Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 1 Filed 11/05/1998 Page 1 of 11
r u.s. Df\\L?~E~O OOUfRL\t>.~
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT \dbU1~ I"~')· i \4 t'}. ~ t: \'h ')'
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUI~...:...l:'1\!A'_!\'N-fA'l\·l _J _~
i~\ G~~ -·-RDfM p..R\ \~ fnC\-\i\ CL£.Rt<.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA;

)
~ ~~~il~~O~p7:8-/

The Honorable MIKE FOSTER,

)

in his official capacity as the Governor

)

of the STATE OF LOUISIANA;

)

)

THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND

)

CORRECTIONS;

)

)

RICHARD STALDER, in his official capacity

)

as the Secretary of the DEPARTMENT OF

)

PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS;

)

)

BILLY TRAVIS, in his official capacity as

)

Warden of the SWANSON CORRECTIONAL

)

CENTER FOR YOUTH;

)

)

ELIJAH LEWIS, in his official capacity as

)

Warden of the JETSON CORRECTIONAL CENTER

)

FOR YOUTH;

)

)

BENNY HARRIS, in his official capacity as

)

Warden of the LOUISIANA TRAINING INSTITUTE )

AT BRIDGE CITY;

)

)
GARY GREMILLION, in his official capacity as )

Warden of the TALLULAH CORRECTIONAL CENTER )

FOR YOUTH; and

)

)
TRANS-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, 'INC., )

)

Defendants.

)

)

--------------------------------------------)

""~Imllli I IIIJlIII "1111111"" 3:98-cv-00947 1 - 1

DATE: 11/05/98

DEPUTY CLERK: bp

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 1 Filed 11/05/1998 Page 2 of 11
COMPLAINT 1. This action is brought by the Attorney General, on behalf of the United States, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 ~~, and the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 14141, to enjoin the State of Louisiana from depriving juveniles confined in its secure post-adjudication juvenile correctional facilities of rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
JURISDICTION, STANDING AND VENUE 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursu~nt to 28 U.S.C. § 1345. 3. The United States has standing' to maintain this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997a, 14141. 4. The Attorney General has certified that all pre-filing requirements specified in 42 U.S.C. § 1997b have been met. The Certificate of the Attorney General is appended to this Complaint and is incorporated herein. 5. Venue in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims set forth in the Complaint arose in this District.
DEFENDANTS 6. Defendant STATE OF LOUISIANA ("Louisiana") confines juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent by the juvenile courts and designated for secure confinement, in secure juvenile
-2-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 1 Filed 11/05/1998 Page 3 of 11
correctional facilities either operated by the State, through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (the "Department"), or through contracts and subcontracts with other public entities or private contractors. The State owns and operates three of the secure juvenile correctional facilities that are at issue in this action -- Jetson Correctional Center for Youth, Louisiana Training Institute at Bridge City, and Swanson Correctional Center for Youth. A fourth secure juvenile correctional facility, Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth, provides services on behalf of Louisiana.
7. Defendant MIKE FOSTER is sued in his official capacity as the Governor of Louisiana, and in this capacity heads the executive branch of Louisiana's governm~nt. The Governor of Louisiana, as chief of the Executive Branch, has the duty to ensure that the departments that compose the Executive Branch of Louisiana guarantee the federal constitutional and statutory rights of the juveniles confined in secure juvenile correctional facilities owned and operated by or providing services on behalf of Louisiana.
8. Defendant DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS (the "Department") administers Louisiana I s juvenile correctional facilities.
9. Defendant RICHARD STALDER is sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department. In this capacity, Secretary Stalder is responsible for, among other things, the administration of Louisiana's juvenile correctional facilities;
-3-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 1 Filed 11/05/1998 Page 4 of 11
for ensuring that all juveniles in Louisiana's juvenile correctional facilities receive appropriate treatment, training, and education commensurate with their needs and abilities; and for ensuring that programs in these facilities are consistent with the Department's mission to protect public safety and to provide opportunities for the rehabilitation of the juveniles.
10. Defendant BILLY TRAVIS is sued in his official capacity as the Warden of the Swanson Correctional Center for Youth. In his official capacity, Warden Travis is responsible for the dayto-day operation of this f~cility.
11. Defendant ELIJAH LEWIS is sued in his official capacity as the Warden of the Jetson Correctional Center for Youth. In his official capacity, Warden Lewis is responsible for the dayto-day operation of this facility.
12. Defendant BENNY HARRIS is sued in his official capacity as the Warden of the Louisiana Training Institute at Bridge City. In his official capacity, Warden Harris is responsible for the day-to-day operation of this facility.
13. Defendant GARY GREMILLION is sued in his official capacity as the Warden of the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth. In his official capacity, Warden Gremillion is responsible for the day-to-day operation of this facility.
14. Defendant TRANS-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., is a business incorporated in Louisiana that operates the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth, providing services on behalf of the State of Louisiana.
-4-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 1 Filed 11/05/1998 Page 5 of 11
15. The secure juvenile correctional facilities at issue in this case are institutions as that term is defined in 42 U. S . C . § 1997 (1) (A) and (1) (B) (iv) .
16. All relevant acts or omissions described below have been undertaken by government authorities or agents or persons acting on behalf of a governmental authority, as described in 42 U.S.C. § 14141. All relevant acts or omissions described below have been undertaken by the State, a political subdivision of the State, or an official, employee" agent or person acting on behalf thereof, as described in 42 U.S.C. § 1997a(a). All relevant acts or omissions described below have been undertaken by public entiti,es, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1).
17. Defendants receive federal financial assistance and, as such, are subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
18. The juveniles residing in the' secure juvenile correctional facilities include youths with special needs including those with mental illness, mental retardation, and other learning disabilities who fall within the meaning of "handicapped children" as defined in the, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (1) ; "individual[s] with a disability" as defined in Section 504 of
-5-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 1 Filed 11/05/1998 Page 6 of 11
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 706(8) (B); and "qualified individual[s] with a disability" as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 19. Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of failing to provide juveniles with adequate medical, dental and mental health care. 20. Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of failing to provi~e juveniles with reasonably safe conditions by, among other things, subjecting confined juveniles to a substantial risk of serious harm resulting from juvenile-on-juvenile assaults, the use of excessive force and abuse by staff, and from inadequate suicide prevention measures. 21. Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of SUbjecting juveniles to unreasonable isolation and restraints (including mechanical, medical and chemical restraints) . 22. Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of failing to provide juveniles with adequate rehabilitative services. 23. Defendants have engaged, and ~ontinue to engage, in a pattern or practice of failing to provide juveniles with adequate general and vocational educational services. 24. Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of failing to provide qualified juveniles
- 6-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 1 Filed 11/05/1998 Page 7 of 11
with adequate educational accommodations, special education and related services and programs by, among other things, failing to identify properly juveniles requiring special education and related services and failing to develop and implement adequate individualized education programs.
25. Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of denying qualified juveniles with a disability the benefits of the services, programs and activities of the secure juvenile correctional facilities.
VIOLATIONS ALLEGED 26. Through the acts and omissions alleged in ~~ 19-25, above, Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of depriving juveniles confined in Louisiana's secure juvenile justice facilities of rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States, including the Fourteenth Amendment, and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (a) . 27. Through the acts and omissions alleged in ~~ 24-25, above, Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of failing to comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IIIDEA"), 20 U. S. C. § 1401 .et. ~, as amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37 (1997), and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, thereby depriving qualified juveniles of their rights under that Act and regulations and violating 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (a) .
-7-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 1 Filed 11/05/1998 Page 8 of 11
28. Through the acts and omissions alleged in " 24-25, above, Defendants have engaged, and continues to engage, in a pattern or practice of failing to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 ~~, and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, thereby depriving qualified juveniles of their rights under that Act and regulations and violating 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a).
29. Through the acts and omissions alleged in , 24-25, above, Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of failing to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 ~~, and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, thereby depriving qualified juveniles of their rights under that Act and regulations and violating 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a).
30. Unless restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to engage in the conduct and practices set forth in " 19-25 that deprive juveniles confined in Louisiana's secure juvenile correctional facilities of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States and federal law, and will cause irreparable harm to these juveniles.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 31. The Attorney General is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 1997a, 14141(b) to seek equitable and declaratory relief.
- 8-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 1 Filed 11/05/1998 Page 9 of 11 WHEREFORE, the United States prays that this Court enter an
order permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, contractors, successors in office, and all those acting in active concert or participation with them from continuing the acts, practices and omissions set forth in " 1925, above, and to require Defendants to take such action as will provide legal and constitutional conditions of care to juveniles confined in Louisiana's secure juvenile correctional facilities and any other secure juvenile correctional facility in which Defendants in the future confines juveniles or any other facility to which Defendants transfers juveniles adjudicated to its custody for secure confinement during the pendency of this action. The United States further prays that this Court grant such other and further equitable relief' as it may deem just and proper.
- 9-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 1 Filed 11/05/1998 Page 10 of 11

STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief Special Litigation Section

RO INSUE FROHBOESE Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section

/7~ c---- f/p

L:faDITH C. PRESTON

IRIS GOLDSCHMIDT

KEVIN RUSSELL

Trial Attorneys

_

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Special Litigation Section

P.O. Box 66400

Washington, D.C. 20035

(202) 514-6258

- 10 -

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 1 Filed 11/05/1998 Page 11 of 11
Q1}fficr of t~r l\ttarnc,! ~rnrrnl lJlItas qingtnn. 1.9. QT. 20,5:30
CERTIFICATE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL This Certificate is made pursuant to Section 5 of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997b in support of the United States' attached complaint. I, Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States, certify that I have complied with all subsections of 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a). I further certify, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a) (3), my belief that such action by the United States is of general public importance and will materially further the vindication of rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. In addition, I certify that I have the "reasonable cause to believe" set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1997a(a) to institute this action. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997a(c), I have personally signed the complaint in this action. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(b) , I am personally signing this Certificate. Signed this 30th day of October , 1998, Washington, D.C.
RENO orney General of the United States

 
 Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 2 Filed 11/05/1998 Page 1 of 3

,,'

FllEO~

U.S. DIST. COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MlDDI ,. f'n:~ T. OF LA.

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 98 NOV ~5

:jIGN----"""""""
RICHA

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, ~ ~.

)

)

Defendants.

)

--------------------------------------------)

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

c i vi~ No.

~A-ctqioLnJ

7-

B-

((\

I

Pursuant to Fed. R. civ. P. 42(a), the United states moves

that the above-encaptioned case be consolidated with the

following matters:

Hayes Williams. et al.v. John McKeithen, et al., civ. No. 71-98-B
In re: Juvenile Facilities, civ. No. CH 97-MS-001-B
In re: Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth, civ. No. CH 97-MS-001-B
In re: Jetson Correctional Center for Youth, civ. No. CH 97-0666-B-M1
In re: Swanson Correctional Center for Youth, civ. No. CH 97-0667-B-M1
In re: Louisiana Training Institute - Bridge City, civ. No. CH 97-0668-B-M1
In re: Jena Juvenile Justice Center for Youth, civ. No. 98-8-4-B-M1
Brian B., et al. v. Richard Stalder, et al., civ. No. 98-886-B-M1

1\11 11111111111111

3: 98-cv-00947 2 - 1

DATE: 11105/98

DEPUTY CLERK: bp

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 2 Filed 11/05/1998 Page 2 of 3
Each of these actions involve common questions of law and fact regarding the conditions of confinement in Louisiana's secure juvenile facilities.
THEREFORE, the United states requests the Court grant this motion to consolidate the above cases.
JUDITH C. PRESTON IRIS GOLDSCHMIDT KEVIN K. RUSSELL Trial Attorneys Special Litigation section civil Rights Division u.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 66400 Washington, D.C. 20035-6400 (202) 514-6258
-2-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 2 Filed 11/05/1998 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, ~ ~.
Defendants.

) )
m\ ) civi~ Action
) No. '1'8'-<1£./7.. ;3..
) ) ) )
)

------------------------------------------)

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing have this day

been mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the

following:

Keith B. Nordyke, Esq. Nordyke and Denlinger
427 Mayflower st. Baton Rouge, LA 70802

David Utter Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana 822 Camp st.
New Orleans, LA 70130

Richard Curry McGlinchey, Stafford and Lange One American Place suite 900 Baton Rouge, LA 70825

Charles Wm. Roberts Wray & Kracht, L.L.P. 5643 Corporate Boulevard
Baton Rouge, LA 70898-0239

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this

1998.

-4-

 
 ,,:

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 3 Filed 11/05/1998 Page 1 of 2

f,\.1~O\jR1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cog~ 9\~~!, 'f Of If:\·
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUI~~~r~~f ''~S .
<jt1 "G'J -

,~\U~\cWJf

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, ~ ~._

)

)

Defendants.

)

------------------------------------------)

civil Action No.
97~ ff('7 -(fr (

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

The United states moves that the above-encaptioned action be

consolidated with several other actions currently pending before

this Court relating to conditions of confinement in Louisiana's

secure juvenile facilities. These prior actions, and the united

State's lawsuit, share common issues of law and fact and,

therefore, appropriate for consolidated proceedings before this

Court.

The united states has been participating as amicus in

Williams v. McKeithen and the related "in re" actions involving

the individual juvenile facilities. " On September 16, 1998, this

Court ordered hearings in those cases to determine whether

further relief was warranted in those actions to address

violations of federal law in the juvenile facilities. At the

time of that order, the Court was aware that Barry A. v. Stalder

was pending in the Eastern District, addressing similar

conditions of confinement issues at the Tallulah Correctional

Center for Youth, and that it was likely to be transferred to

this Court. Since the issuance of that order, Barry A. has been

-//

"" /I ""3: 98-cv-00947 3 - 1

DATE' 11/05/98

DEPUTY CLERK' bp

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 3 Filed 11/05/1998 Page 2 of 2
transferred (and amended to become Brian B. v. Stalder) and its equitable claims will be heard by this Court. The basis for further relief in the Williams cases, the claims for equitable relief in Brian B. and the claims raised in the united state's complaint present common questions of both law and fact that make these cases suitable for joint adjudication. Separate treatment would result in much duplication of discovery, presentation of evidence and legal arguments.
Therefore, the United states respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion to consolidate.
L. UNITED MIDDLE DIST 777 Florida Baton Rouge,
JUDITH C. PRESTON IRIS GOLDSCHMIDT KEVIN K. RUSSELL Trial Attorneys special Litigation section civil Rights Division
u.s. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 66400 Washington, D.C. 20035-6400 (202) 514-6258
-2-

 
 "Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP

Document 168

Filed 03/30/2000

Page 1 of 10
FilED U.S. DI31 COURT
MIDDLE DIST. OF LA.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

v.
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA;
The Honorable MIKE FOSTER, in his official capacity as the Governor of the STATE OF LOUISIANA;

) )
)
) Civil Action ) No. 98-947-B-l
) )
)

)

THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND

)

CORRECTIONS;

)

)

RICHARD STALDER, in his official capacity )

as the Secretary of the DEPARTMENT OF

)

PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS;

)

)

JERRY GOODWIN, in his official capacity as )

Warden of the SWANSON CORRECTIONAL

)

CENTER FOR YOUTH;

)

)

ELIJAH LEWIS, in his official capacity as

)

Warden of the JETSON CORRECTIONAL CENTER

)

FOR YOUTH;

)

)

MIKE ROBERTS, in his official capacity as

)

Warden of the BRIDGE CITY CORRECTIONAL

)

CENTER FOR YOUTH;

)

)

~IKE MULKEY, in his official capacity as

)

~~arden of the SWANSON CORRECTIONAL CENTER

)

FOR YOUTH AT MADISON PARISH;

)

)

TRANS-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., )
)

SALVIDOR GODINEZ, in his official capacity )

as Warden of the JENA JUVENILE JUSTICE

)

CENTER; and

)

)

~ WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS CORPORATION,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

--------------------------------------------)

~1 1 1 1 ~1 m 111111111111111

11111111111111I1

3: 98-cv-00947 168 - 1

DATE: 03/30/00

DEPUTY CLERK: HJ

. Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 168 Filed 03/30/2000 Page 2 of 10
·
AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. This action is brought by the Attorney General, on behalf of the United States, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 ~~, and the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 14141, to enjoin the State of Louisiana from depriving juveniles confined in four State-run secure postadjudication juvenile correctional facilities of rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by th~ Constitution and laws of the United States. This action is brought by the Attorney General, on behalf of the United States, pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 14141, to enjoin the State of Louisiana from depriving juveniles confined in the Jena Juvenile Justice Center of rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
JURISDICTION, STANDING AND VENUE 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1345. 3. The United States has standing to maintain this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997a, 14141. 4. With the filing of the Complaint in November, 1998, the Attorney General certified that all pre-filing requirements specified in 42 U.S.C. § 1997b had been met with respect to the then-existing four juvenile facilities. The Certificate of the Attorney General was attached to the Complaint and is incorporated herein.
-2-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 168 Filed 03/30/2000 Page 3 of 10
"
5. Venue in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims set forth in the Complaint arose in this District.
DEFENDANTS 6. Defendant STATE OF LOUISIANA ("Louisiana") confines juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent by the juvenile courts and designated for secure confinement, in secure juvenile correctional facilities either operated by the State, through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (the "Department"), or through contracts and subcontracts with other public entities or private contractors. The State owns and operates four of the secure juvenile correctional facilities that are at issue in this action -- Jetson Correctional Center for Youth, Bridge City Correctional Center for Youth, Swanson Correctional Center for Youth, and Swanson Correctional Center for Youth at Madison Parish (formerly known as the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth). A fifth secure juvenile correctional facility, Jena Juvenile Justice Center, provides services on behalf of Louisiana. 7. Defendant MIKE FOSTER is sued in his official capacity as the Governor of Louisiana, and in this capacity heads the executive branch of Louisiana's government. The Governor of Louisiana, as chief of the Executive Branch, has the duty to ensure that the departments that compose the Executive Branch of Louisiana guarantee the federal constitutional and statutory
-3-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 168 Filed 03/30/2000 Page 4 of 10
rights of the juveniles confined in secure juvenile correctional facilities owned and operated by or providing services on behalf of Louisiana.
8. Defendant DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS (the "Department") administers Louisiana's juvenile correctional facilities.
9. Defendant RICHARD STALDER is sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department. In this capacity, Secretary Stalder is responsible for, among other things, the administration of Louisiana's juvenile correctional facilities; for ensuring that all juveniles in Louisiana's juvenile correctional facilities receive appropriate treatment, training, and education commensurate with their needs and abilities; and for ensuring that programs in these facilities are consistent with the Department's mission to protect public safety and to provide opportunities for the rehabilitation of the juveniles.
10. Defendant JERRY GOODWIN is sued in his official capacity as the Warden of the Swanson Correctional Center for Youth. In his official capacity, Warden Goodwin is responsible for the day-to-day operation of this facility.
11. Defendant ELIJAH LEWIS is sued in his official capacity as the Warden of the Jetson Correctional Center for Youth. In his official capacity, Warden Lewis is responsible for the dayto-day operation of this facility.
12. Defendant MIKE ROBERTS is sued in his official capacity as the Warden of the Bridge City Correctional Center for Youth.
-4-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 168 Filed 03/30/2000 Page 5 of 10
In his official capacity, Warden Roberts is responsible for the day-to-day operation of this facility.
13. Defendant MIKE MULKEY is sued in his official capacity as the Warden of the Swanson Correctional Center for Youth at Madison Parish. In his official capacity, Warden Mulkey is responsible for the day-to-day operation of this facility.
14. Defendant TRANS-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., is a business incorporated in Louisiana that owns the land on which the Swanson Correctional Center for Youth at Madison Parish is located and during the pendency of this case, has provided services on behalf of the State of Louisiana.
15. Defendant SALVIDOR GODINEZ is sued in his official capacity as the Warden of the Jena Juvenile Justice Center. In his official capacity, Warden Godinez is responsible for the dayto-day operation of this facility.
16. Defendant WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS CORPORATION is a business incorporated in Florida doing business in Louisiana and owns and operates the Jena Juvenile Justice Center in Jena, Louisiana and provides services there on behalf of the State of Louisiana.
17. The secure juvenile correctional facilities at issue in this case are institutions as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (1) (A) and (1) (B) (iv).
18. All relevant acts or omissions described below have been undertaken by government authorities or agents or persons acting on behalf of a governmental authority, as described in
-5-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 168 Filed 03/30/2000 Page 6 of 10
42 U.S.C. § 14141. All relevant acts or omissions described below have been undertaken by the State, a political subdivision of the State, or an official, employee, agent or person acting on behalf thereof, as described in 42 U.S.C. § 1997a(a). All relevant acts or omissions described below have been undertaken by public entities, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1).
19. Defendants receive federal financial assistance and, as such, are subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
20. The juveniles residing in the secure juvenile correctional facilities include youths with special needs including those with mental illness, mental retardation, and other learning disabilities who fall within the meaning of "handicapped children" as defined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (1); "individual[s] with a disability" as defined in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 706 (8) (B); and "qualified individual[s] with a disability" as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 21. Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of failing to provide juveniles with adequate medical, dental and mental health care.
- 6-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 168 Filed 03/30/2000 Page 7 of 10
22. Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of failing to provide juveniles with reasonably safe conditions by, among other things, sUbjecting confined juveniles to a substantial risk of serious harm resulting from juvenile-on-juvenile assaults, the use of excessive force and abuse by staff, and from inadequate suicide prevention measures.
23. Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of subjecting juveniles to unreasonable isolation and restraints (including mechanical, medical and chemical restraints) .
24. Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of failing to provide juveniles with adequate rehabilitative services.
25. Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of failing to provide juveniles with adequate general and vocational educational services.
26. Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of failing to provide qualified juveniles with adequate educational accommodations, special education and related services and programs by, among other things, failing to identify properly juveniles requiring special education and related services and failing to develop and implement adequate individualized education programs.
27. Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of denying qualified juveniles with a
- 7-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 168 Filed 03/30/2000 Page 8 of 10
disability the benefits of the services, programs and activities of the secure juvenile correctional facilities.
VIOLATIONS ALLEGED 28. Through the acts and omissions alleged in ~~ 21-27, above, Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of depriving juveniles confined in Louisiana's secure juvenile justice facilities of rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States, including the Fourteenth Amendment, and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a) . 29. Through the acts and omissions alleged in ~~ 26-27, above, Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of failing to comply with the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1401 .at.
~, as amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37 (1997), and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, thereby depriving qualified juveniles of their rights under that Act and regulations and violating 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a).
30. Through the acts and omissions' alleged in ~~ 26-27, above, Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of failing to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 .at.~, and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, thereby depriving qualified juveniles of their rights under that Act and regulations and violating 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a).
-8-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 168 Filed 03/30/2000 Page 9 of 10
31. Through the acts and omissions alleged in ~ 26-27, above, Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern or practice of failing to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 ~~, and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, thereby depriving qualified juveniles of their rights under that Act and regulations and violating 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a).
32. Unless restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to engage in the conduct and practices set forth in ~~ 21-27 that deprive juveniles confined in Louisiana's secure juvenile correctional facilities of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States and federal law, and will cause irreparable harm to these juveniles.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 33. The Attorney General is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 1997a, 14141(b) to seek equitable and declaratory relief. WHEREFORE, the United States prays that this Court enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, contractors, successors in office, and all those acting in active concert or participation with them from continuing the acts, practices and omissions set forth in ~~ 2127, above, and to require Defendants to take such action as will provide legal and constitutional conditions of care to juveniles confined in Louisiana's secure juvenile correctional facilities
-9-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 168 Filed 03/30/2000 Page 10 of 10
and any other secure juvenile correctional facility in which Defendants in the future confine juveniles or any other facility to which Defendants transfer juveniles adjudicated to its custody for secure confinement during the pendency of this action. The United States further prays that this Court grant such other and further equitable relief as it may deem just and proper.
General
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief Special Litigation Section
ROBINSUE FROHBOESE Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section
~__c...-.:.====_f-__1-__-_______-__
~RESTON
IRIS GOLDSCHMIDT Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section P.O. Box 66400 Washington, D.C. 20035 (202) 514-6258
- 10 -

 
 Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 208 Filed 03/05/2004 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

zoo~ I4AR - 5 P 4: 21
G) ~~I'Ul~

HAYES WILLIAMS, et al Plaintiffs

C.A. NO. 71-98-B

VERSUS

JOHN J. MCKEITHEN, et al Defendants

BRIAN B., et al

Plaintiffs

C.A. NO. 98-886-B-l

VERSUS

RICHARD STALDER, et al Defendants
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiffs

Y C.A. NO. 98-947-B

VERSUS

STATE OF LOUISIANA, et al Defendants

STATUS REPORT A "Notice to Counsel" entered by the Court on February 12, 2004 directed the State to file a status report "relative to the procedures being implemented" at Swanson Correctional Center for Youth - Madison Parish Unit ("SCCY-Madison"). This report addresses procedures currently implemented at SCCY-Madison as well as the plans of the Office of Youth Development ("OYD") to remove all juveniles from that facility within the next few months.

156760.1

INITIALS DOCKET#

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 208 Filed 03/05/2004 Page 2 of 17

Current Procedures at SCCY-Madison

SCCY-Madison has been subjected to extensive investigations and monitoring for the

past eight years - surely more exhaustive scrutiny than any similar facility in the country. In late

2003, SCCY-Madison was the subject of yet another rigorous series of investigations that

reviewed procedures at the facility:

•

Michael Mahoney, a juvenile justice expert retained by the Department of Justice,

toured SCCY-Madison, interviewed staff and juveniles and reviewed records on

November 12, 13 and 14, 2003.

•

Steven Robinson, the former Executive Director of the Texas Youth Commission

(the Texas counterpart to OYD) was retained by the State of Louisiana to

participate in that November 12-14 investigation.

•

Dr. Pamela McPherson, a mental health expert retained by the Department of

Justice, investigated mental health procedures and practices at SCCY-Madison on

November 13 and 14,2003.

•

Dr. Gary Peck, the medical expert jointly selected by the partie,S under the 2000

and 2003 settlement agreements, conducted yet another medical investigation of

SCCY-Madison on November 13.

•

Dr. James Austin of George Washington University and his team of experts -

jointly selected by the parties to this litigation in the 2003 settlement agreement,

spent large blocks of time at SCCY-Madison throughout 2003, and that team

finalized and submitted detailed reports on the State's compliance with the 2003

settlement agreements involving all Louisiana secure facilities, including SCCY-

Madison.

•

Plaintiffs' counsel, Nordyke & Denlinger and the Juvenile Justice Project of

Louisiana, conducted dozens of interviews with juveniles and reviewed

voluminous records leading up to the expert tours, and both firms actively

participated in the November expert tours themselves.

The 2003 investigations found no unconstitutional conditions at SCCY-Madison. During

and following these investigations, the parties to this litigation negotiated and ultimately entered

a new settlement agreement. All parties and all counsel (including the Department of Justice and

including JJPL) agreed that SCCY-Madison should be dismissed from this litigation. All

156760.1
-2-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 208 Filed 03/05/2004 Page 3 of 17

counsel signed a motion asking this Court to dismiss SCCY-Madison from this litigation. That motion was filed on December 31, 2003.
Immediately after the settlement was entered and conditionally approved by this Court, the State posted class notice of the settlement in the secure facilities, pursuant to this Court's December 31, 2003 Order. The notice instructed members of the class not to contact the Court. Shortly after the settlement was entered, however, JJPL wrote letters to juveniles at SCCYMadison and juveniles at Bridge City Correctional Center for Youth, urging them to contact the Court regarding conditions at the facility. Only one juvenile wrote to this Court, (and even that letter merely expressed the juvenile's desire to return to a different secure facility).
JJPL then visited SCCY-Madison on January 27, 2004. As acknowledged in JJPL's February 4, 2004 correspondence to this Court, juveniles were still unwilling to write letters complaining about the settlement or conditions at the facility. JJPL then prepared nine letters and had the juveniles sign those letters. Those letters (the "JJPL Letters") were submitted to the Court by letter dated February 4,2004.
Conditions at SCCY-Madison have not deteriorated; conditions have continued to improve. The JJPL Letters generally al1ege that violence at SCCY-Madison increased recently (or after the settlement was entered on December 31, 2003). The allegations of increased violence, if true, would have resulted in an increase in allegations of abuse and an increase in the number of fights in January, 2004. (The settlement was entered on December 31, 2003; all of the JJPL Letters are dated January 27 or February 2.) There has been no increase in violence or allegations of violence. In fact, just the opposite result has been realized.
Rather than a dramatic January increase in PZT allegations, the rate of PZT allegations has continued to decrease since the settlement was entered. A total of 29 PZT incidents were

156760.1

-3 -

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 208 Filed 03/05/2004 Page 4 of 17

alleged to have occurred during the month of December, 2003 (before the 2004 Settlement was entered). This includes alIegations of both staff on offender and offender on offender. The average December popUlation of SCCY-Madison was 109. Only 14 PZT incidents were alleged to have occurred in January, 2004 (after the 2004 Settlement was entered). The average January population was 100.
Other JJPL letters reported that youth were not receiving adequate clothing and supplies. An unannounced inspection of SCCY-Madison was requested by the Assistant Secretary immediately upon receipt of these allegations. That inspection found ample supplies at SCCYMadison and, in particular, found that the individual juveniles' lockers were appropriately stocked with shoes, shirts, socks, towels, washcloths, personal hygiene items, and other items. A written report and photos validating this inspection were submitted to the Assistant Secretary.
One of the JJPL letters alleged that a juvenile had failed to receive medical treatment for a finger that had been injured. Upon investigation, it was revealed that the injury occurred on December 18, 2003, while the juvenile was playing basketball at Jetson Correctional Center for Youth. The juvenile was seen by Louisiana State University Health and Science Center at JCCY. LSUHSC found no injury that would require urgent treatment or would restrict the juvenile's usual activities. When the juvenile was transferred to SCCY-Madison on December 29, 2003, he was seen (again) by medical staff. Dr. Singson directed that two of the juveniles' fingers be "buddy" taped together and scheduled an appointment for the juvenile with the orthopedic clinic.
Allegations of drug availability at SCCY-Madison have no basis in fact. Random drug screening during the second half of 2003 was performed on 104 youth and none tested positive for drugs.

156760.1

-4-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 208 Filed 03/05/2004 Page 5 of 17
Other allegations in the JJPL letters are similarly groundless. None of the allegations raised by the JJPL letters undercuts the battery of expert and attorney investigations and findings conducted in November and December of 2003. Attached as Exhibit A is a current statement of ongoing efforts to preserve the safety of juveniles in the facility - "Ensuring Safety of Youth at SCCYlMadison as the Facility Closes as a Juvenile Facility." Conditions at SCCY-Madison were and remain safe; that facility continues to be well managed and safely operated. Current Plans to Remove Juveniles from SCCY-Madison.
Attached as Exhibit B to this report is a document prepared by OYD describing the current plans to remove all juveniles from SCCY-Madison. The present population of the facility is 86 and, as is evident from review of this plan, OYD expects to continue gradually removing all juveniles from SCCY-Madison over the next several months, resulting in the removal of all juveniles adjudicated to secure care from that facility by the end of May, 2004.
FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND ITS OFFICES, AGENCIES, AND DEPARTMENTS CHARLES C. FOT!, JR. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Ric ard C y, Bar Roll 4671 McGlinchey Stafford PLLC One American Place, 9th Floor Baton Rouge, LA 70825 Telephone: (225) 383-9000 Facsimile: (225) 382-3725

156760.1

-5-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 208 Filed 03/05/2004 Page 6 of 17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing pleading was served by facsimile

andlor U. S. Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed, upon counsel of record as fol1ows:

David Utter Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana 1600 Oretha Castle Haley Boulevard New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
Jeffrey Resetarits, Esq. United States Department of Justice Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530

Keith Nordyke, Esq. June Denlinger, Esq. Nordyke & Denlinger 427 Mayflower Street Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802

this <51'-uay of March, 2004.

156760.1

- 6-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 208 Filed 03/05/2004 Page 7 of 17
Ensuring Safety of Youth at SCCYIMadison as the Facility Closes as a Juvenile Facility
Colonel Louis Hyatt, PZT Director, OYDlHeadquarters has instructed the PZT investigators at SCCY!Madison to routinely include the questions that are attached in their investigations with youth. (See attachment labeled "Youth Questionnaire")
The investigators have been instructed by Colonel Hyatt to report any pattern of concern noted during interviews with youth. Concerns are to be reported to Colonel Hyatt and the Acting Assistant Secretary for OYD via a cc of the report that is sent to Colonel Hyatt.
All possible investigative conferences are to occur in the school (vacant offices and classrooms) between the hours of 7:30 am and 3:00 pm. The school office staff will escort youth to and from the PZT investigators room unless the investigator goes to the classroom to get the youth. If the investigation must take place after school hours, the PZT investigator will escort the youth to a secure area of the facility to discuss the allegation. Youth will not be escorted to the PZT office near the front of the facility unless there are reasons that focus on protection for the youth.
There will be no transfer of youth to SCCY!Madison with the exception of LITE youth.
The Acting Assistant Secretary spoke to all PZT investigators at their meeting on Wednesday, March 3, 2004, referencing the above and the need for honest and thorough investigations as they have always conducted.
The Director of SCCY!Madison, Hyam Guyton, has been instructed to meet with security staff at two (2) roll calls per week reminding them that the same policies and procedures that were in effect during the Agreement are still in effect today. This practice is to be followed by either the Director or Deputy or Assistant Director until the last youth has been transferred or released from SCCY!Madison.
Exhibit A

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 208 Filed 03/05/2004 Page 8 of 17

uth's Name:
Generally, how are things going at this facility?
Are conditions here better now than a year ago?
Ifyes, how are they better?
Ifno, how are they worse?
~as anyone advised you not to ,Ik to PZT investigators or
has anyone interfered with your PZT calls? Are you aware of anyone else that has been discouraged from making PZT calls? Ifyes, who and when?
Do you have adequate availability to the telephones to be able to call PZT or your attorney? Have you been denied access to the infirmary or to a PZT telephone call?
~o you feel safe?

COMMENTS

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 208 Filed 03/05/2004 Page 9 of 17
SCCY-Madison Transition Plan
March 2004
Simon Gonsoulin, Assistant Secretary Office of Youth Development Exhibit B

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 208 Filed 03/05/2004 Page 10 of 17
Act 1225 of the 2003 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature requires the removal of all youth from Swanson Correctional Center for Youth - Madison (SCCY-Madison) no later than December 31, 2004, unless the Governor declares a public safety emergency. The Office of Youth Development (OYD) has carefully reviewed all relevant data and believes that all youth currently assigned to SCCY-Madison can be safely removed from the facility by May 20, 2004 with a two-week variance in the event of factors beyond the control of OYD. This is eight months in advance of the date established by Act 1225. The information which follows outlines the decisions to be made and the actions needed to accomplish the May 20, 2004 goal for ending use of SCCY-Madison as a juvenile correctional facility. OYD is committed to working closely with the youths' families and committing courts throughout the transition period.
2

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 208 Filed 03/05/2004 Page 11 of 17

I.

Intermediate Youth Transfers

Effective February 19, 2004

a. No transfers into SCCY-Madison except for youth assigned from the Juvenile

Reception and Diagnostic Center (JRDC) to the Louisiana Intensive

Treatment and Education (UTE) program without prior approval of Assistant

Secretary Simon Gonsoulin or Deputy Assistant Secretary George White.

This includes transfers from the Juvenile Reception and Diagnostic Center'

as well as other facilities.

b. All bed vacancies in Therapeutic Communities (TC) for substance abuse

programs at Jetson Correctional Center for Youth (JCCY) and Swanson

Correctional Center for Youth -Monroe (SCCY-Monroe) will be prioritized for

use by youth in the TC program at SCCY-Madison.

c. Two youth at SCCY-Madison scheduled to transfer into the SCCY-Madison

TC program the week of March 23 - 27, 2004 will be transferred to TC

programs at JCCY and SCCY-Monroe instead so they will be closer to their

home.

d. All other bed vacancies in the secure facilities will be closely monitored for

range of need depending on rate of discharge/release from SCCY-Madison.

e. Transfer of youth assigned to SCCY-Madison will occur as described below

in Part III.

II. Personnel Actions

Effective February 19,2004

a. No new hires of any kind at-SCCY-Madison without prior approval of
\
Assistant Secretary Gonsoulin or Deputy Assistant Secretary White.

b. No details-to-special duty or promotions for staff of SCCY-Madison without

prior approval of Assistant Secretary Gonsoulin or Deputy Assistant

Secretary White.

c. All resignations, terminations or other actions which result in a personnel

vacancy at SCCY-Madison are to be reported twice per month (1 st and 15th)

to Deputy Assistant Secretary Dora Gorey, Office of Youth Development.

3

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 208 Filed 03/05/2004 Page 12 of 17
III. Review and Relocation of SCCY-Madison Population The number and classification of youth remaining at SCCY-Madison is being monitored daily. The population is basically organized by youths' program needs: a. Therapeutic community for substance abuse diagnoses 1. As of February 19, 2004, it is projected that there will be a maximum of 16 youth remaining in this program, all to be removed on or before May 20, 2004. 2. These 16 youth will be staffed by a multi-disciplinary team on March 8, 9 or 10, 2004 to verify internal placement and for consideration of a review under Act 1225. 3. Transition plans and placement recommendations will be developed with each of the 16 youth as appropriate. 4. Contact will be made with youths' families, courts and other appropriate parties to inform them of youths' status and/or transfer to JCCY and SCCY-Monroe. 5. Therapeutic community vacancies at JCCY and SCCY-Monroe will be prioritized for the SCCY-Madison youth. 6. Additional therapeutic community beds will be open at JCCY and SCCYMonroe if warranted and where bedspace can be made available without impairing other programming. This initiative will involve collaboration with staff of the Louisiana State University/Health Sciences Center - Juvenile Corrections Program (LSUHSC-JCP). It will also be an opportunity to confirm program placement of youth who have been diagnosed with a substance abuse disorder. b. LITE for short-term commitments 1. These youth are currently housed in Hotel and India Dormitories. 2. Historical data reflects that an average of ten youth per month are transferred from JRDC to SCCY-Madison for participation in the LITE program. 3. Of the 30 youth currently assigned to LITE no more than 23 will remain in the program to be removed on or before May 20, 2004.
4

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 208 Filed 03/05/2004 Page 13 of 17

4. OYD will use this transitional opportunity to establish a treatment-focused,

short-term intensive programming structure at SCCY-Monroe based upon

best practices. The LITE program will cease to exist upon the removal of

the last youth at SCCY-Madison. (This newly designed program will be

replicated in place of the Short-Term Offender Program [STOP] at Bridge

City Correctional Center for Youth over the next few months so that the

same treatment-focused program is used at both facilities.)

5. SCCY-Monroe has designated Pecan Dormitory for housing the newly

designed, short-term program.

6. A task force composed of individuals from each of the facilities, the

Division of Youth Services and LSUHSC-JCP has been aSSigned

responsibility for development of components and structure of the new

short-term program. The target date for start-up of the new program is

April 2004 but no later than May 1, 2004.

7. This program must be operationalized simultaneously with the opening of

the rooms at SCCY-Monroe in Cypress Unit - B Wing for assignment, if

needed, of high-custody youth. (See Part d below regarding high-custody

youth.) ,

8. All staff who will work with the new program will receive program specific

training prior to contact with youth assigned to the program.

9. IMANI (I'm Modeling a New Image) will remain in place as the short-term

program for girls in the secure-care system.

c.

General population

1. Of the 40 youth currently aSSigned to the general population (Unit ,-

Regular), no more than 36 will remain to be removed on or before May

20,2004.

5

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 208 Filed 03/05/2004 Page 14 of 17

2. Identified youth will be staffed by a multi-disciplinary team on March 8, 9

or 10, 2004 to verify internal placement and for consideration of a review

under Act 1225.

3. Transition plans and placement recommendations will be developed for

each of the youth as appropriate.

4. Contact will be made with youths' families, courts and other appropriate

parties to inform them of youths' status and/or transfer.

d.

Restrictive housing for high-custody youth.

1. Of the 22 youth currently assigned to the high-custody unit (Unit II), up to

19 may still be in this unit to be removed on or before May 20, 2004.

2. Identified youth will be staffed by a multi-disciplinary team on March 8, 9

or 10, 2004 to verify internal placement and for consideration of a review

under Act 1225.

3. Transition plans and placement recommendations will be developed for

each of the youth as appropriate.

4. Contact will be made with youths' families, courts and other appropriate

parties to inform them of youths' status and/or transfer.

5. Staff are targeted for relocation from SCCY-Madison to SCCY-Monroe for

working with this population-type. Cypress Unit-8 Wing, which has 16

rooms, has been deSignated for assignment of high-custody youth if

needed. These rooms must be on-line simUltaneous with the new short-

term, treatment program.

