10 occurring [4] - 30:2, 32:19, 35:16, 49:5 OF [9] - 1:1, 1:10, 1:15, 1:16, 1:21, 2:4, 2:4, 2:10 offenses [1] - 49:3 office [7] - 30:8, 30:10, 31:24, 33:20, 37:16, 39:16, 46:20 OFFICE [1] - 2:4 Office [1] - 49:2 officer [4] - 16:24,

17:4, 17:15, 22:17 officers [7] - 10:22,
17:2, 22:18, 22:22, 23:6, 51:17
offices [2] - 32:18, 33:17
Official [1] - 2:15 official [1] - 57:15 once [9] - 6:11, 24:3, 25:15, 26:7, 26:8, 26:10, 26:23, 31:23 one [38] - 8:9, 9:10, 10:2, 12:13, 13:17, 14:2, 14:21, 14:24, 15:8, 16:10, 17:3, 19:22, 19:23, 20:8, 20:9, 20:16, 22:1, 22:16, 22:19, 23:16, 23:17, 23:23, 24:18, 25:23, 25:25, 27:7, 27:21, 29:9, 30:4, 30:13, 33:22, 38:22, 39:19, 40:6, 42:25, 43:7, 43:22 ones [1] - 49:19 ongoing [1] - 11:25 open [1] - 8:8 operate [1] - 8:4 operates [1] - 31:8 operating [8] - 9:9, 10:3, 16:6, 17:9, 29:9, 29:23, 30:12, 53:12 operational [2] 21:15, 21:18 operations [2] 32:22, 32:23 opportunities [1] 17:24 opportunity [9] 7:22, 12:7, 32:20, 33:1, 36:13, 36:16, 36:17, 38:11, 53:21 opposed [1] - 49:20 oral [2] - 6:7, 12:13 order [7] - 6:4, 6:5, 12:23, 31:18, 38:10, 41:15 ordering [2] - 48:5, 50:15 otherwise [1] - 17:12 out-of-cell [4] 17:23, 18:3, 35:5, 35:25 outline [1] - 7:10 overall [1] - 44:22 overhear [2] - 47:4, 48:10 overheard [1] - 47:23 overtime [1] - 37:2 own [1] - 50:24

P
p.m [2] - 1:7, 18:4 PAMELA [1] - 2:3 pandemic [2] 51:25, 57:9 paper [8] - 17:6, 41:4, 41:7, 41:10, 41:12, 41:16, 41:18, 43:23 Parole [2] - 49:8, 49:17 part [4] - 22:3, 30:19, 36:23, 53:11 participation [1] 31:25 particular [2] 43:20, 48:21 particularly [3] 5:22, 17:13, 34:25 parties [4] - 6:21, 8:1, 11:10, 33:14 parties' [1] - 7:7 party [1] - 6:12 past [3] - 8:17, 12:1, 34:17 patients [2] - 21:9, 24:9 PDS [1] - 47:9 peaked [1] - 13:7 peaking [1] - 13:22 people [21] - 3:7, 21:23, 24:4, 28:12, 39:21, 46:21, 48:15, 48:21, 48:23, 49:25, 50:3, 50:17, 50:19, 50:20, 50:25, 53:3, 53:17, 53:25, 54:8, 54:10 per [7] - 16:9, 16:10, 24:23, 24:24, 25:23, 26:13, 28:11 percent [19] - 18:11, 18:12, 18:19, 18:20, 18:22, 18:24, 18:25, 19:1, 25:12, 25:14, 25:22, 26:5, 26:6, 26:20, 26:22, 27:1, 27:5, 27:7, 33:5 perfect [1] - 6:24 perfection [1] 50:13 perhaps [1] - 50:14 period [6] - 20:13, 25:11, 26:4, 26:20, 33:5, 38:23 periodic [1] - 22:5 Perloff [2] - 4:2, 4:12 peroxide [3] - 41:5,

41:11, 41:17 person [2] - 10:12,
25:1 personal [4] - 29:5,
29:12, 29:13, 30:17 perspective [3] -
45:2, 47:7, 48:11 phase [1] - 11:3 phenomenon [1] -
17:7 phone [14] - 3:6,
3:13, 3:16, 29:18, 29:21, 30:18, 32:14, 36:5, 38:12, 38:25, 39:1, 39:5, 39:16, 43:8
phones [7] - 32:12, 33:8, 39:10, 39:11, 46:5, 47:3, 47:19
physician's [2] 24:7, 28:7
picked [2] - 18:19, 18:24
place [4] - 32:17, 47:3, 47:19, 49:18
placed [1] - 29:16 Plaintiffs [2] - 1:4, 3:9 PLAINTIFFS [1] 1:14 Plaintiffs' [5] - 14:9, 21:24, 27:24, 37:12, 43:21 pleas [1] - 45:8 point [7] - 19:10, 21:15, 25:8, 25:9, 48:6, 49:17, 54:12 points [1] - 45:1 policies [2] - 52:9 policy [5] - 16:9, 16:11, 17:17, 50:6, 50:9 population [11] 7:11, 7:14, 7:16, 8:17, 8:18, 9:13, 9:25, 11:4, 17:14, 48:19, 54:3 populations [1] 18:1 position [1] - 24:25 positive [15] - 8:10, 8:14, 13:4, 13:9, 13:10, 13:13, 13:16, 13:19, 13:21, 14:22, 15:1, 15:8, 20:11, 24:2, 39:22 possible [1] - 53:22 posted [4] - 31:8, 31:9, 31:10, 42:13 posts [1] - 10:23 potential [1] - 3:8

potentially [2] - 54:1, 54:10
PPE [1] - 37:17 practice [2] - 28:16, 33:22 practices [1] - 26:15 practitioners [3] 24:6, 24:8, 28:8 precluded [1] - 25:20 preliminarily [1] 12:21 preliminary [2] 14:12, 14:19 premature [1] 35:12 prepared [1] - 14:6 presence [1] - 45:5 present [3] - 13:25, 33:18, 45:25 presentation [3] 21:10, 27:14, 55:17 presented [1] - 21:25 presently [2] - 16:3, 50:5 prevalence [3] 7:23, 8:6, 43:14 prevalent [2] - 42:18, 43:25 previous [4] - 7:12, 8:15, 9:6, 9:11 previously [1] 52:10 primary [1] - 16:19 principal [2] - 5:23, 5:24 Prisons [2] - 49:21, 50:17 private [2] - 48:14, 53:2 problem [6] - 17:13, 30:13, 43:5, 45:3, 47:6, 47:7 problems [3] - 36:18, 37:8, 52:13 proceed [3] - 15:17, 15:24, 51:10 proceedings [1] 57:6 Proceedings [1] 56:3 process [2] - 12:5, 29:25 produce [1] - 17:3 produced [5] - 9:18, 9:20, 11:20, 11:21, 57:6 professional [2] 11:15, 42:2 program [6] - 15:5, 15:6, 15:7, 24:22,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 65 of 68

65

46:8 progress [2] - 33:12,
43:11 prohibiting [1] -
34:10 prolonged [1] -
38:23 protocol [3] - 20:22,
21:13 provide [12] - 6:6,
6:21, 7:1, 8:1, 11:7, 12:8, 34:23, 35:5, 36:7, 36:15, 36:17, 40:8
provided [7] - 11:18, 30:7, 41:8, 41:13, 42:21, 46:9, 51:14
provider [12] - 24:5, 24:11, 24:25, 25:13, 25:15, 25:17, 25:20, 26:6, 26:7, 26:8, 28:3
providers [9] - 24:6, 24:24, 25:2, 26:13, 27:13, 28:7, 31:5
provides [1] - 10:16 providing [3] - 7:1, 29:4, 45:21 proxy [1] - 18:18 public [2] - 4:14, 5:18 Public [4] - 46:7, 46:8, 51:13, 52:17 PUBLIC [1] - 1:20 punished [2] - 36:1, 36:22 purpose [1] - 32:15 pursuant [2] - 31:17, 51:25 push [1] - 38:14 put [2] - 21:15, 31:1 putting [1] - 27:16
Q
quantify [1] - 22:17 quantitative [2] 22:20, 22:21 quarantine [31] - 8:9, 9:10, 10:6, 10:7, 11:4, 13:17, 16:3, 16:4, 16:7, 16:8, 16:13, 16:15, 16:16, 16:19, 17:10, 19:13, 19:15, 19:16, 21:6, 22:4, 22:5, 22:8, 22:13, 26:11, 26:14, 26:16, 26:19, 27:5, 27:8 quarantined [1] 14:4

quarantining [1] 50:12
questions [32] - 6:7, 6:11, 6:13, 7:2, 7:3, 7:9, 12:9, 12:23, 14:6, 14:8, 14:9, 15:19, 21:11, 21:24, 27:25, 28:17, 28:21, 32:24, 37:13, 40:1, 40:16, 40:17, 41:23, 43:21, 44:4, 44:18, 44:22, 49:13, 52:20, 52:22, 55:9, 55:17
quick [2] - 23:11, 23:23
quickie [1] - 51:3 QUINCY [1] - 1:6
R
rags [2] - 43:23, 43:25
raise [2] - 33:23, 54:14
raising [1] - 45:11 RDR [3] - 2:15, 57:3, 57:15 reach [1] - 55:12 reached [1] - 51:21 read [1] - 29:3 readily [1] - 17:3 ready [1] - 50:18 realize [1] - 51:2 really [4] - 13:8, 27:22, 35:1, 47:25 reason [1] - 22:19 reasons [2] - 33:3, 49:20 reassessing [1] 50:6 receive [6] - 11:24, 17:16, 18:2, 29:19, 32:21, 38:7 received [2] - 12:9, 51:22 receiving [4] - 32:5, 32:7, 49:22, 54:9 recent [6] - 12:2, 12:9, 35:12, 35:14, 40:10, 51:12 recently [8] - 12:1, 29:9, 30:21, 31:3, 31:20, 41:4, 46:6 recognized [2] 34:16, 38:9 record [6] - 19:24, 23:17, 25:18, 27:4, 29:4, 31:1 records [7] - 11:8,

11:11, 11:16, 25:6, 26:18, 37:6
recreation [4] - 36:8, 36:9, 43:5, 43:9
reduces [1] - 17:24 reduction [1] - 7:14 refer [1] - 5:24 referenced [1] 40:10 referred [2] - 20:10 refused [2] - 26:25, 27:3 refusing [2] - 25:19, 36:2 regard [1] - 40:8 regarding [2] - 50:9 regards [1] - 51:24 register [1] - 31:15 registered [1] - 32:1 registers [1] - 31:24 regular [2] - 32:5, 32:7 regulated [2] - 41:6, 41:17 related [9] - 8:5, 11:12, 11:16, 11:17, 20:3, 20:19, 32:22, 32:23, 36:5 relative [3] - 8:12, 14:4, 42:25 release [2] - 17:23, 50:10 released [5] - 49:6, 49:25, 50:4, 50:6, 54:1 releases [1] - 48:19 releasing [2] - 16:10, 50:16 reliable [1] - 29:4 rely [1] - 41:14 remain [1] - 53:17 remaining [1] - 55:17 remains [1] - 51:16 remind [1] - 6:1 remotely [1] - 57:10 report [17] - 6:7, 7:12, 8:2, 8:3, 12:6, 12:16, 13:1, 14:13, 17:22, 19:8, 41:9, 41:12, 41:24, 42:14, 52:16, 55:15, 55:16 reported [14] - 7:16, 14:5, 18:2, 20:2, 21:19, 23:1, 29:13, 30:9, 34:5, 34:15, 35:10, 35:14, 38:5 REPORTED [1] 2:15 reportedly [1] - 30:6 reporter [1] - 3:5

Reporter [2] - 2:15, 57:15
reporting [1] - 57:10 request [17] - 9:19, 11:22, 11:25, 16:21, 16:22, 16:23, 17:4, 17:25, 18:7, 18:9, 19:10, 20:5, 20:7, 20:9, 20:23, 23:13, 52:6 requested [1] - 11:21 requests [17] 11:14, 17:6, 18:11, 18:13, 18:14, 18:23, 19:5, 19:6, 19:12, 19:19, 20:1, 20:4, 20:13, 21:6, 21:7, 21:8, 23:12 require [1] - 50:2 required [3] - 31:13, 31:25, 51:17 requires [3] - 20:22, 20:24, 20:25 Reserve [1] - 51:22 resident [5] - 14:21, 14:23, 14:25, 46:13 residents [18] - 28:3, 38:1, 38:2, 38:6, 40:12, 40:21, 43:24, 45:22, 46:1, 46:2, 46:9, 49:5, 50:5, 50:9, 50:10, 51:23, 53:20, 53:22 resources [1] - 22:14 respect [15] - 7:9, 7:11, 7:23, 8:16, 9:15, 12:8, 12:22, 22:10, 29:12, 30:20, 33:24, 34:1, 34:2, 34:3, 35:9 respectively [2] 19:2, 20:6 respiratory [1] - 21:2 response [2] - 9:18, 11:25 responsibility [2] 10:19, 10:20 responsible [1] 25:1 responsive [1] - 12:4 result [1] - 43:1 return [3] - 52:1, 52:2, 52:10 return-of-work [1] 52:1 review [9] - 9:17, 19:14, 20:14, 25:11, 25:12, 26:4, 26:20, 29:8, 36:11 reviewed [9] - 11:24, 17:8, 18:6, 20:12,

25:6, 26:2, 26:18, 27:4, 41:25
reviewing [2] - 11:9, 52:4
ripped [2] - 41:14, 41:15
rise [2] - 13:22, 43:4 rolling [12] - 29:16, 29:24, 30:1, 30:3, 30:12, 32:11, 32:14, 38:12, 39:11, 45:4, 48:8, 52:3 Room [2] - 2:17, 57:17 rooms [4] - 9:24, 32:18, 39:10, 42:5 roughly [2] - 33:5, 38:1 round [1] - 43:24 rounds [1] - 25:2 routine [2] - 27:9, 27:11 routinely [3] - 16:14, 22:25, 26:13 rule [1] - 34:10 running [2] - 29:5, 33:24
S
safety [1] - 46:2 Saindon [6] - 4:18, 23:11, 51:10, 51:21, 53:15, 54:15 SAINDON [14] - 2:2, 4:19, 15:13, 23:10, 23:19, 28:18, 40:2, 44:6, 44:13, 51:7, 51:9, 51:11, 54:15, 55:24 sample [5] - 17:7, 19:4, 20:1, 26:2, 27:20 sampled [3] - 25:4, 25:10, 26:16 sanitarian [1] - 11:15 sanitation [4] 38:16, 38:18, 39:5, 41:20 satisfied [1] - 54:9 Saturday [3] - 12:1, 32:21, 33:2 schedule [1] - 43:5 scheduled [4] 20:25, 33:6, 33:16, 37:16 scheduling [1] - 47:8 SCOTT [1] - 1:15 Scott [1] - 4:4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 66 of 68

66

screening [4] - 10:8, 50:10, 51:15, 51:23
second [2] - 6:14, 26:24
Second [1] - 1:17 secure [3] - 11:15, 42:2, 42:3 security [7] - 9:25, 25:3, 33:8, 46:2, 46:14, 52:6, 53:1 see [3] - 43:24, 45:5, 47:4 seem [3] - 48:8, 48:20, 52:14 segment [1] - 30:4 select [1] - 19:12 selected [1] - 19:4 send [1] - 54:4 sending [2] - 50:17, 51:25 sense [3] - 37:25, 41:6, 47:21 sentences [1] - 45:8 separate [2] - 28:5, 28:12 separately [1] 29:11 served [1] - 8:23 service [3] - 31:4, 31:5, 42:3 SERVICE [1] - 1:20 Service [2] - 46:7, 52:17 services [3] - 10:14, 10:17, 11:16 Services [1] - 46:8 serving [1] - 25:2 set [1] - 41:23 sets [2] - 9:19, 11:12 setting [1] - 47:10 seven [1] - 26:2 several [2] - 34:16, 52:8 shift [3] - 8:11, 9:12, 18:4 shirts [1] - 41:15 shortage [1] - 22:18 shortages [2] 17:15, 33:7 shortness [4] - 20:2, 20:20, 21:1, 21:3 show [1] - 54:5 shower [8] - 34:7, 34:9, 34:13, 34:16, 34:17, 36:14, 38:2, 43:8 showers [5] - 29:6, 34:3, 34:4, 34:10, 34:23 shows [1] - 12:22

sick [17] - 11:14, 16:21, 16:22, 17:24, 18:6, 19:5, 19:6, 19:10, 20:13, 20:22, 20:23, 21:6, 21:8, 22:19, 50:19, 54:4, 54:10
sick-call [13] - 11:14, 16:21, 16:22, 17:24, 18:6, 19:5, 19:6, 19:10, 20:13, 20:22, 20:23, 21:6, 21:8
sick-calls [1] - 22:19 side [2] - 10:9, 42:3 sides [1] - 55:12 signage [3] - 31:9, 31:11 signed [2] - 6:4, 18:17 significant [11] 7:14, 9:12, 11:20, 14:4, 16:11, 17:11, 17:15, 34:24, 34:25, 36:23, 37:2 significantly [1] 13:3 signs [3] - 24:10, 25:24, 26:10 simply [2] - 5:20, 48:15 single [3] - 7:20, 7:24 site [9] - 8:7, 8:15, 9:4, 9:11, 9:16, 9:21, 17:2, 42:16, 42:19 situation [8] - 29:22, 30:15, 33:15, 36:25, 37:1, 43:1, 46:13, 47:24 six [5] - 19:20, 20:14, 20:16, 23:5, 23:15 Sixth [1] - 2:5 slightly [2] - 40:11, 47:9 small [1] - 17:18 smaller [5] - 8:25, 10:25, 11:1, 14:1 social [8] - 42:9, 42:12, 42:16, 42:17, 42:23, 43:12, 43:13, 43:15 solution [4] - 41:5, 41:11, 41:17, 41:18 someone [1] - 45:16 someplace [1] - 54:2 somewhat [2] 29:22, 32:9 sorry [5] - 4:7, 12:18, 26:7, 26:8, 39:18 sort [1] - 47:11

sound [1] - 45:17 speaker [1] - 5:20 speakers [4] - 3:8, 5:24 speaking [1] - 45:16 special [1] - 10:1 specific [2] - 15:5, 47:10 spent [5] - 25:10, 26:3, 26:19, 27:5, 27:22 SPITZER [3] - 1:14, 4:13, 4:17 Spitzer [1] - 4:16 sprayed [3] - 41:5, 41:7, 41:10 staff [61] - 3:4, 11:18, 16:14, 16:17, 16:23, 17:21, 17:25, 18:7, 21:9, 22:4, 22:9, 22:12, 23:1, 23:3, 24:23, 25:3, 25:19, 25:23, 26:12, 27:9, 27:13, 29:13, 31:12, 34:5, 34:10, 34:12, 34:19, 35:2, 35:4, 35:10, 35:14, 36:4, 36:10, 36:17, 37:1, 37:2, 38:5, 38:14, 38:15, 40:13, 41:7, 42:14, 42:15, 43:16, 43:17, 45:25, 46:2, 48:4, 51:4, 51:22, 51:24, 52:1, 52:4, 52:8, 52:10 staffers [1] - 51:14 staffing [8] - 17:15, 23:2, 33:7, 34:19, 34:21, 43:15, 51:2, 52:14 stage [2] - 9:15, 12:5 standard [1] - 40:11 stands [1] - 43:19 start [2] - 6:15, 42:6 started [2] - 21:14, 49:2 starting [1] - 15:25 state [1] - 6:9 States [7] - 2:16, 3:11, 5:12, 28:20, 40:15, 40:17, 57:16 STATES [2] - 1:1, 1:11 status [10] - 7:18, 9:7, 10:4, 11:4, 25:5, 26:20, 29:7, 29:14, 34:9, 34:14 steadily [1] - 13:6 stenographic [1] 57:5

step [1] - 30:14 STEVEN [1] - 1:19 Steven [4] - 14:10, 22:2, 28:1, 37:14 still [15] - 22:22, 32:6, 35:7, 43:14, 43:24, 45:3, 45:23, 46:15, 46:16, 47:4, 47:6, 47:7, 47:18, 50:3 Street [3] - 1:16, 2:5, 2:11 stressful [3] - 36:24, 37:1, 37:3 strictly [1] - 19:11 structured [2] 10:11, 10:15 stumbled [1] - 33:15 subject [1] - 57:9 submission [10] 16:21, 19:20, 19:22, 19:23, 20:15, 20:16, 20:17, 23:16, 23:17 submit [1] - 17:24 submitted [15] 18:18, 18:20, 18:21, 18:22, 18:25, 19:1, 19:3, 19:4, 19:6, 20:4, 20:5, 20:7, 20:9, 20:13, 21:7 submitting [2] 19:24, 21:6 substances [1] 35:23 success [1] - 48:20 sufficient [1] - 23:3 sum [2] - 21:5, 27:8 Superior [2] - 49:5, 50:24 supervisors [1] 10:23 supervisory [1] 42:14 supplement [4] 12:7, 12:12, 41:15, 55:16 supplementing [1] 12:13 supplies [1] - 41:2 switching [1] - 26:11 symptoms [8] 13:25, 20:2, 20:3, 20:18, 20:20, 21:2, 21:3, 24:10 system [15] - 30:21, 30:22, 31:3, 31:12, 31:15, 31:17, 31:22, 31:25, 32:2, 32:22, 32:23, 33:6, 33:17, 49:18, 54:24

T
T-shirts [1] - 41:15 tablets [2] - 46:9, 47:1 tail [1] - 13:8 taste [1] - 20:3 technical [1] - 49:20 technological [1] 57:10 telephone [6] 10:12, 29:5, 29:15, 30:1, 30:6, 30:7 TELEPHONE [1] 1:10 TELEPHONICALLY [1] - 2:7 Telephonically [2] 1:15, 2:3 telephonically [1] 2:15 temper [1] - 47:17 temperature [8] 26:12, 26:23, 26:25, 27:2, 27:3, 27:6, 27:7, 28:4 temperatures [2] 26:21, 26:22 ten [2] - 8:8, 47:14 tense [2] - 35:23, 36:20 tension [1] - 34:24 terms [18] - 7:17, 9:15, 15:23, 28:23, 33:11, 35:6, 45:2, 46:18, 47:2, 48:18, 49:22, 50:16, 50:23, 50:25, 52:18, 54:21, 55:4, 55:7 test [8] - 14:25, 20:11, 24:4, 24:8, 53:16, 53:20, 53:22 tested [9] - 13:9, 13:12, 14:1, 14:22, 15:8, 23:24, 24:1, 39:22, 50:4 testing [6] - 11:13, 12:22, 50:9, 50:10, 53:25, 54:3 tests [1] - 49:25 THE [81] - 1:1, 1:11, 1:14, 1:16, 1:20, 2:2, 2:4, 3:1, 3:15, 3:18, 3:21, 3:24, 4:2, 4:10, 4:15, 4:18, 4:20, 4:24, 5:2, 5:5, 5:8, 5:11, 5:15, 6:18, 6:24, 7:4, 12:11, 12:17, 12:24, 14:8, 15:11, 15:15,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 67 of 68

67

15:17, 21:13, 21:20, 21:22, 23:8, 23:20, 23:23, 24:13, 27:15, 27:24, 28:10, 28:17, 28:20, 28:23, 29:2, 30:25, 35:17, 37:5, 37:10, 37:12, 39:4, 39:14, 39:18, 40:1, 40:4, 40:15, 40:19, 42:8, 43:20, 44:5, 44:14, 44:18, 44:21, 45:14, 45:17, 46:15, 47:6, 48:5, 49:7, 49:12, 49:16, 50:12, 51:19, 52:12, 53:24, 54:17, 54:20, 55:18, 55:20
themselves [1] 37:6
therefore [2] - 38:24, 57:9
they've [3] - 3:9, 21:19, 32:1
thinking [1] - 52:18 three [16] - 7:3, 8:8, 13:2, 17:22, 18:21, 19:1, 19:21, 20:4, 20:15, 23:6, 23:15, 32:22, 32:23, 33:5, 33:19 three-week [1] - 33:5 threshold [1] - 7:5 throughout [3] 10:23, 12:5, 42:13 throwing [3] - 47:25, 48:17, 50:14 thrown [3] - 35:22, 35:23 Thursday [1] - 14:2 tier [2] - 30:5, 30:12 tiers [1] - 29:25 timeline [1] - 19:7 timeliness [2] 18:14, 19:11 timely [2] - 18:9, 18:10 tired [1] - 37:3 today [4] - 6:7, 12:8, 49:15, 55:15 today's [1] - 55:16 together [2] - 27:16, 27:18 took [2] - 27:20, 51:24 total [4] - 18:10, 20:12, 25:10, 27:18 totaled [1] - 27:22 towels [8] - 41:5, 41:7, 41:10, 41:12, 41:14, 41:16, 41:18,

43:23 train [1] - 51:18 TRANSCRIPT [1] -
1:10 transcript [2] - 57:5,
57:6 transferred [8] -
13:12, 14:21, 14:23, 14:25, 15:7, 50:1, 50:4, 54:2
treatment [2] - 8:16, 10:21
triage [1] - 20:22 TRO [1] - 11:17 true [2] - 57:4, 57:5 trying [5] - 28:16, 36:7, 48:12, 50:23, 50:25 turn [1] - 12:20 turning [1] - 19:18 turns [1] - 54:4 twice [7] - 24:23, 24:24, 25:23, 26:6, 26:13, 26:21, 28:4 twice-daily [1] - 28:4 two [21] - 7:2, 9:22, 12:23, 13:9, 13:11, 13:20, 14:3, 17:22, 18:21, 18:25, 19:20, 20:5, 20:6, 20:8, 20:14, 23:13, 23:25, 25:13, 27:6, 28:10, 33:19 types [1] - 52:8
U
unable [1] - 17:2 unannounced [1] 9:21 unavailable [1] 22:23 under [1] - 31:18 undercut [1] - 43:16 underscore [1] 12:3 understaffed [1] 37:1 understood [1] 16:6 unduly [1] - 36:22 unescorted [1] 9:21 unfortunately [1] 51:5 uniform [1] - 41:1 unimpeded [1] 16:25 UNION [1] - 1:15

unit [23] - 8:9, 9:10, 10:3, 11:13, 13:17, 14:3, 16:22, 17:14, 17:21, 18:1, 22:25, 24:19, 25:21, 29:9, 29:23, 30:4, 30:8, 30:19, 34:2, 38:1, 39:3, 41:1
united [1] - 2:16 United [6] - 3:11, 5:12, 28:20, 40:15, 40:17, 57:16 UNITED [2] - 1:1, 1:11 units [69] - 7:19, 8:8, 8:9, 8:12, 8:23, 9:1, 9:2, 9:5, 9:9, 9:23, 10:1, 10:2, 10:6, 10:7, 11:23, 13:15, 14:3, 16:3, 16:4, 16:7, 16:8, 16:13, 16:14, 16:15, 16:16, 16:19, 19:13, 19:15, 19:17, 21:6, 22:4, 22:5, 22:9, 22:11, 22:12, 22:13, 22:15, 23:5, 24:18, 26:11, 26:12, 26:14, 26:16, 26:17, 27:9, 28:3, 29:8, 31:9, 32:10, 32:11, 32:12, 32:13, 33:9, 33:11, 33:13, 36:7, 36:12, 38:2, 39:8, 39:21, 41:2, 42:5, 42:21, 43:2, 43:18 units' [1] - 17:10 Unity [4] - 10:17, 10:18, 20:21, 21:14 Unity's [1] - 24:6 unless [3] - 14:6, 16:17, 54:25 unlike [1] - 16:13 unmonitored [6] 30:24, 31:7, 32:16, 45:6, 47:25, 48:11 unmute [1] - 6:1 unsuccessful [1] 25:18 up [12] - 18:19, 18:24, 39:13, 40:7, 40:13, 47:17, 47:22, 48:6, 49:11, 52:23, 53:5, 54:14 urgent [2] - 20:24, 27:10 US [3] - 15:15, 44:18, 49:1 uses [1] - 38:13

V
vacancies [1] - 22:23 vacant [1] - 8:5 various [1] - 9:19 verify [1] - 32:20 versus [3] - 3:3, 7:20, 7:23 video [3] - 11:22, 42:20, 44:8 viewed [1] - 31:17 visit [8] - 8:7, 8:13, 8:15, 9:3, 9:4, 9:6, 9:11, 44:1 visited [4] - 9:24, 10:1, 10:6 visitor [1] - 10:8 visits [6] - 9:17, 9:22, 17:2, 22:5, 27:12, 42:19 vital [2] - 25:24, 26:10 volume [1] - 42:12 volunteer [1] - 51:14 vs [1] - 1:5

Wilson [1] - 5:9 wiped [1] - 38:13 wish [3] - 15:11, 52:23, 54:13 works [2] - 30:23, 31:12 write [1] - 17:6 writing [2] - 12:15 written [5] - 12:6, 12:14, 14:13, 19:8, 55:8
Y
Young [1] - 15:6 yourselves [1] 55:21

W

wait [1] - 15:20 walk [1] - 22:4 WALKER [9] - 5:13, 15:16, 23:22, 28:22, 40:17, 44:19, 49:15, 54:19, 56:1 walker [1] - 5:11 Walker [3] - 23:20, 49:12, 54:17 walls [1] - 39:10 wants [1] - 6:10 warden [2] - 10:20, 10:21 Washington [7] 1:6, 1:17, 1:22, 2:6, 2:11, 2:18, 57:17 water [2] - 29:6, 33:24 wearing [6] - 37:17, 37:19, 37:20, 37:21 website [1] - 31:9 week [8] - 7:13, 9:3, 13:21, 29:24, 31:21, 33:5, 35:11, 42:6 weekend [1] - 40:10 weeks [7] - 7:15, 8:19, 13:2, 13:11, 13:20, 32:22, 32:23 WILSON [2] - 2:9, 5:10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-3 Filed 06/18/20 Page 68 of 68

68

1

u uu

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-849 (CKK)

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________

REPORT SUBMITTED BY AMICUS CURIAE PURSUANT TO APRIL 9, 2020 CONSENT ORDER*
Pursuant to the April 9, 2020 Consent Order issued in the above-captioned matter, Amici,
Grace M. Lopes and Mark Jordan, submit the following report for the Court’s consideration.

I. INTRODUCTION
On April 9, 2020 amici were appointed to provide specific information to the Court
regarding medical services and environmental health and hygiene at two detention facilities
operated by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (“DOC”), the Central Detention
Facility (“CDF”) and the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”). In the wake of the order,
amici collected and analyzed data obtained from site visits at both facilities; conducted structured
interviews with DOC managers, line staff, inmates, and contractors; reviewed electronic health
records; and analyzed multiple electronic datasets extracted from information management
___________________________ * This filing corrects two typographical errors that appear in the version of this report that was submitted to the Court and the parties on April 18, 2020 by deleting the word “not” in line three on page 25 and substituting the word “secure” for “non-secure” in line eight on page 33.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2 of 38
systems maintained by the DOC or its contract services providers. On April 15, 2020, amici participated in a teleconference with the Court and the parties and provided a preliminary summary of their findings, which are explained in greater detail below. At the conclusion of the teleconference, the Court directed amici to include in this report recommendations regarding issues that amici have identified.
This report describes the methodology amici relied upon to conduct their assessment, the facilities subject to the assessment, and amici’s findings and recommendations related to the questions delineated in the April 9, 2020 order. Throughout this one-week investigation, the defendants have fully cooperated with amici’s requests for information and actively facilitated amici’s work. DOC and contract staff at every level, as well as representatives from the Office of the Attorney General, have made themselves available on short notice, on every day of the week, and well after traditional officer hours. Data reports and other records were produced on abbreviated timelines. Amici acknowledge and appreciate the efforts the defendants have made to cooperate with and expedite their review.
II. METHODOLOGY
Following the issuance of the April 9, 2020 order, amici reviewed the documents identified in the order and conducted unannounced and unescorted site visits on multiple shifts at both the CDF and CTF on April 10, 11, and 12, 2020. During the site visits, at both facilities amici visited general population, maximum and medium security housing units, including housing units on isolation or quarantine status, as well as intake, special management, and mental health units. Seven housing units at the CDF (S1, NW1, S2, NE2, N3, NE3, and N2) and five housing units at the CTF (D2A, D1B, C2A, C2B, and C4B) were visited. Observations in housing units included cells, dayrooms, restrooms, and shower facilities. At both facilities,
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 3 of 38
medical units (including the CTF infirmary), visitor entry areas, Command Centers, and the Culinary Unit at the CDF,1 were visited.
Structured in-person interviews were conducted with the DOC Medical Director, the Medical Director and Deputy Medical Director for Correctional Health at Unity Health Care, Inc. (“Unity”),2 the CDF/CTF Warden and his deputies, and dozens of correctional officers assigned to various posts throughout the facilities, including housing unit, environmental, and culinary posts. In-person interviews were also conducted, in groups and individually, with over 100 inmates on isolation and quarantine status as well as in the general population at both facilities.
In addition, amici conducted informal in-person or telephone discussions with Unity staff, including infection control staff and managerial clinical health care providers, to obtain and/or verify information. A range of DOC managers and staff with responsibility for administrative matters, including cleaning, hygiene and medical supplies, data management and analysis, warehouse functions, contractual cleaning services and human resources were also contacted and provided information that is reflected in this report.
In addition to the information collected during site visits and from interviews, amici requested and received access from the DOC to the electronic health records of inmates confined at the CDF and CTF.3 Review and analysis of samples from these records has been conducted
1 The Culinary Unit at the CTF was not operational at the time of the site visits and as a result the Culinary Unit at the CDF has been servicing both facilities. 2 Unity provides medical services on a contractual basis to inmates at the CDF and CTF. 3 Case record reviews were conducted by Janet Maher, an additional member of the team amici assembled. Ms. Maher is an attorney who has extensive experience in working in institutional and health-care settings. Ms. Maher headed the Office of Corporation Counsel's Mental Health Division from 1992 to 2000, worked as Deputy General Counsel and Chief of Staff for the District's Child and Family Services Agency from 2000 to 2007 and as DOJ Compliance Officer at Saint Elizabeths Hospital from 2007 to 2014. From 2013 to her retirement in 2016, she headed the Hospital's Performance Improvement Department. She also has provided consultative services to the Maryland and Pennsylvania behavioral health systems and to the Special Arbiter appointed by the Superior Court in Jerry M. v. District of Columbia, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, C.A. No. 1519-85.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 4 of 38
and the results are described below. The following data were also obtained from the DOC and
analyzed:
 Admissions data for both facilities for the period February 15, 2020 to April 10, 2020;  Daily census data, including inmate housing assignments, for the period February 15,
2020 to April 13, 2020;  Data related to sick call requests for the period February 5, 2020 to April 12, 2020;  Data related to all COVID-19 tests conducted on inmates housed at both facilities
through April 10, 2020;  Data related to all urgent care encounters for the period February 15, 2020 through April
15, 2020;  Inventory data for cleaning supplies as of April 13, 2020;  Inventory data for personnel protective equipment as of April 17, 2020; and  Data related to cleaning supplies and soap deliveries to both facilities for the period
December 31, 2019 to April 13, 2020. Aggregated data related to DOC correctional staffing levels was also reviewed and is
addressed below.
III. BACKGROUND
The CDF is a multi-story, secure detention center. Recent population levels have
hovered near 1020 inmates. The facility has 18 housing units, which are both single and double
celled. Analysis of DOC housing data shows that as of April 13, 2020, 43 percent of the inmates
housed at the CDF were housed in single cells and 56 percent were housed in cells with another
inmate.4 At the time of amici’s site visits, 16 housing units were open and two were closed. Of
the 16 open housing units, two were quarantine units and one was an isolation unit.5 Cellblocks
are divided into two sides, and for most of the facility’s housing units, each side contains two
tiers with 20 cells per tier.6 All cells at the CDF are “wet” cells, i.e., they have toilets and sinks.
4 Ex. 1, Table, Number of Cells Housing One Inmate and Two Inmates at the Central Detention Facility, March 15 – April 13, 2020. Two inmates did not have a recorded cell assignment. 5 The number of quarantine and isolation units is, of course, variable. It is amici’s understanding that since the time of their site visits additional quarantine units have opened. 6 There are two exceptions: N1 is a restrictive housing unit with 72 cells and NE3 is a mental health step down unit with 36 cells.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 5 of 38
Each cellblock tier of 20 cells has two showers, which are shared by inmates housed in the unit and located in a common area. The CDF Culinary Unit, which is operated by a contractor and up until April 11, 2020 employed inmate workers, currently supports the food service program for both the CDF and the CTF.7
The CTF, which had a population of approximately 400 inmates at the time of amici’s site visits, has 25 housing units.8 Eighteen have a capacity of 50 beds, four have a capacity of 96 beds, and one has a capacity of 65 beds. There are two additional medical housing units and two special management units that have varying capacities and are not intended for general population housing. As of April 13, 2020, 95 percent of the inmates at the CTF were housed in single cells.9 With the exception of eight housing units,10 all of the CTF’s housing units have wet cells. At the time of amici’s site visits, nine housing units were closed and there were eight quarantine units and three isolation units. The isolation units and seven of the eight quarantine units operating at the time of amici’s site visits have wet cells. The CTF also has a 30-room infirmary with 40 beds. The infirmary serves both facilities.
As of April 16, 2020, the DOC reported that 130 inmates have been tested for COVID-19 and a total of 65 inmates have been confirmed positive, 57 at the CTF and eight at the CDF. Forty-three have tested negative, 22 are currently on isolation units and forty-three have recovered. One inmate died while hospitalized and none are currently hospitalized. Data
7 The CTF has a separate Culinary Unit that is responsible for that facility’s food service program. At the time of amici’s site visits, DOC staff reported that the Culinary Unit at the CTF was closed due to a COVID-19 issue. Amici have confirmed that the food service program at the CTF is not operational and that the CDF Culinary Unit is now supporting the food service program at the CTF. Amici have not had an opportunity to confirm the date the CTF Culinary Unit closed, but staff reported it had been up to several weeks before the site visit. The closure of the CTF Culinary Unit has put evident strain on the food service program at the CDF. 8 This total includes two special management units. Inmates are also housed in a limited mobility medical unit and the infirmary. 9 Ex. 2, Table, Number of Cells Housing One Inmate and Two Inmates at the Correctional Treatment Facility, March 15 – April 13, 2020. 10 Three of the eight housings units that do not have toilets and sinks were open during the site visits.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 6 of 38
regarding the number of DOC staff who have tested positive for COVID-19 have not been provided. One member of the DOC correctional staff died earlier this week. Not surprisingly, as evidenced by the findings set out below, the COVID-19 pandemic has presented formidable challenges for the defendants and had a significant impact on operations at both the CDF and the CTF.
IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Amici’s findings and recommendations related to the questions delineated in the April 9, 2020 order are set forth below.
A. MEDICAL Question One: When residents display COVID-19 symptoms, as defined by the CDC, are they seen by medical staff? Question Two: When residents display COVID-19 symptoms are they tested for COVID19? Question Three: Are there requests for a sick call based on suspected COVID-19 symptoms where there is no response? Question Four: Is the response time for sick call requests of suspected COVID-19 symptoms for a resident to be seen by medical staff reasonable (assuming time of request and response time are recorded)?
Questions One through Four address the identification of inmates who display symptoms or who are suspected of having contracted COVID-19 and whether those inmates have access to timely health assessments, services, and COVID-19 testing, as indicated. As discussed below, amici were not able to address Questions One through Four directly because the available healthcare datasets did not enable identification of either the universe or representative samples of inmates displaying symptoms or suspected of having contracted COVID-19. Amici therefore attempted to identify the mechanisms by which inmates with COVID-19 symptoms are identified
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 7 of 38
by medical staff and reviewed a sample of the electronic health records of inmates who had been tested for COVID-19 to assess timeliness and scope of service delivery in those cases.
In order to evaluate DOC performance relative to these questions, amici relied on multiple sources of information including the following: interviews with DOC and contract medical staff, including executive staff; interviews with inmates; interviews with correctional officers; custom data reports from Unity’s electronic health record system, including data regarding sick call requests and encounters and urgent care encounters; data regarding all COVID-19 testing conducted on inmates at the CDF and CTF through April 10, 2020; data regarding all sick call requests and encounters between February 5, 2020 and April 12, 2020; 11 data regarding all urgent care encounters between February 15, 2020 and April 15, 2020; and, two random samples of individual inmate health records, one drawn from the population of inmates tested for COVID-19 through April 10, 2020, and the second from a dataset of all sick call requests submitted between March 1, 2020 and April 12, 2020.12
According to medical staff, the two primary methods by which inmates access health care are through a sick call process, in which inmates complete a written sick call form and insert it into a locked box on their housing units and an urgent care process, whereby an inmate can inform a correctional officer that s/he would like to see medical staff.13 According to medical staff, in these circumstances the correctional officer contacts the medical unit and a nurse, in consultation with a medical provider,14 triages the telephone call and either instructs the
11 In some cases, clinical encounters are recorded as sick call visits, but they do not have an associated written sick call request. Medical staff have explained that when they visit housing units to conduct sick call, they allow inmates who did not submit sick call requests to access services. 12 Records of 28 of the 83 inmates who were tested as of April 10, 2020 were reviewed. In addition, records of 40 inmates who submitted sick call requests during the review period were reviewed. There were no overlapping cases in the two samples. 13 There are also chronic care clinics operating Monday through Friday at both the CDF and CTF for inmates with chronic health conditions. 14 Advanced medical providers are considered to be MDs, DOs, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 8 of 38
correctional officer to have the inmate escorted to the medical suite or schedules the inmate for sick call on the next day.15
Amici initially analyzed sick call request data for the period between February 5, 2020 and April 12, 2020 to assess whether the data could be used to identify sick call requests for CDC-defined COVID-19 symptoms (i.e., fever, cough, and shortness of breath) and thereafter to assess the time from the request to the time of any responsive medical evaluation. The data included a total of 6,840 records.
For two principal reasons, amici determined that these data could not be used as the basis for findings related to identification of inmates with COVID-19 symptoms and assessment of the timeliness of their access to medical services. First, nearly 5,000 of the records did not include a description of the symptoms for which the inmate requested medical care, making it impossible to identify either the universe of or a representative sample of inmates with COVID-19 symptoms.16 Second, amici reviewed data regarding all 83 COVID-19 tests administered to inmates through April 10, 2020 and cross referenced the names of the tested inmates against sick call request records. Of the 83 inmates tested, 69 did not submit a sick call request at any point between February 5, 2020 and the date of their test. Based on a review of a sample of electronic health records of the 13 inmates who tested positive for COVID-19 for whom there was a record of a sick call request between February 5, 2020 and the date of their test, amici found that the sick call request was not associated with COVID-19 symptoms in any of the cases.
15 Triage decisions require symptomatic information from the patient. Medical staff stated that at times the correctional officer will allow an inmate requesting urgent care to speak directly with the nurse and at times the inmate informs the correctional officer of their symptoms and the correctional officer reports that information to the nurse. It is not appropriate to require inmates to disclose health information to correctional staff in order to access medical services. The possibility of doing so could deter inmates from seeking necessary medical care. 16 For example, the relevant data field in many cases recorded “initial visit,” “follow-up visit,” or “SC [sick call] slip.”
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 9 of 38
However, based on amici’s review of data related to inmates tested for COVID-19, it appeared that most inmates displaying symptoms or suspected of having contracted COVID-19 were presenting to medical staff by a method other than through the submission of a sick call request. Managers of the DOC medical program confirmed this impression. One manager stated that the first positive COVID-19 cases were identified after inmates presented to health care staff through the urgent care process. Once they were confirmed positive for COVID-19, the DOC began to quarantine housing units in which the COVID-19 positive inmates were housed as a containment precaution. Medical staff implemented a practice of monitoring quarantined inmates’ temperatures twice daily and reported that this daily surveillance process identified multiple subsequent positive COVID-19 cases, principally at the CTF.
Medical staff members stated that inmates who are not subject to daily monitoring in a quarantine unit also are most likely to be identified as having symptoms of COVID-19 through the urgent care process. Accordingly, amici obtained and analyzed data regarding urgent care encounters at the CDF and CTF for the period February 15, 2020 through April 15, 2020. The data indicate that during that period there were a total of 3,439 urgent care encounters, 2,488 at the CDF and 951 at the CTF.17 In comparison, over approximately the same time period there were a total of 5,244 sick call requests and encounters, 4,360 at the CDF, 525 at the CTF, and 359 at locations that could not be determined from the available data.18 Based on these totals, it appears that during the period reviewed urgent care represented 40 percent of the combined volume of sick call and urgent care encounters, and sick call represented 60 percent of the total.
17 Ex. 3, Chart, Urgent Care Visits at Central Detention Facility and Correctional Treatment Facility, by Day, February 15 – April 15, 2020. 18 Ex. 4, Chart, Sick Call Requests and Encounters, by Day, February 15 – April 12, 2020.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 10 of 38
To assess whether inmates with symptoms of COVID-19 utilize the urgent care process, amici analyzed the urgent care dataset for any references to the term “COVID.” The data indicate that the first reference to COVID-19 in the data was on March 15, 2020 at the CDF (for an inmate who was later ruled out for COVID-19), and March 21, 2020 at the CTF. Beginning on March 26, 2020, there were nearly daily and steadily increasing references to COVID-19 in the urgent care encounter data.19 Thus, it appears that inmates who are not housed in quarantine units are using the urgent care system to present with COVID-19 symptoms to medical staff at the CDF and CTF.
Given time constraints, it was not possible for amici to assess how accessible the urgent care system is to inmates. Available data sources included only records of completed visits and do not reflect attempts to access the system. Numerous factors could impact inmate access to the urgent care system, including the availability of escort staff, willingness of correctional officers to facilitate calls to medical staff while they perform other duties on the unit, and the willingness of inmates to disclose confidential health information when they are within earshot of nonmedical staff.
Notwithstanding the evidence that most inmates with symptoms or who are suspected of having contracted COVID-19 appear to present to medical staff by a method other than sick call, in order to evaluate and to assess the responsiveness of the sick call process more generally, in the instances in which inmates submit sick call requests, amici assessed whether those requests are collected and the inmate is seen by medical staff on a timely basis. Amici selected a random sample of 41 sick call requests submitted by inmates between March 1, 2020 and April 12, 2020
19 Ex. 5, Chart, Urgent Care Medical Encounters With Clinical Summary Descriptions Including the Word “COVID,” by Day, February 15 – April 15, 2020. The data appear to include daily follow-up assessments of isolated inmates, which explains in part the dramatic increase in volume over time.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 11 of 38
and reviewed the individual health records associated with each request. One sick call request was excluded from the analysis.20 Of the 40 requests reviewed, 31 included a date of request recorded by the inmate. Of those 31 requests, 26 included a time stamp reflecting when medical staff collected the form. The time stamp was used to analyze the time that elapsed between the date recorded by the inmate on the sick call request form and the date of pick up. Of those 26 requests, 23 requests, 89 percent, were collected within one day. The remaining three were collected within two, four, and 14 days respectively.
Among the 31 requests that included a date of request recorded by the inmate, review of the corresponding electronic health records indicate that 23 inmates were seen within three days of submitting their request, 74 percent.21 One inmate was seen six days after the request was made.22 In two instances involving the same inmate, the inmate was seen every day for ten days for adult preventative care relating to COVID-19 exposure, but the notes in the electronic health records documenting these encounters do not specifically address the issue reflected in the inmate’s sick call request. The other three requests were scheduled for appointments, but the inmates were not seen.23 Two requests that were recorded as scheduled for appointments were cancelled.24
Amici also assessed whether the issue raised by the inmate in his or her sick call request was addressed by the medical provider. In the 33 cases in which the inmate was seen by a medical provider, the medical provider addressed the specific request made by the inmate in 28
20 One of the cases sampled was excluded because the corresponding written request form was not available for review. 21 In 22 of the 23 cases the inmates were seen within two days and in one case the inmate was seen within three days. 22 The inmate requested treatment for tooth pain. 23 In the three cases, the health record noted that the sick call appointment was cancelled because the inmate was in court, was “unavailable” or was a no show. 24 In one case an inmate indicated he had a “possible” broken finger and in the second the inmate requested fungal cream.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 12 of 38
cases, 85 percent. In some cases the inmate was referred to specialty providers, but in most cases the inmate received interventions intended to provide immediate relief. In a minority of cases the specific intervention requested by the inmate was not provided but the clinical basis for the decision was reflected in the record. Recommendation: In light of the medical surveillance and monitoring that is occurring currently in the quarantine units, defendants should ensure that the triage process associated with sick call requests on the non-quarantine units is expedited and reflects appropriate sensitivity to the wide variety of symptoms associated with COVID-19 disease. Correctional officers and other staff who are in contact with inmates should ensure that the medical staff are promptly informed about inmates who present with symptoms of COVID-19 and medical staff should respond to the housing unit on an expedited basis. Any inmate grievances that include allegations of delay in medical assessment should be prioritized and submitted to the DOC medical director immediately.
Question Five: Are residents suspected of COVID-19 isolated from other people? Health care staff reported that if an inmate is suspected by a medical provider of having
contracted COVID-19, a request for testing is made to the D.C. Department of Health. As of April 10, 2020, all requests for testing made on behalf of DOC inmates had been approved. Heath care staff report that pending the testing results, the inmate is placed on cell restriction in their housing unit.
There is evidence that cell restriction practices are being implemented. The sample of electronic health records of inmates who tested positive for COVID-19 that amici reviewed document cell restriction orders entered by medical staff at the time COVID-19 testing was ordered by the provider. Inmates on isolation status at both facilities reported being placed on
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 13 of 38
cell restriction prior to testing and before being moved to an isolation unit. During site visits amici noted that there were inmates on cell restriction status in some housing units. Correctional officers assigned to housing unit posts who were interviewed by amici reported that inmates who are on cell restriction are not permitted to leave their cells for any reason.
Moreover, health care and facility management staff report that in instances in which an inmate tests positive for COVID-19, the inmate is moved to an isolation unit. According to those staff, only inmates who have tested positive for COVID-19 are housed in isolation units. DOC records indicate that as of April 10, 2020, 82 inmates were tested for COVID-19. Of the 82 inmates, 52 were COVID-19 positive, 26 were negative, and the balance were pending results. Amici reviewed a sample of 28 health records reflecting positives, negatives and pending test results. There were 16 COVID-19 positives in the sample. Amici’s review of DOC housing records for this cohort indicates that all of the 16 inmates in the sample who tested positive were moved from their housing unit to another housing unit within no more than two days, and most within one day of the positive test result. Based on what amici have learned about current DOC business practices, it is likely this cohort was on cell restriction status at the time of testing before being moved to an isolation unit.
Accordingly, although amici have not had an opportunity to conduct a systematic review related to the implementation of cell restriction orders, it appears that inmates suspected of having COVID-19 are placed on cell restriction and isolated from other inmates. Recommendation: If the defendants are not already doing so, they should that ensure that cell restrictions are appropriately monitored, tracked, and corrective action is undertaken on an expedited basis if warranted.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 14 of 38
Question Six: Are new residents who enter DOC quarantined for 14 days? DOC facility executives and medical staff reported a practice of quarantining newly
admitted inmates for a 14-day period prior to moving them to another housing unit. To assess whether this practice was being implemented amici analyzed intake and housing data for the period from March 15, 2020 to April 10, 2020. The data indicate that starting March 25, 2020 the defendants implemented a practice of housing new admissions on SO2, the intake unit at the CDF, for 14 days, or until the inmate was released from custody, if the release occurred prior to the expiration of the 14-day period.
Amici identified six instances after March 25, 2020 in which an inmate was moved out of the intake unit prior to the end of the 14-day period. Five of the six cases involved inmates who were placed on a specialized mental health housing unit before the 14-day quarantine period was completed.25 Amici were not able to determine whether these six inmates were placed on cell restriction after being moved to a non-intake housing unit. Amici alerted Unity’s medical director of these six transfers so that a determination can be made about the propriety of the transfers and any special precautions that should be implemented on the receiving housing units. Recommendation: In instances in which inmates are transferred from the intake unit to a different unit before the 14-day quarantine period expires, defendants should ensure that appropriate housing, surveillance and monitoring is afforded to the inmate in the receiving unit.
25 The sixth case involved an inmate who was moved to a special management housing unit and subsequently to a less restrictive mental health housing unit.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 15 of 38
Question Seven: How frequently do DOC medical staff and/or Unity Health Care staff meet with DOC staff and residents to inform them about COVID-19 symptoms and precautions, and what information is conveyed?
Unity providers and the DOC Medical Director report that they have conducted multiple education sessions on the housing units and during roll call at both facilities. They indicate that these sessions focus on COVID-19 symptoms and infection-control precautions. More extensive individualized education and counseling is provided on the quarantine and isolation units, which are visited at least twice daily by health care providers. Signage explaining COVID-19 symptoms and precautions is displayed in many common areas throughout both facilities. Nevertheless, the need for more intensified education of staff and inmates is apparent. Most, albeit not all, of the correctional staff and supervisors interviewed expressed substantial concerns about working in the facility in light of what they perceive as their increased risk of contracting COVID-19. Virtually all of the inmates interviewed outside of isolation units expressed fear that they would contract the virus and many of those who tested positive expressed fear that they would relapse or become infected again. Recommendation: The defendants should consult with public health professionals regarding strategies that can be implemented to strengthen the COVID-19-related education program for both staff and inmates. Moreover, the defendants should explore appropriate supports that can be provided on an expedited basis to both staff and inmates who are living and working in an extremely stressful and high-risk environment and are at substantial risk of exposure. Question Eight: What visitor screening is conducted? Do the thermometers used for visitor screening work and are they used properly?
Upon entry to the two facilities, all staff and visitors are required to have their temperature checked and to complete a written questionnaire with three questions. The three questions correspond to the CDC-defined symptoms of COVID-19 (i.e., fever, cough, and
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 16 of 38
shortness of breath). An earlier version of the screening questionnaire included questions pertaining to recent travel to areas of the world with known COVID-19 outbreaks and known contacts with individuals with COVID-19. The DOC has updated its visitor and staff screening questionnaire in response to evolving knowledge about COVID-19.
The defendants use non-contact, infrared thermometers at the entrances of both the CDF and the CTF. According to the manufacturer’s instructions the device is calibrated at the factory and calibration by a user is not necessary. One amicus recorded eight temperature readings at the two facilities, five at the CDF and three at the CTF and observed that two of the readings, both on the same night at the CDF, appeared to be inaccurate.26 In both cases, the temperature reading was taken immediately adjacent to an external door and the ambient temperature outside the facility was substantially colder than the temperature inside the facility.
The manufacturer’s instructions for the thermometer indicate that users should “avoid drafts.”27 It seems probable that user error may be resulting in some false temperature readings by the staff who are screening visitors. Medical staff report that they also use non-touch, infrared thermometers in their medical practice at both facilities. Amici have not had an opportunity to determine whether the thermometers used at visitor entry points are the same model of thermometers that are used by the medical staff. However, review of electronic health records also identified a number of questionably low temperature readings.28 Recommendation: Amici recommend that defendants conduct additional staff training on the use of the non-touch, infrared thermometers consistent with manufacturer Guidelines and provide
26 In both instances the temperature registered in the low 90 degrees. After the second apparently incorrect reading, amicus requested that another reading be taken approximately 30 seconds later, and the thermometer registered what appeared to be an accurate temperature reading. 27 The instructions also state that “if there is a significant change in the surrounding temperature, allow the thermometer to adjust to the ‘new’ temperature for at least 15 minutes before use in order to obtain a reliable result.” 28 In reviewing health records, amici also noted several instances of unusually low temperatures recorded on flow sheets or on assessments, with some as low as 93 or 94 degrees.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 17 of 38
guidance to staff regarding what to do when thermometers produce results that appear on their face to be inaccurate.
Nine: How do the conditions of the quarantine housing compare to conditions in nonquarantine housing, and are residents deterred from reporting symptoms?
As explained in detail below, except for the isolation units, quarantine housing units are intended to operate like all other types of housing units except for twice daily monitoring of inmates by medical staff and the use of specified PPE.
A. Daily Monitoring and Specified PPE
While both facilities have different types of specialized housing,29 three broad categories of housing are implicated by Question Nine:
 Quarantine housing;  Isolation housing; and  Non-Quarantine/Non-Isolation housing (i.e., general population or some type of special
housing unit)
The DOC began operating quarantine housing units in March 2020. These units are designated for the following inmates: inmates suspected of having COVID-19 and inmates who are asymptomatic but determined to have been exposed to someone who has tested positive. Health care staff report that when one inmate on a housing unit tests positive, every inmate in the housing is quarantined on the unit. Moreover, staff who have been assigned to the unit are released from duty for a 14-day self-quarantine period. There is a reported practice of maintaining each discrete cohort of quarantined inmates separately. The anecdotal evidence suggests that there may be deviations from this practice; however, amici have not had an
29 For example, both the CDF and CTF have special management units and the CDF has mental health and mental health step down units.
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 18 of 38
opportunity to explore this issue. Additionally, amici have not had an opportunity to confirm the quarantine procedures that are implemented when DOC staff who are assigned to posts with inmate contact test positive for COVID-19 (i.e., whether inmates are quarantined after exposure to a staff member who is known to have contracted COVID-19).
According to the current DOC policy guidance, quarantine housing units should operate like all other housing units except for the isolation units, in all respects except two: 1) inmates housed in quarantine units have their temperatures monitored by medical staff twice daily; and 2) except for inmates -- who are required to have masks -- anyone entering a quarantine housing unit is required to wear gloves and a mask at all times.30 During the site visits amici conducted at multiple quarantine units in both facilities, for the most part the correctional staff wore a variety of masks that they had purchased for themselves. In some instances, the masks were illfitting and in poor condition. As a general matter, the correctional staff were not wearing gloves.
DOC policy requires inmates housed in a quarantine unit to wear masks whenever they are outside of their cells. Many inmates housed in the quarantine units that amici visited had masks, but they were not consistently wearing them nor were they required by the correctional staff to do so. In some instances, the masks were ill-fitting, visibly soiled, and ripped.
In contrast to the quarantine units, inmates and staff on non-quarantine units did not have masks during the site visits amici conducted.31 The defendants did not have sufficient quantities of masks for staff or inmates during March; however, as explained in the next section of this report, the DOC received a shipment on April 10, 2020, and on the next day began issuing masks to staff at roll call. The defendants report that earlier this week, subsequent to amici’s site visits,
30 See §VII. Medical Restrictive Housing Unit (Quarantine), Post Order, dated March 28, 2020. 31 A small number of inmates who indicated that they had serious medical conditions had masks that were obtained from health care providers.
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 19 of 38
they began to replace masks for inmates on a daily basis and are now providing masks to all inmates on all housing units. On April 14, 2020, the defendants reported that they are now requiring all staff and all inmates to wear masks. Amici have not had an opportunity to confirm these representations.
B. Conditions in Quarantine and Other Units Except Isolation 1. Cell Restriction
The defendants implemented a Medical Stay in Place policy directive on April 4, 2020.32 Pursuant to the directive, as of April 4, 2020, inmates housed in quarantine and other housing units, except for isolation units, have been restricted to their cells except for 30 minutes each day for phone calls, showers and cleaning their cells. The directive provides contradictory information regarding out-of-cell time. In relevant part it states that inmates “will largely be restricted to their cells with the exception of a modified recreation schedule, where groups no larger than five are out at any one time.”33 However, the directive also requires staff to “[s]top all group activities and minimize the number of residents participating in recreation on tier (no more than 10 at a time).”34 It also states that inmates are required to “practice social distancing of six feet to the fullest extent possible.”35 According to facility management, at some point after the policy was issued, it was modified to require one hour of out-of-cell time; however, during site visits many correctional staff and inmates amici interviewed were unaware of this change. Indeed, inmates consistently commented that it is not really possible to shower, make one phone call and clean a cell in 30 minutes.
32 Ex.6, Medical Stay in Place, effective April 4, 2020. 33 Id. at 1. 34 Id. at 2. 35 Id. at 1.
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 20 of 38
During site visits to quarantine and non-quarantine units, amici observed the following:
 More than five inmates were consistently out of their cells at one time, and sometimes between 10 and 20 inmates were out of their cells at one time; and
 Social distancing practices were not enforced and there were no attempts by the correctional staff to enforce social distancing even when numerous inmates crowded into a contained area (e.g., to watch television).
The failure to enforce social distancing requirements is a supervision deficit. This appears at least in part to be attributable to significant understaffing of correctional officers and their supervisors at both facilities. According to data obtained from managers at the CDF and CTF, as of April 10, 2020, the CDF had a total staffing complement of 675 correctional staff (493 correctional officers and 182 supervisory staff) and the CTF had a total staffing complement of 283 correctional staff (259 correctional officers and 24 supervisory staff). In response to inquiries from amici, the DOC Human Resources Unit was unable to provide a breakdown of current correctional officer and supervisory staffing levels at the CDF and the CTF, including, for each facility, the number of funded positions that are vacant and the number of staff assigned to the complement who are unavailable for duty for quarantine or some other COVID-19 related status.36 However, management staff in the DOC Human Resources Unit were able to provide aggregate data regarding the agency’s total correctional workforce that provides insight into current staffing level at both facilities. According to these data, the DOC has a current workforce of 994 funded correctional positions, 45 of which are vacant. Of the remaining 949 positions, 281 correctional staff were unavailable for duty as of April 16, 2020.
36 Many categories of leave render staff unavailable for duty, including workers compensation, administrative leave, AWOL status, military leave, leave without pay, and family and medical leave.
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 21 of 38
Thus, approximately one third of the total funded correctional work force is unavailable to work.37
According to DOC managers, the reduction in the size of the workforce that is available for duty has fueled excessive reliance on overtime in order to cover a minimum number of essential posts at both facilities. In response, both facilities converted recently from staffing three eight-hour shifts per day to two, 12-hour shifts per day during weekdays. During this period when the workforce is already stretched thin, there is also an enhanced need for active, direct supervision of inmates to enforce social distancing to mitigate the risk of transmission of the highly infectious novel coronavirus. With fewer available correctional staff and supervisors available to fill essential posts, the DOC has less flexibility to adopt strategies involving increased staff levels to achieve social distancing policies on housing units.
Telephone calls in settings that allow for confidentiality are arranged at both the CDF and CTF by DOC case management staff. DOC staff report that most of the case managers assigned to provide services for inmates at both facilities are either on quarantine status or working remotely. Thus, as a general matter, there has been no access to confidential legal calls for inmates confined on quarantine and non-quarantine housing units. There is some evidence that the defendants recently began to allow scheduled legal calls using the telephones in the housing unit day rooms. These telephones are used by inmates to make monitored telephone calls. Amici have not had an opportunity to determine whether the scheduled legal calls are monitored; however, even if they are not monitored, the telephones in the housing unit day rooms do not afford the confidentiality required to communicate with counsel.
37 In addition to the CDF and CTF, the data the defendants provided indicate that the total workforce includes correctional staff assigned to a transportation unit and to the Central Cell Block.
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 22 of 38
2. Conditions in Isolation Relative to Other Units Inmates housed in isolation units at both the CDF and CTF are restricted to their cells. Inmates in isolation at the CTF are not permitted to use the telephone for any reason, including legal calls. During the site visits amici conducted, inmates in isolation at the CDF were able to make monitored telephone calls from their cells. Amici were recently informed this may no longer be the case; however, we have not had an opportunity to follow up. Medical staff visit inmates in isolation at least twice per day to check temperatures, vital signs, and conduct assessments if indicated. The first cohort of inmates who were isolated for COVID-19 were housed in a special management unit at the CTF. Several inmates in this cohort report that they were handcuffed when escorted to and from the showers. Showers are no longer afforded to inmates in the isolation housing units. To the extent they can bathe, inmates on isolation status must use the sinks in their cells to do so. The supply of towels does not appear adequate. In lieu of showers, the defendants planned to provide inmates on isolation status with body wipes, which were not available until April 14, 2020. The evidence indicates that inmates have spent up to and even over two weeks on isolation status. Analysis of housing assignment data associated with the first 15 inmates who tested positive for COVID-19 shows that the inmates in this sample were housed on isolation status for a minimum of five days. Three inmates in the sample had already spent 12, 14, and 15 days, respectively, in isolation status and remained in isolation as of the date of this analysis. Laundry services for inmates in isolation has been limited. Many inmates reported wearing the same clothes throughout their stays in the isolation units, and in fact most of the inmates amici met wore visibly soiled clothing and reported substantial delays in receiving fresh linens. Most of the inmates amici interviewed in the isolation units stated the conditions are far
22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 23 of 38
too punitive, noting that if they had it to do over again, they would not have reported their symptoms. Deprivation of showers, the absence of any ability to contact family members, the lack of access to legal calls, clean clothing and clean linens are plainly a disincentive and are likely to deter inmates from reporting symptoms of COVID-19.
Recommendation: Amici recommend that the defendants take immediate steps to provide consistent and reliable access to legal calls, personal telephone calls, daily showers, and clean clothing and clean linens to all inmates on isolation status. The defendants should ensure appropriate and consistent implementation of social distancing policies by addressing limitations in current staffing levels, supervisory oversight of line staff, and provide enhanced education related to the importance of social distancing.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & HYGIENE
Question One: What are the quantities of personal protective equipment and cleaning products in the DOC stockpile?
As of April 17, 2020, the DOC reported to amici the following inventory of PPE: Personal Protective Equipment:
 Surgical Mask: 71,680  N95 Respirators: 12,774  Face Shields: 190  Goggles: 200  Gowns: 2,400  Gloves: Total Not Available38  Small PPE Kits: 400
38 DOC representatives provided data indicating that between March 28, 2020 and April 15, 2020, 39,237 pairs of gloves were used.
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 24 of 38
According to the DOC estimates, based on current usage rates, as of April 17, 2020, the defendants had approximately a 32-day supply of masks on hand. The DOC Compliance Officer informed amici that the processing of additional procurement orders was underway.
As of April 13, 2020, the DOC reported to amici that the following inventory of cleaning products was stored on site.
Cleaning Products:  Ecolab Disinfectant: 144, 2.5-gallon cases;39  Ecolab Peroxide Multi Surface Cleaner/Disinfectant: 32, 2-gallon cases;  Ecolab Multi-Quat Sanitizer: 139, 2.5-gallon cases;40  Ecolab Orange Force: 129, 2.5-gallon cases; and  Ecolab Glass Cleaner: 30, 2.5-gallon cases.
Question Two: Are residents provided with a weekly bar of soap? Many inmates amici interviewed reported that they purchase soap through the
commissary. Most explained they had access to soap through the housing unit officers and everyone interviewed at their cells was able to show amici their bars of soap. There were limited supplies of soap available for distribution in a number of the housing units. Inmates housed in special management units are provided with small packets of liquid soap; they are not provided with bars of soap. Question Three: Do staff who interact with visitors and residents have access to, and wear, sufficient personal protective equipment?
Staff who interact with visitors have access to and wear sufficient PPE. Amici observed screening staff posted at the entrances of both the CDF and the CTF wearing PPE consistent with CDC Guidelines.41 Additionally, staff assigned to units housing inmates who are COVID-19
39 This product is dilutable to make larger volumes of solution. 40 This product is dilutable to make larger volumes of solution. 41 CDC Guidelines recommend that staff performing temperature checks on any group of people wear a mask, eye protection, gloves, and a gown or coveralls. See Ex. 7, Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities, March 23, 2020 at 25.
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 25 of 38
positive wore PPE consistent with CDC Guidelines, including N95 respirators, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. None of the correctional staff interviewed who were wearing N95 respirators reported that they had been fitted for them as required by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration.
The defendants issued post orders for quarantine and isolation housing units on March 28, 2020 that included minimum PPE requirements.42 Nevertheless, as of April 10, 2020, the day of the first unannounced site visit, amici observed that the post orders were not being adhered to and there was no clear, common understanding among the staff amici interviewed regarding what PPE they should wear. Most staff expressed considerable anxiety about not having access to appropriate PPE. Some staff were observed wearing masks that they purchased and brought to the facility themselves, few staff wore gloves, and other staff wore no PPE at all. Multiple staff stated that prior to April 10, 2020, PPE was not widely distributed to correctional officers.
Amici were informed that beginning on April 10, 2020, masks and gloves were being distributed to correctional officers at the start of each shift. Over the course of the three days of site visits, amici observed that PPE was more consistently worn by staff throughout the facilities and staff stated that there was an abrupt increase in the PPE that was distributed to correctional officers. As noted above, the defendants reported that earlier this week, subsequent to amici’s site visits, they began to replace masks for inmates on a daily basis and are now providing masks to all inmates on all housing units. On April 14, 2020, the defendants reported that they are now
42 See supra note 30 regarding the March 28, 2020 DOC policy applicable to quarantine housing units. On the same day the defendants issued a post order for isolation housing units. The PPE requirements in the post order related to the isolation units includes only a mask and gloves, less than the PPE recommended in the CDC Guidelines. As previously noted, however, in practice, in contrast to the observations amici made in the quarantine units, amici observed correctional officers on the isolation units wearing PPE consistent with CDC Guidelines.
25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 26 of 38
requiring all staff and all inmates to wear masks at all times. Amici have not had an opportunity to confirm these representations. Recommendation: Amici recommend that the defendants communicate clear expectations, in writing, to correctional staff about the types of PPE required to perform the various supervision and operational functions that are conducted throughout the facility, including the PPE they should expect to be given on each shift for each specific category of post assignment; the proper donning, doffing and disposal of the PPE; and an explanation of the related rationale. Clear communication to staff regarding differences in risk exposures and providing consistent PPE over time could help lower anxiety levels among staff.
In addition, the defendants should also ensure that all PPE issued is properly fitted. For example, N95 respirators must be properly fitted to ensure that they provide the intended protection. As noted above, during the site visits that amici conducted, none of the correctional staff who were wearing N95 respirators in isolation units reported that they had been fitted for the respirators.
Finally, defendants must ensure that all DOC staff receive instruction on the proper disposal of PPE, and appropriate and accessible receptables for immediate disposal must be readily available. During the site visits, amici observed that receptables for disposal of PPE were not accessible on a consistent basis, including to staff assigned to isolation units at the CTF.
Question Four: Are staff and prisoner-workers given masks and gloves, particularly in food service, and are they instructed to wear that equipment?
Amici toured the Culinary Unit at the CDF on April 11, 2020. At that time, all correctional staff and contractors were wearing masks, hairnets, and gloves. There were no inmate workers in the Culinary Unit during the site visit. They had been replaced by correctional officers. Amici learned that the inmate work detail in the Culinary Unit was suspended because
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 27 of 38
an inmate housed at the CDF, who had been assigned to the detail for at least several months, tested positive for COVID-19 on April 10, 2020. Amici have not had an opportunity to confirm the instructions regarding the use of masks and gloves that DOC staff, contractors, and inmates working in the Culinary Unit receive; however, during the site visit amici observed the consistent use of masks, gloves, and hairnets by the numerous contractors and DOC staff who were working in the food service area.
An interview conducted by amici with a supervisor for the food service contractor, (who reported working in the CDF Culinary Unit since the latter part of 2019), revealed that the contract staff assigned to the CDF did not know why the inmate detail workers were no longer working and had been replaced by correctional officers. In light of the fact that it appeared the detail inmate who tested positive prepared and served food along with the contractor’s staff for at least several months, amici sought to ascertain whether the DOC made any attempt to determine whether the contract staff who worked alongside the detail inmate who tested positive were “close contacts” as defined by the applicable CDC Guidelines.43 According to the Guidelines, “an individual is considered a close contact of a COVID-19 case if they a) have been within approximately 6 feet of a COVID-19 case for a prolonged period of time or b) have had direct contact with infectious secretions from a COVID-19 case (e.g., have been coughed on).”44 The Guidelines further provide that all staff who were a close contact of the inmate, whether employed by DOC or by the contractor,45 should have been placed on self-quarantine status. Specifically, the Guidelines provide that if a staff member or contractor is identified as a close contact of a
43 See Ex. 7 at 3. 44 Id. 45 The CDC Guidelines define staff as “all public sector employees as well as those working for a private contractor within a correctional facility (e.g. private healthcare or food service). Except where noted, “staff” does not distinguish between healthcare, custody, and other types of staff including private facility operators.” Id. at 4.
27