6.

Prior to transfer to SCCY-Monroe, each youth will have a comprehensive,

behavior management plan developed prior to transfer through a

collaborative effort between SCCY-Monroe staff who will work with the

youth and designated LSUHSC-JCP staff who can offer assistance with

behavior interventions.

IV. Youth In Jail

There are currently five youth in jail. Contingency plans will be developed for

assignment of these youth.

6

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 208 Filed 03/05/2004 Page 15 of 17
V. Staff Issues Assistant Secretary Gonsoulin met with HDQ Director 8. Cypel and his team on Thursday, February 26,2004 to review the table of organization for SCCY-Madison and the projected needs of the adult correctional facility planned to reside at the facility. A follow-up meeting was held on March 1, 2004 with Mr. Cypel and Civil Service Director Allen Reynolds. Director Reynolds and his staff are helping aYD construct a personnel plan for closure of SCCY-Madison. Personnel-related issues· to be addressed include but are not limited to: 1. Use of compensatory leave 2. Overtime 3. Vacancies (at all secure youth facilities) 4. Layoff plan
a. Transfers to other facilities
5. Movement of positions 6. Termination pay (estimated at $3500 per employee) 7. Survey of SCCY-Madison staff regarding job location preferences VI. Staffing/Case Review Process of Youth at SCCY-Madison 1. The staffing/case review that will occur in March 2004 on each "non-LITE"
youth at SCCY-Madison will be fashioned similarly to a multidisciplinary staffing with team members from treatment, education and security programs. The youth's prioritized needs delineated in his individual intervention plan (liT) and level of progress towards meeting these goals will weigh heavily in the decision-making of the multi-disciplinary team. 2. Youth will be recommended for transfer to JCCY and SCCY-Monroe in two broad categories: 1) Therapeutic Community Youth and 2) General Population Youth. Within these two groups the youth will be subdivided into three (3) smaller groups. Group One will contain youth with little or no significant behavioral or intense treatment recommendations. Group Two will contain youth with recognizable behavioral and significant treatment concerns. Finally, Group Three will contain youth with both significant
7

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 208 Filed 03/05/2004 Page 16 of 17
behavioral and treatment concerns. Effort will be made to transfer no more than one youth from Group Three per week to SCCY-Monroe and JCCY. 3. A designated treatment staff member at the receiving facility (JCCYor SCCY-Monroe) will receive notice of the SCCY-Madison transfer at least two working days prior to the transfer so that the receiving facility can insure a successful transition for the youth and have the opportunity to speak with the youth's case manager at SCCY-Madison. VII. Facility Inventory (Equipment and Supplies) (Under construction) VIII. Records Retention 1. Youth (education, medical, case files, etc.) 2. Personnel/Payroll 3. Business Office 4. Log books and other operational documents IX. Timeline of Events The timeline of events between March 5, 2004 and May 20, 2004 will be constructed once the case review is completed at SCCY-Madison (March 8 - 10, 2004) and once the Office of Civil Service has assisted OYD with an appropriate personnel action plan.
8

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 208 Filed 03/05/2004 Page 17 of 17
SCCY - Madison Case Reviews
Date:

Name: JIRMS# Need Areas:

DOD: Housing:

Recommendation:

-
Signatures:

 
 Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 203 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

HAYES WILLIAMS, et al.

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

JOHN McKEITHEN, et al.

)

Defendants,

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

Amicus Curiae.

)

)

IN RE: JUVENILE FACILITIES

)

)

IN RE: TALLULAH CORRECTIONAL )

CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: JETSON CORRECTIONAL

)

CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: SWANSON CORRECTIONAL )

CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: LOUISIANA TRAINING

)

INSTITUTE - BRIDGE CITY)

)

IN RE: JENA JUVENILE JUSTICE )

CENTER

)

-----------------------------) )

BRIAN B., et al.

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

RICHARD STALDER, et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

------------------------------)

Civ. No. 71-98-B
Civ. No. CH 97-MS-OOI-B Civ. No. CH 97-0665-B-Ml Civ. No. CH 97-0666-B-Ml Civ. No. CH 97-0667-B-Ml civ. No. CH 97-0668-B-Ml Civ. No. CH 98-0804-B-Ml
Civ. No. 98-886-B-Ml

-1-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 203 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 2 of 5

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA,

)

et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

)

)

A.A., et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS CORP., )

et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

-----------------------------)

Civ. No. 98-947-B-V/ Civ. No. 00-246-C-Ml

JOINT MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF MEDICAL CLAIMS AT ALL FACILITIES AND FOR DISMISSAL OF ALL CLAIMS
PERTAINING TO SCCY-MADISON AND BCCCY

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come the State of Louisiana (the

"State"), the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ"), and private plaintiffs in these

consolidated actions who state as follows:

1. The parties have entered a private settlement agreement (the 2004 Settlement) that

has incorporated certain obligations from previous settlement agreements.

2. As part of the 2004 Settlement, the State and the DOJ have agreed to continue the

services of James Austin, a recognized expert in juvenile corrections, to assist and work with the

State to implement the new agreement and to submit periodic reports on the State's compliance with

the agreement.

-2-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 203 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 3 of 5
3. The 2004 Settlement Agreement has been executed and is effective between the State and the DOl. The 2004 Settlement Agreement will be effective between the State and private plaintiffs if (1) the Court provides preliminary approval of the 2004 Settlement Agreement for purposes ofproviding notice to the class under Rule 23 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) the Court approves the notice to the class members and schedules a hearing to consider comments from the class members (if necessary) under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (3) the Court provides final approval of the 2004 Settlement Agreement. The proposed order contains language regarding notice to the class members and a proposed date and time for a hearing to receive comments from members of the class.
WHEREFORE, the parties move the Court to dismiss, with prejudice, all claims in these actions relating to medical services at Louisiana's secure juvenile facilities;
The parties further move the Court to dismiss, with prejUdice, all claims in these actions pertaining to Swanson Correctional Center for Youth - Madison Parish Unit and Bridge City
,
Correctional Center for Youth, except to the extent provided in paragraph 6(C) of the 2004 Settlement Agreement.
The private plaintiffs and State further move the Court to provide preliminary approval of the 2004 Settlement Agreement for purposes of providing notice to the class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and
The private plaintiffs and State further move the Court to approve the notice to class members and schedule a hearing to receive comments from members of the class.
-3-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 203 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 4 of 5

In all other respects, the parties stipulate and agree that these actions should remain

administratively closed.

This Joint Motion to Dismiss is entered on this J/;/"day of January, 2004.

FOR DEFENDANTS

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND ITS OFFICES, AGENCIES, AND DEPARTMENTS
RICHARD P. IEYOUB General for the Louisiana

Ri

Bar Roll 4671

M. Bre Hicks, Bar Roll 23778

McGlinchey Stafford PLLC

One American Place Suite 9000

Baton Rouge, LA 70825

Telephone: (225) 383-9000

Fax: (225) 382 - 3725

I 0/)//03

DATE

R. Alexander Acosta Assistan~ Attorney General
CiVilrhts Division
d1 "-----
$lianetta Y. Cutlar, Chief /Judith C. Preston, Deputy Chief
Jeffrey J. Resetarits Mark Daly Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 616-9710 Fax: (202 ) 514 - 6903
1-2/~*~
DATE

FOR PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS
Bar Roll 8556 June Denlinger, B r Roll 1823 Nordyke and Denli ger Box 237 Baton Rouge, La. 70825 Telephone: (225) 383-3601 Fax: (225) 383 - 2 725
leA hi /63
DATE 7 I

DAVID R. DUGAS UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE

\

MIDDLE DISTRI T OF LOUISIANA

~~_~.....L..-~~_-,.q----L_ _t::t_ S I J Y
ohn J. Gaupp, LBN Asst. United States Attorney 777 Florida Street, Suite 208 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801 Telephone: (225) 389-0443 Fax: (225) 389-0685

-4-

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 203 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 5 of 5
A ~ I{ tJ~ jp. f.vl..
Gabriella Celeste, Bar #25t6af . -
David Utter, Bar #23236 Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana 1600 Oretha Castle Haley Blvd. New Orleans, LA 70113 Tel: (504) 522-5437 Fax: (504) 522-5430 DAtE ;;
- 5-

 
 Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 1 of 48

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO . THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISI

OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, ~ £1.,
Defendants.

Civi1 ",! Nr::!":"-. ,Coij.L-.\e;l.QR:J.K.;SJ~Ii?;9;Jf~F~IC:E=-J

HAYES WILLIAMS, ~ aI., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN McKEITHEN, ~ al.,
Defendants, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Amicus Curiae. IN RE: JUVENILE FACILITIES IN RE: JENA JUVENILE JUSTICE
CENTER FOR YOUTH

Civil No. 71-98-B
Civil No. CH 97-MS-001-B Civil No. 98-804-B-Ml

BRIAN B., ~ al., Plaintiffs,
v.
RICHARD STALDER, ~ al. I Defendants.

Civil No. 98-886-B-Ml

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REGARDING
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT AT THE JENA JUVENILE JUSTICE CENTER

III "" 111111 3:98-cv-00947 172 - 1

DATE: 104/105/1010

DEPUTY CLERK: HJ

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 2 of 48
, ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background ...................................................... 3
I. STANDARD FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION . . . . . . . . . . 6
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Defendants routinely expose youth to staff abuse and juvenile-on-juvenile violence without adequate response .............................................. 7
1. Staff abuse and juvenile-on-juvenile violence ...... 7
2. Defendants' inadequate response to the violence ... 10
3. Other conditions at Jena exacerbate the violence .. 11
a. Work force problems at Jena contribute to the unsafe environment .......... '" ..... 11
b. Insufficient float space and high density in 48 bed dormitories ...................... 12
B. Defendants expose many juveniles at Jena to abusive and life-threatening use of chemical restraints and fail to respond adequately to incidents where chemical restraints are used inappropriately ......... 13
1. Defendants' unlawful conduct and the resulting harm to juveniles on November 27, 1999 ............ 13
2. Defendants' inadequate response to the events of November 27, 1999 .................................... 15
3. Other inappropriate uses of chemical restraints ... 17
C. Defendants routinely isolate juveniles under unduly harsh conditions, for unjustified reasons, and for durations unrelated to the behavior of the juveniles ............................................ 18
D. Defendants fail to provide adequate supervision, reasonable safety, and adequate mental health care for suicidal and self-injurious youth ................ 20
E. Improper use of mechanical and mental health restraints ........................................... 23
III. ARGUMENT
A. The United States is likely to succeed on the merits ............................................... 24

· .

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 3 of 48

1. The appropriate constitutional standard ... : ..... 25
2. The violence and abuse at Jena violates juveniles' right to reasonable safety........... 28
3. Defendants' use of chemical restraints violates juveniles' rights to reasonable safety and freedom from unreasonable restraints ............ 32
4. Defendants' use of excessive, unjustified and unmonitored isolation violates juveniles' right to freedom from unreasonable restraint.'... 34
5. Defendants' failure to adequately supervise and protect suicidal and self-mutilating youth violates their rights to reasonable safety and adequate mental health care ..................... 36
6. Jena's inappropriate use of mental health and mechanical restraints violates juveniles' rights to freedom from unreasonable restraints, to reasonable safety, and, for mentally disabled juveniles, to adequate mental health care ....... 38
B. There is a substantial threat that juveniles at Jena will be irreparably injured if the injunction is , denied ............................................... 39
C. The threatened injury outweighs any damage to the defendants ........................................... 42
D. The injunction will not disserve the public interest.43
E. The relief sought complies with the Prison Litigation Reform Act ........................ '................... 44
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

· .

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 4 of 48

The United States moves this Court for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a), Local Rule 65 of the Uniform Dist. Ct. Rules, D. La., and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141. The State and Wackenhut Corrections Corporation are jeopardizing the lives and health of many of the juveniles confined in the Jena Juvenile Justice Center, by failing to protect them from harm, providing them with inadequate mental health care, and subjecting them to unreasonable restraints.~/
Therefore, the United States moves for a preliminary injunction to: 1) enjoin the use of corporal punishment or excessive force by Jena staff; 2) hire a sufficient number of qualified staff and provide staffing training to provide adequate safety and security; 3) develop and implement an adequate response to the violence at Jena, including improved abuse reporting mechanisms, an improved investigation system, adequate responses to substantiated abuse, and adequate employment screening; 4) reduce the population density of dormitories to provide adequate safety and security and provide sufficient space for appropriate classification of juveniles; 5) enjoin the use of gas grenades; 6) limit the use of chemical restraints at Jena to
li Through this motion, the United States seeks preliminary
relief only for the most serious constitutional deprivations to which the juveniles at Jena are exposed, which need to be and can be corrected through immediate actions by the defendants. We anticipate resolving the constitutional deprivations that require more complex, longer-term remedies through settlement or litigation.
2

· .'

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 5 of 48

situations where there is a genuine risk of serious bodily harm to another and other less intrusive methods of restraint are not reasonably available; 7) impose limitations on the use of isolation and mechanical restraints on juveniles at Jena; 8) enjoin the use of four and five point restraints by correctional staff; 9) impose limitations on the use of isolation and restraints at Jena on juveniles with mental retardation or mental health needs to situations and methods that comport with accepted professional standards; 10) to provide adequate mental health treatment r supervision r and housing for juveniles who engage in suicidal and self-injurious behavior; 11) enjoin disciplinary or punitive action against juveniles who exhibit self-injurious or suicidal behavior; and 12) eliminate obvious suicide hazards in the facility.
Background
In 1998 r before the Court would permit the State to transfer juveniles to the newly-built Jena, the Court requested that the
United States, amicus in Williams v. McKeithen, No. 71-98-B, and
In re: Juvenile Facilities r No. CH 97-MS-001-B (together referred to as "Williams"), evaluate the proposed plans for the opening of the facility. The Court was concerned about the opening of a new secure juvenile correctional facility and stated that Jena was "not opening unless we get everything on board. We're not going to have another Tallulah at Jena." Transcript of August 10, 1998 Status Conference at 19. Together with Williams

3

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 6 of 48
plaintiffs, we negotiated a "private settlement agreement"2./ with the State and Wackenhut, which provided for specific measures to govern Jena's operation and contribute to the safety of the juveniles to be confined there. This agreement, called the Jena Interim Agreement, also provided that after Jena was up and running, the United States and its experts would evaluate conditions of confinement at Jena and file reports with the Court. ~ Exhibit A.
Jena opened in December 1998. Allowing the facility time to get on its feet, we initially monitored conditions by reviewing documents periodically produced by Wackenhut and reading the Court Expert's and the State's reports. The Court Expert, John Whitley, documented problems at the facility right from the start. Mr. Whitley noticed some improvements with security during the summer of 1999 when the State had a presence at Jena, but noted that security problems reverted when the State left Jena in September 1999. Mr. Whitley'S reports made clear that over the course of Jena's initial year of operation, some problems have never been resolved. In December 1999, Mr. Whitley concluded: "My impression of the Jena Juvenile Justice Center, if no major changes are made, is that it is a disaster waiting to happen." December 13, 1999 Whitley Report at 13.
21 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a "private
settlement agreement" is defined as an agreement "that is not subject to court enforcement other than the reinstatement of the civil proceeding that the agreement settled." 18 U.S.C.
§ 3626(c) (2).
4

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 7 of 48
We toured Jena in January 2000 with four experts. At the end of each tour, our experts provided exit interviews to counsel for Wackenhut and the State, as well as to Jena staff, to give Jena the benefit of their initial thoughts and an opportunity to begin to take corrective action immediately. On February 23, 2000, we filed our expert reports with the Court and promised to seek a negotiated agreement with the parties before enlisting judicial assistance. Exhibit B, Response of the United States to the Court's November 6, 1998 Order Concerning the Jena Juvenile Justice Center ("Response") (without attachments) at 2. Part II of the Jena Interim Agreement, which covers limitations on the use of isolation and chemical and mechanical restraints, lapsed with the filing of our expert reports. Efforts to negotiate a consensual remedy to the problems at Jena have been unsuccessful.
In the course of conducting its monitoring obligations under the Jena Interim Agreement, the United States found that juveniles at Jena are subjected to life-threatening and hazardous conditions. The United States attaches affidavits from each of our experts, as well as their respective reports regarding conditions at Jena, in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction as follows: Affidavit and report of protection from harm expert, Dr. Nancy Ray (Exhibit C); Affidavit, updated CV, and report of mental health care expert, Dr. Kathleen Quinn (Exhibit D); Affidavit and report of medical care expert, Dr. Michael Cohen (Exhibit E) i and Affidavit and report of juvenile justice expert, Mr. Paul DeMuro (Exhibit F) .
5

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 8 of 48
I. STANDARD FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The Fifth Circuit's legal standard for issuance of a
preliminary injunction is well established. The moving party must carry the burden of persuasion as to all of the following four elements:
1. There is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
2. There is a substantial threat that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is denied;
3. The threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction may cause the defendants; and
4. The injunction will not disserve the public interest. Sugar Busters LLC v. Brennan, 177 F.3d 258, 264-65 (5th Cir. 1999), citing Hoover v. Morales, 164 F.3d 221, 224 (5th Cir. 1998), and Sunbeam Products. Inc. v. West Bend Co., 123 F.3d 246, 250 (5th Cir. 1997); Affiliated Professional Home Health Care Agency v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 282, 284 (5th Cir. 1999). In addition, the injunction sought must comply with the terms of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (a) (2) .
In the case at bar, an analysis of the relevant facts and law reveals that the issuance of injunctive relief is appropriate because each of the four elements required for the issuance of a preliminary injunction is met and the injunction sought complies with the PLRA.
6

· .

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 9 of 48

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Defendants routinely expose youth to staff abuse and juvenile-on-juvenile violence without adequate response. 1. Staff abuse and juvenile-on-juvenile violence As fully discussed in our February 23, 2000 Response~/ and
as delineated in the attached expert reports, defendants subject juveniles at Jena to routine physical abuse and overly aggressive uses of force by staff, including punches, take downs, and body slams.~/ ~ Exhibit B at 8-9, Exhibit C at 3-12j Exhibit F at 9-11j Exhibit D at 21-22j Exhibit E at 43. Defendants resort to using force, including physical take downs and restraints, too quickly in addressing minor acts of non-compliance, use group and corporal punishment, and engage in taunting, provoking, and humiliating conduct towards juveniles. ~ Exhibit Bat 8-9j Exhibit C at 5-12, 16-22j Exhibit F at 9-11, 15j Exhibit D at 2122.
Officers at Jena slam youth against walls and doors, harshly rub their faces on cement floors and walkways, take away their

Y In order to avoid as much repetition of the facts as
possible, we incorporate herein by reference the facts set forth in our Response, as if fully set forth herein. Furthermore, the United States has several boxes of documents and other materials regarding Jena, many of which were provided by the defendants to the United States, that support our motion. These documents and materials will be introduced at an evidentiary hearing and are available for inspection and copying by the defendants.
~ Even before the United States' tour of Jena, we received allegations of staff abuse which we forwarded to defendants. ~ Exhibits G-K (letters from Justice Department attorneys to counsel for the State and Wackenhut) (names of juveniles and staff have been redacted) .
7

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 10 of 48
clothing, require them to squiggle on their bellies across the floor, and make them squat naked with their buttocks spread apart for several minutes during strip searches. Exhibit C at 5. Defendants even violently restrain some youth with chronic medical conditions that require careful handling. For example, staff used force on LB, a juvenile with a colostomy bag. LBls intestine was pushed out of the colostomy hole, creating a risk of trauma or infection.~/
With respect to juvenile-on-juvenile violence, there is a very high incidence of juvenile fights in the facility with injuries resulting from these altercations. Exhibit C at 3; Exhibit D at 21-25; Exhibit E at 43-44; Exhibit F at 9. Staff sometimes will not and sometimes lack the training to intervene to stop the violence. ~ Exhibit C at 17. There is also evidence that some staff encourage or recruit stronger juveniles to fight other youth. Exhibit F at 9. Some juveniles have felt so unsafe in the facility, that they reported that they hoped to spend the rest of their time in lock-down without school or recreation in order to ensure their protection. £ee Exhibit C at 3.
~ On March 8, 2000, the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court removed LB from Jena and ordered that he be held at the Community Youth Center in Orleans Parish pending appropriate placement. ~ Exhibit L, In re L.B., 99-032-02-Q-F (Orleans Parish Juv. Ct. 3/8/2000). The court found Uconstitutional violations of gross proportions in the areas of excessive use of force, mental health treatment, and education." .I.d. at 13. The court found that u • •• through the actions of the Usystem," he [LB] wound up in a place that drives and treats juveniles as if they walked on all fours." .I.d. at 16.
8

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 11 of 48

Juveniles at Jena are sustaining an unacceptably high rate

of traumatic injuries, almost all of which are attributed to

officers' use of force or fights among youth. Exhibit C at 9-10.

For example, Dr. Ray found that in the 54-day period from

November 28, 1999 until January 20, 2000:

•

There were 104 reported traumatic injuries to youth, or

two traumatic injuries per day;

•

At least one-fourth of the youth at Jena had been

traumatically injured at least once during this brief

period;

•

There were 66 reported orthopedic injuries to youth at

Jena, and in almost all of these cases, youth were

x-rayed for suspected fractures or serious sprains or

strains to various body parts including hands, wrists,

feet, ankles, backs, spines, jaws, shoulders, noses,

ribs, knees, and hips;

•

Twenty-five youth were sent for assessments, usually

x-rays, or other treatment for hand injuries, ,

reflective of the number of physical fights at Jena;

•

There were 40 non-orthopedic traumatic injuries,

including lacerations requiring sutures, youths having

teeth knocked out, and busted lips;

•

There were five reports of youth alleging sexual

assaults, only two of which had been formally

investigated; and

•

Eight youth either harmed or tried to kill themselves.

Exhibit C at 9-15.

The incidence of documented use of force has been increasing

since November 1999. Exhibit C at 17. Dr. Ray concludes that

"the frequency and seriousness of these incidents [of use of

force], coupled with the high rate of serious traumatic injuries

to youth at the institution, provide hard empirical evidence that

the Jena Center is a dangerous place to be." Exhibit C at 18.

9

, .

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 12 of 48

The United States' medical expert, Dr. Cohen, and its mental health expert, Dr. Quinn, find that the level of violence at Jena is detrimental to the medical and mental health of juveniles.
£ee Exhibit E at 43-44 (reporting unusually high rates of stress-
related disorders such as hypertension and ulcers in the facility); Exhibit D at 21-24 (citing case examples of a pattern of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse with a lack of an organized institutional response) .
2. Defendants' inadequate response to the violence Defendants do not take adequate measures to respond to the violence at Jena. Jena's abuse investigation process is broken, such that it offers juveniles few, if any, protections. ~ Exhibit B at 9-12; Exhibit C at 9. Dr. Ray delineates serious barriers to reporting allegations of abuse; a pattern of institutional staff not acting on complaints that were filed;Q/ many staff not being aware of their obligations to report abuse within and outside of the facility with the predictable consequence of a failure to report many abuses; and critical flaws in the investigation of the complaints that are acted upon, including the failure to follow standard investigation procedures and bias against juvenile accounts of incidents. Exhibit C at 23-29. Dr. Ray found that "hundreds" of incidents of suspected or

& Dr. Ray finds that Jena's senior officials and investigators
disregard or fail to take seriously youth reports of sexual abuse. Exhibit C at 14.
10

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 13 of 48
alleged staff-on-youth abuse over the past year were never investigated, many of which were more serious than those which were investigated. Exhibit C at 29; ~ Exhibit B at 11 (citing examples of allegations of abuse that were never investigated) .
Despite the routine oversight of the Jena investigator by the State Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPS&C), there is no evidence that obvious deficiencies in the abuse investigation system were detected, much less remedied, by the State or Wackenhut officials.
3. Other conditions at Jena exacerbate the violence a. Work force problems at Jena contribute to the unsafe environment
There are tremendously high rates of staff and administrator turnover at Jena, severe staff shortages, and frequent use,of overtime. ~ Exhibit C at 40; ~ Exhibit B at 14-16. These unremedied problems result in juveniles being supervised by overworked and inexperienced staff. Id. at 43. There is evidence that in some cases officers have simply left their posts rather than stay for mandatory overtime. Exhibit C at 42. There is even evidence that staff have left juveniles in the cell block units unattended. ~ Exhibit F at 10.
Not only is the correctional staff inexperienced, but many supervisory staff lack juvenile justice experience and do not have the training to match their job responsibilities. Exhibit F at 9. Line staff are also inadequately trained for their positions, especially in using verbal, nonphysical interventions to de-escalate confrontations. Exhibit F at 8, 14; Exhibit D at
11

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 14 of 48
25. Jena is failing to take reasonable measures to ensure that
staff do not have past criminal records or employment experiences that make them unsuited to work at the facility. Sae Exhibit C at 44-50; ~ Exhibit B at 15, 16. There is evidence that some employees have been hired and maintained on the payroll despite identified histories of criminal arrests and convictions. Jena's inadequate hiring practices have led to an unusually high termination rate at the facility during its first year.
b. Insufficient float space and high density in 48 bed dormitories.
Jena cannot adequately supervise 48 juveniles housed in each of the Falcon C and D and the Eagle C and D units. Dr. Quinn described these 48-bed dormitories as loud, chaotic, and barely in control. Exhibit D at 22. Dr. Quinn reports that these living units exceed the population limit standards set by the American Correctional Association for living units in juvenile training schools such as Jena. Exhibit D at 22. Mr. DeMuro notes that on the 48-bed dormitories, the acoustics are poor and when all 48 juveniles are in the unit, it is difficult for staff to supervise them. Exhibit F at 12. Moreover, there is a lack of float space in the facility - empty beds that staff can use to move juveniles into or out of a particular unit. Dorms generally operate at full capacity, preventing Jena from transferring a youth due to a special need or as a reward for positive behavior without displacing another youth. Exhibit D at 27.
12

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 15 of 48

B. Defendants expose many juveniles at Jena to abusive and life-threatening use of chemical restraints and fail to respond adequately to incidents where chemical restraints are used inappropriately.

Jena endangers the life and health of juveniles and injures

some juveniles through its dangerous and unreasonable use of

chemical restraints, as illustrated by the examples below.

1. Defendants' unlawful conduct and the resulting harm to juveniles on November 27. 1999

On November 27, 1999, the defendants deployed a "triple

chaser grenade", which is a CS gas grenade, indoors into the

Falcon C unit, that at the time housed at least 46 youth (some of

whom were being compliant and already in bed) and several Jena

staff. The grenade was deployed because allegedly some of the

juveniles were yelling and kicking a trash can. Defendants

risked the lives of at least 46 juveniles and several staff by

using a grenade whose manufacturer's specifications specifically

state that it "is designed for outdoor use in crowd control

situations

It should not be deployed.

indoors due

to its fire producing capability." (emphasis added). Exhibit F at

6 and attachment to the report. The gas from the grenade

permeated some of the other units in the building, which had to

be evacuated.

After the use of the grenade, juveniles were ordered to lie

face down outdoors on concrete in the cold, some in only their

underwear, for approximately five hours. Exhibit E at 7.

Defendants also sprayed at least four juveniles with a hand-held

canister of "Deep Freeze" mace while they were on the ground.

13

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 16 of 48
Exhibit E at 5-6. On at least two occasions, two groups of youths were ordered to go back into Falcon C before the gas had been ventilated - the youth claim for punishment because they were complaining about being cold. Exhibit F at 7.
TH, a youth with a history of a seizure disorder, was exposed to gas three times that evening including being subjected to the grenade, being ordered back into the unit where the gas was still noxious, and then being sprayed in the face with "Deep Freeze" while lying down outside. He began to shake violently immediately after he was sprayed with "Deep Freeze." Exhibit E at 6. A nurse found him unresponsive and he was taken to the emergency room. ~. His face was red and swollen, and he complained of burning in his eyes. Two days after the incident, he complained of blurred vision, face burning, and soreness to his left eye. About four days after the incident, he complained about his face being burned and the nurse observed that his skin was peeling. Dr. Cohen found evidence of repeated failures to provide this juvenile with adequate medical care after his exposure to chemical restraints. Id. at 5-8.
Defendants used the gas grenade and the "Deep Freeze" Spray without regard for the juveniles' chronic medical conditions, such as asthma. Exhibit E at 8. For example, DH, an asthmatic youth, was subjected to the teargas grenade in Falcon C, and was seen by the facility physician after he complained of the aftereffects of the chemical agents. His respiratory rate was abnormally high, evidencing active asthma, but he was not
14

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 17 of 48
provided treatment for his asthma. Exhibit E at 8. 2. Defendants' inadequate response to the events of November 27, 1999
The Jena Project Zero Tolerance ("PZT") investigator concluded that the use of chemical restraints appeared to be within acceptable limits. Mr. DeMuro finds that the investigation was flawed because the investigator took an active part in the incident, the investigator failed to interview key staff and juveniles, and there was no investigation of the use of chemical spray on the walkway or the taking of juveniles back into the noxious gas. Exhibit F at 6.21
Defendant Wackenhut's response to the incident is that, other than failing to comply with the notification provisions of the Interim Agreement, they believe their conduct in using ,the chemical restraints complies with the Interim Agreement.~1 ~
,
Exhibit M, Wackenhut Response to December 22, 1999 Report, Jena Juvenile Justice Center at 4-6 (names of juveniles have been redacted). Wackenhut also states that it would be permissible to use the Triple Chaser Grenade in an enclosed space of approximately 4200 square feet. Id. at 4. Defendant Wackenhut
1/ "Deep Freeze" was used the same night on Eagle D dormitory
and Jena's investigative report on that incident also found that the use of chemical spray was within acceptable limits, without the investigator having conducted substantive interviews of staff and juveniles.
~ The United States believes that in addition to multiple uses of excessive force on November 27, 1999, the Interim Agreement was violated in at least five different ways that evening. The United States discussed these violations in its Response. Exhibit B at 21-22.
15

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 18 of 48

did not adequately investigate the staff involved in the use of

chemical restraints on the night of November 27, 1999. Nor did

Wackenhut take any disciplinary action regarding the involved

staff.52../

As for the State, its investigation was also flawed and

incomplete. Assistant Secretary of Corrections, Billy Travis,

reported to Secretary Stalder on December 3, 1999, regarding the

sae events of November 27, 1999.

Exhibit 0, December 3, 1999

Report of Assistant Secretary B.R. Travis to Secretary Stalder

re: Jena Juvenile Justice Center. Mr. Travis did not address

whether any of the force used that evening was excessive in light

of DPS&C's use of force regulations. He stated only that the

Assistant Warden made a "terrible mistake" in giving the

Lieutenant the authority to use his discretion to deploy the gas

grenade, thereby violating the Interim Agreement; and that there

was a staffing problem that night. ~. at 3. Thus, the State

has not made any finding that excessive force was used, and there

is no evidence that the State has taken sufficient remedial

~ In a letter regarding the Triple Chaser grenade used at Jena, counsel for Wackenhut indicates that this type of chemical has been removed from the facility. Exhibit N, February II, 2000, Andrew T. McMains letter to Iris Goldschmidt, at 2. This is an inadequate response, as Jena's arsenal contains another kind of CS grenade (Federal #519) which is encircled by a warning label that states, " . . . for outdoor use only. May release lethal
concentration indoors." (emphasis added). .s..e.e Exhibit E at 4.
Wackenhut also reports that additional instruction and training have been provided to the facility administration to ensure that all responsible staff have adequate knowledge of the provisions the Interim Agreement. Exhibit M at 8. This is insufficient given that Wackenhut interprets the Interim Agreement as having permitted their conduct on November 27, 1999.
16

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 19 of 48
measures to address the use of chemical restraints on November
27, 1999, and forcing juveniles to remain on the ground semidressed for hours.~/
3. Other inappropriate uses of chemical restraints
The use of a gas grenade on November 27, 1999, is not an
isolated event. On December 19, 1998, the facility used a gas
grenade indoors to quell a disturbance. Immediately after the
incident, the United States wrote to the State and Wackenhut, expressing its concern regarding the inability of the facility to
intervene in a timely manner in order to address a behavioral
disturbance by juveniles without resorting to using a gas grenade. ~ Exhibit G. In the same letter, the United States
also expressed concern that Mr. Pepper, the State's investigator, made no finding in his report regarding whether the use of the gas grenade constituted excessive force.~/ Id.
Jena also documented 32 chemical spray incidents at the
facility in 1999 in its PZT log. Exhibit C at 16. The United
States notified defendants of allegations of improper uses of
10/ Even when the United States wrote to the State and Wackenhut requesting specific information concerning the use of chemical restraints on November 27, 1999, including a question about what remedial measures were being taken, the State simply referred the questions to Wackenhut and did not otherwise respond to our specific questions. ~ Exhibit P, December 22, 1999, facsimile from Richard Curry to Steven Rosenbaum, enclosing letter to Andrew T. McMains.
11/ During its January 2000 tours of Jena, the United States learned that the grenade that was used in the December 19, 1998, incident was the F519; one of the same grenades stored in the facility's arsenal and labeled n ••• for outdoor use only. May release lethal concentration indoors" (emphasis added). ~ Exhibit E at 4.
17

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 20 of 48

chemical spray as early as January 8, 1999. ~ Exhibit H. In

response to our letter, Wackenhut admitted that it did in fact

spray a juvenile in order to prevent him from breaking a

sprinkler head in his room, apparently taking the position that

this was not an excessive use of force. ~ Exhibit Q, January

28, 1999 letter from Amber Rives to Kevin Russell.

As recently as March 7, 2000, the facility used "Deep

Freeze," a hand-held chemical spray, on two juveniles who

allegedly refused to stop beating and kicking their cell door.

Exhibit R, March 7, 2000 Use of Force form and March 8, 2000

facsimile from Asst. Warden Simms to John P. Whitley with

attached incident report and Unusual Occurrence Reports (names of

juveniles and staff have been redacted). This is another

instance where the facility used a chemical restraint for

juvenile conduct that did not pose an immediate physical harm to

anyone nor was any alternative use of force other than giving

orders attempted before these juveniles were sprayed.

C.

Defendants routinely isolate juveniles under unduly

harsh conditions, for unjustified reasons, and for

durations unrelated to the behavior of the

juveniles.

Defendants impermissibly isolate juveniles at Jena.~/

Exhibit C at 37-39. Many juveniles in the cell blocks are

confined to their cells from the late afternoon to the next

morning. Juveniles who do not attend school are locked in their

12/ Both practices

Mr. DeMuro and Dr. violated the Interi

Ray found m Agreeme

th nt.

a

tsaJeanEa'xsh

iso ibit

lation C at 38,

Exhibit F at 16.

18

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 21 of 48
cells during the day as well.~/ ~. at 38-39. In addition to these isolation practices, the facility often places juveniles on lockdown. IO. For example, Jena documented at least 98 lockdowns of 63 different juveniles in December 1999; however, Dr. Ray states there is strong evidence that many lockdowns were not documented. Moreover, most facility documentation lacks narratives explaining what the youth had done to warrant lockdown and how the juvenile was behaving on lockdown. Id. at 38-39.
Mr. DeMuro finds that youth placed in Falcon A unit as a result of being judged to be "out of control" or "being a danger to security" are subject to "extensive periods of room confinement and punishment in Falcon A before having a disciplinary hearing." Exhibit F at 12. Even if most of these youth regain control in a short period of time, they are still excluded from the general population and subjected to long periods of room confinement in Falcon A while they await disciplinary hearings, which generally do not occur in a timely fashion. Exhibit F at 11-12. Mr. DeMuro also reports that staff do not visually monitor juveniles in isolation every fifteen minutes. Id. at 11.
The conditions of confinement while youth are locked in their cells is unreasonable. Many youth are confined to small, locked cells with only a metal bunk, covered by a two-inch mattress, and a metal sink and toilet for 15 or more hours per
LV Eighty four of the 276 juveniles at Jena live in cell block
dorms. 19

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 22 of 48
day. Exhibit C at 8. Dr. Ray reports that almost all of the
youth on Falcon A, the cell block used for administrative
segregation, do not have one full set of clothing to wear and
that many of the youth on Falcon A and B are wearing dirty
clothes. Exhibit C at 33.
D. Defendants fail to provide adequate supervision, reasonable safety, and adequate mental health care for suicidal and self-injurious youth.
Suicide attempts and self inflicted wounds occur frequently
at the facility.~/ Jena's psychiatrist and psychologist
describe a pattern of repetitious offender self-mutilation to
escape the dangers of the Jena general population, but neither
could describe Jena's approach to addressing the root causes of
the self-injurious behavior. Exhibit D at 13. Defendants do not
have mental health behavioral plans for self-injurious behavior;
they do not adequately monitor self-injurious and suicidal youth;
~ The United States has learned of several recent suicide gestures and attempts which have occurred at Jena since our experts' tours in January 2000. For example, on March 14, 2000, youth JS was discovered in his cell with a rope of socks tied around his neck and to the cell door. When he refused to untie the rope, guards took him to the ground and cut the rope off his neck. JS voiced suicidal ideations. He was escorted to medical, where he talked by phone with Jena's psychologist and signed an "agreement." Officers wrote him a "disciplinary [ticket]" and returned him to his cell. Less than three hours later, JS was discovered in his cell with another instrument of suicide -- this time a shoelace was tied around his neck and to the bed. £ae Exhibit S, February 14, 2000 Unusual Occurrence Reports regarding JS. On February 25, 2000, juvenile MJ tied a shirt around his neck and tied the other end to an overhead bar. £ee Exhibit T, February 25, 2000 Duty Officer Report. On February 26, 2000, juvenile LH was discovered with a towel around his neck and was sent to the emergency room because he was shaking and his blood pressure was low. ~ Exhibit U, February 26, 2000 Duty Officer Report.
20

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 23 of 48

they house suicidal and self-mutilating juveniles in unsafe areas

where these juveniles are not protected from physical harm.

Exhibit D at 13-17, 18-20j Exhibit F at 13. Juveniles with

patterns of suicidal and self-injurious behavior are exposed to

suicide hazards that are obvious, and many of which have already

been used for self harm at the facility.~/ Exhibit D at 13-17,

18-20; Exhibit F at 13. Defendants also use punitive and

coercive responses to self-injurious behavior r even though Jena's

psychiatrist acknowledges that the use of tickets r chemical

spray, and removal of mattresses is not standard practice and is

anti-therapeutic. Exhibit D at 13-17, 18-20.

The serious injuries and life-threatening situations that

some juveniles at Jena experience are illustrated by TG. TG, a

small juvenile with mental retardation and a history of Attention

Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, has attempted to harm himself

over 10 times at Jena from methods such as threatening to hurt

himself with a syringe, hanging, cutting himself r and attempting

to drown himself. Exhibit D at 23. Some of his recent

experiences at the facility have included:

•

On May 6 r 1999 r TG threatened to kill himself with a needle

and syringe r indicating that he was being victimized by

youth wanting sexual favors and taking his canteen. The

psychologist's response to TG's allegation was to refer TG

to the psychiatrist. Exhibit D at 14.

bY On March 2, 2000, a DPS&C employee monitoring Jena reported
that he had found a glass bottle in a cellon the Falcon A unit which houses special needs juveniles. ApparentlYr one of the correctional staff had given it to the juvenile. See Exhibit V, Jena Juvenile Justice Weekly Monitoring Report dated March 2, 2000.
21

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 24 of 48

•

The very next day, on May 7, 1999, the psychologist's note

describes that the juvenile was physically assaulted by five

other youth in his dorm. Xd.

:

•

On May 10, 1999, TG had a sheet tied around his neck. Id.

:~

at 20j Exhibit W, TG juvenile record page JJJ003983.

•

On June 23, 1999, he had cuts on his inner right arm and a

belt around his neck. Id.

•

On June 25, 1999, he asked the psychiatrist if he could go

to Bridge City, and on June 28, 1999 he made a similar

request to the psychologist due to continued physical and

sexual victimization. Id.

•

On July 2, 1999, he had a belt around his neck and was

attempting to drown himself in the toilet. Id. at 20.

•

On July 7, 1999, he was found with a sheet around his neck

that was affixed to the bar in the window in his cell. He

was left in this cell after this attempt. Review of his

medical record indicates no mental health order for

precaution or initiation of suicide watch. Id.

•

On August 1, 1999, he was found threatening to jump off the

top bunk in his cell while a shoelace was tied around 'his

neck and was affixed to the window. The shoelace had to be

cut off. .!.d.

•

On August 23, 1999, he was found under his bed with a belt

around his neck. The facility responded by giving him a

disciplinary ticket and a reprimand. Id. at 15.