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 28 of 38
COVID-19 case (whether in the facility or in the community) that staff member should selfquarantine at home for 14 days and may return to work if symptoms do not develop after the 14day period.46 It appears that these Guidelines have not been implemented with respect to any contractors who were in close contact with the detail inmate who tested positive for COVID-19.
According to the DOC administrator and staff responsible for the food service contract, on the morning of April 11, 2020, the DOC food contractor was informed that a detail inmate had tested positive and that the contractor’s workers should self-quarantine if they did not feel well. It appears that no effort was made to determine whether any of the contract food service workers were a “close contact” of the detail inmate who tested positive. Indeed, amici contacted the DOC Medical Director, the Unity Medical Director, the Unity Infection Control Specialist, the DOC Deputy Director responsible for the food service contract, the DOC General Counsel, and lead counsel for the defendants in this litigation to inquire about this matter. Based on the responses they provided to amici’s inquiries, it appears that any contact tracing that may have been conducted did not include consideration of whether the food service contractors who worked alongside the detail inmate who tested positive might be deemed a close contact who should have been quarantined for 14 days. Amici’s understanding is that the detail inmate who tested positive was not contacted about any individuals with whom he had close contact. Moreover, it does not appear that any effort was made to contact public health experts at the D.C. Department of Health to receive guidance about this matter. In light of the implications attendant to having a close contact continue to work in the CDF Culinary Unit, promptly after learning about this matter amici alerted counsel for both parties about their concerns.
46 Id. at 12.
28

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 29 of 38
Amici’s inquiries regarding the contact tracing conducted in the wake of the detail inmate’s positive COVID-19 test results revealed that at least in this instance the defendants employed a fractured contact tracing effort that was not centralized nor informed by public health experts.47
Recommendation: If they have not done so in the wake of amici’s inquiries, the defendants should seek immediate guidance from public health professionals about identification of the detail inmate’s close contacts. Moreover, it is important to recognize that the defendants are working in an extremely challenging environment that requires a well-coordinated response to the range of infection control issues that are presented throughout the course of each daily shift. Any individuals who are tasked with conducting contact tracing after a confirmed positive COVID-19 test should have appropriate training and be closely supervised. Question Five: Do residents have access to cleaning supplies in sufficient quantity and concentration, including rags, to clean their cells?
Amici reviewed records of cleaning supply deliveries to the CDF and CTF to assess whether supplies were made available to the facilities. Department of Corrections records indicate that there have been regular deliveries of cleaning supplies to both facilities since December 31, 2019, the start of the dataset reviewed.48 Delivery records reflect that historically
47 The DOC Medical Director informed amici that she had seen email correspondence regarding the issue but had not been involved in advising staff about how to handle this matter. The Medical Director referred amici to the DOC Deputy Director for Administration to determine whether contact tracing related to the contractor’s staff had been conducted. The Deputy Director was contacted and informed amici that the contractor was notified that the contractor’s workers should self-quarantine if they did not feel well. There was no recognition of the fact that food service contract workers may have potentially been close contacts of the detail inmate who tested positive and should have been quarantined regardless of how they felt. Moreover, in response to amici’s inquiries, the manager of Unity’s infection control program at the CDF advised amici that Unity’s involvement was limited to determining the identity of the inmates and health care providers who may have had contact with the detail inmate while he was in the medical unit. 48 Ex. 8, Table, Dates and Quantities of Cleaning Supplies and Soap Delivered to the CDF and CTF, by Date, December 31, 2019 – April 13, 2020.
29

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 30 of 38
three types of cleaning and sanitizing agents were made available to clean housing units and that in mid-March 2020 a fourth, peroxide-based multi-surface cleaner was also made available.49
Observations and interviews with inmates and staff indicated that inmate access to sufficient cleaning supplies on housing units varied from unit to unit. For example, on one unit, all of the cleaning supplies had been depleted.50 Furthermore, on several units that had a supply of cleaning agents, inmates reported that they were unable to access them to clean their own cells. Amici did not observe any inmates with facility-issued rags that could be used to clean their cells. Most inmates who were interviewed reported that they made rags by tearing facilityissued towels or t-shirts, a phenomenon amici observed. For the most part, these make-shift rags were tattered and soiled. Amici observed that paper towels were available for inmates to use for cleaning on a small number of housing units, but this was not common and on one of the units, the inventory of paper towels was extremely low.
Amici could not assess whether the concentrations of disinfecting and sanitizing solutions were mixed in the appropriate concentrations necessary to achieve their intended effects. It was evident that knowledge regarding the appropriate use of the different cleaning and sanitizing agents was generally at a very low level.
Access to cleaning and sanitizing solutions is necessary, but not sufficient. Knowledge of proper mixing and appropriate application of cleaning and sanitizing solutions is also necessary. For example, at least two of the products that the DOC distributes – a concentrated surface cleaner and a concentrated sanitizing solution – have prescribed dilution ranges (i.e., must contain a minimum concentration of the chemical agent, which has implications for how
49 The manufacturer’s product description states that it is “effective against emerging viral pathogens after the CDC has declared an outbreak.” 50 Ex. 9, Photograph of empty cleaning supply containers, Correctional Treatment Facility, Building D, April 12, 2020.
30

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 31 of 38
much water can be added to the concentrate before the agent is no longer effective). One of these products also has specific prescriptions regarding how long the product must remain on a surface for it to reduce pathogens to indicated levels.
The DOC assigns correctional officers to “environmental posts” and these officers are responsible for cleaning and sanitizing assigned zones of the facilities. One environmental officer informed amici that he had never received formal training, but rather reviewed his responsibilities with his supervisor and acknowledged that it had “been a while” since that discussion occurred. The same officer noted that he had begun to mix his own bleach solution to sanitize the areas of the facility he was responsible for and relied on his own judgement regarding the appropriate concentration of bleach solution. Recommendation: There is a critical need for the defendants to strengthen the environmental health and safety program at both the CDF and the CTF. Amici recommend that the DOC immediately retain a registered sanitarian to oversee the environmental health and safety programs at both facilities and provide training so that cleaning tools and products are used properly. A registered sanitarian should bring the appropriate knowledge, oversight, and quality control necessary to mitigate at least some of the critical public health concerns that are evident in both facilities. Question Six: Do housing units, and particularly common spaces such as bathrooms and showers, appear to be sufficiently cleaned?
Cleaning the common spaces in housing units is the responsibility of designated inmate “detail workers” at the CDF and CTF, who are supervised by correctional officers. As indicated in the response to Question Five, several different cleaning, disinfecting, and sanitizing solutions are available on the housing unit of both facilities. Nevertheless, the cleanliness of common spaces was inconsistent from one housing unit to the next. With cleaning responsibilities
31

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 32 of 38
delegated to the inmate level, there is little quality control. Some housing units appeared relatively clean and tidy, others were not. This was especially the case in some of the housing units at the CDF that appeared to have significant inmate management and supervision challenges.51 In addition to the limitations in the cleanliness of some housing units, some cell block corridors had trash on the floor. Moreover, Building D at the CTF includes showers with tiles and in some of those showers there was visible mold growth.52 Recommendation: In addition to engaging a sanitarian, supervisory correctional staff must ensure that housing unit staff properly manage the work performed by the inmate detail workers. In order to accomplish that goal, correctional staff and detail workers require guidance from a sanitarian trained to oversee the facility’s environmental health program. Question Seven: Do professional cleaning crews clean hallways and common areas (not in housing units)? Do inmate details clean the housing units? common spaces?
A professional cleaning contractor was engaged to clean certain common areas on the non-secure side of both facilities on a daily basis in late March 2020. However, there was an apparent misunderstanding about the scope of the contractor’s services and none of the floors in the common areas on the administrative side of both facilities were cleaned, including bathroom floors and floors in the Officer’s Dining Room. The DOC Deputy responsible for the administration of the contract informed amici earlier this week that this limitation is being corrected.
Inmate detail workers clean the common areas in the housing units. They have not been adequately trained and are not appropriately supervised. The detail workers have inconsistent knowledge about the products they use and do not have adequate equipment. For example, they
51 In at least two housing units at the CDF, amici observed food and other refuse scattered on the cellblock floors, including on the floors under stairwells. 52 Ex. 10, Photograph of a Shower in the Correctional Treatment Facility, Building D, April 12, 2020.
32

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 33 of 38
reuse mops and make-shift rags that do not appear to have been appropriately sanitized between uses. As part of the DOC response to COVID-19, detail workers are required to clean all surfaces in the common areas of the housing units at two-hour intervals. This appears to occur on a consistent basis; however, the efficacy of these efforts is undermined by inadequate training, limitations in supervision, the absence of any quality controls, and the apparent limitations in the equipment and possibly in the cleaning and disinfecting agents that they are using.53 Recommendation: In addition to engaging a sanitarian, the defendants should consider contracting for professional cleaning services on the secure side of the facility at least until a sanitarian is hired to bolster the existing environmental health and safety program at both facilities. Additionally, proper cleaning supplies that have been sanitized regularly should be immediately provided to each unit, and a schedule for cleaning common areas and cells should be established and enforced. Question Eight: Is hand sanitizer provided, or available to, to residents?
There is no evidence that hand sanitizer is provided to the inmates at either the CDF or the CTF.
Question Nine: Is social distancing possible in common areas in units and in the recreation spaces, and what is the approximate size of common areas?
Amici did not have the opportunity to measure the common areas at the CDF and CTF. However, given the configuration of the physical plant in the housing units, social distancing is possible if inmate out-of-cell time is limited to small groups of inmates at one time. However, as noted elsewhere in this report, the defendants are not enforcing social distancing requirements.
53 On some housing units the detail workers expressed concerns that the cleaning agents they were using had been inappropriately diluted; on others, inmates complained about fumes associated with the apparent strength of the cleaning products the detail inmates were using.
33

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 34 of 38
Enforcing social distancing requires consistent, direct observation by staff. Ensuring that correctional officers carry these functions out requires active supervision by mid-level managers, who must provide both oversight to correctional officers and support (i.e., by ensuring officers get appropriate relief for breaks over the course of their 12-hour shifts). Amici observed numerous instances in which correctional officers assigned to housing units left their posts without relief, leaving housing units short staffed. It appears that the DOC does not have sufficient line and supervisory staff available to appropriately enforce social distancing policies. Recommendation: The defendants should reduce the extent to which common spaces encourage inmates to congregate in close quarters (e.g., around a single television in a small enclosed area, or next to one another in order to use telephones that are mounted closer than six feet apart). The effectiveness of this strategy would increase if the defendants were to consistently apply their stated policy of allowing no more than small groups of inmates out of their cells at any given time. Whatever strategies the defendants adopt, increased active and direct supervision will be required by both housing unit correctional officers and the midlevel managers responsible for overseeing and supporting the correctional officers assigned to housing units. Enforcing social distancing standards as a public health measure is a new responsibility for correctional staff and they must be supported as they adjust to this new role. Moreover, the defendants should assess whether any additional security staff are needed to provide appropriate supervision, on a unit-by-unit basis, taking into consideration the layout of the housing units, the number of inmates housed on the units, and the security designation of the unit, in order to enforce social distancing policies.
34

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 35 of 38
Question Ten: Approximately how many residents share a cell, and what is the approximate size of the cell?
Amici analyzed individual-level inmate housing data for the period between March 15, 2020 and April 13, 2020. At the CDF, as of April 13, 2020, 586 inmates, 56 percent of the population, shared a cell.54 At the CTF, as of April 13, 2020, 22 inmates, five percent of the population, shared a cell.55
A representative-sized cell was measured at each of the two facilities. The selected cell at the CDF measured 85.6 square feet and the selected cell at the CTF measured 72.4 square feet.
Question Eleven: Do all residents have access to sinks, soap, and toilets in their cells? As noted above, at the CDF, all cells include sinks and toilets. At the CTF, the housing
units in the portion of the facility known as Building D contain cells without sinks and toilets. Inmates assigned to housing units in Building D share common sinks and toilets. On each housing unit there are two, double-tiered corridors of cells. Each tier of each corridor is comprised of eight cells. Inmates housed in the eight cells share two sinks, two toilets, and a shower. The cell doors in Building D, by design, do not lock in order for inmates housed in the cells to access the sink and toilet without the intervention of a correctional officer. Amici identified multiple sinks and toilets in housing units in Building D that were not functional or out of service at the time of the site visit.
Representatives of the DOC stated that every inmate receives a facility-issued bar of soap each week. Every inmate that amici spoke with indicated that they possessed at least one bar of soap. Some inmates verified that soap was distributed to them weekly; however, others stated that they had purchased their soap from the commissary and that soap was not distributed
54 See Ex. 1, supra note 4. 55 See Ex. 2, supra note 9.
35

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 36 of 38
weekly. There were multiple reports that inmates sometimes use their bars of soap to clean their clothes in the shower and under those circumstances a single bar of soap does not last an entire week.
V. Conclusion Communicable disease outbreaks in locked facilities such as jails and prisons where individuals live in close proximity can spread rapidly through a population if not addressed quickly with appropriate prevention, detection, and management systems. The current novel coronavirus pandemic, which is already present within both the CDF and the CTF, poses a serious risk to the health and safety of inmates and staff alike. This report describes certain efforts undertaken by the DOC to respond to the current public health emergency. DOC staff and Unity’s contract providers should be commended for performing essential public health and safety functions while knowingly exposing themselves to significant health risks on a daily basis. In light of the limitations identified in this report, substantial effort must be undertaken to ensure that the DOC manages its response to COVID-19 in a manner that ensures conformity with CDC Guidelines. This will require active on-site support at both facilities from public health professionals. For example, contact tracing must be strengthened, staff and inmate education on relevant public health considerations must be intensified, and business processes must be refined to ensure inmates and staff presenting with symptoms potentially consistent with COVID-19 are quickly identified, tested and isolated. Moreover, on an expedited basis, the defendants must provide inmates in isolation who have tested positive for COVID-19 with access to showers, clean clothing, clean laundry, personal telephone calls and legal calls.
36

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 37 of 38
Amici’s investigation reveals that there is an equally urgent need for the DOC to substantially bolster the agency’s environmental health program in the immediate and longer term. A professional sanitarian with appropriate health and safety credentials should be charged with organizing and managing the DOC’s environmental health program to ensure, among other matters, appropriate cleaning and sanitizing practices are implemented, regular facility inspections are conducted, and corrective actions are undertaken to resolve systemic risks. In the immediate term, the defendants should ensure that they have a sufficient number of both line level and supervisory staff throughout both facilities to promote appropriate supervision and enforce the altered operational policies adopted to address the contagion during this public health crisis.
As amici were in the process of finalizing this report, defendants provided counsel for plaintiffs and amici with a copy of an April 27, 2020 memorandum from the DOC Director, Quincy Booth, to all DOC employees and contractors.56 The memorandum addresses COVID19 policies and procedures, including updated policies and procedures that appear to be intended to respond to the matters addressed during the April 15, 2020 teleconference. In light of the current filing deadline, amici have not had an opportunity to consider the content of the memorandum, but have included it in the appendix to this report so that the Court can be promptly apprised of the most current information that the defendants have provided.
Amici recognize the substantial challenges that confront both parties and are available to answer any questions the Court or the parties have about the matters addressed in this summary report.
56 Ex. 11, Memorandum from Quincy L. Booth, Director, to All DOC Employees and Contractors, April 17, 2020, Reminders and Updated COVID-19 Policies and Procedures.
37

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 38 of 38

April 19, 2020 Washington, D.C.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/_Grace M. Lopes_______ Amicus Curiae Grace M. Lopes Bar No. 358650 Executive Director Rising for Justice 901 4th Street, N.W., Suite 6000 Washington, D.C. 20001 202-607-2224 gmlopes@risingforjustice.org
Mark Jordan mark@markjordan.consulting 1220 19th Street, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-525-6732

38

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 135

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________
EDWARD BANKS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,
Defendants. ____________________________________

No. 1:20-cv-849 (CKK)

REPORT SUBMITTED BY AMICUS CURIAE PURSUANT TO APRIL 28, 2020 CONSENT ORDER

Pursuant to the April 28, 2020 Consent Order issued in the above-captioned matter, Amici, Grace M. Lopes and Mark Jordan, submit the following report for the Court’s consideration.

I. INTRODUCTION On April 9, 2020 amici were appointed to provide specific information to the Court
regarding medical services and environmental health and hygiene at two detention facilities operated by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (“DOC”), the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”). Pursuant to that order amici provided information to the Court during an April 15, 2020 teleconference and in a written report on April 18, 2020. On April 19, 2020, the Court issued an order granting plaintiffs’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and requiring the defendants to take certain specified actions. Thereafter, on April 28, 2020 amici were appointed to provide information to the Court

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2 of 135
regarding certain matters related to the TRO, which concern the COVID-19 pandemic at the CDF and the CTF. Following issuance of the April 28, 2020 order and using the same methodology applied in their earlier review, amici collected and analyzed data obtained from site visits at both facilities; conducted structured interviews with DOC managers, line staff, inmates, and contractors; reviewed electronic health records; and analyzed multiple electronic datasets extracted from information management systems maintained by the DOC or its contract services providers.
The April 28, 2020 order required amici to provide information to the Court by answering five questions during an oral report to the Court on May 11, 2020, and four additional questions in a written report required to be submitted by May 20, 2020. Accordingly, during a teleconference with the Court and the parties on May 11, 2020, amici presented their findings concerning the first five questions reflected in the order. This report supplements but does not restate that presentation and summarizes amici’s responses to the remaining four questions reflected in the order. In addition, this report explains the methodology amici relied upon to conduct their assessment, addresses relevant background data regarding the facilities subject to the assessment, and presents updated information concerning the prevalence of COVID-19 cases at both the CDF and CTF.
The defendants have continued to cooperate fully with amici’s requests for information. DOC and contract staff at every level, as well as representatives from the Office of the Attorney General, have continued to make themselves available on short notice, on every day of the week, and well after traditional office hours. Data reports and other records have continued to be produced on abbreviated timelines. Amici appreciate the efforts the defendants have continued to make to facilitate their review.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 3 of 135
II. METHODOLOGY Following the issuance of the April 28, 2020 order, amici conducted unannounced and
unescorted site visits on multiple shifts on May 7 and 8, 2020, at both the CDF and CTF, respectively. In addition, amici conducted an unannounced and unescorted site visit at the CDF during the PM shift on May 14, 2020. During the course of these site visits, amici visited general population, maximum and medium security housing units, including housing units on isolation, quarantine and non-quarantine status, special management and mental health units at both facilities, and the CTF infirmary and urgent care clinic. Five housing units at the CDF (N1, NW-1, SW-3, SE-2 and N-2) and six housing units (C3A, C3B, SMUB, D2A, E4B, E4A) in addition to the infirmary at the CTF were visited. The isolation unit at the CDF (N-2) was visited on two separate dates. Observations in housing units included cells, dayrooms, restrooms, supply storage areas, and shower facilities. At both facilities, medical units, administrative offices, and visitor entry areas were visited.
Structured in-person and/or telephone interviews were conducted with members of the DOC executive management team, including the DOC Deputy Directors of Administration, Operations, Programs and Case Management, and Professional Development and College and Career Readiness; the DOC Medical Director; the Medical Director, Director of Nursing, and other members of the Correctional Health Program at Unity Health Care, Inc. (“Unity”);1 the CDF and CTF Warden and the Deputy Warden assigned to the CTF; and dozens of correctional officers and supervisory correctional staff assigned to various posts throughout the facilities. Inperson interviews were also conducted, in groups and individually, with over 100 inmates on
1 Unity provides medical services on a contractual basis to inmates at the CDF and CTF.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 4 of 135
isolation, quarantine and non-quarantine status as well as in restricted housing units and in the
general population at both facilities.
In addition to the information collected during site visits and from interviews, amici
requested and continued to receive access from the DOC to the electronic health records of inmates confined at the CDF and CTF.2 Review and analysis of samples from these records has
been conducted and the results were presented during the May 11, 2020 teleconference. The
following data for both facilities were also obtained from the DOC and analyzed:
 Daily census data, including inmate housing assignments, for the period April 1, 2020 to May 14, 2020;
 Data related to sick call requests for the period April 19, 2020 to April 30, 2020;  Data related to urgent care encounters for the period April 19, 2020 to April 30, 2020;  Data related to all COVID-19 tests conducted on inmates housed at both facilities
through May 14, 2020; and  Open work orders for maintenance activities as of May 15, 2020. Data related to DOC correctional staffing levels was also reviewed and is addressed below.
III. BACKGROUND
As described in amici’s April 18, 2020 report, the CDF is a multi-story, secure detention
center. At the time of the May 2020 site visits, population levels hovered at approximately 970,
a decrease relative to population levels at the time of the April site visits. The facility has 18
housing units, which are both single and double celled. Analysis of DOC housing data shows
that as of May 13, 2020, 59 percent of the inmates housed at the CDF were housed in single cells
2 The team amici assembled for this stage of their work included two additional members. The majority of case record reviews were conducted by Janet Maher, an attorney who has extensive experience in working in institutional and health-care settings. Ms. Maher headed the Office of Corporation Counsel's Mental Health Division from 1992 to 2000, worked as Deputy General Counsel and Chief of Staff for the District's Child and Family Services Agency from 2000 to 2007 and as DOJ Compliance Officer at Saint Elizabeths Hospital from 2007 to 2014. From 2013 to her retirement in 2016, she headed the Hospital's Performance Improvement Department. She also has provided consultative services to the Maryland and Pennsylvania behavioral health systems and to the Special Arbiter appointed by the Superior Court in Jerry M. v. District of Columbia, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, C.A. No. 1519-85. Case records were also reviewed by Brenda Foust, a senior paralegal with substantial experience in similar institutional contexts.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 5 of 135
and 41 percent were housed in cells with another inmate, which represents an increase in the proportion of inmates housed in single cells compared with the previous month.3 As of May 18,
2020, DOC representatives reported that 41 cells at the CDF could not be occupied because of
maintenance issues. All cells at the CDF are “wet” cells, i.e., they have toilets and sinks.
Cellblocks are divided into two sides, and for most of the facility’s housing units, each side contains two tiers with 20 cells per tier.4 Each cellblock tier of 20 cells has two showers, which
are shared by inmates housed in the unit and located in a common area. The CDF Culinary Unit,
which is operated by a contractor and up until April 11, 2020 employed inmate workers, currently supports the food service program for both the CDF and the CTF.5
At the time of the May 2020 site visits, 15 housing units were open and three were
closed. In contrast to the April 2020 site visits when there were only two quarantine units and
less than a handful of inmates on isolation status, of the 15 open housing units at the CDF, 10
were quarantine units and one was an isolation unit with 26 inmates who had tested positive for COVID-19.6
The CTF had a population of approximately 365 inmates at the time of the May site
visits, a decrease relative to the approximately 400 inmates confined there during the April site
visits. The facility has 27 housing units. In addition to the 26-room 40-bed infirmary, a limited
medical mobility unit can house up to 37 inmates. Eighteen housing units have a capacity of 50
3 Amici previously reported that as of April 13, 2020 43 percent of inmates at the CDF were housed in single cells. See Report Submitted by Amicus Curiae Pursuant to April 9, 2020 Consent Order, filed on April 19, 2020 [hereinafter Amici’s April 2020 Report] at 4. 4 There are two exceptions: N-1 is a restrictive housing unit with 72 cells and NE-3 is a mental health step-down unit with 36 cells. 5 The CTF has a separate Culinary Unit that is responsible for that facility’s food service program. At the time of the April and May site visits, the Culinary Unit at the CTF was closed due to a COVID-19 issue and it remains closed. The closure of the CTF Culinary Unit has continued to place an evident strain on the food service program at the CDF. 6 The number of quarantine and isolation units is, of course, variable, as is the number of inmates assigned to those housing units.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 6 of 135
beds, four have a capacity of 96 beds, two have a capacity of 23 beds,7 and one has a capacity of 65 beds. According to DOC housing assignment records, as of May 13, 2020, consistent with the levels reported in April, 95 percent of the inmates at the CTF were housed in single cells and five percent were housed with another inmate. As of May 18, 2020, DOC representatives reported that four cells at the CTF could not be occupied because of maintenance issues. With the exception of eight housing units,8 all of the CTF’s housing units have wet cells. At the time of amici’s May site visits, 11 housing units were closed and there was one quarantine unit. There were no open isolation units.9 The four inmates who were confined at the facility on isolation status were housed in the infirmary. The infirmary and all of the quarantine units that were operating had wet cells. In contrast, during amici’s April site visits, the CTF had eight quarantine housing units and three isolation housing units.10
During the May 11, 2020 hearing, amici presented updated data regarding COVID-19 test administration results at the CDF and CTF through May 6, 2020. Subsequent to that hearing, amici obtained and analyzed data regarding COVID-19 testing data at both facilities through May 14, 2020. This analysis indicates that during the two-month period from March 14, 2020 to May 14, 2020, a total of 220 COVID-19 tests were administered to inmates at the CDF and 95 were administered to inmates at the CTF. Medical staff at the CDF ordered three additional tests; however, the inmates refused testing and were assumed to be positive for the virus. At the CDF, as of May 14, 2020, 121 inmates tested positive or were presumed to be COVID-19 positive and at the CTF 64 inmates tested positive.11 The seven-day average peak for positive
7 Each of the two restrictive housing units can house up to 23 inmates. 8 Three of the eight housings units that do not have toilets and sinks were open during the site visits. 9 A closed housing unit was designated for inmates on isolation status, should the need arise. 10 See Amici’s April 2020 Report at 5. 11 See Ex. 1, Chart, COVID-19 Tests Administered at the CTF and CDF, by Date of Administration and Test Result, March 14, 2020 – May 14, 2020. The results of one COVID-19 test was pending as of May 17, 2020.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 7 of 135
COVID-19 test results at the CTF was April 5 and April 6, 2020 (an average of five positive test results per day) whereas the peak for positive COVID-19 test results at the CDF was approximately two weeks later, on April 18, 2020 (an average of 5.86 positive test results).12 At the CTF there have been three positive test results out of 12 administered in the approximately one-month period between April 16, 2020 and May 14, 2020. At the CDF, inmates continued to test positive during the first two weeks of May, albeit in lower numbers than during the mid- to late-April peak.
The COVID-19 pandemic has presented formidable challenges for the defendants and has had a significant impact on operations at both the CDF and the CTF. Many of these challenges are the result of decreases in correctional officer and supervisory correctional staffing levels on many shifts at both facilities, which appear in large part to be attributable to decreases in DOC workforce members who are available for duty.13
In order to assess available staffing levels, amici obtained a copy of the official DOC record that reflects every funded correctional officer and supervisory correctional position in the agency. According to this document, which is referred to as the “Schedule A,” as of May 9, 2020, the DOC had a total of 994 correctional staff positions. Of the 994 positions, 844 were correctional officer positions, 93 were lead correctional officer positions, and 57 were supervisory correctional officer positions.14
12 Peaks were measured using seven-day averages of positive COVID-19 test results. See Ex. 2, Table, COVID-19 Test Data, by Facility, by Date, and Seven-Day Average of Positive Test Results, March 14, 2020 – May 14, 2020. 13 Other factors related to the pandemic also have affected staffing levels at both facilities. For example, since approximately mid-March, correctional staff assigned to both facilities have been deployed to external posts in hospitals. This type of assignment is staff intensive, requiring two correctional officers to supervise each hospitalized inmate. At its peak, DOC managers reported that there were as many as 11 inmates in DOC custody at hospitals, which created a need to fill 22 external posts on each shift with correctional officers. This increase in demand for correctional officers placed additional strain on the already diminished workforce. 14 The Schedule A is maintained by the agency’s independent chief financial officer, and reflects every funded position allocated to the agency.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 8 of 135
Because the Schedule A does not include work availability status nor work assignment location, amici obtained that data from DOC executives. These data were not consistent with the data reflected in the Schedule A.15 For the purposes of analyzing staff availability for duty, amici relied upon the data provided by DOC executives. According to that data, 20 percent of the 925 correctional officers and supervisory correctional officers employed by the agency were unavailable for duty.16 At the CDF, 21 percent (118 of 568 assigned correctional staff) were unavailable, and at the CTF, 19 percent (52 of 279 assigned correctional staff ) were unavailable.17 These calculations do not include budgeted, but unfilled correctional officer and correctional supervisory positions (i.e., vacant positions). According to the Schedule A, as of May 9, 2020, the DOC had 51 funded, vacant correctional positions. When these 51 vacant positions are added to the reported number of correctional staff who are not available for duty, the percentage of positions in the correctional workforce that were either unfilled or filled by staff unavailable for duty is 24 percent.
According to CDF and CTF management, numerous correctional staff have returned to work in the past week, which has made staffing shortages less acute. Particularly at the CTF, where the inmate population is low and numerous housing units are closed, it appears staffing shortages are not having as severe an impact as was evident in the recent past.
15 The Schedule A reflects a total of 943 filled correctional officer and supervisory correctional officer positions. Data provided by DOC executive staff reflected a total of 925 filled positions. 16 Reasons staff may be unavailable for duty include the following: workers’ compensation, military leave, family leave, extended sick leave, absent without leave, and quarantine status following close contact with an individual known to have COVID-19. 17 Ex. 3, Table, Correctional Officer and Supervisory Correctional Officer Staff Availability, by Assignment Location, as of May 12, 2020. The Table also reflects that 17 percent of correctional staff assigned to the Central Cell Block and 35 percent of correctional staff assigned to the Transportation Unit were unavailable for duty.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 9 of 135
IV. FINDINGS
This section provides additional information related to two of the five questions in the April 28, 2020 Consent Order that were addressed during the May 11, 2020 teleconference. As contemplated by the order, the narrative provided does not restate amici’s May 11, 2020 presentation to the Court. Amici’s more comprehensive responses to the remaining four questions delineated in the order are also set forth below.
A. Supplement to May 11, 2020 Oral Report As noted above, the April 28, 2020 Consent Order required amici to report orally on their answers to five specified questions during the May 11, 2020 teleconference. Supplemental information regarding questions one and three is summarized below. Question One: How are residents on non-quarantine units able to access medical care, including reporting symptoms of COVID-19 to medical staff? During the May 11, 2020 hearing, amici described significant barriers to access to health care that exist for inmates on non-quarantine housing units, including the absence of independent access to sick call request forms (i.e., inmates must request sick call request forms from correctional offices) and current policy that limits out-of-cell time to one hour daily. Amici reported that in practice at the CDF many inmates were not receiving one hour of out-of-cell time daily on a consistent basis and that at times several days elapsed before they were offered any out-of-cell time. Moreover, at the CDF, the combination of staffing limitations, population levels in housing units, and efforts to limit the number of inmates out of their cells at one time have resulted in out-of-cell time being conducted around the clock. This results in some inmates being offered out-of-cell time in the middle of the night. As explained in more detail below, these practices have limited the opportunities for inmates on non-quarantine units to access health care.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 10 of 135
On May 8, 2020, the defendants provided amici with a document that describes the
following six processes through which inmates can access medical care currently at both facilities:18 1) sick call; 2) enhanced access in sick call clinic; 3) urgent care clinic; 4) chronic
care clinic; 5) quarantine housing unit monitoring; and 6) medical emergencies. Most inmates
on non-quarantine housing units who want to access medical care for non-emergent medical
conditions at both the CDF and the CTF rely on the sick call process. As implemented by the DOC, this process requires inmates to request sick call forms19 from correctional officers and to
submit those forms to health care staff through designated collection boxes on the housing units.20
As noted above, because inmates do not have independent access to the sick call forms,
they must request them from the correctional staff, complete them, and submit them during out-
of-cell time. During the April and May site visits, amici found that sick call forms were not
readily available at both facilities, in all housing units, on a consistent basis. Given the
limitations on out-of-cell time, particularly at the CDF, lack of an independent means for
requesting sick call, and inconsistencies in the availability of the sick call forms at both facilities,
the sick call process does not provide reliable, timely access to health care for inmates on nonquarantine housing units.21
18 See Ex. 4, May 8, 2020 e-mail from Eric Glover, General Counsel, District of Columbia Department of Corrections, to Grace M. Lopes, with attached untitled document describing six methods by which inmates in all housing units can access medical care. 19 See, e.g., Ex. 5, District of Columbia Department of Corrections Central Detention and Central Treatment Facilities, Sick Call Request Form. 20 The collection boxes are locked and a key to the boxes is only issued to health care staff. According to Unity’s health care managers, a nursing assistant or nurse collects the sick call forms from the boxes on a daily basis. The forms are reviewed and triaged for urgency by a nurse. Urgent requests are referred to advanced care providers in the urgent care clinic on an expedited basis and routine requests are expected to be scheduled for sick call on the calendar day following collection of the request form. A nursing sick call triage protocol, which addresses certain COVID-19 symptoms, was issued on May 5, 2020 and is included in the Appendix to this report. See Ex. 6, Unity Health Care, Inc., Sick Call Triage, May 5, 2020. 21 During the May 11, 2020 hearing, amici reported on the timeliness of the sick call process and noted the possibility of including in this report an analysis addressing whether sick call encounters were responsive to the
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 11 of 135
In the defendants’ May 8, 2020 submission, they report that since April 13, 2020, medical staff have been providing enhanced access to sick call, including sick call providers “going out to the [housing unit] tiers and seeing if there are any residents not on the [sick call] schedule who need to be seen that day.”22 This type of process would provide an opportunity for inmates locked in their cells to communicate health problems directly to medical staff on a daily basis, and mitigate the current barriers to accessing medical care for inmates on non-quarantine housing units. During the May 7 and May 8, 2020 site visits, amici could not verify through interviews with inmates and staff that this process is being implemented on non-quarantine housing units.
During a May 15, 2020 telephone interview, a DOC manager explained initiatives to bolster the sick call process that the defendants expected to implement on May 18, 2020, including the daily collection and triage of sick call requests forms by 11:00 a.m. and the scheduling of same-day sick call appointments. The manager reported that sick call request forms would be modified to include COVID-19-like symptoms and date stamped prior to distribution by medical staff on a daily basis in an effort to promote more accurate tracking of submission and response timelines.23 While these measures may improve certain aspects of the sick call process for those able to submit request forms, they do not address the barriers accessing sick call that are identified in this report for inmates on non-quarantine units.
The other processes outlined in the defendants’ May 8, 2020 submission do not directly address the health care access issues experienced by inmates on non-quarantine units. For
issues inmates listed on sick call request forms. In light of time constraints, amici were unable to conduct a comprehensive qualitative analysis of an adequate sample of sick call requests relevant to this issue and thus this matter is not addressed herein. 22 See Ex. 4, supra note 18, Attachment at 1. 23 The manager stated that periodically sick call request forms are found in a collection box for inmate grievance forms. Thus, DOC staff responsible for collecting inmate grievance forms have been asked to identify any sick call request forms that may have been incorrectly submitted and immediately transmit those forms to the medical staff.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 12 of 135
example, access to the urgent care clinic is dependent upon the intervention of the correctional staff and the availability of escort staff to accompany an inmate to the medical clinic. Furthermore, chronic care clinics are applicable only to those inmates who have been diagnosed with chronic health conditions. These clinics generally occur at one, two, or three-month intervals, and do not lend themselves to reporting health conditions that may arise between scheduled appointments. Question Three: Is the DOC providing consistent and reliable access to legal calls, personal telephone calls, running water, daily showers, and clean clothing and clean linens to all inmates in isolation status?
During the May 11, 2020 hearing, in response to questions from the Court and counsel, amici were unable to confirm cleaning practices applicable to the telephones that are made available to inmates on rolling carts in the infirmary and isolation units and to telephones used for inmate legal calls in the offices of case managers. Subsequent review of interview and observation notes as well as a follow-up site visit conducted on May 14, 2020 indicate that the expectation is for the telephone on the rolling cart in the isolation units and infirmary to be cleaned by detail inmates after each inmate uses the telephone, and if detail inmates are not out of their cells, by the correctional staff.24 Amici have not had the opportunity to determine cleaning practices applicable to the telephones inmates use in the offices of case managers.
B. Questions Six through Nine Question Six: Have DOC staff received training on properly fitted PPE, disposal of PPE, and operations of non-touch, infrared thermometers?
24 Amici have been informed that the detail inmates who perform cleaning functions in the isolation units are inmates who are housed on that unit who have tested positive for COVID-19. Correctional staff report they select the inmates to be part of the detail cohort in the isolation units after conferring with the medical staff about whether the inmate is medically fit to perform the job.
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 13 of 135
The defendants report that beginning on April 27, 2020 all DOC staff and food service contractors were required to participate in a mandatory training program addressing the proper donning, doffing and disposal of personal protective equipment (“PPE”).25 The training, which was developed by staff in the DOC Center for Professional Development and Learning in consultation with the agency’s infection control specialist, was offered on-line through “Bridge,” the DOC’s online professional development platform,26 as well as through written materials that were distributed to staff at both facilities.27 The defendants report that 91 percent of the DOC workforce available for duty participated in the mandatory training as of May 19, 2020.28 In addition to this training program, relative to the signage amici observed during the April site visits, the defendants have increased the number of informational signs addressing the use of PPE, including donning, doffing and disposal, throughout the CDF and CTF. The defendants also provided online training to correctional staff regarding the use of non-touch infrared thermometers; however, DOC managers have explained that the training was intended merely to familiarize those staff with the operation of the thermometers and there was no expectation that correctional staff would conduct temperature checks on inmates, staff, or visitors.
The defendants report that on April 30, 2020 the DOC made an emergency request through a District-wide COVID-related emergency funding process, to fit test 150 DOC employees for N-95 respirators and train an additional 20 DOC employees to serve as fit testers. This funding has not yet been forthcoming. As an adjunct to this initiative, on May 5, 2020, a representative from DC Fire-EMS fit tested an initial cohort of 40 DOC staff for N-95
25 See Ex. 7, Open Letter to All Employees from Director Quincy L. Booth, April 27, 2020, Mandatory Training: IR Thermometer and Personal Protective Equipment. 26 See Ex. 8, “Wearing Personal Protection Equipment,” On-Line Training for DOC Staff. 27 See Ex. 9, Wearing Personal Protective Equipment Training, Handout. 28 This calculation is consistent with amici’s independent review of training data that the defendants have provided. Amici also analyzed specifically the percentage of the correctional staff who completed the training, which was 87 percent.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 14 of 135
respirators. Staff members with duty assignments that present the greatest risk of exposure were selected for this initial testing. Two of the 40 staff members received training in how to conduct fit testing on DOC staff. The defendants anticipate that the two trained fit testers will work with the 20 additional staff members the DOC hopes to train to fit test the balance of the DOC workforce and thereafter conduct annual fit testing. As of May 18, 2020, the DOC’s emergency funding request remained pending and unresolved. Question Seven: Has the DOC retained a registered sanitarian to oversee the environmental health and safety programs?
The defendants report that efforts are underway to hire a full-time sanitarian at the DOC. The position has been established and on May 18, 2020 the agency received authorization to post the position vacancy. Effective May 18, 2020, on an interim basis until a sanitarian can be employed by the agency, the defendants report that the DOC has retained the services of a vendor to perform the following services related to environmental health and safety:29 1) conduct an audit of environmental conditions in the CDF and the CTF, make findings, develop recommendations and formulate a corrective action plan; 2) develop a COVID-19 cleaning protocol for the DOC’s cleaning contractor to implement; and 3) provide oversight for a defined period to the DOC’s on-site cleaning contractor to ensure that the protocol is followed.30 The task order is for an initial period of three months and includes three, one-month option periods. The services of a registered sanitarian to oversee the DOC environmental health and safety program are not required by the task order; however, DOC management reports that
29 Ex. 10, Task Order Agreement No. CW82753, with Attachment A, Statement of Work. The version of the Task Order that defendants submitted to amici on May 19, 2020 is unsigned and undated; however, DOC executives informed amici that work under the contract began on May 18, 2020. 30 The task order specifies that following implementation of the cleaning protocol, the vendor will have no fewer than two personnel on site at the CDF and CTF to “shadow the onsite cleaning contractor” for not more than ten eight-hour days. See Ex. 10, Attachment A at 2, supra note 29. The task order also provides for two “follow up monthly COVID-2 inspections” and requires the vendor to submit additional recommendations “to ensure the recommended protocols are sustainable beyond the contract term.” Id.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 15 of 135
the vendor will provide a team of two sanitarians to perform on-site oversight and inspections related to the COVID-19 cleaning protocol during the period of the service agreement. Question Eight: Has the DOC contracted for professional cleaning services on the secure side of the facility?
On May 12, 2020 the District finalized a 90-day emergency contract with Rock Solid District Group, LLC, for comprehensive hazardous materials environmental cleaning services related to the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic at the CDF.31 The contract provides for environmental HAZMAT-level cleaning services on the secure and non-secure sides of the facility, including the common areas of all housing units.32 The defendants report that a virtually identical emergency contract was finalized this week with a different contractor for services at the CTF. Amici has requested but not obtained a contract reflecting service delivery at the CTF.33 Question Nine: Has the DOC consulted with public health professional[s] regarding strategies to strengthen the COVID-19-related education program for both staff and inmates; if so, has the DOC implemented those education program strategies?
According to DOC management, the agency developed certain educational materials related to COVID-19, which they transmitted for review and comment to staff in the District of Columbia Department of Health’s epidemiology division on May 9, 2020. These materials include frequently asked questions, and information regarding personal protective equipment. Some of the materials are intended to be distributed to staff only and others are intended for both inmates and staff. As of May 15, 2020, the DOC had received some substantive feedback from the epidemiology staff at DOH and anticipated receiving additional feedback in the near term.
31 See Ex. 11, Contract No. DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A, effective May 12, 2020. 32 See Ex. 12, Areas of Responsibility for Cleaning Crew [Central Detention Facility]. 33 The defendants provided amici with a copy of a contract reported to cover the CTF; however, while it appears this was a drafting error, the document that was submitted addresses HAZMAT-level cleaning services at the CDF and not the CTF.
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 16 of 135
The DOC plans to revise the educational materials they have developed based on the feedback that is received from DOH epidemiologists and thereafter distribute these materials, as applicable, to staff and inmates.
DOC representatives report that they have an inventory of 350 computer tablets, onto which they load educational and other materials for inmates who participate in specialized programs. These tablets now include health information related to COVID-19. The agency recently received approval to procure 1000 additional tablets on an expedited timetable. It is anticipated that these tablets will be distributed to inmates at both the CDF and CTF. The defendants contemplate including the educational materials that are the subject of ongoing review by DOH on the tablets.
Observations and discussions with inmates and DOC staff during the May site visits underscore the critical need for intensified educational efforts related to COVID-19, including the importance of consistently and properly wearing personal protective equipment and when testing for the virus is indicated.
V. CONCLUSION Since amici’s April 19, 2020 report, the impact of COVID-19 at the CDF and CTF has
changed significantly. While the COVID-19 outbreak began at the CTF in late-March 2020 and spread rapidly among the population housed there, beginning in mid-April 2020 the number of new cases at the CTF declined to very low levels. In contrast, the CDF was impacted by COVID-19 for the first time during the second week of April 2020, when the novel coronavirus began its spread during the subsequent five-week period to over 120 inmates and an indeterminate number of staff. At both facilities, by mid-May 2020, the rate of new COVID-19 cases had dropped significantly from peak levels.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 17 of 135
DOC management and its contracted health care agency have begun the process of implementing improvements to the medical and environmental health programs to contain and mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak at the two facilities. Medical staff routinely monitor and assess inmates housed on quarantine and isolation housing units; however, access to medical care for inmates on non-quarantine housing units has been limited due, in large part, to lack of independent access to health care providers coupled with inmates confined to their cells for extended time periods.
DOC representatives report that an enhanced sick call process has been implemented involving sick call providers walking housing unit tiers to ask inmates directly if they have health issues they would like medical staff to address. However, during the May 2020 site visits, neither inmates nor housing unit staff could verify that this process has been implemented. Such a process, if consistently implemented, would provide inmates who are confined on nonquarantine housing units much greater access to health care than they currently have. DOC representatives have indicated that they are making additional changes to the sick call system to address the timeliness of responses to sick call requests. While these changes may result in improvements, it does not appear that these changes will address the barriers that amici have identified.
Since amici’s April 2020 site visits, personal protective equipment has been made much more widely available to inmates and staff at the CDF and CTF and most staff have been trained on proper donning, doffing and disposal procedures. As addressed in this report, there is a need for continued emphasis on the importance of consistently and properly wearing personal protective equipment for inmates and staff alike. Fit testing of N-95 respirators has begun for
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 18 of 135
DOC staff with the greatest exposure risk and there are short and long-term plans to fit test the remainder of the DOC correctional workforce.
The DOC has received authorization to hire a sanitarian to oversee the environmental health and safety program at both facilities. Until that individual is employed, the agency has retained a professional environmental consulting firm to provide specified services related to environmental health, including the development of a COVID-19 cleaning protocol. Furthermore, the DOC has contracted for professional and specialized cleaning services on the secure and non-secure sides of both facilities.
The efforts described above have the potential to reduce the spread and impact of COVID-19 at the CDF and CTF. During this period that the DOC is responding to the COVID19 outbreak, inmates and staff alike are feeling the consequences acutely. For inmates, social distancing, quarantine, and medical isolation practices have resulted in prolonged periods of severely restrictive confinement, isolation, and idleness. Inmates express anger and frustration at being required to spend extended periods in their cells and fear at the prospect of contracting COVID-19. There is a need to provide ongoing support and opportunities for inmates to engage in constructive activities as well as to provide inmates with continuing education about COVID19 and how to prevent its spread.
The effectiveness of the DOC’s response continues to depend on the efforts of staff working in the facilities each day. The correctional workforce is currently diminished due to large numbers of staff being unavailable for duty and many housing units operate short staffed. Members of the correctional staff have consistently told amici that they are exhausted from working long hours under very stressful working conditions, which may include exposure to the novel coronavirus and in some instances the need to wear full PPE for extended time periods. It
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 19 of 135
is important to continue to reinforce for staff the essential role that they play in controlling the spread of the virus and the methods they should employ to minimize the risk of contracting or spreading COVID-19. The significant contribution of DOC staff members during this public health emergency should be recognized and they should be provided with the necessary supports to perform their duties.
Amici are available to answer any questions the Court or the parties have about the matters addressed in this summary report.

May 20, 2020 Washington, D.C.

l @

Respectfully submitted,
/s/_Grace M. Lopes_______ Amicus Curiae Grace M. Lopes Bar No. 358650 Executive Director Rising for Justice 901 4th Street, N.W., Suite 6000 Washington, D.C. 20001 202-607-2224 gmlopes@risingforjustice.org
Mark Jordan mark@markjordan.consulting 1220 19th Street, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-525-6732

19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 20 of 135

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12

Chart, COVID-19 Tests Administered at the CTF and CDF, by Date of Administration and Test Result, March 14, 2020 – May 14, 2020
Table, COVID-19 Test Data, by Facility, by Date, and Seven-Day Average of Positive Test Results, March 14, 2020 – May 14, 2020
Table, Correctional Officer and Supervisory Correctional Officer Staff Availability, by Assignment Location, As of May 12, 2020
May 8, 2020 e-mail from Eric Glover, General Counsel, District of Columbia Department of Corrections, to Grace M. Lopes, with attached untitled document describing six methods by which inmates in all housing units can access medical care
District of Columbia Department of Corrections Central Detention and Central Treatment Facilities, Sick Call Request Form
Unity Health Care, Inc., Sick Call Triage, May 5, 2020
Open Letter to All Employees from Director Quincy L. Booth, April 27, 2020, Mandatory Training: IR Thermometer and Personal Protective Equipment
“Wearing Personal Protective Equipment ,”On-line Training for DOC Staff
Wearing Personal Protective Equipment Training, Handout for DOC Staff
Task Order Agreement No. CW82753, with Attached A, Statement of Work
Contract No. DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A, effective May 12, 2020
Areas of Responsibility for Cleaning Crew [Central Detention facility].

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 21 of 135
EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 22 of 135

COVID-19 Tests Administered at the CTF and CDF, by Date of Administration and Test Result March 14, 2020 - May 14, 2020

25
Total Tests During Period Administered at CTF = 95 Positive Tests = 64 Negative Tests = 31
20

15

10

5

0 I I 11

IiiII II 111I I I I 1111 II III

CTF ■ Positive Tests

■ Presumed Positive Tests

Refused 3/15/2020 3/17/2020 3/19/2020 3/21/2020 3/23/2020 3/25/2020 3/27/2020 3/29/2020 3/31/2020
4/2/2020 4/4/2020 4/6/2020 4/8/2020 4/10/2020 4/12/2020 4/14/2020 4/16/2020 4/18/2020 4/20/2020 4/22/2020 4/24/2020 4/26/2020 4/28/2020 4/30/2020 5/2/2020 5/4/2020 5/6/2020 5/8/2020 5/10/2020 5/12/2020 5/14/2020 3/14/2020 3/16/2020 3/18/2020 3/20/2020 3/22/2020 3/24/2020 3/26/2020 3/28/2020 3/30/2020 4/1/2020 4/3/2020 4/5/2020 4/7/2020 4/9/2020 4/11/2020 4/13/2020 4/15/2020 4/17/2020 4/19/2020 4/21/2020 4/23/2020 4/25/2020 4/27/2020 4/29/2020 5/1/2020 5/3/2020 5/5/2020 5/7/2020 5/9/2020 5/11/2020 5/13/2020

Total Tests During Period Administered at CDF = 223

Positive Tests

= 118

Presumed Positive = 3 (Inmates Refused Test)

Negative Tests = 101

Pending Results = 1

■ Negative Tests

CDF ■ Pending Results

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 23 of 135
EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 24 of 135 COVID-19 Test Data, by Facility, by Date, and Seven Day Average of Positive Test Results March 14, 2020 - May 14, 2020

Row Labels CTF Refused 3/14/2020 3/15/2020 3/16/2020 3/17/2020 3/18/2020 3/19/2020 3/20/2020 3/21/2020 3/22/2020 3/23/2020 3/24/2020 3/25/2020 3/26/2020 3/27/2020 3/28/2020 3/29/2020 3/30/2020 3/31/2020 4/1/2020 4/2/2020 4/3/2020 4/4/2020 4/5/2020 4/6/2020 4/7/2020 4/8/2020 4/9/2020 4/10/2020 4/11/2020 4/12/2020 4/13/2020 4/14/2020 4/15/2020 4/16/2020 4/17/2020 4/18/2020 4/19/2020 4/20/2020 4/21/2020 4/22/2020 4/23/2020 4/24/2020 4/25/2020 4/26/2020 4/27/2020 4/28/2020 4/29/2020 4/30/2020 5/1/2020 5/2/2020 5/3/2020 5/4/2020 5/5/2020 5/6/2020 5/7/2020 5/8/2020 5/9/2020 5/10/2020 5/11/2020 5/12/2020
5/13/2020 5/14/2020

Positive Tests 64

Presumed Negative Pending Grand Positive Tests Results Total
Tests

31

95

Seven Day Average of Positive Test
Results

1

1

0.00

0.00

1

1

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.14

0.57

0.57

1

1

0.86

3

3

1.00

1.29

2

2

1.71

1

1

1.57

2

2

1.43

3

1

4

2.00

1.71

2

1

3

3.00

4
10 9 7

1 2
2

5 2 10 11 7

-4.00 4.57 5.00 5.00 4.86

3

3

4.86

2

6

8

3.86

3

1

4

2.71

1

1

2.00

3

2

5

1.71

1

1

1.71

2

2

1.29

1

1

1.29

2

3

5

0.86

1

1

0.71

0.43

0.29

0.00

0.00

1

1

0.00

0.00

1

1

0.00

0.00

0.00

1

1

0.00

0.14

0.14

1

1

0.14

1

1

0.14

1

1

0.14

1

1

0.14

0.14

0.00

0.00

1

1

0.00

1

1

0.00

0.14

0.29

0.29

1

1

1

1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 25 of 135 COVID-19 Test Data, by Facility, by Date, and Seven Day Average of Positive Test Results March 14, 2020 - May 14, 2020

CDF

118

Refused

3/14/2020

3/15/2020

3/16/2020

3/17/2020

3/18/2020

3/19/2020

3/20/2020

3/21/2020

3/22/2020

3/23/2020

3/24/2020

3/25/2020

3/26/2020

3/27/2020

3/28/2020

3/29/2020

3/30/2020

3/31/2020

4/1/2020

4/2/2020

4/3/2020

4/4/2020

4/5/2020

4/6/2020

4/7/2020

4/8/2020

1

4/9/2020

1

4/10/2020

1

4/11/2020

1

4/12/2020

4/13/2020

2

4/14/2020

2

4/15/2020

12

4/16/2020

3

4/17/2020

5

4/18/2020

9

4/19/2020

1

4/20/2020

4

4/21/2020

7

4/22/2020

4

4/23/2020

9

4/24/2020

4

4/25/2020

4

4/26/2020

3

4/27/2020

4

4/28/2020

4

4/29/2020

6

4/30/2020

1

5/1/2020

3

5/2/2020

3

5/3/2020

5/4/2020

3

5/5/2020

2

5/6/2020

2

5/7/2020

5

5/8/2020

8

5/9/2020

1

5/10/2020

5/11/2020

2

5/12/2020

1

5/13/2020

5/14/2020

Grand Total

182

3

101

1

223

3

3

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1

1

0.00

1

1

0.00

2

2

0.00

2

2

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2

2

0.14

2

2

0.29

2

2

0.43

1

2

0.57

1

2

0.57

1

0.86

1

2

1.14

9

9

2.71

2

3.00

2

3.57

9

21

4.71

3

4.86

2

7

5.14

4

13

5.86

1

4.71

1

5

5.57

2

9

5.43

6

10

4.71

3

12

5.00

1

5

5.00

3

7

4.57

1

4

4.86

4

3.71

3

7

3.57

2

8

3.43

2

3

3.00

6

9

2.86

4

7

2.57

2.00

5

8

2.57

2

4

3.29

3

5

3.00

3

8

3.00

2

10

2.86

3

4

2.71

1

1

2.43

3

5

1.71

3

4

3

3

1

1

3

132

1

318

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 26 of 135
EXHIBIT 3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 27 of 135 Correctional Officer and Supervisory Correctional Officer Staff Availability, by Assignment Location
As of May 12, 2020

Location

Work Status

Available for Duty

Unavailable for Duty

Number Percentage Number

Percentage

TOTAL PERCENTAGE

CDF

450

79.23%

118

CTF

227

81.36%

52

CCB

39

82.98%

8

Transportation

20

64.52%

11

Grand Total

736

79.57%

189

20.77%

568

100.00%

18.64%

279

100.00%

17.02%

47

100.00%

35.48%

31

100.00%

20.43%

925

100.00%

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 28 of 135
EXHIBIT 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 29 of 135
From: Glover, Eric (DOC) <eric.glover@dc.gov> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 9:06 AM To: Grace Lopes <gmlopes@risingforjustice.org> Cc: Saindon, Andy (OAG) <andy.saindon@dc.gov>; Mark Jordan <mjordan@sparb.org> Subject: RE: Time-Sensitive Data Requests -- Banks v. Booth
Grace,
Attached is a worksheet describing the six paths to medical treatment for residents at DOC. Thank you and have a good weekend.
Regards,
Eric S. Glover General Counsel District of Columbia Department of Corrections 2000 14th Street, 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20009 Phone: (202) 671-0088 Office Cell: (202) 286-8736 Fax: (202) 671-2514
Confidentiality Notice: This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete all copies of the message.
Metadata: This email transmission and any accompanying material may contain embedded metadata. Any included metadata is confidential or privileged information and is not intended to be viewed by a non-client recipient.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 30 of 135
Residents in all housing units are able to access medical care on all housing units via six processes outlined as follows:
1. Sick Call- Sick call requests are collected daily by nursing staff, where they are date stamped, then triaged according to Unity’s “Sick Call Triage” policy. The slips are then given to the unit clerk/medical assistant who schedules the resident’s appointment. This scheduling process is trackable in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). If the nature of the sick call request is not urgent or symptom-based, the resident might be assessed after 48 hours depending on the nature of the concerns. After the unit clerk/medical assistant schedules the appointment, the sick call slip is scanned into the EMR within 24 hours (and the hard copy is shredded for HIPAA compliance). Occasionally residents place their sick call slips in the resident grievance box or in the mail, which can cause the slip to be delayed in arriving to the nursing triage areas. Date-stamping the sick call slip, scheduling the appointment in the EMR, and viewing the clinical note in the EMR are all easy to track and essentially serve as an electronic log for this process.
2. Enhanced Access in Sick Call clinic- Each day in DOC’s housing units, residents are seen by a nurse practitioner, physician’s assistant, or physician on their unit’s Sick Call clinic. Residents are placed on the sick call schedule in a variety of ways. One way, referenced above, is through the sick call request process. Patients may also be scheduled by the urgent care provider (for example, a blood pressure check after a patient is seen in urgent care for a high blood pressure reading). Chronic care providers can also place patients on the sick call schedule for similar, simple follow up needs. The sick call providers also receive all abnormal intake lab results and see patients to discuss and treat a positive result, such as for chlamydia or a syphilis infection. Lastly, sick call providers are also going out onto the tiers and seeing if there are residents not on the schedule who need to be seen that day. This enhancement enables those who may not have filled out a sick call slip, or those who may not want to discuss their COVID-19 status or other concerns in a public setting, to be seen by a provider in the sick call clinic that day. On any given day, more patients may be seen in the Sick Call clinic than were on the original roster. The sick call process can be tracked in the EMR. This enhancement commenced on 04/13/2020.
3. Urgent Care Clinic - Residents are instructed in the Inmate Reception Center, the Intake Housing Unit and on all housing units that they can bring more urgent health concerns (including a wide range of symptoms that could be consistent with COVID) to a DOC officer’s attention and be seen in at the DOC’s Urgent Care Clinic, the same day of their complaint. Once alerted of a resident’s complaint, DOC’s correctional officers call medical staff who instruct the officers to bring the resident directly to the Urgent Care Clinic to be seen. Resident visits to the Urgent Care Clinic are documented in their EMR notes.
4. Chronic Care Clinic- Residents receive a comprehensive medical assessment during their initial intake screening. Those who present with a chronic medical condition are assessed, treated then scheduled for a follow-up appointment in the Chronic Care Clinic. The follow up appointments are usually scheduled 30 days out, but can be scheduled sooner, if necessary. Based on the stability of their condition, resident will have follow-up care appointments at either 30, 60 or 90 day intervals (or sooner as needed). These

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 31 of 135
appointments are tracked in the EMR. If a patient presenting for a Chronic Care Clinic appointment exhibits COVID-19 related symptoms (e.g, as detected by vital signs), they will be placed under investigation for COVID – 19.
5. Quarantine Housing Unit monitoring: Residents on the quarantine unit are seen twice daily by Unity’s nursing staff. On their rounds on the quarantines housing units, nurses assess residents’ vital signs and ask the residents if they have any COVID-19 symptoms or other concerns. These visits are noted in the EMR. As an enhancement designed to help pick up COVID-19 positive patients quickly, when nurses note any abnormal vital signs or have a resident complain of symptoms, the nurses immediately call a provider (NP, PA or MD) and the resident is seen (and generally swabbed) within two hours. Regular Sick Call clinic also occurs on all housing units under quarantine. Patients seen in sick call clinic that day may exceed the initial roster of patients scheduled if nurses note abnormalities in vital signs or want residents to be quickly seen given their complaints. This enhancement to care commenced 03/26/2020 with the first quarantine unit.
6. Medical Emergencies- When a resident has an acute medical emergency, DOC’s correctional officers call Unity’s Urgent Care Provider and a code is called to that Unit. The Medical Emergency Response Team promptly response to the call to assess the resident. If the resident requires treatment beyond what can be provided at DOC, 911 is called and DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services arrive to assess the need for the resident to be transferred to a higher level of care. Medical emergencies can be tracked through a resident’s EMR.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 32 of 135
EXHIBIT 5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 33 of 135PM 6000.1 Attachment

***
D.C Depart ment of Corrections Cen tral Detention and Cor r ecliona l Treatm ('nt Fadlitics
.Sick C all Reque st Form

Name/Nornbre: _____________

MARQUE SOLO UNA:CASILLA POR PAPELETA

_ __________

_

Date of Birlh/Fecha de Nacimiemto: --------

DCDC# ____

_

Housing Unit/Unid ad: ___ _ Cell/Celda #---

0 I wish to be seen at sick call

0Yo des eo ser visto por el doctor

0Dental Treatment

0Tra tamiento Dent a l

0Men tal Health Oo ther ·

Os alud Ment al
Ootro

Com ments:

• For any em erg ency, ask the officer to call th e medical unit. • Para cualq 'uier emergencia pidale al oficial qu e !lame al medico de turno.

Patient Signat ur e/F irma del paciente: _________

Date /Fe cha: ___ _

Medical Provider or Registered Nurse: _ __ _ _ __ __ _

Date: - - /---- /
Comments

Time: _ _ _ _,;__ Dam O pm

Revised 06/06/0 8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 34 of 135
EXHIBIT 6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 35 of 135

DEPAARRTTMMEENNTT::
CENTRRAALL DETTEENNTTIIOONN FACILLIITTYY ANDD CORREECCTTIIOONNAALL TREAATTMMEENNTT FAACCIILLIITTIIEESS HEAALLTTHH SERVICCEESS DIVISIOONN REVIEWWEEDD BY::

UNITTYY HEALLTTHH CAREE,, INC. TITLEE:: Sick Call Triagee
EFFECTTIIVVEE DATEE:: May 05,22002200

Nrssnngg Proottooccool:l: Triiaaggee PAGEE:: 1 of 1
DAATTEE REVISEDD::

. APPPPRROOVVEEDD BYY MEDICCAALL DIRECCTTOORR::

PURPPOOSSEE::

To establliisshh and maintaaiinn a guidaannccee for triage of sick call slips as part of the Sick Calfll proceessss at the DC Depaarrttmmeenntt of Correeccttiioonnss..

DEFINNIITTIIOONN:: TThhee prroocceesss off deetteerrmminininigng thhee prriioorritiyty off paattieienntsts' ' trreeaattmmeenntsts baasseedd onn thhee sseevveerirtiyty off thheeiirr coonndditiitoionn orr likkeelilhihoooodd off reeccoovveeryry wwiitthh and wiitthhoouut t trreeaatmtmeentn.t.

PROCCEEDDUURREE::

Uponn

revieww of th£e' ?sick'c·caallll sli.ps,

usingg clinicaall judgeemmeenntt, , deterrmmiinnee

the triage .

leveell

1. .Level 1-- Emerrggeennccyy//UUrrggeenntt Care
Chesstt painn Withhddrraawwaall Symppttoommss Respiraattoorryy Symppttoommss (shorttnneessss of.breathh,, hypervveennttiillaattioionn,, resppiirraattoorryy depreessssiioonn)) Synnccooppee (passseedd out, confuussiioonn,, "blackko.uotu,"t," Seizuurree activiittyy Positiivvee TSTI/TTBB Expossuurree Seveerree injuryy Severree abdommiinnaall pain Severree dehyddrraattiioonn COVIIDD symmppttoommss (headdaacchhee, , GI sympttoommss,, SOB, coughh,, feverr)) Suicciiddaall Ideattiioonn//GGeessttuurreess/A/ tAtettmemptpt

2.. Level 2 - Sick Call (schedduullee appooiinnttmmeenntt)) Mild cold symmppttoommss Minoorr injuriess Rx refill requeessttss Mildd--MMooddeerraattee Pain (1-6/100 pain scale) Wellnness Cheec·ckkss Dietaarryy Requueessttss STDD Testinngg Blood Presssuurree Check Speecciiaallttyy requeessttss (Ophtthhaallmmoollooggyy,, podiiaattrryy,, dermmaattoollooggyy))

Nuurrssiningg Sicckk Caalll Trriiaaggee Prroottooccool l

. 11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 36 of 135
EXHIBIT 7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 37 of 135

* * *
TDHO. C D•P& ."-TMSNT
OF CORRll:C TION S

D.C. Department of Corrections

* * *
DOC
TNll oap&ATMSNT O ft co"" ·•CT I ON.

Office of the Director
Open Letter to All Employees From Director Quincy L. Booth DOC-OL20-09: April 27, 2020 (Mandatory Training: IR Thermometer and Personal Protective Equipment)
In these unprecedented times, DOC appreciates your ongoing dedication, professionalism and support of the agency’s critical mission. The safety and security of staff, residents and contractors is our top priority.
As we work together to respond to the COVID-19 public health emergency, we need to constantly emphasize the importance of personal protective equipment (PPE). That is why we are providing masks and gloves to everyone entering our facilities and requiring they be worn at all times. Staff assigned to transportation and the quarantine and isolation units will be provided specific PPE for use in those areas. It is imperative that all staff understand how to properly use, don, doff, and dispose of their PPE.
I want to thank the Center for Professional Development and Learning team for creating the required training module, “Wearing Personal Protective Equipment,” through the Bridge Learning Management System. This training is mandatory for all DOC staff.
Please take the necessary time to complete the training. If you are completing the training during your shift, you must get your supervisor’s approval prior to completing the course during your shift.
Please see the attached instructions on how to navigate the system. It is critical that everyone take this course and I ask for your cooperation. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Dr. Lynnita Thomas at Lynnita.thomas@dc.gov.
All DOC staff must complete the training by Monday, May 4, 2020. If you do not attend, your supervisor and division Deputy Director will be notified by the online system.

The D.C. Department of Corrections’ vision is to be a benchmark correction agency. To become benchmark agency, we will serve with pride, passion and professionalism in caring for human lives.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 38 of 135
Please continue to practice health and safety precautions that will help us keep our DOC facilities, staff, and residents safe and healthy. Follow the guidance below on how to reduce your risk of infection and slow its spread.
• Practice social distancing by staying at least six feet away from other people. • Thoroughly wash your hands for at least 20 seconds multiple times a day. • Avoid close contact with people who are sick. • Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth. • Sanitize your equipment. • Follow the safety protocols in place at each of the DOC facilities. • If you are sick, contact your healthcare provider and request sick leave through
your supervisor. Thank you for your continued commitment to serving our city and our neighbors. For more information about COVID-19, visit: https://coronavirus.dc.gov/ https://dchealth.dc.gov/coronavirus https://cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019- ncov/index.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories.html/
PLEASE READ AT ALL ROLL CALLS FOR SEVEN (7) CONSECUTIVE DAYS AND POST ON ALL APPROPRIATE BULLETIN BOARDS
The D.C. Department of Corrections’ vision is to be a benchmark correction agency. To become benchmark agency, we will serve with pride, passion and professionalism in caring for human lives.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 39 of 135
EXHIBIT 8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 40 of 135
“Wearing Personal Protection Equipment” On-Line Training for DOC Staff
Objectives of thi s session ...
This session will provide :
• Staff training on the use of infra red thermometers & respond ing to inaccurat e readings.
• Basic Personal Protective Equipmen t (PPE) training for st aff who w ill train other staff and staff who wi ll wear PPE.
• A review of t he p roper way to don, doff and discard PPE. • Inform ati on on the impo rta nce of social distancing in the DOC.

COV ID-19

What we know about COVID-19 :
• Corona virus (COVID-19) is an illness caused by a virus that can spread from pe rson to person vi a respiratory d rop lets among close contacts .
• The virus that causes COVID-19 is a new co ro navirus that has spread thro ug hout the wor ld.
• COVID- 19 symptoms can range from mild (or no symptoms ) t o severe illness.
0 (__c_o_N_r_N,_u_•_ >_ ~ )
Prel imin ary Screen ing

Any pe rson en te ring the Ce ntr al Detent ion Fac ility (CDF) and/or t he Cor rect ion al Treatmen t Fa cility (CTF) will be requi red to :
Allow medica l staff to conduct a body tempe ratu re scree ning . Using Enha nced Body Temp e rature screen ing e qu ipment [Infrar e d techno logy) to measure tempera ture at a distance using a forward look ing infrared camera . After an ind ividue l enters the bu ilding, they m ay be asl<.edto pause for a few seconds for a scre ening . Each ind ividua l w ill be reQuired to take off hats, face CO\el rings and/or glasses.
If an individua l has an e levated tempe ratu re reading of 100 .4•F (38.C) or high er, t hey will be asked to step aside for a seco ndary tempe rature screen ing . If the secondary scree ning confirms an elevated temperatu re, the individua l willbe refe rred to their primary health care prov ider and asked to leave the C DF and/or CT F.

In the next slide, we will p rov ide you with an overv iew of t he ty pe of Infrared No Touch The rmometer med ica l staff will be us ing.

0 ( CONT ~U f )

)

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 41 of 135
Infrar ed T he rmom et e r Use
In t h is vide o , a n o ve rvie w is p rovid e d desc ribin g t he tyP e o f Infrare d No Touc h Therm om ete r med ica l staff willb e using to co ndu ct p re limin ary scree ning s at th e CDF/ CTF:

)
What type of PPEwill be issued?
L,oon •nuy ir) !O the-C.OFICTF, indivl dua~ wil be i:H'ovid~ wit!, P@rsonaJ Prote-al\te Equipm•nt P?E).
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT GUIDELINES
DC DOComplovaes assigoed to spec,ahzed units are 1oqui1ed to wear Personal Protective fqu1pmen1 (PPE) Some supplies ere provided based on a~a,lab,li ty ,•
Sf AFT ElfTI!ANCEI 0lo1199 SurgicalMask

G
BOLUI H UNITS/ Nf£11ACTl0NS
Oloeva Gown EveProt ect,on• N96Mask
e •

OUAIIANTINE UNITS
Glo..es SurgicaMl ask
TRANSITION UN IT/ENHANCED
MONITORING
Gloves SurgicaMl ask

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 42 of 135

ISOLATION UNITS/ INTO ACTIONS
Gloves
Gown EyeProtection._
N95Mesk

COOAHO OC HEJLTH OUIQ! LI"
p_.... fol~p,otoc;:oia Mt fc,th byDCClhl C.,,t.,1 fo, 01uast COn1t0:1IndP11,,,11n()1'1(CO1C1')1:i DCtteetlh(DQt>tnkeepour fee IM!i.llf111)ovee.,-dr'nda'I UI t.e.tt,vand..re

TRANSITION UNIT/ ENHANCED
MONITORING
Gloves Surgical Mask

COA 0NAV I AUS.DC . GOV

0( ____ ~

Wh en 1s PPE ne ce ss a ry?

DOC staff and resident are required to wear a mask and gloves at all t imes to help stop the spread of the COVID-19.
• Staff as signed to work in isolation units shall wear PPE for the durat ion of be ing physically present in t he ide ntified isolation housi ng units.
• PPE should be worn by individua ls tra nsport ing res ide nts who are under inves tiga tion for (suspected or poss ible expos ure) o r confirmed wit h COVID-19 within a facility.
0 (___c_o_N_u1•_1>__N~)

W ash Yo ur Han ds ...
First things first, all staff and residents are required to fo llow the Cente r fo r Disease Control 's guide lines: • Clea n and disinfect freq uen t ly to uched surfaces .
• Wash your hand s ofte n with soap and wate r for at leas t 20 seco nds, or use an alco hol-based hand saniti zer t hat cont ains at leas t 60% alco hol.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 43 of 135

How to Properly Wash Your Hands

l . Tum on dean , runningwater

2. Latherupwith soap

3.Scrubfor at least 20 seconds

0 (~ _>_ _c_o_•n_N_u_E ~)
Face Mas k Use
All DOC staff and residents are required to wear a face mask w hile inside any DOC facility.
The use of face mas ks is cruc ial for me dical staff and other people who are taking care of someone infected wit h COVID-19 in close sett ings .

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 44 of 135
Glov es sh ould be worn when in d irect cont act of patients who are und er investigation fo r (suspected or possib le exposure ) or confirm ed wit h COVID-19 with in our facility. Gloves should be changed betwee n patients and hand hygiene performed before and after use. See instructions be low:
Pro pe r Way to Do n a nd Doff PPE
Take a moment a nd watch t his video showing you the proper way to Don and Doff PPE...
&
DOFFI NG PPE
NCLEXREVIEW
0 (___c_o_N_n_N_uE__>_ _ )

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 45 of 135
Dispo sa l of used PPE
Once yo u have properl y doffe d your PPE, prope r disposa l of all used PPE is ve ry impo rt ant . At ident ified locat ions wit hin t he CDF and CTF,waste cans will be placed to rece ive used PPE ite ms.
Locations will be ident ified with clear signs stating: "For PPE usage only" .

0 ( CONTIN UE )

)

Importance of Soc ial D ista n cing at DOC
Soci al d ist ancing at DOC : Soc ial dista ncing, also ca lled "physica l dista ncing," mea ns keep ing space betw ee n yo urse lf and othe rs while inside t he CDF an d CTF.
To practice social or p hysical distancing in the DOC , we have imp lemented the be low :
• ODR s : the ODR floo r where a table is placed will be ma rked with a n X to ind icate the inab ility to use. Tab les will be sp read apart with one chair at eac h.
• Poo l room : sig nage will be pos ted stat ing "no more than 2 perso ns wit h a re mind e r to ma inta in 6ft dista nce from eac h ot he r• .
• Staff Ent rance s sig nage will be posted enco urag ing soc ial dista nce. • Hou sing Unit s- an X will be ma rked on the t elep ho ne and sea ted area to
ind icate t he inab ility to use. • IRC-t he sea t ing area will be ma rked with an X to indicate
the inab ility to use . Sig nage will be poste d "p lease pract ice soc ial d istancing ..." , • Roll Ca ll- an X will be placed o n t he CTF gym floor and CDF out doo r recrea tion yard to encourage so cial dis ta ncing.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 46 of 135
I>JeasePI11actice
Social l)ist.111ci11g
By staying at least six feet away from others.
Stay Safe!
As always, thanks so much for p laying your role in helping us keep our community safe during th is critical time!

0 ( > CO ..,PLETE

)

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 47 of 135

Infrared Thermometer https://youtu.be/UrMoK9CD4f0
Face Mask Use https://youtu.be/JwPWdkbyizw
Donning and Doffing PPE https://youtu.be/quwzg7Vixsw

Video links

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 48 of 135
EXHIBIT 9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 49 of 135
Wearing Personal Protective Equipment Training
The DC Department of Corrections takes the safety and well-being of staff, residents, visitors, volunteers and contractors extremely serious.
This presentation offers information about our efforts to maintain safety!

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 50 of 135
Objectives
This presentation will provide:
 Staff training on the use of infrared thermometers & responding to inaccurate readings.
 Basic Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) training for staff who will train other staff and staff who will wear PPE.
 A review of the proper way to don, doff and discard PPE.
 Information on the importance of social distancing in the DOC.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 51 of 135
COVID-19
What we know about COVID-19:
 Coronavirus (COVID-19) is an illness caused by a virus that can spread from person to person via respiratory droplets among close contacts.
 The virus that causes COVID-19 is a new coronavirus that has spread throughout the world.
 COVID-19 symptoms can range from mild (or no symptoms) to severe illness.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 52 of 135
Preliminary Screening
Any person entering the Central Detention Facility (CDF) and/or the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) will be required to:
 Allow medical staff to conduct a body temperature screening. Using Enhanced Body Temperature screening equipment (infrared technology) to measure temperature at a distance using a forward looking infrared camera.
 After an individual enters the building, they may be asked to pause for a few seconds for a screening. Each individual will be required to take off hats, face coverings and/or glasses.
If an individual has an elevated temperature reading of 100.4°F (38°C) or higher, they will be asked to step aside for a secondary temperature screening. If the secondary screening confirms an elevated temperature, the individual will be referred to their primary health care provider and asked to leave the CDF and/or CTF.
In the next slide, we will provide you with an overview of the type of Infrared No Touch Thermometer medical staff will be using.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 53 of 135
Infrared Thermometer Use
In this video, an overview is provided describing the type of Infrared No Touch Thermometer medical staff will be using to conduct preliminary screenings at the CDF/CTF:
 Remove the protective cap from the thermometer.  Press the power button to turn it on.  Hold the thermometer steady for accurate reading.  Make sure any hair, dirt, or sweat is clean and clear from the forehead.  Position the thermometer between the eyebrows (up to 2 inches from forehead)  Press the temperature button to begin.  Once taken, the reading will show a green, yellow, or red light.  The thermometer will beep 10 times when the temperature is 99.4 degrees or
above.  When you are done using the thermometer, press the power button to turn it off.
(It will automatically power down after 60 seconds without use).

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 54 of 135
What type of PPE will be issued?

Upon entry into the CDF/CTF, individuals will be provided with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT GUIDELINES

STAFF ENTRANCES
Gloves Surgical Mask

QUARANTINE

UNITS

Gloves Surgical Mask

ISOLATION UNITS/ INTERACTIONS
Gloves Gown Eye Protection* N95Mask

CDC AND DC HEALTH GUIDELINES
Please follow protocols set forth by DOC the Centers for Diseese Control end Prevention (CDC)and DC Health (DOH)to keep our fac ilities , employees and residents healthy and aafe .

TRANSITION UNIT/ENHANCED
MONITORING
Gloves Surgical Mask

CORONAVIRUS.DC.GOV

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 55 of 135
When is PPE Necessary?
DOC staff and resident are required to wear a mask and gloves at all times to help stop the spread of the COVID-19.
 Staff assigned to work in isolation units shall wear PPE for the duration of being physically present in the identified isolation housing units.
 PPE should be worn by individuals transporting residents who are under investigation for (suspected or possible exposure) or confirmed with COVID19 within a facility.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 56 of 135
Wash Your Hands?

First things first, all staff and residents are required to follow the Center for Disease Control's guidelines:

• Clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces.

How to ProperlyWash Your Hands

1. Turn on clean, running water

2. Lather up with soap

3. Scrub for at least 20 seconds

• Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, or use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol.

4. Remember to scrub between fingers , under nails , & up wrists

5. Rinse the soap completely off in clean , running water

6. Dry your hands completely

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 57 of 135
Face Mask Use
All DOC staff and residents are required to wear a face mask while inside any DOC facility. The use of face masks is crucial for medical staff and other people who are taking care of someone infected with COVID-19 in close settings.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 58 of 135
Wearing Gloves and Gowns
Gloves should be worn when in direct contact of patients who are under investigation for (suspected or possible exposure) or confirmed with COVID-19 within our facility.
Gloves should be changed between patients and hand hygiene performed before and after use. See instructions below:

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 59 of 135
Proper Way to Don and Doff PPE

Take a moment and review the steps showing you the proper way to Don (put on) and Doff
(take off) PPE...

ISOLATION PPE
Sequence

1 1 Ml PUTTINOGNPERSONPARLOTECTEIVOEUIPME.HT RE411IM0Y~fERSDIUPLR(IIl.TCIYEEQUIPMEHT

PERFORHMANO HYGIENE

AE',IO\IGELOVES

2 I PUTONGOWN

3 PUTONMASOKR N95RESPIRATOR

-

-

-

2 REm\lEGOWN

3 PERFOJIHMA D HYGIENE

4

RE,,OVEEYE PROTECTION

4 PUTONEYE PROTECTION

5

s [III] PUTONGLOVES

6

RE,OVEMASti011 Ng5RESPIRAl□ R

P[RF0AI!HAD ~

HYGIENE'.

-

* Refer to CDC Gu idelines for
appUcation
and isolation category

DO

PP

.-0'"

he

BOFT'OIWUP

• • Gown ,
2 • Mask 5•Goggle
G •C:loves

DOFF PPE

In

.A&.PHAB

T•CAi.

Ord r

~•Gloves
2•Goggle
S•GOIMn
4•Mask

USE ONLY ARTICLES REQUIRED FOR EAOH
ISOLATION LEVEL.•. • CONTACT • DROPLET • AIRBORNE

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 60 of 135
Disposal of used PPE
Once you have properly doffed your PPE, proper disposal of all used PPE is very important. At identified locations within the CDF and CTF, waste cans will be placed to receive used PPE items.
Locations will be identified with clear signs stating: "For PPE usage only".
Here Inside Place

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 61 of 135
Importance of Social Distancing at DOC

Social distancing at DOC: Social distancing, also called “physical distancing,” means keeping space between
yourself and others while inside the CDF and CTF.

Please Practice Social Distancing
By st ayin g at least six feet away fro m ot hers .

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 62 of 135
Importance of Social Distancing at DOC
To practice social or physical distancing in the DOC, we have implemented the below:
 ODRs: the ODR floor where a table is placed will be marked with an X to indicate the inability to use. Tables will be spread apart with one chair at each.
 Pool room: signage will be posted stating "no more than 2 persons with a reminder to maintain 6ft distance from each other".
 Staff Entrances signage will be posted encouraging social distance.
 Housing Units- an X will be marked on the telephone and seated area to indicate the inability to use.
 IRC- the seating area will be marked with an X to indicate the inability to use. Signage will be posted "please practice social distancing...”
 Roll Call- an X will be placed on the CTF gym floor and CDF outdoor recreation yard to encourage social distancing.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 63 of 135
Stay Safe!
Quincy L. Booth Director
As always, thanks so llluch for
playing your role in helping us keep
our COllllllUnity safe during this
critical tillle!

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 64 of 135
EXHIBIT 10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 65 of 135

GOVERNMENT OFTHE DISTRICTOF COLUMBIA
TASKORDER/DELIVEROYRDERFOR SERVICES OFFERORTO COMPL£TEBLOCKS18 ft 29

I.REQUISITIONNUMBER
N/A

PAGE
1 of 8

2. TASKORDERAGREEMTENNO.

3. Award/ Effecti ve Date 4. CONTRJ.CTNUMBER

S. SOLICIATTIONNUMBER 6. SOLICITATIONISSUEDATE

CW82753

See 30C below

7. FORSOLICITATIOINNFORMATION CONTACT:
Email:
Courtnev.Lattimor@edc.11ov
9. ISSUEDBY

A. NAME
Courtney B. Lattimore

OFFICEOF CONTRACTINAGND PROCUREMENT TRANSPORTATIOANNOSPECIALTYEQUIPMENT
COMMODITGY ROUP 2000 14™ STREETN, W, 6THFLOOR WASHINGTOND, C 20009

GSAContract

NIA

#47QRAA18D0074

B. TELEPHONE(O(o"""" ' co1t1

PHONE.202-671-2327

10. THISACQUISITIOISN
D UNRESTRlmD D SETASIDE ll'OR 0 SMAUB. USINESS 0 SMAil.OISADVB.US. ® Cooperative
Aareement
□ ocss
SIC: SIZESTANDARD:

11. DELIVEYRFORFOB DESTINATIONUNLESS BLOCKISMARKED
0 NI A

0 13. RESERVED

8.0FFERDUEDATE:
12. PAYMENT DISCOUNTTERMS
Net 30 days

5. CONTRACTO/ROFFEROR
Potomac-HudsonEngineering, Inc. 77 Upper Rock, Suite 302 Rockville, MD 20850

14. METHODOFSOUCITATION

181RFTOP
STEP

0 lf8

0 RFP

D 2·

16. PAYMENTWILLBEMADEBY

CODE

Public Safety & Justice Cluster (PSJC)

Cluster Financial Manager, Accounts Payable Divisi on 899 North Capitol Street, N.E. 6th Floor, Suite: #600A

Washington, D.C. 20002

1SA DUNSCODE 17. DELIVERTO

15B TAX ID NO.

DCDepartment of Corrections (DOC) 2000 14th Street NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20009
18A. CHECKIF RfMITATNCII:S DIFFERENATNDPUTSUCHADDRESSINOFFER
D

19
ITEM NO.

20 SCHEDULEOFSUPPLEI S/SERVICES

18. ADMINISTEREBDY

DCDepartment of Corrections (DOC) 2000 14th Street NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20009
188. SUBMITINVOICETSOADDERSSSHOWNINBLOCK16 UNLESSBLOCK BELOWISCHECKED

0 SEEADDENDUM

22
I EST2IA1 MTED UNIT I I "''ANTJTY

23 UNITPR.ICE

24 AMOUNT

0001 Environmental Conditions Inspections

See At t achment B - Price Schedule

25. ACCOUNTINGANDAPPROPRTIAIONDATA
ENCUMBRANCCOEDE:
27. CONTRACTOISRREQUIRETDOSIGNTHISDOCUMENTANORETURNONE COPYTOTHE ISSUINGOFFICE. CONTRCATORAGREESTO FURNIHSANO DELIVEARU ITEMSSETFORTHOR OTHERWISEIDENITFIEDABOVEANOONAJff AOOlTIONLAPAGESSUBEJ CTTOTHETERMS ANDCONDITIONSPSECIFIEDHEREINT.HIS ORDERISISSUEDSUOJECTOTHETERMSAND CONDITIONSOFTHECONTRATCIDENTIFIEIDNBLOCK4. 29A. SIGNATUROEFOFFEROR/CetrrRACTOR

126.TOTALESTIMAETDAWAAOlfo« GOVTU. ltONLVI
Not -to-Exceed $75,000.00
28. THEFOU.OWING DOCUMENTASREINCORPORATEDBYREFEERNCEINTO THISDELIVEROYflOERINTHEFOLLOl'IINGPRIORITY(1: ). THISDELIVERY ORDERISSUB,.IETCTOTHETER>J/.SINDCONDITIONOSFlliE U.S. CO.\W,UNITIESCOt,lfRACTIDENTIFIEIHDBt.OCK4.
30A. DISTRICTOFCOlUA\BIA(SIGNATURE OFCOlm?ACnNG OFFICER)

298. NAMEAHOTITLEOf SIGNERom 01P1IU!<t)

29C. DATES IGNEO

306. NAMEOFCONTRACTINGOFFICER flYIE o• Palflll
Courtney B. Lattimore
Contract ing Officer

30C DATE SIGNED

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 66 of 135
Task Order No.: CW82753 Environmental Conditions Inspection
1. SERVICES/SUPPLIESREQUIRED
The Contractor shall provide perform Environmental Conditions Inspections at the two Department of Correction Facilities:
Central Detention Facility Correctional Treatment Facility
2. TASK ORDER NO: CW82753
2.1 The District awards a Labor Hour contract with a cost-reimbursable component.
3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:
The period of performance shall be date of award through three (3) months, thereafter.
4. OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT
4.1 The Government may extend the term of this agreement for a period of three, one ( l) month option periods, or successive fractions thereof, by written notice to the Contractor before the expiration of the contract; provided that the District will give the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least thirty (30) days before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the District to an extension. The exercise of this option is subject to the availability of funds at the time of the exercise of this option. The Contractor may waive the thirty (30) day preliminary notice requirement by providing a written waiver to the Contracting Officer prior to expiration of the contract.
4.2 If the District exercises this option. the extended contract shall be considered to include this option provision.
4.3 The price for the option period shall be as specified in the contract.
4.4 The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed six (6) months.
S. CONTRACTINGOFFICER (CO)
Task orders will be entered into and signed on behalf of the District only by contracting officers. The contact information for the Contracting Officer is:
Courtney B. Lattimore Office of Contracting and Procurement 2000 14th Street, NW, 6th Floor Washington, DC 20009 202-671-2327 Courtney.Lattimore@dc.gov
Page 2 of8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 67 of 135
Task Order No.: CW82753 Environmental Conditions Inspection
6. AUTHORIZED CHANGES BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER
6.1 The CO is the only person authorized to approve changes in any of the requirements of this task order.
6.2 The Contractor shall not comply with any order, directive or request that changes or modifies the requirements of this task order, unless issued in writing and signed by the
co.
6.3 ln the event the Contractor effects any change at the instruction or request of any person other than the CO , the change will be cons idered to have been made without authority and no adjustment will be made in the task order price to cover any cost increase incurred as a result thereof.
7. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
7.1 The CA is responsible for general administration of the task order and advising the CO as to the Contractor's compliance or noncompliance with the task orde r. The CA has the responsibility of ensuri ng the work conforms to the requirements of the task orde r and such other responsibilities and authorities as may be specified in the task order. These include:
7.1.1 Keeping the CO fully informed of any technical or contractual difficulties encountered during the performance period and advising the CO of any potential problem areas under the task order;
7.1.2 Coordinating site entry for Contractor personnel, if applicable;
7.1.3 Reviewing invoices for completed work and recommending approval by the CO if the Contractor's prices and costs are consistent with the contractual amounts and progress is satisfactory and commensurate with the rate of expenditure;
7.1.4 Reviewing and approving invoices for deliverables to ensure rece ipt of goods and services. Th is includes the timely processing of invoice s and vouchers in accordance with the District's payment provisions; and
7.1.5 Maintaining a file that includes all task order corresponde nce, modification s, records of inspections (site, data, equipment) and invoice or vouchers.
7.2 The address and telephone number of the CA is:
Gloria Robert son Manager, Compl iance D.C. Depamnent of Corrections 190 I D Street SE Washington, DC 20003 (0)202.523.7017 gloria.robcrtson@dc.gov
Page 3 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 68 of 135

Task Order No.: CW82753 Environmental ConditionsInspection

7.3 The CA shall NOT have the authority to:

I. Award, agree to , or sign any task order, delivery order or task order. Only the CO shall make contractual agreeme nts, commitments or modifications;
2. Grant deviations from or wa ive any of the tenns and conditio ns of the task order; 3. Increase the do llar lim it of the task order or author ize work beyond the dollar
limit of the task order, 4. Authorize the expenditure of funds by the Contractor;
5. Change the period of perfonnance; or
6. Authorize the use of District property , except as specified under the task order.

7.4 The Contractor will be fully res ponsible for any changes not authorized in advance, in writing, by the CO; may be denied compensation or other relief for any additional work
performed that is not so authorized; and may also be required, at no additional cost to the District, to take all corrective action necessitated by reason of the unauthorized changes.

8. COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT

8.1 The District wi 11make payments to the Co ntractor, upon the submiss ion of proper invo ices, at the pr ices stipulated in this contract for services del ivered and accepted or services performed and accepted, less any discounts, allowances or adjustments provided for in this contract.

8.2 In instances where the Mayor has declared an eme rgency and the Dist rict util izes th e Cont ractor's services under this con tract during the declared emergency, the Contracto r agrees to accept payment for those services by the Distr ict's credit card. The District shall not be liable to Contractor for any associated credit card fees.

9. INVO ICE SUBMITTAL

9.1 The Contractor shall sub m it proper invoices on a monthly basis or as otherwise specified in Sec tion G.4. Invoices shall be pre pared in duplicate and subm itted to the agency Chief Financial Officer with concurrent copies to the Contract Administ rator (CA) specified in Sect ion 7.2 abov e.

9.2 To constitute a proper invoice, the Contractor shall submit the following infonnation on the invoice:

9.2.1

Contractor's name , federal tax ID and invoice date (date invoices as of the date of
mai ling or transmitta l) ;

9.2.2

Contract number and invo ice number ;

9.2.3

Descript ion, price, quantity and the date(s) that the supplies or services were de livered or performed ;

9.2.4

Other supporting documentation or information, as required by the Contracting Officer;

Page 4 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 69 of 135
TaskOrderNo.: CW82753 EnvironmentalConditions Inspection

9.2.5

Name, titl e, telephone numb er and complete mailing address of the responsible official to whom payment is to be sent;

9.2.6

Name, title, phone number of person preparing the invo ice;

9.2 .7

Name, title, phone numbe r and mailing address of person (if different from the person identified in G.2.2.6 above) to be notified in the event of a defective invoice; and

9.2.8 Authorized signature.

10. PAYMENT

Unless otherwise specified in this contract, payment will be made on partial deliveries of
goods and services accepted by the District if:
a) The amount due on the deliveries warrants it; or
b) The Contractor requests it and the amount due on the deliveries is in accordance with the following:

• Payment will be made on complet ion and accep tance of the follow ing stages of
work in accordance with the hourly rates stated in the Schedule in Attachment 8:
Upon completion of the initial inspection and establis hment of a protocol

Upon project comp letion; and
c) Presen tation of a properly executed invo ice
11. INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE
11.1 The inspection and acceptance requirements to r the resultant cont ract shall be governed by clause number five (5), Inspection of Supp lies, of the Governme11t of the Dist rict of Columbia's Standar d Contract Provisions for use with Supplies and Services Contracts, dated Ju ly 20 I0.
11.2 Representatives of the Government of the District of Columbia shall perform inspection
and acceptance of the vehicle/s to be furnished under this order al the destination to ensure that the vehicle /s confonn to the term s of the resultant contract. Any item found not in compli ance with the spec ifications shall be rejected.
12. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE

A conflict in language shall be resolved by giving precedence to the document in the highest orde r of priority that conta ins language addressing the issue in question . The

Page S of 8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 70 of 135
TaskOrderNo.: CW82753 EnvironmentalConditions Inspection
fo llow ing documents are incorpo rat ed into the task order by reference and made a part of
the task order in the following order of precedence:
13. INCORPORAT ED DOCUMENTS AND ORDER OF PRECEDENCE
The following documents are incorporated by reference into the co ntract. In t he event of an inco nsistency among the provisions of this Agreeme nt, the inco nsi ste ncy sha ll be reso lved by giv ing precede nce in the fo llowing order:
13.1 This Agreement , including Standa rd Contract Provisions for use wit h District of Col um bia Gove rnment Su ppl y and Services Contracts , dated July 20 I0.
13.2 Stateme nt of Work (Attachment A)
13.3 Price Schedule (Attachment 8)
13.4 GSA Contrac t No.: 47QRAA I 8D0074with Potomac-Hudson Eng ine ering, Inc.
(Attachment C)
13.5 Contractor's Quote dated May 13, 2020 (Attac hmen t D)
14. DISPUTES
14. Disputes
All disputes aris ing under or re lating to the contra ct shall be resolved as provided herein .
(a) Claims by the Contrac tor against the District: Claim , as used in paragraph (a) of th is
cla use, mean s a written assertion by th e Contractor seek ing, as a matter of rig ht, the payment of money in a sum certain , the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms , or other relief ar ising unde r or relating to the contr act. A claim arising under a contract, unlike a claim relating to that co ntra ct, is a claim that can be resol ved under a contract clause that provides for th e relief sought by the claima nt
{l) All claims by a Contractor against the District arising under or re lat ing to a contract sha ll be in writing and shall be s ubmitt ed to the CO for a dec ision. T he Contractor's clai m sha ll contain at least the following:
(i) A description of the claim and the amount in disp ute; (ii) Data or other infonnatio n in support of the claim; (iii) A br ief description of the Contrac tor's efforts to resolve the d isp ute prior to filing the
claim; and (iv) The Con tractor's request for relief or other act ion by the CO .
(2) The CO ma y meet with the Contractor in a fu1ther attempt to resolve the claim by
agr ee ment.
Page 6 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 71 of 135
Task Order No.: CW82753 Environmental Conditions Inspection
(3) The CO shall issue a decision on any claim within 120 calendar days after receipt of the claim. Whenever possible, the CO shall take into account factors such as the size and
complexHy of the claim and the adequacy of the infonnat ion in support of the claim provided by the Contractor.
(4) The CO's written decision shall do the following:
(i) Provide a description of the claim or dispute; (ii) Refer to the pertinent contract terms; (iii) State the factual areas of agreement and disagreement; (iv) State the reasons for the decision, including any specific findings of fact, although
specific fi ndings of fact are not required and, if made, shall not be binding in any subsequent proceeding; (v) If all or any part of the claim is determined to be valid, determine the amount of monetary settlement, the contract adjustment to be made, or other relief to be granted; (vi)lndicate that the written document is the CO's final decision; and (vii) Inform the Contractor of the right to seek further redress by appealing the decision to the Contract Appea ls Board.
(5) Failure·by the CO to issue a decision on a contract claim within 120 days of rcce.ipt of the claim will be deemed to be a denial of the claim and will authorize the commencement of an appeal to the Contract Appeals Board as provided by D.C. Official Code § 2 360.04
(6) If a contractor is unable to support any part of its claim and it is determined that the inability is attributable to a material misrepresentation of fact or fraud on the part of the Contractor, the Contractor shall be liable to the District for an amount equal to the unsupported part of the claim in addition to all costs to the District attributable to the cost of reviewing that part of the Contractor's claim. Liability under this paragraph (a)(6) shall be determined within six (6) years of the commission of the misrepresentation of fact or fraud.
(7) Pending final decision of an appeal, action, or final settlement, the Contractor shall proceed diligently with performance of the contract in accordance with the decision of the CO.
(b) Claims by the District against the Contractor: Claim as used in paragraph (b) of this clause, means a written demand or written assertion by the District seeking, as a matter of right. the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract. A claim arising under a contract, unlike a claim relating to that contract, is a claim that can be resolved under a contract clause that provides for the relief sought by the claimant.
(I) The CO shall decide all claims by the District against a contractor arising under or relating to a contract.
(2) The CO shall send written notice of the claim to the contractor. The CO's written decision shall do the follow ing:
Page 7 of8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 72 of 135
Task Order No.: CW82753 Environmental Conditions Inspection
(i) Provide a description of the claim or dispute; (ii) Refer to the pertinent contract terms; (iii) State the factual areas of agreement and disagreement; (iv) State the reasons for the decision, including any specific findings of fact, although
specific findings of fact are not required and, if made, shall not be binding in any subsequent proceeding; (v) If all or any part of the claim is determined to be valid, determine the amount of monetary settlement, the contract adjustment to be made, or other relief to be granted; (vi) Indicate that the written document is the CO's final decision; and (vii) Inform the Contractor of the right to seek further redress by appealing the decision to the Contract Appeals Board. (3) The CO shall support the decision by reasons and shall inform the Contractor of its rights as provided herein. (4) Before or after issuing the decision, the CO may meet with the Contractor to attempt to resolve the claim by agreement. (5) The authority contained in this paragraph (b) shall not apply to a claim or dispute for penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation which another District agency is specifically authorized to administer, settle or determine. (6) This paragraph shall not authorize the CO to settle, compromise, pay, or otherwise adju st any claim involving fraud. (c) Decisions of the CO shall be final and not subject to review unless the Contractor timely commences an administrative appeal for review of the decision, by filing a complaint with the Contract Appeals Board, as authorized by D.C. Official Code§ 2-360.04. (d) Pending final decision of an appeal, action, or final settlement, the Contractor shall proceed diligently with performance of the contract in accordance with the decision of the CO.
Page8 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 73 of 135

Task Order CW82753 Environmental Conditions Inspection Attachment A

1. SCOPE

STATEMENT OF WORK

The Contractor shall provide ongoing Environmental Conditions inspections at the Department of Correctio ns' primary facilities:
Central Detention Facility (CDF) Correct iona l T reatment Facility (CTP)
2. BACKGROUND

The DC Department of Corrections (DOC) is responding the recommendation of the temporary l'estraining order issued on April 19, 2020 by the D.C. Superior Court. and to the findings of a February 2019 report from the Office of District of Columb ia Auditor , entitled "Poor Conditions
Persist at Aging D.C. Jail ; New Facility Neededto Mitigate Risks". In the report, the ODCA
focused on environmental conditions , incident reporting and tracking, and compl iance with American Correctional Association, America n Public Health Associat ion, and National Commission on Correctional Health Care standards. DOC seeks the assistance of an experience contractor in address ing the areas of concern to ensure the safety of its population , particularly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

3 . REQUffiEMENT
3.1 The Contractor shall have the necessary experience, equipment and personnel to provide the required services.

3.2 The Contractor shall hold an initial kick-off meeting with the Contract Administrator (CA), the facility compliance manager and any other personnel as designated by the CA on Thursday, May 14, 2020.

3.2.2

The Contractor shall also conduct a minimum of four (4) progress meetings with

the CA and designated DOC personnel. The Contractor and the CA sha ll

mutually agree upon the platform to be used for progress meetings (i.e., in-person,

teleconference, MS Teams , WebEx, Etc.).

3.3 Following the kickoff ~the Contractor shall work with CA to determine the appropriate means for cond ucting an audit of the facilities listed in Section I.

3.3.1

The Contractor shall conduct an offsite review of all relevant documentation to include the contract requirements for the onsite clea n ing Contractor.

3.3.2

The Contractor shall conduct facilitation meeting with the CA, designated DOC personnel and the ons ite cleaning contractor to develop a COVrD-19 cleaning protocol to protect work health and minimize potential community spread.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 74 of 135

Task Order No.: CW82753 Environmental Conditions Inspection Attachme nt A

3.3 Following document review and initial meeting with the cleaning contractor, the
Contractor shall develop a draft COVID -19 Cleaning Protocol. After review and approval by the CA and designated DOC personnel, the protocol will be prov ided to the cleaning contractor for implementation. It is anticipated that the cleaning contractor will require one week to implement the cleaning protocol prior to the onsite inspection visit.

3.4 Following the implementation of the recomme nded protocol, the Contractor ' s onsite
personnel shall be present at the facilities for not more than ten (I 0) eight-hour days. The JOdays shall include two consecutive weeks (Mond ay through Friday) during normal business hours.

3.4.1

The Contractor's personnel shall provide oversight to the onsite cleaning contractor to ensure the protocol is being followed.

3.4.2

The Contractor shall provide no less than two (2) ons ite personnel to shadow the onsite cleaning contractor during the I0-day period.

3.5 Upon completion of the audit and meetings, the Contractor shall prepare a combined report for both facilities (draft and final versions), describing the findings of the aud it and providing a corrective action plan to return the facilities to the level of compliance acceptable to the ODCA before the expirat ion of the contract term.

3 .5.1

The Contractor report shall include a final COVID-19 Cleaning Protocol incorporating any lessons learned through evaluation of the implementation of the draft protocol by the cleaning contractor, along with any further recommendations
forimprovement DOC's existing sanitization plan.

3.6 The Contractor shall conduct up two (2) follow up monthly COVID-19 inspections to
ensure the onsite Contractor is adhering to the recommended protocols and noted deficiencies have been corrected.

3 .6.1

The Contractor shall provide follow-on recommendations to the CA to ensure the recommended protocols are sustainable beyond the contract term.

2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 75 of 135
EXHIBIT 11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 76 of 135

AWARD/CONTRACT

2. Contract Number

3. Effective Date

DCAM-20 -NC-EM-0079 A

12-MAY-20 20

5. Issued B : Geor e G. Lew is, CPPO

Code

1. Caption
Compre hensive Hazardous Mate rials ("HAZMAT") Environmental Cleaning Serv ices related to the SARS-CoV-2 (COV ID- 19) Coronav irus-19 Pandem ic for the De artmen t of Corrections .
4. Re ulsltlon/Pu rchase Re uest/Pro ect No.

Page of Pages 53

6. Administered b If other than line 5 Domoni ue L. Banks,Contract S clalist

Departme nt of Gene ral Services
Contra cts and Procurement Division
2000 14"' Street , 8'" Floor
Washington, DC 20009

Departme nt of Gene ral Services
Contracts and Procurement Division
2000 14" Stree t. 8'" Floor
Washington , DC 20009

8 . Name and Addres s of Contr actor (No. street, ci ty , county , sta te and Zi p Code)
ROCK SOLID DISTRICT GROUP , LLC.
I 1025 Co nn ecticut Avenue Su ite 1000

8. Deliv ery

□FOB Origi n

Oth er {Se e Schedu le Section F)

s. Discount fo r promp t payment

Net thirty (30) Days

W ashin gt on, D.C. 20036
Arvella Gardner I (202) 239-7600 I ca lltherock@ymail.com
i.-;..::....:.C.=o:..:d::e...;..::::..::...:::.:!;...;:.::..:;.:.;:;:.,..i...l:..:.=~'-= =F=a=c=il=it=; =.:!=======-- -----

10. Submit Invoices to th e A ddress

rr

shown in item 6 --l (2 copie s unless otherwise sp ecified )

Item 6

11. Ship to /Mar k For

Cod e

12. Payment will be made by Governme nt of the District of Columbia

Code

13. Reserved for futur e us e

14. Accounting and Appropriation Data

ENC

·

15E. Unit Pri ce 209,517 .92

15F. Amoun t 62 8,553 .76

AGGRE GATE NTE $653 ,55 3.76

X Section

X

A

Solicitation/Co ntract Form

Descri lion

Pae

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

Contract Clauses

X

B

Supplies or Serv ices and Price/Cost

X

C

Description/Spec ifica tions/Work

Statement

PART 11-1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS , EXHIBITS AND OTHER

ATTACHMENTS

J

List of Attachm en ts

X

D

Packaging and Marking

X

E

Inspection and Acceptance

X

F

Deliveries or Performance

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

K

Representations. Cert ifications and Othe r

Statements of Offerors

X

G

Contract Administration data

X

H

Special Contract Requ irements

L

Instructions, cond itions & notices to offerors

M

Evaluation factors for award

EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE

ISSUE DATE Fri dav, Marc h 13 2020

Contra cti na Officer w ill c omol et e Item 17 or 18 as annlicable

17. □CONTRACTOR'S NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT (Contractor is required to sign this document and return copies to issuing office.)

18. ~ AWARD (Contractor is not req uired to sign this docume nt.) You r offer on

Contractor agrees to furnish and deliver all items, perform all the services set Solicitatio n Number DCAM-20-NC-EM-00 79A including the additions o r changes

forth or otherwise identified above and on any continuation sheets, for the

made by which additions or changes are set forth in full above , is hereby accepted

consideration stated herein. The rights and obligations of the parties to this as to the items listed above and on any cont inuation sheets. This award

contract shall be subject to and governed by the following documents: (a)

consummat es the contract which cons ists of the following docume nts: (a) the

this award/contract, (b) the solicitation, if any, and (c) such provisions.

Governmen t's solicitation and your offer, and (b) this award /contract. No further

representations, certifications, and specifications, as are attached or

contractua l docum ent is necessary .

incorporated by reference herein. (Attachments are listed herein.)

19A. Name and Title of Signer (Type or print )

Arve lla J. Gardner , President
19B. Name of Con tr actor

19C. Date Signed

20A . Name of Contracting Officer

010-- George G. Lewis, CPPO
Chief of Contracts & Procurement, Chief Procure ment Officer

208 . o;s.,;ct

20C. Date Signed

12-MA Y-2 020

*-k**

oo•~,~-,•-·-·-•·" '
Gove rnment of the District of Columbia

12-MAY-2020

tj,d'9<tj. L=

.

~
S1 nalure

of

Contrac

li no

Office,rrl

-- - - ------
DCAM-.?0 - NC-EM -00"!tJA I DOC SARS -(\,\1 ~ \'..0V1D - l9) COMPREHENSIVE"IJAZMAT" E~VIRONJ\.IENTAL CLEANING SERVICES

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 77 of 135

B.1
B.1.1
B.2
B.2.1

SECTION B CONTRACT TYPE, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COST
Persuant to D.C. Code § 7-2304. Issuance of emergency executive order; contents; actions of Mayor after issuance This Emergency Contract (the "Contract") DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A is made by and between the District of Columbia Government (the "District") by and through its Department of General Services ("DGS"), on behalf of the Department of Correcti ons ("DOC"), collectively (the "District") and Rock Solid District Group, LLC. ('' Rock Solid" or "Contractor") to provide Comprehensive Hazardous Materials ("HAZMAT") Environmental Cleaning Services related to the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Coronavirus-19 Pandemic.for the Department of Corrections. These services shall be performed the Department of Corrections' Central Detention Facility/D .C. Jail, located at 1901 D Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003.
The Contractor shall provide all labor, management, supervision, tools, equipment, storage, vehicles, approved Center for Biocidc Chemistries ("CBC"), Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and Center for Disease Control ("CDC") antimicrobial fighting cleaning product supplies, and approved pandemic Personal Protection Equipment ("PPE"), and all else necessary to successfully perfonn the required services on an emergency basis for a period up-to 90-days.
TYPE OF CON'fRAC1J ln accordance with 27 DCMR Chapter 47 of Title 27 - 4712 FIXED-PRICE CONTRACTS ; the District awards the firm, fixed monthly service rate contract with supplies and materials reimbursed in accordance with 27 DCMR Chapter 47 of Title 27 - 4713 COST REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACTS.
The Contract shall contain the following types of contract components:
a) Firm-fixed Monthly Services Rate; and b) Cost of supplies/materials compensated on a reimbursable basis and charged to the district
with not more than a 3% mark-up.

B.3.1

The firm-fixed, monthly service rate and cost reimbursement ceiling as identified in Section [B.3.1] and [B.3.1.lj (respectively) shall be the Contractor's sole method of compensation and as such, shall be sufficient to cover all of the cost necessary to provide services including, but not limited to, all labor, supplies (to include all approved Center for Biocide Chemistries, EPA and CDC antimicrobial fighting cleaning product supplies and approved pandemic Personal Protection Equipment ("PPE")), materials, equipment, tools, vehicles, transportation, travel to and from work sites, per diem , subcontractor cost, home office overhead, profit, insurance coverages and provisions as required in Section f1.14) and, all else necessary to perform all work related to providing the District with safe and proper provision of required services as described herein.
Price Schedule
All antimicrobial fighting cleaning product supplies (cleaning "solvents') and CDC approved pandemic, Personal Protection Equipment ("PPE") shall be furnished to the District at Contractor cost plus NO -MORE than a 3% markup. The Department will not pay /<>ror otherwise reimburse the Contractor/or cost of any other equipment purchase anti or remed.

DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A I 0(lC SAKS-Co\'-2 ,CO\ ID 141COMPREHENSIVE"I-IAZMAT" ENVIRONMENTAL C'LE.\NIN(, SERVICES Page 2 of :'i3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 78 of 135

B.3.2 B.3.2.1

8.3.1 PRICESCHEDULE

CUN DESCRIPIOT N 0001 Firm-Fixed Daily Janitorial Services

UNIT

COST 9.!Y

MnY $ 209,517.92 3 $

TOTAL BASIC SERVICES

$ Z09,S17.92

$

r 0002 CLEANINGSUPPLYCOSTREIMBURSEMETNCEILNI GSECTION[B.3.2.1]

$

$

EXTENDED COST
628,553.76 628,5537.6
25,000.00
653,553.76

90-DAYEMERGENCCYONlRACTCOSTBREAKDOWBNYPERIOD

DESCIRPTION

UNIT ____ RATE__B!Y_ EXTENDEDCOST

12·MAY-2020THRU31-MAY-2020 DAILY $

6,983.93 20 $

139,678.61

1-JUNE-2020THRU31-JULY-2020 MTLY $ 209,517.92 2 $

419,035.84

1-AUGUST-2020THRU10-AUGUST-2020 DAILY $

6,983.93 10 $

69,839.31

CLEANINGSUPPLYCOSTREIMBURSEMENTICUENG EA $ 25,000.00 1 $

25,000.00

90-0AYEMERGENCYCONTRACTCOST $

653,553.76

GRANDTOTALEMERGENCCYONTRAC(TEC)NOT-TO-EXCEECDONTRACTVALUE_ $_ __ 65~3_,55_3.7_6_
Cleaning Supply Cost Reimbursement The Contractor will be reimbursed for all approved Center for Biocide Chem istties ("CBC"), Environmental Protection Agency (''E PA") and Center for Disease Control ("CDC") antimicrobial fighting cleaning product supplies ("solvents"), and approved pandemic, Personal Protection Equipment ("PPE") collectively ("Cleaning Supplies"). Such cost for "cleaning supplies" will be reimbursed onlv when the following are complete: (i) the Contractor provides the Department with an invoice outlining the itemized cost of all approved cleaning supplies and materials as described in Section [B.3] . The invoice shall be itemized to include but at a minimum, a full list of individual supplies/materials (i.e. antimicrobial cleaning solvent, N95 respirator mask, Tyvek suites, etc.) , quantity purchased, vendor cost of materials by line item, extended cost by materia l, and estimate shipping and arrival of materia ls; and (ii) the Contracting Officer ' s Techn ical Representative (COTR) approves the invoice. The Cleaning Supply Reimbursable Cost shall-not excee d the established ordering ceiling as defined in Section [B.4.2.1.1] below for the tenn of the Emergency Contract. Cost of all materials and supplies shall be furnished to the District at Contractor cost plus NO-M ORE than a 3% markup. The Departm ent will not pay for or otherwise reimburse the Contractor for cost of any other equipment purcha se ,md or rented.
Cost Reimbur sement Supply/Ma terial Ordering Ceiling The ordering maximum values for all Clean Supplies furnished to the District for the duratio n of the 90-day Emergency Contract Period shall be as identifie d in the table below:

Reimbu rs ab le "C l ean ing Sup ply" Cos t
DCAM -2(i-NC-EM-tl079,\ I DOC SARSJ'. ,V 2 tCOVlD l9, CO:V\PRF.HEN~!V[' ··HAD,1.0.T" Lr,...\ !f,O"'.tv(l •N1' \I CJ F -\ N l~IJ SERVICES
11,tgc 1 or) {

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 79 of 135

.B.3.3

The Department is an exempt government agency and thus will neither owe, nor pay any sales tax imposed on the vendor for the purchase of any such materials or supplies. If and to the extent permitted under applicable law, the Department at its discretion, will complete any fom1s that the vendor may provide, to position and/or enable the vendor to purchase materials or supplies for this Contract, on a tax-free basis.

DC-\M-fO-NC-EM-\l(>7•1:I\ 00 (_' SAKS-1__\iv::'(l_'OVlD- i'li COMPREHFNS!VF "'HA7l',1;\ T" ENVll~O'-iiv!FNTALCLEAN IN(.1SF.RVJCES
PHgc 4 of 5.1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 80 of 135

C.t
C.1. 1
C.2

SECTION C SPECIFICATIONS /\VORK STATEMENT

EXECUTIVESUMMARY: -

.

On March 11, 2020 Mayor Muriel Bowser declared a state of emergency pursuant to D.C. Code§ 7- 2304. Issuance of emergency executive order; contents; actions of Mayor in response to the World Health Organization' s (WHO) declaration of the imminent threat and spread of SARSCoV-2 (COVID-19) Coronavirus-19 as a world-wide Pandemic. The District of Columbia Governm ent (the "District") by and through its Department of General Services ("DGS"), on behalf of the Department of Corrections ("DOC"), collectively (the "Distric t") is committed to improving the quality , appearance and cleanliness of its rea l property assets throughout the District of Columbia includin g the Department of Correctio ns. The Departmen t of General Services is responsible for the operations, maintenance and repair, including comprehensive janitorial and sanitation services for more than 36,000,000 gross square feet in owned or operated facilities across the District of Columbia. The Contractor shall provide Comprehensive Hazardous Materials ("HAZMAT'' Environmental Cleaning Services related to the SARS-CoV -2 (COVID-19) Coronavirus -19 Pandemic for the Department of Corrections. These services sha11 be performed the Department of Corrections ' Central Detention Faeility/ D.C . Jail, located at 1901 D Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003.

APPLICA BLE DOCUMENTS AND REQUIRED LICENSURES The following are applicable to this procurement and the resulting contract; and are hereby incorporated by reference .

No.

Document Type

U.S. Law

ntle
U.S. Departme nt of Labor Occupational Safely and Health Administration (OSHA) General Contracto r's Quality Cont rol Plan - 29 CFRPart 1900
Subparts A-P Occupational Safety and Health Standards 29 CFR, Part 1910, Construction Contractor's Quality Contro l Plan - 29 CFRPart
1926 Hazardous and Toxic Materials

Version/

Date

r-

--

-

Most Recent

U.S. Law

Enviro nme ntal Protect ion Agency (EPA)

Most Recent

42 USCsections 6901-6976

Concerning Hazardous Substances and Waste

-

3

U.S. Law

40 CFR, Parts 260, 261, 264, 265, 268, 270, and 273

Most Recent

4

Execut ive Order 13101

r l Greening th e Governm enl Thro ugh Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition

Mos t Recent

OCPDocum ent (Directive)

r

OCP Directive 1303.00 Environm ental ly Preferab le Pur chasing

Most Recent

Industry Stand ards and

Vacuum Cleaner

Most Recent

Specifications

"Green label/Green Label Plus" Testing Program

7

-r Industry Stand ards and

ANSI/ASEE A1264N 006

Most Recent

Specifications

Provision o f Slip Resistance on Wa lking/Working Surfaces

Guideli nes

DC.\ M -20-NC-El\.l-ll\l i').-\ I DQC ..,ARS·CoV ~ !( 0\111). 1'11( OMl'RFHFNSIVl · ..HAZMA I . ENv IRON,\11'NT A.I ( Ll·AN l"l(, '-FRVl('l:S l\1ge 'inf ,3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 81 of 135

C.3 C.3.1 C.3.1.1 C.3.1.2 C.3.1.3
C.3.1.4
C.3.1.5

,-s I

Consent Decree

191

10
i---:-_
j

1l -

Federal Guidelines Indust ry Stand ard

Dist rict - Sierr a Club Consent Decree Cent er fo r Disease Control Protoco ls

Most Recent
r - Most Recent

IA5TME 1971-05(2 0 11): Stand ard Guide fo r Ste_w_a-rd-s_hi_p _fo_r -
! t he Cleaning o f Comme rcial and Instit ut ional Buildi ngs

Mos t Recent

EPA' s Regist ered Ant imicrobial product s for Use Against
Novel Cornoavirus SARS-CoV2, the Cause of COVID-19
Novel Co ro navirus (COVID-19)i Fight ing Prod ucts; Center for
Biocide Chernis t ri es.
r ..-- Interim Environmenta l Cleanin g and Disi nfection Recom mendatio ns; Centers for Disease Cont ro l and Prevent io n.

htt ps:ljwww .epa.gov/ sit es/ prod uct io n/fi les/ 202003/ documen ts/sars-cov-2-list 0 3-03-2020.pdf
-- - -- https:/ / ww w. americanchemist ry.com/ Novel-Coronav irus-
Fighting-Prod ucts -li st. pdf
http s:/ / w ww.cdc.gov-/c_o_ro_n-av- ir_u,s_/_2_0_19-----ncov/com munit y/ home/ cleaning-disinfect ion.htrn l

Dist rict o f Columbia

!Gui

d ance Mem orandum- - E-FF-E-CTI-VE- IM- MEDIATELY

-----...,,=------ I

Dist rict-w ide guidance for enhanced cleaning in all

j

pub lic facilit ies to protect against COVID-19 spread

r O'.>M"mhTolo
I1 05-March-2020

DEFINITIONS & ACRONYMS • •~----.~

. "": -.:

Definitions. The following are definitions used for the purpose of this solicitation:

Acceptance: constitutes acknowledgment that the supplies or services conform to applicable contract quality and quantity requirement s.

Antimicrobial mold and mildew cleaner refers to a type of disinfecting product designed to eliminate specific types of mold or mildew.

Approval: the Department and/or the District has reviewed submittals , deliverables , or administrative documents (e.g., insurance certificates , etc.), and has detennined the documents confonn to contract requirements. Department and/or District approval shall not relieve the Contractor of responsibility for complying with Federal, District, local laws and regulations.
Contracting Officer (CO): Chief Contracting Officer and Contracting Officers with delegated authority from the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) are authorized to enter into contractual relationships on behalf of the District or Department, in accordance with their delegated authority . Further , only the CPO and COs are authorized to modify or make changes to the tenns and condition s of the contract via the issuance of written contract modifications, change orders, chang e directives and/or task orders . Thus, actions or obligations of the Contractor , that are not authorized by the CPO or COs are at the sole risk and expense of the Contractor.