•

On October 28, 1999, the psychologist observed TG with

abrasions, a right eye bruised and swollen, as well as his

nose and jaw swollen. TG reported that peers were taking

his food as well as forcing him to perform sexual acts. If

he refused, he was beaten by peers. Although TG denied

sexual victimization when directly questioned during our

tour, other juveniles reported that he was sexually

assaulted on the weekend before the United States' tour of

the facility. Id.

Despite all of the serious self-injuries and near successful

suicide attempts at the facility, the psychiatrist has not

surveyed the units for suicide hazardsj the emergency cut down

tool has not been kept in units where suicidal juveniles are

housedj and suicide watch continues to be held on the cellblocks,

22

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 25 of 48

giving juveniles access to the sprinklers, window bars around which to tie ligatures, and beds with protrusions which allow for hanging. Exhibit D at 19. Suicide hazards are even present in the medical isolation rooms at the facility. Exhibit E at 44. Finally, showers throughout the facility pose a risk of hanging.

E. Improper use of mechanical and mental health restraints

Juveniles at Jena are mechanically restrained in ways that

grossly deviate from acceptable professional standards. Exhibit

D at 27-32. Jena uses restraints without regard to the mental

health needs of the juvenile, without adequate authorization,

without medical assessments, and without adequate monitoring.

The Interim Agreement does not permit use of four and five-point

restraints by correctional staff in the facility, we found

examples of the use of such restraints by officers. Moreover,

there is evidence that correctional staff use mechanical

restraints, such as handcuffs, when there is no justification for

their use. Examples of unreasonable uses of restraints include:

•

Correctional staff ordered CB, a mentally ill youth, into 4

point restraints on his bed in the cell block, without a

physician's orders for the restraints, without a mental

health professional assessment, and without documented

medical monitoring. Exhibit D at 28.

•

DC was placed in 4-point restraints by correctional staff

for almost three hours. The juvenile was quoted as saying

"I hope I hurt my head. I'm gonna try to break my arm", but

there was no medical or mental health assessment of him, nor

was there any documented medical monitoring of the

restraint. Id. at 31.

•

NR, who has a long history of self-mutilation, was placed on

the floor in cuffs after self mutilating on October 1, 1999 .

.I.d .

23

, .

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 26 of 48

•

RS, a mentally ill youth, was placed in mechanical

restraints for beating on a window and door, two hours after

he attempted suicide. ~. at 30-31.

•

MT cut his wrists. Jena's psychologist ordered that

correctional staff constantly monitor the youth. Ignoring

the mental health order and not providing staff to

constantly watch MT, correctional staff instead restrained

MT to the bed in his cell in four-point restraints. Exhibit

D at 29. On another occasion, MT was placed in cuffs and

shackles after swallowing pieces of metal. MT was "dragged

back to mattress" by a Captain and placed in cuffs. MT

pressed his wrists against the cuffs to make reds marks and

tried to scratch his back with the cuffs. MT bit a hole

through his lip. The Jena physician was contacted and he

gave a telephone medication order. Id. at 31-30. On yet

another occasion, MT threatened to tie underwear around his

neck so he was left naked in his cell and placed in

handcuffs. Id. at 32.

I I I • ARGUMENT

A. The United States is likely to succeed on the merits.

A party seeking a preliminary injunction needs to prove that

it has a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits. The

showing required to demonstrate "likelihood of success on the

merits" is reduced where the showing of irreparable injury and/or

the balance of harms is particularly strong. In Canal Authority

of State of Florida v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 576-577 (5th Cir.

1974), the court explained that:

Although a showing that plaintiff will be more severely prejudiced by a denial of the injunction than defendant would be by its grant does not remove the need to show some probability of winning on the merits, it does lower the standard that must be met. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2948.

In order to prevail on the merits in this action, the

United States must demonstrate that defendants have engaged in a

pattern or practice of conduct that deprives the juveniles at

24

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 27 of 48
Jena of their rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 14141. In pattern or practice cases, the burden of proof is satisfied where a preponderance of the evidence reveals instances of sufficient scope, variety, and number to constitute a pattern. Sae,~,
Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146, 1181 (N.D. Cal. 1995) i Ruiz
v. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Tex. 1980), aff'd in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 679 F.2d 115 (5th Cir. 1982), modified by 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982). Such a conclusion can rest on a variety of evidence, including the opinions of experts with the benefit of having comprehensively reviewed facility records, lay witness testimony, as well as evidence regarding specific instances and practices. Madrid, 889 F. Supp. at 1181.
1. The appropriate constitutional standard The Supreme Court has not yet decided the appropriate constitutional standard by which to judge conditions in postadjudication juvenile facilities such as Jena. In 1982, the Court decided Youngberg v. Romeo, holding that a person with mental retardation in state custody has a constitutional right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to adequate food, shelter, reasonable care, reasonably nonrestrictive conditions of confinement, adequate medical care, and reasonable safety. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 324 (1982). The Youngberg Court recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment implicitly encompasses the protections of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 315-16.
25

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 28 of 48

Three years earlier, the Court had held that the Fourteenth

Amendment standard also applies to conditions of confinement of

adult jail detainees, who have not been convicted of a crime.

~ v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-36 & n.16 (1979) .~I In

Louisiana, juvenile adjudications are not criminal proceedings,

and adjudication to the care and custody of the State is not

criminal punishment. ~,~, In re C.B., 708 So.2d 391, 396-

97 (La. 1998) ("[T]he unique nature of the juvenile system [in

Louisiana] is manifested in its non-criminal, or ~civill, nature,

[and] its focus [is] on rehabilitation and individual treatment

rather than retribution

.") .lll

In the two decades since Bell and Youngberg were decided,

every Circuit that has decided the issue has held that the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the standard by

which to judge conditions in juvenile facilities. Gary H. v.

Hegstrom, 831 F.2d 1430, 1432 (9th Cir. 1987) i H.C. ex reI.

Hewett v. Jarrard, 786 F.2d 1080, 1084-85 (11th Cir. 1986) i

Santana v. Collazo, 714 F.2d 1172, 1179 (1st Cir. 1983), ~.

denied, 460 U.S. 974 (1984); Milonas v. Williams, 691 F.2d 931,

16/ ~.a.ls.Q Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 268 (1984) (Due Process Clause applies to claims concerning a juvenile detention center) .
17/ In Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977), the Court held that "Eighth Amendment scrutiny is appropriate only after the state has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions." .I.d. at 671-72 n.40.
26

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 29 of 48
"
942 & n.10 (10th Cir. 1982) .~/ Each court relied on either ~
or Youngberg or a combination of the two. Gary H., 831 F.2d at
1432; ~, 786 F.2d at 1085; Santana, 793 F.2d at 44-45; Milonas, 691 F.2d at 942.
The Fourteenth Amendment test to determine whether
conditions in juvenile facilities violate constitutional rights is articulated in ~ and Youngberg. In~, the Supreme Court
held that conditions and treatment "had to be related to a legitimate governmental objective." The Court made clear that punishment of the individual is not a "legitimate governmental
objective." 441 U.S. at 520, 535. To judge the constitutionality of a restriction, a determination must be made
of whether there is a legitimate purpose to which the restriction
is related and whether the restriction appears excessive in relation to the purpose assigned to it. Id. at 537-538. ~
H.a.re v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 644 (5th Cir. 1996) (B.ell articulates a reasonable relationship test) i ~ ~ Grabowski
v. Jackson County Public Defenders Office, 47 F.3d 1386, 1398
(5th Cir. 1995) ("We hold today that in all conditions of confinement actions, medically related or otherwise, it is not
~ Two years before Ball, five years before Youngberg, and seven years before Schall were decided, the Fifth Circuit stated, in dicta, that the Eighth Amendment "applies to juvenile detention centers as well as to adult prisons." Morales v. Turman, 562 F.2d 993, 998 n.1 (5th Cir. 1977). The Supreme Court has subsequently made clear that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, incorporating the protections of the Eighth Amendment, protects individuals who are detained or confined by the State for reasons other than service of a criminal sentence. Sae Schall, 467 U.S. at 268; Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 316; ~, 441 U.S. at 535 n.16.
27

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 30 of 48

necessary for a pretrial detainee to establish that the official

involved acted with "deliberate indifference" in order to

establish a due process violation.")

The Youngberg Court also used a balancing test, instructing

that whether constitutional rights have been violated must be

determined by balancing the person's liberty interest against the

relevant state interests. 457 U.S. at 321. In determining

whether rights have been violated, the Court set forth a

"professional judgment" test. That is, courts must give due

deference to the judgments made by professionals who are

"competent, whether by education, training or experience, to make

the particular decision at issue." .rd. at 322-23 & n.30. Thus,

"liability may be imposed only when the decision by the

professional is such a substantial departure from accepted

professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate

that the person responsible did not base the decision on such a

judgment. " .I.d. at 323.

In Louisiana, the mission of the Department of Public Safety

and Corrections with respect to juvenile offenders is to protect

the public safety and to provide opportunities for the

rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. LA R.S. 15:905. As such,

the conditions in the juvenile facilities must be measured in

relation to these purposes.

2.

The violence and abuse at Jena violates

juveniles' right to reasonable safety.

Confined juveniles, like the juveniles at Jena, have a

constitutional right to reasonably safe conditions of

28

, , Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 31 of 48
confinement. ~,~, Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 315-16; ~, 441 U.S. at 546-547; Santana, 793 F.2d at 43; ~, 786 F.2d at 108386, 1089; Milonas, 691 F.2d at 942; Alexander S. v. ~, 876 F. Supp. 773, 787 (D.S.C. 1995); Gary W. v. Louisiana, 1990 WL 17537, *29 (E.D. La. 1990); Morgan v. Sproat, 432 F. Supp. 1130, 1138-40 (S.D. Miss. 1977); ~ v. New York State Division for Youth, 419 F. Supp. 203, 208-209 & n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), aff'd, 708 F.2d 877 (2d Cir. 1983).
There is no legitimate governmental interest in subjecting youth at Jena to physical abuse and excessive force by staff and physical abuse from other juveniles. Such force and violence is not reasonably related to the rehabilitation of juveniles or to public safety. Even if defendants take the position that their use of force is for the purpose of maintaining order and security in the facility, the measures that they are using are clearly excessive in light of this purpose.
Furthermore, defendants' failure to take adequate measures to safeguard juveniles from staff and their peers can serve no legitimate governmental interest and substantially departs from current accepted professional standards. Defendants' failure to engage in reasonable hiring practices, to investigate and respond adequately to abuse allegations, and to provide a sufficient number of adequately trained and experienced staff is not reasonably related to any legitimate interest in operating a juvenile training facility.
Courts have held in the context of juvenile facilities that
29

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 32 of 48
uses of force similar to that employed by defendants against juveniles at Jena violate the co~stitutional rights of the confined youth. ~,~,~, 786 F.2d at 1089 (a juvenile's Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when a juvenile detention facility superintendent slammed the juvenile against a wall and metal cot for laughing and protesting the imposition of isolation on another detainee) i Milonas, 691 F.2d at 942 (prohibiting using physical force for any purpose other than to restrain a juvenile who is physically violent and immediately dangerous to himself or others or physically resisting institutional rules) i Santana, 533 F. Supp. 966 (D.P.R. 1982) (issuing injunction prohibiting physical abuse and corporal punishment where court found that juveniles who escaped from an institution were beaten after they were recaptured), aff'd in relevant part. and vacated in part and remanded in part, Santana v. Collazo, 714 F.2d 1172 (1st Cir. 1983) i Morales v. TUrman, 364 F. Supp. 166, 173 (E.D. Tex. 1973) (issuing a preliminary injunction where court found that juvenile facilities' widespread practice of beating, slapping, kicking and otherwise physically abusing juveniles in absence of exigent circumstances violated juveniles' rights) i Nelson v. Heyne, 355 F. Supp. 451, 454 (N.D. Ind. 1972) (beating juveniles with boards violated juveniles' constitutional rights), aff'd, 491 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1974). The right of juveniles to reasonable safety encompasses juveniles' right to reasonable protection from the aggression of others, whether "others" be juveniles or staff. ~,~, Alexander Sa
30

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 33 of 48
876 F. Supp. at 798.~/
In order to afford juveniles their right to reasonable
safety, a facility must have a sufficient number of adequately
trained staff in order to supervise juveniles. £ee,~,
Alexander S., 876 F. Supp. at 773. There is abundant evidence
that the current staffing at Jena does not adequately provide for
the safety of juveniles.
Furthermore, as a part of providing reasonable safety, the
system must have an adequate classification system which
separates more aggressive from vulnerable juveniles, and which
includes periodic revaluation of placement. Alexander S., 876 F.
Supp. at 787. The lack of float beds prevents Jena staff from
providing an adequate classification system.
Finally, Jena's inadequate hiring practices, which results
121 Even in cases involving adult prisoners, where the "cruel and unusual punishment" test of the Eighth Amendment is used, the Supreme Court has made clear that a prison has the duty to provide humane conditions of confinement and to "take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of inmates." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). Prison officials may not use excessive physical force against inmates. Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1, 4-7, 9 (1992) (rejecting the Fifth Circuit's previous requirement that a "significant injury" be shown to establish a viable excessive force claim). Adult inmates' constitutional rights are violated where there are uses of force and facility responses to violence that are similar to the circumstances at Jena. Sae, ~, Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 790 F.2d 1220, 1225-1226 (5th Cir. 1986) (the level of violence and sexual assault coupled with inadequate supervision in a county jail violated detainees' constitutional rights, noting that it was not necessary for every detainee to be assaulted every day before a federal court could intervene) i RYiz v. Johnson, 37 F. Supp.2d 855, 933-940 (S.D. Tex. 1999) (unjustified and disproportionate use of force on inmates, including officers being quick to take inmates to the ground and punching and kiCking inmates violated their constitutional rights) .
31

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 34 of 48

in the hiring of individuals whose background, personalities, and

lack of qualifications render them likely to harm juveniles

physically or psychologically, violate juveniles' constitutional

rights. Morales, 364 F. Supp. 166, 175 (E.D. Tex. 1973).

3. Defendants' use of chemical restraints violates juveniles' rights to reasonable safety and freedom from unreasonable restraints.

" :

In addition to their right to reasonable safety that was

, '

just discussed, confined juveniles, like the juveniles at Jena,

have a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable

restraints. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 320. In Alexander S., 876 F.

Supp. at 786, the court concluded that where CS gas chemical

restraints, like the "Triple Threat Chaser" and the "Deep Freeze"

gas at Jena, were repeatedly used to enforce facility orders,

such use violates juveniles' constitutional rights. The court

held that "gas should be used only when a genuine risk of serious

bodily harm to another exists and other less intrusive methods of

restraint are not reasonably available". .I.d. ; .s.e.e .al..s.Q Morales,

364 F. Supp. at 170, 173 (practice of using tear gas and other

chemical crowd-control devices is unconstitutional in situations

not posing an imminent threat to human life and substantial

threat to property) .2Q/

Jena has used chemical restraints on compliant juveniles,

20/ Where a prison used chemical restraints in circumstances similar to the uses at Jena, the court found such use to violate inmates' Eighth Amendment rights. Ruiz, 37 F. Supp.2d at 935-36 (finding gas was used excessively, including an incident where gas was released into a pod of 23 inmates in response to a disturbance in which some inmates were banging on cell doors and plugging up toilets) .
32

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 35 of 48
juveniles laying face down on the ground, and juveniles whose "property damage" may have consisted of no more than kicking a trash can or banging and kicking a door. In none of these cases, were juveniles posing an immediate threat of serious bodily harm to another or causing any substantial property damage. Moreover, the defendants have twice used indoors gas grenades which were not manufactured for indoor use, violating juveniles' right to reasonable safety.
In these cases, juveniles' rights to be free from exposure to dangerous chemicals and the risk of fire outweighs any state interest that defendants may raise. Uses of gas grenades and chemical spray at Jena do not serve the purpose of rehabilitation or the interests of public safety. In the instances where juveniles were sprayed while they were lying on the ground and when they were taken back into a unit filled with noxious gas, defendants' objectives were clearly to punish, and were thus impermissible. Even if defendants claim that they have a legitimate governmental interest in maintaining internal security and order in the facility, their conduct is not reasonably related to such an objective. Certainly, using gas grenades intended for outdoor use on juveniles indoors is excessive. In addition, where defendants have used chemical restraints to address behavior that does not pose an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to another or substantial property damage, they could have used numerous less intrusive methods to address the behavior.
33

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 36 of 48
4. Defendants' use of excessive. unjustified and unIDonitored isolation violates juveniles' right to freedom from unreasonable restraint.
Confined juveniles, like those at Jena, have a right to be free of inappropriate isolation. Milonas, 691 F.2d at 942 (prohibiting defendants from placing youth in isolation for any reason other than to contain a juvenile who is physically violent); Morales, 364 F. Supp. at 174, 177 (juveniles' constitutional rights were violated where duration and intensity of isolation was left to unfettered discretion of staff; prohibiting the use of solitary confinement unless such confinement was clearly necessary to prevent imminent physical harm to the youth or to other persons or clearly necessary to prevent imminent and substantial destruction of property); Morgan v. Sproat, 432 F. Supp. 1130, 1138-1140 (S.D. Miss. 1977) (housing juveniles with disciplinary problems in cells without providing adequate treatment or counseling services, where staff did not know why youth were confined, where youth ate meals in the cells, and where juveniles were only getting out to take showers violated juveniles constitutional rights; enjoining isolation that exceeded 24 hours); Eena v. New York State Division for Youth, 419 F. Supp. 203, 210 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (isolation causes clearly anti-therapeutic hostility and frustration and limiting isolation to six hours except "in the most extreme circumstances"); Gary W. v. Louisiana, 437 F. Supp. 1209, 1229 (E.D. La. 1976) (limiting isolation to 12 hours unless renewed by a qualified professional) .
34

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 37 of 48
A court has prohibited the use of isolation for youth with mental retardation and mental illness. ~ Morgan, 432 F. Supp. at 1140 n.15, citing Welsch v. Likins, 373 F. Supp. 487, 503 (1974), and New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children v. Rockefeller, 357 F. Supp. 752, 768 (E.D.N.Y. 1973). The Morgan court enjoined defendants from isolating youth "whose psychological, emotional or intellectual status make isolation inappropriate." Jena isolates many juveniles with mental retardation and mental illness.
In Santana, the First Circuit found "that if the need for restraints, in this case the need for extended isolation, can be significantly reduced or eliminated by other equally effective but less confining methods requiring minimal additional effort, it is unreasonable not to use them." 793 F. 2d at 45.2..l./
At Jena, youth, including youth with mental retardation and mental illness, are isolated for long periods of time in bare cells with little or nothing to do and with no social stimulation. Youth who do not go to school spend virtually the entire day in isolation, eating in their cells. Youth who are judged to be "out of control" or a danger to security are subject
ZV Courts have found that inappropriate isolation also violates
adult prison inmates' constitutional rights. Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1305 (1974) (prison's isolation practices violated inmates' rights and prohibiting the use of isolation of any
inmate for a period in excess of twenty-four hours); RYiz v.
Johnson, 37 F. Supp.2d at 907-915 (where prison housed inmates in cells virtually devoid of property, personal contact, and mental stimulation, rights were violated; mentally ill inmates "whose illness can only be exacerbated by the depravity of their confinement" could not be isolated) .
35

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 38 of 48
to extensive periods of isolation before having a disciplinary hearing. Jena's routine isolation of juveniles who are not posing an immediate threat to others is unreasonable and excessive as juveniles could easily be permitted to be in the day room area of the unit if they were adequately supervised.
Defendants' excessive use of isolation is not reasonably related to the legitimate governmental objective of rehabilitation of the juveniles. Indeed, given that isolation is anti-therapeutic, defendants' excessive use of isolation is contrary to the objective. Even if defendants take the position that their uses of isolation serve the purpose of maintaining order and security in the facility, the measures that they are using are clearly excessive in light of this purpose. For example, short periods of isolation could serve this same ' objective. And for youth with mental disabilities, the mental health problems of the youth, which are exacerbated by isolation, outweigh any purported state interest in maintaining security.
5. Defendants' failure to adeQuately supervise and protect suicidal and self-mutilating youth violates their rights to reasonable safety and adequate mental health care.
Confined juveniles such those at Jena have a constitutional right to adequate mental health care. Morales v. Turman, 383 F. Supp. 53, 105 (E.D. Tex. 1974), rev'd on other grounds, 535 F.2d 864 (5 th Cir. 1976), rev'd, 430 U.S. 322 (19,77) i Inmates of Boys' Training School v. Affleck, 346 F. Supp. 1354, 1374 (D.R.I. 1972). Where a facility fails to provide adequate mental health treatment to youth who are attempting suicides and engaging in
36

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 39 of 48
self-mutilating behaviors, juveniles' constitutional rights are violated. Gary H., 831 F.2d at 1436-37; Inmates of Boys Training School, 346 F. Supp. at 1359, 1360, 1361-62 (juveniles' constitutional rights violated where, among other deficiencies, juveniles received no psychiatric care proximately following suicide attempts); Martarella v. Kelley, 349 F. Supp. 575, 586 &
n.9 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) (same) .22./
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, juveniles with mental disabilities are entitled to adequate mental health care, supervision, and an environment free of obvious suicide hazards unless the failure to supply these is reasonably related to a legitimate government objective. No such legitimate government objective exists. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that Jena's failure to adequately treat, supervise or protect suicidal and self-mutilating juveniles is a substantial deviation from current accepted professional standards in treating mentally ill, suicidal, and self-injurious youth. ~ Exhibit D at 13-24.
21/ Courts have recognized that constitutionally-mandated medical care in prisons includes psychiatric care. ~, ~, Ruiz, 37 F. Supp.2d at 906. Prisons have a duty to properly supervise suicidal inmates. ~ v. Lubbock County Com'rs Court, 444 F. Supp. 824, 831 (N.D. Tex. 1977) (where inmates who had a tendency toward suicide were not given proper supervision to prevent a suicide attempt, such as close observation, and in some cases had access to instruments of harm that were left in cells, inmates' rights were violated) .
37

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 40 of 48
6. Jena's inappropriate use of mental health and mechanical restraints violates juveniles' rights to freedom from unreasonable restraints, to reasonable safety, and, for mentally disabled juveniles, to adequate mental health care.
"Freedom from bodily restraint has always been at the core of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause from arbitrary governmental action." Foucha v. Louisiana( 504 U.S. 71( 80 (1992). The manner in which defendants use mental health and mechanical restraints violates juveniles' rights to be free of unreasonable restraint and to receive adequate mental health treatment.
Cases involving juvenile facilities have held that use of restraints in manners similar to those used at Jena violate the constitutional rights of juveniles. ~(~( ~( 786 F.2d at 1083( 1089 (a juvenile's rights were violated when correctional staff shackled the juvenile to his bunk with metal cuffs because he was banging on the door of the cell in which he was isolated); ~( 419 F. Supp. at 211 (use of handcuffs and plastic straps to restrain boys for hours at a time and restraining of boys to their beds violated juveniles' constitutional rights); Gary W.( 437 F. Supp. at 1229-30 (limiting use of mechanical restraints to situations where alternative techniques have failed) .~/
In the case at barf defendants use correctional restraints in lieu of appropriate therapeutic restraints; restrain juveniles to their beds; restrain juveniles for prolonged periods; and
23/ In the adult context, in Ca~bell v. McGruder ( 580 F.2d 521, 553 (D.C. Cir. 1978), the court affirmed an injunction limiting restraints on adult detainees.
38

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 41 of 48

restrain juveniles when the use of mechanical restraints is

unjustified, such as when a juvenile bangs on his cell door.

Moreover, mentally ill juveniles have been placed in restraints

in unsafe and suitable settings/ without appropriate medical

authorizations, without adequate monitoring, and without the

record keeping required for therapeutic restraints.

The use of restraints at Jena grossly deviates from current

accepted professional standards. Exhibit D at 27. Moreover/

there is no governmental interest in inappropriate and prolonged

uses of restraints that would justify the unsafe restraints to

which juveniles in the facility are exposed.

B.

There is a substantial threat that juveniles at Jena

will be irreparably injured if the injunction is

denied.

Where, as here, a deprivation of a constitutional right has

been threatened, no further showing of irreparable injury is

required. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (where First

Amendment rights were clearly threatened or in fact impaired at

the time that a preliminary injunction was sought, irreparable

injury was shown); Deerfield Medical Center v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328, 338 (5th Cir. 1981) (where constitutional

right of privacy was "either threatened or in fact impaired/" the

conclusion mandated a finding of irreparable injury); Jolly v.

Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 482 (1996) ("the alleged violation of a

constitutional right ... triggers a finding of irreparable

harm") i Causeway Medical Suite v. Foster, 1999 WL 498187, *1

(E.D. La. 1999) ("when constitutional rights to privacy and

39

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 42 of 48
liberty are threatened, or being impaired, there is a substantial threat of irreparable injury") .
Moreover, the United States establishes irreparable harm when it seeks enforcement of a federal statute, here the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which expressly authorizes the Court to render injunctive relief. "When an injunction is expressly authorized by statute, and the statutory conditions are satisfied, the movant need not establish specific irreparable injury to obtain a preliminary injunction" since irreparable harm is presumed. EEQC v. Cosmair, Inc., L'Oreal Hair Care Division, 821 F.2d 1085, 1090 (5th Cir. 1987). Indeed, when a civil rights statute is violated, "irreparable injury should be presumed from the very fact that the statute has been violated." United States v. Hayes Int'l Corp., 415 F.2d 1038, 1045 (5th Cir. 1969). In White v. Carlucci, 862 F.2d 1209 (5th Cir. 1989), the Fifth Circuit stated that the irreparable harm presumption set forth in Cosmair and Hayes applies only in cases, like this one, where the government or a government officer seeks enforcement of a federal statute and the statutory requirements are met. ~. at 511.
Even if the irreparable harm presumption is not invoked, the United States will prove that the juveniles at Jena are threatened with irreparable harm if the injunction does not issue. The Fifth Circuit has held that an "injury is 'irreparable' only if it cannot be undone through monetary remedies." Enterprise Intern., Inc. v. Co:r:poracion Estatal
40

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 43 of 48
Petrolera Ecuatoriana, 762 F.2d 464, 472 (5th Cir. 1985). Here, the threatened harm to the juveniles at Jena includes physical and emotional injuries, and possibly death. In such cases, the harm is irreparable. Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 481 (2d Cir. 1996) (money damages inadequate to compensate physical injuries resulting from defendant's conduct); Morales v. Turman, 364 F. Supp. 166, 175 (E.D. Tex. 1973) (preliminary injunction necessary where practices at juvenile facility "would work irreparable injury, both physical and psychological" if allowed to continue); DQe v. Dolton Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 148, 694 F. Supp. 440, 447-48 (N.D. Ill.1988) (money damages inadequate to compensate emotional and psychological injury resulting from defendant's conduct). As the Supreme Court stated in HeIlig v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993), "Courts of Appeals have plainly recognized that a remedy for unsafe conditions need not await a tragic event."
Even if the defendants claim that they have taken some remedial measures since the United States' filed its suit and this motion, a preliminary injunction is still necessary. Just a few months ago, the Supreme Court stated in Friends of the Earth, ~ v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC) Inc., 120 S. Ct. 693, 698 (2000) that "it is well settled that 'a defendant's voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice. '" (citation omitted). The Court further held that the party alleging mootness bears "the burden of showing that the
41

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 44 of 48
allegedly wrongful behavior cannot be expected to recur." l..d. at 698. An earlier Supreme Court case also made clear that "the power of the court to grant injunctive relief survives
discontinuance of the illegal conduct." s.e.e United States v.
W.T. Grant, 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953). In the context of prison litigation, the Fifth Circuit made
clear that in cases involving constitutional violations in prisons, "[c]hanges made by defendants after a suit is filed do not remove the necessity for injunctive relief, for practices may be reinstated as swiftly as they were suspended." Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364, 1375 (5th Cir.1981), cert, dismissed, 453 U.S. 950 (1981), and overruled on other grounds, Int'l Woodworkers of America v. Champion Int'l Corp" 790 F,2d 1174 (5th Cir. 1986). Given the facts at bar, the defendants cannot make a showing that the wrongful behavior cannot be expected to recur.
C. The threatened injury outweighs any damage to the defendants.
The threatened injuries that juveniles will suffer in this case if an injunction does not issue include serious impairments to mental health, physical injuries, and possibly death. This preliminary injunction seeks to ameliorate the most egregious of the alleged violations of juveniles' rights. They can and should be immediately remedied to prevent further harm to juveniles.
Whatever burden will fallon the defendants as a result of the preliminary injunction is clearly outweighed by the continued physical and mental injuries that juveniles will suffer if the
42

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 45 of 48
"
injunction is not issued. Moreover, this burden cannot be properly classified as
damage to the defendants. Defendants cannot be harmed by remedies designed to bring them into compliance with constitutional standards and federal laws. This preliminary injunction seeks to compel the defendants to meet their basic and fundamental obligation to provide reasonably safe conditions in a juvenile facility - care and conditions to which juveniles
confined at Jena are entitled. Sae Youngberg, 457 U.S. 307
(1982). The defendants cannot be injured by remedies designed to bring them into compliance with constitutional standards. ~ e.g., Bolthouse v. Continental Wingate Co., 656 F. Supp. 62, 630 (W.D. Mich. 1987) ("defendants cannot claim that they will be harmed by complying with [the law] since an injunction will only
require that which the law already requires"); fum.t. v. United States Securities & Exchange Comro'n, 520 F. Supp. 580, 609 (N.D.
Tex. 1981) (preliminary injunction requiring the Defendant agency to do what the law requires could not result in any harm to the agency) .
D. The injunction will not disserve the public interest. The entry of the requested preliminary injunctive relief will not disserve the public interest. On the contrary, it will further the public interest. Congress, by enacting the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, recognized that there was an interest in protecting the rights of confined juveniles. Congress authorized the Attorney General to
43

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 46 of 48
"
bring suit, for or in the name of the United States, to ensure those protections. The Act specifically provides that the United States may obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of conduct by juvenile justice administrators that deprives juveniles of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (a), (b).
The long-standing and clear public interest in protecting the constitutional and legal rights of its citizens along with the greater need to protect those who cannot help themselves, compels the conclusion that the United States has met its burden of demonstrating that a preliminary injunction satisfies the public interest. Essentially, a preliminary injunction will serve to protect the physical safety of the youth at Jena and provide some improvements in mental health care, which are of critical necessity.
-E. The relief sought complies with the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
The preliminary injunction sought by the United States in its proposed order complies with the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (a) (2). Section (a) (2) provides in pertinent part that U[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm."
The proposed order is narrowly tailored to the specific harm that the United States found and extends no further than to
44

· .

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 47 of 48

correct the harm which is occurring at the facility. The United States will present evidence regarding the necessity for each of the injunctions sought in its proposed order.
Such an order is required in this case, where the limitations in the now-defunct sections of the Jena Interim Agreement, regarding the use of chemical and mechanical restraints and the use of isolation, have not worked. Thus, less intrusive methods of trying to persuade defendants to engage in legal conduct at Jena have failed, necessitating the imposition of enforceable measures by the Court.
The PLRA also requires that the court give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief. The United States believes that the injunction will in no way negatively impact on the operations of the criminal justice system or public safety.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the United States' Motion for Preliminary Injunction Regarding Conditions of Confinement at the

45

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 172 Filed 04/05/2000 Page 48 of 48

Jena Juvenile Justice Center should be granted and the proposed order should be entered.
Respectfully submitted,

L.J. HYMEL, La. Bar #7137 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 777 Florida Street, Suite 208 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801

BILL LANN LEE Acting Assistant
Attorney General Civil Rights Division
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief Special Litigation Section
ROBINSUE FROHBOESE Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section
i09::JoIAM
JUDITH C. PRESTON IRIS GOLDSCHMIDT Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 66400 Washington, D.C. 20035-6400 (202) 514-6258

46

 
 Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 182 Filed 05/09/2000 Page 2 of 6

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, ~ all Defendants.

Civil No. 98-947-B-l

AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES' JENA AGREEMENT •
WHEREAS the "United States' Jena Agreement" was executed on
the 13 th day of April, 2000 between the United States Department
of Justice, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation and Richard L.
Stalder, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections,
and the Honorable Murphy "Mike" Foster, Governor of the State of
Louisiana.
WHEREAS Paragraph 5 of that Agreement currently read as
follows:
"Within 14 days of the execution of this Agreement, the Defendants shall comply with the following security staffing requirements at all times juveniles are present except as provided below:
Eagle A 2 Eagle B 2 Eagle C 3 Eagle D 3 Falcon A 2 Falcon B 2 Falcon C 3 Falcon D 3
Notwithstanding the above, staff assigned to these units must be able to supervise juvenile movement including out-of-unit activities on a proportional staff/juvenile basis.
Defendants shall ensure that Falcon building is supervised by an on-site Lieutenant at all times

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 182 Filed 05/09/2000 Page 3 of 6
the juveniles are in the building and that Eagle building is supervised by an on-site lieutenant at all times the juveniles are in the building. Nonsecurity personnel shall not be used as substitutes for security staff to meet the requirements of this paragraph. "
WHEREAS the parties wish to amend Paragraph 5 of the United
States' Jena Agreement to include the following provisions:
"The parties to the original "United States' Jena Agreement" hereby further agree that Eagle C, Eagle D, Falcon C and Falcon D may be staffed with 2 correctional officers from 11:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m., if the capacity of the dorm(s) is reduced from 40 to 32 (with a resulting concurrent reduction in the overall capacity of JJJC). The Department of Public Safety and Corrections agree to provide weekly reports indicating which, if any, dormitory capacities and staffing requirements have been reduced under this agreement. "
Considering the foregoing, the undersigned parties to the
original United States' Jena Agreement hereby agree, by this
Amendment to United States' Jena Agreement, to allow the
amendment stated above.
Agreed to by this ___2___~_____day of April 2000:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BILL LANN LEE Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief Special Litigation Section
ROBINSUE FROHBOESE Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section
2

Case 3:98-cv-00947-FJP Document 182 Filed 05/09/2000 Page 4 of 6
JUDITH C. PRESTON IRIS GOLDSCHMIDT Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section
'siana WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS CORPORATION
{J7t~t(/~hBArj/NJj~
Director, Contract Compliance RICHARD L. STALDER, Secretary, Department of Public Safety & Corrections, HONORABLE MURPHY "MIKE" FOSTER, Governor, State of Louisiana
RICHARD P. IEYOUB Attorney General
of Louisiana
Attorney General
3

 
 Case 3:97-cv-00665-FJP Document 689 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 1 of 5

.:: ::-

FILED

U.S. OIST COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE OIST. OF LA

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

,

-,

200) DEC 31 A II: 11

HAYES WILLIAMS, et al.

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

JOHN McKEITHEN, et al.

)

Defendants,

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

Amicus Curiae.

)

)

IN RE: JUVENILE FACILITIES

)

)

IN RE: TALLULAH CORRECTIONAL )

CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: JETSON CORRECTIONAL

)

CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: SWANSON CORRECTIONAL )

CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: LOUISIANA TRAINING

)

INSTITUTE - BRIDGE CITY)

)

IN RE: JENA JUVENILE JUSTICE )

CENTER

)

---~-'-------------------------) )

BRIAN B., et al.

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

RICHARD STALDER, et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

-----------------------------)

BSIYGND:E:-P::U:-T:Y-:-C=L-:E-R-i:-~------Civ. No. 71-98-B
Civ. No. CH 97-MS-OOI-B civ. No. CH 97-0665-B-Ml Civ. No. CH 97-0666-B-Ml civ. No. CH 97-0667-B-Ml Civ. No. CH 97-0668-B-Ml Civ. No. CH 98-0804-B-Ml
Civ. No. 98-886-B-Ml

Date Dockete.d
_DEC" 3 1 2093
Notices Mailed To:

Case 3:97-cv-00665-FJP Document 689 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 2 of 5

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA,

)

et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

)

)

A.A., et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS CORP., )

et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

-----------------------------)

Civ. No. 98-947-B-1 Civ. No. 00-246-C-M1

ORDER Considering the record of these consolidated actions and the joint motion of the State of Louisiana ("State"), the United States Department of Justice ("DOT') and the private plaintiffs in these consolidated actions: IT IS ORDERED that all claims asserted in these actions relating to medical services at Louisiana's secure juvenile facilities are dismissed, with prejudice; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims asserted in Civil Action Nos. 71-98-B, 97-MS001-B, 97-0665-B-M1, 97-0668-B-M1, 98-947-B-1 involving Swanson Correctional Center for Youth-Madison Parish Unit and Bridge City Correctional Center for Youth are dismissed, with prejudice.

- 2-

Case 3:97-cv-00665-FJP Document 689 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 3 of 5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court has reviewed the 2004 Settlement Agreement
and preliminarily approves the Agreement for purposes of providing notice to the class under Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and
Corrections give notice of the 2004 Settlement Agreement to members of the Plaintiff class by
posting a notice in places that are conspicuous to members of the class at all secure juvenile facilities
within ten days of the entry of this order. The notice of settlement shall be in substantially the
following form:
Notice to Members of Class Hayes Williams v. McKeithen
Pursuant to order ofthe Honorable James Brady, Judge, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, notice is given under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that, in the matter entitled Williams v. McKeithen and all related and consolidated actions, a settlement agreement has been entered by Plaintiffs, the United States Department of Justice, and State Defendants (including the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections) regarding conditions and various practices at the secure juvenile facilities.
Copies of the Settlement Agreement will be made reasonably available to the juvenile population. Copies of the Settlement Agreement may be reviewed in the libraries of the secure juvenile facilities. Any objection to the proposed Settlement Agreement shall be submitted in writing to the Court at 777 ~orida Street, Su~e ~~?" (J M
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 7080 1on or beforeFd S , 2004~you
have any questions about the Settlement Agreement, you may call the lawyers for the juveniles in secure care (the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana or the law firm of Nordyke & Denlinger). You should not call the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing is noticed for/'t1AlLCfr !- ,2004 at
9:00 a.m. to address comments from members of the Plaintiff Class, but no hearing shall actually
-3-

Case 3:97-cv-00665-FJP Document 689 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 4 of 5
be held unless the Court deems such a hearing to be necessary in order to address the issues raised in the comments.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that records of individual juveniles ("records") may be released to counsel for United States or Plaintiffs for use in monitoring the settlement agreement notwithstanding the provisions of any statutory provisions that might limit the disclosure ofjuvenile records; and that this order shall be treated as the equivalent of a signed release that might otherwise be necessary under Louisiana law in order for the Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("DPSC') to release such records, subject to the provisions of this Court's June 19,2003 Order. Nothing in this order shall be construed as a waiver of, or ruling on, any other objection to introduction of documents into evidence in future proceedings that may be asserted on behalf of the DPSC or plaintiffs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that records, information and data produced pursuant to this Settlement Agreement may be examined only by (i) the Court, (ii) the expert(s) selected pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, (iii) all counsel of record in this matter, (iv) staff and clerical personnel involved in the preparation and review of pleadings and reports for counsel of record, (v) those consultants retained by the parties identified in the Settlement Agreement or retained in connection with a decision to reopen the Lawsuits, and (vi) United States officials as necessary for the United States to carry out its law enforcement responsibilities. All counsel shall be responsible for assuring that the confidentiality ofrecords , information and data produced to them pursuant to the Settlement Agreement is maintained by any consultants, staff and clerical personnel to whom the records may be revealed. Pleadings or other documents that contain identifying information (such as the name,
-4-

Case 3:97-cv-00665-FJP Document 689 Filed 12/31/2003 Page 5 of 5 address, or social security number of any juvenile or any individual accused of any wrongdoing) shall be filed only under seal or in redacted form, using the individual's initials only.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, these actions remam
-5-

 
 CRIPA Investigation
• • •• •••• • • • • m •
JI-LA-001-001
JIMMY CARTER
December 22, 1995
To Attorney General Janet Reno I am writing to express my deep concern over the conditions described in a recent
study published by the Children's Rights Project of Human Rights Watch which details the confinement of juveniles in Louisiana correctional facilities who are routinely subjected to human rights abuses. Hunger, restraint, physical abuse and total lack of privacy are only a few of the violations cited. Such treatment falls short of international human rights standards, specifically those related to confinement of children as set forth in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
As I am sure you agree, it is inexcusable for children, regardless of their actions, to be subjected to this type of treatment, and it is virtually impossible for a child to be rehabilitated in a system which denies him or her respect and basic rights. It is important for young people in our country to have the appropriate legal protections to ensure fair treatment and to guarantee their safety.
I request that you investigate these allegations immediately. If such abuses do exist, I urge you to ensure that appropriate action is taken and that those individuals found responsible for the abuses be held accountable for their actions. Implementing the recommendations set forth by the Human Rights Watch, Children's Rights Project study would ensure that the conditions at the correctional facilities are improved and that the children receive the education, counseling and respect to which they are entitled.
Sincerely,
Attorney General Janet Reno Main Justice Building 10th Street and Constitution Ave., Washington, D.C. 20530

DLP:LK:AEP:eh DJ 168-32-0

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

THROUGH: THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

THROUGH: THE ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL

FROM:

Deval L. Patrick
Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

SUBJECT: Reply to Letter from President Carter

PURPOSE: To obtain your approval and signature on a proposed letter responding to correspondence addressed to you from President Jimmy Carter requesting an investigation of Louisiana's juvenile facilities pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA).

TIMETABLE: Signature requested as soon as possible.

SYNOPSIS: In a recent letter President Jimmy Carter brought to our attention a report of Human Rights Watch alleging serious violations of the constitutional rights of juveniles confined in juvenile facilities throughout the State of Louisiana. We advise President Carter that we are reviewing the report and will initiate such investigations as may be appropriate pursuant to CRIPA and advise him of the results.

RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that you approve and sign the proposed response to President Carter.

Attachment

cc: Special Litigation Section

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT CONTROL SHEET

1. FOLDER No:

43572

2. TRACKING No: X95-045357

3. RESERVED

7. FROM: Jimmy Carter Former President

4. DATE OF DOCUMENT: 12/22/95

5. DATE RECEIVED:

01/02/96

6. DUE DATE:

017T7/96*

8. TO:

AG

9. CATEGORY: PRIORITY 1

10. SUBJECT:

Expressing concern regarding the conditions described in a recent study published by the Children's
Rights Project of Human Rights Watch which details the confinement of juveniles in Louisiana correctional facilities. Requests an investigation of these allegations and if abuses exist, urges the AG to ensure that appropriate action is taken and that individuals found responsible for the abuses be held accountable for their actions.

11. ACTION/INFORMATION:

Referred To:

Date Assigned: Action:

CRT

01/02/96

Prepare response for AG signature.

Return with control sheet and incoming letter to

Executive Secretariat

Referred To:

Date Assigned: Information:

OAG

01/02/96

For information.

OASG

01/02/96

For information.

12. RESERVED FOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT USE

13. EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT CONTACT: Dorrence Andrews, 616-0074

INTERNAL CONTROL SHEET FOR CIVIL BIGHTS CORRESPONDENCE

From:

Jimmy Carter

To:
Control No: 43572

Date Received by Faye McDowney:

1/11/96

S e c t i o n A s s i g n m e n t : f.i 1 mil m l D&Ciul lo^otVBate: 1 / 1 1 / 9 6

Date Received by Section:

Assigned t o (name):

(date)

Date Returned to Section Manager:

Date leaving Section.and returned to Front Office:

Date received in Front Office:

Date Due in Front Office:

/ &/U/96

Date Due in Exec Sec: 1/17/96

ALL CONGRESIONAL AND WHITE HOUSE CORREPONDEKCE IS A PRIORITY. PLEASE HAVE IT DELIVERED BY MESSSENGER TO ITS NEXT DESTINATION. RETURN RESPONSES TO Faye McDowney IN ROOM 7129. IF YOU ARE •UNABLE TO MEET THE DUE DATE, PLEASE CONTACT Faye McDowney AT 5143847.

 
 CRIPA Investigation
•a • • • • • • • • • • • • ••!! • • • • • •
JI-LA-001-002
n. S. & 20330
February 2, 1996
The Honorable Jimmy Carter The Carter Center One Copenhill Avenue 453 Freedom Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 303 07
Dear President Carter:
Thank you for your letter bringing to my attention a recent study by the Children's Rights Project of Human Rights Watch regarding alleged inadequate conditions of confinement throughout Louisiana's juvenile correctional facilities. In your letter, you request that we investigate these facilities and take appropriate steps to improve conditions afforded to the many children confined there.
Pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, signed into law by you during your Presidency, the Attorney General has the authority to. investigate various public facilities, including juvenile correctional facilities, where it is alleged that juveniles are being denied their legal rights. The Department's Civil Rights Division presently has a vigorous enforcement program in which 76 facilities are currently under investigation and an additionail 45 facilities are subject to consent decrees, court orders, or are taking other steps to improve conditions and eliminate abuses.
We are currently evaluating the Human Rights Watch's report regarding Louisiana's juvenile facilities. Please be assured that following that review, we will undertake such investigations as are appropriate and will apprise you accordingly of our efforts.
I share your commitment to ensuring the provision of safe conditions and appropriate services for children in need of care and rehabilitation in our nation's juvenile facilities.

The Honorable Jimmy Carter Page 2
Again, please accept my thanks for bringing this matter to my attention.
Sincerely,
Janet Reno

 
 Memorandum

WRY:AEP:RSF:JCP DJ 168-32M-20
Subject
Recommendation to Investigate Secure Correctional Facilities for Children in Louisiana

Date
April 16, 1996

To Deval L. Patrick Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

F<T Arthur E. Peabody, Jr. / Chief I' Special Litigation Section

Introduction
We recommend initiating an investigation into conditions of confinement at the four secure correctional facilities for children in Louisiana, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S. C. § 1997 e_t seq. Former President Carter wrote to Attorney General Reno asking us to investigate problems in these facilities identified in a recent report issued by the Human Rights Watch Children's Rights Project.1/
Louisiana operates 1,500 beds in four secure correctional facilities for children between the ages of eleven and eighteen ordered into the custody of the State.2/ Each of the facilities is governed by a very limited consent decree, administered by Judge Frank Polozola, in the Middle District of Louisiana. Judge Polozola's jurisdiction arose out of Williams v. Edwards ("Williams I"). litigation filed in 1971 concerning the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola. As set forth below, the scope of the consent decrees is inadequate to address the serious problems

1/ On October 9, 1995, the Human Rights Watch Children's Rights Project issued its Report, Children in Confinement in Louisiana. Based on visits to each of the four facilities and interviews with staff and over 6 0 children confined in the institutions, Human Rights Watch found that the conditions at the facilities violate numerous international human rights standards. The group found that children in these facilities are regularly physically abused by the guards, kept in isolation for long periods of time, improperly restrained, and often hungry.
2./ Shinkle, P., "Overcrowding, Education among Juvenile Concerns," The Baton Rouge Advocate, November 30, 1995. Because there are court-ordered population caps on each of the juvenile facilities, there is a backlog of about 215 juveniles who are awaiting placement in one of the four facilities; most of these 215 children are being held in Parish detention centers. Ibid.

- 2-
identified in the Human Rights Watch Report, monitoring and oversight of the decrees have been non-existent, and Judge Polozola's jurisdiction to enforce the decrees is questionable.
The information we have obtained suggests that the treatment and conditions at Louisiana's secure juvenile facilities violate the constitutional and federal statutory rights of children confined there. The allegations reported include pervasive abuse and undue restraint, inadequate educational services and treatment, and failure to provide adequate food. Such conditions, if they exist, deprive the children of their constitutional rights to "adequate food, shelter, clothing and medical care," as well as "conditions of reasonable care and safety." Youngberg v. Romeo. 457 U.S. 307, 315, 324 (1982).
Sources of Information
Once we received President Carter's letter, we reviewed the Human Rights Watch Report. We then interviewed one of the investigators from Human Rights Watch and a lawyer from the Youth Law Center who has brought suit against a juvenile facility operated by a Parish (as opposed to the State).3/ We also interviewed local advocates, including counsel for the Williams plaintiffs and a lawyer who has brought a § 1983 action on behalf of a juvenile who was abused in one of the facilities. Counsel generally confirmed the accuracy of the Human Rights Watch Report. Our information is also derived from newspaper articles describing conditions at the facilities and the State's reaction to the Human Rights Watch Report.
Factual Allegations
1. Abuse
The Human Rights Watch Report indicates that physical abuse of the children in the facilities is pervasive.4./ Children at each facility reported that guards hit children (even pregnant girls) with handcuffs and fists, sometimes breaking noses, jaws, or eardrums or knocking teeth out; use mace on the children; kick the children (causing one child to urinate blood); throw chairs at the children; hit the children in the face with radios; and break the -children's bones.5/ At one facility, the nurse
2/ Doe v. Foti, CA No. 93-1227 (E.D. La.) (class action on behalf of juveniles confined in the Conchetta Facility, Orleans Parish Prison, run by the Sheriff of Orleans Parish).
4/ Human Rights Watch Report at 3.
5./ Human Rights Watch Report at 28-33. For instance, in (continued...)

- 3-
reported that the most common illnesses for which children came to the infirmary were orthopedic injuries such as broken jaws, broken hands, and broken noses.6/ Children reported being beaten while in handcuffs or shackles.7/ The abuse problem is compounded by the fact that there is no functioning complaint system by which the children can bring situations involving abuse to the attention of authorities .8./ Moreover, it appears that the children have a strong fear of reprisal if they report abuse.2/
2. Undue Restraint
The environment at all of the facilities is punitive. Isolation cells, which are generally cold, small, bare, windowless and sometimes painted dark colors, are often used for extended periods of time to punish children, rather than to protect children from immediate threats to themselves or others. Children in isolation cells are not permitted to leave their cells except once a day to take a shower. 10./ One child is forced to wear shackles at all times except when confined to his room.11/
5/(...continued) November 1994, Kerbert B. asked a guard for and was given permission to go to the bathroom. On his way to the bathroom, another guard stopped him and said Kerbert did not have permission. When Kerbert said that he had gotten permission, the second guard punched Kerbert in the face and broke his jaw. March 19, 1996 telephone interview, Nelson Cameron, attorney for Kerbert B., who has filed a § 1983 action on behalf of Kerbert; the case has been assigned to Judge Polozola. Mr. Cameron states that his client has been subject to other episodes of abuse and has witnessed several incidents of abuse involving other children and guards.
6./ Human Rights Watch Report at 31.
2/ Human Rights Watch Report at 26.
8/ Human Rights Watch Report at 4.
9/ Human Rights Watch Report at 34.
10/ Human Rights Watch Report at 21-22.
11/ Human Rights Watch Report; at 26.

_ 4-
3. Inadequate Educational Services and Treatment
Juvenile judges in Louisiana have called upon State officials to provide educational services to the children confined in the juvenile facilities .12./ At every facility, there were empty classrooms at times when school should have been in session and a substantial portion of the children were not in school. 13_/ Louisiana also does not provide rehabilitative services to the children in the facilities .14./ In addition, Louisiana fails to provide aftercare services for children released from the facilities and sometimes confines a child longer than required by a court due to the lack of available aftercare services.15/
4. Inadequate Food
Virtually every child interviewed by Human Rights Watch indicated that he or she was hungry.16/
Additional Considerations
In 1971, Angola was the only secure correctional facility operated by the State, and housed both adults and children.17/ After Williams I was filed, the United States intervened pursuant to Title IX on the issue of racial discrimination. Shortly thereafter, the court asked the United States to participate as
12/ March 20, 1996 telephone interview of June Denlinger, one of plaintiffs' counsel in Williams ("Denlinger interview").
13/ Human Rights Watch Report at 38.
14/ Human Rights Watch Report at 40-41. Dr. Cecile Guin, who has worked in the field of juvenile justice in Louisiana for 18 years told Human Rights Watch, "No one cares enough to rock the boat so that the system can be; changed. . . . Once the youth enters a juvenile institution, his or her chances of becoming a productive member of society are significantly decreased. . . . It is more likely that the youth has serious educational deficiencies that are not addressed during incarceration, is brutalized one way or another through the system and is released at a full term date with little or no preparation for reintegration into society. . . . Louisiana has never really implemented a comprehensive treatment program in this state." Id. at 41.
15/ Human Rights Watch Report at 41.
16/ Human Rights Watch Report at 36.
17/ Denlinger interview.

- 5-
amicus curiae on the other issues as well..18./ The United States has never participated in Williams I under its CRIPA authority.
As part of the remedy to the court's 1975 finding of unconstitutional conditions in Williams I. Louisiana agreed to build twelve new adult facilities and four facilities to hold children in confinement. As each of these facilities opened, Judge Polozola made the State enter into a limited consent decree concerning conditions at the facilities, such as population caps and staffing levels. 1.9/ The United States is not a party to these consent decrees. Moreover, these consent decrees do not address the issues that are typically presented in our juvenile cases under CRIPA -- namely, treatment, education, medical and mental health care, protection from abuse and other harms, diversion of children who do not need to be institutionalized, and after-care services. A court-appointed monitor, Margaret Severson, is supposed to receive complaints about each facility, but the monitor does not spend much of her time investigating conditions at the juvenile facilities.2^/ Counsel for plaintiffs have never pushed issues concerning the juvenile facilities because the court's jurisdiction over these facilities is "so tangential. If we get out on that limb, someone will surely saw it off."21/
From 1981 until 1990, Williams I plaintiffs' counsel "disappeared" and was not replaced; plaintiffs were therefore left with no one representing them for nearly a decade. 22./ The
18./ Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206, 1208 (5th Cir. 1977) (affirming trial court's conclusion that totality of conditions at Angola violated Eighth Amendment).
19/ Denlinger interview. The Fifth Circuit has held that Judge Polozola has the authority to monitor such a decree. Williams v. McKeithen. 963 F.2d 70, 72 (5th Cir. 1992). Strangely enough, although the Fifth Circuit held that he had authority to monitor the decree, it refused to address the issue of whether Judge Polozola had jurisdiction over the jail that was the subject of the decree. Ibid.
20/ Telephone interview, Mina Samuels, Consultant, Human Rights Watch Children's Rights Project, March 18, 1996. The previous court monitor toured the juvenile facilities and prepared reports on the facilities. However, the current court monitor does not go into the juvenile facilities. The last time that a monitor prepared a report on one of the juvenile facilities was in late 1991 or early 1992. Denlinger interview.
21/ Denlinger interview.
22/ Denlinger interview.

- 6-
United States' involvement also became inactive until a few years ago, when Judge Polozola wrote to the United States asking us to look into conditions in the Louisiana penal facilities. At that time, pursuant to its CRIPA authority and not as a party or amicus in Williams I. the Special Litigation Section conducted an investigation of conditions at Angola. The Section's investigation revealed that there was no longer a race issue at Angola, but that there were problems with the medical care there.
In the meantime, plaintiffs' counsel in Williams I brought an entirely new lawsuit regarding the inadequate medical care at Angola. This new lawsuit, called Williams II. only covers Angola and has nothing to do with the juvenile facilities operated by the State. It was assigned to Judge Polozola. Following the Section's investigation, Judge Polozola allowed the United States to intervene in Williams II pursuant to our CRIPA authority, but denied us the ability to present witnesses at the hearing. At the recommendation of the appellate section, the Division did not appeal the decision, preferring to wait for the outcome of the case. Judge Polozola has not yet ruled on the merits of Williams 11-21/
During the last week of April, the Fifth Circuit will hear oral argument on Louisiana's argument that Judge Polozola lost jurisdiction over Williams I in 1989 when the terms of the consent decrees expired. The United States is not participating in this appeal. Plaintiffs are currently trying to settle the case before the Fifth Circuit does it for them; they are trying to put an end to the old litigation.24/
Following release of the Human Rights Watch Report, Louisiana officials acknowledged the abuse at a news conference, but disputed that the abuse was widespread. The secretary of Louisiana's Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Richard Stalder, admitted that "We have a problem that we must deal with and are dealing with. "2_5/ Louisiana's then-governor, Edwin Edwards, questioned the validity of the Human Rights Watch Report, calling the study "suspect. "26./ A group of Louisiana juvenile judges have called upon Louisiana's elected officials to
23/ Interview of William Maddox, Senior Trial Attorney, Special Litigation Section, March 19, 1996.
24/ Denlinger interview.
25/ Shinkle, P., "Group, Officials Dispute Level of Juvenile Inmate Abuse," The Baton Rouge Advocate. October 10, 1995.
26/ Myers, D., "Edwards Says Prison Abuse Study Suspect," The Baton Rouge Advocate, October 11, 1995 at page 1-B Acadiana.

- 7-
solve the problems in the juvenile system. 2.7/ Since the Human Rights Report, Judge Polozola has twice convened Louisiana's juvenile judges in his courtroom and ordered Department of Corrections' officials to answer the judges' questions, which concerned many conditions at the juvenile facilities, particularly abuse and lack of educational services .73./ Counsel for plaintiffs in Williams knows of nothing substantive that Louisiana has done in response to the findings of the Human Rights Watch or the concerns of the juvenile judges.2 9/
Conclusion
We recommend that an investigation of Louisiana's four secure correctional facilities for children be initiated pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act. Given that: 1) the United States is only a party in Williams I concerning the issue of racial discrimination and our 1992 investigation revealed no continuing racial discrimination at Angola; 2) there are significant questions surrounding Judge Polozola's jurisdiction over the juvenile facilities in Williams I in any event; 3) the United States is not a party to the juvenile consent decrees; and 4) the consent decrees are very limited to begin with, we recommend against filing a motion for relief in Williams I. A foreseeable outcome of such a strategy would tie the United States up in an immediate appeal that would impede our ability to get relief to the children confined to the facilities. Williams II does not provide a vehicle to get concerns about the juvenile facilities before the court because Williams II only involves the issue of medical care at Angola. We therefore recommend initiating a fresh investigation of the juvenile facilities, and, if necessary, filing a new lawsuit that would address issues identified in our investigation. It may be that a new lawsuit would be assigned, as a related case, to Judge Polozola. By proceeding in this manner, however, we circumvent the jurisdictional nightmare of the Angola case.
Based on our understanding of the treatment and conditions at the facilities, it appears that an investigation is appropriate and necessary to protect the constitutional rights of the children confined there. We have attached for your signature the appropriate letter notifying State officials of our intent to commence an investigation. We recommend that Judge Polozola be notified of our intent to commence an investigation at the same time that State officials are notified. All three United States
27/ Editorial, "Juvenile Jails -- Elected Officials Must Respond to Alarms," Shreveport Times' Opinion, November 10, 1995.
28/ Denlinger interview.
29/ Denlinger interview.

- 8Attorneys in Louisiana have expressed their support of this investigation. Funds are available to conduct the investigation.
Attachment
Approved: Disapproved: Comments:

 
 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

Office of the Assutaiu Attorney General

Washington, D.C. 20530

CRIPA Investigation
11I11I11I0I1I JI-LA-001-004
The Honorable Mike Foster Governor of Louisiana State Capitol P. O. Box 94004 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9004
Re: Investigation of Secure Correctional Facilities for Children in Louisiana
Dear Governor Foster:
I am writing to inform you of our intention to investigate conditions at the Secure Correctional Facilities for Children in Louisiana. This investigation is authorized by, and will be conducted pursuant to, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997, et. seq.
The purpose of the investigation will be to determine whether there exist any violations of the statutory and federal constitutional rights of children confined in the facilities. The investigation will focus on, but not necessarily be limited to, allegations related to abuse, undue restraint, inadequate educational services and treatment, and failure to provide adequate food.
We would like to initiate this investigation as soon as possible. In that regard, staff attorneys from my office will contact your staff within the next week to arrange a meeting between attorneys and representatives of your office, followed by a tour of the facilities by our consultants and personnel from the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.

- 2-
The attorney assigned to this matter is Judy Preston, (202) 514-6258. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Deval L. PatricJ Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
cc: The Honorable Richard leyoub Attorney General of Louisiana
Mr. Richard Stalder Secretary for the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections
Mr. Elijah Lewis Superintendent Jetson Correctional Center for Youth
Mr. Robert Dunavant Superintendent Louisiana Training Institute at Monroe
Mr. Benny G. Harris Superintendent Louisiana Training Institute at Bridge City
Mr. Jerry Goodwin Superintendent Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth
The Honorable Frank J. Polozola United States District Judge for the
Middle District of Louisiana
The Honorable Eddie J. Jordan, Jr. United States Attorney Eastern District of Louisiana
The Honorable L. J. Hymel, Jr. United States Attorney Middle District of Louisiana
The Honorable Michael D. Skinner United States Attorney Western District of Louisiana

 
 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

Office of :he Assistant Attorney General

Ktshin^ton. D.C 20035

CRIPA Investigation
iiiiipiiin
BY 0V5RNIGHT MAIL
The Honorable Mike Foster Governor of Louisiana State Capitol P. 0. Box S4004 Baton. Rouge, LA 70804-9004
Re: Investigation of Secure Correctional Facilities for Children in Louisiana
Dear Governor Fester:
As you will recall, we notified you in April that the Department of Justice is currently investigating conditions at the secure correctional facilities for children in Louisiana. Within days of that notification, we were contacted by your Executive Counsel, who offered his assistance and cooperation in the investigation. Since that time, State officials at all levels have welcomed cur investigation, offered to assist and cooperate with us, and expressed their desires to work with us in the event that cur investigation revealed problems in the system. That spirit of cooperation is very much appreciated and will assist in achieving a resolution of our investigation that ensures protection of juveniles' rights.
It is in that spirit of cooperation that I write to you at this time. Although cur investigation of the facilities is net yet complete and our statutorilv-recuired comprehensive findings letcer will be senc to you a; the close of that investigation, I fel~ i" imperative to apprise you that cur recan; investigation revealed two life-threatening or dangerous conditions that must begin to be addressed before the conclusion cf cur investigation We uncovered serious systemic problems with staff abuse and juvenile-on-juvenile violence at Jetson and Bridge City, two cf the four facilities at issue in this matcer. We have not yez investigated conditions at Monroe or Tallulah.
We spent a day and a half at Bridge City and about two days at Jetscn during the week of June 3rd. Ac the end of both tours, we notified the respective superintendents that we had learned of serious problems with staff abuse and juvenile on juvenile

- 2-
violence at each facility. In both cases, we also provided names of juveniles whom we felt were at particularly high levels of risk. Neither superintendent denied the existence of these serious problems. A few examples of the type of evidence that we discovered include:
* At both facilities, nearly every child we interviewed spoke of being hit and/or kicked by officers and seeing other children being hit and/or kicked by officers. Children reported being assaulted by officers for such miner offenses as talking back, locking the wrong way, or walking cut of line. Ac Bridge City, children report that officers assault them while they are sleeping. At each facility, children repeatedly stated that they were afraid to report the abuse due to the possibility of retaliation. In a few interviews, officers acknowledged losing their patience and using corporal punishmenc. Other staff confirmed that such abuse occurs regularly and that children are afraid to report the abuse.
* A 14 year old bey at Jetsen reported that he had been savagely beaten by an officer, receiving a black eye and a busced lip. Ac the infirmary, he told the nurse he had slipped in the shower because he was afraid that a truthful account would result in more beatings. Ac Bridge City, one boy was seriously injured by a staff person, requiring 15 staples to close a scalp laceration. Another Bridge City child reported that crone occasion, scaff choked him with a belc until he passed out. At Jetscn, a girl who was seven months pregnant repcrcs being choked by an officer.
* A bey at Jetson repcrced that a guard repeatedly punched him in the face when the guard suspected the child of making a noise. The child was transferred to the hospital two days after the beating, where he underwent surgery for crushed bones in his face and placement of a metal plate in his face
Ac Bridge City, a.child suspected of fighcing with another child was sent to a back room and told to assume the "parade resc pesicion." A guard came in and hie him so hard in the chesc that he could not breathe; when the bey crumpled to the fleer, the guard repeatedly kicked him and punched him in the face. Then, the guard choksd him. The child was forced to then stand in line, where a second guard proceeded to slap him in the face and then punch him in the face.
We found a girl in a Jetscn isolation cell with a bloody eyeball, caused when a guard hit her with keys.

- 3-
Her injury and its: cause were confirmed by infirmary records. The child reported that she had been beaten for talking. The Superintendent was net aware of this injury or its cause until he toured with one of cur consultants.
One KlV-i- girl at Jetscn has been treated as an "untouchable" for seven months, forced to eat on separate plates, keep her laundry segregated from her peers' laundry, take her showers last, and use only a toilet net used by the other girls. Officers wash down the telephone mouthpiece whenever she uses the phone. Until recently, she was forced to wear full diapers during her menstrual cycle. During these seven months, she has become progressively more depressed and has once attempted suicide at the facility. Although she has never had a comprehensive psychiatric assessment, a recent psychiatric note expressed serious concern over her depression and ordered suicidal precautions. Despite these orders, she remained en the derm and got into a fight with a guard the night before we arrived at the facility. Another guard confirmed that she had to pull the first guard off of the girl. The juvenile was being treated in the infirmary for lacerations to her elbow and cuts on her face resulting from the altercation when we arrived the next day. She repeatedly expressed her wish to die.
Many juveniles at bcih facilities reported, and staff at Je-scn confirmed, that officers'"paid" children to beat up other children; payment usually was in the form of cigarettes, special protection, soap or feed. At Bridge City, a practice called "Take Five," is sanctioned, where guards agree to ignore a situation where one child is beaten by other children. On the night we left Bridge City, we interviewed a child with a busted lip, reportedly caused during a fight with a peer earlier in the day in full view of staff, who laughed during the fight and failed to intervene in any way. The superintendent was taken to the scene of the
from the assault.
A child at Jetscn vividly described a fight with another child, which was ultimately broken up by a guard. Apparently, both children and the officer were seriously hurt in the incident. The bey interviewed had his knee broken by the officer during the incident.
During the first five months at Bridge City, a facility housing only 178 children, infirmary legs indicate that on 4 0 occasions, children suffered orthopedic injuries

- 4 -
ar.d/or saricus lacerations requiring sutures that required medical treatment in a hospital emergency rccm. During this relatively brief period of time, injuries included dislocated fingers" broken and sprained ankles, lip lacerations, and broken noses and jaws.
* At Bridge City, youths repeatedly recounted being assaulted by ether children both physically and sexually on the dormitories, especially at night. Cne 12 year old told of being raped by an older boy just a week earlier behind the bleachers in the gym. Other Bridge City youths reported witnessing coerced oral sex between two beys in a "classroom" staffed only by a sleeping correctional officer. It appears that younger children and/or children with significant cognitive limitations (IQs less than 65) are oftentimes the target of the assaults. At Jetson, we had concerns about sexual abuse by female officers.
The superintendent at Jetscn, during his shore tenure at the facility, has taken significant and useful steps to stem the staff abuse at the institution. Among other things, he has referred nine officers to the local District Attorney for prosecution during the last year alone. Regrettably, there do not appear to be similar initiatives at Bridge City. Indeed, the superintendent at Bridge City, when apprised of cur findings at the exit interview, expressed surprise. In any event, because of the seriousness of the conditions we found in the two facilities investigated so far, it is apparent that even the efforts of the Jetscn superintendent have not been sufficient to prevent a pattern and practice of abuse at the facilities. It is therefore critical that the State take some additional immediate preliminary remedial measures to begin to swiftly correct these life threatening and dangerous deficiencies. The Department of Justice therefore requests that the State immediately implement the following remedial measures:
1. Immediate steps should be taken to advise all staff and juveniles that abuse, corporal punishment, and violence at the facilities are prohibited, will net be tolerated, will be subject to appropriate discipline and criminal prosecution, and that reporters of alleged abuse will be protected from retaliation. Steps to accomplish this include:
(a) Meetings between appropriate officials and ail staff and juveniles of bcth facilities to underscore this "zero tolerance" policy;
(b) Posting notices throughout the facilities; and

- 5-
(c) Sending every staff member at the facilities (including infirmary staff) a written notice informing them that they are mandatory reporters when it comes to either witnessing abuse or suspeczing abuse, that the failure" to report witnessed or suspected abuse will result in administrative action and may result in criminal prosecution, and that they will be protected from retaliation.
2. Any corporal punishment by s~aff or juveniles, including the practice of "Take Five" or "paying" children to assault other children, must be immediately shopped. If physical abuse occurs, appropriate action must be taken to treat the injured juvenile immediately and to remcve the abuser from contact with the juvenile.
3. The State should hire at least two qualified, independent professionals who have experience in juvenile justice and abuse investigations and assign them to oversee abuse and violence prevention at Jetscn and Bridge City. These professionals would be responsible for ensuring that:
(a) adequate procedures are in place and implemented to ensure timely reporting of all alleged abuse, including a hotline for reporting abuse, and non-retaliation against reporters of alleged abuse;
(b) all necessary immediate accion is taken to protect abused juveniles;
(c) alleged abuse is reported to appropriate authorities and is thoroughly investigated in a timely manner by appropriate, qualified, and objective staff who prepare a written report setting forth complete findings of fact and the basis of the findings;
(d) the results cf the investigation are reported to appropriate officials at the facilities, the Department cf Public Safety and Corrections, and the Governor's office;
(e) appropriate disciplinary action is taken when abuse is substantiated and, where aappropriate, referral tor criminal prosecution; and
(f) any systemic, underlying problems contributing to the abuse are identified and remedied.
4. All current and new staff should be trained (or re-trained) concerning the standards for the use of physical force (including the use of alternatives to force) and what constitutes abuse. Staff should also be trained on their mandatory duty to report

- 6-
witnessed abuse. Training should include the sanctioned techniques for application of physical force. Physical management training should be tailored to the needs of adolescents, rather than the adult correctional peculations, with emphasis on communication techniques, basic counselling, therapeutic interventions and the physical and emotional needs of adolescents. Staff should be required to demonstrate the techniques (and alternatives to force) that can be used to address aggressive or threatening behavior.
5. Younger children and children with significant cognitive limitations should be functionally grouped in their own section of a dorm at each facility. Youths en suicide watch should be housed in the infirmary during the pendency of the watch.
6. All administrative and clinical staff at both facilities should be encouraged to spend mere unannounced time visiting dorms and program areas and speaking with the juveniles. Ensuring unannounced visits during the evening and early morning hours is especially warranted.
7. The State should establish an independent task force comprised of professionals and advocates to study and make recommendations to address the problems of abuse in Louisiana's juvenile facilities. The panel should have the authority to conduct unannounced visits to the dorms and program areas of the facilities and to conduct private interviews with the children.
8. The State must develop a plan of longer term correction to address the problems of staff and juveniie-cn-juvenile abuse. In addition to ensuring better supervision and training for staff members and children, this plan should address the development of a mere reliable system for injury reporting and for the comprehensive investigation of all serious injuries to children. Individuals involved in developing this plan should meet with groups of officers and ether staff members, as well as a significant sample of children at both facilities individually, to better understand the scope and causes of physical violence at the facilities.
Given the urgency of addressing these deficiencies, please have your counsel contact Judy Preston at 202-514-5253 or Iris Goldschmidt at 202-514-S2S4 by Friday, July 25, 19 9 5 concerning the State's willingness to immediately implement the above remedial measures. We believe that the results of our investigation at the two facilities to date provide a basis for action pursuant not only to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997, ejz sec. , but also appear to constitute a violation of the Felice Misconduct Provision of the 1994 Crime Bill, 42 U.S.C. § 14141. However, because the State

- 7-
has expressed its desire to cooperate in this investigation and we would prefer to address the dangerous deficiencies swiftly and without resort to litigation on the merits, we make this offer to jointly address the deficiencies in the fastest possible manner.
Sincerely,
DevirF L. PatrTck Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
cc: The Honorable Cheney C. Joseph, Jr. Executive Counsel to the Governor
The Honorable Richard leycub Attorney General of Louisiana
Mr. Richard Stalder Secretary for the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections
Mr. Richard Curry Special Assistant Attorney General for the
Departmenc cf Public Safety and Corrections
Mr. Elijah Lewis Superintendent Jetson Correctional Center for Youth
Mr. Benny G. Karris Superintendent Louisiana Training Institute at Bridge City
Ms. Margaret M. Severscn Court Mcninor
The Honorable Eddie J. Jordan, Jr. United States Attorney Eastern District of Louisiana
The Honorable L. J. Kymel, Jr. United States Attorney Middle District of Louisiana
The Honorable Michael D. Skinner United States Attorney Western District of Louisiana

 
 (®ffizt of tip Attorney (General
fflaaljtngtDn. l.<&. 20530
September 23, 1996

CRIPA Investigation

The Honorable Jimmy Carter
The Carter Center One Copenhill Avenue 453 Freedom Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30307

|| | | | | Illll |||| I || || ||||| ||| || ||j|)|| | | |
JI-LA-001-006

Dear President Carter:

I am writing to advise you of the status of our investigation of Louisiana's juvenile correctional facilities pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act. To date, we have toured the four facilities at issue in this investigation: Jetson Correctional Center for Youth in Baton Rouge, Louisiana Training Institute in Monroe, Louisiana Training Institute in Bridge City, and Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth in Tallulah. We retained six expert consultants, who specialize in general juvenile correctional issues, abuse prevention, rehabilitation and education, and mental health services, to accompany Department attorneys for the on-site inspections.

Once the experts have finished their evaluations, we will be issuing a formal findings letter of the results of the investigation to Governor Foster and other Louisiana officials.

We note that we have received the full cooperation of the State of Louisiana and hope that we will be able to maintain this relationship throughout the investigation.

Thank you again for bringing this matter to our attention. As you are aware, I share your commitment to ensure the provision of safe conditions and appropriate services for children in our nation's juvenile facilities.

Sincerely,

Janet Reno

Department of Justice
EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT CONTROL SHEET

1 . FOLDER No:

43572

2 . TRACKING ID No: X95-045357

3. GETBACK C

4. DATE OF DOCUMENT: 12/22/95

5. DATE RECEIVED: 01/02/96

6. DUE DATE:

09/25/96

7. FROM: 8. TO:

Dimmy Carter Atlanta, GA 30307
AG

9. CATEGORY: PRIORITYl

10.SUBJECT:

Expressing concern regarding the conditions described in a recent study published by the Children's Rights Project of Human Rights watch which details the confinement of juveniles in Louisiana correctional facilities. Requests an investigation of these allegations and if abuses exist, urges the AG to ensure that appropriate action is taken and that individuals found responsible for the abuses be held accountable for their actions.

11.ACTION/INFORMATION:

Referred To:

Date Assigned: Action:

ESFILES

09/24/96

For closing, filing, and dispatching.
AG signed letter dated 9-23-96 by OAG. Original handcarried to CRT (Peabodyj per his request. CRT (Peabody) will dispatch letter.

OAG

09/18/96

For AG signature.

ODAG

09/16/96

For DAG initialing on Action Memorandum. Return to Executive secretariat for forwarding to AG. 9/18/96: ODAG (ogden) initialed for the DAG on 9/17/96.

OASG

09/04/96

For ASG initialing on Action Memorandum. w/memo from CRT to the AG dated 9/4/96, submitting a follow up letter for AG signature. Return to E.s. for forwarding to DAG. ASG initialed on 9/13/96.

Folder 43572, Page 2

OAG

02/01/96

For AG signature.

02-05-96 AG Signed letter dated

02-03-96 by OAG. Original mailed by

Exec. Sec. copy to CRT.

ODAG

01/30/96

For D A G initialing on Action Memorandum. Return to Executive Secretariat for forwarding to AG. O D A G (Ogden) initialed for DAG on 1/31/96.

OASG

01/25/96

For ASG initialing on Action Memorandum. Return to Executive Secretariat for forwarding to DAG. ASG initialed on 1/29/96.

CRT

01/02/96

Prepare response for AG signature.

Return with control sheet and

incoming letter to Executive

Secretariat.

1/24/96: CRT submitted response

Referred To:

Date Assigned: information:

OAG

01/02/96

For information.

OASG

01/02/96

For information.

12.RESERVED FOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT USE

AG FILE: presidential/Former Presidents, AG Chron, AS-2-2-96 & 9-23-96

13.EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT CONTACT: Dorrence Andrews, 616-0074

Department of Justice
EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT CONTROL SHEET

1. FOLDER No:

43572

2. TRACKING ID No: X95-045357

3. GETBACK C

7. FROM: jimmy Carter Atlanta, GA 30307

4. DATE OF DOCUMENT: 12/22/95

5. DATE RECEIVED: 01/02/96

6. DUE DATE:

09/25/96

1

8. TO:

AG

9. CATEGORY: PRIORITYl

10.SUBJECT:
Expressing concern regarding the conditions described in a recent study published by the Children's Rights Project of Human Rights watch which details the confinement of juveniles in Louisiana correctional facilities. Requests an investigation of these allegations and if abuses exist, urges the AG to ensure that appropriate action is taken and that individuals found responsible for the abuses be held accountable for their actions.

11.ACTION/INFORMATION:

Referred To:

Date Assigned: Action:

OAG

09/18/96

For AG signature.

ODAG

09/16/96

For DAG initialing on Action Memorandum. Return to Executive Secretariat for forwarding to AG. 9/18/96: ODAG (Ogden) initialed for the DAG on 9/17/96.

OASG

09/04/96

For ASG initialing on Action Memorandum. w/memo from CRT to the AG dated 9/4/96, submitting a follow up letter for AG signature. Return to E.S. for forwarding to DAG. ASG initialed on 9/13/96.

OAG

02/01/96

For AG signature.

02-05-96 AG Signed letter dated

02-03-96 by OAG. original mailed by

Exec. Sec. Copy to CRT.

Folder 43572, Page 2

ODAG

01/30/96

For DAG initialing on Action

Memorandum. Return to Executive Secretariat for forwarding to AG. ODAG (Ogden) initialed for DAG on 1/31/96.

OASG

01/25/96

For ASG initialing on Action

Memorandum.

Return to Executive Secretariat for

forwarding to D A G .

ASG initialed on 1/29/96.

CRT

01/02/96

Prepare response for AG signature.

Return with control sheet and

incoming letter to Executive

Secretariat.

1/24/96: CRT submitted response

Referred To:

Date Assigned: information:

OAG

01/02/96

For information.

OASG

01/02/96

For information.

12.RESERVED FOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT USE

AG FILE: Presidential/Former Presidents, AG Chron

13.EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT CONTACT: Dorrence Andrews, 616-0074

Office of the Assistant Attoraev General

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
. I'- . — I .•• •.!..-,

Hhshington, D.C. 20035

'96 SEP-4 P4:40

September 4, 1996

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THROUGH: THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY G E N E R A L ^ P " **i^Vo<?/{

THROUGH: THE ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL

FROM:

fvai L.~ Patrick Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

SUBJECT: Follow-up letter to Jimmy Carter on Louisiana juvenile investigation.

PURPOSE: To obtain your signature on a proposed letter.
TIMETABLE: Signature required at your convenience.
SYNOPSIS: During the August 21, 1996 briefing with the Civil Rights Division on the Prison Litigation Reform Act, we reported on the status of the Louisiana investigation of four juvenile correctional facilities under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA). Because Former President Carter wrote to you requesting that the Department investigate the facilities, you requested that we draft a letter to provide him with an update on the investigation. Inasmuch as the investigation is still on-going and, at Louisiana's request, we have not yet made any public disclosures of our interim findings of abuse, the letter does not disclose any specifics about the investigation. We will draft another letter for your signature enclosing a copy of the findings letter once it is finalized.

RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that you sign the attached letter. Attachment

(Office of ttj? Attorn^ (ieneral
, IB. & 20530
February 2, 1996
The Honorable Jimmy Carter The Carter Center One Copenhill Avenue 4 53 Freedom Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30307
Dear President Carter:
Thank you for your letter bringing to my attention a recent study by the Children's Rights Project of Human Rights Watch regarding alleged inadequate conditions of confinement throughout Louisiana's juvenile correctional facilities. In your letter, you request that we investigate these facilities and take appropriate steps to improve conditions afforded to the many children confined there.
Pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, signed into law by you during your Presidency, the Attorney General has the authority to investigate various public facilities, including juvenile correctional facilities, where it is alleged that juveniles are being denied their legal rights. The Department's Civil Rights Division presently has a vigorous enforcement program in which 76 facilities are currently under investigation and an additional 45 facilities are subject to consent decrees, court orders, or are taking other steps to improve conditions and eliminate abuses.
We are currently evaluating the Human Rights Watch's report regarding Louisiana's juvenile facilities. Please be assured that following that review, we will undertake such investigations as are appropriate and will apprise you accordingly of our efforts.
I share your commitment to ensuring the provision of safe conditions and appropriate services for children in need of care and rehabilitation in our nation's juvenile facilities.

The Honorable Jimmy Carter Page 2
Again, please accept my thanks for bringing this matter to my attention.
Sincerely,
Janet Reno

Office of the Assistant Anomey General

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
Hhshington. D.C 20035

o

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

cz

>^ j THROUGH: THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL"-^

THROUGH: THE ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENE:

FROM:

Deval L.

Assistant

eral

Civil RightTs" Division

—

CD rr

£ K I"?

SUBJECT: Reply to Letter from President Carter

PURPOSE: To obtain your approval and signature on a proposed letter responding to correspondence addressed to you from President Jimmy Carter requesting an investigation of Louisiana's juvenile facilities pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA).

TIMETABLE: Signature requested as soon as possible.

SYNOPSIS: In a recent letter President Jimmy Carter brought to our attention a report of Human Rights Watch alleging serious violations of the constitutional rights of juveniles confined in juvenile facilities throughout the State of Louisiana. We" advise President Carter that we are reviewing the report and will initiate such investigations as may be appropriate pursuant to CRIPA and advise him of the results.

RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that you approve and sign the proposed response to President Carter.

Attachment

JIMMY CARTER
December 22, 1995
To Attorney General Janet Reno
I am writing to express my deep concern over the conditions described in a recent study published by the Children's Rights Project of Human Rights Watch which details the confinement ofjuveniles in Louisiana correctional facilities who are routinely subjected to human rights abuses. Hunger, restraint, physical abuse and total lack of privacy are only a few of the violations cited. Such treatment falls short of international human rights standards, specifically those related to confinement of children as set forth in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
As I am sure you agree, it is inexcusable for children, regardless of their actions, to be subjected to this type of treatment, and it is virtually impossible for a child to be rehabilitated in a system which denies him or her respect and basic rights. It is important for young people in our country to have the appropriate legal protections to ensure fair treatment and to guarantee their safety.
I request that you investigate these allegations immediately. If such abuses do exist, I urge you to ensure that appropriate action is taken and that those individuals found responsible for the abuses be held accountable for their actions. Implementing the recommendations set forth by the Human Rights Watch, Children's Rights Project study would ensure that the conditions at the correctional facilities are improved and that the children receive the education, counseling and respect to which they are entitled.
Sincerely,
Attorney General Janet Reno Main Justice Building 10th Street and Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC. 20530

 
 Memorandum

CRIPA Investigation

PFH:SHR:RSF:JCP:IG:LWJ:JAY:ph DJ 168-32M-20; DJ 168-33-107; DJ 168-32-63; DJ 168-33-108
Subject
Louisiana Juvenile Training Facilities Findings Letter

JI-LA-001-008 Date
June 13, 1997

To

From

Isabelle Katz Pinzler

n Steven H. Rosenbaum

Acting Assistant Attorney General^J\Chief

Civil Rights Division

Special Litigation Section

Attached for your approval, is a proposed findings letter advising the Governor of Louisiana of the findings of our investigation of the four secure correctional facilities for juveniles in Louisiana -- Louisiana Training Institute at Bridge City, Jetson Correctional Center for Youth, Swanson Correctional Center for Youth, and Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth -- pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 e_£ seg. and the pattern or practice provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141.1 The State provides secure care for approximately 1,700 juveniles adjudicated delinquent in these facilities. Fewer than 25 percent of these juveniles committed violent crimes.
During the past year, we conducted an exhaustive investigation of these facilities. We began the investigation with tours of the four facilities during the summer of 1996 with experts in the fields of abuse investigations, juvenile justice, education, and psychiatric care. We toured the facilities again in December 1996 and January 1997 to evaluate the State's representations that they had corrected some of the violations. In addition, we have interviewed key State officials, institutional staff, and hundreds of juveniles and have reviewed thousands of documents, including juveniles' records, incident reports and abuse investigations. On the basis of our investigation, we have identified a number of conditions that continue to violate the federal rights of juveniles under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution as well as several federal statutes.

1 We initiated this investigation at the request of former President Jimmy Carter, who brought conditions at these facilities to Attorney General Reno's attention following a Human Rights Watch Report detailing widespread deficiencies.

-2-
The attached findings letter would follow two interim emergency letters that we sent to the Governor of Louisiana regarding life-threatening problems we uncovered during our investigation. In the interim letters, dated July 15, 1996 and October 3, 1996, we informed the Governor of systemic problems with staff abuse and juvenile-on-juvenile violence. In the October 1996 letter, we also delineated dangerous medical and mental health care deficiencies. We include these letters as attachments to the findings letter. Although Louisiana took some steps to address these deficiencies, the measures that they took were insufficient to correct the problems and afford juveniles their constitutional and federal statutory rights.
This findings letter is similar to and consistent with the deficiencies and remedies we identified in our findings letter involving all 13 juvenile treatment facilities in Kentucky. The conditions at the secure juvenile facilities in Louisiana that violate the constitutional and federal statutory rights of residents include:
1. Failure to protect juveniles from harm.
In spite of alerting the State twice to the violent conditions at the facilities and providing the opportunity to correct these conditions voluntarily, we uncovered continuing serious, systemic, and, in certain cases, life-threatening, violence during our re-tours. Correctional staff continue to physically and sexually abuse juveniles. Guards continue to use mace inappropriately, sometimes using it on juveniles in restraints. Restraints continue to be used inappropriately. Juvenile-on-juvenile violence continues to pervade the system. With the exception of the Jetson facility, abuse investigations continue to be inadequate. The State continues to fail to classify juveniles adequately within the facilities, creating an unsafe environment for vulnerable juveniles. The State's own task force concluded in its December 1996 report that small and young children, who are especially vulnerable and at risk, are being harmed in these facilities. Dozens of juveniles continue to suffer serious injuries such as fractures to jaws, noses, cheeks, and eye sockets and lacerations requiring sutures on a monthly basis.
2. Inadequate medical and mental health care.
The State provides inadequate medical and mental health care to a substantial number of confined juveniles. The facilities fail to screen and assess juveniles' medical conditions adequately, and their quality assurance procedures fail to identify their errors. Access to care is impeded by correctional staff in three of the facilities. Dental care, which is generally limited to extractions, is systemically inadequate.

-3-
Each facility suffers other serious discrete problems in medical care delivery.
With respect to mental health care, the facilities lack psychiatric staffing to ensure adequate care for juveniles. Tallulah, for example, has no psychiatrist; juveniles who have mutilated themselves and/or have threatened suicide have never been referred to a psychiatrist. The facilities are replete with suicide hazards, especially in Bridge City where the State specifically places depressed and suicidal youth. Mental health assessments, counseling, and treatment deviate from professional standards. Staff are not adequately trained to meet the needs of juveniles with mental retardation or mental illness. Moreover, the State confines mentally ill or mentally retarded juveniles in secure facilities, in spite of placement recommendations for nonsecure treatment.
3. Inadequate education and rehabilitative services.
At all four facilities, general and special educational services, including related services, are deficient, violate constitutional due process and equal protection, or fail to meet the legal mandates of the IDEA. Our consultants concluded that the education programs in the facilities "operate completely outside the bounds of acceptable educational practice." Most of the juveniles do not receive the State-mandated minimum of 5-1/2 hours of schooling per day, and some youth, who are eligible for schooling, are not enrolled in school at all. Little or no instruction occurs in many of the classes. The facilities deny many juveniles educational services while they are housed in isolation. Vocational training is nonexistent in two facilities and is inadequate in the other two.
All four facilities fail to provide juveniles with adequate rehabilitation. Instead, during many non-school hours, officers force juveniles to sit in silence without shifting their positions, and punish or hit the juveniles if they fail to do so. Our experts concluded that "students are unable to maintain their academic progress, fail to develop new skills, and are no more prepared to re-enter their home communities than when they were initially confined." As we found in Kentucky, Louisiana fails to provide appropriate case management/aftercare to juveniles upon release from the facilities. While the law in this area is not well developed, our expert believes that aftercare is a necessary component of successful rehabilitative care.
4. Other juvenile justice deficiencies.
Overly-restrictive facility practices with respect to mail, telephone, and visitation deny juveniles their freedom of association and communication. The facilities also fail to

-4-
provide juveniles with adequate access to courts during their confinement.2
The findings letter sets forth the necessary remedial measures to correct the violations found and informs State officials that we look forward to negotiating with them to resolve the existing systemic deficiencies.
During the course of our investigation, we also found that many juveniles work instead of receiving a full day of school instruction. Without pay, juveniles are required to perform such tasks as blacktopping parking lots, cleaning swimming pools, replacing roofs, and working on road crews picking up litter. We have discussed this issue with the Associate Solicitor of the Fair Labor Standards Division at the Department of Labor and he is willing to evaluate these practices to determine if they violate the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, we propose to refer this matter to the Department of Labor for review.
Because conditions at the four facilities are before the court in Williams v. McKeithen, CA 71-98-B (M.D. La), we propose sending a copy of the findings letter to the court and counsel in that case and so advise the State in our findings letter. As discussed in our original recommendation to investigate, juveniles at each of the facilities are part of the Williams class. Williams is a class action filed in 1971 originally concerning only conditions at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola. Although the United States participated as intervener on the race issues and as amicus on all other issues in the original litigation, we have not participated in the case since the early 1980's.3 In 1984, the court expanded Williams to include the State's secure correctional facilities for juveniles and ordered the State to enter into limited "consent decrees" governing each of these facilities.4 In 1994, the court declared a state of emergency at Tallulah, and the Williams court-appointed monitor continues to monitor closely conditions at that facility.
We are continuing to investigate whether the State's system for providing juveniles with adequate legal representation during the adjudication process violates the Constitution and creates a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
3 There is a separate case, also called Williams, filed in 1992, concerning only medical care at Angola. Although the judge permitted the United States to intervene in this case, he did not permit us to participate in the trial in 1994. There is not yet a decision on the merits in this case.
4 Neither the United States nor plaintiffs are signatories to these "consent decrees."
*T

-5-
The United States Attorneys for the Western, Middle, and Eastern Districts of Louisiana have been advised of the findings of our investigation.
If you approve, your signature is required on the attached letter.
Attachment Approved Disapproved
Comments:

Office of the .Assistant Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
Viiuhinqwn, D.C. 20035

The Honorable Mike Foster
Governor of Louisiana State Capitol P.O. Bex 94004 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9004

June 1^ 19°7

Re.- Findings of Investigation of Secure Correctional Facilities for Juveniles in Louisiana

Dear Governor Foster:

I am writing to report our findings with respect to our investigation of the four secure correctional facilities for juveniles in Louisiana -- Louisiana Training Institute - Bridge City ("Bridge City") , Jetson Correctional Center for Youth ("Jetson") , Swanson Correctional Center for Youth ("Swanson") (formerly known as Louisiana Training Institute - Monroe), and Tallulah' Correctional Center for Youth ("Tallulah") . We first notified you on April 25, 1996, that we were initiating an investigation of these facilities pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA") , 42 U.S.C. § 1997 si seq. CRIPA authorizes the Attorney General to investigate conditions at juvenile correctional institutions that are owned by a State or operated on behalf of a State. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(i)*(B) . On July 15 and October 3, 1996, we notified you that conditions at these four facilities were also covered by our authority to enforce the pattern or practice provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141.

We conducted our investigation beginning with tours of the four facilities during the summer of 1996 with five expert consultants in the fields of juvenile justice, education, medical and mental health, and abuse prevention, and re-toured each facilicy during the winter of 1996-97. Our tours took place on the following dates: Bridge City on June 3-4, 1996, July 29-31, 1996, and December 16, 1996; Jetson on June 5-7, 1996, July 24-26, 1996, and December 17-13, 1996; Swanson on August 19-21, 1996, August 26-28, 1996, and January 21-22, 1997; and Tallulah on August 21-23, 1996, August 23-30, 1996, and January 23-24, 1997. During our tours, we interviewed several hundred juveniles confined at the facilities, as well as staff and administrators. In addition, we reviewed numerous facility and State documents and individual juveniles' records before,

- 2-
during, and after the tours. Our experts provided facility and State officials with feedback during their tours, and we had several meetings and phone conferences with these officials to discuss a number of issues that arose during the course of cur investigation. We wish to thank Louisiana officials, personnel, and counsel for providing their full assistance and cooperation throughout our investigation.
At each of the four facilities, we uncovered systemic life-threatening staff abuse and juvenile-on-juvenile violence. The gravity of the situation necessitated our sending two interim emergency letters to you -- the first on July 15, 19S6 (Attachment A) and the second, en October 3, 1996 (Attachment B) . Our October 3, 1996, letter also informed you that certain medical and mental health problems at Swanscn and Tailulah posed serious risks of harm to the juveniles confined there. In both emergency letters, we notified you that the results of our investigation provide the United States with a basis for action pursuant to CRIPA and 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
The State responded immediately to the concerns expressed in our letters to you. On August: 1, 1996, the Secretary for the Department of Public Safety and Corrections announced his initiative to eliminate violence from Louisiana's secure correctional facilities for juveniles, calling the initiative Project Zero Tolerance. The Secretary's strong commitment to the goals of the Project are evident, and a number of the efforts made since the Project was initiated are significant. As we will explain in more detail below, however, there is still much to be dene to achieve and maintain the goal of Project Zero Tolerance in the facilities.
Although the State implemented many of the measures suggested in our emergency letters to you with its Project Zero Tolerance initiative, it either refused or failed to implement several other suggested emergency measures. Furthermore, a number of the Secretary's proposed initiatives have been delayed due to lack of funding or other resources. For instance, last October, the State agreed to install additional surveillance cameras at Tailulah. These cameras are not yet in place. Exit interviews conducted by the Project; Zero Tolerance Task Force confirm that youth regard camera surveillance as an important component in efforts to stem the tide of excessive use of force in the facilities.
Consistent with the statutory requirements of CRIPA, we write to advise you of the findings of our investigation. Many conditions in Louisiana's four secure correctional facilities for juveniles violate the constitutional and statutory rights of the juveniles confined therein. Conditions in the Louisiana secure correctional facilities for juveniles violate the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United
-T

- 3-
States. &=£, e.g.. United Sr.af.ss v. Virginia, 115 S. Ct. 2254 (1996) ; Your.gbercr v. Rcmso, 457 U.S. 307 (1932) ; Hounds v. Smif.h, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) ; E.-f.elle v. GamhTa. 429 U.S. 97 (1976) ; Turnsr v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Jackson v. Indiana. 406 U.S. 715 (1972); Tn rg Gault. 387 U.S. 1 (1967). Conditions also violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and its implementing regulations; the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 sJi seq. .and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. In addition, a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives juveniles of rights, privileges, or immunities protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States exists in Louisiana secure correctional facilities for juveniles in violation of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
I. FINDINGS
The State provides secure care for approximately 1700 juveniles adjudicated delinquent in three state-owned and operated correctional facilities, Jetscn, Swanscn, and Bridge City, and in one privately-owned and operated facility, Tallulah. Jetson provides care for 470 males and 150 females. Bridge City provides care for 18 0 males, most of whom have been identified as young and vulnerable. Swanson provides care for 396 males. Tallulah, which provides care for 53 6 males, operates both a beet camp and the system's most secure settings on a closed campus. Juveniles confined to these facilities range in age from 10 to 20; 85 percent of the youth are under age 18. About 70 percent of the 1700 juveniles are at or below an 8"" grade education level; about one-third of the 1700 juveniles have been identified as needing special education. Eighty-three percent of the juveniles are African American. In 1996, fewer than a quarter of the youth confined in these facilities committed violent crimes.
A. Failure to Protect Juveniles from Harai
Our investigation uncovered serious, systemic, and, in certain cases, life-threatening, harm being inflicted on the juveniles in all four facilities. We cited numerous examples in our prior correspondence. Serious physical injuries to youth from officer assault or from attacks by ether youth have occurred at all four facilities. Literally dozens of juveniles are being seriously injured on a monthly basis across the four facilities. Especially at Tallulah and Swanscn, the incidence of fractures to jaws, noses, cheeks, and eye sockets, as well as serious lacerations requiring sutures (usually also to faces) is disturbing. At all four training institutes, correctional staff abuse the juveniles. The abuse ranges from officers physically hitting, punching or kicking youth (sometimes when they are handcuffed), to officers negotiating "contracts" with juveniles
'T

- 4-
to beat up other juveniles to officers compelling juveniles to sit, stand, or lay in positions that are clearly painful and constitute corporal punishment. We also found evidence of sexual abuse and assault at each of the four facilities. The violence at the facilities is so pervasive that our consultant concluded that "the greatest responsibility for the problems seen must be directed to the institutes' administrators and senior staff. It is clear that these men and women either knew or intentionally sought not to know of the serious violence to children that was occurring [at the facilities]."
Unfortunately, despite the initiatives the State has taken in recent months to stem the violence we discovered during our initial tours during the summer of 1995, re-tours confirm that an unacceptable level of violence remains at all of the facilities, especially at Tallulah and Swanscn. In addicion, at all facilities, little attention has been paid to sexual activity between juveniles and between officers and juveniles.
This is net to say that the Secretary's Project Zero Tolerance initiative has had no effect. With the possible exception of Tallulah, interviews with children and staff at all facilities indicate a strong awareness of Project Zero Tolerance and changes in the institutions' culture where only a few months earlier the rule of violence had been so accepted. The singular progress at Jetson bears special mention. At Jetson, the superintendent has undertaken many initiatives beyond those specified in Project Zero Tolerance and is a strong personal voice in reinforcing the mission of the Project. The Jetscn superintendent also has recruited a strong management team over both security and program services that daily reinforces the goals of Project Zero Tolerance. Officers and program staff at Jetson report that the "code of silence" among officers is breaking down, resulting in officers coming forward to report misdeeds and abusive conduct of their colleagues.
1. Abuse
At each facility, there are correctional staff who have net embraced the goals of Project Zero Tolerance. Indeed, it is disturbing that in spite of the clear message that no undue use of force would be tolerated with the initiation of Project Zero Tolerance, seme staff have continued to physically assault the juveniles in their care. For instance, sines the inception of Project Zero Tolerance, the following examples of staff abuse have occurred:
• a lieutenant at Bridge City punched a child in the eye and threw him through a screen door, while a teacher watched;

- 5-
• videotapes at Swanson have recorded separate incidents of a guard karate kicking a juvenile in the head and a guard punching a juvenile,-
• at Jetscn, juveniles alleged that guards beat them with broken brooms hidden in the attic above their dorm, and when facility investigators found the brooms, the guards refused to be fingerprinted;
• at Jetson, a guard repeatedly whipped two females with a belt - one girl was whipped allegedly because it was her birthday and the guard had a practice of whipping juveniles on their birthdays, and the ether girl was whipped allegedly because she was going to be discharged shortly,-
• at Tallulah, a captain discovered guards beating up juveniles, including one child whose hands were cuffed behind his back who was bleeding heavily from the mouth, and guards macine youth while they were being held by other guards; and
• at Taliulah, a guard told a juvenile that he wanted to "drive his dick" in the juvenile's mother's mouth during visitation, leading to a verbal argument that resulted in the guard repeatedly punching the child in the jaw with both his left and right fists, even after the child fell to the floor and attempted to block the guard's blows, and the guard throwing and hitting the child in the head with a radio.
Regrettably, months after the implementation of Project Zero Tolerance, records and interviews confirm that staff routinely continue to kick, hit, slap, stomp, choke, scratch, and slap juveniles in these facilities. In fact, in its December 1996 Report, the Project Zero Tolerance Task Force concluded that u[t:]he use of force in the institutions is still a big problem."
The abusive use of mace at all facilities except Bridge City also violates juveniles' constitutional rights. Many juveniles at Swanson and Tallulah reported that guards sometimes mace juveniles in restraints, which clearly constitutes use of excessive force. At all facilities except Bridge City, juv.niies also continue to be sprayed inappropriately with mace in situations where there is no present danger to the juvenile or to others. For example, juveniles recently have been sprayed with mace for refusing to shave, refusing to stop talking, refusing to sit down, refusing to leave a quiet time rccm, kicking their door, and, on the morning of our most recent tour of Tallulah, not arising from bed promptly enough. In none of these incidents did the juvenile engage in dangerous behavior prior to being sprayed. Rather, staff routinely use mace instead of less

- 6-
intrusive, mere appropriate measures of control and de-escalation. Furthermore, in many situations, mace continues to be used as a disciplinary measure long after a threat of danger has passed. At Tallulah, both staff and juveniles told our consultant that the use of mace is under-reported. Similarly, the Project Zero Tolerance Task Force noted in its December 1996 Report that although there were no official reports of use of mace at Tallulah during December, youth at Tallulah reported that officers had macsd them during that month.
The final type of abuse found at ail four facilities involves the use of corporal and other forms of unofficial discipline against juveniles. Staff who are poorly trained and supervised have resorted to unapproved methods of disciplining youth that have become institutionalized. Examples include: unit "initiations" (whipping and beating juveniles) and forcing offenders into "the cut" (cut of camera range) to fight other youth or be punished physically by guards.
The extent of abuse at the facilities appears to be understated due to systemic deficiencies in reporting. Sometimes guards refuse to take abuse victims to the infirmary to seek medical attention. When juveniles are brought to the infirmary, oftentimes, fearing retaliation, the juveniles camouflage the real cause of their injuries, reporring them as accidents instead of staff abuse. The Project Zero Tolerance Task Force concluded in its December 199S Report that "very few youth had confidence in the [abuse] reporting system," and cur consultant found that just filing an allegation of abuse could get a child into trouble with the staff assigned to care for him or her. Infirmary logs at all facilities indicate that juveniles continue to suffer suspicious injuries that require mere foilcw-up or investigation than the facility provided. Documentation also suggests that medical personnel readily accept accounts of injuries that appear spurious and they often do net make substantial efforts to encourage youth to be more forthcoming about the true cause of the injury. Medical personnel at some of the facilities also continue to interview juveniles about the cause of their injuries in the presence of security personnel from the juvenile's dormitory who escorted the juvenile to the infirmary. Finally, staff's legal and professional obligation to report suspected abuse has not been reinforced in training or in daily supervisory practices. The Project Zero Tolerance Task Force concluded in its December 1996 Report that "[t]he training needs for correctional, treatment and medical staff at the juvenile institutions is overwhelming. It will take a long time to get the staff trained in the manner that is needed to address the issues that have become evident through the PZT [Project Zero Tolerance] Project." In short, in a system where- ail but a few youth expressed a fear of retaliation, it is evident that

- 7-
Louisiana is failing to provide injured children with a meaningful and appropriate opportunity to report all instances of abuse.
Staff at each of the four facilities are inadequately trained to intervene in crisis situations involving juveniles, which is a contributing factor to the ongoing constitutional violations. In many cases, staff are left: to their own devices to control the juveniles. This, of course, creates a dangerous environment for all involved. A review of use of force incidents occurring both before and after the Project Zero Tolerance initiative confirmed staff's lack of training and knowledge regarding techniques other than brutal force for intervening effectively in crisis situations involving youth. These reports revealed that it was common and expected that officers would break up fights between juveniles by joining in the fight and "winning." Officers in the facilities have received police-type training inappropriate for working with confined youth.
2. Unreasonable Restraints
Restraints are inappropriately used at the facilities. For instance, when we toured Jetson during the summer of 1996, institutional policy permitted juveniles to be "hog-tied;" that is, youths were forced to sit for several hours cuffed at both the ankles and wrists, with the wrist cuffs attached to the ankle cuffs under the thighs, as a punishment for behavior. We found several incidents of this type of restraint being used on youth. One girl was even hog-tied as a suicide precaution. To his credit, the Secretary banned this practice on the spot when we told him about it. However, handcuffs continue to be used in the facilities long after youths are calm and pose no clear and present danger to anyone.
All facilities except Bridge City use segregated isolation as punishment. Despite the Secretary's November 1996 announcement that segregated isolation may be used only when a youth presents a danger, at all facilities except Bridge City, segregated isolation continues to be used frequently, often in non-dangerous situations, often not as a last resort, and often as a punitive measure. Taiiuiah administrative staff did not deny that segregated isolation continues to be used as punishment. At Swanson, isolation continues to be used for relatively minor offenses and as punishment for a large percentage of the resident youth. At Jetson,. many offenders continue to be confined arbitrarily to 24-hour disciplinary isolation while awaiting their hearing. These practices deviate from accepted standards of care and are in direct violation of the Secretary's newly-promulgated policy. In addition, at Tallulah, youth with suicidal tendencies and youth engaging in self-mutilation are disciplined with segregated isolation for

- 8-
their mental health problems. This response to such dangerous behaviors is contrary to accepted medical standards.
3. Juvenile-on-Juvenile Violence
In addition to the continuing excessive use of force by guards, Louisiana continues to fail to protect juveniles adequately from harm in several ether critical respects. Infirmary logs at all four facilities still document daily fights among juveniles, some of which result in severe injuries. Furthermore, because these altercations are often halted with use of force by the officers, juveniles continue to get hurt in situations where less restrictive interventions than physical force would have been appropriate. At Swanscn, in addition to frequent juvenile-on-juvenile fights, there was also a marked increase in gang fights involving as many as 15-20 juveniles. At Talluiah, during a recent two month period, 40 youth were transported to the local hospital for incidents involving acute trauma, primarily due to fighting.
4. Inadequate Abuse Investigations
In order to facilitate the reporting of abuse by staff and other juveniles at the facilities, the Secretary instituted a toll free hotline to the Project Zero Tolerance Task Force Special Investigator in Eaton Rouge. During cur investigation, however, we found that juveniles did not have reasonable access to the hotline. At Talluiah, aLCcess to the hotline was inadequate because youth could net use the phone anonymously. Youth requesting to use the hotline were cuffed and shackled and escorted to the phone located in the infirmary by security. A leg was kept of the youth who used the phone. Given the pervasive fear of retaliation expressed by all but a few interviewed youth, this system discourages use of the hotline at Talluiah. In addition, Talluiah failed adequately to educate juveniles regarding opportunities for hotline access. For the other three facilities, youth did net have direct access to the hotline, although the Secretary recently announced that all juveniles would have access to the hotline on dormitory phones. Nonetheless, the Project Zero Tolerance Task Force concluded in its December 1996 Report that the hotline is "not working for the majority of incarcerated youth who do not have advecative parental relationships, who are weak, deveiepmentaily disabled or fearful of retaliation."
With the exception of Jetson, where recent internal investigations new meet accepted professional standards for child abuse investigations, facility abuse investigations continue to depart substantially from accepted professional standards. At Bridge City, Swanson, and Talluiah, abuse allegations are rarely sustained, even where the victim's allegations are very specific, document injuries that are consistent with the allegations, and

- 9-
several other juveniles witness the abuse. Until very recently, photographs were not usually taken of injuries. Physical evidence alleged to have been used as weapons (for instance, chairs, keys, handcuffs, etc.) are almost never safeguarded after violent incidents. Victim's statements are often not taken in privats. Initial statements of officers, victims, and witnesses are not taken by the special investigator, but by supervisory correctional staff, thereby defeating the independence and objectivity of the investigation. Investigators regularly discount the testimony of a juvenile without any reasoned review of its credibility, even when there are similar, credible, and specific accounts from multiple youth. There is some evidence, however, in recent investigations conducted at Swanson that investigators are beginning to factor the testimony of juveniles into their findings.
Many very serious injuries to juveniles are not investigated at all. Injuries that youth attribute to accidents or assaults by ether youth usually are net: investigated. This is particularly troubling in light cf the number of juveniles who allege that guards avoid the consequences of staff abuse by negotiating contracts with juveniles to act as "hit men" for the guards and assault their peers for payments such as extra snacks or cigarettes. The practice of disciplining juveniles for filing abuse allegations that are not sustained further contributes to the juveniles' wariness to come forward with allegations.
In stark contrast to internal investigations that continue uniformly to evidence serious problems, the quality of the investigations conducted by supervisory investigator Major McDonald were complete and thorough and reflected a thoughtful and critical review cf the evidence. Major McDonald recently resigned to accept employment in the private sector. Major McDonald's successors, Major Ted Price and other members of the Project Zero Tolerance special, investigations team, should continue to develop and implement the special investigatory process, which will assist in reducing the violence at the juvenile facilities in Louisiana.
Although the Secretary has ensured, through Project Zero Tolerance, that each facility has a special investigator, these designated individuals had received very little training as of our January 1997 tours. Major McDonald's supervision of individual facility investigators has resulted, except at Tallulah, in investigations that are slowly becoming more thorough, and instances where officers make false or misleading statements are beginning to be addressed. In addition to insufficient training, facility investigators continue to be supervised by facility administrators rather than by the Secretary or his designee. This arrangement dees not adequately ensure that facility investigators can perform their duties independently and be assured full cooperation by facility staff.
*T

- 10 -
In addition, there are not enough investigators in light cf the large number of abuse allegations made. Most of the facility investigators are expected to perform other duties. These additional assignments not only rcb investigators of time needed to devote to investigations, but also, in some cases, may present direct conflicts of interest with their roles as special investigators. Moreover, the State has net established a policy setting forth reasonable time frames to conduct investigations in a timely fashion. For example, the investigators are made to work under unreasonably truncated time frames at Bridge City, Jetson and Swanscn, forcing investigators frequently to forego a thorough investigation for the sake of a timely one. By contrast, at Tallulah, where there are no time frames for conducting an investigation, the investigator has an extraordinarily large open caseload, many of which have been open for longer than 60 days. Guidelines setting reasonable time frames would help ensure that investigations are completed in an expeditious and thorough manner.
5. Inadequate Classification
Another contributing factor to the unsafe environment in Louisiana's juvenile facilities is that all four facilities fail to meet current accepted standards relating to classification to protect juveniles from harm. For instance, at Bridge City, which is supposed to provide protective custody for the system's most vulnerable children, older, stronger juveniles are often housed with younger, smaller boys. This practice has led to unsafe conditions for the system's most vulnerable children. Almost all of the younger children at Bridge City voiced fears about their safety not only to us but to counselors and medical staff. We heard repeated accounts of physical and sexual assault by ether children. At Swanson, some juveniles, through no fault of their own, are forced to live in restrictive conditions with aggressive peers in order that the facility fill all of its beds. Finally, youth with mental health problems that result in disruptive and/or self-destructive behaviors are transferred routinely to Swanson's and Tallulah's restrictive units where they experience prolonged periods of isolation and deprivation of a number of services without needed treatment for their underlying mental health problems. For many of these youth, such a transfer is counterproductive to treatment needs. Many of these youth increased their self-mutilation and disrupcive behaviors as a result of increased isolation.
6. Inappropriate Commitments to the Facilities
Louisiana is failing to protect: a substantial number cf the children confined in its secure facilities from harm by placing them in these facilities in the first place. The State's own post-adjudication screenings identified a number of juveniles, many of whom have special needs, including mental or physical
'T

- 11 -
disabilities, who were appropriate for ncnsecure placements upon commitment to the Department. However, these recommendations were overridden, resulting in these youth being placed in secure facilities. State officials have advised us that these recommendations were not implemented because there are an insufficient number of appropriate alternative placements for these juveniles. Indeed, the Project Zero Tolerance Task Force concluded in its December 1996 Report that "[t]he [secure juvenile] institutions are filled with discarded children and youth from the mental health, developmental disabilities, educational, public health and child welfare systems of care."
In addition, the Task Force also concluded that small and young children, who are especially vulnerable and at risk, have been inappropriately placed in Louisiana's secure facilities and are being harmed during their confinement. For instance, the Task Force cited the case of a small, hyperactive youth at Eridge City who was severely beaten by an officer at Bridge City in December 1996, concluding that the youth is "completely inappropriate for commitment to the Department." Our consultants agreed that many juveniles confined in Louisiana's secure juvenile facilities have been placed inappropriately in the facilities and are at risk when they are co-mingled with more dangerous youth.
B. Inadequate Medical and Mental Health Care
Louisiana fails to provide adequate medical and mental health care to a substantial number of juveniles confined in its secure correctional system. None of the four facilities have adequate physician and psychiatrist coverage to ensure adequate medical and mental health services. The State is violating these juveniles' constitutional righcs to adequate medical and mental health care while confined by failing to provide adequate screening and assessment at intake,- failing to provide mental health care for a number of seriously mentally ill children at Tallulah; permitting guards to deny access to medical care at three of the four facilities,- and failing to provide adequate treatment programs and a number of routine medical practices.
1. Inadequate Medical Care
The level of violence at all four facilities forces understaffed infirmaries at each facility to focus primarily on emergency medicine. In spite of the efforts of Project Zero Tolerance, medical staff at each facility continue to treat youth for a high number of injuries every day. For instance, youth at Tallulah suffered 126 documented orthopedic injuries for the twomonth period from 11/23/96 through 1/23/97. In the same twomonth period, at least four juveniles at Tallulah suffered perforated eardrums due to blows to the head. In each of these

- 12 -
four cases, Che juveniles alleged Chat che blows were caused by officers. Ac Swar.son, Che infirmary leg indicated Chat during* Che brief 20-day period between 12/10/96 and 12/30/S6, at least 15 different children suffered injuries due Co Crauma, including ac lease Chree children who suffered Cwo Craumacic injuries during chis period. AC lease seven of Chese children suffered such serious injuries ChaC they required hospicalizacion for CreaCment. Thus, infirmary beds chroughcuc Che syscem, buc particularly at Swanson and Tallulah, are filled with children with serious injuries, such as broken jaws and nosas. In addition, with the exception of the recently-opened infirmary at Tallulah, the infirmaries at all of the facilities are located in substandard buildings that have inadequate space and facilities to meet basic sanitation and resource requirements of a health care facility. The infirmary at Swanscn is particularly deficient.
Routine medical care provided at the facilities is deficient. Intake screenings and assessments are inadequate. Screening and assessment information concerning medical and mental health conditions is often incomplete and contains conflicting information; quality assurance procedures do not adequately identify these errors. Failure to identify health problems at intake results in inadequate medical and mental health care for a number of juveniles and inappropriate placement within the facilities. For example, seme juveniles with mental and physical disabilities have deteriorated significantly after being placed inappropriately in Tallulah's beet camp.
AC each facility, discrete deficiencies in the delivery of medical care were ncced. At Jetscn, the deficiencies include.- 1) failure to provide adequate medical care to juveniles with disabilities,- and 2) failure to track laboratory results adequately, such as the case of one juvenile who had not received treatment for gonorrhea because the facility misfiled che lab resulcs. SCaff at Jecscn also reported a need for training regarding HIV.
AC Tallulah, Che deficiencies include: 1) denial of access Co medical care by correctional staff who refuse to escort injured youth to the infirmary,- 2) failure to provide adequate nursing services,- 3) failure to follow medical orders regarding health conditions, such as the case of a juvenile with glaucoma who was sprayed in the eyes with mace in spite of explicit medical orders not to do so,- 4) failure to review adequately laboratory results,- 5) failure to provide KIV tests to juveniles who request them, such as Che case of one juvenile who has repeatedly asked for but has not been tested for HIV and whose medical chart reveals at least ten sexual contacts while confined at Tallulah, including two with a guard; 6) failure to practice universal precautions; and 7) failure to provide adequate nutritional planning, such as for the thirty youth in a

- J.J -
segregated isolation unit, each of whom had lost five or mere pounds since admission to the unit.
At Bridge City, the deficiencies include: 1) denial cf access to medical care by correctional staff who refuse to escort injured youth to the infirmary; and 2) failure to have a policy regarding follow-up of laboratory results.
At Swanson, the deficiencies include: 1) denial of access to medical care by correctional staff, where children are sometimes denied permission to go to sick call with injury complaints when they are misbehaving; and 2) failure to follow the facility's HIV testing policy, which requires that a test be provided if requested, including arbitrary denial to provide the test, such as the juvenile who reported that his request for an HIV test was refused because he had not "lost enough" weight."
All four facilities provide inadequate dental services, which are generally limited to extractions.
2 . Inadequate Mental Health Care
The most egregious deficiencies in mental health care were noted at Tallulah, where juveniles with extensive psychiatric histories who self-mutilate and/or threaten suicide have never been referred to a psychiatrist. Tallulah employs no psychiatrist and provides no mental health care to its many youth with serious mental illness. At most, counselors who are not trained in mental health care and not supervised by mental health professionals speak to juveniles. ' This complete denial of necessary care is causing great harm at Tallulah.
We found numerous suicide hazards throughout the secure juvenile facilities in Louisiana. For example, at Tallulah, "rails" - horizontal bars en the second tier of seme housing units - represent a serious suicide hazard. Youth at Tallulah have a practice of climbing the rails and threatening or attempting suicide. In fact, en one of our tours of the facility, our expert psychiatrist observed bleed on the rails from an attempted suicide the previous day. On another expert tour of Tallulah, we witnessed two youths climb the rails, tie nccses around their necks, and threaten suicide. Although Tallulah has recently taken steps to modify the rails in response to our alerting the facility to the danger, it appears than the modifications are inadequate. We have received several recent reports indicating that youth at Tallulah continue to climb the rails and threaten to hurt themselves. The Montana unit at Tallulah has blind spots and numerous fixtures that could serve as anchors for hanging attempts. The infirmary at Jetson has many blind spots, and some patient care areas have exposed wires, outlets and knobs that provide potential for self harm. There were numerous unenclosed overhead pipes throughout Bridge City,

- 14 -
despite the fact that depressed and suicidal youth are specifically assigned to this facility due to their vulnerabilities.
At Tallulah and Jecson, psychotropic medications are managed inadequately. Both facilities fail to monitor for medication efficacy or side effects adequately. Tallulah has no psychiatrist to monitor the medications. In addition, both facilities fail to document consent for treatment with these medications in the medical record. Moreover, an Jetson, juveniles reported being put in isolation or being beaten for refusing to take psychotropic medications. Bridge City nursing staff abruptly stop all psychctropic medications at intake until a juvenile sees a psychiatrist. For seme psychctropic medications, this is a dangerous practice that does not comport with accepted professional standards.
Mental health assessments and counseling are severely deficient at all four facilities. The mental health assessments performed at intake into the system are particularly inadequate. Because juveniles with mental health problems are inadequately assessed, they receive inappropriate treatment. At all four facilities, access to group therapy is severely limited. Individual mental healch treatment plans, where they exist, fail to meet professional standards. A review of treatment plans at all four facilities revealed inadequate documentation of goals and youths' progress toward the goals. Many treatment plans were incomplete. Moreover, because an estimated 80-90 percent of the
Louisiana is failing to ensure that the numerous youth with mental disabilities confined in its secure correctional facilities receive appropriate treatment and training while confined and appropriate continued care upon discharge. Special training and skills programs for juvenile with mental retardation are non-existent. For instance, in August 199S, 56 juveniles at Tailuiah were identified by the facility as being mentally retarded, yet, Tallulah failed to provide most of these juveniles with any special programs to address their needs.
Staff at all four facilities are net adequately trained to recognize and meet the need of youths with mental retardation and/or mental illness or juveniles with a history of substance abuse. Staff at all four facilities lack adequate training in behavioral management techniques. Staff at Tallulah acknowledged the need for training in suicide assessment, crisis management, psychiatric medications, seizure management, therapeutic techniques, and working with violent juveniles. At Jetson, the

- 15 -
nursing director recognised the need for expanded mental health training for nurses. Jetson nursing and counseling staff expressed the need for mere information regarding psychotropic medications. AC Bridge City, both the psychiatrist and psychologist identiried a need for further staff training in working with youth with mental disabilities.
C. Inadequate Education and Rehabilitative Services
Louisiana law requires that all children under the age of 17 attend school. Any failure by the State to enforce its compulsory education laws in the four secure juvenile facilities must be rationally related to a legitimate penologicai interest. See Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 573-75 (1974); Dcnnell C. v. Illinois State Board of Education,. 829 F. Supp. 1015, 1018 (N.D. 111. 1993). In addition, federal law requires that juveniles with learning disabilities in these facilities receive special education and related services. Id.. Related services means "such developmental, corrective;, and other supportive services as are required" to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education." 34 C.F.R. § 300.15 (1994).
Education services in the facilities do net comply with applicable State regulations, federal statutes, or professional standards. Our consultants concluded that the education programs in the facilities "operate completely outside the bounds of acceptable educational practice." The Louisiana Department of Education does net monitor adequately the education program at the facilities, nor dees it ensure that services to children with disabilities comply with State policies regarding special education. As a result of current practices, our consultants concluded that "students are unable to maintain their academic progress, fail to develop new skills, and are no more prepared to re-enter their home communities or ether, institutions than when they were initially confined." In sum, Louisiana fails to provide an adequate education to youth confined in its correctional facilities .
Our consultants identified system-wide disregard of State or Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("D?SC") policies in the areas of school budgeting and finance; minimal length of school day,- discipline of handicapped students; instructional material and equipment; school libraries,- high school graduation requirements; program of study; and vocational programs. Most youth, if they attend school at all, do not receive a State mandated minimum 5'-A hours per day of instructional time. With the exception of the juveniles under age 17 on the open campus of Swanscn who receive 5'-A hours per day of instruction, most juveniles receive no mere than four hours a day of school.
'T