Contractor: the individual , firm, company, corporation, partner ship, or combination thereof, including joint ventures , contracting with the Department to the contract work . The Contractor is one of the parties to this Contract.

DCAM-20 -NC-EM-O()ilJ,\ I 00l SARS-C,N -.:!,CQV!D-19 • C'0/,1PRCHENSIVE ··1-AJlMA-T':-ENY lRO~MFNT Al l'f EANJNC, SE RVICES P,ig.c6 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 82 of 135

C.3.1.6 C.3.1.7 C.3.1.8 C.3.1.9 C.3.1.10 C.3.1.11 C.3.1.12 C.3.1.13
C.3.1.14 C.3. 1.15 C.3 .1. 16

Cont racting Officer's Technica l Representative (COTR): A District employee(s) responsible for technical direction and administration, not authorization, of the services under the contract, or task orders issued against IDIQ contracts, as applicab le, unless otherwise author ized by the CO. Correction: the elimination of a defect.
Carpet cleaners include products that are used to perform routine cleaning or spot cleaning of carpets, rugs , and upholstery . This category includes, but is not limited to, product s that use shampooing , dry foam, absorption, and wet extraction .
Concentra te refers to a product that , as sold, must be diluted by wat er prior to its intended use.
Defic iency : a lack of quality and/or sub-standard of work . For purpose of this solicitation, a deficiency is an item , or condition that is considered sub-standard, or below minimum expectations with regard to code, work product and safety.
Disinfectant refers to a substance, or mixture of substances that destroys or irreversibly inactivates bacteria , fungi and virnses , but not necessarily their spores.
Furnit ure poli sh refers to fluid that is designed to clean , refine, or protect furniture through polishing.
Hazardous Materials "means any waste, substances, radiation or materials whether solids , liquids or gases that are:
a) hazardous , toxic, infectious, explosive, radioactive , carcinogenic or mutagenic;
b) 110wor become defined as pollutants , contaminants, hazardous waste s or substances, toxic substances, radioactiv e materials , solid waste or other similar designations in or otherwise subject to District and Federal regulations;
c) present on the premises and can cause or threaten to cause , a nuisance pursuant to applicabl e statutory or common law upon the premfaes , facilities or properties ; and/or
d) polychlorinated biphenyl 's (PCBs), asbestos, lead-based paint , urea fonnaldehyde foam insulation, petroleum and petrolerun products (including gasoline, crude oil etc.) that pose a hazard to human health , safety , natural resources , industrial hygiene or the environment or otherwise pose an impedim ent to working conditions."
High-efficienc y particulate air (HEPA) refers to an air filt er designe d according to federal standards to remove 99.97 % of airborn e particles measuring 0.3 micrometers in diameter. HEPA vacuum cleaners trap dust and other irritants , improving indoor air quality.
Holidays : days observed by the District of Columbia Government.
Industry Standards means the highest level of indust1y-developed best statldards, practices or procedures (including any standards, practic es or procedures established by the applicable trade associations or under Applicable Laws) .

-Dl'A M-20-NC -EM-l11179AI DOt ~ARS-CoV ~ !C'OVlll t <J)tOMP REHl '\ISi\ [· "HA7MAT'" FNVIRO!'iMENTA I Cl F ,\N l'iG <;ERVKES
Page 7 of 5=1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 83 of 135

C.3 .1.17 C.3.1.18 C.3. l.19 C.3 .1.20
C .3.1.21 C .3.1.22 C.3. 1.23
C.3. 1.24 C.3.1.25 C.3. 1.26 C.3. 1.27 C.3. 1.28

Inspection s is a systematic practice of monitoring , at regularly scheduled interval inspections of the infrastructure conditio ns, unit placement, usage, signagc/marki ngs in support of DCMR
Inspection s: a systematic practi ce of monitoring , at regularly scheduled interval inspections of the infrastructure conditions, unit placement, usage, signage /markiogs in support of DCMR mandates, etc.
Lime and scale remo vers are produc ts designed to remove the alkaline (a chalky mineral deposit) resulting from water use in locations such as showers, tubs, sinks, and toilets.
Material Safety Data She et (MSDS) refers to a document that contains information on the potential hazards of a chemica l product and how to work safely with the product. The MSDS also contains infonnation on the use , storage, and handling of the hazardous material, and how to respond in case of an accident or spill. The MSDS contains much 1uore infonnation about the material than the product label. However, it is important to note that the MSDS may not list every human and environm ental impact associated with the prod uct.
Normal Working Hour s - is the time period of : 6:00am - 8:00pm.
OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OS HA) is the Federal Government agency respons ible for providing the rules and regulations on safety and health requirements in the work place.
Prevailin g Wage The prevailing wage is defined as the hourly wage , usual benefits and overtime, allegedly paid to the majo rity of workers, laborers, and mechanics within a particular area as determined by the Service Contract Action Wage Determ ination , Davis Bacon and or the District of Co lumbia Living Wage Act; whichever of the applicab le is high er. Prevailing wages are established by regulatory agencies for each trade and occupation employe d in the performance of public work , as well as by State Departments of Labor or their equivalents.
Quality Ass uranc e (QA) means any actions taken in order to ensure services meet Contract requirements.
Quality Assurance Eva luation are the methodologies implem ented to assess the adequacy of Contractor performance.
Quality Co nt.-ol (QC) refers to Contractor developed and implemente d safegua rds that ensure quality service are provided to satisfy the requirements of the Contract.
Quality Control Plan is a docume nt that describes the actions (measurements , inspections, quality checks or monitoring of process parameters) required at each phase of a process to assure the process outputs will conform to pre-determ ined requirement s.
Real-tim e T he actual time during which a process or event occurs. Relat ing to a system in which i11putdata is processed, so that it is availabl e virtuall y inunediat ely for feedback.

J' Dl \M-10 Nl l'~l-•117 I 001. ;, ...RS,(',,\i

11..,fl\'ll) , .. , llJ!\IPRl:.Hi·N~IV[ l'a~c ~ nl ~1

"fl,\Z'I.\.'\ r [;:,./t\RnNMF:--.:1Al l I 1-~Nl~t, Sf R\ frFS

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 84 of 135

C.3.1.2 9

Response T ime mean s the time period in which the Contractor, after iojtial notification by the District, is required to be physically on the premises at the work site, with appropriate tools, equipment, and materials, ready to perform the required Work.

C.3.1.30
C.3.l. 31
C.3. 1.32
C.3.2 C.3.2. 1 C.3. 2 .2 C.3.2.3 C.3.2.4 C.3.2.5 C.3.2.6 C.3.2.7 C.3 .2.8 C.3.2. 9 C.3 .2.10 C.3.2 .11

SalesForce: is a cloud-based CRM (Customer Relationship Management) software system. Salesforce provides a platform for work order management, enabling DGS to track work order Service Level Agreements (SLA's) and oversee city-wide facilities work order request, and monitor contractor ' s costs and performance. Contractors are required to update the system at a timely manner and understand DGS will use the data as a contractor work performance indicator in armual and quarterly reviews.

Volatile organic com pounds (VOCs) are organic chemicals that evaporate at room temperature under normal indoor conditions. VOCs include a vari ety of chemicals that are emitted by a wide array of products, such as: cleaning supplies , bwlding materials and furnishin gs, office equipment , pamts and lacque rs, paint strippers, pestic ides, etc. Many types of VOCs have been linked to a variety of adverse health effects, including: eye, nose, and throat irritation ; headaches; loss of concentration; nausea ; damage to the Liver, kidney, and central nervous system; allergic skin reaction; fatigue; djzziness; and cancer mandates , etc.

Wage Deter min ation A wage detetmination is a listing of wage rates and fringe benefit rates for each labor category of workers which the U.S. Department of Labor has detem1ined to be prevailing in a given area. It establishes standar ds for wage rates and safety and health protections for employees performing work on covered Government contracts.

Acron yms T he following ar e acro nyms used for th e purp ose of this solicitat ion :

ANSI

American National Standards Institute

BLRA

refers to the DCRA 's Busine ss Licensing Regulation Administration

BOCA

Building Official Code Administrators

CERP
co

Contractor's Emergency Response Plan Contracting Officer

CO TR

Contracting Officer's Technical Repre sentative

OCM R

District of Columbia Murucipal Regulat ions

DOC

Department of Corrections

DCRA

Department of Consume r and Regulatory Affairs

DGS

Department of General Services

DSLBD

DC Deprutment of Small and Local Business Development

Dl' ~M-20-NC ,EM-lli)N.\

0<'l' S,<I.R'\•Cn\' ~ tl OVlD I'll l uMrRU-HN.'-!VF "HAi' Mi\ T' E:-:Vllll )1':\1ENTAL l I FAN!NG '-Ll(\"ICES !'age C/nf-;:;

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 85 of 135

C.3.2 .12 C.3 .2.13 C.3.2.14 C.3.2.15 C.3.2.16 C.3.2.17

EMCS
EPA
MSDS
NFPA
NIOSH OSHA

C.3.2. 18 C .3.2.19 C .3.2.20 C.3. 2.21 C. 3 .2 .22 C .3.2.23 C.3.2 .24

PBS
PPE
QA QA.P QC QCP SCP

Energy Management Control Systems Environme ntal Protection Agency Material Safety Data Sheet Nationa l Fire Protection Association National Institut e for Occupational Safety and Heal th Occupati onal Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the Federal Government agency responsible for providing the rules and regulations on safety and health requirements in the workplace Publi c Buildin gs Maintenance Guides and Time Standards Personal Pro tective Equipment Quality Assurance Quality Assuranc e Protocol Quali ty Control Quality Control Program Strike Continge ncy Plan

CA
C.5 C.5. 1

BACKGROUND
The District of Columbia Government (the " District") by and through its Department of General Services (" DGS"), on behalf of the Departme nt of Corrections ("DOC") , collectively (the "District'') is committe d to improving the quality , appearance and cleanlines s of its real proper ty assets throughout the District of Columbia including the Departme nt of Corrections. The Department of General Services provides operations, management, maintenance, engineering, janitorial and exterior grounds maintenance and related services for over eight hundred fifty (850) properties with approximately 36,000,000 in gross square feet. These properti es include municipal buildings , schools, parks and recreation cente rs, warehouses, and res idential properties both occupied and vacant. As a service-providing agency , positive customer service and rapid response and resolution to tenant issues, projects, and service requests are paramount to the Departme nt's operations mission and values.

REQUIRl.i,\:IENTS & STANDARDS OF SERVICES

~- ... -:- --

-~

Requir ements The Contr actor shall be prepared to take the steps necessary in order to mitigate and reduce the spread and effect of an influenza-like epidemic and or pandemic on behalf of the District through

r· Dl A.\1 21'-"IL- E\i-11117',-\l DOC SARS-C,>\ -~ 1<O\'iD•l'11 t 1JMPREHL-~SIV£'"IJAZMA E:-:\'IRO~\\E:--;T A.I I I I',\NINu S[R\'Jr E~
l'"l~~ lllof".i

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 86 of 135

its custodial /housekeeping operations und er the current global threat associated with the SARSCo V-19 (COVID-19) Coronavirus-19 epidemic. Given the unpredictable length and severity of a pandemic, the Contractor's shall link their planned actions to the periods and phases established by the World Hea lth Organization ("WHO") and the Center for Disease Control ("CDC'') throughout an epidemic and or pandemic cycle. The Contractor shall provide environmental HAZMA T level, cleaning services at the Department of Corrections, Ce ntral Detention Facility/D.C. Jail, located at 1901 D Street , S.E., Washington , D.C. 20003 focusing on all high touch smfaces and areas , to include but is not limited to: desks, computer mouse & keyboards, phones, lockers, cubbies , window sills and counter tops, doors, frames, doorknobs and push bars, elevator buttons, light switches , handrails, bathroom floors, faucet handles , toilet handles, toilet stall door locks, towel dispenser and hand driers, shower, kitchen areas cafeterias, office commo n areas, nurse and other rooms. These services shall be carried out in accordance with the U.S. Center for Disease Control ("CDC") Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID -19) Environmental Cleaning and Disinfection Recommendations without restrict ion.

https :ll www.cd c.govlc oronavirus/2019-ncovlc ommunity/home/ clean ing-disinfection.html

https:llwww.cdc.gov/c oronavirus/2019-nco vl in(ect ion-controllc ontro I-r ecommendations.html

https:llwww.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/communitvlorganizationsic Ieaning-disinfeetion.html

https:llcoronavirus.dc.gov/page/coronavirus-resources

C.5.1.1

Chemicals approved for use: Refer to the links provided in Section C.2 [11] - EPA, [ I2] - CB C and , [13] - CDC Registered Antimicrobial Products for Use Against Novel Coronavirus SARSCoV-2 , the Cause of COVID-19 . The Contractor shall follow manufacturers recommendations for proper use, concentrations , and applicabl e surfaces. It is the contractor's sole responsibility to use the right chemicals for the right application.

C.5 .1. 2

The Contractor shall follow District and Federal Regulations as well SARS-Co V-19 guidance provided by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC'') to ensure their personnel are protected to include but not Limitedto:

• Personal Protective Equipment Training, • Daily temperature measurement /testing of all personnel to confirm a temperature is not
present and shall be email to the COTR daily. • Respirator use and fit testing, • Contractor to provide records of all testing prior to commencement of work , • Maintain required record keeping, • Contractor must maintain at least one supervisor onsite with Coronavirus disease (COVID-
19) training : Online training . • Contractor shall maintain Safety Data Sheet s (SOS) for all chemica ls onsite and updated
as revision are issued.

C.5.1.3

Per sonnel Prot ective Equipment (PPE)

Contractors are required to wear goggles, recommended respirators, Tyvek Coveralls or overalls and all else required to prevent further contamination and or the continued spread through

DCA,1\1-211-'N- F(f,,1-;)117'1I,\nnc S.V<S-(\1\.' in)\ tn-JQ, ( !lMPREIIENSf\'f, "H •\/. MFI •• I"N\"1RO:-..Ml'NT.\ I Cl !:-\N I ~CiSI ll\'ICT.S
Pat~•·t I l\f :'-J

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 87 of 135

C.5.1.3 .1
C.5.1.3.2 C.5.1.3.3 C.5.1.3.4
C.5.2 C.5. 2.1 C.5 .2.1 .1

comprehensive environmental mitigation clean ing services in wake of a biological epidemic and or pandemic response measures . The Contractor' s staff shall comply with the CDC approv ed and appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as disposable gloves , gow ns and N95 respirator mask when performing all tasks in the cleaning process, including handling trash. Personal clothing shall not be worn in way that it may be exposed to airborne dust ancl/or particulates. The Contractor's staff shall wear disposable coverall or reusable PPE can be worn (those approved for multiple use when strictly following manufacturers decon tamination methods) but shall be changed out at end of each shift. All used coveralls should be collected in a used cloth ing bin for cleaning by professional decontam inatio n by cleaners in accordance with individual manufacturer instructions . If temporary suits are worn, they shall be discarded in accordance with CDC gui deli nes, local and state regu lations.
Gloves and shoe covers should be worn at all times . Gloves must be appropriate for each chemical used. It is recomm ended that all personne l performing COVfD clea nin g operations wear full/half face respira tor (personnel performing fogging mu st wear a respirato r). Additional PP E might be required based on the cleaning /disinfectant products being used and whether there is a risk of splash.
Gloves and gowns shall be removed carefully to avoid contamination of the wearer and the surrounding area. The Contractor's staff shall be clean its hands after removing gloves. Glov es shall be removed afte r cleaning a room or area whether or not occupied by ill persons. The Contractor ' s staff shall clean its hands immediately after gloves arc removed.
Cleaning staff shall imme diately report breaches in PP E (e .g., tear in gloves) or any potential exposure s to the ir supervisor and the Contractor's Contract Representative shall immediately repo 1i such breaches to the District CO TR .
Standards of Services
Initial COVID Cleaning Event
Prior to COVID Cleaning Services the contractor shall:
(i) Ventilate the rooms /spaces prior to cleaning /disinfecting and allow to ventilate during cleaning if possibl e. If ventilation through open windows is not poss ib le, use a high volum e HEPA filter system to remove airborne part icle s from the air during cleaning. Temporarily increase the cleaning area ' s humidity to approximately 50% Relative Hum idity (RJ-.1) if possible.
(ii) Contractor shall perf01m general cleaning removing dirt and debris (this does not require approved disinfectants), this includes a mopping event. Clean all dust from horizontal surfaces with a towel dampened. This is done first to minimize re-a eros olization of stationa ry contaminated dust and particles due to nearby activity. Contractor shall be careful to use slow, smooth wiping action and change out or wet clean the towel on a regular basis to minimize re-aeroso lization of the wiper dust and particulates.
(iii) Contrac tor shall not perform any sweeping (iv) Restroom s should receive special attention due to the tendency of the COV ID-19 to
bioaccumulate within feces, vomit, sputum , and urine. Clean any surface that may have

DC'I\M-20- NC E'M ll07G,\' DOC SAK~-(oV-J tCOVID- !"l \'OMPf~tHEN~!Vl "IIAtMAT' f;','VlRCi1"f\'ff'iT .\L l'Ll/\'liNG SERVl{'r'\ Pag,· 12 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 88 of 135

C.5.2.1.2 C.5.2.3

blood, stool or body fluids on them taking established Blood-Borne Pathogen (BBP) universal precautions and disposal. (v) Vacuuming: Contractor shall vacuum carpeting and other fabrics. Vacuums used shall have High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filtration systems installed . Take appropriate precautions when changing the vacuum HEPA or pre-filter to minimi ze exposures to airborne dusts . Use change in bag procedures to change out vacuum filters.
Dis infection (i) Contractor shall perform trash-liner replacement and disinfection of all trash receptacles (ii) Contractor shall perform disinfection of all components such as desks , computer mouse &
keyboards , phones , lockers, cubbies , window sills and counter tops, doors, frames, doorknobs and push bars, elevator buttons, light switches, handrails, bathroom floors, faucet handles, toilet handles, toilet stall door locks, towel dispenser and band driers, shower and locker rooms , kitchen areas cafeterias, office common areas, nurse and other rooms (an alcohol solution shall be used for all electronics). a) Do not dry the surface after applying the disinfectant. The surface that are disinfected
shall stay wet for the amount of time listed on the label (minimum of 30 seconds for most) . This step is important because the contact time is what is required to kill the virus. Leave the surface you are cleaning wet with disinfectant for as many minutes as the product instructions require. It's not enough to j ust wipe a surface with a rag dampened with disinfectant. b) Pay special attention to properly disinfect window ledges and other commonly dusty surfaces. c) Disinfect all vertical surface up to 6 foot from floor , including but not limited to walls, windows, columns, doors, rails, etc. d) Clean and disinfect HV AC system or other ventilation grills including removing all caked-on debris, dust, grease, etc.
(i) Contractor shall disinfect floors by mopping with approved chemicals (this is the second round of mopping). Care must be taken to not dilute cleaning chemicals more than manufacturers recommendations. Precautions must be taken to not aerosolize the dirty cleaning liquid but instead use steady and sweeping mop swipes and careful, deliberate mop head squeezes. Efficacy for sanitizing or disinfecting is very dependent on three factors: a) concentration of the active ingredients, b) the dw-ation of exposure of the pathogens to the active ingredients , and c) the surface material to be disinfected.
Fogg ing
Once disinfection cleaning is complete areas are to be identified by the DOC representative that can be fogged (Please note, a sprayer cannot be used as a substitute for a fogger). When fogging, contracted personnel must wear a full-face respirator with organic cartridges. Contractor shall perform fogging operations in areas identified by the representative, ensuring all surfaces are saturated. Limit access to the area fogged until no longer volatized.

DCAM 20-NC'-EM-007•1,\Ione SARS-C,lV-., ;(.'(_)\•lD !'-11COMPREHE!l;S[Vf-"I JAL\1,<\T'" ENVllltlN\'li'NTAL C'LF(\'<l"l<.iS.:EJ?Vl<'l-''-
Page IJ of ~J

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 89 of 135

C.5.2.3.I After conducting cleaning and fogging services:

(iii) Do not re-use any clothing used during cleaning.
(iv) Launder items as appropriate in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. If possible , launder items using the hottest appropriate water setting for the items and high temperature dry (if possible) items completely.
(v) Inform laundry services of potential COVID-19 contamination if laundry is sent to external services for cleaning.

C.5.2.4 C.5.2.4.1

General Cleaning Sta ndard The Conh·actor shall follow all guidelines as recommended by the Center for Diseas e Control (CDC) . The following cleaning mechanisms and guidance shall be used and followed.
S urfac es Surfaces shall be cleaned using a detergent or soap and water prior to disinfection.

C.5.2.4 .1.1 For disinfection, tbe Contractor shall dilute household bleach solutions, alcohol solutions with at lea st 70% alcohol, and most common EPA-registered household disinfectants should be effective.

C. 5.2.4.1.2

Diluted household bleach solutions can be used if appropriate for the smface. Follow
manufacturer's instructions for application and proper ventilation. Check to ensure the product is not past its expiration date . Never mix household bleach with ammon ia or any other cleanser. Unexpired household bleach will be effective against coronaviruses when properly diluted .

Prepare a bleach solution by mixing:
1. (5) tablespoons (I /3rd cup) bleach per gallon of water or; 2 . (4) teaspoons bleach per quart of water,

a . Products with EPA-approved emerging viral pathogens claims are expected to be effective aga inst COVID-19 based on data for harder to kill viruses. Follow the manufacturer 's instruc tions for all cleaning and disinfection products (e.g., concentration, application method and contact time, etc.) .
b. For soft (porous) surfaces such as carpeted floor, rugs, and drapes , remove visible contamination if present and clean with appropriate cleaners indicate d for use on these surfaces. After cleaning:

1. If the items can be laundered , launder items in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions using the warmest appropriate water sett ing for the items and then dry items completely.

11. Otherwise, use products with the EPA-ap pro ved emerging viral pathogens claims that are suitable for porous surfaces.

DLAM,20-!\"C-EM 11(17'1·\DOL SArC-,-(,,\, ;: 1l OVID-i<i, ( 'Ot\1PHLIll•'-i:;:1vr: r11\ZMAT"F!\"VIRONMr•"T.\I l LEANll's<.,SEf<vlCcS
P:1J,' 1-111f~,_

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 90 of 135

C.5.2. 5

Daily Precautio nary COVID Cleaning

C.5.2.5.1 Prior to Daily Disinfectio n Services the contractor shall :

C.5 .2.5.2

(i) Contractor shall perfonn general cleaning removing dirt and debris. Contractor shall be careful to use slow, smooth wiping action and change out or wet clean the towel on a regular basis to minimize re-aerosolization of the wiper dust and particulates.
(ii) Contractor shall not perform any sweeping.
D isinfection

C. 5.2 .5.3

(i) Contractor shall disinfection of all trash receptacles (ii) Contractor shall perform disinfection of all components such as desks, computer mouse &
keyboards, phones, lockers, cubbies, window sills and counter tops, doors, frames, doorknobs and push bars, elevator buttons, light switches, handrails, bathroom floors, faucet handles, toilet handles, toilet stall door locks, towel dispenser and hand driers, shower and locker rooms, kitchen areas cafeterias , office common areas, nurse and other rooms (an alcohol solution shall be used for all electronics) . a) Do not dry the surface after applying the disinfectant. The surface that are disinfected
shall stay wet for the amount of time listed on the label (minimum of 30 seconds for most) . This step is important because the contact time is what is required to kill the virus. Leave the surface you are cleaning wet with disinfectant for as many minutes as the product instructions require. h's not enough to just wipe a surface with a rag dampened with disinfectant. b) Pay special attention to properly disinfect window ledges and other commonly dusty surfaces. c) Clean and disinfect HVAC system or other ventilation grills including removing all caked-on debris, dust, grease, etc. (iii) Contractor shall disinfect floors by mopping with approved chemical s (this is the second round of mopping). Care must be taken to not dilute cleaning chemicals more than manufactur ers recommendations. Precaut ions must be taken to not aerosol ize the dirty cleaning liquid but instead use steady and sweeping mop swipes and careful, deliberate mop head squeezes. Efficacy for sanitizing or disinfecting is very dependent on three factors: a) concentration of the active ingredients, b) the duration of exposure of the pathogens to the active ingredients, and c) the surface material to be disinfected.
Foggi ng

Once disinfection cleaning is complete areas fog the areas previously identified by the DOC representative during the initial cleaning event (Please note, a spray er cannot be used as a substitute for a fogger). When fogging, contracted personnel must wear a full-face respirator with organic cartridges. Contractor shall perform fogging operations in areas identified by the representative, ensw-ing all surfaces are saturated . Limit access to the area fogged until no longer volatized.

C.5.2 .5.3.1 After conducting cleaning and fogging services:

OC e\M-20-Nl' -f:M-007 •,J\ I D0(' Sf\f{<;., ,)\'. ' 1l f)\'ID-1 •·1,1..0Ml'l<n-lENS!VI, "'HA7M.~ r-·liN\"IRONMl.'N'I .\f ( i f' ,\ MNC..Sl'RV JCES
P:1gc,L<of 'i3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 91 of 135

C.5.3 C.5 .3.1

(i) Do not re-use any clothing used dur ing cleaning. (ii) Launder items as appropriate in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. If possible,
launder items using the hottest appropriate water setting for the items and high temperature dry (if possible) items completely . (iii)lnform laundry services of pot ential COVID-19 contamination if laundry is sent to external services for cleani ng.
Reporting The Contractor is required to capture before and after pictures of the work performed and submit through the DGS Work Ord er Management System (Sa lesfo rce) within forty-eight (48) -hours following the completion of services .
The "S a\esForc e" service call system wiJI allow Department personnel to electronically record and request services in order for the Contractor to respond and depl oy se rvices. The Department requi res that the Contractor uses the Salesforce Customer Re lationship Manageme nt (CRM) for reviewing assigned work requests, reporting on work request statuses and completion, and submittin g cost proposals and completion of work documentation. SaJesForce traini ng is available, and the Contractor shall schedule training by calling (202) 698-7744 and/or emailing sales.force@dc .gov. Additional access to technical support is available during normal business hours (8:30 AM - 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday) thro ugh the Salesforce helpline (202) 6987744.

I'" DC'AM-20-NC' EM-001'!,\ I DOCSARS-CoV 2 1( O\•!D -1'1\ lOMPRF.HEN.SIVE ·•HA7M1\ FN\ IRONMl·NTAL CLEANINGSERV IC'E'-
P:.iµ,~16 ,11'i1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 92 of 135

SECTION D PACKAGING AND MARKING

D. 1

The packaging and marking requirements for the resultant Confract shall be governed by Article

No. 2, Shipping Instructions-Consignment , of the Government of the District of Columbia's

Department of General Services Standard Contract Provi sions ("SCP") for Supplies and Services Contracts, .January 2016 Attachme nt J. l .

DCAM-20-NC-Et-.1-0()CiJA I DQC'SARS-rnV -2 1\ OVfD-l'!\ COMPREHENSlVE----;·HAZMAr ENVIRONMEN T ,\! CLE.-\NINC,SERVlC'ES Page 17 of53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 93 of 135

SECTION E INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

E.l

The inspec tion and acceptance requirements for the resultant Contrac t shall be governed by Article

No. 5, Inspection of Supplies, and or Article No. 6, Inspectio n of Services, of the Government of

the District of Columbia's Depa11ment of General Services Standard Contract Pro visions ("SCP")

for Supplies and Services Contracts , January 2016 Attachment J.J.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 94 of 135

F.1 F. 1.1 F.1.2 F.2 F.3
F.3. 1

SECTION F PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE AND DELIVERABLES
TERM OF EME RG ENCY CO NTRA CT
The term of this Emergency Contract is for a period of up-to ninety (90)-days , effective 12-May2020, ending oo or before 10-August-2020.
Termination . The Department reserves the right to terminate th.isEmerge ncy Contract before the expiration of the 90-day period for conveojeoce if services are no longer required.
RESER J'El) /lnte111io11al(Ol'mitted/
DELIVERAB LES The Contractor shall perform the activities required to successfully complete the District 's requirements and submit one (I) hard copy and one (I) soft copy of each deliverable to the Contracting Officer' s Technical Representative (COTR) identified in Section [G.91in accordance with the following.
The Contractor(s) shall submit to the Department, as a deliverable, the report described in Section [H.5.SJwhich is required by the 51% District Residents New Hires Requirements and First Source Employment Agreement. If the Contractor does not subrmt the report as part of the deliverables, the Contractor shall not be entitled to and shall not receive final payment pursuant to Sect ion [G.3.2).

one c Dl AM-20"NC-EJ\1-lll)79,\ I

's.'\R:---(c>V-.: tC Q\ If i I' ' 1 OMPR CHEN''.JVI "HAlMA T" LNVIRt)Ni1,1f·NT .\I CLE,\ ',!N(j SCi<\'lCFS

P,ig~ l Y of :i~

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 95 of 135

SECTION G CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

G.1

INV OIC E PAYMENT

G .1. 1 G. 1.2 G.2
G.2.1
G.2.2
G.2 .3

The Department will make payments to the Contractor (s), upon the submission of proper invoices , at the prices stipulated in this Co ntract, for supplie s delivere d and accepted or serv ices performed and accepted , less any discount s, allowances or adjustm ents provided for in this Contract.
The Departm ent will pay the Contracto r on or before the 30th day after receiving a proper invoice from the Contractor.
COVID-19 LNVOICE SUBM ITTAL& PAYMENTS
The Contractor shall crea te and submit payment requests in .pdf format and email to the COTR of record. The Contractor must indicate the proper Contract number on all invoices. Properly prepared invoices with the necessary backup shall be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt. Properly prepared invoices not paid by that date shall bear interest in accordance with the Prompt Payment Act.
The Contractor shall submit a proper invoice based on applicable guidelines specified in Section IG.4 ]. Invoices shall be prepared and submitted to the COTR identi fied in Sectio n [G.9]. The District shall not be required to pay invoice d amounts or corresponding interest payments for invoices that are not properly prepared as required under this Contract.
Note: thjs is different from current process. For all COVlD-19 related invo ices, vendor does not submit invoice via e-invoicing . Rad1er, the vendo r submits a PDF copy of the invoice to DGS for review.

G.2.3.1

For all non-COVID invoice s, vendo r must continue with regular invoicing proce ss, via einvoicing ;

G.2.3.2
G.2.3.3

DGS COT R/Mana gement reviews COVlD-19 invoice, approves, and confirms with vendor prefened method of payme nt (PCARD or ACH);
DGS will submit approved invoice to OCP/EOC and confirm that it is "O K to Pay";

G.2.3.4 G.2.3.S

EOC/OCP pays vendor directly via PCARD or ACH ; Renee Bryant must be copied on all invoice submittals renee.bryantl@dc.gov ;

G.232.6
G.2.3.7
G.2.3.8

Name , title , telephone number and complete mailing address of the responsible officia l to whom payment is to be sent;
Name, title and phone number of the individua l preparing the invoice;
Name, title , phone number and mailing address of person ; if different from the person identified in Section [G.9.2] above to be notified in the event of a defecti ve invoice; and

DlAM-20-Nl-f\1-1107 11.\ D()l SARS-(,1\-2 1(0\•l[).('1\ ~ OMPREHl'NSI\ E "IIA7!1.1AT' l.:.N\ IR<lNME:NT\I ( I F-\Nl'-u $rRVICFS
Pag~ ellof •q

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 96 of 135

G .2.3.9 G.3 G .3. 1 G.3.2 G.4 G .4.1
G.4.2

Authorized signature .
FIRST SO URCE AG REEME NT REQU EST FOR FIN AL PAYM ENT
For Contracts subject to the 51% District Residents New Hires Requirem ents and First Source Employment Agreement requirements, final request for payment must be accompanied by the report or a waive r of compliance discussed in Section [H.5.5].
The Department shall not make final payment to the Contractor until the agency CFO has received the CO's final determination or approval of waiver of the Contractor's compliance with 51% District Residen ts New Hires Requirements and First Source Employment Agreemen t requirements.
PAYMEN T
Pay ment s on Par tial Delive ries of Good s & Services
Unless otherwise specified in this Contract, payment will be mad e on partia l deliveries of goods and services accepted by the Department if:
a) Tbe amount due on the deliveries on goods and or services warrants it; or
b) The Contractor requests it and the amount due on the deliveries is in accordance with the following:
(i) "Payment will be made on compl etion and acce ptance of each item for whic h the price is stated in the Schedule in Secti on [B.3.1 ].
(ii) "Payment will be made on completion and accept ance of each item in accordance with the agreed upon delivery schedule".
(i ii)"P ayme nt will be made on comple tion and acceptance of each percentag e or stage of work in accordance with the prices stated in the Sched u le in Section (8. 3. 1]; and
c) Presentation of a properly executed invoice.
Paym ent for Reimburs able Items and Services The Contractor will be reimbur sed for all approved Center for Biocide Chemistries ("CBC") , Environmental Protection Agency (''EPA") and Center for Disease Co ntrol ("C DC") antimicrobial fighting clea n ing product supplies ("solvents") , and approved pandemic , Persona l Protection Equipment ("PPE") collectively ("Cleaning Supplies"). Such cost for "cleaning supplies" will be reimbursed only when the following are complete: (i) the Contractor provides the Department with an invoice outlining the itemized cost of all approved cleani ng supplies and mate rials as described in Sectioo IB.3). The invoice shall be itemized to include but at a minimum , a full list of individual supplies /materials (i.e. antimicrobial clea ning solvent , N95 respirator mask, Tyvek suites , etc.) , quantity purchased, vendor cost of material s by line item, extended cost by material, and estimate shipping and arrival of materials; and (ii) the Contrac ting Officer's Technical Represen tative (CO TR ) approves the invoice. The Cleaning Supply Reimbursable Cost shall-not exceed the established ordering ceiling as defined in Section (B.3.2.1) for the term of the Emergency Contract. Cost of all materials and supplies shall be furnished to the Dish·ict at Contracto r cost

[)(.'Af,,f .;:(-)::Nc l.:M-1)079.\ 1 nn1 ~ARS l-.,v :: 1( ()\ (f). I'/, I I )MPREI ll -:-.;~IVJ·" HAZMA I ' l'N\ IRCIN'.ffN r ,\L ( Lr-\ '\dNC, ~ER\'ICl:S
P:.g~"'I ,,r-;~

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 97 of 135

G.5 G .5.1 G .5.2 G.5 .3
G.6
G.6. 1
G.6.1.1
G.6. 1.1.1 G.6.1.1.2
G.6.1.1.3 G .6. 1. 1.4
G.6.1.2 G.6. 1.2.1 G.6 . 1.2.2

plus NO -MO RE than a 3% markup. The Department will 11otpay for or otherwise reimburse the Contractor for cost of any other equip ment purchase n11dor re,ited.

ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT PAYMENTS

Jn accordance with 27 DCMR 3250, the Contractor may assign to a bank, trust company, or other financing institution funds due or to become due as a result of the performance of this Contract.

Any assignme nt shall cover all unpaid amounts payable under this Contract and shall not be made to more than one party.

Notwithstanding an ass ignment of Contract payments, the Contracto r, not the assignee, is required to prepare invoices. Where such an assignment has been made, the original copy of tbe invoice must refer to the assignment and must show that payment of the invoice is to be made directly to the assignee as follows :

" Pursuant to the instrument of assignment dated----~ (name and address of assignee)."

make payment of this invoice to

THE QUICK PAYMEN T ACT

Interes t Penalties to Contrac tors

The District will pay interest penalties on amounts due to the Contractor under the Quick Payment Act, D.C. Official Code§ 2-221.01 et seq., as amended, for the period beginning on the day after the required payment date and ending on the date on which paymen t of the amoun t is made. lnterest shall be calcu lated at the rate of at least 1.5% per month. No interest penalty shall be paid if payment for the completed delivery of the item of property or service is made on or before the required payment date. The required payment date shall be:

The date on which payment is due under the terms of the Contract;

Not later than seven (7) calendar days, excluding legal holidays, after the date of delivery of meat or meat food products;

Not later than ten (10) calendar days, excluding legal holidays, after the date of delivery of a perishable agricultural commodity; or

30 calendar days , excluding legal holidays , after receipt of a proper invoice for the amoun t of the payment due.

No interest penalty shall be due to the Co ntracto r if payment for the completed delivery of goods or services is made on or after:

3rd day after the required payment date for meat or a meat food product; 5th day afte r the requi red paym ent date for an agricultural commodity; or

m A.!'.1-20-M f\1 il\li•I;\ I l 10(. S.\RS C,1\' 2 ,n)VID I'll COMPR[HF:-.;,Iv E • 1-!AZM.ol.T'L:N\'lRt)"il\.11.'._ l A.l t I !',\NIN(, SERVICES
Pa~<'2., of,J

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 98 of 135

G.6.1.2 .3 G. 6.1.3
G.6.2 G .6 .2. 1
G.6.2.1.1 G.6 .2.l.2 G.6 .2. 2
G.6.2. 2.1 G.6.2.2 .2 G.9.2.2.3 G.6.2.3
G.6 .2.4
G.6.3

l 5th day after any other required payment date.
Any amount of an interest penalty which remains unpaid at the end of any thirty (30)-day period shall be added to the principal amount of the debt and thereafter interest penalties shall accrue on the added amount
Pay ments to SubContracto rs
The Contractor must take one of the following actions within seven (7) days of receipt of any amount paid to the Contractor by the District for work performed by any subContractor under the Contract:
Pay the subContractor(s) for the proportionate share of the total payment received from the District that is attributable to the subContractor(s) for work performed under the Contract; or
Notify the CO and the subContractor(s), in writing, of the Contractor's intention to withhold all or part of the subContractor's payment and state the reason for the nonpayment.
The Contractor must pay any subContractor or supplier interest penalties on amounts due to the subContractor or supplier beginning on the day after the payment is due and ending on the date on which the payment is made. Interest shall be calculated at the rate of at least 1.5% per month . No interest penalty shall be paid on the following if payment for the completed delivery of the item of property or service is made on or before the :
3rd day after the required payment date for meat or a meat product;
5th day after the required payment date for an agricultural commodity; or
15th day after any other required payment date.
Any amount of an interest penalty which remains unpaid by the Contractor at the end of any 30day period shall be added to the principal amount of the debt to the subContractor and thereafter interest penalties shall accrue on the added amount.
A dispute between the Contractor and subContractor relating to the amounts or entitlement of a subContractor to a payment or a late payment interest penalty under the Quick Payment Act does not constitute a dispute to which the District is a party . The District may not be interpleaded in any judicial or administrative proceeding invo lving such a dispute.
Subco ntract requ irements. The Contractor shall include in each subContract under this Contract a provision requiring the subContractor to include in its Contract with any lower-tier subContractor
or supplier the payment and interest clauses required under paragraphs (1) and (2) of D.C. Official
Code§ 2-221.02(d).

Dl1\M-~O-NC.-EM•llll7'1AI OOL ~.\RS -( o\' ~ tl OVID J -11H!Ml'ItLlll·N SIVl' '·HAZ.\ l:\f'" J :,..v1R.OlsilVIE~,'I\l ( I F"' ¾JIN,( ~rRVICFS
P·(gc 2.1"r:'i·~

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 99 of 135

G.7

CONTRACTING OFFICER (CO)

Contracts will be entered into and signed on behalf of the District only by Contracting Officer . The contact information for the Contracting Officer is:

GEORGE G. LEWIS, CPPO Chief Procurement Officer
Chief of Contracts & Procurem ent
Depart ment of General Services
2000 14th Street N.W. I81h Floor
Telephone: (202) 727-2800 E-mail: george.lewis@dc.go v

G.8

AUTHORIZED CHANGES BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER

G.8.1

The CO is the only person(s) authorized to approve changes in any of the requirements of this Contract.

G.8.2

The Contractor shall not comply with any order, directive or request that changes or modifies the requirements of this Contract , unless issued in writing and signed by the CO.

G.8.3

In the event the Contractor effects any change at the instruction or request of any person other than the CO, the change will be considered to have been made without authority and no adjustment will be made in the Contract price to cover any cost increase incurred as a result thereof.

G.9

CONTRACTING OFFICER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE / CONTACT

ADMINISTRATOR ("COTR" OR "CA")

G.9.1

The COTR/CA is responsible for general administration of the Contract and advising the CO as to the Contractor's compliance or noncompliance with the Contract. The COTR/CA has the responsibility of ensuring the work conforms to the requirements of the Contract and such other responsibilities and authorities as may be specified in the Conh·act. These include:

G .9.1.1 G.9.1.2

Keeping the CO fully informed of any technical or Contractual difficulties encountered during the performance period and advising the CO of any potential problem areas tmder the Contract;
Coordinating site entry for Contractor personnel, if applicable;

G.9.1.3

Reviewing invoices for completed work aud recommending approval by the CO if the Contractor's
costs are consistent with the negotiated amounts and progress is satisfactory and commensurate with the rate of expenditure;

G .9 . 1.4 G.9.1.5 G.9 .2

Reviewin g and approving invoices for deliverables to ensure receipt of goods and services . Th is includes the timely processing of invoices and vouchers in accordance with the District 's payment provisions; and
Maintaining a file that includes all Contract correspondence, modifications , records of inspections (site, data, equipment ) and invoice or vouchers.
The address and telephone number of the COTR/CA is: The COTR will be determine based on the discipline listed Section 3.1.1 and location.

OCAM-20-NC-EM-00..YA noc ::-:ARS-('t1V' -1C0VIO !'Ii lot,WRCHF\jS!VE ..H1\7MA 'l~' [N\'[P0~\1l:1'.T \!Cl EANINti SERVICES
P;;/,(<' ?--1<lf ~3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 100 of 135

G.9.3
G.9.4 G.10 G.10 .1 G.10.2 G.10.3 G .10 .4 G.10.5 G.10.6

RUTH JENKINS Management Analyst Public Safety Cluster Mobile: (202) 579-2624 Email: ruth.jenkins @dc.gov

ALISON HERBERT Administrative Assistant Facility Management Division Mobile: (202) 710-9430 Email : alison.herbert @dc.gov

The COTR/CA shall NOT have the authority to:

KESSIA CRUZ Executive Assistant Facility Management Division Mobi le: (202) 596-4291 Ema.ii: kessia.cruz @dc.gov

1. Award, agree to, or sign any Contract, delivery order or task order . Only the CO shall make Contractual agreements , commitments or modifications;
2. Grant deviations from or waive any of the tenns and conditions of the Contract ; 3. Increase the dollar limit of the Contract or authorize work beyond the dollar limit of the
Contract , 4. Authorize the expenditure of funds by the Contractor; 5. Change the period of performance; or
6. Authorize the use of District property, except as specified under the Contract.

The Contractor will be fully responsible for any changes not authorized in advance, in writing, by the CO; may be denied compensation or other relief for any additional work performed that is not so authorized; and may also be required , at no additional cost to the District, to take all corrective action necessitated by reason of the unauthorized changes.

COST REIMBURSEMENT CEIL ING

Cost reimbursement ceiling for this contract is set forth in Section [B.3.2.11.

The costs of cleaning supplies used in perfonning the services under this contract shall not exceed the cost reimbursement ceiling specified in Section [B.3.2. 1).

The Contractor agrees to use its best efforts to perform the work specified in this contract and to
meet all obligations under this contract including the use of cleaning supplies within the cost reimbursement ceiling .

The Contractor must notify the CO, in writing, whenever it has reason to believe that the total cost of cleaning supplies used in perfonnmg the services under this contract will be either greater or substantially less than the cost reimbursement ceiling.

As part of the notification, the Contractor must provide the CO a revised estimate of the total cost of cleaning supplies required to perfonn services under this contract.

The District is not obligated to reimburse the Contractor for costs incuned in excess of the cost reimbursement ceiling specified in Section (B.3.2.1), and the Contractor is not obligated to continue performance under this contract (including actions under the Termination clauses of this contract), or otherwise incur costs in excess of the cost reimbursement ceil ing specified in Section [B.3.2.1), until the CO notifies the Contractor, in writing, that the estimated cost has been increased and provides a revised cost reimbursement ceiling for cleaning supplies required as part of performing services under this contract.

Dl'·\M-20 -NC EM-0079AI DOC ~/\RS-Cn\1 -.' tl OVlD -! 91 COMPREHENS[VE "HAl.\.tAr ENVIRL)NMF NTAL CLG\NING Sf,RVlCES
Paisc 25 or:-3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 101 of 135

G.10.7 G. J0.8 G.10.9 G. I0.10

No notice, communication, or representation in any form from any person other than the CO shall change the cost reimbursement ceiling. In the absence of the specified notice, the District is not obligated to reimburse the Contractor for any costs in excess of the costs reimbursement ceiling, whether such costs were incurred during the cow-se of contract performance or as a result of termination.
ff any cost reimbursement ceiling specified in Section [B.3.2. l] is increased, any costs the Contractor incurs before the increase that are in excess of the previous cost reimbursem ent ceiling shall be allowable to the same extent as if incurred afterward, unless the CO issues a termination or other notice directing that the increase is solely to cover termination or other specified expenses.
A change order shall not be considered an authorization to exceed the applicable cost reimbursement ceiling specified in Sect ion [B.3.2.1], unless the change order specifically increases the cost reimbursement ceiling.
Only costs determined in writing to be reimbursable in accordance with the cost princip les set forth in rules issued pursuant to Title V of the D.C. Procurement Practices Refonn Act of2010 shall be reimb ursable.

Ol ,\M ~11-Nl·l:M-\1\17•1.\[H11 , \ 1<'--',,\ 'il(l\

ID-l•'J UA1PRI Hl:N:s!V[ HAZr-..1T.\' F:-.:\ UH 1S\IENT \I l Lr •\Nl!\,li SER\ ICFS
f J~,· 1t> of~:\

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 102 of 135

SECTION H SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

H .1 H .1.1
H.1.1.1 J:l.1.2
H.2 H.2.I
H .2 .2 H.3 H.3.1 H.3.2

HIRING OF DI STRI CT RESIDEN TS AS APPRENTICES AND TRAINEES

For all new employment resulting from this Contract or subContracts hereto, as defined in Mayor's Order 83-265 and implementing insn·uctions, the Contractor shall use its best efforts to comply with the following basic goal and objectives for utilization of bona fide residents of the District of Columbia in each project's labor force:

At least fifty-one (5 l) percent of apprentices and trainees employed shall be residents of the District of Columbia registered in programs approved by the District of Columbia Apprenticeship Council.
The Contractor shall negotiate an Employment Agreement with the Department of Employment Services (DOES) for jobs created as a result of this Contract. The DOES shall be the Contractor's first source of referral for qualified apprentices and trainees in the implementation of employment goals contained in this clause.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WAGE DETERMJNATIONS

The Contractor shall be bound by the Wage Determination No. 2015 -4282, Revision No.: 1 7, dated 23-Apr il-2020 , issued by the U.S. Department of Labor in accordance with the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351 et seq., and incorporated herein as Attac hm ent J.2 . The Contractor shall be bound by the wage rates for the term of the Contract subject to revision as stated herein and in accordance with Artic le 25 of th e SCP . Jf an option is exercised, the Contractor shall be bound by the applicable wage rates at the time of the exercise of the option. If the option is exercised and the CO obtains a revised wage determination, the revised wage determination is applicable for the option periods.

RESF.RI El> /lnte111io11al(Or mirted/

PREGNANT WORKERS FALRNESS
The Contractor shall comply with the Protecting Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 20 16, D.C. Official Code§ 32-12 3 1.01 el seq. (PPWF Act).

The Contractor shall not:

(a) Refuse to make reasonable accommodations to the known limitations related LO pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, or breastfeeding for an employee, unless the Contractor can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose au undue hardship;

(b) Take an adverse action against an employee who requests or use s a reasonable accommodation

in regard to the employee's conditions or p1ivileges of employment , including failing to reinstate

the employee when the need for reasonable accommodations ceases to the employee's original job

or

to

an

equivalent

position

with

equivalent:

(I) Pay;

1)L .\M-211-NC liM-tl(l7'1A one SARS-C,,\' ~I \'()\ ·rn I'II ( OMPREHFNS!Vl •" I-IAZM,oT\'" [~\'IR()N\1li:-.J1 \ I ( LE .\.NIN(, S:ERVtrFS
Pag<-'n .,f SJ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 103 of 135

H.3.3
H.3.4 H.3.5 H.4 H.4.1
H.4.2

(2) Accumulated seniority and retirement; (3) Benefit s; and (4) Other applicable service credits;

(c) Deny employment opportunities to an employee, or a job applicant, if the denial is based on

the need of the employer to make reasonable accommodations to the known limitations related to

pregnancy , childbirth,

related

medical

conditions,

or breastfeeding;

(d) Require an employee affected by pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions , or breastfeeding to accept an accommodation that the employee chooses not to accept if the employee does not have a known limitation related to pregnancy , childbirth , related medical conditions, or breastfeeding or the accommodation is not necessary for tJ1eemployee to perform her duties;

(e) Require an employee to take leave if a reasonable accommodation can be provided; or

(l) Take adverse action against an employee who has been absent from work as a result of a pregnancy-related condition, including a pre-bitih complication.

The Contracto r shall post and maintain in a conspicuous place a notice of rights in both English and Spanish and provide written notice of an employee's right to a needed reasonable
accommodation related to pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions , or breastfeeding pursuant to the PPWF Act to:

(a) New employees at the commencement of employment; (b) Existing employees; and (c) An employee who notifies the employer of her pregnancy, or other condition covered
by the PPWF Act , within 10 days of the notification.

The Contractor shall provide an accurate written translation of the noti ce of rights to any nonEnglish or non-Spanish speaking employee.

Violations o f the PPW F Act shall be subject to civil penalties as described in the Act.

UNEMPLOYED ANTI-DISCRIMINATION

The Contractor shall comply with the Unemployed Anti-Discrimination Act of 2012, D.C. Official Code § 32-1361 et seq.

The Contractor shall not:

(a) Fail or refuse to cons ider for employment, or fail or refuse to hire, an individual as an employee because of the indiv idual's status as unemployed; or

(b) Publish, in print, on the Internet , or in any other medium, an advertisement or announcement for any vacancy in a job for employment that includes:

(1) Any provision stating or indicating that an individual's status as unemployed disqua\jfies the individual for the job; or

l>CAM-20-NC-1::M-llt\79.\ DOt ' ~ARS-C,1V 2 ft.OVID. 19\-COMPRtHENS!Vl· "11/\lt',1!\T" ENVIP< 1 IMPNT,\l 1'LEANINv S~RYtr'E=S P:i!:\.: J,-of:'i3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 104 of 135

(2) Any provision stati ng or indicating that an employment agency will not consider or hire an individual for employment based on that individual's status as unemployed.

H.4.3

Violation s of the Unemployed Anti-Discrimination Act shall be subject to civ il penalties as described in the Act.

H .5

51% DISTRICT RESlDENTS NEW HIRES REQU IREMENTS AND FIRST SOURCE

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

H .5.1

For Contracts for services in the amount of $300,000 or more, the Contractor shall comply with the First Source Employment Agreement Act of 1984, as amended , D .C. Official Code§ 2-219.0 I et seq. (First Source Act).

H .5 .2

The Contractor shall enter into and maintain during the term of the Contract, a First Source Employment Agreement (Employment Agreement) with the District of Columbia Department of Employment Service's (DOES) , in which the Contractor shall agree that:

H .5.3
H.5.4 H.5 .5 H.5.6

(a) The first source for finding employees to fill all jobs created in order to perfom1 the Contract shall be the First Source Register; and
(b) The first source for finding employees to fill any vacancy occurring in all jobs covered by the Employment Agreement shall be the First Source Register.
The Contractor shall not begin performance of the Contract until its Employment Agreement has been accepted by DOES. Once approved, the Employment Agreement shall not be amended except with the approval of DOES.
The Contractor agrees that at least 51% of the new employees hired to perform the Contract shall be District residents.
The Contractor's hiring and reporting requirements under the First Source Act and any rules promulgated thereunder shall continue for the term of the Contract.
The CO may impose penalties, including monetary fines of 5% of the tota l amount of the direct and indirect labor costs of the Contract, for a willful breach of the Employment Agreement , failure to submit the required hi.ring compliance reports, or deliberate submission of falsified data .

H.5.7

lf the Contractor does not receive a good faith waiver, the CO may also impose an additional penalty equal to l/8 of 1% of the total amount of the direct and indirect labor costs of the Contract for each percentage by which the Contractor fails to meet its hiring requirements.

H.5.8

Any Contractor which violates, more than once within a 10-year timeframe, the hiTing or reporting requirements of the First Source Act shall be referred for debannent for not more than five (5) years.

H.5 .9

The Contractor may appeal any decision of the CO pursuant to this clause to the D.C. Contract Appeals Board as provided in clause 14 oftbe SCP, Disputes.

H.5. 10

The provisions of the First Source Act do not apply to nonprofit organizations which employ 50 employees OT less.

DC.\M -2ll-NC'-EM-ll(l7'/,\ I DOI. SA!{S-(\1\1 'tl ovm Jill(_ 01\lPREHENSJVI: "HA/t-.1.<T\ " ENVlRONMl'NT'\I (';;~~ :_,9ur53

ti H.NIN(1 S[RVICES

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 105 of 135

8 .6 H.6.1 H.6.2
H.6.3
H.6.4 H.6.4.1 H.6.4.2 H .6.5
H.6.6

AUDITS AND RECORDS
As used in this clause , "records'' includes books, documents, accounting procedures and practices, and other data , regardles s of type and regardless of whether such items are in written form , in the form of computer data , or in any other fonn.
Examination of Costs. 1fthis is a cost-reimbursement, incentive, time-and-materials , labor-hour , or price re-determinable Contract, or any combination of these, the Contractor shall maintain and the CO , or an authorized representative of the CO, shall have the light to examine and audit all records and other evidence sufficient to reflect properly all costs claimed to have been incurred or anticipated to be incurred directly or indirectly in performance of this Contract. This right of examination shall include inspection at all reasonable times of the Contractor's plants, offices or other facilities or parts of them , engaged in performing the Contract.
Cost or pricing data. If the Contractor has been required to submit cost or pricing data in connection with any pricing action relating to this Contract , the CO, or an authorized representative of the CO, in order to evaluate the accuracy , completeness , and currency of the cost or pricing data, shall have the right to examine and audit all of the Contractor's records , including computations and projections, related to:
a) The Proposal for the Contract, subContract , or modification; b) The discussions conducted on the proposal(s), including those related to negotiating; c) Pricing of the Contract, subContract, or modification; or d) Performance of the Contract, subContract or modification .
Comptroller General
The Comptroller General of the United States , or an authorized representative, shall have access to and the right to examine any of the Con tractor's directly pertinent records involving transactions related to this Contract or a subContract hereunder.
This section may not be constrned to require the Contractor or subContractor to create or maintain any record that the Contractor or subContractor does not maintain in the ordinary cour se of business or pursuant to a provision of law.
Reports. If the Contractor is required to furnish cost, funding, or performance reports , the CO or an authorized representativ e of the CO shall have the right to examine and audit the supporting records and materials, for the purpose of evaluating :
a) The effectiveness of the Contractor's policies and procedures to produce data compatible with the objectives of these reports ; and
b) The data reported.
Availability. The Contractor shall make available at its local office at all reasonable times the records, materials, and other evidence described in clauses H.6.1 through FL6.5, for examination , audit , or reproduction, until three (3) years after final payment under this Contract or for any shorter period specified in the Contract , or for any longer period required by statute or by other clauses of this Contract. ln addition:

DCA.!vl-20-N(-FM-O(P~I,; DOC '-,1\RS/\1\-: ll '0V !D I'll I. nM rJ<LHF'\JSlV!·••f-!AZ;',,l.\'l'"1":\V1RON\1ENTAL ( Lf.\NIN(i SERVICE~
r.,g~.w· of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 106 of 135

H.6.7 H.7

a) Jf this Contract is completely or partially terminated, the Contractor shall make available the records relating to the work tem1inated until thee (3) years after any resu lting final termination settlement; and
b) The Contractor shall make available records relating to appeals under the Disputes clause or to litigation or the settleme nt of claims arising under or relating to this Contract until such appeals, litigation, or claims are finally resolved.
The Contra ctor shall inser t a clause conta ining all the terms of this clause, including this Section [H.6.71, in all subContracts under this Contrac t that exceed the small purchase threshold of $100,000, and:
a) That is cost-reimbursement, incentive, time-and-mate rials, labor-hour, or priccredetenninable type or any combination of these;
b) For which cost, or pricing data are required; or c) That requires the subContractor to furnish reports as discussed in Section [H.6 .5) of this
clause.
ADVl SORY AN D ASS ISTANCE SERVICES

H.8
H.9 H.9.1 H.9.1.1 H.9 . 1.2
H .9.1. 3

This Contract is a "no npersonal services Contract". The Contractor and the Contractor's employees: (1) shall perform the services specified herein as independent Contractors, not as employees of the government; (2) shall be responsible for their own management and administration of the work required and bear sole responsibility for complying with any and all technical, schedu le, financial requirements or constraints attendant to the performance of this Contract; (3) shall be free from supervision or control by any government employee with respect to the manner or method of performance of the service specified; but (4) shall, pmsuant to the governme nt's right and obligation to inspect, accept or reject work, comp ly with such genera l direction of the CO, or the duly authorized representative of the CO as is necessary to ensure accomplishment of the Contract objectives .
CRIMI NAL BAC KGRO U D AND TRAFFIC RECORD S C HECKS FOR CONT RACTORS THAT PROVID E DlRE CT SERVICE S T O CHILDR EN OR YOUTH RESERfEn /l11t1!11tww,I(O1·mitted/
SUBCONTRA CTIN G REQ UIREM ENTS
Mandator v Subcontr acting Requir ements
For all Contracts in excess of $250,000, at least 35% of the dollar volume of the Contract shall be subcontracted to qualified small business enterprises (SBEs).
If there are insufficient SBEs to completely fulfill the requirement of Section (H.9.1.1 I, then the subcontracting may be satisfied by subContracting 35% of the dollar volume to any qualified certified business enterprises (CBEs ); provided, however , that all reasonable efforts shall be made to ensure that SBEs are significant participants in the overall subContracting work. A prime Contractor that is certified by DSLBD as a small, local, or disadvantaged business enterprise shall not be required to comply with the provisions of Section s [H.9. 1.1] and [H.9.1.2) .

Dt ,\M-20-NC-1::M1)(179\ I DOt.' SARS-C,,V '1L OVlO - i 11ll)MPRLHl'NSl\'J/ ··HA7 .\L\ T" ENVIRllNMFN1 Al Cl !:A' IN(j SL!ZVlCl'S
Pag,•ll'lf"3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 107 of 135

H.9.1.4
H.9.1.5
H.9.1.6 H.9.1. 7 H .1 0 H.10 .1
H .10.2 H.10 .3 H . 10.4 H . 10.5

Except as provided in Sec tion s IH.9 .1.SJ and [H.9.1.7 ], a prime Contractor that is a CBE and has been grant ed a bid preference pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 2-218.43, or is select ed through a set-aside program , shall perfom1 at least 35% of the Contracting effort with its own organization and resources and, if it subcontracts, 35% of the subContracting effort shall be with CBEs. A CBE prime Contractor that performs less than 35% of the Co ntract ing effort shall be subject to enforcement actions under D .C. Official Code§ 2-218.63.
If the prime Co ntractor is a certified joint ventur e and has been granted a bid preference pmsuant
to D.C. Offi cial Code § 2-21 8.43, or is selected through a set-asid e program, the CBE member of
the certified joint venture shall perform at least 50% of the Contracting effort with its own organization and resources and , if it subContracts , 35% of the subContracting effort shall be with CBEs. lf the CBE member of the certified joint venture prime Contractor performs less than 50% of the Contracting effort, the certified join t venture shall be subject to enforcement actions under D .C. Official Code§ 2-218.63.
Eac h CBE utilized to meet these subContracting requirements shall perform at least 35% of its Contracting effo11 with its own organization and resources.
A prime Contractor that is a CBE and bas been granted a bid preference pmsuant to D.C. Official Code§ 2-218.43, or is selected through a set-aside program, shall perfonn at least 50% of the onsite work with its own organization and resources if the Contract is $1 million or less .
FAIR CRIMINAL RECORD SCREENING
The Contractor shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Criminal Record Screening Amendment Act of 2014, effective December 17, 20 14 (D.C. Law 20-152) ("Act" as used in this section). This section applies to any employment, including employment on a temporary or Contractual basis, where the physical location of the employment is in whole or substantial part with in the Distric t of Columb ia.
Prior to making a conditional offer of employme nt , the Contractor shall not require an applicant for em ployment , or a person who has requested co nsideration for employment by the Contractor, to reveal or disclose an arrest or criminal accusation that is not then pending or did not result in a criminal conviction.
After makin g a conditional offer of employment, the Contracto r may require an applicant to disclose or rev eal a crimi nal conviction.
The Contractor may only withdraw a conditional offer of employme nt , or take adverse action against an applicant, for a legitimate business reason as described in the Act.
This section and the provisions of the Act shall not apply:
(a) Where a federal or District law or regulation requires the co nsideration of an applicant 's criminal history for the purpo ses of employment ;

DC,\M-20 N<-Ef\-1-\l\\7'11\00t . .._,,,1<-1;;\1\- 2 il 1)\'l11 l•J\ COMPREJIJ.;NSl\'l· ' II V.t,.1A'T" ENViP.n!',t-,11''-.T A.l ( I c-A.'ilNt, :--FRVIC'ES l',Hl<' 1" 11(',:\

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 108 of 135

H.10.6 H.11 H.11.1 H. 11.2 H.12
H.12.1
H. 12.2
H. 12.3 H.12.4 H. 12.5

(b) To a position designated by the employer as part of a federal or District govemment program or obligation that is designed to encourage the employment of those with criminal histories;
(c) To any faciUty or employe r that provides programs , services, or direct care to, children, youth, or vulnerable adults; or
(d) To employers that employ less than 11emp loyees .
A person claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of the Act may file an administrative complaint with the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights , and the Commission on Human Rights may impose monetary penalties against the Contractor
DISTRICT RESP ONSIBILITIES The District will be responsible for the following regarding tl1isContract :
Assigning, monitoring and the Quality Assurance, Quality Control ("QAQC") surveillance of the vendor's complet ion of their scheduled site duties.
The District will provide access to and training on the SaJesforce Work order Ticket system.
CONTRACTO R RESPONSIBILIT IES
Con tract or No tice Rega rdin g Late Performan ce In the event the Contractor anticipates or encounters difficulty in complying with the terms and conditions as stated in the Contract or in meeting any other requirements set forth in the Contract, the Contractor shall immediately notify the CO and the COTR in writi ng giving full detail as to the rationale for the late delivery and why the Contractor should be gran ted an extension of time, if any. Receipt of the Contractor's notification shall in no way be construed as an acceptance or waiver by the Department.
At all times and during performance under this Contract, the Contractor shall be responsible to the Department for any and all acts and omissions of the Contractor's agents, employees, subContractors , sub- subcontractors, material suppliers, and laborers, and the agents and employees of the subContractors , sub-subConn·actors, mater ial suppliers and laborers perfonnin g or supplying work in connection with the project /services.
The Contractor shall be responsible for providing services in accordance with the requirements of this Contract.
The Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining any and all licenses and perm its, unless otherwise stated herein necessary for the performance of this Contract.
The Contractor shall furnish all equipment needed for the performance of the work under the resultant Contract. All equipment must be properly guarded and meet all applicable OSHA standards.

-

-

-

-

DlAM-~n NL-EM-ll()7'1,\ I D0i "'·IRS-C,1\'.' 1cn,·m-1•)) l OMPREflENSIVF··HI\ZMAT' l'N\'IRONI\IFNTAL ll FA~ING SrR\lCES

Pag<' ;"\ of:'1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 109 of 135

H.12 .6

The Contractor shall assume full responsibility and liability for compliance with all applicable regulations penain ing to the health and safety of personnel during the execution of work and shall hold the District harmless for any action on his part or that of his employees or subContractors, which results in illness, injury or death.

H .12.7

The Contractor shall furnish all MSDS for any mate rials used in the performance of this Contract. The Contractor shall make efforts to use recycled paper products and environme ntally preferable mate rials.

H .1 2.8

The Contrac tor shall be responsible for the base operations of the bui lding only, which excludes retai l space specific services, not prov ided to retailers by the bu ilding.

a) The Co ntractor shall be liable for all fines and shall comply with all District regulatio ns for safe handling , storage, disposal, and use of any hazardous mater ials and chemicals .

b) The Contracto r shall be charged the cost, in the event of fines or penalties levied by the EPA or an Air Quality Managemen t Authority.

H.12 .9

Bond Req uir em ents -

H . 12.10

Allowabl e Sub Contra cting R equir ement s

H. 12.10.1

The Contractor shall ensure that all activitie s carried out by any subContractor conforms to the provisions of this Contract.

H.12.10 .2

1t is the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure its subCo ntractors are capable of meeting the report ing requirements under this Contract and, if they cannot, the Contractor is not relieved of the reporting requirements.

H.12.10 .3

The Contractor shall notify the District Contracting Officer, in writing, of the termination of any subContract for the provision of services, including the arrangeme nts made to ensure continuation of the serv ices covered by the terminated subContract, not less than forty-five (45) days prior to the effective date of the termination, unless immediate termination of the Contract is necessary to protect the health and safety of Enrollees or prevent fraud and abuse. In such an event, the Contractor shall notify COTR immediately upon taking such action.

H.12.10.3 .1 If the District determines that the tennination or expiration of a subContract materially affects the ability of the Contractor to carry out its responsibility under this Contract; the District may termin ate this Contract.

H.12.10.3.2

The Contrac tor shall ensure subContract s contain a provision that requires subContracts to contain all prov isions of the Contractor's Contract with the District and that the subContractor look solely to Contractor for payment for services rendere d.

H.12 .11

St aff Attir e and Identification

H.12 . 11.1

The Contractor 's staff shall wear neat, clean, and professional attire . The attire shall include distinctive appare l identifying staff as Contractor's employees.

r· srnv l)l ,\M 20 NL-EM 11(i1•J' I [)()1 ,AR c;.( ,1\ ' \1.J.l\'ll l I I; t ()t,.lPREHJ·I\JSIV~"HAZM,•• ENVIR0'-1'-IFNT '\I \.I .~ ·\!'-IN(,

! ('[,<;

Page ::-111I "3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 110 of 135

H.12.1 J.2

The Contractor's staff shall wear identification badges at all times. The identification badges shall provide company logo , employee's name, and employee photograph.

H.12.12

Safety Requirements

H.12.12.1

The Contractor shall be responsible for complying with all applicable District and Federal rule s, regulations and practices relating to safety on the job site; for all injury to persons or damage to property that occurs as a result of the Contractor's negligence and shall take proper safety and health precautions to protect the work, the workers, the tenants and District property; and for all materials delivered and work performed until completion and acceptance of the entire work in writing by the COTR.

H.12.12.2

The Contractor shall provide and ensure that all its personnel at the work sites properly wear all applicable safety devices and apparel required by the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) includ ing, but not limited to:

H.J2.12.2.1 Back supp01t devices

H.12.12.2.2 Eye protection

H.12.12 .2.3 Hearing protection

H.12.12 .2.4 Hand protection

H.12.12.2.5 Head protection

H.12.12.2 .6 Foot protection

H.12. 12.2.7 Personal Protection Equipmen t (PPE) gear in accordance with the CDC 's established guideline

H.12. 12.3

The District has the right to inspect all areas for safety violations at its discretion , direct the Contractor to make immediate improvement of necessary conditions and/or procedures , and/or stop the work if other hazard s are deemed to exist.

H.12.12.4

Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary , the District shall not be obligated to make an equitable adjustment for any work stoppage that results from safety hazards created by the Contractor. In the event that the Contracting Officer directs the work to stop because of existing safety hazards after the Contractor has been notified and provided amp le time to correct , the Contrac tor shall bear all costs for eliminating the hazard(s) and shall not be granted compensation for the work stoppage.

H .12.12.5

The Contractor shall immediately notify the COTR if the job site is visited by an OSHA official for compliance of the Occupational Safety and Health Act or any other safety regulatory requirements.

DCAM-20-NC-FM llll7fl\ IJ>(Y' '>AR's-' ,►\ · .·, tl nvm \I) ( O\IPl<UILN:::;!VE'·HA7\1,<\T'' CN\!l,'0 , ' f\'IEN'T\I. \'l.l ·\ INC,SFRV!CES
P::igc_;_,0i :i3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 111 of 135

H.12.13 H.12.13.1 H.12.13.2 H.12.14 H.12.15
H.12.16
H.12 . 17 H.12.18 H.12.19 H.12 .19.1 H.12 .19.2

Fire Prevention
The Contractor shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining an effective fire prevention program for its employees and the District property being serviced on the job site.
The Contractor shall be knowledgeable and train all its employees on the job site to fulfill the requirements of this Statement of Work on the procedures, means of egress and methods of reporting fires on the job sites.
Smoke Free Environment The District's facilities are smoke free. Tbe Contractor is responsible for adhering to all applicable rules and regulations regarding maintenance of a smoke free environment on the job sites.
Delivery of Services The Contractor shall schedule its service deliveries during times that cause minimum disruption and inconvenience to Distr ict agency operations, including District of Columbia Public School (DCPS) operations. Unless otherwise approved by the COTR , the assessment services shall be made weekdays before 6:00 p.m. or on weekends. Upon conclusion of the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) academic year, the Contractor shall have more flexible hours to provide the assessment services .
Communication At its own expense , the Contractor shall provide electronic pagers, transportable cellular telephones , or any other telecommunicati on devices adequate to effectively provide a communication link to District officials especially in emergency sih.lations when the need to get hold of Contractor personnel is greatest. The names of the individual officers and the telephone numbers for their respectively assigned pager and telephone number shall be provided to the Contracting Officer and the COTR at the start of the period of perfonnance.
Accident Reports The Contractor shall ilmnediate ly notify the COTR of any accidents on the job site arising from the performance of this SOW that involve bodily injury to Contractor's employees or District workers or both , bui1ding occupants, visitors , or other persons.
Property Damage Notification Any damage caused by the Contractor or its employees to District property shall be promptly repaired or replaced by the Contractor at the Contractor's expense.
Suspension Of Work
In the event services are not provided or required by the District because the buildings is closed due to unanticipated circumstances, deductions to the Contractor price normally payable to Contractor will be computed as follows.
The deduction rate in dollars per day will be equal to the per month Contract price for the building, divided by twenty-one (21) days per month. (This will be adjusted as appropriate if some portion of the Contractor ' s requirements apply to weekends or holidays) .

DC'AM-20 NC Hvl-ll()79A I DOt.' SAl<S ·,,v .' <C0VlD I'-'•' lO.\fPREHf-NS!\'E ··HAlc\!A T'' LNVIR<Y-1'-,'.IL'NTALCL.E:\NIN(i SERVICES P,1gs•~I' of :5J

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 112 of 135

H.12.19.3 H.12 .19.4 H.12 .19.5 H.12.20 H.12.20.1
H.13

The deduction rate in dollars per day multiplied by the number of days services were not provided or required will equal the total dollar deduction to be made.
Deductions will not be made to the extent that the Contractor can demonstrate that payment to employees is required by an incorporated wage determination or union agreeme nt.
In the event services are provided for portion of days, appropriate adjustments will be made by the COT R to assure the Contractor is compensated for services provided.
Contract Completion or Termination
The Contractor shall turn over all plans codes , manuals, recor ds, files, reports, databases spare inventory and materials developed or purchased in the course of the Contract to the COTR within thirty (30) ca lendar days after Contract completion or termination.
DIV ERS ION, REASSIGNMENT AND REPLACEMENT OF KEY PERSONNEL
The key personnel, if specified in the Contract , are considered to be essential to the work being performed hereunder. Prior to diverting any of the specified key personnel for any reason, the Contractor shall notify the CO at least thirty (30) calendar days in advance and shall submit justification, including proposed substitutions, in sufficient detail to pennit evaluation of the .impact upon the Contract. The Contractor shall obtain written approval of the CO for any proposed substitution of key personnel.

DCAM-.~O-Nr H.1-007l/,\ !)l\1. ~-<\RS111\ .~ tl fWID-l'li ( 'j)MPREHENSIVE ··nAll\11\ r- f"'-i\.l!l()NMl-1·-:TAI L'LEANINCiSERVICFS
J>ng._'J.i. of ~3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 113 of 135

SECTION I CONTRACT CLAUSES

1.1

GOVERNING LAW

This Contract , and any disputes arising out of or related to this Contra ct, shall be governed by, and

construed in acco rdance with , the laws of the District of Columbia .

1.2

APPLICABILITY OF STANDARD CONTRACT PROVISIONS

The Standard Contract Provis ions for use with District of Columbia Government, Department of

General Services Supplies and Services Contracts dated January 14, 20 16 (SCP) are incorporate d

as part of the Contract.

1.3 l.4
LS 1.5.1

CONTRACTS THAT CROSS FISCAL YEARS Continuation of this Contract beyond the current fiscal year is contingent upon future fiscal authorizat ions and appropriations.
CONTRACTS IN EXCESS OF ONE MILLION DOLLARS Any Contract in excess of $1,000,000 shall not be bindi ng or give rise to any claim or demand against the District until approved by the Council of the District of Columb ia and signed by the Contra cting Office.
CONT INUITY OF SERVICES
The Contrac tor recognizes that the services provi ded under this Contract are vital to the District of Columbi a and must be contiJmed without interruption and that, upon Contract expiration or terminat ion, a successor, either the District or anot her Contractor, at the District's option , may continue to provide these services. To that end, the Contractor agrees to:

1.5.1.1 1.5.1.2 1.5.2 l.5.2.1 1.5.2.2
1.5.3
1.5.4

Furnish phase-out , phase-in (transition) training; and
Exercise its best efforts and cooperation to affect an orderly and efficient transition to a successor.
The Contractor shall, upon the Contra cting Officer's written notice:
Furnish phase-in, phase-out services for up to ninety (90) days after this Contract expires and
Negotiate in good faith a plan with a successor to determjne the nature and extent of phase-in, phase -out services required. The plan shall specify a training program and a date for transferring respon sibilities for each division of work described in the plan and shall be subject to the Contracting Officer's approval.
The Con tractor shall provide sufficient experienced personnel durin g the phase-in , phase-out period to ensure that the services called for by this Contract are maintained at the required level of proficiency.
The Contractor shall allow as many personnel as practicable to remain on the job to help the successor maintain the continuity and consist ency of the services required by this Contract. The Contracto r also shall disclose necessary personnel records and allow tbc successor to conduct on-

IX /\M-:!tt.NL-FM ·ll<li'-,!\ D0C SAR~-(\1\· ) 1CQV1l I •1C'OM['REHl''ISIVL' ·H.'\i'Ml\l'' EJ\VIRCINMr'\il \I I I l.:ANlN<.iSERVl('LS P:11:11.:S ol "1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 114 of 135

site interviews with these employees. lf selected employees are agreeable to the change, the Contractor shall release them at a mutually agreeable date and negotiate transfer of their earned fringe benefits to the successor.

1.5.5

Only in accordance with a modification issued by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall be

reimbursed for all reasonable phase -in, phase-out costs (i.e., costs incurred within the agreed

period after Contract expiration that result from phase-in, phase-out operations) and a fee (profit)

not to exceed a pro rata portion of the fee (profit) under this Contract

I.6

CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION

TI1eContractor shall keep all information relating to any employee or customer of the District in

absolute confidence and shall not use the info1mation in connection with any other matters; nor

shall it disclose any such info1mation to any other person , firm or corporation, in accordance with

the District and Federal laws governing the confidentiality of records.

1.7

ESTIMATED QUANTITIES

It is the intent of the District to secure a Contract for all of the needs of the designated agencies for

items specified herein which may occur during the Contract tenn. The District agrees that it will

purchase its requirements of the articles or services included herein from the Contractor. Articles

or services specified herein have a history of repetitive use in the District agencies. The estimated

quantities stated in the RFP reflect the best estimates available. They shall not be construed to limit

the quantities which may be ordered from the Contractor by the District or to relieve the Contractor

of his obligation to fill all such orders. Orders will be placed from time to time if and when needs

arise for delivery , all charges prepaid, to the ordering agency. The District does not guarantee to

order any specific quantities of any item(s) or work hours of service.

1.8

DISPUTES

All djsputes arising under or relating to the Contract shall be resolved as provided in the Standard

Contract Provisions for use with District of Columbia Department of General Services Supplies

and Services Contracts dated January 14, 2016 ("SC P"), Article 14: Disputes Attachment J. 1.

1.9

CHANGES

(a) The CO may, at any time, by written order, and without notice to the surety, if any , make changes in the Contract withi n the general scope hereof. If such change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of performance of the Contract, or in the time required for perfonnance, an equitable adjustment shall be made. Any claim for adjustment for a change within the general scope must be asse1ted within ten (10) days from the date the change is ordered; provided, however, that the CO, if he or she determine s that the facts justify such action, may receive , consider and adjust any such claim asserted at any time prior to the date of final settlem ent of the Contract. If the parties fail to agree upon the adjustment to be made, the dispute shall be detem1ined as provided in Sect ion [1.8] Disputes.
(b) The District shall not require the Contractor, and the Contractor shall not require a subContractor, to undertake any work that is beyond the original scope of the Contract or subContract, including work under a District-issued change order/Contract modification,
f )('AM 20 NC-FM-0(F9A IDOt $ARS-C;,\ 2 t\ 'OVID- i 'il (. UMl'R LJiUNSIVt' "'HAZMAT'' FN\"!RI lNM l•Nl AL\ 'LlcA!\/1-./(, SH<\ I([<;
P~ge }9 o J :,;3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 115 of 135

when the additiona l work increases the Contract price beyond the not-to-excee d price or negotiated maximum price of th is Contract, unless the CO:
(1) Agrees with Contractor , and if applicable, the subc ontract or on a price for the additio nal work ;
(2) Obtains a certification of funding to pay for the addit ional work ;
(3) Makes a written, binding commitment with the Contractor to pay for the additional work within 30-days after the Contractor submit s a proper invoice; and
(4) Provides the Contractor with written notice of the fundin g certification.
(c) The Contrac tor shall include in its subCo ntracts a clause that require s the Contractor to:

( 1) Within 5 business days of its receipt of notice the approv ed additional funding , provide the subContractor with notice of the amount to be paid to the subCo ntractor for the additional work to be performed by the subContrac tor;

(2) Pay the subContractor any undisputed amount to whic h the subContracto r is entitled for the additi onal work within IO days of receipt of payment from the District ; and

(3) Notify the subContractor and CO in writing of the reason the Contractor withh olds any payment from a subContractor for the additional work.

Neither the District , Contractor, nor any subContractor may decla re another party to be in default , or assess , claim , or pursue damages for delays , until the parties to agree on a price for the additional work. l.10 NON-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE

1.10.1

The Co ntractor sha ll not discriminate in any manner against any employee or applicant for employment that would constitute a violation of the Dish·ict of Columbia Human Rights Act, effective Decembe r 13, 1977, as amended (D.C. Law 2-38; D.C. Official Code § 2-1401.0 I et seq.) ("Act" , as used in this clause. ) The Contractor shall include a similar clause in all subCon tracts, except subContra cts for standard commercial supp lies or raw materials. In add ition, the Contractor agrees, and any subcontractor shall agree, to post in conspicuous places , available to employees and applicants for employment , a notice setting forth the provision s of this non-di scrimination clause as provided in sectio n 25 I of the Act.

J.10.2

Pursuant to Mayor's Order 85-85, (6/ 10/85), Mayor's Order 2002 -l 75 ( I0/23/02), Mayor's Order 20 11-155 (9/9/ 11) and the rules of the Office of Human Rights, Chapter 11 of Title 4 of the D.C. Municipal Regulation s, the following c lauses apply to the Contract:

1.10.3

The Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for emp loyment because of actu al or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, persona l appearance , sexua l orientation , gender ident ity or expression , family responsibilities, genetic

r .\ f)( AM 20-:>:1 [ \1-0 t1' ,,,, 0(11. :;A RS (',1\"-' I ( ()\ Ill I 'l j( l)MPRrtlcr'\:-1\'f: 'HA /Mi\T ' I·:--.\"IR\lV1 !I•;>; I l I. E;.NIN<., SEI<\ ICES
l',<1,, ~U 11f 'J

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 116 of 135

1.10.4
1.10.5
1.10.6
1.10.7 1.10.8 1.10.9 1.10.10

infonnation, disability , matriculation, political affiliation, or credit information. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination, which is prohibited by the Act. 1naddition, harassmen t based on any of the above-protected categories is prohibited by the Act.
The Contractor agrees to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment , without regard to their actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation , gender identity or expression , family responsibilities, genetic information, disabil ity, matriculat ion, political affiliation, or credit information. The affinnative action shall include, but not be limited to the following:
a) employment , upgrading or transfer; b) recruitment, or recruitment advertising; c) demo tion, layoff , or termination ; d) rates of pay, or other forms of compensation; and e) selection for training and apprenticeship.
The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places , available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the Contracting agency , setting forth the provisions in paragraphs l 9(b) (l) and (b) (2) concerning non-discrimination and affimrntive action.
The Contractor shall, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment pursuant to the non-discrimination requirements set forth in paragraph l 9(b) (2).
The Contractor agrees to send to each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other Contract or understanding, a notice to be provided by the Contracting agency, advising the said labor union or workers' representative of that Contractor's commitments under this nondiscrimination clause and the Act, and shall post copies of the noti.ce in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.
The Contractor agrees to pe1mit access to its books , records, and accounts pertaining to its employment practic es, by the Chief Procurement Officer or designee, or the Director of the Office of Human Right s or designee, for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with the Act, and to require under terms of any subContractor agreement each subContractor to pennit access of such subContractors' books , records, and accounts for such purpos es.
The Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of the Act and with all guidelines for equal employment opportunity applicabl e in the Distiict adopted by the Director of the Office of Human Rights , or any authorized official.
The Contractor shall include in every subContract the equal opportunity clause, i.e., paragraphs 19(b) (1) through (b) (9) of this clause, so that such provisions shall be binding upon each subContractor.

D<"A M-20-NC El\-f-!1079.\ I D<K SAIZ\ ,·nv., 1COV!D- !•)1 r ()MPRl'.HC NS!VE "HAZM .V. r' ENV i RONMENTAI-n FAN ING ~ER\'I CES Page 41 or:'d

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 117 of 135

I.15.ll
1.11

The Contractor shall take such action with respect to any subContract as the CO may direct as a means of enforcing these provisions , including sanctions for noncompliance; provided, however, that in the event the Contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subContractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the Contracting agency, the Contractor may request the District to enter into such litigation to protect the interest of the District
RIGHTS IN DAT A
A. Definitions
1. "Products" - A deliverable under any Contract that may include commodities, services and/or technology furnished by or through Contractor, including existing and custom Products, such as, but not limited to: a) recorded information, regardless of form or the media on which it may be recorded; b) document research; c) experimental , developmental, or engineering work; d) licensed software; e) components of the hardware environment; f) printed materials (including but not limited to training manuals, system and user documentation, reports, drawings); g) third party software; h) modificat ions, customizations, custom programs , program listings, programming tools, data, modules , components; and i) any intellectual property embodied therein, whether in tangible or intangible fonn , including but not limited to utilities, interfaces , templates , subroutines, algorithms, formulas, source code, and object code.
2. "Ex isting Products" - Tangible Products and intangible licensed Products that exist prior to the commencement of work under the Contract. Existing Products must be identified on the Product prior to commencement of work or else will be presumed to be Custom Products.
3. "Custom Prod ucts" - Products, preliminary, final or otherwise, which are created or developed by Contractor, its subContractors , partners, employees, resellers or agents for the District under the Contract.
4. "District" - The District of Columbia and its agencies .
B. Title to Project Deliverables The Contractor acknowledges that it is commissioned by the District to perform services detailed in the Conh·act. The District shall have ownership and rights for the duration set forth in the Contract to use, copy, modify, distribute , or adapt Products as follows:
I. Existing Prod ucts: Title to all Existing Licensed Product(s), whether or not embedded in, delivered or operating in conjunction with hardware or Custom Products, shall remain with Contractor or third-party proprietary owner, who retains all rights, title and interest (including patent, trademark or copyrights) . Effective upon payment, the District shall be granted an irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, paid-up license to use, execute, reproduce, display, perform, adapt (unless Contractor advises the District as pa1t of Contrac tor's Proposal that adaptation will violate existing agreements or statutes and Contractor demonstrates such to the District's satisfaction), and distribute Existing Product to District users up to the license capacity stated in the Contract with all license rights necessary to fully effect the general business purpose of the project or work plan or

0( 'A.M-2(1-NC-E~l:Llll7f.,i\ I no1.. SAK.\ C,1\1 2 I(. ()VI[). l 1)1 UlMPRt.HFMil VE '"1]A7MA J.. I .NVIRP'-<MrNT Al LLE,\J,'ING :-l: RVJ('ES
Pag,· 42 of 53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 118 of 135
Contract. Licenses shall be granted in the name of the District. The District agrees to reproduce the copyright notice and any other legend of ownership on any copies authorized under this paragraph.
2. Custom Products: Effective upon Product creation, Contractor hereby conveys, assigns, and transfers to the District the sole and exclus ive rights, title and interest in Custom Product(s), whether preliminary , final or otherw ise, including all patent, trademark and copyrights. Contractor hereby agrees to take all necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that the Custom Product s are protected against unauthorized copying, reproduction and marketing by or through Contractor.
C. Transfers or Assignme nts of Existing or Custom Product s by the District The Departm ent may transfer or assign Existing or Custom Products and the licenses thereunder to another District agency. Nothing herein shall preclude the Contractor from otherwise using the related or underlying general know ledge, skills, ideas , concepts, techniques and experience developed under a project or work plan in the course of Contractor's business.
D . SubContractor Right s
Whenever any data, including computer software, are to be obtained from a subContractor under the Contract, the Contractor shall use this clause, Rights in Data , in the subContract, without alteration, and no other clause shall be used to enlarge or diminish the D istrict's or the Contractor's rights in that subContractor data or computer software which is required for the District.
E. Source Code Escrow
l. For all computer software furnished to the District with the rights specified in section B.2, the Contractor sha ll furnish to the District , a copy of the source code with such right s of the scope as specified in section B.2 of this clause. For all computer software furnished to the District with the restricted rights specified in section 8.1 of this clause, the District, if the Contractor either directly or through a successo r or affiliate shall cease to provide the maintenance or warranty services provided the District under the Contract or any paid-up maintenance agreement, or if the Co ntractor should be declared insolvent by a court of competent jurisdict ion, shall have the right to obtain, for its own and sole use only, a single copy of the current version of the source code supplied under the Contract, and a single copy of the documentation assoc iated therewith, upon payment to the person in control of the sourc e code the reasonable cost of making each copy.
2. If the Contractor or Product manufacturer/developer of software fw·nished to the District witb the rights specified in section B. I of this cla use offers the source code or source code escrow to any other commercial customers, the Contractor shall e ither: (1) provide the District with the source code for the Product; (2) place the source code in a third party escrow arrangement with a designated escrow agent who shall be named and identified to the District , and who shall be directed to release the deposited source code in accordance with a standard escrow arrangement acceptable to the District; or (3) will certify to the District that the Produ ct manufacturer / developer has named the District as a named
l)l ,\;1,L:n-N( I·\l-11171",\ D(l1 .;;.\RS -C,,V ' 1\"0 ·tr1 l ' 11 ( OMPRLI IP!':SIVE "I I \/ \f 1\T" J.N\ If:()', ~ll·NT AL \..LI.:.\NIM, "LR\ If FS 1 l~..-4•vl J

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 119 of 135

1.12 J.13
1.14

beneficiary of an established escrow arrangement with its designated escrow agent who shall be named and identified to the District , and who shall be directed to release the deposited source code in accordance with the terms of escrow.
3. The Contractor shall update the source code, as well as any corrections or enhancements to the source code, for each new release of the Product in the same manner as provided above and cert ify such updating of escrow to the District in writing.
F. Indemnification and L imitation of Liab ility
The Contractor shall indemnify and save and hold harmless the District, its officers, agents and employees acting within the scope of their official duties against any liability , including costs and expe nses , (i) for violation of proprieta1y rights, copyrights, or rights of privacy, arising out of the publication, translation, reproduction, delivery , perfonnance, use or disposition of any data furnished under this Contract, or (ii) based upon any data furnished under this Contract , or based upon libelous or other unlawful matter contained in such data.
OTHER CONTRACTORS The Contractor shall not commit or pennit any act that will interfere with the performance of work by another District Contractor or by any District employee.
SUBCONTRACTS The Contractor hereunder shall not subContract any of the Contractor's work or services to any subContractor without the prior written consent of the CO. Any work or service so subContracted shall be perfonned pursuaut to a subContract agreement , which the Distric t will have the right to review and approve prior to its execution by the Contractor. Any such subContract shall specify that the Contractor and the subContractor shall be subject to every provision of this Contract. Notwithstanding any such subContract approved by the District, the Contractor shall remain liable to the District for all Contractor's work and services required hereunder.
INSURA NCE
A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. The Contractor at its sole expense shall procure and maintain, during the entire period of performance under this contract , the types of insurance specifie d below. The Contractor shall have its insurance broker or insurance company submit a Ce1tificate of Insurance to the CO giving evidence of the required coverage prior to commencing perfonnance under this contract. In no event shall any work be perform ed until the required Certificates of Insurance signed by an authorized representative of the insurer( s) have been provided to, and accepted by, the CO. A11insurance shall be written with financially responsible companies authorized to do business in the District of Columbia or in the juri sdictio n where the work is to be performed and have an A.M. Best Company rating of A- / VII or higher. The Contractor shall require all of its subcontractors to carry the same insurance required herein.
All required policies shall contain a waive r of subrogation provision in favor of the Government of the District of Columbia.

r,,,·' [)( 'I\M,20-NC f'M-llt\i",\ f ,n( -~AR<;

tCO\'ll) , .,., ( OMP!ffHFNS)VF "IIA7M:\ T' f;"-;\'!RCl'lMl·"-. l l\l , 'Ll1ANINC,SLRVICES

Png.' ti 1 of s i

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 120 of 135
The Government of the District of Columbia shall be included in all policies required hereunder to be maintain ed by the Contractor and its subcontractors (except for workers' compensation and professional liability insurance) as an additional insureds for claims against The Government of the District of Columbia relating to this contract, with the understanding that any affinnative obligation imposed upon the insured Contractor or its subcontractors (including without limitation the liability to pay premiums) shall be the sole obligation of the Contractor or its subcontractors, and not the additional insured. The additional insured status under the Contractor's and its subcontractors' Commercial General Liability insurance policies shall be affected using the ISO Additional Insured Endorsement form CG20 10 11 85 (or CG 20 10 07 04 and CG 20 37 07 04) or such other endorsement or combination of endorsements providing coverage at least as broad and approved by the CO in writing. All of the Contractor's and its subcontractors' liability policies (except for workers' compensation and professional liability insurance) shall be endorsed using lSO fom1 CG 20 01 04 13 or its equivalent so as to indicate that such policies provide primary coverage (without any right of contribution by any other insurance, reinsurance or self-insurance, including any deductible or retention , maintained by an Additional Insured) for all claims against the additional insured arising out of the performance of this Statement of Work by the Contractor or its subcont ractors, or anyone for whom the Contractor or its subcontractors may be liable. These policies shall include a separation of insureds clause applicable to the additional insured.
If the Contractor and/or its subcontractors maintain broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown below , the District requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by the Grantee and subcontractors.
l. Commercial General Liability Insurance . The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the CO with respect to the serv ices performed that it carries a CGL policy, written on an occurrence (not claims-made) basis, on Insurance Services Office , Inc. ("ISO") form CG 00 0 I 04 13 (or another occurrence-based form with coverage at least as broad and approved by the CO in writing), covering liability for all ongoing and completed operations of the Contractor, including ongoing and completed operations under all subcontracts, and covering claims for bodily injury, including without limitation siclrness, disease or death of any persons, injury to or destruction of property, including loss ofuse resul ting therefrom , personal and adve11isinginjury, and including coverage for liability arising out of an insured Contract (including the tort liability of another assumed in a contract) and acts of terrorism (whether caused by a foreign or domestic source). Such coverage shall have limits ofliability of not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, a $2,000,000 general aggregate (including a per location or per project aggregate limit endorsement, if applicable) limit, a $1,000,000 personal and advertising injury limit, and a $2,000,000 products-completed operations aggregate limit.
The vendor should be named as an additional insured on the applicable manufacturer's /distributer's Commercial General Liability policy using Insurance Services Office, Inc. (" ISO") form CG 20 15 04 13 (or another occurrence-based form with coverage at least as broad)
Dl'AM-20-N(-l:M -0()74,\.1001__S· AR~-C',>V-'1c0VH)-['!\ ( UMPRFJH'NSIVI· "HA7MAT' F'i\'rRnNMFN T A,J U E.\NJNG SFRV!Cf-.S t':iHt' 4~ uf ~1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 121 of 135
2. Automobile Liability Insurance . The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the CO of commercial (business) automobile liability insurance written on ISO form COTR/CA 00 Ol l O 13 (or another form with coverage at least as broad and approved by the CO in writing) including coverage for all owned, hired, borrowed and non owned vehicles and equipment used by the Contractor, with minimum per accident limits equal to the greater of (i) the limits set forth in the Contractor's commercial automobile liability policy or (ii) $1,000,000 per occurrence combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers' Compen sation Insurance. The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the CO of Workers' Compensation insurance in accordance with the statutory mandates of the District of Columbia or the jurisdiction in which the contract is performed.
Employer's Liability Insurance. The Contractor shall prov ide evidence satisfactory to the CO of employer's liability insurance as follows: $500,000 per accident for injury; $500,000 per employee for disease; and $500,000 for policy disease limit.
AU insurance required by this paragraph 3 shall include a waiver of subrogation endorsement for the benefit of Government of the District of Columb ia
4. Crime Insurance (3rd Party Indemnity) - The Contractor shall provide a 3rd Party Crime policy to cover the dishonest acts of Contractor's employees which result in a loss to the District. The policy shall provide a limit of $10,000 per occurrence.
5. Cyber Liability Insurance - The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the Contracting Officer of Cyber Liability Insurance, with limits not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate. Coverage shall be sufficiently broad to respond to the dut ies and obligations as is undertaken by Contractor in this agreement and shall include, but not limited to, claims involving infringement of intellectual property , including but not limited to infringement of copyright , trademark, trade dress, invasion of privacy violations, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic infonnation, release of private inf01mation, alteration of electronic information, extortion and network security. The policy shall provide coverage for breach response costs as well as regulatory fines and penalties as well as credit monitoring expenses with limits sufficient to respond to these obligations. This insurance requirement will be considered met if the general liability insurance includes an affinnative cyber endorsement for the required amounts and coverages. NOTE: The Office of Risk Managemen t (OR ."4) will require the Contractor to furnish a copy of the actual cyber policy (not just the binder) prior 10 granting approval of the policy .
6. Environmental Liability Insurance - The Contractor shall provide evidence satisfactory to the CO of pollution legal liability insurance covering losses caused by pollution conditions that arise from the ongoing or completed operations of the Contractor . Completed operations coverage shall remain in effect for at least ten (10) years after completion of the work. Such insurance shall apply to bodily injury, property damage (including loss of use of damaged property or of property that has been physically injured) , cleanup costs, liability and cleanup costs while in transit, and defense
Ol 'AM-20-Nl'-H,I-OO; iA I DO!. SARS-C\N-' tlO\ ' H), 1111( OMPl(EI-JFNS!Vf " rli\D-1AT' ' fNV[PI l'-ll'vfl·~.I .\l \ LfAl-.JN~, Sl·.RVI\ '1:-.S
Pag<'46 or53

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 122 of 135

(including costs and expenses incurred in the inves tigat ion , defe nse and settlemen t of claims). There shall be neither an exclusion nor a sublimit for mo ld-relat ed claims. Th e minimum limit s requir ed under this paragraph sha ll be equal to the greater of (i) the limits set forth in the Contr actor's pollution legal liability policy or (ii) $2, 000 ,000
per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the annual aggregate. If suc h cove rage is writte n on
a claims-made basi s, the Contr actor warrants that an y retroactiv e date applicable to coverages under the policy precedes the Contractor's perfo1mance of any work under the Contract and that conti nuo us coverage will be maintained or an exte nded reporting period will be exercised for at least ten (10) yea rs after compl etion. The Contra ctor also must furnish to the Own er certificate s of insurance eviden cing pollution legal liability insurance maintained by the transporta tion and disposal site operators(s) used by the Contractor for losses arising from facility(ies) acce ptin g, stori ng or d isposing hazardous materials or other waste as a resu lt of the Con tractor's operations. Sucb cove rages must be m aintained with limits of at least the amounts set fo1tl1 above.
7. Professional Liability Insurance (Erro rs & Omissio ns) - Th e Contractor shall provide Profes sional Liabi lity Insurance (Error s and Omissions) to cove r liability resulting fro m any error or omission in the performance of professio nal services under thi s Co ntract. The polic y shall pro vide limits of $1,000,000 per c laim or per occurrence for each wrongful act and $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The Contractor warrants th at any applicable retroactive date precedes the date the Contr actor first per forme d any professional services for the Government of the District of Columbia and that continuous coverage w ill be maintained or an extended reporting period will be exerc ised for a period of at least ten years after the completion of the professional servi ces.
8. Sexu al/Ph ysical Abuse & Molestation - R£SEHVEn /l111mti mial (1 Omitted/
9. Commercial Umbrella or Exc ess Liability - The Contractor sha ll provid e evidenc e sat isfactory to the CO of comm ercial umbrella o r exc ess liability insuranc e with minimum li mits equal to the grea ter of (i) the limit s set forth in the Contractor's umbrella or excess liability policy or (ii) $5 ,000,000 per occ urren ce and $5,000,000 in the annual aggregate, following the fom1 and in excess of all liabil ity po licies. A ll liability coverages must be scheduled unde r the umbrella and/o r excess policy. The insurance req uired und er thi s paragraph shall be writte n in a fonn that annually reinstates all required limits. Coverage shall be primary to any insurance, se lf-insur ance or reinsurance maintained by the District and the "othe r insuranc e" provision must b e amended in accordance w ith this requirem ent and principles of vertical exhaustion
B. PRIMARY AND NO CONTRIBUTORY INSURANCE. Th e insurance requir ed
herein shall be primary to and will not seek contr ibuti on from any other insuranc e, reinsurance or se lf-in sura nce includin g any deductible or retention , maintained by the Government of the Di str ict of Columbia.
C. DURATION. The Contractor shall carry all required insurance until all Contra ct work is
accepte d by the Di strict and shall carry the requir ed General Liabi lity; any required Professio nal Liability; and any required Employment Pract ices Liabi lity insurance for five (5) years following final acce ptan ce of the work performed under this Contra ct.

Dt 1\M 'll -Nl I M-lll)N,\

r,01. o;;,.i.r<r,1s\' '!( ')\ 1[l pq ( 11t,1PRl:.Hf·~SI\ I., ' l!A/M.-\ T' I;. ''v lfllt'-'MEN r \I l IF \NI~(, .'ER\'lC[S
i• ,~\... 47 i)j '.,l

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 123 of 135
D . LIABIL ITY. These are the required minimum insurance requirements established by the District of Columbia . HOWEVER, THE REQUIRED MINIMUM INSURANCE REQUIRE MENTS PROVIDED ABOVE WILL NOT IN ANY WAY LIMIT THE CONTRACTOR ' S LIABILITY UNDER THIS CONTRAC T.
E. CONTRACTOR 'S PROPERTY . Contractor and subContractors are solely responsible for any loss or damage to their personal property, including but not limited to tools and equipment, scaffolding and temporary strnctures, rented machinery, or owned and leased equipment. A waiver of subrogation shall apply in favor of the District of Columbia.
F. MEASURE OF PAYMENT . The District shall not make any separate measure or payment for the cost of insurance and bonds . The Contractor shall include all of the costs of insurance and bonds in the Contract price.
G. NOTIFICATION. The Contractor shall immediately provide the CO with written notice in the event that its insurance coverage has or will be substantially changed, canceled or not renewed , and provide an updated certificate of insurance to the CO.
H. CERTIFI CATES OF INSURANCE. The Contractor shall submit certificates of insurance giving evidence of the required coverage as spec ified in this section prior to comme ncing work . Evidence of insurance shall be submitted to:
THE GOVERNM ENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
A nd mailed to the att ention of :
GEORGE G. LEWIS, CPPO C/0 Do monique L. Banks Chief Procurement Officer Chief of Contracts & Procurement Department of Gene ral Services 2000 14th Street N.W. j gth Floor Telephone: (202) 727-2800 E-mail: george.lewis@dc.gov
The CO may request, and the Contractor shall promptly deliver updated certificates of insurance, endorsements indicating tbe required coverages, and/or certified copies of the insurance policies. 1f the insurance initially obtained by the Contractor expires prior to completion of the Contract, renewal certificates of insurance and additional insured and other endorsements shall be furnished to the CO prior to the date of expiration of all such initial insurance. For all coverage required to be maintained after completion, an additional ce1tificate of insurance evidencing such coverage shall be submitted to the CO on an annual basis as the coverage is renewe d (or replaced).
I. DISCLOSU RE OF INF ORMATION. The Contractor agrees that the District may disclose the name and contact infon11ationof its insurers to any third party which presents a claim against the District for any damages or claims resu lting from or arising out of work performed by the Contractor, its agents, emp loyees , servants or subContractors in the performa nce of this Contract.
DlA.\l -211-NC~M -tlt)7'1:\ 001 '-1,\!!';; rs,,\ 'I\ IJ\IIH J,('1)Ml'RI H[~S!\l: "'IL·\JM ..\'T ' f :-.i\'Jlt<l 1~1\IF\. TAI tll.:·\'.JING ;:;H<'.IICL;S Pa~,· 4:i 01- :'i.1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 124 of 135

J. CARRIER RATINGS. All Contractor's and its subContractors ' insurance required in connection with this Contract shall be written by insurance companies with an A.M . Best
Insurance Guide rating of at least A- Vll (or the equivalent by any other rating agency) and licensed in the in the District.

l.15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

In accordance with the District of Columbia Admini strative Issuance System, Mayor's Order 85-

85 dated June I0, 1985, the forms for completio n of the Equal Employment Opportunity

Information Report are incorporated herein as Attachment J.8. An award cannot be made to any

Contractor who has not satisfied the equal employment requireme nts.

1.16

ORDER OF PRECEDENCE

The Contract will contain the following clause :

ORDER OF PRECEDENCE A conflict in language shall be resolved by giving precedence to the document in the highest order of priority that contain s language addressing the issue in question. The following document s are incorporated into the Contract by reference and made a part of the Contract in the following order of precedence:

(1) An applicable Court Order, if any (2) Contract document (3) Standard Contract Provisions (4) Contract attachments other than the Standard Contract Provisions ( 5) RFP, as amended ( 6) BAFOs (in order of most recent to earliest) (7) Proposal

1.17

TIME

Time, if stated in a number of days, will include Saturdays , Sundays, and holidays, unless otherwise stated herein.

DC'AM-2tl-NC-EM-Oll79AI DO<' S!\l<S-(\ ,V 21COVID -! 91COMPREHENSIVE ..HAZMAT" f!N\· IP.Ot.MENTA I CLEANING SERVIC'cS
Pa,.:,,,. 49 of "- i3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 125 of 135

SECTION J ATTACHMENTS
The following list of attachments is incorporated into the solicitation by reference .

•

-.-

.·

Government of the District of Columbia's Department of General Services Standard

J.1

Contract Provisions ("SCP") for Supplies and Services Contracts, January 2016

J.2

U.S. Department of Labor Wage Determination 2015-4282, Revision 17 Dated 23-

April-2020

J.3

Way to Work Amendment Act of2006 - Living Wage Notice & Fact Sheet

J.4

Bidder /Offer Certification revised 26-February -2020

J.5

Department of Employment Services First <1s1J Source Employment Agreement

J.6

Department of Employment Services First (!Sr) Source Employment Plan

J.7

DSLBD SBE SubContracting Plan Form

J.8

Department of Employment Services, Equa l Employment Opportunity Employer Information Report and Mayor's Order 85-85

J.9

Tax Certification Affidavit

J.10

Center for Biocide Chemistries Novel Coronavirus (COV ID-19) Fighting Products

J .11

EPA's Registered Antimicrobial Produc ts for Use Against Novel Coronavirus SARS-

CoV-2, the Cause of COVID-19

J .12

CDC Enviromnental Cleaning and Disinfection Recommendations

J.13

District-wide guidance for enhanced cleaning in all public facilities to protect against

COVID- l 9 spread

DCA.M-20-NC'-EM-1lt7)9,\ I 00( SARS-C,,\1-~ 1\.•)Vlfl - 1°1 COMPREHEl\iSIVI· -~AZM !\T" ENV!RONVll'l'vl r\l c·Lf ·\NlNG SERVICES Page 'i() of '.'1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 126 of 135

SECTION K REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF
OFFERORS

K.1

Bidder /Offeror Certifica tion Form AttachmentJ.4

K.2

WAL SH-H EALEY ACT

If this Contract is for the manufacture or furnishing of materials, supplies, articles or equipment in an amount that exceeds or may exceed $10,000, and is subject to the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, as amended (41 U.S .C. §§ 35-45) (the "Act", as used in this section), the following terms and conditions apply :

(a) All representations and stipulations required by the Act and regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor (41 CFR 50-201.3) are incorporated by reference. These representat ions and stipulations are subject to all applicable rulings and interpretations of the Secretary of Labor that are now, or may hereafter , be in effect.

(b) All employees whose work relates to this Contract shall be paid not less than the minimum wage prescribed by regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor (41 CFR 50-202.2) (41 U.S.C. §40). Learners, student learners , apprentices , and handicapped workers may be emp loye d at less than the prescribed minimum wage (see 41 CFR 50-202 .3) to the same extent that such employment is permitted under Section 14 of the Fair Labor Standar ds Act (29 U.S.C. §214).

K.3

CE RTIFICATIO N RE GARDING A DR UG- FREE WORKPLACE (JULY 1990)

K.3.1

Definitions. As used in this provision:

K.3.1.2

Conviction: means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendere) or imposit ion of sentence , or both, by any judicial body charged with the responsibi lity to determine violations of the federal or state criminal drug statutes.

K.3.1.3

CriminaJ drug statute: mea ns a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacture , distribution , dispensing, possession or use of any controUed substance.

K.3 .1.4

Drug-free workplace: mea ns the site(s) for the performance of work done by the Contractor in connection with a specific Contract at which employees of the Contractor are prohibited from engaging in the unlawful manufactu re, distribution, dispensing, possession , or use of a controlled substance.

K. 3.1.5

Employee: mean s an employee of a Contractor directly engaged in the perfonnance of work under a District Contract. "Directly engaged" is defined to include all direct cost employees and any other Contractor employee who has other than a minimal impact or involvement in Contract performance.

K.3.1.6

Individual: means an offeror /Contractor that has no more than one employee including the offeror /Contractor .

D( AM-20 NC-EM IH)7'!A [)(l\ ~:\i<S I,,\, ',( 'O\'l ll-J 11, { 0;,,,1i'R!:.1·\H,'.31\'"EHcAJl\,i/>,T'" ENV!ROl\;/l.1FNTAI CLEA"IINtJ ~ER.VICES Pag<"'i l of 51

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 127 of 135

K.3.2 K.3.3

The Contractor , if othe r than an indiv idual , shall within 30 days after award (unless a longer period is agreed to in writing for Contracts of 30 days or more per fonnance duration), or as soon as possible for Contracts of less than 30 days p erfmma nce duration:
( I) Publish a statement notifyin g its employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribut ion , dispensing, pos sessio n, or use of a contro lled substance is prohibited in the Contractor 's workp lace and spec ifying the actions that will be taken again st employees for vio lations of such prohibition ;
(2) Establish an ong oing drug-fr ee awaren ess program to inform suc h employees about: a. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; b. The Contractor's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; c. Any avai lable drug counseling, rehabi litation, and employee assistance programs; and d . The penalti es that may be impo sed upon employees for drug abu se violation s occurring in the wo rkplace .
(3) Provide all employ ees engaged in performance of the Contract w ith a copy of the statement requir ed by Section [K.3.2(1) ) of this clause;
(4) Notify such employees in writing in the state men t required by Section [K.3.2(1)] of this clause that, as a condition of continued employment on this Contract, the empl oyee will : a. Abide by the terms of the statement; and b. Notify the employer in writing of the em ployee's convicti on under a crimi nal drug statute for a viola tion occurring in the workplace no later than 5 days after such conviction.
(5) Notify the CO in writ ing within 10 days afte r receiving notice under Sec tion (K.3.2(4)( b)) of this clau se, from an employee or otherwi se receiving actual notice of such convictio n. The notice shall include the pos ition title of the employee;
(6) Within 30 days after receivi ng notice under Section IK.3.2( 4)(b)I of this clause of a conviction,
take one of the following actions with respect to any employee who is convicted of a drug abuse violat ion occun-ing in the workplace:
a. Take app ropriate personnel action aga inst such em ployee, up to and includin g term ination; or
b. Require such employ ee to satisfacto rily participate in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitati on program approved for such purposes by a federal , state, or loca l health , law enforcement , or other appropriate agency; and
(7) Make a goo d faith effort to main tain a drug-free workplace through impl eme ntation of Section (K.3.2(1)1 throu gh tK.3.2(6)1oft hjs c lause .
The Contractor , if an indiv idua l, agrees by award of the Contract or accep tance ofa purchase order, not to engage in the unlawful manufa ctu re, distribution, disp ensing, possessio n, or use of a controlled subs tance w hile performing this Contr act.

;-.;c l>\,,i\,\1-.10 rM OtYi•J:\ [')()1 S.'\RS-C'u\' 'tl 0\ IT) !•11 t ,,:-.1PR!illl'\:'-l\"I·' 11,\1/~11\T"J N\'ll'(.l"i\ffN1
I'-,~.-~2 ,I ",]

\I l°I f-\NJ-.;(, ,1 R\ (rf<s

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 128 of 135

K.3 .4

ln addition to other remedies availab le to the District, the Contractor's failure to comply with the requirements of Sections rK.3.2) or lK.3.3) of this clause may render the Contractor subject to suspension of Contract payments , tem1ination of the Contract for default , and suspension or debarment.

DCAM-20-NC -EM-OON \ 00C SARS-Cu\'-c 1( 0Vlf) I~ 1( 'OMPREHENSl\. E "H AZM/\T' fl'!\ IRllNMFNT .\L l LEANING S[RV !CES P,1~<' )1 of ~J

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 129 of 135
EXHIBIT 12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 130 of 135
D ft
Areas of Responsibility Cleaning Crew
This section includes details of required cleaning. Use this as a guide when approaching an area you 're unsure of .
Basement: (CLEANBEFORE2pm, NO EXCEPTIONS) Maintenance - wipe down office surfaces, clean bathroom, mop floor s Basement Security- wipe surfaces, sweep mop Laundry- Clean floors- wipe surfaces Warehouse - wipe surfaces, clean floor Loading Dock- wipe surfaces, clean fl oor DO NOT CLEANKITCHEN
Ground Staff Entrance- wipe down surfaces, mopping floor s to include control module , restrooms, body scanner, x-ray machine sweep, mop floor, pull trash inside and outside, wipe surfaces including control module. Same in the screening area. Leave outside trash on side of building for landscape officer to collect. Recreation Office- wipe down surfaces, mopping floors Command Center - ask if occupants want service, w ipe surfaces, and mop, to include restroom Keywatchers - outside of command center to be wiped down. IRC- wipe down surfaces and cells, and mop floors
****NOTE****
Restrooms- are to be cleaned and mopped, refill soap, toilet paper, and paper towel dispensers, refill all hand saniti zers throughout the building , and pull trash . Mopping - all floors throughout the facility, sweep, and mop Stairwells - once a month, sweep, mop w ipe down railings from top to bottom floor, stairwells 1-12 PM shtft to clean stairwell 10 every other day/evening . Elevators- sweep, mop and wipe down Dusting- clear areas that requ ire dusting
1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 131 of 135
JAILSIDE:
First Floor:
Visiting Halls- every other day wipe down surfaces and mop control moduleclean on PM Shift Housing unrts- common areas, showers, sallyport, sick call room, storage closets, gym, and abletops/chairs. Chapel- wipe surfaces, clean floor Chemical Room- sweep/mop
Second Floor:
C&P Area- wiping down desks and electronics, mopping Visiting Halls- every other day wipe down surfaces and mop control moduleclean on PM Shift Housing units - common areas, showers, sallyport , sick call room, and storage closets
Thi rd Floor:
Visiting Halls- every other day wipe down surfaces and mop control module Housing units - common areas, showers, sallyport, sick call rooms, and storage closets
*****NOTE*****
Restrooms- clean and mop, refill soap, toilet paper, and paper towel dispensers, refill all hand sanitizers throughout the building. Mopp ing- all floors sweep, and mop Stairwells - once a month , sweep, mop wipe down railings from top to bottom floor, stairwells 1-12. PM shift to clean stairwell 10 every other day/evening . Elevators- sweep, mop and wipe down Dusting- clear areas that require dusting
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 132 of 135
ADMINISTRATIVESIDE
First Floor Administrative Bldg Inma t e Records Office - sweep, mop, wipe surfaces, desks Surveillance - wipe surfaces, desks, vacuum Information Technology - sweep , mop , wipe surfaces, desks Wardens Suite - sweep, mop, wipe surfaces, desks, vacuum
Second Floor Administrative Bldg ODR (not kitchen area) , sweep, mop, clean tables/chairs , wipe surfaces clean poolroom, move to break room, offer to clean all offices e.g. adjustment boar d, security, environmental , barber and FOP. Major ' s office - sweep, mop, wipe surfaces Radio Room- wipe surfaces, clean floor
Third Floor Administrative Bldg Medical - Clean and mop exam rooms, office spaces, holding cells, observation cells, and nurses' station.
*****NOTE*****
Restrooms - are to be cleaned and mopped, refill soap, toilet paper, and paper towel dispensers, refill all hand saniti zers throughout the building, and pull trash . Mopping- all floors: sweep and mop Stairwell s- once a month, sweep, mop wipe down railings from top to bottom floor, stairwells 1-12, all but stairwell 10, to be done by evening shift every other day/evening. Elevator s- sweep, mop and wipe down Catwalk- Clean surfaces, mop designated area of the catwalk (up to CTFdoor).
See checklist on the next page. Your initials represent compliance in those areas you' re responsible for cleaning. Pages1-3 include details for areas the cleaning crew is responsible for cleaning.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 133 of 135

ChecklisotfAreasto Clean AMSHIFT

Area StaffEntrance

Cleaned: Yes

Cleaned: No (explanatio)n

AdditionaCl omments Assoonas crewentersfacility

SO2

ImmediatelayftercleaninQstaffentrance

SW2

SE2

NE2

NW2

NE3

NO3

SE3

SW3

$03

NO1

NE1

NW1

$01

3rd floorAdminBldQ

IfstaffinQallows, cleansametimeas units

Basement

Cleanbefore2om

Ground

2°dfloorAdminBldg

1st floorAdminBldg

Clean before5pm

Trashpulel d

FloorsMopped

Refills

Soap,handsanitizers, papertowels, toilet

paper

Elevators

Wipedownsweep andmop

Stairwells

Firstweekofthe month- allbut#10-

eveninQshiftto clean.

Youmustinitial"yes»or"no". Noalwaysrequiresanexplanation.

Writeweekendin"no" columnasexplanatiofnornotcleaningareasnotapplicabloenweekends.

Seebelowfordetailsoncleaningareaslistedabove.

RockSolidPrint---

- - -- Sign______

OfficerPrint_______

_ Sign__________

_ _ _ Date_ __ _ _ _ Date__ _ _ _ _

4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 134 of 135
D

Area
StaffEntrance
Command Cente/rKevWatcher IRC
Stairwells
Administraitve Bldq 1st floor VisitinqHall 2n<flIoorVisitinqHall 3rd floorVisitni q Hall 1st floorHalls-AdmiSnide 2nd floorHalls-AdminSide 3rd floor Halls-AdmiSnide Trashpulled FloorsMopped Refills
Elevators Escalators

Checklisot fAreasto Clean PMSHIFT

Cleaned: Yes

CleanedN: o (expal nation)

AdditionaCl omments

Withinanhourof leavingforthenight

CoordinatecleaningtimeswithIRC staffto avoidintakes Stairwel#l 10doneeveryotherdayby eveninqshift.

Soap, handsanitizer,spapertowels, toiletpaper Wipedownsweepandmop Sweep, mopeveryother evening

Youmust initial"yes" or"no". Noalwaysrequiresanexplanation. Writeweekendin"no"columnasexplanatiofnornotcleaningareasnotapplicabloenweekend.s Seebelowfordetailsoncleaningareaslistedabove.

RockSolidPrint______

_ Sign___ _ _ __ _ _ Date_ __ _ _ _

OfficerPrint_ _ _ __ _ _ _ Sign__________

Date_____

_

5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 100-4 Filed 06/18/20 Page 135 of 135
WEEKENDSCHEDULE
Staff Entrance Housing Units
Administrative Building: 3rd floor Medical
2nd floor: ODR, pool room/Office spaces, halls, bathroom s p t Floor: Inmate Records Office Surveillance
Administrative Building- cleaning office spaces, wiping down desks and electronic devices, mopping, pull trash, wipe down elevators, clean restrooms, refill hand sanitizers, soap dispensers, toilet paper and paper towel dispensers. First Floor Administrative Bldg Inmate Records Office - sweep, mop, wipe surfaces, desks Surveillance - wipe surfaces, desks Second Floor Administrative Bldg ODR (not kitchen area), sweep, mop, clean tables/chairs, wipe surfaces clean poolroom , move to break room, Offer to clean all offices in that space to include barber and FOPoffice Major's office- sweep, mop, wipe surfaces Third Floor Administrative Bldg Clean holding cells, wipe down equipment, surfaces, mop floors, clean cells, office spaces, restrooms and breakrooms. Knock; ask if occupants want cleaning services. Mop up to the CTFdoor on the catwalk
*****NOTE**** * Restrooms/LockerRooms - clean and mop, refill soap, toilet paper, and paper towel dispensers, refill all hand sanitizers throughout the bui lding. Mopping- all floors sweep, and mop Stairwell# 10- Sweep, mop, wipe railings every other day/evening. Stairwell 1-12- sweep, mop wipe railings once per month except Stairwell #10 which is done every other day on the PM shift. Elevators- sweep, mop and wipe down Dusting- clear areas that require dusting Escalators- PM shift to clean
6

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-0849 (CKK)

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ALTER AND VACATE THE COURT’S PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Defendants Quincy Booth, Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC), and Lennard Johnson, DOC Warden, (collectively, DOC or the District), move to alter and vacate the Court’s June 18, 2020 Order [99] granting in part plaintiffs’ amended motion for a preliminary injunction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), 59(e), 60(b)(5). As set forth in the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, reconsideration is appropriate and the Court should vacate the preliminary injunction based a significant change in the factual circumstances underlying the lawsuit and errors of law in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion [100].1

1

Shortly after this motion, the District will also file a protective notice of appeal. Properly

filed under Civil Rules 59(e) and 60(b), this motion tolls the time to appeal, see Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(iv)(A)(iv), (vi); the notice of appeal will become effective only once this Court rules on the

motion, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(iv)(B). Civil Rules 59 and 60 both apply because a preliminary

injunction is an appealable order and thus a “judgment” under the Civil Rules. Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(a) (“‘Judgment’ as used in these rules includes a decree and any order from which an appeal

lies.”). This motion is therefore proper under both Rule 59(e), as a “motion to alter or amend a

judgment,” as well as under Rule 60(b), as a motion for “relief from a judgment or order.” See 16

Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3920 (3d ed. 2020) (citing Manning

v. Sch. Bd. Of Hillsboro Cnty., 244 F.3d 927, 940 n.23 (11th Cir. 2001)) (“A timely motion under

Civil Rule 59(e) suspends appeal time [for appealable interlocutory orders] … .”). Even if this

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 3

In short, the District has halted the spread of COVID-19 at DOC facilities. There have been

no positive cases at the facilities since June 15, 2020, and the situation remains stable. The Court

granted injunctive relief, in part, because it found that the health risks of COVID-19 sufficed to

show a likelihood of irreparable harm to plaintiffs. Mem. Op. at 13. But any such risk has been

substantially curtailed and the conditions dramatically improved as a result of actions that DOC

has taken, and continues to take, across a range of areas—including medical care and testing,

sanitation and staffing, and social distancing. Moreover, in finding a District policy of reckless

disregard to the risks faced by plaintiffs, the Court erred by failing to point to any evidence of the

District policymakers’ disregard of those risks and by instead focusing on alleged imperfections

in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Under these circumstances, injunctive relief is—and

has been—unwarranted and inappropriate, and the Court should vacate the preliminary injunction.

A proposed order is attached.

Dated: July 16, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

KARL A. RACINE Attorney General for the District of Columbia

TONI MICHELLE JACKSON Deputy Attorney General Public Interest Division

/s/ Fernando Amarillas FERNANDO AMARILLAS [974858] Chief, Equity Section

/s/ Micah Bluming MICAH BLUMING [1618961] PAMELA DISNEY [1601225] Assistant Attorneys General ANDREW J. SAINDON [456987] Senior Assistant Attorney General

Court were to conclude that it lacks jurisdiction to grant this motion, it should still issue an indicative ruling under Civil Rule 62.1.