- IS -
At Talluiah, where the school is extremely overcrowded, youth attend school only three hours a day as a space saving measure. Children confined to the Phase II section of Tallulah attend a three hour daily class in the small day rooms of their living units. Little or no instruction occurs in this chaotic environment and instructional materials are not available much of the time. Moreover, throughout the system, there are some students not enrolled in school at all. For example, at Bridge City, we met one 11-year-old who had net been in school for a number of months. Instead, he spent his days cleaning the facility.
When teachers are absent, students either receive no instruction or students are distributed randomly among ether classrooms, in violation of State policy mandating substitute teachers. At Bridge City, serious problems with regard to teacher absences and lack of substitute teachers are resulting in classrooms supervised by correctional officers, referred to by the children as "CSO classes." One Bridge City teacher had been out for five months earlier in 1995 while correctional officers "taught" her class. Cur consultants found that no meaningful instruction takes place in CSO classes. On the contrary, the officers either monitor the children minimally or sleep. This situation is not only resulting in a failure to educate, but can result in serious harm. Several children at Bridge City reported that while an officer slept in one CSO class, a juvenile was forced to perform oral sex on another juvenile.
Our consultants concluded than education decisions appear to be driven solely by security and fiscal concerns. Throughout the system, homework is prohibiced by security staff, who fear that writing utensils may become used as weapons in the dorms. In all living units except for the Phase II unics at Tallulah, security staff do not even permit bocks, explaining that contraband can be hidden in books. Security and educational staff should work together to devise a method to allow homework and reading material on the living units that would also address security's legitimate concerns. Students also have inadequate access to library services. Fiscal limitations result in dated and limited library materials, and pay differentials between teachers in the community and teachers in the facilities result in staff turnover that adversely impacts educational services in the facilities.
The special education programs at all four facilities fail to meet IDEA legal mandates and fail far below minimum professional standards. Screening and identification of eligible youth are inadequate. For instance, three months after his confinement to State custody, a 12-year-old at Tallulah with an IQ of 68 was not yet receiving special education services. Even if a child has been identified as eligible for special education before being confined, the facilities fail to provide services

- 17 -
within the legally prescribed time limit. Although State and federal regulations require that students enrolled in special education transferring from one school district to another receive appropriate services within five days, students do not receive any special education services during incake and orientation - which in some cases can take months. One child at Jetson who was eligible for special education services reported that she had spent about two months in the intake dormitory without being enrolled in school. Girls in the intake dorm, she reported, "slept all day because there were no programs." Many teachers at Tallulah reported that students may be ready to leave the facility by the time the teachers can schedule special education.
At all four facilities, students do not receive adequate instructional time nor adequate related services required by IDEA to ensure that children eligible for special education benefit from the services provided. Ac Bridge City, federally mandated planning meetings are inadequately staffed. At Talluiah, none of the teachers is certified in special education and the four teachers providing special education services do net attend in-service training with the other special educators employed in the public schools.
Vocational education is inadequate at Jetscn and Swanson and non-existent at Bridge City and Tallulah. At best, Jetson and Swanscn expose the students to vocational skill areas but fail to teach rudimentary skills adequately; at worst, the vocational programs of these two facilities seriously compromise the children's' health and safety. In one case, a 14-year-old taking his first shop class lost-parts of four fingers in an extremely dangerous power tool that is net appropriate for entry level shop experience. At Swanson, well qualified instructors are unable to provide instruction due to insufficient instructional materials, excessively large classes, and a curriculum driven by the maintenance needs of the institution.
The beys placed in isolation at Swanson and Tailulah receive no educational services, including special education services. Although the boys placed in isolation at Jetson receive seme educational services, the girls placed in isolation at Jetson receive no such services. System-wide, the facilities fail to provide special education services to children who are administratively isolated for their own procec-ion. Because students with emotional or behavioral disorders, including youth with serious mental health needs, are vulnerable to behavioral sanctions such as isolation, this is a serious problem.
Although one purpose of Louisiana's secure correctional facilities is to rehabilitate youth, all four facilities lack adequate youth development programs, including adequate behavior
*T

- 13 -
management programs, life skills training, and adecuata structured daily activities, including recreational opportunities. During non-school hours, officers force the majority of juveniles at ail four facilities to spend several hours every day sitting in mandated silence in their units with nothing to read or do. We found instances where juveniles were punished or hit by officers if they spoke or shifted in their seats during these periods.
D. Other Juvenile Justice Deficiencies
1. As noted throughout this letter, inadequate staffing and poorly trained staff contribute to the unconstitutional conditions at the facilities. Officer-to-juvenile ratios are inadequate to properly supervise and care for the juveniles confined in the State's facilities.
2. Overly-restrictive practices with respect to mail, telephone, and visitation work together to deny juveniles in all four facilities the ability to communicate and associate with their families and communities. For instance, many youth alleged that a limit exists on the number of letters that can be mailed, even for those youth who pay for all associated costs. At Bridge City, juveniles stated they could only write letters on Sunday. No facility allows children mere than two outgoing calls weekly, except for emergencies. Children at all four facilities are prohibited from taking incoming calls. We observed broken telephones at Tallulah where juveniles reported that the telephones had been broken for several weeks before our tour. All four facilities fail to provide adequate visitation opportunities. Visitation is permitted only one Sunday each month. Many juveniles stated that their placement in facilities far from home, combined with such limited visitation rights, caused families to be unable to visit. The State offered no justification for its restrictions on family contact. In sum, the facilities' limitacions on mail, telephone access, and visitation estrange juveniles from their families instead of strengthening family ties that increase the likelihood that the juvenile will succeed after release.
3. All four facilities fail to provide adequate access to juveniles with physical disabilities who are confined to wheelchairs. For instance, a disabled juvenile confined to a wheelchair at Jetson must go to the infirmary in order to bache or to use the bathroom. One of cur investigators was also confined to a wheelchair and could net gain access to a number of buildings at Bridge City and Jetson.
4. Louisiana fails to provide adequate and meaningful access to courts and counsel to juveniles confined in its correctional facilities. The State fails to provide appropriate
"T

- IS -
assistance to juveniles to pursue direct appeals of their adjudication, collateral attacks on their confinement, and claims regarding unconstitutional conditions of confinement and other civil rights claims relating to confinement. In 1996, the State admitted 1900 youth for incarceration in the four facilities. Although the vast majority of these youth were represented by public defenders, there are only 10 reported cases of direct appeals by juveniles represented by public defenders. Although the State has an administrative grievance procedure that juveniles must exhaust before filing complaints in court, the procedure is overly complex and no meaningful assistance is provided. Most juveniles we interviewed regarding their options for complaining about conditions of confinement were unaware of the administrative procedure.
II. MINIMUM REMEDIAL MEASURES
To rectify these deficiencies and to ensure that Louisiana's secure correctional facilities for juveniles comply with federal constitutional and statutory requirements, the following minimum remedial measures must be implemented in addition to those set forth in cur July and October 1996 letters to you.-
1. Adequately protect juveniles in the facilities from staff abuse and juvenile-on-juvenile violence. Employ sufficient trained, independent investigators, to ensure that all incidents of violence, use of force, or serious injury are adequately investigated. Ensure adequate investigatory procedures. Ensure that all juveniles have direct, reasonable access to .the Project Zero Tolerance hotline.
2. Ensure that juveniles are classified and housed adequately to protect them from harm. Develop and utilize appropriate placements for juveniles with mental disabilities and other special needs.
3. Ensure that restraints and isolation ara used only when a youth presents a clear and present danger. Provide adequate positive behavior management programs.
4. Employ sufficient trained staff to ensure the safety and to satisfy the individual treatment, training, and rehabilitative needs of juveniles confined in these facilities.
5. Train existing staff to allow them to perform their positions adequately and ensure that all staff demonstrate an understanding of and/or demonstrate the application of these skills. For all staff working with juveniles, the areas of training and demonstrated competence should include: passive restraint; stages of adolescent development; communication skills,- therapeutic intervention skills,- basic rights of
*T

- 20 -
residents and staff; report writing; basic medical terminology; recognizing and responding to seizure disorders; common side effects of prescription and non-prescription medication,- the physical and emotional needs of pregnant residents (for staff working with female juveniles); universal precautions to prevent infection of TB and AIDS; the prevention and management of suicidal behavior; confidentiality of medical information; the provision of health education for residents; basic information concerning learning disabilities; certification in first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation; and adaptive activities for physically and developmentally challenged juveniles.
6. Provide adequate mental health care, medical care, and dental services to juveniles confined to the four secure care facilities and a sufficient number of qualified staff to provide the services.
7. Take adequate suicide prevention measures, including removal of suicide hazards, and adequately supervise suicidal juveniles.
8. Provide adequate and appropriate general education and special education services to juveniles confined to the four secure care facilities. Provide adequate and appropriate vocational programs with work that is related to the purpose of treatment and rehabilitation. Ensure that female juveniles receive the same level of educational services as male juveniles.
9. Provide appropriate activities during non-school hours and days. Provide juveniles with adequate and appropriate opportunities for exercise, recreation, and reading materials.
10. Provide juveniles with adequate access to telephone, mail, and visitation.
11. Make the facilities accessible for juveniles with physical disabilities.
12. Ensure juveniles' meaningful access to courts during confinement for direct appeals, collateral attacks on their confinement, and cases related to unconstitutional conditions of confinement and ether civil rights claims relating to confinement.
13. Provide juveniles with adequate transition and aftercare services.
14. Develop and implement adequate quality assurance mechanisms and reviews to ensure the efficacy of corrective measures.
"J

- 21 -
Finally, because conditions at the four facilities are before the court in Williams v. McKeithen. CA 71-98-B (M.D. L a . ) , we are providing a copy of this; letter to the court and counsel of record in that case.
Pursuant to CRIPA, the Attorney General may initiate a lawsuit to correct deficiencies at an institution 49 days after appropriate local officials are notified of them. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(1). Under the pattern or practice provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Attorney General may initiate a lawsuit to correct the deficiencies. 42 U.S.C. § 14141. We therefore look forward to conducting negotiations with the State of Louisiana to resolve the existing systemic deficiencies. We lock forward to working with you and other State officials to resolve this matter in a reasonable and expeditious manner.
Sincerelv,
Isabelle Katz Pinzler Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
cc: The Honorable Cheney C. Joseph, Jr. Executive Counsel to the Governor
The Honorable Richard'Ieycub Attorney General of Louisiana
Mr. Richard Stalder Secretary for the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections
Mr. Richard Curry Special Assistant Attorney General for the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections
Judge William Roberts Attorney for the Trans-America Corporation, owners of the
Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth
Ms. Susan Wible Superintendent Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth
Mr. Robert C. Dunavent Superintendent Louisiana Training Institute at Monroe

- 22 -
Mr. Elijah Lewis Superintendent Jetson Correctional Center for Youth
Mr. Benny G. Harris Superintendent Louisiana Training Institute at Bridge City
Eddie J. Jordan, Jr., Esq, United States Attorney Eastern District of Louisiana
L. J. Hymel, Jr., Esq. United States Attorney Middle District of Louisiana
Michael D. Skinner, Esq. United States Attorney Western District of Louisiana
The Honorable Richard Riley Secretary United States Department of Education
Ms. Judith E. Heuman Assistant Secretary Office of Special Education and Related Services United States Department of Education
Mr. Tom Hehir Director Office of Special Education Programs United States Department of Education

 
 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

Office of the .Assistant Attorney General

Hushin%ton, D.C 20035
CRIPA Investigation

-m. TT ^ ,,-i T,
The Honorable Mike Foster Governor of Louisiana State Capitol P.O. Box 94004 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9004

JI-LA-001-009

J u n e ig

igg7

'

Re: Findings of Investigation of Secure Correctional lities for Juveniles in Louisiana

Dear Governor Foster:

I am writing to report our findings with respect to our investigation of the four secure correctional facilities for juveniles in Louisiana -- Louisiana Training Institute - Bridge City ("Bridge City") , Jetson Correctional Center for Youth ("Jetson") , Swanson Correctional Center for Youth ("Swanson") (formerly known as Louisiana Training Institute - Monroe), and Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth ("Tailulah") . We first notified you on April 25, 1996, that we were initiating an investigation of these facilities pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 ££, s&ZCRIPA authorizes the Attorney General to investigate conditions at juvenile correctional institutions that are owned by a State or operated on behalf of a State. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(1) (B) . On July 15 and October 3, 1996, we notified you that conditions at these four facilities were also covered by cur authority to enforce the pattern or practice provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141.

We conducted our investigation beginning with tours of the four facilities during the surjr.er of 1995 with five expert consultants in the fields of juvenile justice, education, medical and mental health, and abuse prevention, and re-toured each facility during the winter of 1996-97. Our tours took place on the following dates.- Bridge City en June 3-4, 1996, July 29-31, 1996, and December 16, 1996; Jetson on June 5-7, 1996, July 24-26, 1996, and December 17-13, 1996; Swanscn on August 19-21, 1996, August 26-28, 1996, and January 21-22, 1997; and Tallulah on August 21-23, 1956, August 23-30, 1996, and January 23-24, 1997. During our tours, we interviewed several hundred juveniles confined at the facilities, as well as staff and administrators. In addition, we reviewed numerous facility and State documents and individual juveniles' records before,

- 2-
during, and after the tours. Cur experts provided facility and State~officials with feedback during their tours, and we had several meetings and phone conferences with these officials to discuss a number of issues that arose during the course of cur investigation. We wish to thank Louisiana officials, personnel, and counsel for providing their full assistance and cooperation throughout our investigation.
At each of the four facilities, we uncovered systemic life-threatening staff abuse and juvenile-on-juvenile violence. The gravity of the situation necessitated our sending two interim emergency letters to you -- the first on July 15, 199 6 (Attachment A) and the second en October 3, 1996 (Attachment B) . Our October 3, 1996, letter also informed you that certain medical and mental health problems at Swanson and Tallulah posed serious risks of harm to the juveniles confined there. In both emergency letters, we notified you that the results of our investigation provide the United States with a basis for action pursuant to CRIPA and 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
The State responded immediately to the concerns expressed in our letters to you. On August 1, 1996, the Secretary for the Department of Public Safety and Corrections announced his initiative to eliminate violence from Louisiana's secure correctional facilities for juveniles, calling the initiative Project Zero Tolerance. The Secretary's strong commitment to the goals of the Project are evident, and a number of the efforts made since the Project was initiated are significant. As we will explain in mere detail below, however, there is still much to be dene to achieve and maintain the goal of Project Zero Tolerance in the facilities.
Although the State implemented many of the measures suggested in our emergency letters to you with its Project Zero Tolerance initiative, it either refused or failed to implement several other suggested emergency measures. Furthermore, a number of the Secretary's proposed initiatives have been delayed due to lack of funding or other resources. For instance, last October, the State agreed to install additional surveillance cameras at Tallulah. These cameras are not yet in place. Exit interviews conducted by the Project Zero Tolerance Task Force confirm that youth regard camera surveillance as an important component in efforts to stem the tide of excessive use of force in the facilities.
Consistent with the statutory requirements of CRIPA, we write to advise you of the findings of our investigation. Many conditions in Louisiana's four secure correctional facilities for juveniles violate the constitutional and statutory rights of the juveniles confined therein. Conditions in the Louisiana secure correctional facilities for juveniles violate the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United

- 3-
States. £J2S., e.g. , United States v. Virginia. 116 S. Ct. 2264 (1996) ; Ynungbercr v. Romeo. 457 U.S. 307 (1982) ; Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) ; Estelle v. £ajEbJLs., 429 U.S. 97 (1976) ; Turner v. Safely, 432 U.S. 78 (1987); Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972); Tn re Gault. 387 U.S. 1 (19S7). Conditions also violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and its implementing regulations; the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 e_L seg. : and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. In addition, a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives juveniles of rights, privileges, or immunities protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States exists in Louisiana secure correctional facilities for juveniles in violation of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
I. FINDINGS
The State provides secure care for approximately 1700 juveniles adjudicated delinquent in three state-owned and operated correctional facilities, Jetscn, Swanscn, and Bridge City, and in one privately-owned and operated facility, Tallulah. Jetson provides care for 470 males and 150 females. Bridge City provides care for 18 0 males, most of whom have been identified as young and vulnerable. Swanscn provides care for 396 males. Tallulah, which provides care for 536 males, operates both a boot camp and the system's most secure settings on a closed campus. Juveniles confined to these facilities range in ace from 10 to 20; 85 percent of the youth are under age IS. About 70 percent of the 170 0 juveniles are at or below an 8"" grade education level; about one-third of the 1700 juveniles have been identified as needing special education. Eighty-three percent of the juveniles are African American. in 1996, fewer than a quarter of the youth confined in these facilities committed violent crimes.
A. Failure to Protect Juveniles from Harm
Our investigation uncovered serious, systemic, and, in certain cases, life-threatening, harm being inflicted on the juveniles in all four facilities . We cited numerous examples in our prior correspondence. Serious physical injuries to youth from officer assault or from attacks by ether youth have occurred at all four facilities. Literally dozens of juveniles are being seriously injured on a monthly basis across the four facilities. Especially at Tallulah and Swanscn, the incidence cf fractures to jaws, noses, cheeks, and eye sockets, as well as serious lacerations requiring sutures (usually also to faces) is disturbing. At all four training institutes, correctional staff abuse the juveniles. The abuse ranges from officers physically hitting, punching or kicking youth (sometimes when they are handcuffed), to officers negotiating "contracts" with juveniles

- 4 -
to beat up other juveniles to officers compelling juveniles to sit, stand, or lay in positions that are clearly"painful and constitute corporal punishment. We also found evidence of sexual abuse and assault at each of the four facilities. The violence at the facilities is so pervasive that our consultant concluded that "the greatest responsibility for the problems seen must be directed to the institutes' administrators and senior staff. It is clear that these men and women either knew or intentionally sought not to know of the serious violence to children that was occurring [at the facilities]."
Unfortunately, despite the initiatives the State has taken in recent months to stem the violence we discovered during our initial tours during the summer of 199S, re-tours confirm that an unacceptable level of violence remains at all of the facilities, especially at Tallulah and Swanscn. In addition, at all facilities, little attention has been paid to sexual activity between juveniles and between officers and juveniles.
This is not to say that the Secretary's Project Zero Tolerance initiative has had no effect. With the possible exception of Tallulah, interviews with children and staff at ail facilities indicate a strong awareness of Project Zero Tolerance and changes in the institutions' culture where only a few months earlier the rule of violence had been so accepted. The singular progress at Jetson bears special mention. At Jetson, the superintendent has undertaken many initiatives beyond those specified in Project Zero Tolerance and is a strong personal voice in reinforcing the mission of the Project. The Jetscn superintendent also has recruited a strong management team over both security and program services that daily reinforces the goals of Project Zero Tolerance. Officers and program staff at Jetson report that the "code of silence" among officers is breaking down, resulting in officers coming forward to report misdeeds and abusive conduct of their colleagues.
1. Abuse
At each facility, there are correctional staff who have net embraced the goals of Project Zero Tolerance. Indeed, it is disturbing that in spite of the clear message that no undue use of force would be tolerated with the initiation of Project Zero Tolerance, some staff have continued to physically assault the juveniles in their care. For instance, since r.hr> inception of Project: Zero Tolerance, the following examples of staff abuse have occurred:
• a lieutenant at Bridge City punched a child in the eye and threw him through a screen door, while a teacher watched;

- 5-
• videotapes at Swanson have recorded separate incidents of a guard karate kicking a juvenile in the head and a guard punching a juvenile,-
• at Jetson, juveniles alleged that guards beat them with broken brooms hidden in the attic above their dorm, and when facility investigators found the brooms, the guards refused to be fingerprinted;
• at Jetson, a guard repeatedly whipped two females with a belt - one girl was whipped allegedly because it was her birthday and the guard had a practice of whipping juveniles on their birthdays, and the other girl was whipped allegedly because she was going to be discharged shortly;
• at Tallulah, a captain discovered guards beating up juveniles, including one child whose hands were cuffed behind his back who was bleeding heavily from the mouth, and guards macing youth while they were being held by other guards,- and
• at Tallulah, a guard told a juvenile that he wanted to "drive his dick" in the juvenile's mother's mouth during visitation, leading to a verbal argument that resulted in the guard repeatedly punching the child in the jaw with both his left and right fists, even after the child fell to the floor and attempted to block the guard's blows, and the guard throwing and hitting the child in the head with a radio.
Regrettably, months after the implementation of Project Zero Tolerance, records and interviews confirm that staff routinely continue to kick, hit, slap, stomp, choke, scratch, and slap juveniles in these facilities. In fact, in its December 1996 Report, the Project Zero Tolerance Task Force concluded that u [t]he use of fores in the institutions is still a big problem."
The abusive use of mace at all facilities except Bridge City also violates juveniles' constitutional rights. Many juveniles at Swanson and Tallulah reported that guards sometimes mace juveniles in restraints, which clearly constitutes use of excessive force. At all facilities except Eridge City, juveniles also continue to be sprayed inappropriately with mace in situations where there is no present danger to the juvenile or to others. For example, juveniles recently have been sprayed with mace for refusing to shave, refusing to stop talking, refusing to sit down, refusing to leave a quiet time room, kicking their door, and, on the morning of our most recent tour of Tallulah, not arising from bed promptly enough. In none of these incidents did the juvenile engage in dangerous behavior prior to being sprayed. Rather, staff routinely use mace instead of less

- 6-
intrusive, more appropriate measures of control and de-escalation. Furthermore, in many situations, mace continues to be used as a disciplinary measure long after a threat of danger has passed. At Tallulah, both staff and juveniles told our consultant that the use of mace is under-reported. Similarly, the Project Zero Tolerance Task Force noted in its December 1996 Report that although there were no official reports of use of mace at Tallulah during December, youth at Tallulah reported that officers had maced them during that month.
The final type of abuse found at ail four facilities involves the use of corporal and ether forms of unofficial discipline against juveniles. Staff who are poorly trained and supervised have resorted to unapproved methods of disciplining youth that have become institutionalized. Examples include: unit "initiations" (whipping and beating juveniles) and forcing offenders into "the cut" (cut of camera range) to fight other youth or be punished physically by guards.
The extent of abuse at the facilities appears to be understated due to systemic deficiencies in reporting. Sometimes guards refuse to take abuse victims to the infirmary to seek medical attention. When juveniles are brought to the infirmary, oftentimes, fearing retaliation, the juveniles camouflage the real cause of their injuries, reporting them as accidents instead of staff abuse. The Project Zero Tolerance Task Force concluded in its December 1996 Report that "very few youth had confidence in the [abuse] reporting system," and our consultant found that just filing an allegation of abuse could get a child into trouble with the staff assigned to care for him or her. Infirmary logs at all facilities indicate that juveniles continue to suffer suspicious injuries that require mere follow-up or investigation than the facility provided. Documentation also suggests that medical personnel readily accept accounts of injuries that appear spurious and they often do net make substantial efforts to encourage youth to be more forthcoming about the true cause of the injury. Medical personnel at seme of the facilities also continue to interview juveniles about the cause of their injuries in the presence of security personnel from the juvenile's dormitory who escorted the juvenile to the infirmary. Finally, staff's legal and professional obligation to report suspected abuse has not been reinforced in training cr in daily supervisory practices. The Project Zero Tolerance Task Force concluded in its December 1996 Report that "[t]he training needs for correctional, treatment and medical staff at the juvenile institutions is overwhelming. It will take a long time to get the staff trained in the manner that is needed to address the issues that have become evident through the PZT [Project Zero Tolerance] Project." In short, in a system where- all but a few youth expressed a fear of retaliation, it is evident that

- 7-
Louisiana is failing to provide injured children with a meaningful and appropriate opportunity to report all instances of abuse.

Staff at each of the four facilities are inadequately

trained to intervene in crisis situations involving juveniles,

which is a contributing factor to the ongoing constitutional

violations. In many cases, staff are left to their own devices

to control the juveniles. This, of course, creates a dangerous

environment for all involved. A review of use of force incidents

occurring both before and after the Project Zero Tolerance

initiative confirmed staff's lack of training and knowledge

regarding techniques other than brutal force for intervening

effectively in crisis situations involving youth. These reports

revealed that it was common and expecced that officers would

break up fights between juveniles by joining in the fight and

"winning." Officers in training inappropriate

the for

wfoarckiilnigtiweisthhacvoenfrienceedivyeodutpho.lice-tyyppe

2. Unreasonable Restraints
Restraints are inappropriately used at the facilities. For instance, when we toured Jetson during the summer of 1996, institutional policy permitted juveniles to be "hog-tied;" that is, youths were forced to sit for several hours cuffed at both the ankles and wrists, with the wrist cuffs attached to the ankle cuffs under the thighs, as a punishment for behavior. We found several incidents of this type of restraint being used on youth. One girl was even hog-tied as a suicide precaution. To his credit, the Secretary banned this practice en the spot when we told him about it. However, handcuffs continue to be used in the facilities long after youths are calm and pose no clear and present danger to anyone.

All facilities except Bridge City use segregated isolation

as punishment. Despite the Secretary's November 1996

announcement that segregated isolation may be used only when a

youth presents a danger, at all facilities except Bridge City,

td i l t i

ti

b

df l

often in

and often

_ punitive measure. Tallulah administrative staff did not

deny that segregated isolation continues to be used as

punishment. At Swanson, isolation continues to be used for

relatively minor offenses and as punishment for a large

percentage of the resident youth. At Jetson,. many offenders

continue to be confined arbitrarily to 24-hour disciplinary

isolation while awaiting their hearing. These practices deviate

from accepted standards of care and are in direct violation of

the Secretary's newly-promulgated policy. In addition, at

Tallulah, youth with suicidal tendencies and youth engaging in

self-mutilation are disciplined with segregated isolation for

- 8-
their mental health problems . This response to such dangerous behaviors is contrary to accepted medical standards.
3. Juvenile-on-Juvenile Violence
In addition to the continuing excessive use of force by guards, Louisiana continues to fail to protect juveniles adequately from harm in several other critical respects. Infirmary logs at all four facilities still document daily fights among juveniles, some of which result in severe injuries. Furthermore, because these altercations are often halted with use of force by the officers, juveniles continue to get hurt in situations where less restrictive interventions than physical force would have been appropriate. At Swanson, in addition to frequent juvenile-on-juvenile fights, there was also a marked increase in gang fights involving as many as 15-20 juveniles. At Tallulah, during a recent two month period, 40 youth were transported to the local hospital for incidents involving acute trauma, primarily due to fighting.
4. Inadequate Abuse Investigations
In order to facilitate the reporting of abuse by staff and other juveniles at the facilities, the Secretary instituted a toll free hotline to the Project Zero Tolerance Task Force Special Investigator in Baton Rouge. During our investigation, however, we found that juveniles did not have reasonable access to the hotline. At Tallulah, access to the hotline was inadequate because youth could net use the phone anonymously. Youth requesting to use the hotline were cuffed and shackled and escorted to the phone located in the infirmary by security. A leg was kept of the youth who used the phone. Given the pervasive fear of retaliation expressed by ail but a few interviewed youth, this syscem discourages use of the hotline at Tallulah. In addition, Tallulah failed adequately to educate juveniles regarding opportunities for hotline access. For the other three facilities, youth did net have direct access to the hotline, although the Secretary recently announced that all juveniles would have access to the hotline on dormitory phones. Nonetheless, the Project Zero Tolerance Task Force concluded in its December 1996 Report that the hotline is "not working for the majority of incarcerated youth who do not have advocative parental relationships, who are weak, deveiopmentally disabled or fearful of retaliation."
With the exception of Jetson, where recent internal investigations now meet accepted professional standards for child abuse investigations, facility abuse investigations continue to depart substantially from accepted professional standards. At Bridge City, Swanson, and Tallulah, abuse allegations are rarely sustained, even where the victim's allegations are very specific, document injuries that are consistent with the allegations, and

- 9-
several other juveniles witness the abuse. Until very recently, photographs were not usually taken of injuries. Physical evidence alleged to have been used as weapons (for instance, chairs, keys, handcuffs, etc.) are almost never safeguarded after violent incidents. Victim's statements are often not taken in private. Initial statements of officers, victims, and witnesses are not taken by the special investigator, but by supervisory correctional staff, thereby defeating the independence and objectivity of the investigation. Investigators regularly discount the testimony of a juvenile without any reasoned review of its credibility, even when there are similar", credible, and specific accounts from multiple youth. There is some evidence, however, in recent investigations conducted at Swanson that investigators are beginning to factor the testimony of juveniles into their findings.
Many very serious injuries to juveniles are not investigated at all. Injuries that youth attribute to accidents or assaults by other youth usually are not investigated. This is particularly troubling in light of the number of juveniles who allege that guards avoid the consequences of staff abuse by negotiating contracts with juveniles to act as "hit men" for the guards and assault their peers for payments such as extra snacks or cigarettes. The practice of disciplining juveniles for filing abuse allegations that are not sustained further contributes to the juveniles' wariness to come forward with allegations.
In stark contrast to internal investigations that continue uniformly to evidence serious problems, the quality of the investigations conducted by supervisory investigator Major McDonald were complete and thorough and reflected a thoughtful and critical review of the evidence. Major McDonald recently resigned to accept employment in the private sector. Major McDonald's successors, Major Ted Price and other members of the Project Zero Tolerance special investigations team, should continue to develop and implement the special investigatory process, which will assist in reducing the violence at the • juvenile facilities in Louisiana.
Although the Secretary has ensured, through Project Zero Tolerance, that each facility has a special investigator, these designated individuals had received very little training as of our January 1997 tours. Major McDonald's supervision of individual facility investigators has resulted, except at Tallulah, in investigations that are slowly becoming more thorough, and instances where officers make false or misleading statements are beginning to be addressed. In addition to insufficient training, facility investigators continue Co be supervised by facility administrators rather than by the Secretary or his designee. This arrangement dees not adequately ensure that facility investigators can perform their duties independently and be assured full cooperation by facility staff.

- 10 -
In addition, there are not enough investigators in light of the large number of abuse allegations made. Most of the facility investigators are expected to perform other duties. These additional assignments not only rob investigators of time needed to devote to investigations, but also, in seme cases, may present direct conflicts of interest with their roles as special* investigators. Moreover, the State has not established a policy setting forth reasonable time frames to conduct investigations in a timely fashion. For example, the investigators are made to work under unreasonably truncated time frames at Bridge City, Jetson and Swanson, forcing investigators frequently to forego a thorough investigation for the sake of a timely one. Bycontrast, at Tallulah, where there are no time frames for conducting an investigation, the investigator has an extraordinarily large open caseload, many of which have been open for longer than 60 days. Guidelines setting reasonable time frames would help ensure that investigations are completed in an expeditious and thorough manner.
5. Inadequate Classification
Another contributing factor to the unsafe environment in Louisiana's juvenile facilities is that all four facilities fail to meet current accepted standards relating to classification to protect juveniles from harm. For instance, at Bridge City, which is supposed to provide protective custody for the system's most vulnerable children, older, stronger juveniles are often housed with younger, smaller boys. This practice has led to unsafe conditions for the system's most vulnerable children. Almost all of the younger children at Bridge City voiced fears about their safety not only to us but to counselors and medical staff. We heard repeated accounts of physical and sexual assault by other children. At Swanson, some juveniles, through no fault of their own, are forced to live in restrictive conditions with aggressive peers in order that the facility fill all of its beds. Finally, youth with mental health problems that result in disruptive and/or self-destructive behaviors are transferred routinely to Swanson's and Tallulah's restrictive units where they experience prolonged periods of isolation and deprivation of a number of services without needed treatment for their underlying mental health problems. For many of these youth, such a transfer is counterproductive to treatment needs. Many of these youth increased their self-mutilation and disruptive behaviors as a result of increased isolation.
6. Inappropriate Commitments to the Facilities
Louisiana is failing to protect a substantial number of the children confined in its secure facilities from harm by placing them in these facilities in the first place. The State's own post-adjudication screenings identified a number of juveniles, many of whom have special needs, including mental or physical

- 11 -
disabilities, who were appropriate for nonsecure placements upon commitment to the Department. However, these recommendations" were overridden, resulting in these youth being placed in secure facilities. State officials have advised us that these recommendations were not implemented because there are an insufficient number of appropriate alternative placements for these juveniles. Indeed, the Project Zero Tolerance Task Force concluded in its December 1996 Report that "[t]he [secure juvenile] institutions are filled with discarded children and youth from the mental health, developmental disabilities, educational, public health and child welfare systems of care."
In addition, the Task Force also concluded that small and young children, who are especially vulnerable and at risk, have been inappropriately placed in Louisiana's secure facilities and are being harmed during their confinement. For instance, the Task Force cited the case of a small, hyperactive youth at Bridge City who was severely beaten by an officer at Bridge City in December 1996, concluding that the youth is "completely inappropriate for commitment to the Department." Our consultants agreed that many juveniles confined in Louisiana's secure juvenile facilities have been placed inappropriately in the facilities and are at risk when they are co-mingled with more dangerous youth.
B. Inadequate Medical and Mental Health Care
Louisiana fails to provide adequate medical and mental health care to a substantial number of juveniles confined in its secure correctional system. None of the four facilities have adequate physician and psychiatrist coverage to ensure adequate medical and mental health services. The State is violating these juveniles' constitutional rights to adequate medical and mental health care while confined by failing to provide adequate screening and assessment at intake,- failing to provide mental health care for a number of seriously mentally ill children at Tallulah; permitting guards to deny access to medical care at three of the four facilities; and failing to provide adequate treatment programs and a number of routine medical practices.
1. Inadequate Medical Care
The level of violence at: ail four facilities forces understaffed infirmaries at each facility to focus primarily on emergency medicine. In spite of the efforts of Project Zero Tolerance, medical staff at each facility continue to treat youth for a high number of injuries every day. For instance, youth at Tallulah suffered 126 documented orthopedic injuries for vthe twomonth period from 11/23/96 through 1/23/97. In the same twomonth period, at least four juveniles at Tallulah suffered perforated eardrums due to blows to the head. In each of these

- 12 -
four cases, the juveniles alleged that the blows were caused by officers. At Swanson, the infirmary log indicated that during the brief 20-day period between 12/10/96 and 12/30/9S, at least 16 different children suffered injuries due to trauma, including at least three children who suffered two traumatic injuries during this period. At least seven of these children suffered such serious injuries that they required hospitalization for treatment. Thus, infirmary beds throughout the system, but particularly at Swanson and Tallulah, are filled with children with serious injuries, such as broken jaws and noses. In addition, with the exception of the recently-opened infirmary at Tallulah, the infirmaries at all of the facilities are located in substandard buildings that have inadequate space and facilities to meet basic sanitation and resource requirements of a health care facility. The infirmary at Swanson is particularly deficient.
Routine medical care provided at the facilities is deficient. Intake screenings and assessments are inadequate. Screening and assessment information concerning medical and mental health conditions is often incomplete and contains conflicting information; quality assurance procedures do not adequately identify these errors. Failure to identify health problems at intake results in inadequate medical and mental health care for a number of juveniles and inappropriate placement within the facilities. For example, some juveniles with mental and physical disabilities have deteriorated significantly after being placed inappropriately in Talluiah's boot camp.
At each facility, discrete deficiencies in the delivery of medical care were noted. At Jetson, the deficiencies include: 1) failure to provide adequate medical care to juveniles with disabilities; and 2) failure to track laboratory results adequately, such as the case of one juvenile who had not received treatment for gonorrhea because the facility misfiled the lab results. Staff at Jetson also reported a need for training regarding HIV.
At Tallulah, the deficiencies include: 1) denial of access to medical care by correctional staff who refuse to escort injured youth to the infirmary; 2) failure to provide adequate nursing services; 3) failure to follow medical orders regarding health conditions, such as the case of a juvenile with glaucoma who was sprayed in the eyes with mace in spite of explicit medical orders not to do so,- 4) failure to review adequately laboratory results; 5) failure to provide HIV tests to juveniles who request them, such as the case of one juvenile who has repeatedly asked for but has not been tested for HIV and whose medical chart reveals at least ten sexual contacts while confined at Tallulah, including two with a guard; 6) failure to practice universal precautions,- and 7) failure to provide adequate nutritional planning, such as for the thirty youth in a

- 13 -
segregated isolation unit, each of whom had lost five or more pounds since admission to the unit.
At Bridge City, the deficiencies include: 1) denial of access to medical care by correctional staff who refuse to escort injured youth to the infirmary; and 2) failure to have a policy regarding follow-up of laboratory results.
At Swanson, the deficiencies include: 1) denial of access to medical care by correctional staff, where children are sometimes denied permission to go to sick call with injury complaints when they are misbehaving; and 2) failure to follow the facility's HIV testing policy, which requires that a test be provided if requested, including arbitrary denial to provide the test, such as the juvenile who reported that his request for an HIV test was refused because he had not "lost enough weight."
All four facilities provide inadequate dental services, which are generally limited to extractions.
2. Inadequate Mental Health Care
The most egregious deficiencies in mental health care were noted at Tallulah, where juveniles with extensive psychiatric histories who self-mutilate and/or threaten suicide have never been referred to a psychiatrist. Tallulah employs no psychiatrist and provides no mental health care to its many youth with serious mental illness. At most, counselors who are not trained in mental health care and not supervised by mental health professionals speak to juveniles. This complete denial of necessary care is causing great harm at Tallulah.
We found numerous suicide hazards throughout the secure juvenile facilities in Louisiana. For example, at Tallulah, "rails" - horizontal bars on the second tier of seme housing units - represent a serious suicide hazard. Ycuth at Tallulah have a practice of climbing the rails and threatening or attempting suicide. In fact, on one of our tours of the facility, our expert psychiatrist observed bleed on the rails from an attempted suicide the previous day. On another expert tour of Tallulah, we witnessed two youths climb the rails, tie nooses around their necks, and threaten suicide. Although Tallulah has recently taken steps to modify the rails in response to our alerting the facility to the danger, it appears than the modifications are inadequate. We have received several recent reports indicating that youth at Tallulah continue to climb the rails and threaten to hurt themselves. The Montana unit at Tallulah has blind spots and numerous fixtures that could serve as anchors for hanging attempts. The infirmary at Jetson has many blind spots, and some patient care areas have exposed wires, outlets and knobs that provide potential for self harm. There were numerous unenclosed overhead pipes throughout Bridge City,

- 14 -
despite the fact that depressed and suicidal youth are specifically assigned to this facility due to their vulnerabilities.
At Tallulah and Jetsen, psychotropic medications ara managed inadequately. Both facilities fail to monitor for medication efficacy or side effects adequately. Tallulah has no psychiatrist to monitor the medications. In addition, both facilities fail to document consent for treatment with these medications in the medical record. Moreover, at Jetson, juveniles reported being put in isolation or being beaten for refusing to take psychotropic medications. Bridge City nursing staff abruptly stop ail psychotropic medications at intake until a juvenile sees a psychiatrist. For seme psyche-tropic medications, this is a dangerous practice that does not comport with accepted professional standards.
Mental health assessments and counseling are severely deficient at all four facilities. The mental health assessments performed at intake into the system are particularly inadequate. Because juveniles with mental health problems are inadequately assessed, they receive inappropriate treatment. At all four facilities, access to group therapy is severely limited. Individual mental health treatment plans, where they exist, fail to meet professional standards. A review of treatment plans at all four facilities revealed inadequate documentation of goals and youths' progress toward the goals. Many treatment plans were incomplete. Moreover, because an estimated 80-90 percent of the youth in these four facilities have behavior problems, facility-wide behavior management programs are necessary. The lack of adequate behavioral management programs contributes to the pervasive violence within the facilities.
Louisiana is failing to ensure that the numerous youth with mental disabilities confined in its secure correctional facilities receive appropriate treatment and training while confined and appropriate continued care upon discharge. Special training and skills programs for juvenile with mental retardation are ncn-existent. For instance, in August 1996, 56 juveniles at Tallulah were identified by the facility as being mentally retarded, yet, Tallulah failed to provide most of these juveniles with any special programs to address their needs.
Staff at all four facilities are not adequately trained to recognize and meet the need of youths with mental retardation and/or mental illness or juveniles with a history of substance abuse. Staff at all four facilities lack adequate training in behavioral management techniques. Staff at Tallulah acknowledged the need for training in suicide assessment, crisis management, psychiatric medications, seizure management, therapeutic techniques, and working with violent juveniles. At Jetson, the

- 15 -
nursing director recognized the need for expanded mental health training for nurses. Jetson nursing and counseling staff expressed the need for more information regarding psychctrcpic medications. At Bridge City, both the psychiatrist and psychologist identified a need for further staff training in working with youth with mental disabilities.
C. Inadequate Education and Rehabilitative Services
Louisiana law requires that all children under the age of 17 attend school. Any failure by the State to enforce its compulsory education laws in the four secure juvenile facilities must be rationally related to a legitimate penological interest. Se.e Gcss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 573-76 (1974) ; Dcnnell C. v. Illinois Sr.af.s Board of Education. 829 F. SUCD . 1016, 1018 (N.D. 111. 1993). In addition, federal law requires that juveniles with learning disabilities in these facilities receive special education and related services. Id.. Related services means "such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education." 34 C.F.R. § 300.15 (1994}."
Education services in the facilities do net comply with applicable State regulations, federal statutes, or professional standards. Our consultants concluded that the education programs in the facilities "operate completely outside the bounds of acceptable educational practice." The Louisiana Department of Education does not monitor adequately the education program at the facilities, nor does it ensure that services to children with disabilities comply with State policies regarding special education. As a result of current practices, our consultants concluded that "students are unable to maintain their academic progress, fail to develop new skills, and are no more prepared to re-enter their home communities or other institutions than when they were initially confined." In sum, Louisiana fails to provide an adequate education to youth confined in its correctional facilities.
Our consultants identified system-wide disregard of State or Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("DPSC") policies in the areas of school budgeting and finance; minimal length of school day; discipline of handicapped students; instructional material and equipment; school libraries; high school graduation requirements; program of study,- and vocational programs. Most youth, if they attend school at all, do not receive a State mandated minimum S-,i hours per day of instructional time. With the exception of the juveniles under age 17 on the open campus of Swanson who receive 5^ hours per day of instruction, most juveniles receive no mere than four hours a day of school.