2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105 Filed 07/16/20 Page 3 of 3 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Suite 630 South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-7272 (202) 730-1833 (fax) micah.bluming@dc.gov Counsel for Defendants Quincy Booth and Lennard Johnson
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-0849 (CKK)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ALTER
AND VACATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION INTRODUCTION
Defendants Quincy Booth and Lennard Johnson (collectively, DOC or the District) seek reconsideration of the Court’s June 18, 2020 Order [99] granting in part plaintiffs’ amended motion for a preliminary injunction, based on material changes to the factual circumstances underlying this lawsuit and errors of law in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion [100].
The District’s continuing actions, initiated from the beginning of this pandemic, have reversed the spread of COVID-19 at the Department of Corrections (DOC) facilities. Notably, since June 15, 2020, no DOC resident has tested positive for COVID-19. DOC’s tireless efforts have improved and stabilized conditions through various measures with respect to medical care and testing, sanitation and staffing, and social distancing. Apart from this material change in the factual circumstances, the Court erroneously found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims. The Court identified no evidence of DOC’s reckless disregard of excessive health risks, pointing instead to alleged imperfections in the District’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The evidence shows that DOC’s efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 17
are effective, and injunctive relief is therefore unnecessary. The Court further erred in finding plaintiffs exhausted their administrative remedies. In light of these circumstances, and the fact that several federal courts of appeals have recently stayed or reversed similar injunctions based on comparable evidence and analysis, the Court should reconsider its ruling and vacate the preliminary injunction.
BACKGROUND The District has previously recounted in detail DOC’s vigorous response to the COVID19 pandemic. See Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for PI (Opp’n Mem.) [82] at 4-20. Since the close of briefing on preliminary injunctive relief, DOC has continued to implement numerous infection-control measures within its facilities based on advice and guidance from the D.C. Department of Health (DOH), the Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency (HSEMA), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). See id. at 4. I. Medical Care and Testing As of this filing, there have been no known cases of COVID-19 in the Central Detention Facility (CDF) or the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) since June 15, 2020. Third Supp. Decl. of Dr. Beth Jordan (Jordan Third Supp. Decl.), Ex. A, ¶ 2. With the exception of new intakes, there have been no isolation or quarantine units operating at CDF or CTF since then. Id. ¶ 5. DOC has discharged all residents previously in quarantine or isolation units back into the general resident population. Id. ¶ 4. As previously reported, DOC has implemented new systems to ensure that residents in general population units receive attention from a medical provider within 24 hours of reporting a health issue. Id. ¶ 6. To ensure that this new sick call system is working as intended, DOC recently conducted an internal audit analyzing all sick call slips from June 1, 2020, through June 24, 2020,
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 3 of 17
at both CDF and CTF. Id. ¶ 8. The audit found that every non-quarantine resident but one saw a health care provider within 24 hours of the sick call slip being triaged (one resident was not present at the housing unit during the sick call clinic and was seen the next day). Id. The audit also revealed that only 20% of the residents seen by a provider at sick call clinics had completed a sick call slip; most residents were referred for medical attention through chronic care clinic providers, providers walking the tiers before the sick call clinic, attorney or court referrals, or as part of follow-up from the urgent care clinic. Id. ¶ 8.
DOC has implemented, and continues to follow, numerous testing protocols. See Supp. Decl. of Dr. Beth Jordan (Jordan Supp. Decl.) [82-2] ¶¶ 10–13, 18; Jordan Third Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 9– 10. For example, as previously explained, DOC has been testing all new residents at intake (as of May 18). Jordan Supp. Decl. ¶ 10. In addition, DOC is now testing all new residents again ten days after intake. Jordan Third Supp. Decl. ¶ 10. DOC also now tests residents prior to attending court hearings, and, as of June 15, 2020, prior to release. Id.
In addition to the extensive round of testing done in late May, see Second Supp. Decl. of Dr. Beth Jordan (Jordan Second Supp. Decl.) [94] ¶ 3, DOC recently conducted another round of testing a large sample of asymptomatic residents. Jordan Third Supp. Decl. ¶ 9. On June 26, DOC—in collaboration with DOH and Unity Health Care—tested 87 residents, including: (1) residents on the intake unit who have been there for more than 14 days; (2) residents on C2B, the CTF unit for inmates over 50 years old; (3) residents on SW1; and (4) residents on NE3. All tests came back negative. Id. II. Sanitation and Staffing
DOC has also engaged in continuous efforts to improve sanitation at its facilities. See Opp’n Mem. at 12–15. Since April 9, 2020, assigned program analysts—with supervisor follow-
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 4 of 17
up—confirm that sufficient cleaning supplies are on all units and that cleanings are occurring as scheduled. Second Supp. Decl. of Lennard Johnson (Johnson Second Supp. Decl.), Ex. B ¶ 3. Since April 25, DOC has required correctional officers to document daily that each cell is clean and, at the end of each shift, complete a housing checklist that includes whether the housing unit has cleaning and hygiene supplies. Id.
DOC contracted with Rock Solid District Group, LLC for professional cleaning services at CDF and Spectrum Management LLC for professional cleaning services at CTF; the contracts are for a base period of 90 days with options to extend. Supp. Declaration of Gitana Stewart-Ponder (Stewart-Ponder Supp. Decl.), Ex. C ¶ 3. These vendors continue to perform the services for which they were contracted, including cleaning the common areas of all housing units on the secure and non-secure sides of the DOC facilities. Id. Additionally, DOC contracted with Potomac-Hudson Engineering, Inc., a registered sanitarian, to provide onsite inspections and cleaning procedure plans. Id. ¶ 4. The sanitarian began work at DOC facilities on May 18, 2020. Id. DOC continues to advertise for a permanent sanitarian position for the facilities. Id. ¶ 5. Inmate details performed daily cleaning of common areas before DOC hired professional cleaners and will continue to do so while the cleaning contracts are in effect. Id. ¶ 6.
Inmates have access to adequate supplies to clean their cells. Id. ¶ 7. DOC has fully implemented a system that provides all inmates microfiber towels, replacing the paper towels previously used. Id. Correctional officers issue each inmate daily a microfiber cloth sprayed with a peroxide multi-surface cleaner and disinfectant. Id. The environmental officer pre-mixes the cleaning solutions, based on the instructions provided on the solution labels, before it is sent to the housing units. Id. After use each day, the cloths are collected and laundered. Id.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 5 of 17
DOC also continues to undertake substantial efforts to increase staffing, which has significantly improved since the pandemic began. As of July 13, 2020, 294 correctional officers who were previously unavailable at various points during the pandemic have returned to work. Id. ¶ 2. This includes 83 of the 87 staff members who previously tested positive for COVID-19 and have since recovered. Id. Other than three staff members who have not yet recovered, there are currently no staff members under self-quarantine at the advice of a physician or DOC. Id. III. Social Distancing, PPE, and Education
As previously noted, DOC continues to require correctional officers, after each shift, to document compliance with various requirements, including that staff and inmates wore masks and that inmates were reminded to socially distance. Johnson Second Supp. Decl. ¶ 3. Moreover, since May 10, 2020, DOC supervisors have conducted unannounced walkthroughs on each unit twice a week to ensure that COVID-19 precautionary measures are being followed. Id. A surveillance team continues to monitor video footage and inform supervisors of any social distancing and PPE violations, and discipline has been imposed on correctional officers who fail to implement social distancing. Id. ¶ 2. Signs remain posted throughout DOC facilities reminding staff and residents to engage in social distancing. Id. DOC continues to provide inmates paper copies of educational materials on COVID-19 every week, and training modules are also available electronically on tablets. Supp. Decl. of Amy Lopez (Lopez Supp. Decl.), Ex. D ¶ 2; see also Exs. A, B and C to June 29, 2020 Notice of Compliance [101-1 to 101-3]. IV. Legal Calls
DOC has continued to improve access to legal calls, including its previously described emergency legal call process. See Opp’n Mem. at 19–20; June 29, 2020 Status Report [101] at 6. Between April 20, 2020, and July 11, 2020, there have been 3,234 calls facilitated through that
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 6 of 17
process. Supp. Decl. of Camille Williams (Williams Supp. Decl.), Ex. E ¶ 2. Newly acquired cell phones with headsets were first used by residents on June 15, 2020, after testing confirmed that there were no technical issues and case managers were trained on how to use them. Id. ¶ 5. Since June 24, 2020, DOC residents have been able to make all emergency legal calls directly from their cells (if they reside in a single cell) or from a designated empty cell (if they do not have a single cell) using DOC’s newly acquired cell phones and wired headsets. Id. ¶ 6.
DOC has also begun to facilitate video legal calls and continues to expand these capabilities. On June 18, 2020, DOC began video legal calls with the Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia (FPD). Id. ¶ 7. Every Thursday, between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., DOC and FPD arrange for one-hour video legal calls between attorneys and clients at CDF. Id. Effective July 10, 2020, every Friday, DOC and FPD arrange for one-hour video legal calls between attorneys and clients at CTF. Id.
DOC and the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Maryland (Maryland FPD) each agreed to install an iPad at the CDF and CTF to allow for video visits between attorneys and clients one day a week at each location. Id. ¶ 8. DOC and Maryland FPD have arranged for legal calls to occur every Tuesday; since July 7, 2020, DOC and Maryland FPD attorneys have coordinated legal visits by video at each facility. Id.
DOC is developing a plan to accommodate a request for legal visits by video recently received from the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS). Id. ¶ 9. While DOC finalizes that plan, DOC has provided legal visits by video as requested from PDS attorneys and private counsel, using the WebEx video conferencing platform. Id. DOC has additionally facilitated regular legal calls by video for a deaf resident at CTF since May 18, 2020. Id.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 7 of 17
In May 2020, DOC received five tablets from American Prison Data Systems (APDS), the tablet vendor, to allow for confidential video conferencing between residents and their attorneys. Id. ¶ 10. Case managers and officers were trained on safety, sanitation, and security of the tablets, and testing was conducted in June 2020. Id. As of June 29, 2020, four of the five tablets are available for use and one is out for repair. Id. APDS offered these tablets as a solution to allow for attorney-client communication in response to pandemic-related limitations to in-person meetings. Id. APDS is currently working to enhance APDS THRIVE (Therapeutic Interactive Video Engagement), which will allow for a higher number of attorney-client meetings and provide capability beyond single-use capacity. Id. APDS THRIVE is in development with anticipated release within the next 60 days; once launched, DOC will create a new plan for the use of tablets after testing has been conducted. Id.
As of July 7, 2020, DOC completed the renovation of new spaces for conducting video conference hearings with the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Johnson Second Supp Decl. ¶ 4. Since DOC launched the tablet messaging service on May 4, 2020, 289 residents have submitted attorney names and emails, and residents are reporting that they are using the tablets to communicate with their attorneys through the designated messaging system. Lopez Supp. Decl. ¶ 3. DOC continues to work with the electronic platform vendor to accommodate new account requests from residents in a timely manner.
LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that any order “which adjudicates fewer than all the claims” in a case “is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” Under Rule 54(b), the
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 8 of 17
Court has “inherent power to reconsider an interlocutory order ‘as justice requires.’” Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Servs., Inc., 630 F.3d 217, 227 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “Justice … may require reconsideration where a controlling or significant change in the facts has occurred since the submission of the issue to the court.” Dunlap v. Presidential Advisory Comm’n on Election Integrity, 319 F. Supp. 3d 70, 81 (D.D.C. 2018) (alterations adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Rosenberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., — F. Supp. 3d —, 2020 WL 1065552, at *5 (D.D.C. Mar. 5, 2020) (granting Rule 54(b) motion where new information in declarations “constitute[d] a ‘change in the court’s awareness of the circumstances,’ … which ‘might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court’”).
Similar to the inherent power to grant a Rule 54(b) motion, granting a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is “discretionary.” Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Grounds for granting a Rule 59(e) motion include “an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Pigford v. Perdue, 950 F.3d 886, 891 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
Finally, Rule 60(b)(5) authorizes a court to relieve a party from an injunction “where prospective application of the order is ‘no longer equitable’” if the movant shows “a significant change in … factual conditions[.]” Gov’t of Province of Manitoba v. Zinke, 849 F.3d 1111, 1117 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383–84 (1992)); accord Petties v. District of Columbia, 662 F.3d 564, 571 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (noting that the significant change in factual conditions inquiry should include whether the risks that led to injunctive relief have been “ameliorated, if not eliminated, as a result of changed circumstances”). Courts must take a “flexible approach” when considering motions under Rule 60(b)(5) because it “allows courts to ensure that ‘responsibility for discharging the State’s obligations is returned
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 9 of 17
promptly to the State and its officials’ when the circumstances warrant.” Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 450 (2009) (quoting Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 442 (2004)).
ARGUMENT I. DOC Has Halted the Spread of COVID-19 in Its Facilities, and the Material Change
in Factual Circumstances Renders Injunctive Relief Improper. DOC has had zero known cases of COVID-19 among its resident population for 30 days. See Jordan Third Supp. Decl. ¶ 3. In its Memorandum Opinion partially granting plaintiffs’ amended motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court concluded that despite “the progress Defendants have made” in curbing the spread of COVID-19, “such progress is not sufficient to negate Plaintiffs’ risk of harm” because “COVID-19 is an infectious disease which spreads quickly and fatally in congregate settings, such as DOC facilities.” Mem. Op. at 34. Yet the Court identified only two items of evidence plaintiffs had proffered to meet their burden of establishing irreparable harm: two declarations by Dr. Jaimie Meyer made on March 29, 2020 and May 14, 2020. See Mem. Op. at 34 (citing Decl. of Jaimie Meyer (Meyer Decl.) [5-2], and Supp. Decl. of Dr. Jaimie Meyer (Meyer Supp. Decl.) [70-2]). Even in her most recent declaration—made 35 days before the Court issued the preliminary injunction—Dr. Meyer reached her conclusions about the risks of COVID-19 without reviewing any of the new information the District provided in its opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief, let alone the supplemental test result data the District submitted thereafter. See Meyer Supp. Decl. ¶ 2; Second Supp. Decl. of Dr. Beth Jordan (Jordan Second Supp. Decl.) [94] ¶¶ 3-7 (4.6% positive rate after mass testing in late May). Even at the time the request for preliminary injunction was submitted to the Court, the number of known cases in DOC facilities was relatively low. See Supp. Decl. of Reena Chakraborty [82-3] ¶ 8 (17 residents positive as of May 24, 2020). In a May 22, 2020 test of 304 DOC residents at the highest risk of contracting the virus, only 4.6% tested positive. Jordan Second
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 10 of 17
Supp. Decl. ¶ 7.2 As noted above, testing has continued and the number of positive cases at DOC facilities have since dropped to zero—and have stayed there now for 30 days in a row. See Jordan Third Supp. Decl. ¶ 3. Whatever the risk of irreparable harm plaintiffs have faced over time, that risk has been thoroughly addressed by the ongoing efforts of DOC officials. Petties, 662 F.3d at 571; cf. Horne, 557 U.S. at 466 (in Rule 60(b)(5) analysis, lower courts should have considered that defendants had “adopted policies that ameliorated or eliminated many of the most glaring inadequacies” previously identified).
If plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction today, they could not show a likelihood of irreparable harm under the current circumstances. DOC officials’ efforts to get positive cases down to zero likewise undermine any notion they have acted with reckless disregard, see Section II below (no evidence of reckless disregard all along), or that there is any excessive risk to inmates, and those efforts similarly tilt the balance of the equities and the public interest in the District’s favor. See S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1613-14 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring) (“When [public] officials undertake to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties, their latitude must be especially broad.” (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted)). Other courts have recently vacated or remanded preliminary injunctions in light of such changed circumstances. See Ahlman v. Barnes, No. 20-55568, 2020 WL 3547960, at *5 (9th Cir. June 17, 2020) (remanding appeal of preliminary injunction to permit the parties “to present any evidence of changed circumstances to the district court” for determination on whether to “modify or dissolve the injunction,” observing that “the circumstances surrounding the COVID19 pandemic are evolving rapidly”); Valentine v. Collier, 960 F.3d 707 (Mem.) (5th Cir. June 5,

2

This result, and the results of other widespread testing conducted since, did not depend on

“self-reporting.” See Mem. Op. at 13.

10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 11 of 17

2020) (vacating preliminary injunction based on conclusion that defendant state corrections agency “has substantially complied with the measures ordered by the district court in its preliminary injunction).3
To continue enjoining DOC would not serve the ends of justice, Dunlap, 319 F. Supp. 3d at 81, and would be “no longer equitable” under the current circumstances, Zinke, 849 F.3d at 1117. II. The Court Improperly Concluded That Plaintiffs Are Likely To Succeed on the
Merits. A. The Court Did Not Identify Any Reckless Failure To Act on an Excessive Risk To
Inmate Health, Let Alone a Municipal Policy of Such Recklessness. The Court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims without identifying any reckless disregard on the part of DOC, pointing only to apparent imperfections in the measures that had been implemented to that point. See, e.g., Mem. Op. at 17 (highlighting “difficulties” with sick call process); 18 (“insufficiencies in social distancing practices”); 20 (“aspects of sanitation which have not improved”). The Court focused its analysis of reckless disregard on the wrong evidence. Rather than analyzing whether Director Booth or Warden Johnson had recklessly disregarded the risks related to COVID-19, the Court instead identified what it believed to be ongoing inadequacies in various infection control measures, failing to assess whether those deficiencies were the result of their reckless disregard. Id. at 16– 23. As a result, the Court erred in finding plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits.

3

The injunctive relief regarding legal calls does not relate to the health risks regarding

COVID-19, and plaintiffs have never articulated any injury that they have suffered or might

imminently suffer regarding access to their lawyers. However, even assuming there had been a

basis for such injunctive relief, the District has shown through additional developments that such

legal access is being provided to inmates. See Background Section IV.

11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 12 of 17

As the District argued, constitutional liability attaches only where relevant officials “consciously disregar[d]” a known risk. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 839 (1994); see Opp’n Mem. at 25-26.4 In addition, even assuming the Farmer standard is inapplicable and that plaintiffs could show a predicate constitutional violation, they would have to prove that the District caused the violation through a course of conduct that its final “policymakers consciously chose to pursue.” Atherton v. D.C. Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 691 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Numerous facts in the record—including the oral and written amici reports—made clear that DOC had taken measures from the start of the pandemic and had been working to improve its practices in all areas identified by the Court, even if those efforts were not perfect. See Opp’n Mem. at 19–20, 28–33 (summarizing DOC efforts in access to medical care, sanitation, education, PPE, social distancing, staffing and legal calls). The Court nevertheless discounted the evidence that DOC had been continually addressing and improving conditions at its facilities, reasoning that despite “efforts [that] have been made to improve conditions, Defendants cannot claim that the need for an injunction is now moot because the Defendants have ceased their wrongful conduct.” Mem. Op. at 15 (alterations adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Costa v. Bazron, Civil Action No. 19-3185, 2020 WL 2735666, at *4 (D.D.C. May 24, 2020)). The Court concluded that plaintiffs had showed a likelihood of success on the merits merely because deficiencies remained in DOC’s provision of medical care, id. at 16–18; enforcement of social distancing protocols, id. at 18–20; implementation of sanitation protocols, id. at 20–22; maintenance of non-punitive medical isolation units, id. at 22–23; and provision of access to legal calls, id. at 23–26.

4

As the Court has observed, plaintiffs were required to show at least a reckless failure to act

for both their Fifth and Eighth Amendment claims alike. See Mem. Op. at 12 (Fifth Amendment

due process requires showing officials “intentionally or recklessly failed to act” on known risk);

14-15 (Eighth Amendment claim requires showing officials “recklessly disregarded the excessive

risk”).

12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 13 of 17
That conclusion turned on the imperfection of DOC’s efforts to address the issues identified by amici. Reckless disregard, however, requires more than a mere showing of “imperfect enforcement” of policies and protocols designed to address any existing risk to the plaintiffs. See Scott v. District of Columbia, 139 F.3d 940, 944 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“imperfect enforcement” of a policy insufficient to show officials were “knowingly and unreasonably disregarding an objectively intolerable risk of harm” to plaintiffs). Given that even a due process violation requires more than negligence, see Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472 (2015), imperfect results alone cannot suffice for constitutional liability. See Abdullah v. Washington, 530 F. Supp. 2d 112, 119 (D.D.C. 2008) (plaintiff could not show jail officials knowingly and unreasonably disregarded risk of secondhand smoke where proffered evidence was “largely based on asserted imperfections in the nonsmoking policy”); see also Parker v. District of Columbia, 850 F.2d 708, 719-20 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (Williams, J., dissenting) (observing that “low-level ‘inadequacies’ plainly do not reflect … ‘deliberate indifference’ to constitutional violations”).
The Court also erred in dismissing DOC’s efforts as having been “taken subsequent to the TRO Order.” Mem. Op. 15-16; see also id. at 22, 23. The Supreme Court has made clear that, in this type of constitutional inquiry, the proper focus is the defendants’ “current attitudes and conduct, which may have changed considerably since” previous points in the litigation. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993). Even so, the Court’s TRO here did not come amid extended inaction by policymakers with ample time to deliberate and reflect. Rather, despite the pandemic’s sudden onset, DOC had numerous measures in place even before the start of this litigation. These included, among other things, isolation and quarantine protocols, see Decl. of Dr. Beth Jordan [202] ¶ 6, 7, 11; limitations on outside visitors, see D.C. Department of Corrections, Coronavirus Prevention, available at https://doc.dc.gov/page/coronavirus-prevention; measures to encourage
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 14 of 17
social distancing, see Johnson Sec. Supp. Decl. ¶ 2; and cleaning and sanitation measures, see Stewart-Ponder Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 3–7. The record is clear that DOC made genuine attempts to address the pandemic well before plaintiffs even requested a TRO.
Justice requires reconsideration of the Court’s decision to enjoin DOC based on an unduly high legal standard. See Capitol Sprinkler, 630 F.3d at 227. Whatever could have been done better in hindsight, the record shows consistent efforts by officials to impose infection-control measures, which have proven to be effective. See Background Section above. Those efforts are a far cry from a reckless failure to act.
B. The Court Erred in Finding a Likelihood of Success on Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.
The Court also erred in rejecting the District’s argument that plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), finding that plaintiff Banks had filed an emergency grievance with Director Booth on March 24, 2020, but that DOC had not responded within the 72 hours required by its policies. Mem. Op. at 28–29.
DOC implemented a new grievance policy in January 2020 which authorized residents to proceed to the next step in the process if they fail to receive a timely or unsatisfactory response. Decl. of Desiree Townes (Townes Decl.), Ex. F ¶ 7. Exhaustion under the PLRA—as in administrative law generally—must be “proper,” i.e., “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 91 (2006) (emphasis in the original) (quoting Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th Cir. 2002)); see also Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858 (2016) (rejecting a “special circumstances” exception, including when the inmate makes “a reasonable mistake about the meaning of a prison’s grievance procedures”).
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 15 of 17
Because the evidence shows that plaintiff Banks—the only one of the three remaining plaintiffs who even attempted to file a grievance—failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies, the Court erred in finding a likelihood of success on the merits. Johnson v. District of Columbia, 869 F. Supp. 2d 34, 41 (D.D.C. 2012) (“A prisoner’s lack of awareness of a grievance procedure, however, does not excuse compliance.”) (quoting Twitty v. McCoskey, 226 F. App’x 594 (7th Cir. 2007)). III. Reconsideration Is Appropriate Because Federal Courts of Appeals Have Recently
Overturned Similar Preliminary Injunctions. While this Court relied on a preliminary injunction entered in Cameron v. Bouchard, No. 20-10949, 2020 WL 1929876 (E.D. Mich. April 17, 2020), to support its entry of preliminary injunctive relief, Mem. Op. at 37, the Sixth Circuit recently reversed that decision and vacated the preliminary injunction. See Cameron v. Bouchard, No. 20-1469, 2020 WL 3867393, at *3 (6th Cir. July 9, 2020). The Sixth Circuit concluded the evidence was “insufficient to demonstrate that the jail officials acted with reckless disregard to the serious risk COVID-19 poses.” Id. at *5. In determining that plaintiffs had no likelihood of success on the merits, the court relied upon reasonable steps that jail officials had taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19, id., similar to those taken by defendants here. Throughout the pandemic, federal courts of appeals have repeatedly held that similar steps by correctional officials constitute a reasonable response to the risk posed by COVID-19 and thus required a stay or reversal of preliminary injunctions. See Swain v. Junior, 961 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2020) (vacating preliminary injunction); Wilson v. Williams, 961 F.3d 829 (6th Cir. 2020) (same); Valentine v. Collier, 956 F.3d 797 (5th Cir. 2020) (staying injunction pending appeal), application to vacate stay denied, 140 S. Ct. 1598 (2020); Marlowe v. Leblanc, 810 F. App’x 302 (5th Cir. 2020) (same). These courts have found fault with district court determinations on the
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 16 of 17

likelihood of success on the merits, as well as on the other preliminary injunction factors. See

Swain, 961 F.3d 1276 (finding that the district court erred in its consideration of all four

preliminary injunction factors); Valentine, 956 F.3d at 803-04 (finding that irreparable harm, as

well as the balance of equities and the public interest, all supported staying the preliminary

injunction).

IV. The Court Should Hold a Hearing on This Motion Because It Failed To Hold a Hearing on the Preliminary Injunction Motion, As Contemplated By The Civil Rules.

This Court entered a preliminary injunction without holding a hearing. The Civil Rules

plainly contemplate that a hearing be held on a preliminary injunction motion prior to the entry of

such relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; see Granny Goose Foods v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck

Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 432 n.7 (1974) (“The notice required by Rule 65(a) before a preliminary

injunction can issue implies a hearing in which the defendant is given a fair opportunity to oppose

the application … .”). In addition to protecting the District’s right to be heard and present

argument, a hearing would also serve the Court’s decisional process, including by helping to

clarify the evolving circumstances and continuing developments in this case. This Court should

therefore grant a hearing to reconsider the preliminary injunction.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the District’s motion and vacate the

preliminary injunction.

Dated: July 16, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

KARL A. RACINE Attorney General for the District of Columbia

TONI MICHELLE JACKSON Deputy Attorney General Public Interest Division

16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-1 Filed 07/16/20 Page 17 of 17
/s/ Fernando Amarillas FERNANDO AMARILLAS [974858] Chief, Equity Section /s/ Micah Bluming MICAH BLUMING [1618961] PAMELA DISNEY [1601225] Assistant Attorneys General ANDREW J. SAINDON [456987] Senior Assistant Attorney General 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Suite 630 South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-7272 (202) 730-1833 (fax) micah.bluming@dc.gov Counsel for Defendants Quincy Booth and Lennard Johnson
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-2 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-0849 (CKK)

ORDER Upon consideration of defendants’ motion to alter and vacate the Court’s preliminary injunction (Motion to Vacate), plaintiffs’ opposition, and the entire record, it is this ______ day of _____________, 2020, ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Vacate is GRANTED, and it is further ORDERED that the preliminary injunction entered on June 18, 2020 [99] is VACATED. SO ORDERED.

_____________________________________________ THE HONORABLE COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY Judge, United States District Court
for the District of Columbia

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-3 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-3 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-00849 (CKK)

DECLARATION OF BETH JORDAN Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Dr. Beth Jordan, declare and state as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years, competent to testify to the matters contained in this declaration and testify based on my personal knowledge acquired in the course of my official duties. I have previously submitted declarations in this matter [20-2], [82-2], [94]. 2. The spread of coronavirus (COVID-19) in Department of Corrections (DOC) facilities has been stopped. As DOC reported publicly, as of June 15, 2020, there were no positive coronavirus (COVID-19) cases at DOC’s correctional facilities. 3. That situation has remained stable. As of the date of this declaration, July 14, 2020, there are no positive coronavirus (COVID-19) cases at DOC’s correctional facilities. 4. All DOC residents who previously tested positive for COVID-19 have been moved out of the isolation units and back into the general population in accordance with guidelines from DC Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). As I previously testified, DOC releases residents from isolation when they are free from fever for at least 72 hours without the use of fever-reducing medications; there are improvements in the resident’s other symptoms,

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-3 Filed 07/16/20 Page 3 of 5
including coughing and shortness of breath; and at least 10 days have passed since the resident’s first symptoms appeared.
5. With the exception of new intakes who are placed on initial enhanced medical observation (at CDF if they are men and CTF if women), there have been no quarantine or isolation units operating at CDF and CTF since June 14, 2020.
6. Also as I previously testified, DOC has implemented an additional new pathway to ensure that residents in general population units receive attention from a medical provider within 24 hours of reporting a health issue. Since April 13, 2020, medical staff has walked the tiers of general population housing units to allow residents who have not submitted a sick call slip to alert medical staff of any issues; and medical staff will see those residents reporting COVID-19 symptoms or other serious health concerns at the sick call clinic on the same day. This new system is above and beyond our accreditation requirements and requires additional staff. Additionally, since May 18, 2020, nurses or medical assistants have visited general population housing units each day to pick up sick call slips so that the slips can be triaged within hours of the resident submitting one and any resident experiencing COVID-19 symptoms—or any other kind of medical concern—is seen within 24 hours from triage. Since June 23, 2020, DOC even further enhanced access to care by seeing residents within 24 hours of their sick-call slip submission.
7. Although these new protocols were initially designed to monitor and respond quickly to the small number of non-quarantined, non-positive residents in April and May, even though there are currently no quarantine or isolation units these protocols have been expanded to the entire population at CTF and CDF, representing a major enhancement in the medical care system.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-3 Filed 07/16/20 Page 4 of 5
8. To ensure that these new sick call systems have been effective, DOC recently conducted an internal audit analyzing all sick call slips from June 1, 2020, through June 24, 2020, at both CDF and CTF. The audit found that 100% of non-quarantine residents saw a health care provider within 24 hours of the sick-call slip being triaged. The only exception was one resident who submitted a slip but was not present at the housing unit during the sick call clinic—he was seen the next day. The audit also revealed that only 20% of the residents seen by a provider at sick call clinics completed a sick call slip; most residents were referred for medical attention through chronic care clinic providers, providers walking the tiers before the sick call clinic, attorney or court referrals, or as part of follow-up from the urgent care clinic. DOC is currently auditing this more recently enhanced process of ensuring that residents are seen within 24 hour of their sickcall slip submission.
9. DOC also recently conducted another round of testing a large sample of asymptomatic residents. On June 26, 2020, DOC—in collaboration with DOH and Unity—tested approximately 87 residents, including: (1) residents on the intake unit who have been there for more than 14 days; (2) residents on C2B, the CTF unit for inmates over 50 years old; (3) residents on SW1; and (4) residents on NE3. These residents were believed to be at the highest risk for COVID-19 as well as those who had not previously been tested. All tests came back negative.
10. As I previously testified, DOC began testing (on May 5, 2020) any resident to be transferred to Saint Elizabeths Hospital; cell mates of positive inmates (on May 18, 2020); new residents (on May 18, 2020); and any resident being transferred to a federal correctional facility (on May 22, 2020). DOC also tests residents prior to attending court hearings. DOC also continues to test those inmates who report or exhibit COVID-19 symptoms, though no such tests are currently pending. DOC also tests residents at intake and again 10 days after intake. As of June
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-3 Filed 07/16/20 Page 5 of 5

15, 2020, residents are tested prior to release. DOC has adhered to each of these testing protocols since their initial implementation and plans to continue implementing them.
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Executed on July 14, 2020

/s/ Beth Jordan BETH JORDAN, M.D.

4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-4 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-4 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-4 Filed 07/16/20 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-4 Filed 07/16/20 Page 4 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-5 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT C

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-5 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-5 Filed 07/16/20 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-5 Filed 07/16/20 Page 4 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-6 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT D

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-6 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-00849 (CKK)

DECLARATION OF AMY LOPEZ Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Amy Lopez, declare and state as follows:
1. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years, competent to testify to the matters contained in this declaration, and testify based on my personal knowledge and information, including information provided to me by other District of Columbia employees in the course of my official duties. I previously provided a declaration in this matter. [82-8].
2. All staff and residents have received paper copies of educational information and— for all staff and residents with tablet access—through online training modules. Residents receive paper copies of information about COVID-19 on a weekly basis.
3. Since DOC launched the tablet messaging service on May 4, 2020, 289 residents have submitted attorney names and emails, and residents are reporting that they are using the tablets to communicate with their attorneys through the designated messaging system. DOC continues to work with the electronic platform vendor to accommodate new account requests from residents in a timely manner.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-6 Filed 07/16/20 Page 3 of 3

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, information, and belief.

Executed on 7/14/2020

____/s/ Amy K. Lopez AMY LOPEZ

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-7 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT E

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-7 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-7 Filed 07/16/20 Page 3 of 5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-7 Filed 07/16/20 Page 4 of 5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-7 Filed 07/16/20 Page 5 of 5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-8 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT F

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-8 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-8 Filed 07/16/20 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 105-8 Filed 07/16/20 Page 4 of 4

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs-Petitioners,
v. QUINCY BOOTH, et al.,
Defendants-Respondents.

No. 1:20-cv-00849 (CKK)

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ALTER AND VACATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

This Court has now twice found that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) acted with reckless disregard in failing to implement and execute procedures to ensure the health and safety of proposed class members. See Dkt. Nos. 51 (“TRO Op.”), 100 (“PI Op.”). Nearly four months ago, relying on inspection reports from Courtappointed amici, multiple expert reports, and dozens of declarations from DOC residents and staff, the Court issued a TRO requiring DOC to adopt and enforce sanitation, hygiene, and medical practices. Two months later, the Court issued a preliminary injunction after finding (relying on additional amici inspections, expert reports, and evidence from DOC residents and staff) that DOC had still not adequately implemented and enforced practices to keep residents and staff safe.
Now, less than a month after the Court issued its preliminary injunction, DOC asks the Court to lift the injunction, primarily relying on its claim to have “halted the spread of COVID-19 in its facilities.” Dkt. No. 105-1 (“Defs.’ Br.”), at 9.
In claiming victory over COVID-19, Defendants ask the Court to fold up an umbrella in the middle of a rainstorm. The Court should not do so. Since filing its motion, the jail has reported

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 20
positive cases, showing either that the virus was never eliminated in the first place, or that it has spread again. Since urging the Court to dissolve the injunction, DOC has twice informed the Court that several residents have since tested positive for COVID-19, see Dkt. Nos. 111, 114, a spread that can be attributed to a flawed quarantine policy. DOC’s public data suggests that an additional resident tested positive on August 11.1 Other reports by DOC residents and a DOC staff member, filed as exhibits to this brief, reveal DOC’s continued failures to implement protocols. One correctional officer reports that in the weeks after Defendants filed for reconsideration, she has “noticed particularly disturbing failures with respect to quarantining and social distancing.” Ex. A (“Bess Decl.”), at ¶ 4. She details several alarming and blatant failures of Defendants to follow CDC policies, including “over twenty inmates crowded in Medical 68’s small waiting room,” and mixing of residents from quarantine units and general population units in a small elevator. Id. at ¶¶ 14-17.
Having reviewed this evidence, Dr. Meyer concludes in an updated expert report that it is “gravely misguided and dangerous for the D.C. Jail to claim to have ‘halted’ or ‘stopped’ the spread of COVID-19.” Ex. B (“Meyer Decl.”), at ¶ 23. Dr. Meyer also warns that Defendants’ current quarantine policy, under which new intakes to the jail are housed on the same unit as existing jail residents, “almost guarantee[] the spread of the virus among inmates.” Id. ¶ 9. The jail “must be on high guard and vigilant while cases rise in the community and during the fall and winter, when seasonal influenza will be prevalent as well.” Id. ¶ 24. Accordingly, the Court should
1 The District of Columbia’s “Public Safety Agency COVID-19 Case Data” reported on August 12, 2020, that 212 residents have tested positive, an increase from August 11, 2020. See District of Columbia, Public Safety Agency COVID-19 Case Data (last accessed August 13, 2020), https://coronavirus.dc.gov/page/public-safety-agency-covid-19-case-data.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 3 of 20
direct amici — who are available and willing — to continue their role monitoring compliance with the Court’s order.
Defendants’ arguments also lack legal support. Defendants do not even attempt to argue, as required under Rule 54(b), that the preliminary injunction harms them — an argument that would strain credulity, as Defendants have repeatedly insisted that even absent Court order they would have implemented the very practices required by those orders. Defendants also do not dispute the Court’s unassailable ruling that compliance with a court order is not grounds to rescind that order. Moreover, Defendants’ new argument regarding exhaustion ignores the record evidence that Plaintiff Banks complied with DOC’s emergency grievance procedure, and Defendants’ citations to out-of-circuit, non-controlling decisions are not grounds for reconsideration. The Court should deny Defendants’ motion and direct amici to report again on Defendants’ facilities.
LEGAL STANDARD Defendants cite a potpourri of legal standards in their motion. Defs.’ Br. 7-9. The only one with relevance is Rule 54(b), which this Court explained in Dunlap v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, 319 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D.D.C. 2018), applies to a motion to reconsider a preliminary injunction that does “not resolve all of Plaintiff’s claims, even preliminarily,” id. at 83-84. The Court has not resolved Plaintiffs’ claims regarding their entitlement to release as a remedy, and thus, Rule 54(b) applies.
ARGUMENT Defendants’ primary argument for vacating the Court’s injunction is that they have eliminated COVID-19 in their facilities. That claim is no longer true as a factual matter. In any event, Defendants’ compliance with this Court’s orders does not justify vacating those orders.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 4 of 20
Crucially, Defendants do not claim any harm from compliance with those orders as required under Rule 54(b). To the contrary, Defendants stress that they would have enacted those same policies absent Court order. Defendants’ remaining arguments merely seek to relitigate claims that this Court correctly dismissed, and the out-of-circuit cases cited by Defendants do not warrant reconsideration.
Defendants’ claim to have halted the spread of COVID-19 fails to justify reconsideration.
i. Defendants do not meet the Rule 54(b) standard because they identify no harm they face from the injunction.
This Court explained in Dunlap that the party seeking reconsideration must prove “that some harm, legal or at least tangible, would flow from a denial of reconsideration.” Id. at 80-81 (quoting United States v. Dynamic Visions, Inc., 321 F.R.D. 14, 17 (D.D.C. 2017)); see also Marshall v. Honeywell Tech. Sols., Inc., 598 F. Supp. 2d 57, 60 (D.D.C. 2009) (“The moving party has the burden of showing that reconsideration is warranted, and that some harm or injustice would result if reconsideration were to be denied.”). This is a high burden and rightfully so, as “the court’s and the parties’ shared interest in judicial economy counsels against repeated consideration of matters already thoughtfully decided once.” Coulibaly v. Tillerson, 278 F. Supp. 3d 294, 301 (D.D.C. 2017). And in a related context — the modification of years-long consent decrees under Rule 60(b) — the Supreme Court held in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) that altering a court order is warranted “when changed factual conditions make compliance with the decree substantially more onerous.” Id. at 384; see also Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 447 (2009) (changed circumstances warrant modification where failing to do so would be “detrimental to the public interest”).
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 5 of 20
Defendants have made no effort to show that they would be harmed from a denial of reconsideration or that compliance with the Court’s order is onerous. Instead, Defendants have repeatedly insisted that they would be taking the measures required by the preliminary injunction even if Plaintiffs had not brought this lawsuit. In opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO, Defendants argued that they were “already complying with many of the practices plaintiffs ask this Court to impose.” Dkt. No. 25, at 23. The Court observed, when granting the TRO, that “[d]eclarations by DOC officials claim that Defendants are already complying with much of the requested relief.” Dkt. No. 51, at 25. When Defendants opposed Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, they argued again that court intervention was “unnecessary and improper” in light of their “steadfast actions” and “extensive measures.” Dkt. No. 80, at 3. Relying on Defendants’ repeated representations that they were “already complying with much of the requested relief,” this Court found that its order “does not impose an undue burden on Defendants,” because that order “simply ensures that the precautions are being taken consistently and effectively.” PI Op. 36. The Court should not revisit that conclusion in the absence of any contrary evidence, or argument, from Defendants.
Even now, having moved for reconsideration, Defendants do not purport to show any harm caused by the Court’s injunction — even as Defendants have operated under Court order since the Court’s entry of the TRO on April 19, 2020. Instead of identifying any harm that the Court’s order of two months has caused, Defendants cite to an opinion signed by a single Justice to gesture broadly that they must be given “latitude” to act “in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties.” Defs.’ Br. 10 (citing S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1613-14 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring)). But beyond that generalization (which was referring to latitude for “politically accountable officials,” id. at 1613) Defendants make no
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 6 of 20
showing of how the preliminary injunction has hampered their operations. Because Defendants have not “carrie[d] their burden of proving . . . some harm,” they have not met the applicable Rule 54(b) standard here, and their motion should be denied. Dunlap, 319 F. Supp. 3d at 80.
ii. Defendants have not halted the spread of COVID-19 at the jail, and the Court should not grant reconsideration on this basis in any event.
Defendants’ primary argument for reconsideration is that “DOC has halted the spread of COVID-19 in its facilities.” Defs.’ Br. 9. That contention is incorrect, as Defendants’ updates to the Court reflect. More fundamentally, that Defendants continue to report new cases only weeks after filing for reconsideration underscores that a few weeks of progress — particularly after months of systemic failures — do not justify reconsideration. Dr. Meyer explains that “[i]n light of the rising cases in the community and the very limited surveillance testing done by the D.C. Jail, it is gravely misguided and dangerous for the D.C. Jail to claim to have ‘halted’ or ‘stopped’ the spread of COVID-19.” Meyer Decl. ¶ 22. Moreover, as this Court previously held, and as Defendants do not contest in their motion, Defendants’ progress comes as a result of the Court’s orders, which is not a reason to vacate the Court’s preliminary injunction.
First, Defendants have not halted the spread of COVID-19 at the jail. Indeed, their policies have allowed the pandemic to continue to spread at the jail. Defendants’ July 21, 2020 Notice to the Court reported that a new resident to the jail tested positive upon intake. Dkt. No. 111. Defendants’ August 5, 2020 Notice to the Court reported that three additional residents tested positive. Dkt. No. 114. The District’s public data suggests another positive test on August 11, 2020. See District of Columbia, Public Safety Agency COVID-19 Case Data (last accessed August 13, 2020), https://coronavirus.dc.gov/page/public-safety-agency-covid-19-case-data.
Although the resident described in Defendants’ July 21, 2020 Notice — Justin Taylor — likely entered the jail already infected with the virus, it was Defendants’ failures to properly
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 7 of 20
quarantine and treat Mr. Taylor that led to the spread of the virus to other jail residents. After Mr. Taylor was tested upon intake, he “was brought to the unit [South 3].” Ex. C (“Taylor Decl.”), at ¶ 4. South 3 is not an intake unit; it is a housing unit with long-term jail residents. That unit was “very crowded,” and although Mr. Taylor was “coughing” and exhibiting symptoms of COVID19, he “walked around common areas in [South 3].” Id. ¶¶ 2, 5-6. “In [South 3], only some residents wore masks,” and Mr. Taylor was “never given towels or cleaning materials for [his] cell.” Id. ¶¶ 8, 14.
Given the mixing of new intakes and long-term residents on South 3, it is little wonder that other residents in that housing unit contracted COVID-19. Dr. Meyer explains that Defendants’ policy of “[p]lacing new intakes who are awaiting test results on a housing unit with inmates who are not new intakes, almost guarantees the spread of the virus among inmates.” Meyer Decl. ¶ 9. Defendants have “missed the key second component to intake testing — that is, quarantining new intakes from the remainder of the population until test results are available and can be reviewed.” Id. ¶ 8. “Even if new intakes are single-celled, if they interact with other residents in communal spaces, there is the potential for disease transmission.” Id.
Other systemic deficiencies — such as the failure to wear masks — extend beyond South 3. DOC staff who interact in close confines with residents do not properly wear masks. During several virtual court proceedings that displayed video feeds at the jail, one attorney observed correctional officers with masks pulled down over their chin (leaving nose and mouth exposed) while within one or two feet of residents. Ex. D (“Phillips Decl.”), at ¶¶ 7-15. The attorney had to ask the Court to direct an officer to properly wear the mask. Id. ¶ 11. Other witnesses describe DOC staff members “in close proximity to one another and loudly talking” without masks and observed a food delivery worker “enter CDF without first undergoing a temperature screening.”
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 8 of 20
Ex. E (“Johnson Decl.”), at ¶¶ 6, 8. DOC officials report that entire housing units are unable to shower or even leave their cells on the weekends, suggesting that understaffing persists. See Ex. F.
Defendants’ own staff also describe ongoing breaches of policy that jeopardize the safety of staff and residents alike. Officer LaVern Bess — writing at risk of retaliation — depicts repeated violations of DOC and CDC policies regarding social distancing and quarantining in recent weeks. She describes violations of basic quarantine policies, including witnessing a correctional officer escorting a mixed group of residents from general population units and quarantine units together in an elevator. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. On another occasion, Officer Bess “saw over twenty inmates crowded in Medical 68’s small waiting room for male inmates,” some of whom “had removed their masks.” Id. ¶¶ 17-18. These violations of CDC guidelines, combined with the danger that the unchecked spread of the virus poses, make clear that vacating the Court’s injunction at this time would be disastrous; if anything, these conditions call out for more Court supervision, not less.
In arguing that these recent “changed circumstances” warrant vacating the Court’s injunction, Defendants cite a handful of cases in which courts have modified an injunction for that reason. Defs.’ Br. 8-9. A comparison of the facts here to the cases Defendants cite shows how Defendants fall well short in attempting to show changed circumstances. In Petties v. District of Columbia, 662 F.3d 564 (D.C. Cir. 2011), the D.C. Circuit instructed the district court to consider significantly changed circumstances — the enactment of major legislation directly pertaining to the consent decree — that occurred over 14 years after the district court had entered a preliminary injunction. Id. at 566-67. And in Government of the Province of Manitoba v. Zinke, 849 F.3d 1111, 1122 (D.C. Cir. 2017), the circuit court remanded for the district court to consider two
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 9 of 20
significant changed circumstances — the tripling of arsenic levels in water over a decade, and the completion of a “full-blown NEPA analysis” — 11 years after the entry of an injunction. Id. at 1116, 1120-22. Here, Defendants ask the Court to vacate its injunction on the basis of recording no positive tests over 30 days, when those circumstances have already changed just weeks later, and when Defendants continue to struggle to implement basic precautions.
Nor have the circumstances changed so drastically to warrant vacating the Court’s order. Changed circumstances must be “controlling or significant” to warrant modification under Rule 54(b). See Dunlap, 319 F. Supp. 3d at 81. In Dunlap, this Court found that the termination of the defendant committee by an Executive Order was an insufficiently changed circumstance to warrant modifying the injunction. Id. at 85.
In this case, Defendants seek reconsideration in response to a 30-day absence of positive tests, including no positive results after testing 87 residents. Dr. Meyer concludes that this “limited surveillance testing in combination with symptom-based testing at the D.C. Jail is not sufficient to establish any conclusion about the spread of the virus.” Meyer Decl. ¶ 15. As Dr. Meyer explains, “[g]iven the population of the facility (over 1200 residents), the lack of testing of staff, and the infrequency of retesting, the numbers presented by the D.C. Jail (87 tests on June 26 and 304 tests on May 22) do not provide enough evidence to show that COVID-19 is contained.” Id. ¶ 17. Defendants’ evidence of COVID-19 containment is even more suspect in light of the rapid climb of COVID-19 cases in the community surrounding the jail. See id. ¶ 2. In sum, “[i]n light of the rising cases in the community and the very limited surveillance testing done by the D.C. Jail, it is gravely misguided and dangerous for the D.C. Jail to claim to have ‘halted’ or ‘stopped’ the spread of COVID-19.” Id. ¶ 22.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 10 of 20
Finally, to the extent that circumstances have changed, they have changed in response to the Court’s orders. This Court correctly pointed out that “much of Defendants’ argument” against a preliminary injunction was “based on steps which Defendants have taken subsequent to the Court’s TRO Order.” PI Op. 15. Defendants claim that this was error, but Defendants do not seriously dispute, as a legal matter, the proposition that efforts undertaken to comply with a court order provide no basis on which to lift a preliminary injunction. Instead, Defendants largely rehash their rejected factual arguments that the policies (which they now call “measures”) they adopted before this litigation began were sufficient. See Defs.’ Br. 13-14. Defendants’ change in terminology does not change the fact that, as this Court emphasized, “policies mean little if they are not correctly implemented in practice.” PI Op. 19. As this Court correctly found, the “delayed and insufficient implementation” of the policies on which Defendants rely supported, and still supports, imposition of the preliminary injunction that the Court issued. Id. at 14.
Defendants’ citation to Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993), Defs.’ Br. 13, which did not involve a TRO or a preliminary injunction, does nothing to support their position here. In Helling, the Supreme Court affirmed a Court of Appeals decision reversing a directed verdict in favor of prison officials and held that an inmate should have the opportunity to prove his allegations at trial. See 509 U.S. at 36. In remanding for a new trial, the Court observed that the plaintiff’s proof would have to account for “the prison authorities’ current attitudes and conduct,” including changes those authorities had made since earlier points in the litigation. Id. But in Helling, the prison authorities had made those changes of their own free will and volition, not under a court-ordered compulsion. Here, by contrast, Defendants urge this Court to lift the preliminary injunction — less than a month after its issuance — based, in large part, on changes they have made only under such judicial compulsion. That request squarely implicates the case
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 11 of 20
law, upon which this Court correctly relied, holding that “Defendants cannot claim that the need for an injunction is now moot because [Defendants have] ceased their wrongful conduct, particularly where [they] did so following the entry of a TRO.” Costa v. Bazron, No. 19-cv-3185 (RDM), 2020 WL 2735666, at *4 (D.D.C. May 24, 2020) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Daniel Chapter One, 89 F. Supp. 3d 132, 143 (D.D.C. 2015) (“A ‘court’s power to grant injunctive relief survives discontinuance of the illegal conduct[.]’”).
Defendants’ attack on this Court’s prior legal analysis is baseless. i. The Court did not err in twice finding deliberate indifference.
Separate from their “changed circumstances” argument, Defendants also claim that the Court erred in finding that they “recklessly disregarded the risks related to COVID-19.” Defs.’ Br. 11. Defendants do not claim that the Court applied an incorrect rule of law or overlooked any facts. Instead, Defendants’ argument for reconsideration on this point boils down to a request that the Court reweigh the same record, under the same legal standards, that it did before. But reconsideration on this ground is only warranted where the Court “has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Stewart v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 189 F. Supp. 3d 170, 173 (D.D.C. 2016) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see id. (“Errors of apprehension may include the Court's failure to consider controlling decisions or data that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the Court.”). Defendants have not even alleged, let alone shown, that the Court made an error “of apprehension.” The Court should deny Defendants’ effort to relitigate arguments that it has already twice rejected.
In arguing that the Court failed to “identify[] any reckless disregard on the part of the DOC,” Defs.’ Br. 11, Defendants offer a rosy mischaracterization of the Court’s findings. As
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 12 of 20
Defendants see it, the Court “point[ed] only to apparent imperfections in the measures that had been implemented” by DOC. Id. Defendants’ account is not a faithful reading of the Court’s preliminary injunction opinion or the Court’s TRO opinion (which the Court incorporated into its preliminary injunction opinion). In issuing the TRO, the Court found, for instance, that “three weeks into the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendants were still allowing 40 inmates to congregate in the recreation yard.” TRO Op. 19. The Court also found that “the quarantine unit [was not] properly secluded,” id. at 21, that residents “in isolation units are not permitted to shower” (discouraging self-reporting of symptoms), id., that “no inmates had facility-issued rags for cleaning their cells,” with residents using “tattered and soiled” rags to clean, id. at 17-18, and that no contact tracing for residents or staff was being implemented, id. at 19-20. At the TRO stage, Defendants simply “d[id] not address” the availability of social distancing, “one of the most crucial precautionary measures in slowing the spread of COVID-19.” Id. at 18. The Court recognized that while Defendants “outline[d] policies designed to combat the threat of COVID-19,” those policies were not “adequately communicated to DOC staff for operationalization.” Id. at 17.
Two months later, the Court reaffirmed that Defendants acted with reckless disregard. The Court incorporated the findings from its TRO opinion and found that Defendants still had not improved conditions despite the Court’s TRO. The Court identified additional failings regarding “providing medical care to inmates in the general population units, in social distancing, in sanitation, in conditions on isolation units, and in access to legal calls.” PI Op. 15. The Court found that there were “significant barriers in access to health care,” id. at 16, that “social distancing” was “not prevalent” and was “still inadequately enforced,” id. at 19, that some “aspects of sanitation . . . have not improved,” id. at 20, and that “nearly four months into the COVID-19
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 13 of 20
pandemic, Defendants have not yet developed a consistent procedure for all inmates to be able to make and receive confidential legal calls,” id. at 25-26.
In urging reconsideration, Defendants contend that the Court “focused its analysis of reckless disregard on the wrong evidence” and “discounted the evidence that DOC had been continually addressing and improving conditions at its facilities.” Defs.’ Br. 11-12. This argument has no merit in a motion for reconsideration. The Court considered that DOC had established certain policies to address COVID-19, but based on the record evidence — including not just evidence presented by the parties, but also two thorough reports from Court-appointed amici — concluded that these policies were “not correctly implemented in practice.” PI Op. 19. Defendants do not claim that the Court overlooked any evidence, and indeed, the Court considered that Defendants had adopted some policies to respond to COVID-19. The Court concluded, however, that those policies were not communicated to staff and not implemented. See id. at 14, 19. Defendants do not identify any evidence that the Court overlooked. In other words, Defendants argument is merely a request that the Court reweigh the same evidence that it has already considered and come to a different conclusion. Such a request is not a permissible basis for reconsideration. See Elmore v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., No. 14-cv-915 (APM), 2016 WL 10789354, at *1 (D.D.C. July 29, 2016) (“[T]he court declines to reweigh the evidence on a motion for reconsideration.”).
ii. Defendants’ out-of-circuit cases do not justify reconsideration. Defendants seek reconsideration based on five out-of-circuit court cases. Defs.’ Br. 15-16. Rule 54(b) permits reconsideration in light of “a controlling or significant change in the law . . . since the submission of the issue to the Court.” Youssef v. Holder, 62 F. Supp. 3d 96, 98 (D.D.C. 2014).
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 14 of 20
None of Defendants’ cited cases are controlling on this Court.2 Defendants cite to cases from the Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, but they identify no intervening D.C. Circuit case. Defs.’ Br. 15-16. Defendants’ motion should be denied on this ground alone. See Atlanta Channel, Inc. v. Solomon, No. 15-cv-1823 (RC), 2020 WL 1984296, at *5 (D.D.C. Apr. 27, 2020) (“[T]he Court is puzzled why a single out-of-circuit, nonbinding opinion qualifies as a controlling or significant change in the law that merits reconsideration under Rule 54(b)’s standard.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Moreover, only one of Defendants’ five cases arguably represents a “change” in law, as the other four cited cases were all decided prior to the Court’s injunction. Indeed, Defendants previously relied on Valentine v. Collier, 956 F.3d 797 (5th Cir. 2020), in opposing the preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 82 at 40-41. Defendants failed to cite any of the other cases that they now claim warrants reconsideration. Because Defendants did not do so, they should “not now be allowed to use the [cases] as a way to reopen this litigation.” SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 915 F. Supp. 2d 69, 81 (D.D.C. 2013) (denying reconsideration where the movant failed to notify the Court of “new controlling authority about which [the movant] wished to provide supplemental briefing” prior to the Court’s opinion), aff’d, 555 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir.
2 In a separate supplemental filing, Defendants direct the Court to Barnes v. Ahlman, — S. Ct. —, No. 20A19, 2020 WL 4499350 (U.S. Aug. 5, 2020), in which the Supreme Court stayed a district court’s preliminary injunction imposing fourteen conditions on the Orange County jail. In granting the stay, the majority offered no reasoning or analysis that can be applied here. Moreover, in that case, the movants focused on the burdens imposed on the facility by the Court’s fourteen conditions, including the requirement that the facility waive all medical co-pays for those experiencing COVID-19-related symptoms and the specificity of the Court’s requirements (including requiring that the movant respond to medical emergencies within one hour and provide hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol). See Ahlman v. Barnes, No. 20-cv-835 (JGB), 2020 WL 2754938, at *14 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2020). The Court’s order here does not approach that level of intrusiveness; moreover, Defendants have not claimed here that the Court’s order is burdensome.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 15 of 20
2014). The only case identified by Defendants that post-dates the Court’s opinion, Cameron v.
Bouchard, No. 20-1469, 2020 WL 3867393 (6th Cir. July 9, 2020), does not justify reconsideration. Defendants do not even claim that this out-of-circuit case reflects a legal change (as required by Rule 54(b)), nor could they, because Cameron merely applied settled law to a factual record that is distinguishable from the record that was before this Court. In Cameron, the Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of a preliminary injunction where “Plaintiffs produced no evidence even tending to show that [the jail’s policies] caused any inmate to be put at risk.” Id. at *7. But the record before this Court is significantly different. Here, Court-appointed amici twice described glaring violations of basic procedures that go beyond an “imperfect” response to the pandemic. Amici’s first report described “masks [that] were ill-fitting, visibly soiled, and ripped”; “no attempts by the correctional staff to enforce social distancing”; “visibly soiled clothing”; no access to showers for residents in isolation housing units; entire housing units with no cleaning supplies; “very low level” of knowledge about cleaning methodology; and “visible mold growth” in showers. Dkt. No. 49-1 at 18-36. Amici’s second report described “significant barriers to access to health care,” Dkt. No. 77, at 9; evidence that social distancing “certainly is not prevalent”; Dkt. No. 69, at 42; sanitation that was “clearly especially deficient at the jail,” id. at 41; and “significant correctional officer staffing shortages,” id. at 17. Additional declarations from dozens of residents, multiple DOC staff members, and documents from the DOC itself paint a picture of systemic failures across a range of areas. The record before the district court in Cameron did not contain the breadth of evidence that this record contains.3
3 The four out-of-circuit cases cited by Defendants that all predate the Court’s preliminary injunction are similarly distinguishable. In Valentine v. Collier, 956 F.3d 797 (5th Cir. 2020), the
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 16 of 20
Plaintiffs exhausted their administrative remedies, as the Court correctly found. Defendants contend that this Court erred in finding that Plaintiffs had exhausted their administrative remedies prior to filing suit, but their argument misrepresents their own grievance procedures, which this Court correctly found that Plaintiffs had satisfied. As an initial matter, in their opposition to Plaintiffs preliminary injunction, Defendants cited to a different procedure than they now invoke. See Dkt. No. 82, at 35-36 (citing to DOC grievance procedures put in place in January 2018). In their current motion, Defendants instead cite to a procedure put in place in January 2020. See Defs.’ Br. 14-15. This Court should not consider Defendants’ argument, raised for the first time at this stage, that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the January 2020 procedure. See, e.g., N.S. v. Hughes, No. 20-cv-101 (RCL), 2020 WL 4260739, at *2 (D.D.C. July 24, 2020) (“Evidence that the movant knew about (or should have known about) but which it failed to disclose is not a valid basis for a motion to reconsider.”); Ali v. Carnegie Inst. of Wash., 309 F.R.D. 77, 81 (D.D.C. 2015) (“[I]t is well-established that [a] motion[] for reconsideration . . . cannot be used as . . . a vehicle for presenting theories or arguments that could have been advanced earlier.”). That is particularly true where Defendants seek to bar
Fifth Circuit issued a stay pending appeal because the district court “collapsed” the subjective and objective prongs of the Eight Amendment inquiry, id. at 802, an error this Court did not make. See P.I. Op. 6, 7. In Swain v. Junior, 961 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2020), the Eleventh Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction because the district court “declined to make factual findings about the extent and efficacy of the measures that the defendants were already taking,” id. at 1287, an error that this Court did not make. In Wilson v. Williams, 961 F.3d 829 (6th Cir. 2020), the Sixth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction where the district court “did not attempt to resolve factual discrepancies in the declarations provided by petitioners and the BOP.” Id. at 842 n.4. In this case, the Court held multiple hearings with Court-appointed amici and thoroughly resolved any factual discrepancies in the record. And in Marlowe v. LeBlanc, 810 F. App’x 302 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit entered a stay due to the district court’s “laconic [Eight Amendment] analysis” that contained “few (if any) factual findings.” Id. at 305. The Court made no such error here.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 17 of 20
Plaintiffs’ suit on the grounds that Plaintiffs did not exhaust grievance procedures that Defendants themselves failed to properly put before the Court.
In any event, even applying the January 2020 procedures, this Court correctly found that Plaintiff Banks exhausted administrative remedies. Although Defendants acknowledge that the Court ruled that Mr. Banks filed an emergency grievance, Defendants inexplicably contend that Mr. Banks did not comply with the procedures for non-emergency grievances. See Defs.’ Br. 1415. But under the emergency grievance procedures — and Defendants nowhere contend that Mr. Banks did not file an emergency grievance — DOC was required to respond within 72 hours. See Dkt. No. 108-1, at 19 (noting that, unlike the typical grievance procedure, “[a]n emergency grievance shall be responded to within seventy-two (72) hours of its receipt” (emphasis added)). And unlike the standard grievance procedures, which allows residents to move to next step of the process if they do not receive a response, an appeal of an emergency grievance is available only upon “receipt of the WARDEN response,” which Mr. Banks did not receive. Id. at 21. There is therefore no cause for this Court to reconsider its correct ruling that Mr. Banks exhausted administrative remedies due to DOC’s failure to timely respond to his emergency grievance. See Mem. Op. 12.4
4 Although only one member of the putative class needs to exhaust administrative remedies, Jackson v. District of Columbia, 254 F.3d 262, 269 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (citing Foster v. Gueory, 655 F.2d 1319, 1321-22 (D.C. Cir. 1981)), Plaintiff Jackson also exhausted remedies by submitting an emergency grievance to which Defendants did not respond. See Dkt. No. 89, at 12. Although Mr. Jackson has been released, for purposes of exhaustion, “[i]t makes no difference that the individual plaintiff who started the action loses interest in the case,” Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm'n v. Contour Chair Lounge Co., 596 F.2d 809, 813 (8th Cir. 1979), as “the purpose of administrative exhaustion . . . is to put the [administrative authority] on notice of all issues in contention and to allow the [authority] an opportunity to investigate those issues,” Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1287 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Jackson’s exhaustion, like Mr. Banks’, accomplishes that purpose.
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 18 of 20
The Court gave sufficient process prior to issuing its preliminary injunction. Defendants ask the Court to hold a hearing on its motion to vacate, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a). Defendants do not argue that the Court should vacate its injunction for failure to hold a hearing, and such an argument would be baseless anyway. The Court twice heard live testimony from amici, during which Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the Court each questioned amici. The Court also held oral argument prior to issuing the temporary restraining order. Defendants did not request additional hearings and consequently have waived their right to claim error on this ground. See Consol. Gold Fields PLC v. Minorco, S.A., 871 F.2d 252, 256 (2d Cir.), amended, 890 F.2d 569 (2d Cir. 1989) (holding that parties can waive right to evidentiary hearing prior to preliminary injunction). Particularly in light of the imminent harm Plaintiffs faced, the Court’s expeditious handling of this matter was proper. See Khatib v. All. Bankshares Corp., 846 F. Supp. 2d 18, 25 (D.D.C. 2012) (deciding preliminary injunction motion “on the papers” after concluding that “hearing live testimony and oral argument is not appropriate” given the exigencies involved in case (citing LCvR 7(f); LCvR 65.1(d)).
The Court should reappoint amici. This Court has twice appointed amici Grace Lopes and Mark Jordan to prepare reports on conditions in Defendants’ facilities. Counsel for Plaintiffs have consulted with Ms. Lopes and Mr. Jordan and confirmed that they remain available and willing to continue in this role for the Court. Given ongoing issues with Defendants’ quarantine policy, enforcement of social distancing, and adequacy of sanitation, Plaintiffs urge the Court to renew amici’s appointment and to direct them to complete, on a periodic and ongoing basis, targeted unannounced and unescorted site visits of Defendants’ facilities.
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 19 of 20

CONCLUSION The “changed circumstances” identified by Defendants are no longer “changed,” and they do not justify reconsideration in any event. The remainder of Defendants’ arguments are not appropriate grounds for reconsideration. The Court should deny Defendants’ motion.

Dated: August 14, 2020 Washington, D.C.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Steven Marcus

.

Steven Marcus (D.C. Bar # 1630882)

Jonathan Anderson (D.C. Bar # 475306)

Jenna Cobb (D.C. Bar # 979506)

PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR D.C.

633 Indiana Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20004

(202) 824-2524

smarcus@pdsdc.org

/s/ Scott Michelman

.

Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar # 1006945)

Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar # 235960)

Michael Perloff (D.C. Bar # 1601047)

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

of the District of Columbia

915 15th Street NW, Second Floor

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 457-0800

smichelman@acludc.org

/s/ Jacob S. Kreilkamp Jacob S. Kreilkamp MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426 Tel.: 213-683-9260 Fax: 213-593-2960 jacob.kreilkamp@mto.com

19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 20 of 20 Jonathan S. Meltzer (D.C. Bar # 888166546) Jeremy S. Kreisberg (D.C. Bar # 1048346) Brendan B. Gants (D.C. Bar # 1031419) Rachel G. Miller-Ziegler (D.C. Bar # 229956) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 1155 F Street, NW, Seventh Floor Washington DC, 20004 (202) 220-1100 jonathan.meltzer@mto.com
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-1 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-1 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-1 Filed 08/14/20 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-1 Filed 08/14/20 Page 4 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-2 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-2 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 6
Supplemental Report of Dr. Jaimie Meyer
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I hereby declare as follows:
1. I am Dr. Jaimie Meyer, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Yale School of Medicine and Assistant Clinical Professor of Nursing at Yale School of Nursing in New Haven, Connecticut. I am a physician who is board certified in Infectious Disease, Addiction Medicine, and Internal Medicine, with expertise in infectious diseases in prisons and jails. I completed a fellowship in clinical Infectious Diseases at Yale School of Medicine in 2011 and a fellowship in Interdisciplinary HIV Prevention at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS in 2012. I hold a Master of Science in Biostatistics and Epidemiology from Yale School of Public Health. I previously submitted a Declaration in this case dated March 29, 2020, along with a copy of my CV. I also submitted Supplemental Declarations in this case dated May 14 and May 29, 2020.
2. To prepare this Supplemental Declaration, I reviewed the following documents:
a. Docket No. 105-3 – Declaration of Dr. Beth Jordan b. Docket No. 105-4 – Declaration of Lennard Johnson c. Docket No. 105-5 – Declaration of Gitana Stewart-Potter d. Docket No. 105-6 – Declaration of Amy Lopez e. Docket No. 105-7 – Declaration of Camile Williams f. Declaration of Justin Taylor, dated July 23, 2020 g. Docket No. 114 – Notice of positive tests
3. In addition to my knowledge, training, education, and experience in the field of prison healthcare and infectious diseases, and the resources relied upon by experts in infectious diseases and prison health, I also reviewed specifically the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance on management of COVID-19 in correctional facilities (available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correctiondetention/guidance-correctional-detention.html), the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) modified operations plan (available at https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/covid19_status.jsp), the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) materials on COVID-19 (available at https://www.ncchc.org/COVID-Resources), and the World Health Organization interim guidance on Preparedness, prevention and control of COVID-19 in prisons and other places of detention (available at http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/434026/Preparedness-preventionand-control-of-COVID-19-in-prisons.pdf?ua=1).
4. In my first report in this case, I wrote that “[t]he risk posed by infectious diseases in jails and prisons is significantly higher than in the community, both in terms of risk of transmission, exposure, and harm to individuals who become infected.” (First Declaration ¶ 9). Since my first report, the evidence of the increased risk of transmission, exposure, and harm to incarcerated people has grown. As of June 6, 2020, the COVID-19 case rate for prisoners was 5.5 times higher than the US population case rate (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768249). As of August 3,
1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-2 Filed 08/14/20 Page 3 of 6
correctional facilities account for each of the top twelve largest COVID-19 outbreaks nationally, surpassing nursing homes and food processing plants (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html).
5. In addition to disease mitigation strategies, the single most powerful tool we have in containing the spread of COVID-19 within facilities is testing. Testing is critical for disease containment because it allows people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 to be medically isolated. This is beneficial for the individual who is infected in terms of receiving increased medical attention and for the population writ large in terms of reducing the potential for disease transmission.
6. To fully understand and manage the impact of COVID-19 in District of Columbia facilities, we need to know the true incidence of the disease, which is the number of new cases of infection as they arise in the entire facility population, and the true prevalence of disease, which is the total number of infections in the entire facility population at any one point in time. Unless everyone in the facility (including staff) is tested, we have to interpret the number of new cases within the context of the testing strategy. Below, I will outline the key concepts to understanding what inferences—if any—can be drawn from the testing data presented to date in the D.C. Jail. I will then set out the parameters of a testing strategy that would give a more accurate sense of the true infection rate in the D.C. Jail.
7. I understand that the current policy of the D.C. Jail is to test new inmates upon admission to the jail. This practice is consistent with current CDC recommendations, dated July 7, 2020, to test all new intakes into the facility when there is moderate to substantial levels of community transmission surrounding the facility (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correctiondetention/testing.html).
8. Mr. Taylor’s declaration, however, reflects that D.C. Jails have missed the key second component to intake testing- that is, quarantining new intakes from the remainder of the population until test results are available and can be reviewed. Instead, Mr. Taylor describes a 7-day period on the Enhanced Monitoring Unit while he was clearly symptomatic from COVID-19 and test results were pending, in which he walked around the tier, interacted with other residents and staff on the tier while wearing a tattered poorly fitting mask, attended a parole board, and observed residents and staff not wearing masks.
9. Dr. Jordan’s declaration also notes (¶ 5), “there have been no quarantine or isolation units operating since June 14” except for “initial enhanced medical observation.” It is unclear why quarantine units have ceased to operate, since clearly new intakes are still arriving to the facility who would require quarantine. Without adequate quarantine for people with test results pending and without adequate isolation for people with symptoms of COVID-19, the virus will continue to spread inside the facility. Placing new intakes who are awaiting test results on a housing unit with inmates who are not new intakes, almost guarantees the spread of the virus among inmates. Even if new
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-2 Filed 08/14/20 Page 4 of 6
intakes are single-celled, if they interact with other residents in communal spaces, there is the potential for disease transmission. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that additional residents on that housing unit tested positive on July 26 and August 2, per the Notice of positive tests.
10. In addition to testing people on intake into the facility, I understand it is the policy of the D.C. Jails to test inmates who report or exhibit COVID-19 symptoms.
11. Symptom-based testing strategies that rely on detainees to self-report symptoms are highly selective and therefore of reduced value. Detainees will be reluctant to self-report symptoms if they will be isolated, which may be perceived as punishment or feel punitive given the conditions of isolation in the jail. This perception of punishment deters symptom reporting and prevents rapid detection of the disease.
12. Some typical COVID-19 symptoms cannot be easily observed by others, including fever or chills, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, new loss of taste or smell, nausea, or diarrhea.1 If not brought to medical attention for testing, inmates who are actively infected with COVID-19 and experiencing symptoms may remain on general housing units and can transmit the disease to others.
13. Additionally, inmates who are not aware of the symptoms of COVID-19—for example, people with low literacy levels who are in facilities where information is shared only via signage, or inmates who do not speak the language in which information is being given—may not be aware that they are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19. These individuals may not know to self-report even if they were inclined to do so. For the same reasons, medical evaluations that do not ask about specific symptoms may not be effective to identify people with symptoms of COVID-19, even if temperatures are checked and recorded regularly.
14. Symptom-based testing strategies importantly miss people without any symptoms at all. Per current best estimates from the CDC, approximately 35% of people with COVID-19 infection are completely asymptomatic.2 If not brought to medical attention for testing, inmates who are actively infected with COVID-19 and experiencing no symptoms may remain on general housing units and can transmit the disease to others.
15. I understand that the D.C. Jail tested approximately 304 residents on May 22, 2020 and 87 asymptomatic residents on June 26, 2020. The limited surveillance testing in combination with symptom-based testing at the D.C. Jail is not sufficient to establish any conclusion about the spread of the virus.
16. A significant problem with the D.C. Jail’s data is undertesting. In assessing the spread of the virus, experts rely upon the test positivity rate, i.e. the proportion of total tests
1 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html 2 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-2 Filed 08/14/20 Page 5 of 6
administered that result positive (# positive tests / # of total tests administered), not the total absolute number of positive test results standing alone. Where the total number of positive test results are low or going down, that does not mean that the spread of the virus is under control if the overall number of tests administered—the denominator—has gone down as well.
17. Further, if the denominator is too small, i.e. if there have not been enough tests conducted, very little information can be drawn from test results. Given the population of the facility (over 1200 residents), the lack of testing of staff, and the infrequency of retesting, the numbers presented by the D.C. Jail (87 tests on June 26 and 304 tests on May 22) do not provide enough evidence to show that COVID-19 is contained.
18. The infrequency of surveillance tests and the failure to test staff are separate problems with the D.C. Jail’s testing procedure. Frequent testing and re-testing of everyone in the congregate facility, including residents, staff, and contractors, is the only way to understand the spread of the pandemic in the facility. This is especially true where the cases are increasing in the community because staff and contractors cycle in and out of the community and the facility daily.
19. In light of the inadequacies of limited surveillance and symptom-driven testing at the D.C. jail, proper management requires facility-wide surveillance and regular testing of all residents and staff. Facility-wide testing and retesting provides a snapshot of the true situation on the ground and enables a clinical and public health response that is informed by real data. These so-called “point prevalence surveys” or surveillance assessments have been recommended by the CDC in other congregate settings such as nursing homes.3 In multiple other carceral settings in the U.S., regular and repeated facility-wide surveillance has proved invaluable in terms of identifying who needs to be medically isolated (for detainees) and excluded from work (for staff). It would be impossible to draw any scientifically sound conclusions about the spread of COVID-19 in a prison or jail facility without reliable facility-wide testing.
20. In addition to baseline broad-based testing, therefore, re-testing is needed on a regular basis. Re-testing at regular intervals serves two purposes: (1) accommodate and protect against false negatives that are possible in asymptomatic individuals or people early in the course of disease as described above; and (2) accommodate turnovers in the inmate population. Given that the duration of active infection and contagiousness is 10-14 days, the facility should retest everyone who resides and works in the facility at least every 14 days and in collaboration with state and local health departments.
21. I understand that COVID-19 cases are climbing rapidly in the District of Columbia and surrounding counties. For example, the seven-day average of new cases in the District of Columbia on August 2, 2020, was more than double the seven-day average of new cases in early July (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/catholic-priest-dccoronavirus/2020/08/02/006e06c6-d4c7-11ea-9c3b-dfc394c03988_story.html). There has
3 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/nursing-homes-facility-wide-testing.html
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-2 Filed 08/14/20 Page 6 of 6
been an increasing trend of new cases in the District of Columbia since Phase 2 reopening began June 22 (https://coronavirus.dc.gov/page/coronavirus-data). According to the Washington Post, cases in Prince George’s County are also “climbing rapidly after weeks of gradual inclines” (id.).
22. In light of the rising cases in the community and the very limited surveillance testing done by the D.C. Jail, it is gravely misguided and dangerous for the D.C. Jail to claim to have “halted” or “stopped” the spread of COVID-19. In fact, for anyone to claim that COVID-19 spread has been definitively stopped, in any U.S. setting, is extremely premature-- this is no less true in the D.C. Jail.
23. This pandemic is far from over and we cannot be lulled into complacency. It is a grave mistake to suggest that the crisis is over, either in the community or in prisons. SARS-CoV-2 will continue to plague U.S. communities and prisons until an effective vaccine is available, which is unlikely before February 2021. Given known delays in prisons accessing medical innovations, COVID-19 vaccines may not be available in prisons and jails for even longer. And given the evidence and data accumulated since the beginning of the pandemic, inmates will continue to be at the highest risk to contract COVID-19, to transmit to other inmates and to staff who return daily to the community, and to experience death or serious injury as a result of the illness.
24. In the interim until a vaccine is developed, produced, and widely available, a renewed wave of COVID-19 infections is nearly certain this fall and predicted to hit at the same time as seasonal influenza, which will be devastating in terms of loss of life and strain on healthcare systems. Rather than scrambling to respond to outbreaks as they arise, we must take steps now to reduce the impact of renewed outbreaks of COVID-19 on people in the D.C. Jail. The D.C. Jail must be on high guard and vigilant while cases rise in the community and during the fall and winter, when seasonal influenza will be prevalent as well.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Jaimie P. Meyer August 8, 2020 Wilton, Connecticut
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-3 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT C

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-3 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF JUSTIN TAYLOR
1. My name is Justin Taylor. I am 21 years old. I am currently incarcerated at the Central Detention Facility (CDF) on the unit N2 in Washington, D.C. I am offering the information detailed herein based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I was brought to CDF on July 13th, 2020. When I was brought to CDF, I was feeling sick. I was coughing. I had headaches. My head felt hot, but my body felt cold. I also had shooting pains in my whole body. When I walked, my feet hurt.
3. I have asthma. I have not received an asthma pump in the jail. I still have trouble breathing with my asthma pump, so I sometimes have to use a machine to help me breathe. I asked for a machine to help me breathe. The nurses said that I should use an asthma pump and walked away, but the nurses did not give me an asthma pump.
4. I was tested for COVID-19 when I arrived at CDF on July 13th. I was tested in the processing area. After being tested, I was brought to the unit S3. I was on S3 for about a week.
5. S3 was very crowded. I do not know how many people were on S3 exactly, but there were people on both piers.
6. I was in a single cell on S3. I walked around common areas in S3.
7. There were usually about four DOC staff working on S3. The DOC staff on S3 wore masks when they were on the unit. The DOC staff sitting in the bubble would not wear masks. By the bubble, I mean the DOC office on S3. Residents and DOC staff went into the DOC office to make phone calls. About 20-30 people a day went into and out of the DOC office. The DOC staff person would sit in that office without a mask when people

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-3 Filed 08/14/20 Page 3 of 4
made phone calls. Staff and residents also took their own masks when they were making phone calls, so there would often be people in the DOC office without masks on. The staff and residents in the DOC office were sitting less than six feet apart when their masks were off.
8. In S3, only some residents wore masks. About four residents wore masks regularly. All of the residents who wore masks regularly were on detail.
9. On S3, I asked the CO for a new mask around 2-3 times. Whenever I asked the CO for a new mask, the CO would put on a fan and walk away so they did not have to listen to me.
10. Many residents in S3 were coughing. I was also coughing when I was on S3. 11. I got a mask in the 4th district police station when I turned myself in. I turned myself in
on July 11th. I did not receive a new mask from DOC staff on S3 at all. I did not receive a new mask until I had to go to a parole board hearing on July 17th. When I was walking to the parole board hearing, a CO saw me wearing a messed up mask in a hallway. By messed up, I mean that the mask was dirty on the blue part which covers my mouth. One of the ear parts was shorter than the other, so the mask was hanging on my face diagonally. I had to keep pulling up the messed up mask with my fingers because it kept moving. When I fixed the bottom of the messed up mask, the top of the messed up mask would cover my eyes. When the CO saw my messed up mask, she gave me a new mask.
12. In S3, DOC staff only let me out of my cell in handcuffs. Whenever I told them that something was wrong with me or that I needed something, the DOC staff would ignore me. Because of this I was only able to shower one or two times while I was on S3. The CO would say it would be problem if I came out. The CO also said it would be a problem if I used the phone, so I could not make phone calls very often.
13. When I was on S3, I received one roll of toilet paper. The toilet paper roll lasted about a week. I had to keep asking DOC staff for another roll after that.
14. In S3, I was never given towels or cleaning materials for my cell. The CO told me no. The CO told me that detail would clean my cell. Detail swept my floor once, but other than that they did not clean my cell. Detail only brought in a broom and a dustpan.
15. I was brought a positive COVID-19 test this past Monday, July 20th. After I tested positive for COVID-19, I was moved from S3 to N2.
16. I am the only resident on N2.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-3 Filed 08/14/20 Page 4 of 4
17. I have repeatedly asked to go to the hospital. I ask the nurses to send me to the hospital every day. I ask the nurses, the COs, and anybody else I can talk to about going to the hospital. The nurses just tell me that I am being taken care of here. My aunt called CDF to talk to a supervisor about getting me hospitalized. My aunt was transferred several times, and nobody would talk to her or give her any answers.
18. I am still feeling very sick. I am coughing so much that I am throwing up. I have to spend about five hours a day lying down. My body hurts. I think I was moved so nobody could hear me cough.
I, Katherine Rees, certify that I have read the foregoing to Justin Taylor and that he affirmed the foregoing is true and correct on July 23rd, 2020. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 23rd, 2020.
_________________________ Katherine Rees Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT D

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________

EDWARD BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

v.

No. 1:20-cv-00849

QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al., ____________________________________

DECLARATION OF AMY PHILLIPS
1. My name is Amy Phillips. I am a Staff Attorney at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. I am licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia, and I have been an attorney in good standing before the D.C. Court of Appeals since December 2013. I practice primarily criminal law in D.C. Superior Court.
2. On Friday, July 24, 2020, I was assigned to represent clients at presentment and arraignment in D.C. Superior Court. Presentment and arraignment hearings take place in Courtroom C-10, which has been operating partially remotely for the last several months. I participated in those hearings remotely, using a Court-provided software program called WebEx on my computer.
3. Clients who are incarcerated in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC) at D.C. Jail who appeared in D.C. Superior Court on July 24, 2020, also participated in the hearings remotely via the WebEx software. During the hearings, I could see on my computer screen each client, as well as the room at the D.C. Jail that they were in, and other individuals who were in the room or in the areas of the Jail near where my clients were located.
4. I recognized the area of the Jail where clients were sitting as the professional visitation area. I have visited that part of the Jail hundreds of times over the last seven years, and am very familiar with its layout and appearance. In that area of the Jail are five or six

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 3 of 5
visiting rooms, a small office used by DOC staff, commonly referred to as “the bubble,” and a hallway that connects the visiting area to the part of the Jail where prisoner housing units are located. 5. The visiting room where the clients sat to attend court is approximately 7 feet by 7 feet square. A table and chairs take up most of the available space in the room. Each of the four walls of the room are clear plastic from about waist height to the ceiling. The plastic is slightly hazy, but I could see through it. On my computer screen, I was able to observe my clients and individuals in the visiting room with them. Through the clear plastic, I could also see a portion of the bubble and people inside it, and parts of the hallway and people traveling through it. 6. I observed or participated in all or part of five hearings where clients were present in the visiting room to attend Court. During each of those hearings, at least one Corrections Officer escorted the client into and out of the room for the hearing, and the Officer was present in the room during the hearing. 7. During each hearing, I could see that each client and each Corrections Officer had a disposable paper mask with a light blue front on it. However, at various times, I saw that either the client, the Corrections Officer, or both, were not wearing those masks in a way that covered both their nose and mouth to protect one another from the spread of airborne illness. 8. During each of the five hearings I observed, I saw various times when the Corrections Officer present in the room with the client was not wearing a mask that covered his nose and mouth. At some points, the Officer wore a mask pulled down, covering only his chin. At other times, the Officer wore his mask covering his mouth, but not his nose. 9. During three of the five hearings, I observed a Corrections Officer who was not wearing a mask covering his nose and mouth stand behind a seated client and reach over him to make adjustments to the laptop computer on the table in front of the client. From my vantage point, it appeared to me that the Officer’s breath would have hit the client directly in the face while the Officer adjusted the computer. 10. During one hearing, a client was not wearing a mask covering his nose and mouth, and the Corrections Officer was also not wearing a mask covering his nose and mouth. At no
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 4 of 5
time did the Officer, the Court, or anyone else instruct either the Officer or the client to pull up his mask to cover his nose and mouth. 11. During one hearing I participated in, when I saw a Corrections Officer moving towards my client with his mask pulled down to expose his nose and mouth, I asked the Court to ask the Officer to please pull up his mask so that it covered his nose and mouth. The Officer complied at that time. However, I later saw the same Officer again wearing his mask covering only his chin, not his nose or mouth. 12. During the hearings, I could not see the door to the room, but based on the layout of the room and the movements of the Corrections Officers, I believe the door to the room was fully or mostly closed during the hearings, with the Officer and client together inside the enclosed room. 13. Based on the size of the room, as well as the positions where I could see clients and Corrections Officers inside of the room, clients and Officers were not practicing social distancing within the room. Multiple times during each hearing, I saw Officers stand within about 1-2 feet of clients, or position their faces within about 1-2 feet from clients faces. While not practicing social distancing, either the Officers, the clients, or both were often not wearing masks that covered both their noses and mouths. Several times, I saw an Officer position his face within 1-2 feet of a client’s face while the Officer was wearing his mask over only his chin, not his nose or mouth. 14. At least once during the hearings, I saw a DOC staff member in the bubble without a mask covering his nose and mouth. I could not tell whether the staff member had a mask at all, but I could see that no mask covered the nose or mouth area of his face. 15. On the video during the hearings I observed and participated in, I saw Corrections Officers in the background behind the visiting room escorting prisoners in the hallway from the housing units to the visitation area for their hearings. I noticed two instances where an Officer who was holding a prisoner by the arm or walking within less than a foot of that prisoner was not properly wearing a mask to cover his nose and mouth. In one of those instances, the Officer was wearing a mask covering only his chin, not his nose and mouth. In the other instance, I could not tell whether the Corrections Officer was wearing a mask at all, but I could see that his nose and mouth were uncovered.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 5 of 5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed on the 31st day of July, 2020, in Washington, D.C. Amy Phillips, D.C. Bar #1017753 Staff Attorney D.C. Public Defender Service 633 Indiana Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-5 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT E

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-5 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-6 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT F

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-6 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 3

Steven Marcus
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Wilson, Michelle (DOC)

Tuesday, August 4, 2020 11:26 AM

Steven Marcus; Glover, Eric (DOC)

Anthony Matthews

RE:

-- no rec for several days

Good morning Mr. Marcus,

Mr.

unit does not get recreation time on the weekends and recreation time is when the resident would

shower. I am not sure I understand your reference to a quarantine unit, because all residents, whether or not on

quarantine, have access to showers during their recreation time.

Michelle K. Wilson Attorney Advisor D.C. Department of Corrections Office of the General Counsel
Washington, D.C. 20009

www.doc.dc.gov

From: Steven Marcus <SMarcus@pdsdc.org>

Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 10:58 AM

To: Wilson, Michelle (DOC)

; Glover, Eric (DOC)

Cc:

Subject

-- no rec for several days

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the DC Government. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the content is safe. If you believe that this email is suspicious, please forward to phishing@dc.gov for additional analysis by OCTO Security Operations Center (SOC).

Hi Ms. Wilson and Mr. Glover,

Hope you are staying well. I’m writing about

, who has been locked down for several days without

an opportunity to shower or make a call (other than a scheduled legal call). Do you mind checking in on this matter? I am not sure

what unit he is on (he moved recently), but I don’t believe he’s on a quarantine unit.

Many thanks,

Steve Marcus Staff Attorney, Special Litigation Division Public Defender Service

1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 116-6 Filed 08/14/20 Page 3 of 3
for the District of Columbia 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Room 561 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 824-2524 (direct) (202) 824-2525 (fax)
For the latest information on the District Government’s response to COVID-19 (Coronavirus), please visit coronavirus.dc.gov.
2

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 135

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________
EDWARD BANKS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
QUINCY BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.,
Defendants. ____________________________________

No. 1:20-cv-849 (CKK)

REPORT SUBMITTED BY AMICUS CURIAE PURSUANT TO APRIL 28, 2020 CONSENT ORDER

Pursuant to the April 28, 2020 Consent Order issued in the above-captioned matter, Amici, Grace M. Lopes and Mark Jordan, submit the following report for the Court’s consideration.

I. INTRODUCTION On April 9, 2020 amici were appointed to provide specific information to the Court
regarding medical services and environmental health and hygiene at two detention facilities operated by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (“DOC”), the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”). Pursuant to that order amici provided information to the Court during an April 15, 2020 teleconference and in a written report on April 18, 2020. On April 19, 2020, the Court issued an order granting plaintiffs’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and requiring the defendants to take certain specified actions. Thereafter, on April 28, 2020 amici were appointed to provide information to the Court

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 135
regarding certain matters related to the TRO, which concern the COVID-19 pandemic at the CDF and the CTF. Following issuance of the April 28, 2020 order and using the same methodology applied in their earlier review, amici collected and analyzed data obtained from site visits at both facilities; conducted structured interviews with DOC managers, line staff, inmates, and contractors; reviewed electronic health records; and analyzed multiple electronic datasets extracted from information management systems maintained by the DOC or its contract services providers.
The April 28, 2020 order required amici to provide information to the Court by answering five questions during an oral report to the Court on May 11, 2020, and four additional questions in a written report required to be submitted by May 20, 2020. Accordingly, during a teleconference with the Court and the parties on May 11, 2020, amici presented their findings concerning the first five questions reflected in the order. This report supplements but does not restate that presentation and summarizes amici’s responses to the remaining four questions reflected in the order. In addition, this report explains the methodology amici relied upon to conduct their assessment, addresses relevant background data regarding the facilities subject to the assessment, and presents updated information concerning the prevalence of COVID-19 cases at both the CDF and CTF.
The defendants have continued to cooperate fully with amici’s requests for information. DOC and contract staff at every level, as well as representatives from the Office of the Attorney General, have continued to make themselves available on short notice, on every day of the week, and well after traditional office hours. Data reports and other records have continued to be produced on abbreviated timelines. Amici appreciate the efforts the defendants have continued to make to facilitate their review.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 3 of 135
II. METHODOLOGY Following the issuance of the April 28, 2020 order, amici conducted unannounced and
unescorted site visits on multiple shifts on May 7 and 8, 2020, at both the CDF and CTF, respectively. In addition, amici conducted an unannounced and unescorted site visit at the CDF during the PM shift on May 14, 2020. During the course of these site visits, amici visited general population, maximum and medium security housing units, including housing units on isolation, quarantine and non-quarantine status, special management and mental health units at both facilities, and the CTF infirmary and urgent care clinic. Five housing units at the CDF (N1, NW-1, SW-3, SE-2 and N-2) and six housing units (C3A, C3B, SMUB, D2A, E4B, E4A) in addition to the infirmary at the CTF were visited. The isolation unit at the CDF (N-2) was visited on two separate dates. Observations in housing units included cells, dayrooms, restrooms, supply storage areas, and shower facilities. At both facilities, medical units, administrative offices, and visitor entry areas were visited.
Structured in-person and/or telephone interviews were conducted with members of the DOC executive management team, including the DOC Deputy Directors of Administration, Operations, Programs and Case Management, and Professional Development and College and Career Readiness; the DOC Medical Director; the Medical Director, Director of Nursing, and other members of the Correctional Health Program at Unity Health Care, Inc. (“Unity”);1 the CDF and CTF Warden and the Deputy Warden assigned to the CTF; and dozens of correctional officers and supervisory correctional staff assigned to various posts throughout the facilities. Inperson interviews were also conducted, in groups and individually, with over 100 inmates on
1 Unity provides medical services on a contractual basis to inmates at the CDF and CTF.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 4 of 135
isolation, quarantine and non-quarantine status as well as in restricted housing units and in the
general population at both facilities.
In addition to the information collected during site visits and from interviews, amici
requested and continued to receive access from the DOC to the electronic health records of
inmates confined at the CDF and CTF.2 Review and analysis of samples from these records has
been conducted and the results were presented during the May 11, 2020 teleconference. The
following data for both facilities were also obtained from the DOC and analyzed:
 Daily census data, including inmate housing assignments, for the period April 1, 2020 to May 14, 2020;
 Data related to sick call requests for the period April 19, 2020 to April 30, 2020;  Data related to urgent care encounters for the period April 19, 2020 to April 30, 2020;  Data related to all COVID-19 tests conducted on inmates housed at both facilities
through May 14, 2020; and  Open work orders for maintenance activities as of May 15, 2020. Data related to DOC correctional staffing levels was also reviewed and is addressed below.
III. BACKGROUND
As described in amici’s April 18, 2020 report, the CDF is a multi-story, secure detention
center. At the time of the May 2020 site visits, population levels hovered at approximately 970,
a decrease relative to population levels at the time of the April site visits. The facility has 18
housing units, which are both single and double celled. Analysis of DOC housing data shows
that as of May 13, 2020, 59 percent of the inmates housed at the CDF were housed in single cells
2 The team amici assembled for this stage of their work included two additional members. The majority of case record reviews were conducted by Janet Maher, an attorney who has extensive experience in working in institutional and health-care settings. Ms. Maher headed the Office of Corporation Counsel's Mental Health Division from 1992 to 2000, worked as Deputy General Counsel and Chief of Staff for the District's Child and Family Services Agency from 2000 to 2007 and as DOJ Compliance Officer at Saint Elizabeths Hospital from 2007 to 2014. From 2013 to her retirement in 2016, she headed the Hospital's Performance Improvement Department. She also has provided consultative services to the Maryland and Pennsylvania behavioral health systems and to the Special Arbiter appointed by the Superior Court in Jerry M. v. District of Columbia, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, C.A. No. 1519-85. Case records were also reviewed by Brenda Foust, a senior paralegal with substantial experience in similar institutional contexts.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 5 of 135
and 41 percent were housed in cells with another inmate, which represents an increase in the proportion of inmates housed in single cells compared with the previous month.3 As of May 18,
2020, DOC representatives reported that 41 cells at the CDF could not be occupied because of
maintenance issues. All cells at the CDF are “wet” cells, i.e., they have toilets and sinks.
Cellblocks are divided into two sides, and for most of the facility’s housing units, each side contains two tiers with 20 cells per tier.4 Each cellblock tier of 20 cells has two showers, which
are shared by inmates housed in the unit and located in a common area. The CDF Culinary Unit,
which is operated by a contractor and up until April 11, 2020 employed inmate workers, currently supports the food service program for both the CDF and the CTF.5
At the time of the May 2020 site visits, 15 housing units were open and three were
closed. In contrast to the April 2020 site visits when there were only two quarantine units and
less than a handful of inmates on isolation status, of the 15 open housing units at the CDF, 10
were quarantine units and one was an isolation unit with 26 inmates who had tested positive for COVID-19.6
The CTF had a population of approximately 365 inmates at the time of the May site
visits, a decrease relative to the approximately 400 inmates confined there during the April site
visits. The facility has 27 housing units. In addition to the 26-room 40-bed infirmary, a limited
medical mobility unit can house up to 37 inmates. Eighteen housing units have a capacity of 50
3 Amici previously reported that as of April 13, 2020 43 percent of inmates at the CDF were housed in single cells. See Report Submitted by Amicus Curiae Pursuant to April 9, 2020 Consent Order, filed on April 19, 2020 [hereinafter Amici’s April 2020 Report] at 4. 4 There are two exceptions: N-1 is a restrictive housing unit with 72 cells and NE-3 is a mental health step-down unit with 36 cells. 5 The CTF has a separate Culinary Unit that is responsible for that facility’s food service program. At the time of the April and May site visits, the Culinary Unit at the CTF was closed due to a COVID-19 issue and it remains closed. The closure of the CTF Culinary Unit has continued to place an evident strain on the food service program at the CDF. 6 The number of quarantine and isolation units is, of course, variable, as is the number of inmates assigned to those housing units.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 6 of 135
beds, four have a capacity of 96 beds, two have a capacity of 23 beds,7 and one has a capacity of 65 beds. According to DOC housing assignment records, as of May 13, 2020, consistent with the levels reported in April, 95 percent of the inmates at the CTF were housed in single cells and five percent were housed with another inmate. As of May 18, 2020, DOC representatives reported that four cells at the CTF could not be occupied because of maintenance issues. With the exception of eight housing units,8 all of the CTF’s housing units have wet cells. At the time of amici’s May site visits, 11 housing units were closed and there was one quarantine unit. There were no open isolation units.9 The four inmates who were confined at the facility on isolation status were housed in the infirmary. The infirmary and all of the quarantine units that were operating had wet cells. In contrast, during amici’s April site visits, the CTF had eight quarantine housing units and three isolation housing units.10
During the May 11, 2020 hearing, amici presented updated data regarding COVID-19 test administration results at the CDF and CTF through May 6, 2020. Subsequent to that hearing, amici obtained and analyzed data regarding COVID-19 testing data at both facilities through May 14, 2020. This analysis indicates that during the two-month period from March 14, 2020 to May 14, 2020, a total of 220 COVID-19 tests were administered to inmates at the CDF and 95 were administered to inmates at the CTF. Medical staff at the CDF ordered three additional tests; however, the inmates refused testing and were assumed to be positive for the virus. At the CDF, as of May 14, 2020, 121 inmates tested positive or were presumed to be COVID-19 positive and at the CTF 64 inmates tested positive.11 The seven-day average peak for positive
7 Each of the two restrictive housing units can house up to 23 inmates. 8 Three of the eight housings units that do not have toilets and sinks were open during the site visits. 9 A closed housing unit was designated for inmates on isolation status, should the need arise. 10 See Amici’s April 2020 Report at 5. 11 See Ex. 1, Chart, COVID-19 Tests Administered at the CTF and CDF, by Date of Administration and Test Result, March 14, 2020 – May 14, 2020. The results of one COVID-19 test was pending as of May 17, 2020.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 7 of 135
COVID-19 test results at the CTF was April 5 and April 6, 2020 (an average of five positive test results per day) whereas the peak for positive COVID-19 test results at the CDF was approximately two weeks later, on April 18, 2020 (an average of 5.86 positive test results).12 At the CTF there have been three positive test results out of 12 administered in the approximately one-month period between April 16, 2020 and May 14, 2020. At the CDF, inmates continued to test positive during the first two weeks of May, albeit in lower numbers than during the mid- to late-April peak.
The COVID-19 pandemic has presented formidable challenges for the defendants and has had a significant impact on operations at both the CDF and the CTF. Many of these challenges are the result of decreases in correctional officer and supervisory correctional staffing levels on many shifts at both facilities, which appear in large part to be attributable to decreases in DOC workforce members who are available for duty.13
In order to assess available staffing levels, amici obtained a copy of the official DOC record that reflects every funded correctional officer and supervisory correctional position in the agency. According to this document, which is referred to as the “Schedule A,” as of May 9, 2020, the DOC had a total of 994 correctional staff positions. Of the 994 positions, 844 were correctional officer positions, 93 were lead correctional officer positions, and 57 were supervisory correctional officer positions.14
12 Peaks were measured using seven-day averages of positive COVID-19 test results. See Ex. 2, Table, COVID-19 Test Data, by Facility, by Date, and Seven-Day Average of Positive Test Results, March 14, 2020 – May 14, 2020. 13 Other factors related to the pandemic also have affected staffing levels at both facilities. For example, since approximately mid-March, correctional staff assigned to both facilities have been deployed to external posts in hospitals. This type of assignment is staff intensive, requiring two correctional officers to supervise each hospitalized inmate. At its peak, DOC managers reported that there were as many as 11 inmates in DOC custody at hospitals, which created a need to fill 22 external posts on each shift with correctional officers. This increase in demand for correctional officers placed additional strain on the already diminished workforce. 14 The Schedule A is maintained by the agency’s independent chief financial officer, and reflects every funded position allocated to the agency.
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 8 of 135
Because the Schedule A does not include work availability status nor work assignment location, amici obtained that data from DOC executives. These data were not consistent with the data reflected in the Schedule A.15 For the purposes of analyzing staff availability for duty, amici relied upon the data provided by DOC executives. According to that data, 20 percent of the 925 correctional officers and supervisory correctional officers employed by the agency were unavailable for duty.16 At the CDF, 21 percent (118 of 568 assigned correctional staff) were unavailable, and at the CTF, 19 percent (52 of 279 assigned correctional staff ) were unavailable.17 These calculations do not include budgeted, but unfilled correctional officer and correctional supervisory positions (i.e., vacant positions). According to the Schedule A, as of May 9, 2020, the DOC had 51 funded, vacant correctional positions. When these 51 vacant positions are added to the reported number of correctional staff who are not available for duty, the percentage of positions in the correctional workforce that were either unfilled or filled by staff unavailable for duty is 24 percent.
According to CDF and CTF management, numerous correctional staff have returned to work in the past week, which has made staffing shortages less acute. Particularly at the CTF, where the inmate population is low and numerous housing units are closed, it appears staffing shortages are not having as severe an impact as was evident in the recent past.
15 The Schedule A reflects a total of 943 filled correctional officer and supervisory correctional officer positions. Data provided by DOC executive staff reflected a total of 925 filled positions. 16 Reasons staff may be unavailable for duty include the following: workers’ compensation, military leave, family leave, extended sick leave, absent without leave, and quarantine status following close contact with an individual known to have COVID-19. 17 Ex. 3, Table, Correctional Officer and Supervisory Correctional Officer Staff Availability, by Assignment Location, as of May 12, 2020. The Table also reflects that 17 percent of correctional staff assigned to the Central Cell Block and 35 percent of correctional staff assigned to the Transportation Unit were unavailable for duty.
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 9 of 135
IV. FINDINGS
This section provides additional information related to two of the five questions in the April 28, 2020 Consent Order that were addressed during the May 11, 2020 teleconference. As contemplated by the order, the narrative provided does not restate amici’s May 11, 2020 presentation to the Court. Amici’s more comprehensive responses to the remaining four questions delineated in the order are also set forth below.
A. Supplement to May 11, 2020 Oral Report As noted above, the April 28, 2020 Consent Order required amici to report orally on their answers to five specified questions during the May 11, 2020 teleconference. Supplemental information regarding questions one and three is summarized below. Question One: How are residents on non-quarantine units able to access medical care, including reporting symptoms of COVID-19 to medical staff? During the May 11, 2020 hearing, amici described significant barriers to access to health care that exist for inmates on non-quarantine housing units, including the absence of independent access to sick call request forms (i.e., inmates must request sick call request forms from correctional offices) and current policy that limits out-of-cell time to one hour daily. Amici reported that in practice at the CDF many inmates were not receiving one hour of out-of-cell time daily on a consistent basis and that at times several days elapsed before they were offered any out-of-cell time. Moreover, at the CDF, the combination of staffing limitations, population levels in housing units, and efforts to limit the number of inmates out of their cells at one time have resulted in out-of-cell time being conducted around the clock. This results in some inmates being offered out-of-cell time in the middle of the night. As explained in more detail below, these practices have limited the opportunities for inmates on non-quarantine units to access health care.
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 10 of 135
On May 8, 2020, the defendants provided amici with a document that describes the
following six processes through which inmates can access medical care currently at both facilities:18 1) sick call; 2) enhanced access in sick call clinic; 3) urgent care clinic; 4) chronic
care clinic; 5) quarantine housing unit monitoring; and 6) medical emergencies. Most inmates
on non-quarantine housing units who want to access medical care for non-emergent medical
conditions at both the CDF and the CTF rely on the sick call process. As implemented by the DOC, this process requires inmates to request sick call forms19 from correctional officers and to
submit those forms to health care staff through designated collection boxes on the housing units.20
As noted above, because inmates do not have independent access to the sick call forms,
they must request them from the correctional staff, complete them, and submit them during out-
of-cell time. During the April and May site visits, amici found that sick call forms were not
readily available at both facilities, in all housing units, on a consistent basis. Given the
limitations on out-of-cell time, particularly at the CDF, lack of an independent means for
requesting sick call, and inconsistencies in the availability of the sick call forms at both facilities,
the sick call process does not provide reliable, timely access to health care for inmates on nonquarantine housing units.21
18 See Ex. 4, May 8, 2020 e-mail from Eric Glover, General Counsel, District of Columbia Department of Corrections, to Grace M. Lopes, with attached untitled document describing six methods by which inmates in all housing units can access medical care. 19 See, e.g., Ex. 5, District of Columbia Department of Corrections Central Detention and Central Treatment Facilities, Sick Call Request Form. 20 The collection boxes are locked and a key to the boxes is only issued to health care staff. According to Unity’s health care managers, a nursing assistant or nurse collects the sick call forms from the boxes on a daily basis. The forms are reviewed and triaged for urgency by a nurse. Urgent requests are referred to advanced care providers in the urgent care clinic on an expedited basis and routine requests are expected to be scheduled for sick call on the calendar day following collection of the request form. A nursing sick call triage protocol, which addresses certain COVID-19 symptoms, was issued on May 5, 2020 and is included in the Appendix to this report. See Ex. 6, Unity Health Care, Inc., Sick Call Triage, May 5, 2020. 21 During the May 11, 2020 hearing, amici reported on the timeliness of the sick call process and noted the possibility of including in this report an analysis addressing whether sick call encounters were responsive to the
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 11 of 135
In the defendants’ May 8, 2020 submission, they report that since April 13, 2020, medical staff have been providing enhanced access to sick call, including sick call providers “going out to the [housing unit] tiers and seeing if there are any residents not on the [sick call] schedule who need to be seen that day.”22 This type of process would provide an opportunity for inmates locked in their cells to communicate health problems directly to medical staff on a daily basis, and mitigate the current barriers to accessing medical care for inmates on non-quarantine housing units. During the May 7 and May 8, 2020 site visits, amici could not verify through interviews with inmates and staff that this process is being implemented on non-quarantine housing units.
During a May 15, 2020 telephone interview, a DOC manager explained initiatives to bolster the sick call process that the defendants expected to implement on May 18, 2020, including the daily collection and triage of sick call requests forms by 11:00 a.m. and the scheduling of same-day sick call appointments. The manager reported that sick call request forms would be modified to include COVID-19-like symptoms and date stamped prior to distribution by medical staff on a daily basis in an effort to promote more accurate tracking of submission and response timelines.23 While these measures may improve certain aspects of the sick call process for those able to submit request forms, they do not address the barriers accessing sick call that are identified in this report for inmates on non-quarantine units.
The other processes outlined in the defendants’ May 8, 2020 submission do not directly address the health care access issues experienced by inmates on non-quarantine units. For
issues inmates listed on sick call request forms. In light of time constraints, amici were unable to conduct a comprehensive qualitative analysis of an adequate sample of sick call requests relevant to this issue and thus this matter is not addressed herein. 22 See Ex. 4, supra note 18, Attachment at 1. 23 The manager stated that periodically sick call request forms are found in a collection box for inmate grievance forms. Thus, DOC staff responsible for collecting inmate grievance forms have been asked to identify any sick call request forms that may have been incorrectly submitted and immediately transmit those forms to the medical staff.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 12 of 135
example, access to the urgent care clinic is dependent upon the intervention of the correctional staff and the availability of escort staff to accompany an inmate to the medical clinic. Furthermore, chronic care clinics are applicable only to those inmates who have been diagnosed with chronic health conditions. These clinics generally occur at one, two, or three-month intervals, and do not lend themselves to reporting health conditions that may arise between scheduled appointments. Question Three: Is the DOC providing consistent and reliable access to legal calls, personal telephone calls, running water, daily showers, and clean clothing and clean linens to all inmates in isolation status?
During the May 11, 2020 hearing, in response to questions from the Court and counsel, amici were unable to confirm cleaning practices applicable to the telephones that are made available to inmates on rolling carts in the infirmary and isolation units and to telephones used for inmate legal calls in the offices of case managers. Subsequent review of interview and observation notes as well as a follow-up site visit conducted on May 14, 2020 indicate that the expectation is for the telephone on the rolling cart in the isolation units and infirmary to be cleaned by detail inmates after each inmate uses the telephone, and if detail inmates are not out of their cells, by the correctional staff.24 Amici have not had the opportunity to determine cleaning practices applicable to the telephones inmates use in the offices of case managers.
B. Questions Six through Nine Question Six: Have DOC staff received training on properly fitted PPE, disposal of PPE, and operations of non-touch, infrared thermometers?
24 Amici have been informed that the detail inmates who perform cleaning functions in the isolation units are inmates who are housed on that unit who have tested positive for COVID-19. Correctional staff report they select the inmates to be part of the detail cohort in the isolation units after conferring with the medical staff about whether the inmate is medically fit to perform the job.
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 13 of 135
The defendants report that beginning on April 27, 2020 all DOC staff and food service contractors were required to participate in a mandatory training program addressing the proper donning, doffing and disposal of personal protective equipment (“PPE”).25 The training, which was developed by staff in the DOC Center for Professional Development and Learning in consultation with the agency’s infection control specialist, was offered on-line through “Bridge,” the DOC’s online professional development platform,26 as well as through written materials that were distributed to staff at both facilities.27 The defendants report that 91 percent of the DOC workforce available for duty participated in the mandatory training as of May 19, 2020.28 In addition to this training program, relative to the signage amici observed during the April site visits, the defendants have increased the number of informational signs addressing the use of PPE, including donning, doffing and disposal, throughout the CDF and CTF. The defendants also provided online training to correctional staff regarding the use of non-touch infrared thermometers; however, DOC managers have explained that the training was intended merely to familiarize those staff with the operation of the thermometers and there was no expectation that correctional staff would conduct temperature checks on inmates, staff, or visitors.
The defendants report that on April 30, 2020 the DOC made an emergency request through a District-wide COVID-related emergency funding process, to fit test 150 DOC employees for N-95 respirators and train an additional 20 DOC employees to serve as fit testers. This funding has not yet been forthcoming. As an adjunct to this initiative, on May 5, 2020, a representative from DC Fire-EMS fit tested an initial cohort of 40 DOC staff for N-95
25 See Ex. 7, Open Letter to All Employees from Director Quincy L. Booth, April 27, 2020, Mandatory Training: IR Thermometer and Personal Protective Equipment. 26 See Ex. 8, “Wearing Personal Protection Equipment,” On-Line Training for DOC Staff. 27 See Ex. 9, Wearing Personal Protective Equipment Training, Handout. 28 This calculation is consistent with amici’s independent review of training data that the defendants have provided. Amici also analyzed specifically the percentage of the correctional staff who completed the training, which was 87 percent.
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 14 of 135
respirators. Staff members with duty assignments that present the greatest risk of exposure were selected for this initial testing. Two of the 40 staff members received training in how to conduct fit testing on DOC staff. The defendants anticipate that the two trained fit testers will work with the 20 additional staff members the DOC hopes to train to fit test the balance of the DOC workforce and thereafter conduct annual fit testing. As of May 18, 2020, the DOC’s emergency funding request remained pending and unresolved. Question Seven: Has the DOC retained a registered sanitarian to oversee the environmental health and safety programs?
The defendants report that efforts are underway to hire a full-time sanitarian at the DOC. The position has been established and on May 18, 2020 the agency received authorization to post the position vacancy. Effective May 18, 2020, on an interim basis until a sanitarian can be employed by the agency, the defendants report that the DOC has retained the services of a vendor to perform the following services related to environmental health and safety:29 1) conduct an audit of environmental conditions in the CDF and the CTF, make findings, develop recommendations and formulate a corrective action plan; 2) develop a COVID-19 cleaning protocol for the DOC’s cleaning contractor to implement; and 3) provide oversight for a defined period to the DOC’s on-site cleaning contractor to ensure that the protocol is followed.30 The task order is for an initial period of three months and includes three, one-month option periods. The services of a registered sanitarian to oversee the DOC environmental health and safety program are not required by the task order; however, DOC management reports that
29 Ex. 10, Task Order Agreement No. CW82753, with Attachment A, Statement of Work. The version of the Task Order that defendants submitted to amici on May 19, 2020 is unsigned and undated; however, DOC executives informed amici that work under the contract began on May 18, 2020. 30 The task order specifies that following implementation of the cleaning protocol, the vendor will have no fewer than two personnel on site at the CDF and CTF to “shadow the onsite cleaning contractor” for not more than ten eight-hour days. See Ex. 10, Attachment A at 2, supra note 29. The task order also provides for two “follow up monthly COVID-2 inspections” and requires the vendor to submit additional recommendations “to ensure the recommended protocols are sustainable beyond the contract term.” Id.
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 15 of 135
the vendor will provide a team of two sanitarians to perform on-site oversight and inspections related to the COVID-19 cleaning protocol during the period of the service agreement. Question Eight: Has the DOC contracted for professional cleaning services on the secure side of the facility?
On May 12, 2020 the District finalized a 90-day emergency contract with Rock Solid District Group, LLC, for comprehensive hazardous materials environmental cleaning services related to the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic at the CDF.31 The contract provides for environmental HAZMAT-level cleaning services on the secure and non-secure sides of the facility, including the common areas of all housing units.32 The defendants report that a virtually identical emergency contract was finalized this week with a different contractor for services at the CTF. Amici has requested but not obtained a contract reflecting service delivery at the CTF.33 Question Nine: Has the DOC consulted with public health professional[s] regarding strategies to strengthen the COVID-19-related education program for both staff and inmates; if so, has the DOC implemented those education program strategies?
According to DOC management, the agency developed certain educational materials related to COVID-19, which they transmitted for review and comment to staff in the District of Columbia Department of Health’s epidemiology division on May 9, 2020. These materials include frequently asked questions, and information regarding personal protective equipment. Some of the materials are intended to be distributed to staff only and others are intended for both inmates and staff. As of May 15, 2020, the DOC had received some substantive feedback from the epidemiology staff at DOH and anticipated receiving additional feedback in the near term.
31 See Ex. 11, Contract No. DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A, effective May 12, 2020. 32 See Ex. 12, Areas of Responsibility for Cleaning Crew [Central Detention Facility]. 33 The defendants provided amici with a copy of a contract reported to cover the CTF; however, while it appears this was a drafting error, the document that was submitted addresses HAZMAT-level cleaning services at the CDF and not the CTF.
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 16 of 135
The DOC plans to revise the educational materials they have developed based on the feedback that is received from DOH epidemiologists and thereafter distribute these materials, as applicable, to staff and inmates.
DOC representatives report that they have an inventory of 350 computer tablets, onto which they load educational and other materials for inmates who participate in specialized programs. These tablets now include health information related to COVID-19. The agency recently received approval to procure 1000 additional tablets on an expedited timetable. It is anticipated that these tablets will be distributed to inmates at both the CDF and CTF. The defendants contemplate including the educational materials that are the subject of ongoing review by DOH on the tablets.
Observations and discussions with inmates and DOC staff during the May site visits underscore the critical need for intensified educational efforts related to COVID-19, including the importance of consistently and properly wearing personal protective equipment and when testing for the virus is indicated.
V. CONCLUSION Since amici’s April 19, 2020 report, the impact of COVID-19 at the CDF and CTF has
changed significantly. While the COVID-19 outbreak began at the CTF in late-March 2020 and spread rapidly among the population housed there, beginning in mid-April 2020 the number of new cases at the CTF declined to very low levels. In contrast, the CDF was impacted by COVID-19 for the first time during the second week of April 2020, when the novel coronavirus began its spread during the subsequent five-week period to over 120 inmates and an indeterminate number of staff. At both facilities, by mid-May 2020, the rate of new COVID-19 cases had dropped significantly from peak levels.
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 17 of 135
DOC management and its contracted health care agency have begun the process of implementing improvements to the medical and environmental health programs to contain and mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak at the two facilities. Medical staff routinely monitor and assess inmates housed on quarantine and isolation housing units; however, access to medical care for inmates on non-quarantine housing units has been limited due, in large part, to lack of independent access to health care providers coupled with inmates confined to their cells for extended time periods.
DOC representatives report that an enhanced sick call process has been implemented involving sick call providers walking housing unit tiers to ask inmates directly if they have health issues they would like medical staff to address. However, during the May 2020 site visits, neither inmates nor housing unit staff could verify that this process has been implemented. Such a process, if consistently implemented, would provide inmates who are confined on nonquarantine housing units much greater access to health care than they currently have. DOC representatives have indicated that they are making additional changes to the sick call system to address the timeliness of responses to sick call requests. While these changes may result in improvements, it does not appear that these changes will address the barriers that amici have identified.
Since amici’s April 2020 site visits, personal protective equipment has been made much more widely available to inmates and staff at the CDF and CTF and most staff have been trained on proper donning, doffing and disposal procedures. As addressed in this report, there is a need for continued emphasis on the importance of consistently and properly wearing personal protective equipment for inmates and staff alike. Fit testing of N-95 respirators has begun for
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 18 of 135
DOC staff with the greatest exposure risk and there are short and long-term plans to fit test the remainder of the DOC correctional workforce.
The DOC has received authorization to hire a sanitarian to oversee the environmental health and safety program at both facilities. Until that individual is employed, the agency has retained a professional environmental consulting firm to provide specified services related to environmental health, including the development of a COVID-19 cleaning protocol. Furthermore, the DOC has contracted for professional and specialized cleaning services on the secure and non-secure sides of both facilities.
The efforts described above have the potential to reduce the spread and impact of COVID-19 at the CDF and CTF. During this period that the DOC is responding to the COVID19 outbreak, inmates and staff alike are feeling the consequences acutely. For inmates, social distancing, quarantine, and medical isolation practices have resulted in prolonged periods of severely restrictive confinement, isolation, and idleness. Inmates express anger and frustration at being required to spend extended periods in their cells and fear at the prospect of contracting COVID-19. There is a need to provide ongoing support and opportunities for inmates to engage in constructive activities as well as to provide inmates with continuing education about COVID19 and how to prevent its spread.
The effectiveness of the DOC’s response continues to depend on the efforts of staff working in the facilities each day. The correctional workforce is currently diminished due to large numbers of staff being unavailable for duty and many housing units operate short staffed. Members of the correctional staff have consistently told amici that they are exhausted from working long hours under very stressful working conditions, which may include exposure to the novel coronavirus and in some instances the need to wear full PPE for extended time periods. It
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 19 of 135
is important to continue to reinforce for staff the essential role that they play in controlling the spread of the virus and the methods they should employ to minimize the risk of contracting or spreading COVID-19. The significant contribution of DOC staff members during this public health emergency should be recognized and they should be provided with the necessary supports to perform their duties.
Amici are available to answer any questions the Court or the parties have about the matters addressed in this summary report.

May 20, 2020 Washington, D.C.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/_Grace M. Lopes_______ Amicus Curiae Grace M. Lopes Bar No. 358650 Executive Director Rising for Justice 901 4th Street, N.W., Suite 6000 Washington, D.C. 20001 202-607-2224 gmlopes@risingforjustice.org
Mark Jordan mark@markjordan.consulting 1220 19th Street, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-525-6732

19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 20 of 135

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12

Chart, COVID-19 Tests Administered at the CTF and CDF, by Date of Administration and Test Result, March 14, 2020 – May 14, 2020
Table, COVID-19 Test Data, by Facility, by Date, and Seven-Day Average of Positive Test Results, March 14, 2020 – May 14, 2020
Table, Correctional Officer and Supervisory Correctional Officer Staff Availability, by Assignment Location, As of May 12, 2020
May 8, 2020 e-mail from Eric Glover, General Counsel, District of Columbia Department of Corrections, to Grace M. Lopes, with attached untitled document describing six methods by which inmates in all housing units can access medical care
District of Columbia Department of Corrections Central Detention and Central Treatment Facilities, Sick Call Request Form
Unity Health Care, Inc., Sick Call Triage, May 5, 2020
Open Letter to All Employees from Director Quincy L. Booth, April 27, 2020, Mandatory Training: IR Thermometer and Personal Protective Equipment
“Wearing Personal Protective Equipment ,”On-line Training for DOC Staff
Wearing Personal Protective Equipment Training, Handout for DOC Staff
Task Order Agreement No. CW82753, with Attached A, Statement of Work
Contract No. DCAM-20-NC-EM-0079A, effective May 12, 2020
Areas of Responsibility for Cleaning Crew [Central Detention facility].

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 21 of 135
EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 22 of 135

COVID-19 Tests Administered at the CTF and CDF, by Date of Administration and Test Result March 14, 2020 - May 14, 2020

25
Total Tests During Period Administered at CTF = 95 Positive Tests = 64 Negative Tests = 31
20

15

10

5

0

CTF Positive Tests

Presumed Positive Tests

Refused 3/15/2020 3/17/2020 3/19/2020 3/21/2020 3/23/2020 3/25/2020 3/27/2020 3/29/2020 3/31/2020
4/2/2020 4/4/2020 4/6/2020 4/8/2020 4/10/2020 4/12/2020 4/14/2020 4/16/2020 4/18/2020 4/20/2020 4/22/2020 4/24/2020 4/26/2020 4/28/2020 4/30/2020 5/2/2020 5/4/2020 5/6/2020 5/8/2020 5/10/2020 5/12/2020 5/14/2020 3/14/2020 3/16/2020 3/18/2020 3/20/2020 3/22/2020 3/24/2020 3/26/2020 3/28/2020 3/30/2020 4/1/2020 4/3/2020 4/5/2020 4/7/2020 4/9/2020 4/11/2020 4/13/2020 4/15/2020 4/17/2020 4/19/2020 4/21/2020 4/23/2020 4/25/2020 4/27/2020 4/29/2020 5/1/2020 5/3/2020 5/5/2020 5/7/2020 5/9/2020 5/11/2020 5/13/2020

Total Tests During Period Administered at CDF = 223

Positive Tests

= 118

Presumed Positive = 3 (Inmates Refused Test)

Negative Tests = 101

Pending Results = 1

Negative Tests

CDF Pending Results

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 23 of 135
EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:20-cvCO-V0ID0-1894Te9st-DCatKa, bKy FacDilityo, bcyuDmatee, anndtS7ev7en DaFy Ailveerdage0of5P/o2sit2iv/e2Te0st RePsulatsge 24 of 135
March 14, 2020 - May 14, 2020

Row Labels CTF Refused 3/14/2020 3/15/2020 3/16/2020 3/17/2020 3/18/2020 3/19/2020 3/20/2020 3/21/2020 3/22/2020 3/23/2020 3/24/2020 3/25/2020 3/26/2020 3/27/2020 3/28/2020 3/29/2020 3/30/2020 3/31/2020 4/1/2020 4/2/2020 4/3/2020 4/4/2020 4/5/2020 4/6/2020 4/7/2020 4/8/2020 4/9/2020 4/10/2020 4/11/2020 4/12/2020 4/13/2020 4/14/2020 4/15/2020 4/16/2020 4/17/2020 4/18/2020 4/19/2020 4/20/2020 4/21/2020 4/22/2020 4/23/2020 4/24/2020 4/25/2020 4/26/2020 4/27/2020 4/28/2020 4/29/2020 4/30/2020 5/1/2020 5/2/2020 5/3/2020 5/4/2020 5/5/2020 5/6/2020 5/7/2020 5/8/2020 5/9/2020 5/10/2020 5/11/2020 5/12/2020
5/13/2020 5/14/2020

Positive Tests 64

Presumed Negative Pending Grand Positive Tests Results Total
Tests

31

95

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

2

2

1

1

2

2

3

1

4

2

1

3

4

1

5

2

2

10

10

9

2

11

7

7

3

3

2

6

8

3

1

4

1

1

3

2

5

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

3

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Seven Day Average of Positive Test
Results
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.57 0.57 0.86 1.00 1.29 1.71 1.57 1.43 2.00 1.71 3.00 4.00 4.57 5.00 5.00 4.86 4.86 3.86 2.71 2.00 1.71 1.71 1.29 1.29 0.86 0.71 0.43 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.29 0.29

Case 1:20-cvCO-V0ID0-1894Te9st-DCatKa, bKy FacDilityo, bcyuDmatee, anndtS7ev7en DaFy Ailveerdage0of5P/o2sit2iv/e2Te0st RePsulatsge 25 of 135
March 14, 2020 - May 14, 2020

CDF

118

Refused

3/14/2020

3/15/2020

3/16/2020

3/17/2020

3/18/2020

3/19/2020

3/20/2020

3/21/2020

3/22/2020

3/23/2020

3/24/2020

3/25/2020

3/26/2020

3/27/2020

3/28/2020

3/29/2020

3/30/2020

3/31/2020

4/1/2020

4/2/2020

4/3/2020

4/4/2020

4/5/2020

4/6/2020

4/7/2020

4/8/2020

1

4/9/2020

1

4/10/2020

1

4/11/2020

1

4/12/2020

4/13/2020

2

4/14/2020

2

4/15/2020

12

4/16/2020

3

4/17/2020

5

4/18/2020

9

4/19/2020

1

4/20/2020

4

4/21/2020

7

4/22/2020

4

4/23/2020

9

4/24/2020

4

4/25/2020

4

4/26/2020

3

4/27/2020

4

4/28/2020

4

4/29/2020

6

4/30/2020

1

5/1/2020

3

5/2/2020

3

5/3/2020

5/4/2020

3

5/5/2020

2

5/6/2020

2

5/7/2020

5

5/8/2020

8

5/9/2020

1

5/10/2020

5/11/2020

2

5/12/2020

1

5/13/2020

5/14/2020

Grand Total

182

3

101

1

223

3

3

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1

1

0.00

1

1

0.00

2

2

0.00

2

2

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2

2

0.14

2

2

0.29

2

2

0.43

1

2

0.57

1

2

0.57

1

0.86

1

2

1.14

9

9

2.71

2

3.00

2

3.57

9

21

4.71

3

4.86

2

7

5.14

4

13

5.86

1

4.71

1

5

5.57

2

9

5.43

6

10

4.71

3

12

5.00

1

5

5.00

3

7

4.57

1

4

4.86

4

3.71

3

7

3.57

2

8

3.43

2

3

3.00

6

9

2.86

4

7

2.57

2.00

5

8

2.57

2

4

3.29

3

5

3.00

3

8

3.00

2

10

2.86

3

4

2.71

1

1

2.43

3

5

1.71

3

4

3

3

1

1

3

132

1

318

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 26 of 135
EXHIBIT 3

CorrecCtioansael O1:f2fic0e-rcavn-0d0S8u4pe9r-vCisKoKry CoDroreccutimoneanltO7ff7icerFSilteadff A05va/2ila2b/2ili0ty, PbyaAgsesi2gn7moefn1t3L5ocation As of May 12, 2020

Location

Work Status

Available for Duty

Unavailable for Duty

Number Percentage Number

Percentage

TOTAL PERCENTAGE

CDF

450

79.23%

118

CTF

227

81.36%

52

CCB

39

82.98%

8

Transportation

20

64.52%

11

Grand Total

736

79.57%

189

20.77%

568

100.00%

18.64%

279

100.00%

17.02%

47

100.00%

35.48%

31

100.00%

20.43%

925

100.00%

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 28 of 135
EXHIBIT 4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 29 of 135
From: Glover, Eric (DOC) <eric.glover@dc.gov> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 9:06 AM To: Grace Lopes <gmlopes@risingforjustice.org> Cc: Saindon, Andy (OAG) <andy.saindon@dc.gov>; Mark Jordan <mjordan@sparb.org> Subject: RE: Time-Sensitive Data Requests -- Banks v. Booth
Grace,
Attached is a worksheet describing the six paths to medical treatment for residents at DOC. Thank you and have a good weekend.
Regards,
Eric S. Glover General Counsel District of Columbia Department of Corrections 2000 14th Street, 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20009 Phone: (202) 671-0088 Office Cell: (202) 286-8736 Fax: (202) 671-2514
Confidentiality Notice: This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete all copies of the message.
Metadata: This email transmission and any accompanying material may contain embedded metadata. Any included metadata is confidential or privileged information and is not intended to be viewed by a non-client recipient.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 30 of 135
Residents in all housing units are able to access medical care on all housing units via six processes outlined as follows:
1. Sick Call- Sick call requests are collected daily by nursing staff, where they are date stamped, then triaged according to Unity’s “Sick Call Triage” policy. The slips are then given to the unit clerk/medical assistant who schedules the resident’s appointment. This scheduling process is trackable in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). If the nature of the sick call request is not urgent or symptom-based, the resident might be assessed after 48 hours depending on the nature of the concerns. After the unit clerk/medical assistant schedules the appointment, the sick call slip is scanned into the EMR within 24 hours (and the hard copy is shredded for HIPAA compliance). Occasionally residents place their sick call slips in the resident grievance box or in the mail, which can cause the slip to be delayed in arriving to the nursing triage areas. Date-stamping the sick call slip, scheduling the appointment in the EMR, and viewing the clinical note in the EMR are all easy to track and essentially serve as an electronic log for this process.
2. Enhanced Access in Sick Call clinic- Each day in DOC’s housing units, residents are seen by a nurse practitioner, physician’s assistant, or physician on their unit’s Sick Call clinic. Residents are placed on the sick call schedule in a variety of ways. One way, referenced above, is through the sick call request process. Patients may also be scheduled by the urgent care provider (for example, a blood pressure check after a patient is seen in urgent care for a high blood pressure reading). Chronic care providers can also place patients on the sick call schedule for similar, simple follow up needs. The sick call providers also receive all abnormal intake lab results and see patients to discuss and treat a positive result, such as for chlamydia or a syphilis infection. Lastly, sick call providers are also going out onto the tiers and seeing if there are residents not on the schedule who need to be seen that day. This enhancement enables those who may not have filled out a sick call slip, or those who may not want to discuss their COVID-19 status or other concerns in a public setting, to be seen by a provider in the sick call clinic that day. On any given day, more patients may be seen in the Sick Call clinic than were on the original roster. The sick call process can be tracked in the EMR. This enhancement commenced on 04/13/2020.
3. Urgent Care Clinic - Residents are instructed in the Inmate Reception Center, the Intake Housing Unit and on all housing units that they can bring more urgent health concerns (including a wide range of symptoms that could be consistent with COVID) to a DOC officer’s attention and be seen in at the DOC’s Urgent Care Clinic, the same day of their complaint. Once alerted of a resident’s complaint, DOC’s correctional officers call medical staff who instruct the officers to bring the resident directly to the Urgent Care Clinic to be seen. Resident visits to the Urgent Care Clinic are documented in their EMR notes.
4. Chronic Care Clinic- Residents receive a comprehensive medical assessment during their initial intake screening. Those who present with a chronic medical condition are assessed, treated then scheduled for a follow-up appointment in the Chronic Care Clinic. The follow up appointments are usually scheduled 30 days out, but can be scheduled sooner, if necessary. Based on the stability of their condition, resident will have follow-up care appointments at either 30, 60 or 90 day intervals (or sooner as needed). These

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 31 of 135
appointments are tracked in the EMR. If a patient presenting for a Chronic Care Clinic appointment exhibits COVID-19 related symptoms (e.g, as detected by vital signs), they will be placed under investigation for COVID – 19.
5. Quarantine Housing Unit monitoring: Residents on the quarantine unit are seen twice daily by Unity’s nursing staff. On their rounds on the quarantines housing units, nurses assess residents’ vital signs and ask the residents if they have any COVID-19 symptoms or other concerns. These visits are noted in the EMR. As an enhancement designed to help pick up COVID-19 positive patients quickly, when nurses note any abnormal vital signs or have a resident complain of symptoms, the nurses immediately call a provider (NP, PA or MD) and the resident is seen (and generally swabbed) within two hours. Regular Sick Call clinic also occurs on all housing units under quarantine. Patients seen in sick call clinic that day may exceed the initial roster of patients scheduled if nurses note abnormalities in vital signs or want residents to be quickly seen given their complaints. This enhancement to care commenced 03/26/2020 with the first quarantine unit.
6. Medical Emergencies- When a resident has an acute medical emergency, DOC’s correctional officers call Unity’s Urgent Care Provider and a code is called to that Unit. The Medical Emergency Response Team promptly response to the call to assess the resident. If the resident requires treatment beyond what can be provided at DOC, 911 is called and DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services arrive to assess the need for the resident to be transferred to a higher level of care. Medical emergencies can be tracked through a resident’s EMR.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 32 of 135
EXHIBIT 5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 33 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 34 of 135
EXHIBIT 6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 35 of 135

DEPARTMENT:
CENTRAL DETENTION FACILITY AND CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FACILITIES HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION REVIEWED BY:

UNITY HEALTH CARE, INC. TITLE:
Sick Call Triage

Nrsng Protocol: Triage
PAGE:
1 of 1

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 05,2020

DATE REVISED:

APPROVED BY MEDICAL DIRECTOR:

PURPOSE:

To establish and maintain a guidance for triage of sick call slips as part of the Sick Call process at the DC Department of Corrections.

DEFINITION:

The process of determining the priority of patients' treatments based on the severity of their condition or likelihood of recovery with and without treatment.

PROCEDURE:
Upon review of th£?sick'call slips, using clinical judgement, determine the triage level
1. .Level 1- Emergency/Urgent Care Chest pain Withdrawal Symptoms Respiratory Symptoms (shortness of breath, hyperventilation, respiratory depression) Syncope (passed out, confusion, "blackout," Seizure activity Positive TSTITB Exposure Severe injury Severe abdominal pain Severe dehydration COVID symptoms (headache, GI symptoms, SOB, cough, fever) Suicidal Ideation/Gestures/Attempt
2. Level 2 - Sick Call (schedule appointment) Mild cold symptoms Minor injuries Rx refill requests Mild-Moderate Pain (1-6/10 pain scale) Well ness Checks Dietary Requests STD Testing Blood Pressure Check Specialty requests (Ophthalmology, podiatry, dermatology)

Nursing Sick Call Triage Protocol

.1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 36 of 135
EXHIBIT 7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 37 of 135
D.C. Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
Open Letter to All Employees From Director Quincy L. Booth DOC-OL20-09: April 27, 2020 (Mandatory Training: IR Thermometer and Personal Protective Equipment)
In these unprecedented times, DOC appreciates your ongoing dedication, professionalism and support of the agency’s critical mission. The safety and security of staff, residents and contractors is our top priority.
As we work together to respond to the COVID-19 public health emergency, we need to constantly emphasize the importance of personal protective equipment (PPE). That is why we are providing masks and gloves to everyone entering our facilities and requiring they be worn at all times. Staff assigned to transportation and the quarantine and isolation units will be provided specific PPE for use in those areas. It is imperative that all staff understand how to properly use, don, doff, and dispose of their PPE.
I want to thank the Center for Professional Development and Learning team for creating the required training module, “Wearing Personal Protective Equipment,” through the Bridge Learning Management System. This training is mandatory for all DOC staff.
Please take the necessary time to complete the training. If you are completing the training during your shift, you must get your supervisor’s approval prior to completing the course during your shift.
Please see the attached instructions on how to navigate the system. It is critical that everyone take this course and I ask for your cooperation. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Dr. Lynnita Thomas at Lynnita.thomas@dc.gov.
All DOC staff must complete the training by Monday, May 4, 2020. If you do not attend, your supervisor and division Deputy Director will be notified by the online system.
The D.C. Department of Corrections’ vision is to be a benchmark correction agency. To become benchmark agency, we will serve with pride, passion and professionalism in caring for human lives.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 38 of 135
Please continue to practice health and safety precautions that will help us keep our DOC facilities, staff, and residents safe and healthy. Follow the guidance below on how to reduce your risk of infection and slow its spread.
• Practice social distancing by staying at least six feet away from other people. • Thoroughly wash your hands for at least 20 seconds multiple times a day. • Avoid close contact with people who are sick. • Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth. • Sanitize your equipment. • Follow the safety protocols in place at each of the DOC facilities. • If you are sick, contact your healthcare provider and request sick leave through
your supervisor. Thank you for your continued commitment to serving our city and our neighbors. For more information about COVID-19, visit: https://coronavirus.dc.gov/ https://dchealth.dc.gov/coronavirus https://cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019- ncov/index.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories.html/
PLEASE READ AT ALL ROLL CALLS FOR SEVEN (7) CONSECUTIVE DAYS AND POST ON ALL APPROPRIATE BULLETIN BOARDS
The D.C. Department of Corrections’ vision is to be a benchmark correction agency. To become benchmark agency, we will serve with pride, passion and professionalism in caring for human lives.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 39 of 135
EXHIBIT 8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 40 of 135 “Wearing Personal Protection Equipment” On-Line Training for DOC Staff

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 41 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 42 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 43 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 44 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 45 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 46 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 47 of 135

Infrared Thermometer https://youtu.be/UrMoK9CD4f0
Face Mask Use https://youtu.be/JwPWdkbyizw
Donning and Doffing PPE https://youtu.be/quwzg7Vixsw

Video links

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 48 of 135
EXHIBIT 9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 49 of 135
Wearing Personal Protective Equipment Training
The DC Department of Corrections takes the safety and well-being of staff, residents, visitors, volunteers and contractors extremely serious.
This presentation offers information about our efforts to maintain safety!

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 50 of 135
Objectives
This presentation will provide:
 Staff training on the use of infrared thermometers & responding to inaccurate readings.
 Basic Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) training for staff who will train other staff and staff who will wear PPE.
 A review of the proper way to don, doff and discard PPE.
 Information on the importance of social distancing in the DOC.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 51 of 135
COVID-19
What we know about COVID-19:
 Coronavirus (COVID-19) is an illness caused by a virus that can spread from person to person via respiratory droplets among close contacts.
 The virus that causes COVID-19 is a new coronavirus that has spread throughout the world.
 COVID-19 symptoms can range from mild (or no symptoms) to severe illness.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 52 of 135
Preliminary Screening
Any person entering the Central Detention Facility (CDF) and/or the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) will be required to:
 Allow medical staff to conduct a body temperature screening. Using Enhanced Body Temperature screening equipment (infrared technology) to measure temperature at a distance using a forward looking infrared camera.
 After an individual enters the building, they may be asked to pause for a few seconds for a screening. Each individual will be required to take off hats, face coverings and/or glasses.
If an individual has an elevated temperature reading of 100.4°F (38°C) or higher, they will be asked to step aside for a secondary temperature screening. If the secondary screening confirms an elevated temperature, the individual will be referred to their primary health care provider and asked to leave the CDF and/or CTF.
In the next slide, we will provide you with an overview of the type of Infrared No Touch Thermometer medical staff will be using.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 53 of 135
Infrared Thermometer Use
In this video, an overview is provided describing the type of Infrared No Touch Thermometer medical staff will be using to conduct preliminary screenings at the CDF/CTF:
 Remove the protective cap from the thermometer.  Press the power button to turn it on.  Hold the thermometer steady for accurate reading.  Make sure any hair, dirt, or sweat is clean and clear from the forehead.  Position the thermometer between the eyebrows (up to 2 inches from forehead)  Press the temperature button to begin.  Once taken, the reading will show a green, yellow, or red light.  The thermometer will beep 10 times when the temperature is 99.4 degrees or
above.  When you are done using the thermometer, press the power button to turn it off.
(It will automatically power down after 60 seconds without use).

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 54 of 135
What type of PPE will be issued?
Upon entry into the CDF/CTF, individuals will be provided with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 55 of 135
When is PPE Necessary?
DOC staff and resident are required to wear a mask and gloves at all times to help stop the spread of the COVID-19.
 Staff assigned to work in isolation units shall wear PPE for the duration of being physically present in the identified isolation housing units.
 PPE should be worn by individuals transporting residents who are under investigation for (suspected or possible exposure) or confirmed with COVID19 within a facility.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 56 of 135
Wash Your Hands?
First things first, all staff and residents are required to follow the Center for Disease Control's guidelines:
• Clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces.
• Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, or use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 57 of 135
Face Mask Use
All DOC staff and residents are required to wear a face mask while inside any DOC facility. The use of face masks is crucial for medical staff and other people who are taking care of someone infected with COVID-19 in close settings.

Wearing Gloves and Gowns Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 58 of 135
Gloves should be worn when in direct contact of patients who are under investigation for (suspected or possible exposure) or confirmed with COVID-19 within our facility.
Gloves should be changed between patients and hand hygiene performed before and after use. See instructions below:

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 59 of 135
Proper Way to Don and Doff PPE
Take a moment and review the steps showing you the proper way to Don (put on) and Doff
(take off) PPE...

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 60 of 135
Disposal of used PPE
Once you have properly doffed your PPE, proper disposal of all used PPE is very important. At identified locations within the CDF and CTF, waste cans will be placed to receive used PPE items.
Locations will be identified with clear signs stating: "For PPE usage only".
Here Inside Place

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 61 of 135
Importance of Social Distancing at DOC
Social distancing at DOC: Social distancing, also called “physical distancing,” means keeping space between
yourself and others while inside the CDF and CTF.

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 62 of 135
Importance of Social Distancing at DOC
To practice social or physical distancing in the DOC, we have implemented the below:
 ODRs: the ODR floor where a table is placed will be marked with an X to indicate the inability to use. Tables will be spread apart with one chair at each.
 Pool room: signage will be posted stating "no more than 2 persons with a reminder to maintain 6ft distance from each other".
 Staff Entrances signage will be posted encouraging social distance.
 Housing Units- an X will be marked on the telephone and seated area to indicate the inability to use.
 IRC- the seating area will be marked with an X to indicate the inability to use. Signage will be posted "please practice social distancing...”
 Roll Call- an X will be placed on the CTF gym floor and CDF outdoor recreation yard to encourage social distancing.

Quincy L. Booth Director

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 63 of 135
Stay Safe!

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 64 of 135
EXHIBIT 10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 65 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 66 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 67 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 68 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 69 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 70 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 71 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 72 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 73 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 74 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 75 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 76 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 77 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 78 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 79 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 80 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 81 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 82 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 83 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 84 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 85 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 86 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 87 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 88 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 89 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 90 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 91 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 92 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 93 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 94 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 95 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 96 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 97 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 98 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 99 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 100 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 101 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 102 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 103 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 104 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 105 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 106 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 107 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 108 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 109 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 110 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 111 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 112 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 113 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 114 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 115 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 116 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 117 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 118 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 119 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 120 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 121 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 122 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 123 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 124 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 125 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 126 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 127 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 128 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 129 of 135
EXHIBIT 12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 130 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 131 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 132 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 133 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 134 of 135

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 77 Filed 05/22/20 Page 135 of 135

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 1 of 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDWARD BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs v.
QUINCY L. BOOTH, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 20-849(CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION (January 26, 2021)
Plaintiffs Edward Banks, D’Angelo Phillips, Keon Jackson, and Eric Smith (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated persons, alleging that Defendants Quincy Booth, Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and Lennard Johnson, Warden of DOC (“Defendants”) violated their constitutional rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments by failing to ensure safe conditions in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic.1 See Compl., ECF No. 1. On June 18, 2020, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and ordered Defendants to implement certain infectious disease control and prevention measures, to ensure inmates’ timely access to medical care, and to provide access to confidential legal calls. On July 16, 2020, Defendants filed the present [105] Motion to Alter and Vacate the Court’s Preliminary Injunction, which is opposed. Defendants contend that changed factual circumstances, intervening decisions of other courts, and legal errors in the Court’s previous opinion support reconsideration of the preliminary injunctive relief granted to Plaintiffs.

1 Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief or writs of habeas corpus to reduce the inmate population at the DOC facilities. See Compl. The Court did not order the release of any inmates at the preliminary injunction stage, and Defendants do not challenge that conclusion in the present Motion.
1

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 2 of 27
Upon consideration of the pleadings,2 the relevant legal authorities, reports of Amici Curiae, and the record as a whole, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion. Defendants have failed to demonstrate that justice requires reconsideration of the preliminary injunction.
I. BACKGROUND The Court previously recounted in detail the background of this case in its Memorandum Opinions granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO Op.”), ECF No. 51 and Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (“PI Op.”), ECF No. 100. Accordingly, the Court shall limit its discussion to developments since the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on June 18, 2020.3 The Court’s [99] Order granting in part Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“PI Order”) directed Defendants to address deficiencies related to conditions of confinement, discussed in greater detail infra Part III(A). The Court ordered Defendants to provide updates about the steps being taken to address these deficiencies. See PI Order. Pursuant to the Court’s PI Order, on June 29, 2020, Defendants filed a [101] Notice of
2 The Court’s consideration has focused on the following documents: • Defendants’ Motion to Alter and Vacate the Court’s Preliminary Injunction (“Defs.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 105; • Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Alter and Vacate the Preliminary Injunction (“Pls.’ Opp’n”), ECF No. 116; • Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Alter and Vacate the Court’s Preliminary Injunction (“Defs.’ Reply”), ECF No. 119; • Defendants’ Supplemental Brief (“Defs.’ Suppl. Br.”), ECF No. 140; and • Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief (“Pls.’ Suppl. Br.”), ECF No. 141.
In an exercise of its discretion, the Court finds that holding oral argument in this action would not be of assistance in rendering a decision. See LCvR 7(f). 3 As with the previous proceedings in this case, hearings in this matter have been conducted telephonically due to the restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic. See PI Op. at 2.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 3 of 27
Compliance with the Court’s Preliminary Injunction (“Notice of Compliance”). Defendants indicated that there had been no positive tests of COVID-19 at DOC facilities since the Court issued its PI Order, and all residents who had previously been in isolation due to positive tests had returned to the general population. See Notice of Compliance at 1. Defendants also indicated that DOC had tested a sample of asymptomatic inmates, who all tested negative for COVID-19.4 Id. at 8–9. Defendants further provided the Court with updates about Defendants’ policies related to inmate access to medical care, social distancing, sanitation, conditions in isolation units, and access to confidential legal calls. See id. at 3–8.
Then, on July 16, 2020, Defendants filed the present [105] Motion to Alter and Vacate the Court’s Preliminary Injunction, in which Defendants argue that a material change in the conditions at DOC facilities renders continued injunctive relief unnecessary and improper. 5 Defs.’ Mot. at 9–11. Defendants contend further that the Court erroneously concluded in its PI Opinion that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that Defendants had “recklessly disregarded” risks related to COVID-19. Id. at 11. Rather, Defendants argue that the policies they implemented had contained the spread of COVID-19, and that any imperfect enforcement of those policies does not amount to “deliberate indifference.” See id. at 12–13.
Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ motion, arguing that Defendants are “ask[ing] the Court to fold up an umbrella in the middle of a rainstorm.” Pls.’ Opp’n at 1. Plaintiffs note that—
4 Defendants initially reported that DOC had tested 150 asymptomatic residents, see Notice of Compliance at 9, but subsequently corrected that figure, indicating that only 87 inmates had been tested. See Errata, ECF No. 102. 5 On the same date, Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the Court’s PI Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals. See Defs.’ Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 106. The Court of Appeals, on its own motion, held in abeyance Defendants’ notice of appeal and requested that this Court “notify [the Court of Appeals] promptly upon conclusion of its proceedings.” See Order, Banks et al. v. Booth et al., No. 20-5216 (D.C. Cir. July 22, 2020).
3

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 4 of 27
subsequent to Defendants’ filing of their Motion to Alter and Vacate—Defendants reported positive COVID-19 tests. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs further submitted affidavits by DOC staff and inmates demonstrating “continued failures to implement protocols.” Id.; see Pls.’ Opp’n Ex. A, Bess Decl.; Pls.’ Opp’n Ex. C, Taylor Decl. Plaintiffs requested that the Court direct amici curiae Grace M. Lopes and Mark Jordan (“Amici”) to continue monitoring Defendants’ compliance with the PI Order. Pls.’ Opp’n at 18.
On September 16, 2020, the Court ordered the continued appointment of Amici to review and report on Defendants’ compliance. See Order Appointing Amicus, ECF. No. 125.6 The Court noted that “Defendants contend that they have implemented all safety protocols, thus creating a factual dispute with Plaintiffs as to the conditions at Defendants’ facilities.” Id. at 1. The Court requested that Amici “provide the Court with information as to Defendants’ compliance with the Court’s preliminary injunction.” Id.
On November 9, 2020, the Court held a telephone conference during which Amici presented their preliminary findings regarding Defendants’ compliance with the preliminary injunction. Both parties and the Court asked questions—including some requesting Amici to provide additional information in their subsequent written report. A court reporter was present, and a transcript of the hearing is on the docket. See Attachment A, Hr’g Tr. 11/9/20, ECF No. 131.
On December 11, 2020, Amici submitted a written report. The Court incorporates that report into this Memorandum Opinion. See Attachment B, Report Submitted by Amicus Curiae
6 The Court twice amended its Order for Amici Curiae to clarify the timing of inspections of DOC facilities and to modify the deadlines for Amici’s oral and written reports. See ECF Nos. 126, 129. The Court also granted a consent motion to extend the time for Amici to submit a written report in light of issues raised during the Amici’s oral report on November 9, 2020. See Consent Motion for Extension of Time, ECF No. 132; Order, ECF No. 133.
4

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 5 of 27
Pursuant to September 16, 2020 Order (“Amici Report”), ECF No. 138. The Court has excerpted portions of the Amici Report in this Memorandum Opinion, focusing on the issues which are most relevant to the resolution of Defendants’ pending motion.
As explained in their report, Amici reviewed records from the DOC facilities, conducted telephonic and in-person interviews with members of the DOC staff and approximately 80 inmates, and conducted unannounced and unescorted site visits on multiple shifts on October 22, 23, 29, November 13, and December 2, 2020 at the Central Detention Facility (“CDF”) and on October 27 and November 2, 2020 at the Correctional Treatment Facility (“CTF”). Attachment B, at 3–4. Amici reported to the Court that Defendants cooperated in providing necessary materials and access to the facilities, staff, and inmates during their visits. Attachment A, at 8:17–24.
Upon Plaintiffs’ request, and with the Court’s leave, see Pls.’ Mot. for Leave to File Suppl. Br., ECF No. 135; Dec. 2, 2020 Minute Order, the parties submitted supplemental briefs on December 18, 2020 to bring to the Court’s attention any additional facts or developments since the parties’ earlier briefing on Defendants’ Motion.
II. LEGAL STANDARD Defendants move for relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b), 59(e), and 60(b)(5). Defs.’ Mot. at 7–9. Plaintiffs argue that Rule 54(b) is the only appropriate standard. Pls.’ Opp’n at 3. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that Defendants have not satisfied the standard for reconsideration under Rule 54(b)—the standard affording the Court most flexibility. See Shvartser v. Lekser, 330 F. Supp. 3d 356, 360 (D.D.C. 2018) (“[O]ut of an abundance of caution . . . the Court will apply the less demanding standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which governs the reconsideration of interlocutory decisions.” (internal citation omitted)); Cobell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 266, 272 (D.D.C. 2004) (“[C]ourts have more
5

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 6 of 27
flexibility in applying Rule 54(b) than in determining whether reconsideration is appropriate under Rules 59(e) and 60(b).” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, the Court shall not separately evaluate whether Defendants are entitled to relief based on what appear to be the higher standards associated with Rules 59(e) and Rule 60(b)(5).
However, because courts in this jurisdiction have reached different conclusions as to whether Rule 54(b) or Rule 59(e) governs a motion seeking reconsideration of an order granting or denying preliminary injunctive relief, the Court shall briefly discuss both standards.7 See N.S. v. Hughes, 2020 WL 4260739, at *1 (D.D.C. July 24, 2020) (applying Rule 59(e)); but see Dunlap v. Presidential Advisory Comm’n on Election Integrity, 319 F. Supp. 3d 70, 80–81, 84 (D.D.C. 2018) (applying Rule 54(b)); Shvartser, 330 F. Supp. 3d at 360–61 (same). The D.C. Circuit does not appear to have ruled directly on which standard applies. See N.S., 2020 WL 4260739, at *1. Rule 54(b) allows the Court to revise “any order or other decision” that “adjudicates fewer than all the claims . . . at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Rule 59(e) permits a party to move to “alter or amend a judgment . . . no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
The Court has broad discretion to grant relief under either rule, though “the Court has more discretion to grant a motion brought under Rule 54(b).” N.S., 2020 WL 4260739, at *1; see also Cobell, 224 F.R.D. at 272. “[T]his jurisdiction has established that reconsideration [under Rule 54(b)] is appropriate ‘as justice requires.’” Lyles v. District of Columbia, 65 F. Supp. 3d 181, 188 (D.D.C. 2014) (emphasis added) (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 355 F. Supp. 2d 531, 540
7 Neither party has identified any cases in this jurisdiction analyzing a motion for reconsideration of a preliminary injunction under Rule 60(b). To the contrary, several cases reason that Rule 60(b) does not apply to reconsideration of preliminary injunctive relief. See, e.g., Dunlap, 319 F. Supp. 3d at 84–85; Cobell, 224 F.R.D. at 271.
6

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 7 of 27
(D.D.C. 2005)). In general, a court will grant a Rule 54(b) motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order “only when the movant demonstrates: (1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a clear error in the first order.” Dunlap, 319 F. Supp. 3d at 81 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “Justice [also] may require reconsideration ‘where a controlling or significant change in the . . . facts has occurred since the submission of the issue to the court.’” McLaughlin v. Holder, 864 F. Supp. 2d 134, 141 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting Ficken v. Golden, 696 F. Supp. 2d 21, 35 (D.D.C. 2010)). The proponent of reconsideration carries the burden of proving that “some harm, legal or at least tangible, would flow from a denial of reconsideration.” United States v. Dynamic Visions, Inc., 321 F.R.D. 14, 17 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Cobell, 355 F. Supp. 2d at 540). “In order for justice to require reconsideration, logically, it must be the case that, some sort of ‘injustice’ will result if reconsideration is refused.” Id. (quoting Cobell, 355 F. Supp. 2d at 540).
Although similar considerations guide a Rule 59(e) analysis, motions under Rule 59(e) are “disfavored” and “the moving party bears the burden of establishing ‘extraordinary circumstances’ warranting relief from a final judgment.” United States v. Burwell, 253 F. Supp. 3d 283, 285 (D.D.C. 2017) (emphasis added) (quoting Niedermeier v. Office of Baucus, 153 F. Supp. 2d 23, 28 (D.D.C. 2011)); see also Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Rule 59(e) motions are “discretionary and need not be granted unless the district court finds that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
There are limits to the Court’s discretion under either rule, as “once the parties have ‘battled for the court’s decision, they should neither be required, nor without good reason
7

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 8 of 27
permitted, to battle for it again.’” Hispanic Affairs Project v. Perez, 319 F.R.D. 3, 6 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Wannall v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 292 F.R.D. 26, 30–31 (D.D.C. 2013), aff’d sub nom. Wannall v. Honeywell, Inc., 775 F.3d 425 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). A motion under either Rule 54(b) or Rule 59(e) is not “simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled.” New York v. United States, 880 F. Supp. 37, 38 (D.D.C. 1995); see also Messina v. Krakower, 439 F.3d 755, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Rule 59(e) motions may not simply “rely on the same arguments . . . originally made” by the moving party); Shvartser, 330 F. Supp. 3d at 360 (addressing Rule 54(b) motion). Nor is a motion for reconsideration an avenue to “present[ ] theories or arguments that could have been advanced earlier.” Shvartser, 330 F. Supp. 3d at 360; see also Oceana, Inc. v. Evans, 389 F. Supp. 2d 4, 8 (D.D.C. 2005) (“Rule 59 was not intended to allow a second bite at the apple.”)
III. DISCUSSION A. Justice Does Not Require Reconsideration of the Preliminary Injunction Based on
Changed Factual Circumstances Defendants’ primary argument is that changed factual circumstances render continued injunctive relief improper. Defs.’ Mot. at 9. Courts in this jurisdiction have noted that justice “may require reconsideration” where there is a “fundamental,” McLaughlin, 864 F. Supp. 2d at 141, or “controlling or significant” change in facts. Ficken, 696 F. Supp. 2d at 35 (quoting Cobell, 224 F.R.D at 272). Defendants contend that their efforts to address the risks posed by COVID-19 “have effectively eliminated the risk of COVID-19 infection facing its residents.” Defs.’ Suppl. Br. at 1–2. Defendants argue, therefore, that a material change in the facts renders continued injunctive relief inequitable. Defs.’ Mot. at 10–11. In response, Plaintiffs cite continued deficiencies in Defendants’ efforts to implement and enforce the requirements of the Court’s PI Order. Pls.’ Opp’n at 6–11. Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants have failed to
8

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 9 of 27
demonstrate any harm caused by the Court’s injunction. Id. at 4–6. For the reasons below, the Court concludes that ongoing systemic deficiencies undermine Defendants’ claim of “significant or controlling” changed factual circumstances.
In its Memorandum Opinions granting in part Plaintiffs’ TRO and granting in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court thoroughly recounted the conditions at DOC facilities as they stood at each juncture. See TRO Op. 12–22; PI Op. 14–26. Based on these factual findings, the Court specifically noted “that the relief which will be granted . . . is narrowly tailored and does not impose an undue burden on Defendants.” PI Op. at 36. The Court will not recount those findings in full, but incorporates its findings from those Memorandum Opinions.
The Court’s focus here is whether “justice requires” reconsideration based on a “controlling or significant change in the facts” since the Court’s PI Order. McLaughlin, 864 F. Supp. 2d at 141. This inquiry does not compel the Court to undertake a “fresh analysis of whether the Court should grant a preliminary injunction under the standard four-factor test that this Court previously applied.” Dunlap, 319 F. Supp. 3d at 85. Rather, the Court considers whether relevant factual developments are “controlling or significant for purposes of compelling reconsideration of whether Plaintiff[s] satisf[y] the standards for preliminary relief.” Id.
Before addressing the relevant factual developments regarding each requirement of the Court’s PI Order, the Court notes that much of Defendants’ argument in support of vacating or amending the preliminary injunction (as it was in opposing injunctive relief at the outset) is based on steps Defendants have taken subsequent to the Court’s TRO and PI Orders. See PI Op. at 15, 23. The Court appreciates Defendants’ efforts to improve conditions at DOC facilities, and in no way seeks to impugn or discourage continued good faith efforts. But, as the Court
9

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 10 of 27
noted in its earlier Opinion, “Defendants cannot claim that the need for an injunction is now moot because the [Defendants have] ‘ceased [their] wrongful conduct.’” PI Op. at 15–16 (citing Costa v. Bazron, 2020 WL 2735666, *4 (D.D.C. May 24, 2020) (quoting Taylor v. Resolution Trust Corp., 56 F.3d 1497 (D.C. Cir. 1995))). Similarly, the Court finds it difficult to conclude that “justice requires” the Court to vacate the preliminary injunction against Defendants based on purported factual changes resulting from steps taken to address deficiencies noted in the Court’s PI Opinion—especially where, as discussed below, Defendants’ compliance with the preliminary injunction is incomplete. As the Court previously noted, the aim of injunctive relief is to “prevent future violations,” Costa, 2020 WL 2735666, at *4 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), and for that reasons its power to grant injunctive relief “survives the discontinuance of the illegal conduct.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Daniel Chapter One, 89 F. Supp. 3d 132, 143 (D.D.C. 2015), aff'd, 650 F. App'x 20 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Several months have passed since Defendants first sought reconsideration of the Court’s preliminary injunction, and the Court now has the benefit of the Amici Report and the parties’ supplemental briefs. The Court shall discuss the conditions of the facilities in response to the Court’s PI Order. Upon careful review of the factual circumstances presented by both parties and Amici, the Court concludes that Defendants have not established a significant or controlling change in the factual circumstance requiring reconsideration of the preliminary injunction.
1. Medical Care The Court begins by assessing Defendants’ efforts in supplying general population inmates with adequate medical care. In its PI Opinion, the Court identified deficiencies in Defendants’ sick call process, citing both Amici’s observation of “significant barriers to access to health care,” as well as declarations of inmates detailing the unavailability of sick call forms
10

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 11 of 27
on their housing units. See PI Op. at 16–17. Based on these findings, the Court ordered Defendants to implement a medical care system for general population housing units that “ensures inmates receive attention from a medical provider within 24 hours of reporting health issues.” Id. at 38. If Defendants continued to rely on the use of sick call slips, Defendants were to “ensure that said slips are collected at regular intervals.” Id.
Amici describe in detail Defendants’ revised sick call process, implemented as of June 23, 2020 (after the Court’s PI Order): inmates obtain sick call request forms from correctional officers and deposit completed forms in secure collection boxes maintained on each housing unit. Attachment B, at 12–16. The forms are collected by medical staff twice a day, logged, and triaged for urgency. Id. at 14–15. Amici observed that the “use of the revised forms is widespread,” and “[i]n contrast to previous site visits, sick call request forms were available on most of the housing units [Amici] visited before the November 9, 2020 hearing.” Id. at 13 n.31, 14. Amici further noted that inmates “generally had positive impressions of the sick call process and asserted that they expected that if they submitted a sick call request form, they would be seen by a medical provider timely.” Id. at 16. Sick call forms were available on all except one of the housing units visited by Amici prior to the November 9, 2020 hearing. Id. at 14. When Amici returned to the facilities after the hearing, sick call forms were available on the one housing unit that had previously lacked them. Id.
To assess Defendants’ compliance with the Court’s requirement that Defendants ensure that inmates receive medical care within 24 hours of requesting it, Amici reviewed a random sample of sick call requests from both the CDF and CTF.8 Id. at 16–18. Of the inmate sick call
8 Amici also assessed the timeliness of DOC’s responses to requests for dental care and mental health care. Plaintiffs and Defendants both acknowledge that these requests are less likely to be related to COVID-19. See Pls.’ Suppl. Mem. at 3 n.3; Defs.’ Suppl. Mem. at 2. Accordingly, the
11

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 12 of 27
requests reviewed, 71% of CDF inmates and 56% of CTF inmates were seen by a medical provider within one day of submitting their sick call forms.9 Id. at 18–20. Defendants contend that Amici’s small sample size presents an incomplete picture of its sick call response, noting that Amici reviewed only a small portion of requests for medical care and omitted from their Report discussion of a “robust audit procedure” implemented by DOC officials to monitor the sick call process. Defs.’ Suppl. Br. at 3–4 (citing Defs.’ Suppl. Br. Ex. A, Jordan Decl. ¶ 9). Defendants further contend that the Amici Report fails to address other reasons why an inmate may not be seen by a medical provider within 24 hours. Id. at 3.
The Court appreciates Defendants’ revisions to the sick call process and the improved availability of sick call forms. The Court, however, finds that Defendants have not demonstrated a significant change in the facts warranting reconsideration of the preliminary injunction— especially taking into consideration Amici’s finding that “inmates are not consistently seen by a medical provider within 24 hours of reporting health issues in a significant percentage of cases.” Attachment B, at 12.
2. Social Distancing In granting the preliminary injunction, the Court also cited Amici’s finding that social distancing in DOC facilities “certainly is not prevalent, certainly not during our visits.” PI Op. at
Court shall focus on Amici’s findings with respect to the timing of responses to requests for medical care. 9 Although the PI Order directs Defendants to ensure inmates receive medical attention within 24 hours, the sick call forms only provide a space for inmates to enter the date of their request, not the time. Attachment B, at 17. Accordingly, Amici analyzed each sample based on the days elapsed between the submission of the form and the time inmates received medical attention. Id. Amici note additional discrepancies with the forms, including some that contained notations by medical staff for “wrong date”—the reason for which was not evident to Amici in every case. Id. at 17–18. Amici further note that for the month of July 2020, they received 179 fewer sick call request forms than were indicated on the spreadsheet tallying the number of forms received. Id. at 16. Amici were “not able to reconcile this discrepancy.” Id.
12

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 13 of 27
18 (internal citation omitted). Amici attributed this issue, in part, to insufficient staffing on the housing units. Id. The Court noted that although Defendants developed policies and educational materials to address social distancing, their steps to implement and enforce such policies were insufficient and delayed. Id. at 19–20. Accordingly, the Court ordered Defendants to comply with District of Columbia and CDC regulations on distancing in the DOC facilities and to “address challenges which have prevented the implementation of social distancing including but not limited to lack of education and staffing shortages.” Id. at 38; PI Order.
Amici reported continued inconsistencies in social distancing practices and enforcement. Attachment B, at 24. Amici noted, for example, that they “often” observed inmates who were out of their cells congregating in small groups, “sometimes while not wearing a mask properly covering their noses and mouths.” Id. And despite limits on the number of inmates allowed out of their cells at a given time, Amici observed inmates out of their cells “communicat[ing]. . . often while in close proximity” with those in their cells, “while not wearing a mask properly[.]” Id. Amici also observed staff members “at times” failing to wear “required masks and/or face shields on housing units and not maintaining social distance among themselves and when interacting with inmates and other non-correctional DOC staff.” Id. at 25. Surveillance teams monitor compliance with social distancing by live video feeds and are expected to report failures to enforce social distancing policies. Id. But some of these surveillance personnel reported to Amici “frequent” violations of COVID-19 mitigation policies—“as many as 100 examples per shift.” Id. Yet, Defendants reported to Amici only 347 disciplinary actions against correctional officers taken over the course of months (April through November 2020) for violations of COVID-19 mitigation policies. Id. Plaintiffs also submitted evidence of inadequate enforcement of social distancing, including a declaration from a DOC officer who observed groups of inmates
13

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 14 of 27
congregating in a small waiting room, as well as “mixed groups” from general population units and quarantine being escorted together in an elevator. Pls.’ Opp’n at 8 (citing Pls.’ Opp’n Ex. A, Bess Decl. ¶¶ 14–15, 17–18). Amici further reported that the number of staff available to work as of December 2020 remains “virtually unchanged” from mid-May 2020. Attachment B, at 10, 26. As such, the many deficiencies in social distancing practices and enforcement identified in the Court’s previous orders remain.
In arguing that they have made progress in enforcing social distancing, Defendants identify many of the same policies and practices they noted in opposing preliminary injunctive relief. See, e.g., Defs.’ Mot. at 5 (“[a]s previously noted. . .”; “a surveillance team continues to monitor”; “signs remain posted;”; “DOC continues to provide . . .” (emphases added)); see also PI Op. at 18–19. For example, Defendants indicate that they require correctional officers to document compliance, require inmates and staff to wear PPE, remind inmates to socially distance, have signs posted throughout the facilities, and have provided staff and inmates with educational materials about social distancing. Defs.’ Mot. at 5. Defendants also reported to Amici that they had begun to distribute electronic tablets which include educational content about COVID-19. Attachment B, at 26. But Defendants claim that “practical difficulties” hamper enforcement of these policies and “continuing challenges in recruiting and hiring correctional officers” hinder efforts to increase staffing. Defs.’ Suppl. Br. at 4.
As the Court noted in granting Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, “better policies mean little if they are not correctly implemented in practice.” PI Op. at 19 (citing Daskalea v. District of Columbia, 227 F.3d 433, 442 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). The Amici Report—together with the evidence offered by Plaintiffs—demonstrate ongoing deficiencies with respect to Defendants’ enforcement of social distancing. Accordingly, the Court finds that justice does not require
14

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 15 of 27
reconsideration of the preliminary injunction’s social distancing requirements, as Defendants have fallen short in complying with the Court’s PI Order in this area.
3. Environmental Health and Safety The Court next examines the status of sanitation efforts at DOC facilities. In its PI Order, the Court noted that Defendants had made some progress since the TRO Order in ensuring adequate sanitation, but also noted inmates’ lack of regular access to appropriate cleaning supplies. PI Op. at 20–21. The Court ordered Defendants to continue their contracts with an outside health and safety vendor and professional cleaning vendors to provide cleaning services (including to common areas); to continue their efforts to hire a registered sanitarian; to ensure inmates have access to necessary materials to clean their cells; and to ensure that inmates and DOC staff are informed of and trained on proper use of mixing and preparing cleaning solution. PI Op. at 38–39; PI Order. Amici reported that Defendants have made progress in ensuring adequate sanitation of both the CDF and CTF. During their site visits, Amici observed that “common areas and public spaces” appeared “noticeably cleaner than amici observed during previous visits at both the CDF and CTF.” Attachment B, at 30–31. Defendants have continued their contracts with outside professional cleaning vendors to provide cleaning services through February 2021. Id. at 30. In addition, Amici reported “significant improvement in inmate access to appropriate materials to clean their cells.” Id. at 33. Amici further noted that inmates and staff reported consistent access to clean microfiber cloths and peroxide cleaning solution. Id. These are marked improvements since the Court’s PI Order, in which the Court noted that appropriate sanitation was a “continuing issue” at both facilities, and especially deficient at the CDF. PI Op. at 21 (internal citation omitted).
15

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 16 of 27
Defendants’ efforts to hire a registered sanitarian have proven less successful. Defendants contracted with an outside vendor as of May 18, 2020 to provide services related to environmental health and safety. PI Op. at 20. At the same time, Defendants indicated that they had received approval to solicit applications for an in-house sanitarian. Id. The contract with the environmental health and safety vendor expired at the end of October 2020, and DOC initially did not renew it, intending instead to rely on a new internal hire. Attachment A, at 45:5–8; Attachment B, at 29. At the hearing on November 9, 2020, Amici explained that Defendants had posted a vacancy notice for a “sanitarian inspection specialist,” the qualifications for which would not meet the eligibility criteria to sit for the registered sanitarian exam by the pertinent credentialing body. Attachment A, at 38:2–12; see also Attachment B, at 31. After posting the vacancy announcement six times, DOC did not receive applications from any registered sanitarians, and instead hired an applicant with no background in environmental health and safety. Attachment A, at 38:2–19. The Court questioned whether the qualifications provided in the job vacancy posting may have discouraged registered sanitarians from applying for the position. Id. at 41:6–13; 42:13–43:2. After this issue was raised at the hearing, as of December 11, 2020, Defendants indicated to Amici that they re-entered a three-month contract with the health and safety vendor whose contract expired on October 31, 2020, with three one-month options, and “renewed” their efforts to hire a registered sanitarian. Attachment B, at 29–30.
Although Defendants have complied with the Court’s order to continue their contracts with professional cleaning services, this is not necessarily a “change” in factual circumstances since the Court’s PI’s Opinion, as Defendants had those contracts in place at the time of the PI briefing. See Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ PI Mot. at 14–15 (internal citations omitted). And Defendants appear to be in a similar position with respect to hiring a registered sanitarian as they
16

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 17 of 27
were at the time the Court issued its preliminary injunction. Accordingly, there are no “significant or controlling” changed factual circumstances supporting reconsideration of the health and environmental safety requirements of the preliminary injunction.
4. Conditions in Isolation Units Next, the Court considers conditions in isolation units. The Court previously noted deficiencies with respect to access to legal and personal phone calls, regular showers, and consistent linen exchanges. PI Op. at 22–23. Although the Court credited Defendants’ progress in making isolation units less punitive, the Court observed that such progress had been made only subsequent to the Court’s TRO Order and “there remains progress to be made.” Id. at 23. Accordingly, the Court ordered Defendants to make conditions in the isolation unit non-punitive by providing reliable access to telephone calls, daily showers, and clean clothing and linens. Id. at 39; PI Order. In their more recent review, Amici found that inmates on isolation status are “able to make personal telephone calls, take daily showers, and receive clean linens.” Attachment B, at 34. Amici were unable to make general findings about access to confidential legal calls for inmates on isolation status, but noted that one inmate who had been on isolation status reported that he was only able to speak with his attorney in a case manager’s officer while a correctional officer was present and therefore the call was not confidential. Attachment B, at 35 n.80. The Court appreciates Defendants’ efforts to ensure that inmates in isolation have better access to personal hygiene necessities and the ability to make personal phone calls. But once again, the Court notes that many these improvements appear to be in response to the issues raised in earlier TRO and PI proceedings, and it does not appear that inmates on isolation units have
17

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 18 of 27
access to confidential legal calls. The Court, therefore, does not find any need to eliminate this requirement of the PI to guard against future violations.
5. Confidential Legal Calls The Court next addresses general population inmates’ access to confidential legal calls. In its PI Order, the Court required Defendants to “ensure that all inmates have access to confidential, unmonitored legal calls of a duration sufficient to discuss legal matters.” PI Op. at 3 (emphasis added); PI Order. Although the Court noted that Defendants had made efforts to obtain new technology to ensure inmates’ access to confidential legal calls, it also concluded that many of these new processes had not yet been implemented. PI Op. at 25. Amici noted that DOC has made “substantial investment” in new technologies to address challenges in attorney-client communications. Attachment B, at 39. Amici reported that legal calls take place in one of three settings: (1) in the case manager’s office with the case manager present; (2) in the inmate’s cell using a cell phone; or (3) in an empty cell on the housing unit using a cell phone. Attachment B, at 37, 38. Calls from the CDF may also take place in an office in the facility’s case management suite. Id. Amici noted that “most of the inmates and case managers interviewed confirmed that the case manager is present” for calls conducted in a case manager’s office, which is “consistent” with Amici’s observations. Id. at 37. Such calls, then, are not truly “confidential.” Calls made by cell phone from individual cells may afford “inmates the opportunity to speak in a confidential setting with their attorneys,” though Amici noted that some inmates reported that they could be overhead by inmates in neighboring cells. Id. at 37 n.89. Attorneys may also request to speak with their clients by videoconference, which are conducted “under conditions that promote the confidentiality of attorney-client communications.” Id. at 37–38. Inmates who request calls with their attorneys continue to
18

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 19 of 27
experience “substantial delays” receiving responses to their requests. Id. at 38. In addition to the issues noted by Amici, Plaintiffs cited evidence of ongoing issues with legal calls. For example, calls placed from cell phone may be disrupted because of poor reception or excessive noise. Pls.’ Suppl. Br. at 7 (citing Defs.’ Mot. Ex. E, Williams Decl. ¶ 6).
Defendants argue that Amici’s findings do “not fully capture the scope of DOC’s undertaking and the dramatic shift in the way DOC facilitates legal calls to meet the challenges posed by the pandemic,” indicating that DOC has “facilitated over 24,357 attorney-client contacts using technology and procedures that did not exist in DOC facilities only nine months ago.” Defs.’ Suppl. Br. at 6 (citing Defs.’ Suppl. Br. Ex. B, Williams Decl. ¶ 5). Defendants note, for example, that some inmates have been able to use cell phones for legal calls since June 15, 2020. Id. Defendants also indicate that inmates may use phone banks located on each housing unit to call their attorneys—but conceded that “full confidentiality is not possible for inmates using the phone banks.” Id. at 7, 8 n.6. Although the Court credits Defendants for implementing new practices, ongoing shortcomings in ensuring access to confidential legal calls counsel against relieving Defendants of this condition of the injunction.
6. Testing At the time they filed their present Motion, Defendants relied heavily on the lack of positive COVID-19 tests for a period of thirty days as evidence of changed factual circumstances. See Defs.’ Mot. at 1–2, 9–10. Defendants claimed this positive development demonstrated that their policies had “halted” the spread of COVID-19. Defs.’ Mot. at 9. Since then, at least fifteen positive COVID-19 cases have been reported to the Court. See Attachment B, at 34; Defs.’ Suppl. Br. at 2 n.2. The Court makes note of this development not to impugn
19

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 20 of 27
Defendants—as all except one case was discovered upon intake testing10—but rather to highlight the need for ongoing vigilance in the face of a swift and dangerous virus that has claimed more than 400,000 American lives.11
In Defendants’ briefing on the preliminary injunction, Defendants noted that “DOC has broadened its protocols to test all new intakes and every inmate transferred to another facility.” Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ Am. Mot. for PI at 2, ECF No. 82 (emphasis added). Defendants noted specifically that DOC “now tests any resident to be transferred to Saint Elizabeths Hospital or to a federal correctional facility.” Id. at 8–9 (emphasis added) (citing id. Ex. B, Jordan Suppl. Decl. ¶ 11). Defendants also reported that DOC tests all new residents upon intake, cellmates of any resident who recently tested positive, and any inmate who displays symptoms of COVID-19. Id. at 8–9. Accordingly, the Court ordered Defendants to continue these protocols and update the Court about any changes or new practices. See PI Order.
Amici reported that Defendants have been performing tests on all new intakes—each new intake receives both a rapid COVID-19 test and a lab test simultaneously. Attachment B, at 40. New intakes then remain housed on an “intake unit” for seven days, at which point another lab test is performed. Id. If a new inmate tests positive, that person is then transferred to housing units designated for “isolation.” Id. Except for one example, see note 10, Defendants’ positive cases of COVID-19 have been found upon intake testing.
10 Amici reported that the only positive case for the period July–November 2020 not involving a newly admitted inmate was discovered after a new intake was placed on a mental health housing unit (rather than an intake housing unit). Attachment B, at 41. After the newly-admitted inmate tested positive, the entire mental health unit was tested, and one inmate was confirmed positive for COVID-19. Id. 11 See, e.g., Reis Thebault & Lateshia Beachum, Coronavirus updates: U.S. surpasses 400,000 deaths as Biden invites the country to mourn, Wash. Post (Jan. 19, 2021), https://www.washington post.com/nation/2021/01/19/covid-coronavirus-updates/.
20

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 21 of 27
Amici also reviewed Defendants’ testing of inmates who report COVID-19 symptoms. Amici analyzed a random sample of 36 sick call request forms indicating symptoms consistent with COVID-19. Id. at 44. Amici found that only fourteen of those inmates were “tested for COVID-19 at some point after they submitted their sick call requests.” Id. at 44. And of those fourteen tested, eight tests were administered between 20 and 52 days after the sick call request forms were submitted. Id. Defendants’ inconsistent and incomplete testing of inmates reporting symptoms of COVID-19 does not compel the Court to relieve Defendants from continued injunctive relief on this point.
Despite Defendants’ representations that they tested “any” inmate transferred to St. Elizabeths, Amici reported that, prior to the November 9, 2020 hearing, inmates being transferred to St. Elizabeths were only tested if “Unity staff [were] notified in advance of the transfer.” Id. at 42. In most of the 24 cases between June 18 and October 31, 2020 in which inmates were transferred to Saint Elizabeths, “testing was not conducted in close temporal proximity to the transfer.” Id. In eleven cases, for example, inmates were tested between 24 and 128 days prior to their transfer. Id. Two inmates were not tested at all prior to their transfer. Id. at 42. Defendants note in their supplemental brief that “in early November [2020], DOC and St. Elizabeths enhanced the transfer notification system, and residents have been tested within 48 hours of the transfer to St. Elizabeths.” Defs.’ Suppl. Mem. at 10. Similarly, Unity reported to Amici that they do not test inmates being transferred to federal facilities as a matter of course. Id. at 42–43. Rather, a test would only be conducted upon request (for example, if the receiving federal facility requires it). Amici found that at least twelve inmates who had been released to federal custody were not tested before their transfer. Id. at 43. These results contradict Defendants’ representations in their prior briefing and fall short of compliance with the Court’s
21

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 22 of 27
preliminary injunction order. Justice does not require reconsideration of an order—based on Defendants’ own representations of their protocols—with which Defendants have failed to comply.
Upon review of the factual developments since the Court entered a preliminary injunction, the Court finds more than mere isolated examples of incomplete compliance with the Court’s preliminary injunction. To be sure, Defendants have made some positive improvements. But ongoing deficiencies with respect to each component of the preliminary injunction undermine Defendants’ claim that a significant or controlling change in factual circumstances requires reconsideration of the Court’s order.
B. Purported “Legal Errors” Do Not Compel Reconsideration Defendants next argue that legal errors in the Court’s PI Opinion compel reconsideration
of the preliminary injunctive relief granted to Plaintiffs. Although “clear error” in a court’s previous order may justify reconsideration, neither a Rule 54(b) nor a Rule 59(e) motion is an invitation for the Court to re-weigh the evidence considered in making its decision. See Dunlap, 319 F. Supp. 3d at 81; Zeigler v. Potter, 555 F. Supp. 3d 126, 129 (D.D.C. 2008). Nor does either type of motion permit a “losing party” to “raise new issues that could have been raised previously.” Kattan by Thomas v. District of Columbia, 995 F.2d 274, 276 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see also McLaughlin, 864 F. Supp. 2d at 141 (“A court may properly exercise its discretion by denying a motion for reconsideration [under Rule 54(b)] that ‘raise[s]. . . arguments for reconsideration the court ha[s] . . . already rejected on the merits.’”(quoting Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Servs., Inc., 630 F.3d 217, 227 (D.C. Cir. 2011))).
First, Defendants argue that the Court incorrectly concluded that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims based on an “unduly high legal standard.”
22

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 23 of 27
Defs.’ Mot. at 11–14. Defendants contend that the Court “focused its analysis of reckless disregard on the wrong evidence” by identifying only “ongoing inadequacies” and “discounting the evidence that DOC had been continually addressing and improving conditions at its facilities.” Id. at 11–12. This is precisely the attempt to “reargue facts and theories upon which the court has already ruled” which the Court may not properly consider under Rule 54 (or Rule 59). Ali v. Carnegie Inst. of Wash., 309 F.R.D. 77, 81 (D.D.C. 2015). And in any event, the Court did take into consideration policies that Defendants had adopted subsequent to the TRO Order, and still concluded that many of these policies were “not correctly implemented in practice.” PI Op. at 14, 19, 20. Moreover, the Court discussed at length systemic deficiencies that continued to persist despite Defendants’ notice of them from earlier TRO proceedings. Id. at 16–26. The Court’s finding that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing deliberate indifference was based on Defendants’ failure to “take comprehensive, timely, and proper steps to stem the spread of the virus.” Id. at 26. The Court shall not re-weigh the same evidence considered in granting partial preliminary injunctive relief.
Defendants next argue that the Court erred in finding that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed in establishing that they had exhausted their administrative remedies. Defendants cite a grievance policy implemented in January 2020, which authorized residents to “proceed to the next step in the process if they fail to receive a timely or unsatisfactory response.” Defs.’ Mot. at 14. In their earlier briefing on this issue, Defendants cited to a DOC grievance policy from January 2018. See Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ PI Mot. at 35–36. Defendants raise this January 2020 policy for the first time in this litigation in their motion to reconsider. See id. at 36 (citing DOC grievance policy dated January 2018); but see Defs.’ Mot. Ex. F, Townes Decl. ¶ 4; Errata Ex. 1, DOC Policy and Procedure, at 19, ECF No. 108-1. “Evidence that the movant knew about (or
23

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 24 of 27
should have known about) but which it failed to disclose is not a valid basis for a motion to reconsider.” N.S., 2020 WL 4260739, at *2; see also Ali, 309 F.R.D. at 81 (“[I]t is wellestablished that [a] motion[ ] for reconsideration . . . cannot be used . . . as a vehicle for presenting theories or arguments that could have been advanced earlier.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). If Defendants expect Plaintiffs to have been aware of the January 2020 iteration of the grievance policy when they filed this lawsuit in March 2020, then surely Defendants should have been expected to produce it during earlier TRO and PI proceedings.
The D.C. Circuit, however, has directed that a court’s consideration of new arguments can be more flexible under Rule 54(b) than under Rule 59(e). See Cobell v. Jewell, 802 F.3d 12, 25–26 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Even under the January 2020 policy, however, DOC was required to respond within 72 hours of receipt of an emergency grievance. See DOC Policy and Procedure, at 19 (“[A]n emergency grievance shall be responded to within seventy-two (72) hours of its receipt.”). And the Court already concluded in its PI Opinion that Plaintiff Banks had submitted evidence that he filed an emergency grievance with Defendant Booth on March 23, 2020 and had not received a response by the time this lawsuit was filed six days later. See PI Op. at 29. Accordingly, the Court shall not reconsider its conclusion that Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of exhaustion to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Id.
C. The Decisions of Other Circuit Courts of Appeals Do Not Require Reconsideration Finally, Defendants argue that recent out-of-circuit judicial decisions “vacat[ing] or
remand[ing] preliminary injunctions in light of changed circumstances” should prompt reconsideration of the Court’s preliminary injunction. Defs.’ Mot. at 15–16. Although none of these decisions is controlling with respect to this Court, the Court shall nonetheless address some of the issues raised by Defendants. See Youssef v. Holder, 62 F. Supp. 3d 96, 98 (D.D.C. 2014)
24

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 25 of 27
(noting that Rule 54(b) permits reconsideration in light of “controlling or significant” change in the law “since the submission of the issue to the Court” (emphasis added)).12 Ultimately, however, the Court concludes that these out-of-circuit decisions present distinct legal and factual issues that do not compel reconsideration of the injunctive relief at issue in this case.13
Defendants first note that the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court decision cited once by the Court in its PI Opinion. See Defs.’ Mot. at 15; PI Op. at 37 (citing Cameron v. Bouchard, 2020 WL 1929876 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 17, 2020) as an example of an “injunctive order mandating correctional facility take certain steps involving sanitation, PPE, and medical care in response to COVID-19”). In that case, the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction based on the conclusion that the evidence was “insufficient to demonstrate that the jail officials acted with reckless disregard to the serious risk COVID-19 poses.” Cameron v. Bouchard, 2020 WL 3867393, at *3 (6th Cir. July 9, 2020). But, as Plaintiffs note, the Sixth Circuit decision does not constitute a “change” in the law; it merely involves that court’s application of settled law to the unique evidentiary record before it. See Pls.’ Opp’n at 15.
12 As Plaintiffs note, most of the cases cited by Defendants were decided prior to the Court’s injunction order and so do not represent an intervening “change.” See Pls.’ Opp’n at 14. 13 Defendants also brought to the Court’s attention the Supreme Court’s order granting a stay of the injunction at issue in Ahlman v. Barnes, 2020 WL 3547960, at *5 (9th Cir. June 17, 2020). See Defs.’ Notice of Suppl. Authority, ECF No. 115 (citing Barnes v. Ahlman, 140 S. Ct. 2620 (Mem) (2020)). In that case, the Ninth Circuit denied a stay of the preliminary injunction granted by the district court, but remanded to the district court to allow the parties “to present any evidence of changed circumstances to the district court” to permit the court to determine whether “to modify or dissolve the injunction,” observing that “the circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic are evolving rapidly.” Ahlman, 2020 WL 3547960, at *5. On August 5, 2020 the Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal and disposition of a timely petition for a writ of certiorari. Defendants do not explain how this Supreme Court order affects its arguments seeking reconsideration here—other than to provide an additional example of an appellate court staying an injunction related to COVID-19 measures.
25

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 26 of 27
In other cases cited by Defendants, appellate courts vacated or stayed preliminary injunctions based on insufficient factual findings.14 In Swain v. Junior, 961 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2020), for example, the Eleventh Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction based on its conclusion that the district court had relied “overwhelmingly—if not exclusively—on two considerations”: (1) the fact that COVID-19 was “continuing to spread” at the facility; and (2) the impossibility of achieving adequate social distancing. Id. at 1286. Similarly, in Marlowe v. Leblanc, 810 F. App’x 302 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court’s analysis lacked “factual findings” and offered “no reviewable basis” upon which to conclude that the jail’s mitigation efforts were “constitutionally deficient.” Id. at 305.
The Court here, in contrast, made detailed factual findings with respect to numerous deficiencies cited by Plaintiffs and Amici in ordering injunctive relief. See PI Op. at 14–26. At least one circuit court has affirmed provisions of a TRO based on a district court’s factual findings that “assess the requested relief considering the totality of the [defendants’] conduct, rather than reviewing it isolation.” Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d 810, 823 (7th Cir. 2020). The Court’s PI Opinion set forth in detail its factual findings and specifically concluded that the relief granted was narrowly tailored to address the cited deficiencies. PI Op. at 36. Accordingly, the Court does not agree that the circuit court opinions cited by Defendants—which rely on distinct factual records at the time injunctive relief was granted—require the Court to reconsider its own decision granting injunctive relief.
14 In another case cited by Defendants, Valentine v. Collier, 956 F.3d 797 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit did not reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference claim, concluding that the district court had misapplied the Eight Amendment standard altogether. Id. at 802. Defendants do not appear to contend that the Court made that error here.
26

Case 1:20-cv-00849-CKK Document 143 Filed 01/26/21 Page 27 of 27
The Court here makes new factual findings regarding the deficiencies identified in its order granting Plaintiffs partial preliminary injunctive relief. And although there are some marked improvements (some enacted only recently), as noted above, there are still substantial deficiencies which require the preliminary injunction to remain in place. It is important that the improvements are sustained over time. The Court finds that continued injunctive relief as set forth in the Court’s PI Order is narrowly drawn to correct the specific identified deficiencies.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the Court concludes that justice does not require reconsideration of its Preliminary Injunction Order. The Court therefore DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Alter and Vacate the Court’s Preliminary Injunction. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge
27

 
 USCA Case #20-5216 Document #1905090

Filed: 07/06/2021 Page 1 of 8

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued May 11, 2021

Decided July 6, 2021

No. 20-5216

EDWARD BANKS, ET AL., APPELLEES

v.

QUINCY L. BOOTH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS AND
LENNARD JOHNSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS WARDEN, D.C. DEPT. CORRECTIONS, APPELLANTS

Consolidated with 21-5033

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:20-cv-00849)

Carl J. Schifferle, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Karl A. Racine, Attorney General, Loren L. Alikhan, Solicitor General, and Caroline S. Van Zile, Principal Deputy Solicitor General.

USCA Case #20-5216 Document #1905090

Filed: 07/06/2021 Page 2 of 8

2
Steven Marcus argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Scott Michelman, Arthur B. Spitzer, Jonathan W. Anderson, Jenna Cobb, Jonathan S. Meltzer, Jeremy S. Kreisberg, Brendan B. Gants, and Rachel G. Miller-Ziegler.
David M. Shapiro was on the brief for amicus curiae the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center in support of appellees.
Before: HENDERSON and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge SENTELLE.
SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge: The Director and Warden of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (collectively “Corrections”) appeal from the district court’s order of a preliminary injunction requiring the Department of Corrections to take certain actions to reduce the threat of COVID-19 within its correctional facilities. Appellants contend that under the governing provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2), the preliminary injunction has expired, and the cases are now moot. Because we agree that the preliminary injunction has expired, challenges to the order imposing that injunction are moot and we must dismiss the appeal.
I.
On March 11, 2020, the mayor of the District of Columbia declared a public health emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department of Corrections responded by instituting policies intended to protect its employees and inmates from the coronavirus.

USCA Case #20-5216 Document #1905090

Filed: 07/06/2021 Page 3 of 8

3
On March 30, pretrial and postconviction inmates at D.C. correctional facilities filed a class action complaint and habeas petition, seeking relief on behalf of all inmates in D.C. facilities. The plaintiffs’ complaint asserted causes of action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. Plaintiffs immediately moved for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and for the district court to certify the class.
Before ruling on the motions for preliminary relief, the district court appointed two amici to investigate and report on the conditions at D.C. correctional facilities. Amici reported that while suspected-positive inmates were appropriately quarantined, quality-of-life in quarantine units was substantially worse than for the general population. Moreover, inmates had delays in receiving care, personal protective equipment was scarce, social distancing was not enforced, cleanliness varied by unit, and inmates lacked access to confidential legal phone calls. Incorporating the amici’s report in its findings of fact, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order on April 19. The order generally required Corrections to address the problems amici identified. After granting the temporary restraining order, the district court ordered amici to reevaluate the facilities to determine compliance with its order and provide further recommendations. Amici reported that Corrections had taken several appropriate steps, but not all reasonable precautions, to protect inmates. Although COVID cases in the correctional facilities decreased following mid-April, significant problems remained. For example, sanitation remained deficient and social distancing remained imperfect.
Two months later, on June 18, 2020, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The

USCA Case #20-5216 Document #1905090

Filed: 07/06/2021 Page 4 of 8

4
preliminary injunction ordered the defendants, inter alia, to ensure inmates receive medical attention within 24 hours after reporting of medical problems, to contract for COVID-19 cleaning services, ensure quarantine isolation units are nonpunitive, and provide access to confidential legal calls. Corrections immediately took steps to comply with the order. One month later, Corrections filed a motion to vacate the preliminary injunction due to changed circumstances under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b), 59(e), and 60(b). In response, the court asked amici once again to report on conditions in D.C. jails. Amici reported substantial improvement in Corrections’ COVID protocols, but also imperfect compliance with the district court’s preliminary injunction. Based on that report, the district court determined that changed factual circumstances did not justify vacating the injunction.
On appeal, Corrections argue that their appeal is moot because the preliminary injunction expired after 90 days under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. In the alternative, they challenge the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in the first instance and its failure to vacate the injunction based on changed circumstances. Although appellants also argue that the district court made distinct errors in the issuance of the preliminary injunction, because appellants’ mootness argument is dispositive, we need not address the other issues.
II.
The mootness argument tests the jurisdiction of the court. Therefore, we must address this issue before even considering any other. In addressing this issue, we must determine whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s 90-day expiration period for preliminary relief applies to the order under review. If it does, this appeal is moot and we must order dismissal.

USCA Case #20-5216 Document #1905090

Filed: 07/06/2021 Page 5 of 8

5
The relevant provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act states:
In any civil action with respect to prison conditions, to the extent otherwise authorized by law, the court may enter a temporary restraining order or an order for preliminary injunctive relief. Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief and shall respect the principles of comity set out in paragraph (1)(B) in tailoring any preliminary relief. Preliminary injunctive relief shall automatically expire on the date that is 90 days after its entry, unless the court makes the findings required under subsection (a)(1) for the entry of prospective relief and makes the order final before the expiration of the 90-day period.
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). More briefly put, if a judge enters a preliminary injunction in a suit covered by this section, that injunction will terminate on its 90th day unless the court has rendered it permanent and made specific findings that the restraint is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct that violation.
The statute defines the term “civil action with respect to prison conditions” as “mean[ing] any civil proceeding arising under Federal law with respect to the conditions of confinement or the effects of actions by government officials on the lives of persons confined in prison, but does not include

USCA Case #20-5216 Document #1905090

Filed: 07/06/2021 Page 6 of 8

6
habeas corpus proceedings challenging the fact or duration of confinement in prison.” Id. § 3626(g)(2).
The statute further defines the term “prison” as “mean[ing] any Federal, State, or local facility that incarcerates or detains juveniles or adults accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law.” Id. § 3626(g)(5).
Appellants’ mootness argument is straightforward. The statute covers civil actions addressing prison conditions. This action is a civil action addressing conditions in District of Columbia Department of Corrections facilities. The statute requires the making of certain findings. Appellees concede that the district court did not make the findings required under section 3626(a)(1) or make the order final before 90 days after the entry of the preliminary injunction. See Appellees’ Br. 13– 25.
There can be no serious argument that this statute does not govern this case. This litigation is quintessentially the case to which the statute applies. The statute describes a civil action “with respect to prison conditions.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). This case arises on a complaint that alleges claims based on conditions in the District of Columbia prisons and nothing else. The statute addresses a preliminary injunction affecting those conditions, and we have before us a preliminary injunction addressing those claims. While we hardly need precedent for the proposition that this is a civil action addressing covered conditions, we note that the Third, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals have considered the issue in passing and summarily concluded or assumed that section 3626(a)(2) applies to similar cases. See Hope v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 972 F.3d 310, 317–18 n.6 (3d Cir. 2020); Swain v. Junior, 961

USCA Case #20-5216 Document #1905090

Filed: 07/06/2021 Page 7 of 8

7
F.3d 1276, 1294 n.10 (11th Cir. 2020); Valentine v. Collier, 956 F.3d 797, 805–06 (5th Cir. 2020).
Plaintiff-appellees’ arguments to the contrary are based on their having joined with the civil action a claim under habeas corpus challenging the fact of their confinement. While the allegations of the complaint may not be sufficient to support the claim of habeas in any event, which we need not currently decide, the joinder is hardly adequate to defeat the plain meaning of the statute. We have frequently stated that Congress says what it means and means what it says. In this statute Congress clearly meant for preliminary injunctions in civil actions respecting prison conditions to last no longer than 90 days. In this case the 90th day ended on September 16, 2020. Congress meant this so strongly that it made out very specific conditions under which the limitation to 90 days would not apply. These conditions were the findings that everyone agrees the district judge did not make. Appellees would have us hold that after having gone to this trouble with specificity to state exactly what it meant, Congress sub silentio created a further exception to its clear meaning for any case in which creative plaintiffs added a second claim. We can hardly accuse Congress of such roundabout drafting. We have stated before that Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes. Am. Bar Ass’n v. FTC, 430 F.3d 457, 467 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001)). In this case, we are not going to hold that Congress enumerated the mice and then unleashed an invisible elephant to trample the field. Indeed, our precedent avoids sanctioning strategic pleading used to evade the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s requirements. See In re Smith, 114 F.3d 1247, 1250 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“[I]t would defeat the purpose of the [Prison Litigation Reform Act] if a prisoner could evade its requirements simply by dressing up an ordinary civil action as a petition for mandamus or prohibition or by joining it with a petition for

USCA Case #20-5216 Document #1905090

Filed: 07/06/2021 Page 8 of 8

8
habeas corpus.”); see also Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1041–42 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
As we noted, the allegations attempting to allege habeas may not be sufficient to clearly state a habeas corpus claim. Habeas corpus tests the fact or duration of the confinement, rather than conditions. Again, though, we need not decide anything with reference to that claim. We only determine that such a claim cannot change the nature of the actions to which it is attached.
Therefore, we hold that appellants’ claim of mootness is well taken, and we dismiss the appeals of the order imposing the preliminary injunction and the order denying the motion to vacate the injunction based on changed circumstances. We will, however, remand the cases for any further proceedings that may be necessary to determine the viability of any remaining claims.
So ordered.