- IS -
At Tallulah, where the school is extremely overcrowded, youth attend school only three hours a day as a space saving measure. Children confined to the Phase II section of Tallulah attend a three hour daily class in the small day rooms of their living units. Little or no instruction occurs in this chaotic environment and instructional materials are not available much of the time. Moreover, throughout the system, there are some students not enrolled in school at all. For example, at Bridge City, we met one 11-year-old who had not been in school for a" number of months. Instead, he spent his days cleaning the facility.
When teachers are absent, students either receive no instruction or students are distributed randomly among ccher classrooms, in violation of State policy mandating substitute teachers. At Bridge City, serious problems with regard to teacher absences and lack of substitute teachers are resulting in classrooms supervised by correctional officers, referred to by the children as "CSO classes." One Bridge City teacher had been out for five months earlier in 19S6 while correctional officers "taught" her class. Our consultants found that no meaningful instruction takes place in CSO classes. On the contrary, the officers either monitor the children minimally or sleep. This situation is not only resulting in a failure to educate, but can result in serious harm. Several children at Bridge City reported that while an officer slept in one CSO class, a juvenile was forced to perform oral sex on another juvenile.
Our consultants concluded that education decisions appear to be driven solely by security and fiscal concerns. Throughout the system, homework is prohibited by security staff, who fear that writing utensils may become used as weapons in the dorms. In all living units except for the Phase II units at Talluiah, security staff do not even permit bocks, explaining that contraband can be hidden in becks. Security and educational staff should work together to devise a method to allow homework and reading material on the living units that would also address security's legitimate concerns. Students also have inadequate access to library services. Fiscal limitations result in dated and limited library materials, and pay differentials between teachers in the community and teachers in the facilities result in staff turnover that adversely impacts educational services in the facilities.
The special education programs at all four facilities fail to meet IDEA legal mandates and fail far below minimum professional standards. Screening and identification of eligible youth are inadequate. For instance, three months after his confinement to State custody, a 12-year-old at Tallulah with an IQ of 68 was not yet receiving special education services. Even if a child has been identified as eligible for special education before being confined, the facilities fail to provide services

- 17 -
within the legally prescribed time limit. Although Stats and federal regulations require that students enrolled in special education transferring from one school district to another receive appropriate services within five days, students do not receive any special education services during intake and orientation - which in some cases can take months. One child at Jetson who was eligible for special education services reported that she had spent about two months in the intake dormitory without being enrolled in school. Girls in the intake dorm, she reported, "slept all day because there were no programs." Many teachers at Tallulah reported that students may be ready to leave the facility by the time the teachers can schedule special education.
At all four facilities, students do not receive adequate instructional time nor adequate related services required by IDEA to ensure that children eligible for special education benefit from the services provided. At Bridge City, federally mandated planning meetings are inadequately staffed. At Tallulah, none of the teachers is certified in special education and the four teachers providing special education services do not attend in-service training with the other special educators employed in the public schools.
Vocational education is inadequate at Jetson and Swanson and non-existent at Bridge City and Tallulah. At best, Jetson and Swanson expose the students to vocational skill areas but fail to teach rudimentary skills adequately; at worst, the vocational programs of these two facilities seriously compromise the children's' health and safety. In one case, a 14-year-old taking his first shop class lost pares of four fingers in an extremely dangerous power tool that is not appropriate for entry level shop experience. At Swanson, well qualified instructors are unable to provide instruction due to insufficient instructional materials, excessively large classes, and a curriculum driven by the maintenance needs of the institution.
The beys placed in isolation at Swanson and Tallulah receive no educational services, including special education services. Although the boys placed in isolation at Jetson receive some educational services, the girls placed in isolation at Jetscn receive no such services. System-wide, the facilities fail to provide special education services to children who are administratively isolated for their own procection. Because students with emotional or behavioral disorders, including youth with serious mental health needs, are vulnerable to behavioral sanctions such as isolation, this is a serious problem.
Although one purpose of Louisiana's secure correctional facilities is to rehabilitate youth, all four facilities lack adequate youth development programs, including adequate behavior

- 18 -
management programs, life skills training, and adequate structured daily activities, including recreational opportunities. During non-school hours, officers force the majority of juveniles at ail four facilities to spend several hours every day sitting in mandated silence in their units with nothing to read or do. We found instances where juveniles were punished or hit by officers if they spoke or shifted in their seats during these periods.
D. Other Juvenile Justice Deficiencies
1. As noted throughout this letter, inadequate staffing and poorly trained staff contribute to the unconstitutional conditions at the facilities. Officer-to-juvenile ratios are inadequate to properly supervise and care for the juveniles confined in the State's facilities.
2. Overly-restrictive practices with respect to mail, telephone, and visitation work together to deny juveniles in all four facilities the ability to communicate and associate with their families and communities. For instance, many youth alleged that a limit exists on the number of letters that can be mailed, even for those youth who pay for all associated costs. At Bridge City, juveniles stated they could only write letters on Sunday. No facility allows children more than two outgoing calls weekly, except for emergencies. Children at ail four facilities are prohibited .from taking incoming calls. We observed broken telephones at Tallulah where juveniles reported that the telephones had been broken for several weeks before our tour. All four facilities fail to provide adequate visitation opportunities. Visitation is permitted only one Sunday each month. Many juveniles stated that their placement in facilities far from home, combined with such limited visitation righcs, caused families to be unable to visit. The State offered no justification for its restrictions on family contact. In sum, the facilities' limitations on mail, telephone access, and visitation estrange juveniles from their families instead of strengthening family ties that increase the likelihood that the juvenile will succeed after release.
3. All four facilities fail to provide adequate access to juveniles with physical disabilities who are confined to wheelchairs. For instance, a disabled juvenile confined to a wheelchair at Jetson must go to the infirmary in order to bathe or to use the bathroom. One of cur investigators was also confined to a wheelchair and could not gain access to a number of buildings at Bridge City and Jetson.
4. Louisiana fails to provide adequate and meaningful access to courts and counsel to juveniles confined in its correctional facilities. The State fails to provide appropriate

- 19 -
assistance to juveniles to pursue direct appeals of their adjudication, collateral attacks on their confinement, and claims regarding unconstitutional conditions of confinement and other civil rights claims relating to confinement. In 1996, the State admitted 1900 youth for incarceration in the four facilities. Although the vast majority of these youth were represented by public defenders, there are only 10 reported cases of direct appeals by juveniles represented by public defenders. Although the State has an administrative grievance procedure that juveniles must exhaust before filing complaints in court, the procedure is overly complex and no meaningful assistance is provided. Most juveniles we interviewed regarding their options for complaining about conditions of confinement were unaware of the administrative procedure.
II. MINIMUM REMEDIAL MEASURES
To rectify these deficiencies and to ensure that Louisiana's secure correctional facilities for juveniles comply with federal constitutional and statutory requirements, the following minimum remedial measures must be implemented in addition to these set forth in our July and October 1996 letters to you:
1. Adequately protect juveniles in the facilities from staff abuse and juvenile-on-juvenile violence. Employ sufficient trained, independent investigators, to ensure that all incidents of violence, use of force, or serious injury are adequately investigated. Ensure adequate investigatory procedures. Ensure that all juveniles have direct, reasonable access to the Project Zero Tolerance hotline.
2. Ensure that juveniles are classified and housed adequately to protect them from harm. Develop and utilize appropriate placements for juveniles with mental disabilities and other special needs.
3 . Ensure that restraints and isolation are used only when a youth presents a clear and present danger. Provide adequate positive behavior management programs.
4. Employ sufficient trained staff to ensure the safety and to satisfy the individual treatment, training, and rehabilitative needs of juveniles confined in these facilities.
5. Train existing staff to allow them to perform their positions adequately and ensure that all staff demonstrate an understanding of and/or demonstrate the application of these skills. For all staff working with juveniles, the areas of training and demonstrated competence should include: passive restraint; stages of adolescent development; communication skills; therapeutic intervention skills,- basic rights of

- 20 -
residents and staff; report writing; basic medical terminology; recognizing and responding to seizure disorders; common side effects of prescription and non-prescription medication; the physical and emotional needs of pregnant residents (for staff working with female juveniles) ,• universal precautions to prevent infection of TB and AIDS; the prevention and management of suicidal behavior; confidentiality of medical information,- the provision of health education for residents; basic information concerning learning disabilities; certification in first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation,- and adaptive activities for physically and developmentally challenged juveniles.
6. Provide adequate mental health care, medical care, and 'dental services to juveniles confined to the four secure care facilities and a sufficient number of qualified staff to provide the services.
7. Take adequate suicide prevention measures, including removal of suicide hazards, and adequately supervise suicidal juveniles.
8 . Provide adequate and appropriate general education and special education services to juveniles confined to the four secure care facilities. Provide adequate and appropriate vocational programs with work that is related to the purpose of treatment and rehabilitation. Ensure that female juveniles receive the same level of educational services as male juveniles.
9. Provide appropriate activities during non-school hours and days. Provide juveniles wich adequate and appropriate opportunities for exercise, recreation, and reading materials. .
10. Provide juveniles with adequate access to telephone, mail, and visitation.
11. Make the facilities accessible for juveniles with physical disabilities.
12. Ensure juveniles' meaningful access to courts during confinement for direct appeals, collateral attacks on their confinement, and cases related to unconstitutional conditions of confinement and other civil rights claims relating to confinement.
13. Provide juveniles with adequate transition and aftercare services.
14. Develop and implement adequate quality assurance mechanisms and reviews to ensure the efficacy of corrective measures.

- 21 -
Finally, because conditions at the four facilities are before the court in Williams v. McKgithen, CA 71-98-B (M.D. L a . ) , we are providing a copy of this letter to the court and counsel of record in that case.
Pursuant to CRIPA, the Attorney General may initiate a lawsuit to correct deficiencies at an institution 49 days after appropriate local officials are notified of them. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b (a) (1) . Under the pattern or practice provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Attorney General may initiate a lawsuit to correct the deficiencies. 42 U.S.C. § 14141. We therefore look forward to conducting negotiations with the State of Louisiana to resolve the existing systemic deficiencies. We look forward to working with you and other State officials to resolve this matter in a reasonable and expeditious manner.
Sincerely,
Isabelle Katz Pinzler Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
cc: The Honorable Cheney C. Joseph, Jr. Executive Counsel to the Governor
The Honorable Richard Ieyoub Attorney General of Louisiana
Mr. Richard Stalder Secretary for the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections
Mr. Richard Curry Special Assistant Attorney General for the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections
Judge William Roberts Attorney for the Trans-America Corporation, owners of the
Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth
Ms. Susan Wible Superintendent Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth
Mr. Robert C. Dunavent Superintendent Louisiana Training Institute at Monroe

- 22 -
Mr. Elijah Lewis Superintendent Jetson Correctional Center for Youth
Mr. Benny G. Harris Superintendent Louisiana Training Institute at Bridge City
Eddie J. Jordan, Jr., Esq, United States Attorney Eastern District of Louisiana
L. J. Hymel, Jr., Esq. United States Attorney Middle District of Louisiana
Michael D. Skinner, Esq. United States Attorney Western District of Louisiana
The Honorable Richard Riley Secretary United States Department of Education
Ms. Judith E. Heuman Assistant Secretary Office of Special Education and Related Services United States Department of Education
Mr. Tom Hehir Director Office of Special Education Programs United States Department of Education

 
 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

Office of the Assistant Aaomey Genera!
BY OVERNIGHT MAIL

OCT

Wbshington. D.C. 20035
3 1998

CRIPA Investigation

_. TT

,_-,.,., „ _

The Honorable Mike Foster

Governor of Louisiana

State Capitol

P. 0. Box 94<J04

Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9004

J-LA-001-010

Re: Investigation of Secure Correctional Facilities for Children in Louisiana Children in Louisiana

Dear Governor Foster:

As you know, we are currently investigating conditions at the secure correctional facilities for children in Louisiana. Following our June tours of two of the facilities, Louisiana Training Institute at Bridge City and Jetson Correctional Center for Youth, we notified you on July 15, 1996 that we had uncovered serious systemic problems with staff abuse and juvenile-on-juvenile violence at these two facilities. Given the gravity of the situation, we asked the State to begin addressing these dangerous conditions immediately.

As we 'have found at every step of this investigation to date, the State responded in a prompt and cooperative manner. Within days of our July 15th letter, your Executive Counsel and your Secretary of Corrections contacted us with their offer to meet to discuss Louisiana's response to our interim findings. On July 30, 1966 the1' State presented its response to our findings, "Project Zero Tolerance," which incorporated a number of the recommendations for immediate action that we made in our July 15th letter. Notably, the State took the admirable initiative of implementing Project Zero Tolerance statewide rather than limiting it to the two facilities addressed in our July 15th letter. Although not all of our recommendations were incorporated in Project Zero Tolerance, we agreed that the Project should go forward, on the condition that it may need revisions or additions based on our continuing investigation. The State launched Project Zero Tolerance on August 1, 1996.

Because State officials at all levels have expressed their desire to work with us in the event that our investigation revealed problems in the system, we again take the unusual step

- 2-
of writing to you to report additional interim findings based upon our August investigation of the two remaining facilities, Louisiana Training Institute at Monroe and Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth. Our most recent tours revealed life-threatening and dangerous conditions in these facilities that are similar to conditions we found in June at Bridge City and Jetson.
We toured Monroe and Tallulah during the weeks of August 19 and August 26. At the end of both tours, we notified facility officials that we uncovered serious systemic problems with staff abuse and juvenile-on-juvenile violence at each facility. In both cases, we also provided names of juveniles whom we felt were at particularly high levels of risk. A few examples of the type of evidence that we discovered include:
* At both Monroe and Tallulah (as we had previously found at Bridge City and Jetson), almost each of the more than 100 children we interviewed spoke of being hit and/or kicked by officers and seeing other children being hit and/or kicked by officers. Children reported being assaulted by officers for such minor offenses as talking, not running fast enough, and not walking in line. Several juveniles at Tallulah described how a guard crushes their testicles with his outstretched arms during routine spread-eagle searches. A juvenile at Tallulah described how a guard punched, choked and hit him on the head with a radio for failing to put his tee shirt on properly. When the child "balled up" on the ground to signal that he was not fighting back, the officer kicked him in the face and head and maced him. At Monroe, a child reported being hit on the head with a padlock, causing a laceration requiring sutures, merely because he was turning the faucets on a sink on and off. Similarly, a Monroe juvenile reported that an officer hit him on the head with handcuffs, causing a laceration^' requiring multiple stitches. Another Monroe juvenile reported'that as he was lying on the ground after a fight between juveniles, a guard ran up and kicked him in the face in front of several witnesses, breaking his nose. A number of juveniles alleged that officers hit them once they are restrained in handcuffs and defenseless.
* Guards at both Monroe and Tallulah allegedly avoid detection for abuse by taking a juvenile to areas where cameras will not record their actions. At Tallulah, we received reports that guards take children, alone or in groups, into the "cut," the area underneath the cameras and thus out of viewing range, where the children are assaulted. For instance, a Tallulah juvenile reported that a guard took him into the cut and assaulted him

- 3-
for failing to complete a series of exercises. When the juvenile reported the incident to supervisorycorrectional personnel, the guard threatened the safety of the juvenile's family and stated that other juveniles were going to jump him in retaliation for reporting the abuse. At Monroe, even though there are cameras in the closed campus dorms, guards allegedly also take children into areas not monitored by the cameras to assault them.
At both Monroe and Tallulah, misuse and overuse of chemical and mechanical restraints and isolation contribute to a culture of violence within the facilities. For example, children are isolated in solitary confinement for extended periods of time for minor disciplinary infractions or even for suicide attempts. Moreover, guards using chemical restraints at each facility are exerting excessive force on the juveniles. At Tallulah, records indicate that juveniles are maced for such minor infractions as cursing at correctional staff, kicking the door to their rooms, refusing to get off of the telephone, and refusing to go into their rooms. A Tallulah juvenile with glaucoma was recently sprayed with mace in spite of a medical order indicating that the juvenile had had eye surgery and should not receive any chemicals or trauma which could cause blindness. At both Monroe and Tallulah, juveniles reported being maced long after a fight is broken up -- some while their hands are cuffed behind their backs. While we toured Monroe, a child who had been placed in handcuffs for throwing water on ya guard was subdued and standing still when a Lieutenant arrived on the scene and maced him with two cans of spray. Another Monroe juvenile reported that, following a fight that was broken up by guards, he was lying face down with his hands cuffed behind his back when a Lieutenant arrived on the scene, ordered him to stand, and' proceeded to mace him. A day before our tour of Tallulah began, a guard broke up a fight between two juveniles. We received reports that two additional guards entered the room and each sprayed a juvenile with mace while pushing, punching, kicking and slapping him. The juvenile was sent to the hospital for sutures to close his head wound resulting from the staff abuse.
At both Monroe and Tallulah, children who had sustained serious injuries at the hands of other children reported being "snooked" or "snuck" (being assaulted by surprise by other offenders whom they did not know well or with whom they had no known grievance).

- 4-
At both Monroe and Tallulah, juveniles report that juvenile-on-juvenile assaults are often set up by the guards who seek to teach the victim a lesson. Juveniles at Monroe spoke of a "sixty," which is a guard's promise to give a child a package of sixty cookies if the child can injure another child badly enough to require hospitalization. In other cases, juveniles report that peers receive chips or cigarettes from guards to complete a "hit." When one juvenile first arrived at Monroe and aggravated a guard, the guard made the child stand alone under the TV at the front of the dorm. A large juvenile whom the child did not know approached him and choked him until he lost consciousness. As he resumed consciousness, the large juvenile began hitting the victim's head on the floor. Another Monroe juvenile describes getting "snooked" by another juvenile he did not know; the child's eye socket was broken and required surgery.
At both Monroe and Tallulah, juveniles report that guards allow offenders to fight with other offenders without intervening. At Tallulah, this practice is known as "opening the cut," the "cut" being the area out of camera range at the front of the dorms. Some Tallulah juveniles further reported that guards order juveniles to fight with each other, threatening beatings by guards for failure to fight. One Tallulah juvenile described a practice known as the "valley of death," where guards require juveniles to stand in a letter U formation and force a juvenile to walk into the "valley," where the child gets punched by the other juveniles.
At both Monroe and Tallulah, we uncovered a number of egregious behavioral control techniques -- amounting to gross abuse -- being used by guards. For instance, at Tallulah, 'a number of juveniles described an initiation rite allegedly practiced by a guard in one dorm. On the first night that the guard works after a child is assigned to the dorm, the child is taken to the showers and out of camera range, where his arms are held by his peers while assuming a spread eagle position against the wall. The guard pulls the child's pants down and whips him with a leather belt several times. The child is threatened with a worse beating or group punishment for the entire dorm if the child seeks medical attention from the infirmary for the beating or reports the abuse to anyone else. Another guard routinely witnesses the initiation rite. A number of juveniles at Tallulah also reported that this same guard also conducts "initiations" by ordering juveniles on the units to beat up the new juveniles in the shower.

- 5-
Documented injuries at both Monroe and Tallulah confirm the seriousness of the level of violence in both facilities. From July 1 through August 19, 1996, 24 juveniles at Monroe were confined for at least one night in the infirmary for serious injuries caused by assaults from other offenders or from staff. Ten were injured so severely that they required stays of seven days or longer. During that period, ten children suffered fractures to the jaw, eye socket, nose, hand or ankle. During that same period, five children suffered serious eye injuries and one child was placed in the infirmary for injuries attributed to anal rape.
Altitough serious injuries were a common problem at all of the four Louisiana juvenile facilities we toured, the frequency and seriousness of injuries was the greatest at Tallulah. On the day we arrived at Tallulah, there were three juveniles in the infirmary with broken jaws and two with broken noses. In the first 20 days in August following initiation of Project Zero Tolerance, 28 Tallulah children were sent to the hospital for evaluation and/or treatment of serious injuries, including fractures or suspected fractures and serious lacerations in need of suturing. One child suffered a laceration to his penis of "unknown" origin. Medical personnel reported that they saw a juvenile with a perforated eardrum about every two weeks and that on one particular occasion, the physician saw eight ruptured eardrums in one day. Almost all of these injuries were attributed to staff assaults or juvenile-on-juvenile violence.
While a recounting of the aggregate injury statistics at Tallulah reflects the pervasiveness of the violence, an examination of the underlying incidents reveals the physical and emotional costs. For instance, one 14 year old a't Tallulah is severely depressed and taking psychotropics for his depression. In May, he reported to the infirmary, stating that while he was in the bathroom, another offender grabbed him and held him and choked him. He lost consciousness and when he woke up, he stated that his pants had been pulled down. A medical exam at Tallulah confirmed anal rape, but the boy was not referred for any rape counseling. Days before we arrived at Tallulah, this same boy was involved in an offender fight. A nursing assessment found a laceration to the left side of his nose, a discolored left eye, scratches on both sides of his neck, a swollen jaw and a purple area on the base of his neck. The child was sent to the hospital, where staff confirmed a fractured nose and an injured jaw.

- 6-
* At both Monroe and Tallulah, children repeatedly stated that they were afraid to report staff abuse because of the possibility of retaliation. Many non-correctional staff disclosed that offenders often misrepresent the cause of injuries due to staff abuse because the children feel that telling the truth would only subject them to more abuse. In many instances, children are allegedly coerced by guards not to seek medical attention for injuries suffered from staff abuse with threats of further abuse. Furthermore, internal investigations of alleged assaults at both facilities are seriously flawed. As a result, almost none of the abuse allegations filed by children are ever adequately investigated, leaving juveniles without faith in the process and little incentive to come forward to report abuse.
In addition to the concerns raised by evidence of continued systemic staff and juvenile-on-juvenile abuse at both Monroe and Tallulah, we uncovered evidence of certain medical and mental health problems at the facilities that pose serious risk of harm and thus necessitate immediate remediation. These conditions include:
* Tallulah lacks adequate suicide prevention measures/plans in the Java unit. The Java unit, which houses 80 of the most aggressive juveniles in the system, is ringed with metal pipes that present serious hanging risks to juveniles with suicidal tendencies. Furthermore, Tallulah has absolutely no plan in place to address emergencies created when juveniles attempt to hang themselves from these rails. An incident that occurred in the presence of Justice Department representatives illustrates the point. On August 22, 1996, while Justice Department representatives were interviewing juveniles confined in Java Unit D, two juveniles ^.climbed to second tier railing and tied nooses around their necks. While the guards attended to the two juveniles at risk of hanging on the upper tier of the unit, the remaining juveniles in the unit were left unattended with Justice Department representatives on the floor below. The juveniles on the floor grew increasingly agitated and aggressive. Seeing this, the guards abandoned the children in nooses and came down to put the remaining juveniles in their cells. Only after all the remaining juveniles were in their cells and the guards had returned to the two children in nooses still suspended from the rails did additional correctional staff appear. The officer in the control room failed to call immediately for additional staff to help with this crisis.

- 7-
* Both facilities fail to respond to juveniles' requests for HIV testing. For instance, a Monroe child's infirmary record contained a note the child had written requesting a test for HIV, stating that he had had sex with another boy known to have many partners. As far as can be determined from the child's medical record, he was never afforded a test, counselling, or even any contact from staff regarding his note. A juvenile at Tallulah discussed his multiple sexual partners, including two episodes of anal intercourse with a guard. An incident report exam indicates that on one such occasion, the juvenile had a rectal tear. The juvenile reported that he requested a test for HIV but had, not received it yet.
* Tallulah staff and juveniles are not practicing universal infection control precautions when there is an exposure to blood. For instance, during our tour, a Justice Department representative pointed out a significant amount of dried blood on a living unit and was informed by staff that on the previous day, a juvenile had attempted to commit suicide. The blood was finally removed when a guard ordered a juvenile to clean it up. The juvenile proceeded to do so without any gloves to protect him from possible contamination from such serious infectious diseases as Hepatitis B.
* The staff at Tallulah do not provide adequate medical treatment to juveniles with serious asthma conditions. Medical staff and medical records confirmed that staff routinely deny juveniles with asthma problems access to immediate medical care. Moreover, the facility fails to provide timely medical/nursing assessments for asthma and fails to refer juveniles with serious asthma problems for appropriate physician intervention. For instance, a juvenile with serious asthma is in Tallulah'sv physically demanding boot camp program. The medical chart of the juvenile indicates that he had complained of shortness of breath on at least twenty-three different occasions since May 27, 1996. The facility's physician was never informed of the frequency of his medical complaints.
Necessary Remedial Measures
Because of the seriousness of the level of violence that we
found in both Monroe and Tallulah, even after the initiation of
Project Zero Tolerance, it is apparent that the efforts instituted to date have either not been sufficient to prevent a pattern and practice of abuse at the facilities or have not been effectively implemented at the facilities. It is therefore critical that the State take additional immediate preliminary

- 8-
remedial measures to fully enforce Project Zero Tolerance and swiftly correct these life-threatening and dangerous deficiencies. Moreover, the State should take immediate action to address the dangerous medical concerns we identified. In particular, the State and any facility under contract with the ' State should immediately implement the following remedial measures:
1. As soon as possible, but in no event later than November 1, 1996, the State must ensure that independent and trained investigators are assigned to work on-site at each facility. The investigators should report to and be supervised by Major Gary McDonald and Dr. Cecile Guin of Project Zero Tolerance. These investigators must review and investigate all incidents of serious injury and all allegations of abuse, neglect, mistreatment or use of force. The investigators must have the independent authority to interview children and initiate investigations without the prior approval of the facility administrators. Initially, these investigators should be assigned at a ratio of 1:250 incarcerated youth per facility. The adequacy of this ratio should be re-evaluated after six monchs.
2. At Tallulah, the closed circuit camera system should immediately be expanded to ensure that all areas of the housing units (including the Java unit, which presently has no cameras) have auditory and visual monitoring and videotaping with simultaneous audiotaping on a twenty-four hour basis. All videotape of unusual incidents should be made available immediately to the investigators described in the above paragraph and the facility should retain all videotapes for a minimum period of six months.
3. Immediate steps should be taken to ensure weekly unannounced visits to all infirmaries by Central Office nursing personnel. During these visits, Central Office nurses should review injury, accident, use of force and other unusual incident reports as well as medical•records and photographs of injuries with attention to the possible abuse, neglect, or mistreatment of children, and interview the children, if appropriate. These nurses should issue a monthly report of their activities to the State, the Department of Justice, the Project Zero Tolerance Task Force, and to the investigators described in paragraph one, above.
4. The State should conduct criminal background checks (checking with the National Crime Information Center, State police, local district attorneys' offices, and the Louisiana child abuse registry) on all existing staff and future staff by November 15, 1996 and take appropriate action to protect the welfare and safety of juveniles based upon information obtained from the background checks.

- 9-
5. To address the excessive use of force, immediate steps should be taken to ensure that within three months, all current staff are trained and certified in an appropriate passive restraint training program. All new staff who have contact with youth should be required to attend initial restraint certification training before working within the institution, followed by a yearly re-certification for all staff. In conjunction with the passive restraint training and certification program, the State should develop and implement a Standard Operating Procedure delineating acceptable restraint methods.
6. The State must re-evaluate its decision to use chemical restraints in juvenile facilities. At a minimum, the State should develop, and implement a uniform policy regarding the use of chemical restraints which permits the use of chemical restraints only in an extreme emergency situation to temporarily incapacitate an actively dangerous person. In no event may a chemical restraint be used as punishment, discipline, retaliation, or to inflict pain.
7. The State must ensure that all of its juvenile training schools immediately cease using isolation and mechanical restraints for punishment, discipline (with the exception of incidents involving battery, riot, or escape) , or convenience of staff. Isolation or mechanical restraints should be used only to control behavior that poses a clear and present danger and where all other less restrictive and less invasive techniques have failed. The State must develop and implement procedures to ensure that whenever staff place a juvenile in isolation or mechanical restraints, appropriate staff adequately monitor the condition of the juvenile, record essential information, and make referrals for mental health evaluation and treatment when warranted. In no event should a facility place an actively self-injurious juvenile in isolation. All efforts should be made by staff to assist the juvenile in regaining control of his/her behavior so that isolation or mechanical restraints may be lifted at the earliest possible time.
8. Except for use in transporting juveniles, where the use of handcuffs and leg shackles may be necessary, the State must immediately ensure that the only approved means of mechanical restraint is the use of handcuffs. Handcuffs should only be used to control aggressive or assaultive behavior that is a clear and present danger to the resident, another resident, staff, or the security of the facility. The use of handcuffs should be limited to the minimum period of time necessary to enable the juvenile to gain control of his behavior. A staff person should remain with the handcuffed juvenile and should have no duties or responsibilities other than the supervision of the juvenile. The staff person should ensure that the physical needs of the juvenile are met promptly. The handcuffs should be applied behind the back in a manner to minimize the risk of injury to the

- 10 -
resident and staff person responsible for supervising the resident. In no event may handcuffs or other mechanical devices be used to bind a juvenile's wrists to his ankles. The juvenile should be taken to the infirmary as soon as possible after application of handcuffs for medical examination.
9. The "rails" in the Java units at Tallulah must be modified within one month to alleviate the suicide/injury risk. A crisis protocol should be put in place immediately at Tallulah to manage suicide attempts and suicide gestures, including threats of self-harm. The protocol should include training of guards, provisions for assistance during crisis by social workers and counselors, and a list of individuals who must be alerted during a suicide attempt or suicide gestures, including threats of selfharm.
10. A protocol should be put in place immediately at Tallulah to ensure that universal infection control precautions are implemented whenever there is a risk of exposure to blood and other potentially infectious materials. The protocol should include training of guards and juveniles on the use of these precautions.
11. The State should immediately ensure that any juvenile who requests a test for HIV be given the test and its results promptly.
12. The State should immediately ensure that any juvenile at Tallulah with asthma is provided with appropriate medical care.
Given the urgency of addressing these deficiencies, we will contact your Executive Counsel within the next week to discuss the remedial measures in greater detail and the State's willingness to take immediate corrective action. We believe that the.results of our investigation at all of the facilities provide a basis for action pursuant not only to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997, et seq.. but also appear to constitute a violation of the Police Misconduct Provision of the 1994 Crime Bill, 42 U.S.C. § 14141. However, because the State has expressed its desire to cooperate in this investigation and we would prefer to address the dangerous deficiencies swiftly and without resort to litigation to obtain necessary relief, we make this offer to jointly address the deficiencies in the most expeditious manner.
Deval L. Patrick Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

CC: The Honorable Cheney C. Joseph, Jr. Executive Counsel to the Governor
The Honorable Richard Ieyoub Attorney General of Louisiana
Mr. Richard Stalder Secretary for the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections
Mr. Richard Curry Special Assistant Attorney General for the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections "
Judge William Roberts Attorney for the Trans-America Corporation, owners of the
Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth
Ms. Susan Wible Superintendent Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth
Mr. Robert C. Dunavent Superintendent Louisiana Training Institute at Monroe
Court Expert Williams v. Edwards, C.A. No. 71-98-B (M.D. Ala.)
The Honorable Eddie J. Jordan, Jr. United States Attorney Eastern District of Louisiana
The Honorable L. J. Hymel,. Jr. United States Attorney • Middle District of Louisiana
The Honorable Michael D. Skinner United States Attorney Western District of Louisiana

 
 CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 1 of 23

ATTENTION, CLOSED
U.S. District Court Middle District of Louisiana (Baton Rouge) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:98-cv-00947-FJP

USA v. State of LA, et al Assigned to: Judge Frank J. Polozola Demand: $0 Cause: 28:1345 USA Plaintiff
Plaintiff
United States of America

Date Filed: 11/05/1998 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Brian A. Jackson Liskow & Lewis- N.O. 701 Poydras Street Suite 5000 New Orleans, LA 70139-5099 337-232-7424 Fax: 504-556-4108 Email: bajackson@liskow.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Russell U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division P.O. Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035-6400 202-514-6258 TERMINATED: 01/15/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
L. J. Hymel, Jr. Hymel, Davis & Petersen, LLC 15171 South Harrell's Ferry Road Suite C Baton Rouge, LA 70816 US 225-755-1060 Fax: 225-755-1065 Email: ljhymel@hymeldavis.com TERMINATED: 07/03/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eddie J. Jordan, Jr. United States Attorney's Office 501 Magazine Street

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 2 of 23

V. Defendant State of LA
Defendant Mike Foster in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Louisiana
Defendant LA Dept of Public Safety and Corrections
Defendant Richard L. Stalder in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections
Defendant

2nd Floor New Orleans, LA 70130
Iris Goldschmidt United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 TERMINATED: 03/13/2001
Jeffrey J. Resetarits U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division P.O. Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035-6400 202-514-6258 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D. Skinner Onebane Law Firm P.O. Box 3507 1200 Camellia Blvd. Suite 300 Lafayette, LA 70502-3507 337-237-2660 Fax: 337-266-1232 FAX

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 3 of 23

Billy Travis in his official capacity as Warden of the Swanson Correctional Center for Youth
Defendant
Elijah Lewis in his offical capacity as Warden of the Jetson Correctional Center for Youth
Defendant
Benny Harris in his official capacity as Warden of the Louisiana Training Institute at Bridge City
Defendant
Gary Gremillion in his official capacity as Warden of the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth
Defendant
Trans-American Development Association, Inc

represented by Richard T. Simmons, Jr. Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale Post Office Box 8288 One Galleria Blvd. Suite 1400 Metairie, LA 70001-8288 504-836-6500 Fax: 504-836-6565 FAX LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frederic Theodore LeClercq Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles 755 Magazine St. New Orleans, LA 70130-3672 504-581-5141 Email: ted@dkslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph L. Spilman, III Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale Post Office Box 8288 One Galleria Blvd. Suite 1400 Metairie, LA 70001-8288 504-836-6500 Fax: 504-836-6565 FAX

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 4 of 23

Defendant Jerry W Goodwin Warden of the Swanson Correctional Center for Youth
Defendant Mike Roberts Warden of the Bridge City Correctional Center for Youth
Defendant Mike Mulkey Warden of the Swanson Correctional Center for Youth at Madison Parish
Defendant Wackenhut Corrections Corporation
Defendant Salvidor Godinez Warden of the Jena Juvenile Justice Center

Email: jspilman@hmhlp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Evan Plauche' Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann, & Papale One Galleria Blvd. Suite 1400 Metairie, LA 70001 504-836-6500 Fax: 504-836-6565 FAX Email: eplauche@hmhlp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/05/1998 11/05/1998 11/05/1998
11/05/1998 11/06/1998

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (elp) (Entered: 11/06/1998)

2 MOTION by USA to Consolidate Cases (elp) (Entered: 11/06/1998)

3 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [2-1] motion to Consolidate Cases by USA (elp) (Entered: 11/06/1998)

5 PLAINTIFF'S Discovery Plan (hcj) (Entered: 11/10/1998)

4 ORDER granting [2-1] motion to Consolidate Cases by USA...consolidated with 71-98, 97-MS-01, 97-666, 97-667, 97-668, 98-

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 5 of 23

11/10/1998
11/10/1998
11/10/1998 11/13/1998 11/17/1998 11/19/1998 11/20/1998 11/20/1998 11/20/1998 11/24/1998
11/25/1998
12/01/1998 12/02/1998

884, 98-886 ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (elp) (Entered: 11/06/1998)
6 ORDER vacating [4-1] order consolidating this case with the prison cases...the motion to consolidate will be discussed at a status cnf ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (elp) (Entered: 11/10/1998)
7 Minute entry: Status Conference held. It is ordered that on or before 11/17/98, the parties shall submit to the Court a report which clrifies the issues upon which a consensus has been reached. set Notice of Compliance deadline to 11/17/98 ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ) ,issued notices (hcj) (Entered: 11/16/1998)
Status Conference held (hcj) (Entered: 11/16/1998)
8 MEMORANDUM by Wackenhut Corrections Corporation in opposition to [2-1] motion to Consolidate Cases by USA (elp) (Entered: 11/16/1998)
9 MOTION by USA to fie response to the Court's 11/10/98 order underseal (hcj) (Entered: 11/20/1998)
Status Conference held (hcj) (Entered: 11/25/1998)
10 ORDER granting [9-1] motion to fie response to the Court's 11/10/98 order underseal by USA ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 11/20/1998)
11 United States Response to the Court's 11/10/98 UNDERSEAL (hcj) (Entered: 11/20/1998)
12 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Status conference by 10:00 12/22/98 before magistrate judge. See order for deadlines. ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 11/24/1998)
13 Minute entry: Status Conference held on 11/19/98. It is ordered the Motion to continue filed on behalf of the dfts be denied set Bench Trial for 9:00 2/22/99 It is further ordered that the Motion to Certify Class submitted on behalf of pltfs in Brian B be scheduled for hearing on 12/7/98 9:00 ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ) ,issued notices (hcj) (Entered: 11/25/1998)
SUMMONS(ES) issued for State of LA, Mike Foster, Dept of Public Safe, Richard L. Stalder, Billy Travis, Elijah Lewis, Benny Harris, Gary Gremillion, Trans-American Dev . Service deadline set for 12/9/98 (elp) (Entered: 11/30/1998)
14 NOTICE TO COUNSEL . . . re: Scheduling Order ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 12/01/1998)
15 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to State of LA, Mike Foster, Dept of Public Safe, Richard L. Stalder, Elijah Lewis 12/1/98 Answer due on 12/21/98 for Elijah Lewis, for Dept of Public Safe, for Mike Foster, for

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 6 of 23

12/02/1998
12/03/1998 12/07/1998 12/07/1998
12/07/1998 12/07/1998
12/07/1998 12/07/1998 12/07/1998 12/08/1998
12/08/1998 12/08/1998 12/08/1998 12/08/1998

State of LA (elp) (Entered: 12/02/1998)
16 RULING on Discovery Disputes... The court ruled that the scope of the juvenile offender pltfs/witness depositions is not restricted to any specific event(s) identified in the pltfs' possible witness lists. The court ruled that te pltfs need not supplement their contentions at this time. The dfts discovery requests and tht pltfs' lists of contentions will be compared. The court will issue an order requiring supplements. ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 12/03/1998)
17 ORDER . . .It is ordered that CA 97-665-B-M1, CA 98-886-B-M1, and 98-947-B-M1 for purposes of pre-trial and trial matters. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 12/03/1998)
18 MEMORANDUM by USA in opposition to to Class Certification in Brian B v. Stalder (hcj) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
19 SUPPLEMENTAL RULING . . . the 12/2/98 ruling is maintained. Institution staff members may be questioned by the pltfs' experts to obtain information such as directions, the location of records, and the location of juvenile offenders during the inspection. ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
20 MOTION by USA for Protective Order (hcj) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
21 ORDER granting [20-1] motion for Protective Order by USA...TCCY and TADA permit inspection and copying of personnel records of past and present employees of TCCY and TADA. ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
22 ORDER [20-1] motion for Protective Order by USA referred to Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
25 CONTENTIONS of Plaintiffs (71-98 Williams v McKeithen) (hcj) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
26 Plaiintiffs Contentions (98-886 Brian B., et al. v Stalder) (hcj) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
23 ORDER, Vacating [21-1] order permitting inspection and copying of personnel records of past and present employees and TCCY and TADA. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
24 Witness list by Trans-American Dev (hcj) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
24 Exhibit list by Trans-American Dev (hcj) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
24 RESPONSE by Trans-American Dev in opposition to [12-1] Scheduling order (hcj) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
27 Witness list by Williams Class (hcj) (Entered: 12/09/1998)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 7 of 23

12/09/1998 12/09/1998 12/09/1998
12/09/1998 12/09/1998
12/09/1998 12/10/1998 12/14/1998
12/14/1998
12/17/1998 12/22/1998 12/23/1998

28 ORDER . . . Pltf's motion for leave to Reply to Dfts Memo in Opposition to Class Certification. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
29 REPLY MEMORANDUM by Brian B. pltfs (98-886) in support of their motion for class certification (hcj) (Entered: 12/10/1998)
31 Minute entry: Motion hearing held on 12/7/98. The motion for Class Certification shall be withheld, and the Brian B. case shall be aadministratively closed. The counsel for pltfs in Brian B. shall be enrolled as co-counsel for the class of juvenile pltf in Hayes Williams/Tallulah. Pltfs in Brian B. may seek to re-open the Brian B. case and re-urge the Motion for Class Certification, as needed. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ) ,issued notices (hcj) (Entered: 12/10/1998)
32 MOTION by Trans-American Dev for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition to the US Memorandum of LAw concerningthe ability of experts to interview staff during facility tours ( not submitted for filing) (hcj) (Entered: 12/10/1998)
33 ORDER granting [32-1] motion for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition to the US Memorandum of LAw concerningthe ability of experts to interview staff during facility tours by Trans-American Dev ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 12/10/1998)
34 NOTICE by USA to take deposition of: See names of deponents listed in Exhibit A (hcj) (Entered: 12/10/1998)
30 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Trans-American Dev 12/2/98 Answer due on 12/22/98 for Trans-American Dev (elp) (Entered: 12/10/1998)
35 STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT . . . Unscheduled telephone status conference was held on 12/10/98. Magistrate Judge will endeavor to review all of the foregoing matters with the district judge promptly and advise counsel how to proceed. ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 12/16/1998)
36 ORDER . . . Two unscheduled telephone status conference were held on 12/11/98. set Status Conference for 10:00 12/22/98 Counsel for the Brian B. pltfs, the U.S., and Transamerica Development Corp may participate by telephone. The court will place the calls. Any other out of town counsel who wish to participate by telephone must so advise the court no later than 12/21/98. ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 12/16/1998)
37 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Gary Gremillion 12/9/98 Answer due on 12/29/98 for Gary Gremillion (elp) (Entered: 12/17/1998)
Status Conference held (hcj) (Entered: 12/23/1998)
38 ORDER . . .Status conference held on 12/22/98. Counsel for the pltfs

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 8 of 23

12/29/1998 12/29/1998 12/29/1998
12/29/1998 01/07/1999
01/11/1999 01/11/1999 01/11/1999 01/12/1999

agree to confer privately after the conclusion of the status conference to discuss whether some additonal continuance of the trial date would be advisable. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 12/23/1998)
39 MOTION by Trans-American Dev to Dismiss for failure of the Brian B pltfs and of U.S. to state claim upon which relief can be granted ( Motion Hearing set for 9:00 2/19/99 ) (hcj) (Entered: 12/29/1998)
39 MOTION by Trans-American Dev for Expedited Hearing to dismiss for failure of the Brian B pltfs and of 5the U.S. to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (hcj) (Entered: 12/29/1998)
40 MEMORANDUM by Trans-American Dev in support of [39-1] motion to Dismiss for failure of the Brian B pltfs and of U.S. to state claim upon which relief can be granted by Trans-American Dev, [39-1] motion for Expedited Hearing to dismiss for failure of the Brian B pltfs and of 5the U.S. to state a claim upon which relief can be granted by Trans-American Dev (hcj) (Entered: 12/29/1998)
41 MOTION by Trans-American Dev for oral arugmen t on motion to dismiss for failure of the Brian B pltfs and of the U.S. to state a claim uppon which relief can be granted. (hcj) (Entered: 12/29/1998)
42 ORDER [39-1] motion to Dismiss for failure of the Brian B pltfs and of U.S. to state claim upon which relief can be granted by Trans-American Dev referred to Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger, [39-1] motion for Expedited Hearing to dismiss for failure of the Brian B pltfs and of 5the U.S. to state a claim upon which relief can be granted by Trans-American Dev referred to Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 01/07/1999)
43 MOTION by State of LA, Mike Foster, Dept of Public Safe, Richard L. Stalder, Billy Travis, Elijah Lewis, Gary Gremillion to Dismiss all claims against them in the complaint filed by the U.S in 98-947 ( Motion Hearing set for 9:00 3/5/99 ) (hcj) Modified on 01/12/1999 (Entered: 01/12/1999)
44 MEMORANDUM by State of LA, Mike Foster, Dept of Public Safe, Richard L. Stalder, Billy Travis, Elijah Lewis, Gary Gremillion in support of [43-1] motion to Dismiss all claims against them in the complaint filed by the U.S in 98-947 by defendants (hcj) (Entered: 01/12/1999)
45 MOTION by State of LA for Expedited Hearing with evidence on Rule 12(B) Motion to dismiss and request for oral argument (hcj) (Entered: 01/13/1999)
46 ORDER denying [39-1] motion for Expedited Hearing to dismiss for failure of the Brian B pltfs and of 5the U.S. to state a claim upon which relief can be granted by Trans-American Dev ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 01/13/1999)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 9 of 23

01/12/1999
01/12/1999
01/13/1999 01/14/1999 01/19/1999
01/19/1999 01/20/1999 01/21/1999 01/22/1999 01/25/1999
01/25/1999 01/26/1999 01/26/1999 01/29/1999

47 ORDER denying [41-1] motion for oral arugmen t on motion to dismiss for failure of the Brian B pltfs and of the U.S. to state a claim uppon which relief can be granted. by Trans-American Dev ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 01/13/1999)
48 ORDER denying [45-1] motion for Expedited Hearing with evidence on Rule 12(B) Motion to dismiss. The request for oral argument when the motion is heard is granted. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 01/13/1999)
49 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Benny Harris 1/5/99 Answer due on 1/25/99 for Benny Harris (elp) (Entered: 01/13/1999)
Status Conference held (hcj) (Entered: 01/20/1999)
50 ORDER . . . set Status Conference for 9:00 1/27/99 before Mag. Judge Stephen Riedlinger. The Court will place the calls. In the interim, the district judge will be requested to clarify the status of the Madison Parish School Board dfts in the Brian B case. ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 01/20/1999)
51 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER before Mag. Judge Stephen Riedlinger. See order for deadlines. ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 01/20/1999)
52 MOTION by City of Tallulah and Theodore Lindsey, Mayor of Tallulah to Extend Time to respond to the pltfs' request for admissions (hcj) (Entered: 01/21/1999)
53 MOTION by Brian B/Williams pltfs, the Dept of Justice, the State of Louisiana and Trans-American Development Assoc, for Protective Order (hcj) (Entered: 01/22/1999)
54 ORDER granting [53-1] motion for Protective Order by Trans-American Dev as stated in order. ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 01/22/1999)
57 RESPONSE by Briain B/Williams pltfs in opposition to [39-1] motion to Dismiss for failure of the Brian B pltfs and of U.S. to state claim upon which relief can be granted by Trans-American Dev (hcj) Modified on 01/26/1999 (Entered: 01/26/1999)
58 EXHIBIT(S) to [57-1] opposition response by Brian B/Williams pltfs to Motion to dismiss by Trans-American (hcj) (Entered: 01/26/1999)
55 RESPONSE by USA in opposition to [39-1] motion to Dismiss for failure of the Brian B pltfs and of U.S. to state claim upon which relief can be granted by Trans-American Dev (hcj) (Entered: 01/26/1999)
56 EXHIBIT(S) to [55-1] opposition response by USA to Trans-American's motion to dismiss (hcj) (Entered: 01/26/1999)
60 MOTION by State of LA, Mike Foster, Dept of Public Safe, Richard L.

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 10 of 23

01/29/1999 01/29/1999 01/29/1999 01/29/1999 01/29/1999 01/29/1999
01/29/1999 02/01/1999 02/01/1999 02/03/1999 02/04/1999 02/04/1999

Stalder, Billy Travis, Elijah Lewis, Benny Harris, Gary Gremillion in Limine to exclude expert witnesses and reports (hcj) (Entered: 02/01/1999)
61 MEMORANDUM by State of LA, Mike Foster, Dept of Public Safe, Richard L. Stalder, Billy Travis, Elijah Lewis, Benny Harris, Gary Gremillion in support of [60-1] motion in Limine to exclude expert witnesses and reports by defendants (hcj) (Entered: 02/01/1999)
62 MOTION by State of LA defendants, Trans-American Dev for Protective Order (hcj) (Entered: 02/01/1999)
63 MEMORANDUM by State of LA defendants, Trans-American Dev in support of [62-1] motion for Protective Order by Trans-American Dev, (hcj) (Entered: 02/01/1999)
64 MOTION by State of LA, Mike Foster, Dept of Public Safe, Richard L. Stalder, Billy Travis, Elijah Lewis, Benny Harris, Gary Gremillion for oral argument on motion for protective order ( Motion Hearing set for 10:00 3/5/99 ) (hcj) (Entered: 02/01/1999)
65 MEMORANDUM by State of LA, Mike Foster, Dept of Public Safe, Richard L. Stalder, Billy Travis, Elijah Lewis, Benny Harris, Gary Gremillion in support of [64-1] motion for oral argument on motion for protective order by defendants (hcj) (Entered: 02/01/1999)
66 STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT AND ORDER ...tentatively assigned for Status Conference for 9:00 2/17-18/99 The Status conference will be held either at TCCY, or with some counsel participating from TCCY ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 02/02/1999)
Status Conference held (hcj) (Entered: 02/02/1999)
59 ORDER denying [52-1] motion to Extend Time to respond to the pltfs' request for admissions ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 02/01/1999)
Motion(s) referred to Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger : [60-1] motion in Limine to exclude expert witnesses and reports, [62-1] motion for Protective Order, [64-1] motion for oral argument on motion for protective order (hcj) (Entered: 02/02/1999)
67 ORDER [60-1] motion in Limine to exclude expert witnesses and reports is referred to the trial of this case. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 02/03/1999)
69 LETTER dated 1/26/99 TO: Judge Frank Polozola FROM: David Utter RE: Pltfs's response to Trans Amercan Assoc. Motion to Dismis (hcj) (Entered: 02/05/1999)
70 NOTICE by USA to take deposition of R. Curry, R. Simmons, C. Roberts, M. DuBos, R. Cannon, D. Utter, K. Nordyke (hcj) (Entered: 02/08/1999)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 11 of 23

02/05/1999 02/05/1999 02/05/1999 02/05/1999 02/08/1999 02/08/1999
02/08/1999
02/08/1999 02/08/1999 02/08/1999 02/08/1999 02/08/1999 02/09/1999 02/09/1999

68 MOTION by Trans-American Dev for Leave to File Memo in reply to the opposition by the U.S. and the Brian B. pltfs to Trans American's motion to dismiss (hcj) (Entered: 02/05/1999)
72 MOTION by Juvenile pltfs to reopen Brian B Case ( Motion Hearing set for 9:00 3/19/99 ) (hcj) (Entered: 02/08/1999)
73 MEMORANDUM by Juvenile Pltfs in support of [72-1] motion to reopen Brian B Case (hcj) (Entered: 02/08/1999)
74 MOTION by Juvenile Pltfs for Expedited Hearing on [72-1] motion to reopen Brian B Case (hcj) (Entered: 02/08/1999)
71 MEMORANDUM by pltfs in opposition to [62-1] motion for Protective Order by Trans-American Dev, State of LA (hcj) (Entered: 02/08/1999)
75 ORDER granting [68-1] motion for Leave to File Memo in reply to the opposition by the U.S. and the Brian B. pltfs to Trans American's motion to dismiss by Trans-American Dev ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 02/08/1999)
76 REPLY Memorandum by Brian B Pltf in response to U.S. [68-1] motion for Leave to File Memo in reply to the opposition by the U.S. and the Brian B. pltfs to Trans American's motion to dismiss by Trans-American Dev (hcj) (Entered: 02/08/1999)
77 NOTICE by USA to take deposition of R. Curry, R. Simmons, C. Roberts, M. Dubos, R. Cannon, D. Dawn, D. Utter, and K. Nordyke (hcj) (Entered: 02/09/1999)
78 RESPONSE by USA in opposition to [43-1] motion to Dismiss all claims against them in the complaint filed by the U.S in 98-947 by defendantssssss (hcj) (Entered: 02/09/1999)
79 RESPONSE by USA to [62-1] motion for Protective Order by TransAmerican Dev, State of LA, [53-1] motion for Protective Order by TransAmerican Dev (hcj) (Entered: 02/09/1999)
80 MOTION by Williams/Brian B. to Extend Time to file a response to State dfts Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Witnesses and Reports (hcj) Modified on 02/09/1999 (Entered: 02/09/1999)
82 RESPONSE by Williams/Brian B. Pltfs in opposition to [43-1] motion to Dismiss all claims against them in the complaint filed by the U.S in 98947 by defendants (hcj) (Entered: 02/09/1999)
81 MEMORANDUM in support of [80-1] motion to Extend Time to file a response to State dfts Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Witnesses and Reports (hcj) (Entered: 02/09/1999)
83 ORDER granting [64-1] motion for oral argument on motion for protective order by defendantsssssss, Motion Hearing set for 9:30 2/16/99 for [62-1] motion for Protective Order ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 02/09/1999)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 12 of 23

02/10/1999 02/10/1999 02/11/1999 02/11/1999 02/12/1999 02/12/1999
02/12/1999
02/12/1999
02/16/1999
02/16/1999 02/16/1999 02/18/1999

84 ORDER granting [80-1] motion to Extend Time to file a response to State dfts Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Witnesses and Reports pending further orders from the Court. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 02/10/1999)
85 ORDER [62-1] motion for Protective Order by Trans-American Dev, State of LA referred to Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 02/10/1999)
87 MOTION by USA to Extend Time to file a response to the State DftsMotion in Limine to Exclude Expert awitnesses and Reports (hcj) (Entered: 02/18/1999)
88 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [87-1] motion to Extend Time to file a response to the State DftsMotion in Limine to Exclude Expert awitnesses and Reports by USA (hcj) (Entered: 02/18/1999)
86 ORDER ... the status conference tentatively fixed for 2/17 or 18/99 will be held on 2/16/99. set Status Conference for 9:00 2/16/99 ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 02/12/1999)
92 MOTION by State of LA, Mike Foster, Dept of Public Safe, Richard L. Stalder, Billy Travis, Elijah Lewis, Benny Harris, Gary Gremillion for Protective Order to respond to interrogatories and request for production of documents ( Motion Hearing set for 9:00 3/19/99 ) (hcj) Modified on 04/15/1999 (Entered: 02/22/1999)
93 MEMORANDUM by State of LA, Mike Foster, Dept of Public Safe, Richard L. Stalder, Billy Travis, Elijah Lewis, Benny Harris, Gary Gremillion in support of [92-1] motion for Protective Order to responde to interrogatories and request for production of documents by defendants (hcj) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
94 MOTION by State of LA, Mike Foster, Dept of Public Safe, Richard L. Stalder, Billy Travis, Elijah Lewis, Benny Harris, Gary Gremillion for Expedited Hearing on [92-1] motion for Protective Order to respond to interrogatories and request for production of documents by defendants (hcj) Modified on 04/15/1999 (Entered: 02/22/1999)
89 ORDER granting [87-1] motion to Extend Time to file a response to the State Dfts Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert witnesses and Reports by USA be extended pending further orders from the Court. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 02/18/1999)
Status Conference held (hcj) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
96 MOTION by Trans-American Dev and James Brown and Memorandum in support of motion for Protective Order ( Motion Hearing set for 9:00 3/19/99 ) (hcj) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
90 Minute entry: status Conference held on 2/16/99. Settlement wa

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 13 of 23

02/18/1999 02/18/1999 02/22/1999
02/22/1999 02/23/1999 02/23/1999 02/23/1999 02/23/1999

discussed. Discovery and pre-trial preparation will continue per the schedule previously set forth by Mag. Judge Riedlinger. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ) ,issued notices (hcj) Modified on 02/22/1999 (Entered: 02/22/1999)
91 Minute entry: Oral argument held on motion for protective order. [62-1] motion for Protective Order by Trans-American Dev, State of LA was denied. responses to requests for admissions #39 through #420 are due by 3/12/99. Discovery deadline to 3/12/99 ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ) ,issued notices (hcj) Modified on 02/22/1999 (Entered: 02/22/1999)
95 ORDER [92-1] motion for Protective Order to responde to interrogatories and request for production of documents by defendants referred to Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger, [74-1] motion for Expedited Hearing on [72-1] motion to reopen Brian B Case referred to Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
97 RULING denying [96-1] motion for Protective Order by Trans-American Dev, mooting [94-1] motion for Expedited Hearing on [92-1] motion for Protective Order to responde to interrogatories and request for production of documents by defendants and [92-1] motion for Protective Order to responde to interrogatories and request for production of documents by defendants. Dfts are allowed no additional time to serve their answers and responses on account of filing these motions for protective orders. ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
98 ORDER ...the pltfs must obtain leave of court before serving any additionsal requests for admissions. The motion must be accompanied by a memorandum, not to exceed five pages, explaining the need for the additional requests. Dfts shall have five days from the date of service of the motion to file a response. ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
102 MOTION by Trans-American Dev to Set Aside court order reopening Brian B and renewing Trans American's opposition to class certification ( Motion Hearing set for 9:00 3/19/99 ) (hcj) Modified on 03/15/1999 (Entered: 03/01/1999)
103 MEMORANDUM by Trans-American Dev in support of [102-1] motion to Set Aside court order reopening Brian B and renewing Trans American's oppisition to class certification by Trans-American Dev (hcj) (Entered: 03/01/1999)
104 MOTION by Trans-American Dev for oral argument on motion to set aside order reopening the Brian B case and renewing Trans-American's opposition to Class Certification (hcj) (Entered: 03/01/1999)
106 MOTION and Memorandum by Trans-American Dev for Expedited Hearing on [102-1] motion to Set Aside court order reopening Brian B and renewing Trans American's oppisition to class certification by Trans-

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 14 of 23

02/24/1999 02/25/1999 02/25/1999 02/26/1999 03/01/1999 03/02/1999
03/03/1999
03/04/1999 03/05/1999 03/09/1999 03/12/1999
03/12/1999 03/12/1999 03/15/1999

American Dev (hcj) (Entered: 03/01/1999)
105 NOTICE by USA to take deposition of McGlinchey Stafford, Richard Simmons, Charles Roberts, Michael DuBos, Raymond Cannon Debra Dawn, David Utter, and Keith Nordyke (hcj) (Entered: 03/01/1999)
99 MOTION Juvenile Pltfs to Dismiss without prejudice Lester, Klotz, James Brown as dfts (hcj) Modified on 02/26/1999 (Entered: 02/26/1999)
101 MOTION by Juvenile plaintiffs for Leave to File Amended Complaint ( submitted for filing ) (hcj) (Entered: 03/01/1999)
100 ORDER granting [99-1] motion to Dismiss without prejudice Lester, Klotz, James Brown as dfts ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 02/26/1999)
107 ANSWER by The City of Tasllulah and Theodore Lindsay to Complaint filed by the Brian B pltf 98-886-B (hcj) (Entered: 03/02/1999)
109 NOTICE of Hearing by Trans-American Development Associates: Motion Hearing set for 9:00 4/16/99 for [102-1] motion to Set Aside court order reopening Brian B and renewing Trans American's oppisition to class certification , issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 03/03/1999)
108 ORDER ...oral argument onthe State dft's Motion to Dismiss, scheduled for 3/5/99 at 9:00 is hereby continued without date. terminated deadlines ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 03/03/1999)
110 MOTION by USA for Kevin Russell to Appear Pro Hac Vice (hcj) (Entered: 03/08/1999)
111 ORDER granting [110-1] motion for Kevin Russell to Appear Pro Hac Vice by USA ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 03/08/1999)
112 MEMORANDUM by Trans-American Dev in opposition to [101-1] motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (hcj) (Entered: 03/09/1999)
115 ORDER denying [104-1] motion for oral argument on motion to set aside order reopening the Brian B case and renewing Trans-American's opposition to Class Certification by Trans-American Dev ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 03/15/1999)
116 ORDER denying [74-1] motion for Expedited Hearing on [72-1] motion to reopen Brian B Case ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 03/15/1999)
117 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Juvenile Pltfs amending complaint in CA 98-886 adding dfts CSC and FBA, L.L.C. (hcj) (Entered: 03/15/1999)
113 RULING denying [102-1] motion to Set Aside court order reopening

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 15 of 23

03/15/1999 03/16/1999
03/25/1999 03/25/1999 03/29/1999
04/01/1999 04/01/1999 04/05/1999 04/05/1999
04/09/1999 04/09/1999 04/09/1999 04/12/1999 04/12/1999

Brian B and renewing Trans American's opposition to class certification by Trans-American Dev ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 03/15/1999)
114 RULING granting [101-1] motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 03/15/1999)
118 ORDER ...the re-urged Motion for Class Certification is set for oral argument before Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola on 4/20/99, at 10:00 a.m. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 03/16/1999)
Status Conference held (hcj) (Entered: 03/29/1999)
Status Conference held (hcj) (Entered: 03/29/1999)
119 STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT, RULING AND ORDER, set Status Conference for 11:00 3/31/99 before Mag. Judge Stephen Riedlinger. Counsel for the U.S., Transamerica Development Associates, the Madison Parish School Board dfts, and the City of Tallulah may participate by telephone. The Court will plaace the calls. ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 03/29/1999)
120 MOTION by Juvenile plaintiffs to add named plaintiffs to CA 98-886-B1 (hcj) (Entered: 04/05/1999)
121 MEMORANDUM by Juvenile plaintiffs in support of [120-1] motion to add named plaintiffs to CA 98-886-B-1 (hcj) (Entered: 04/05/1999)
Status Conference held (hcj) (Entered: 04/05/1999)
122 ORDER, Status conference held on 3/31/99. set Status Conference for 11:00 4/7/99 before for Mag. Judge Stephen Riedlinger. Counsel for the U.S., Transamerican Development Assoc., Inc., the Madison Parish School Board dfts, and the City of Tallulah may participate by telephone. The court will place the calls. ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 04/05/1999)
123 MEMORANDUM by Trans-American Dev and James R. Brown in opposition to [120-1] motion to add named plaintiffs to CA 98-886-B-1 (hcj) (Entered: 04/09/1999)
124 ORDER, It is ordered that the status conference set for 4/7/99 is canceled. terminated deadlines ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 04/09/1999)
125 MOTION by CSC to Extend Time to responsive pleadings (hcj) (Entered: 04/12/1999)
126 MOTION by Trans-American Dev for continuance of class certification hearing (hcj) (Entered: 04/13/1999)
127 MEMORANDUM by Trans-American Dev in support of [126-1] motion

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 16 of 23

04/12/1999 04/12/1999 04/12/1999 04/12/1999 04/12/1999
04/12/1999 04/12/1999 04/12/1999 04/13/1999 04/14/1999
04/15/1999
04/15/1999 04/15/1999

for continuance of class certification hearing by Trans-American Dev (hcj) (Entered: 04/13/1999)
128 MOTION by Trans-American Dev for Expedited Hearing on [126-1] motion for continuance of class certification hearing by Trans-American Dev (hcj) (Entered: 04/13/1999)
129 MOTION by Trans-American Dev for Protective Order (hcj) (Entered: 04/13/1999)
130 MEMORANDUM by Trans-American Dev in support of [129-1] motion for Protective Order by Trans-American Dev (hcj) (Entered: 04/13/1999)
131 MOTION by Trans-American Dev (Attorney ) for Expedited Hearing on [129-1] motion for Protective Order by Trans-American Dev (hcj) (Entered: 04/13/1999)
132 ORDER denying [128-1] motion for Expedited Hearing as moot on [1261] motion for continuance of class certification hearing by TransAmerican Dev by Trans-American Dev ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 04/13/1999)
133 ORDER granting [126-1] motion by Trans American Del for continuance of class certification hearing without date ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 04/13/1999)
134 ANSWER By FBA, L.L.C. to Complaint in Brian B. CA 98-886 (hcj) (Entered: 04/13/1999)
135 BRIEF by State of LA in response to the Court's 3/29/99 Status Conference Report, Ruling and Order (hcj) (Entered: 04/13/1999)
136 RESPONSE by juvenile plaintiffs in opposition to [125-1] motion by CSC to Extend Time to responsive pleadings (hcj) (Entered: 04/14/1999)
137 ORDER denying [131-1] motion for Expedited Hearing on [129-1] motion for Protective Order by Trans-American Dev as moot ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 04/14/1999)
138 ORDER granting [129-1] motion for Protective Order by TransAmerican Dev and denying [131-1] motion for Expedited Hearing on [129-1] motion for Protective Order by Trans-American Dev as moot ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 04/15/1999)
139 ORDER, See order previously issued by the Court RE: [129-1] motion for Protective Order by Trans-American Dev ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 04/15/1999)
140 ORDER, set Bench Trial for 9:00 6/21/99 Since the parties are now engaged in mediation and settlement discussions, the Court believes the trial date should be continued and rescheduled, if necessary, after the settlement negotiations have been completed. ( signed by Chief Judge

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 17 of 23

04/15/1999 04/15/1999 04/15/1999 04/20/1999 04/21/1999
04/21/1999 04/21/1999 04/23/1999
04/23/1999 04/23/1999 04/23/1999 04/26/1999 04/27/1999 05/03/1999 05/05/1999

Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 04/15/1999)
141 MOTION by Correctional Services Corp (CSC) to Dismiss CSC as a party (hcj) (Entered: 04/19/1999)
142 MEMORANDUM by Correctional Services Corp (CSC) in support of [141-1] motion to Dismiss CSC as party (hcj) (Entered: 04/19/1999)
143 ORDER, the pretrial conference scheduled for 5/26/99, is continued without date. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 04/19/1999)
144 MEMORANDUM by USA in opposition to production of the U.S.investigation consultant's reports [119-1] order set Status Conference for 11:00 3/31/99 (hcj) (Entered: 04/21/1999)
145 ORDER, the pltf shall not be required to file a response to CSC's motion to dismiss pending further orders of this Court. The Court wants the parties to concentrate on mediation. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 04/22/1999)
146 MOTION by Trans-American Dev for withdrawal of portions of [138-1] order ( Motion Hearing set for 9:00 6/4/99 ) (hcj) (Entered: 04/22/1999)
147 MEMORANDUM by Trans-American Dev in support of [146-1] motion for withdrawal of portions of [138-1] order by Trans-American Dev (hcj) (Entered: 04/22/1999)
148 ORDER granting [125-1] motion to Extend Time to responsive pleadings. CSC is given an additional 30 days or until 5/15/99, to file responsive pleadings. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 04/23/1999)
149 MOTION by Juvenile Pltfs for Protective Order (hcj) (Entered: 04/23/1999)
150 MEMORANDUM by Juvenile pltfs in support of [149-1] motion for Protective Order (hcj) (Entered: 04/23/1999)
151 MOTION by Juvenile Pltfs for Expedited Hearing on [149-1] motion for Protective Order (hcj) (Entered: 04/23/1999)
152 RULING granting in part, denying in part [149-1] motion for Protective Order..see order for details ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued notices. (dcap) (Entered: 04/27/1999)
153 RULING denying [146-1] motion for withdrawal of portions of [138-1] order by Trans-American Dev ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 04/28/1999)
154 MEMORANDUM by Juvenile Plaintiffs in opposition to [146-1] motion for withdrawal of portions of [138-1] order by Trans-American Dev (hcj) (Entered: 05/03/1999)
155 ORDER [149-1] motion for Protective Order referred to Mag. Judge

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 18 of 23

05/12/1999 05/21/1999 06/23/1999 06/29/1999 06/30/1999 07/06/1999 07/15/1999 08/20/1999
11/01/1999 11/01/1999
11/02/1999 11/15/1999 03/30/2000 03/30/2000

Stephen C. Riedlinger ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 05/05/1999)
156 LETTER dated 04/04/99 TO: Steve Rosenbaum FROM: Constance A. Koury RE: Settlement Negotiations Copy faxed to FJP (hcj) (Entered: 05/12/1999)
166 LETTER dated 5/12/99 TO: Judge Frank Polozola FROM: William Kline RE: Warden Jack Patton to be Regional Director of Juvenile Operations (hcj) (Entered: 03/01/2000)
157 MEMO to: Bill Kline from: Dalton Sherrill in re: Reporting Requirements (hcj) (Entered: 06/23/1999)
Tele-conference held (hcj) (Entered: 07/06/1999)
158 LETTER dated 6/29/99 TO: Judge Frank Polozola FROM: Daniel E. West RE: Juvenile Correctional System Needs Assessment (hcj) (Entered: 06/30/1999)
159 Minute entry: Rolling Bench Trial dates set for 9:00 8/23/99, 9/13/99, and 10/12/99 and set Telephone Conference for 4:00 7/13/99 ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ) (hcj) (Entered: 07/06/1999)
160 LETTER dated 7/13/99 FAXED TO: Judge Polozola FROM: Richard Curry RE: Telephone Conference (hcj) (Entered: 07/16/1999)
161 ORDER, the first of the three rolling trial dates scheduled for 8/23/99 is cancelled. set Bench Trial for 9:00 9/13/99 and 10/12/99 ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 08/23/1999)
162 JOINT MOTION by USA, State of LA, Richard L. Stalder for Leave to File Education Settlement Agreement , to request stay of education litigation ,and set a hearing date (hcj) (Entered: 11/03/1999)
163 MEMORANDUM by USA, State of LA, Richard L. Stalder in support of [162-1] joint motion for Leave to File Education Settlement Agreement [162-2] joint motion to request stay of education litigation [162-3] joint motion set a hearing date (hcj) (Entered: 11/03/1999)
164 LETTER dated 10/27/99 TO: Kathleen Quinn, Michael Cohen, FROM: Mervin Trail RE: A draft proposal submitted to the First Deputy Attorney General andthe Governor's Office (hcj) (Entered: 11/05/1999)
165 NOTICE to the Clerk of the filing of the Mayor of Tallulah's signature page (hcj) (Entered: 11/16/1999)
167 NOTICE of filing of Amended Complaint by USA (hcj) Modified on 04/05/2000 (Entered: 03/31/2000)
168 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Answer due 4/10/00 for Trans-American Dev, for Elijah Lewis, for Richard L. Stalder, for Dept of Public Safe, for Mike Foster, for State of LA ) by USA amending [1-1] complaint adding Jerry W Goodwin, Mike Roberts, Mike Mulkey, Wackenhut Corr Corp,

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 19 of 23

03/30/2000 03/30/2000 03/30/2000
03/30/2000 04/03/2000 04/05/2000 04/05/2000 04/05/2000 04/05/2000 04/05/2000
04/05/2000 04/10/2000

Salvidor Godinez (hcj) Modified on 04/05/2000 (Entered: 03/31/2000)
165 MOTION by USA for Leave Motion to File Premilinary Injucntion regarding conditions of confinement at the Jena Justice Justice Center (hcj) Modified on 04/05/2000 (Entered: 03/31/2000)
169 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [163-1] motion for Leave Motion to File Premilinary Injucntion regarding conditions of confinement at the Jena Justice Justice Center by USA (hcj) Modified on 04/05/2000 (Entered: 03/31/2000)
Holding US' Motion for preliminary injunction regarding conditions of confinement at JJJC; Memo in support of motion for preliminary injunction...; Motion for expedited hearing on Motion for preliminary injunction...; and Memo in support of motion for expedited hearing... (hcj) (Entered: 03/31/2000)
SUMMONS(ES) issued for Wackenhut Corr Corp, Salvidor Godinez . Service deadline set for 4/13/00 (hcj) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
Tele-conference held (hcj) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
170 ORDER granting [165-1] motion for Leave Motion to File Premilinary Injucntion regarding conditions of confinement at the Jena Justice Justice Center by USA ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
171 MOTION by USA for Preliminary Injunction regarding the conditions of confinement at the Jena Juvenile Justice Center (hcj) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
172 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [171-1] motion for Preliminary Injunction regarding the conditions of confinement at the Jena Juvenile Justice Center by USA (hcj) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
173 EXHIBIT(S) to [172-1] support memorandum by USA motion for preliminary injunction regarding conditions of confinement at the Jena Justice Center (hcj) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
174 ORDER ... the COurt has ordered settlement negotiations to begin on 4/4/00 and to continue each day until a settlement is reached or the Court orders otherwise. IF a settlement cannot be rendered, the Court will set a hearing. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
175 Minute entry: Telephone status conference held on 4.3.00 on the motion for leave to file a motion for preliminary injunction regarding the conditions of confinement at the Jena Justice Center ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ) (hcj) (Entered: 04/06/2000)
176 Minute entry: Conference held on 4/7/00. It is ordered that the parties may meet at an agreed upon place form 4/10/90 through 4/12/00 to continue settlement neogations. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ) (hcj) (Entered: 04/10/2000)

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 20 of 23

04/12/2000 04/13/2000
04/13/2000
04/13/2000
04/20/2000
05/09/2000 05/25/2000
06/27/2000 07/03/2000 07/27/2000 07/27/2000 08/11/2000 08/22/2000 08/22/2000 08/23/2000 08/25/2000 08/25/2000

177 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Salvidor Godinez 4/5/00 Answer due on 4/25/00 for Salvidor Godinez (nlt) (Entered: 04/12/2000)
178 ORDER ... the parties continue discussions through 4/14/00 to settle all issues regarding all five secure juvenile facilities. It is further ordered that to allow the parties to research and consider the matter previously discussed, the settlement negotiations may be suspended after 4/14/00 and resume 5/1/00. Settlement discussions shall contiue thereafter from day to day until further orders of this court. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 04/17/2000)
179 ORDER ...the United Staes' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is held in abeyance, subject to the US right to reopen the motion not later than 8/1/00 in accordance with the terms of the U.S Jena Agreement. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 04/17/2000)
180 ANSWER to Complaint by Trans-American Dev (Attorney Richard T. Simmons Jr., W. Evan Plauche', Frederic Theodore Le Clercq, Joseph L. Spilman III), (hcj) (Entered: 04/17/2000)
181 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Wackenhut Corr Corp 4/4/00 Answer due on 4/24/00 for Wackenhut Corr Corp (hcj) (Entered: 04/25/2000)
182 AMENDMENT to the US Jena Agreement (hcj) (Entered: 05/10/2000)
183 LETTER dated 5/15/00 TO: Judge Frank Polozola FROM: Richard A. Curry RE: Settlement negotiations...affirmed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola (hcj) (Entered: 05/26/2000)
Status Conference held (hcj) (Entered: 07/03/2000)
184 Minute entry: Status Conference held on 6/27/00 ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ) (hcj) (Entered: 07/03/2000)
Status Conference held (hcj) (Entered: 07/31/2000)
185 Minute entry: Status Conference held on 7/27/00 ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ) (hcj) (Entered: 07/31/2000)
Status Conference held (hcj) (Entered: 08/25/2000)
Status Conference held on 8/8/00 (hcj) (Entered: 08/22/2000)
186 Minute entry: Status Conference held on 8/8/00 ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ) (hcj) (Entered: 08/22/2000)
188 MOTION by Wackenhut Corr Corp for James Chastain to Withdraw as Attorney (hcj) (Entered: 08/28/2000)
187 Minute entry: Status Conference held on 8/11/00 ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ) (hcj) (Entered: 08/25/2000)
189 ORDER granting [188-1] motion for James Chastain to Withdraw as

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 21 of 23

09/06/2000
09/07/2000 09/07/2000 09/07/2000
09/07/2000 09/13/2000 09/13/2000
09/13/2000 10/03/2000
03/13/2001 03/13/2001
03/14/2001 03/14/2001

Attorney by Wackenhut Corr Corp (Terminated ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 08/28/2000)
190 ORDER denying as moot [120-1] motion to add named plaintiffs to CA 98-886-B-1 and [72-1] motion to reopen Brian B Case denied as moot ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 09/07/2000)
191 JOINT MOTION by USA, State of LA, Mike Foster, Dept of Public Safe for Conditional Dismissal and Other Relief (elp) (Entered: 09/14/2000)
192 NOTICE of Settlement Agreement for Medical, Dental, Mental Health, Rehabilitation and Juvenile Justice Issues (elp) (Entered: 09/14/2000)
193 ORDER granting, as stated herein... [191-1] joint motion for Conditional Dismissal and Other Relief by Dept of Public Safe, Mike Foster, State of LA, USA ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (elp) (Entered: 09/14/2000)
Inspection Report RE: Educational Settlement Agreement and Education Inspection Plan for Settlemetn Agreement can be found in 97-MS-1 document numbers 299 and 300 (hcj) (Entered: 09/19/2000)
194 Minute entry: telephone status cnf held 9/6/00 to discuss procedural matters for the status cnf to be held 9/7/00... ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ) (elp) (Entered: 09/14/2000)
195 Minute entry: granting [191-1] joint motion for Conditional Dismissal and Other Relief by Dept of Public Safe, Mike Foster, State of LA, USA...all cases except 71-98 pertaining to juvenile facilities are hereby administratively closed until further order of the Court... ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ) (elp) (Entered: 09/14/2000)
Case closed (elp) (Entered: 09/14/2000)
196 MEMORANDUM OPINION...for final approval of the Joint Settlement Agreemetn for Medical, Dental, Mental Health, Rehabilitation and Juvenile Justice Issues ( Settlemetn Agreement filed on 9/7/00 as document #193 attached hereto) ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 10/10/2000)
197 MOTION by USA for Iris Goldschmidt to Withdraw as Attorney (hcj) (Entered: 03/14/2001)
199 ORDER granting [197-1] motion for Iris Goldschmidt to Withdraw as Attorney by USA (Terminated attorney Iris Goldschmidt for USA ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
198 MOTION by USA for Jeffrey J. Resetarts to Appear Pro Hac Vice (hcj) (Entered: 03/14/2001)
200 ORDER granting [198-1] motion for Jeffrey J. Resetarts to Appear Pro Hac Vice by USA ( signed by Mag. Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger ), issued

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 22 of 23

09/13/2001 06/23/2003 12/31/2003 12/31/2003
01/27/2004 02/10/2004 02/12/2004 02/12/2004 03/05/2004 07/07/2004

notices. (hcj) (Entered: 03/20/2001)
201 ORDER...case shall remain closed. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a new district judge to preside in this case in the event any party seeks to reopen the case. ( signed by Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
202 NOTICE AND CLARIFYING ORDER...IT is hereby ordered that this notice and order be filed in all of the above referenced actions... ( signed by Judge James J. Brady ), issued notices. (sah) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
203 JOINT MOTION by USA, State of LA for dismissal of Medical claims at all Facilities and for dismissal of all claims pertaining to SCCY-Madison and BCCCY (hcj) (Entered: 12/31/2003)
204 ORDER granting [203-1] motion for dismissal of Medical claims at all Facilities and for dismissal of all claims pertaining to SCCY-Madison and BCCCY by State of LA, USA...all claims asserted in these actions relating to Medical Services at LA Secure Facilities are dismissed with prejudice...all claims in CA 71-98-B, 97-MS-1B, 97-665-B, 97-668-B, and 98-947-B involving Swanson Corr Cntr for Youth Madison Parish and Bridge City Corr Cntr for Youth are dismissed with prejudice...Court has reviewed 2004 Settlement and preliminarily approves the Agreement for purposes of providing notice to the class...LDPSC give notice of 2004 Settlement Agreement to members of the Pltf Class by posting notice. Any objections shall be submitted in writing on or before 2/5/04 at 5:00 pm...a hearing is noticed for 3/5/04 at 9:00 am to address comments from members of the Pltf Class...NO HEARING SHALL ACTUALLY BE HELD unless the Court deems a hearing to be necessary...in all other respects these actions remain administravely closed. signed by Judge James J. Brady ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 12/31/2003)
205 NOTICE TO COUNSEL...cnsl are hereby notified that the court has received the attached correspondence, which references the 2004 Settlement Agreement...the clerk's office shall fax a copy of this order to cnsl in 98-886... ( signed by Judge James J. Brady ), issued notices. (elp) (Entered: 01/27/2004)
206 ORDER set Status Conference for 10:30 2/12/04 ...in chambers relative to the 2004 Settlement Agreement ( signed by Judge James J. Brady ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 02/10/2004)
Status Conference held (hcj) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
207 ORDER... hearing date to adddress comments to the Plaintiff Class if necessary was continued from 3/5/04 until 7/9/04 @ 9:00am. set Status Report deadline to 3/1/04 relative to the procedures being implemented at Tallulah ( signed by Judge James J. Brady ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
208 STATUS REPORT by State of LA (hcj) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
209 ORDER ...the hearing tentatively scheduled for 7/9/04...is hereby

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

Page 23 of 23

cancelled ( signed by Judge James J. Brady ), issued notices. (hcj) (Entered: 07/07/2004)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

09/19/2006 11:50:22

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 3:98-cv-00947-FJP

Billable Pages: 14

Cost:

1.12

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?277461850912099-L_923_0-1

9/19/2006

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

HAYES WILLIAMS, et al,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

JOHN McKEITHEN, et al,

)

)

Defendants,

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Amicus Curiae.

)

)

IN RE: JUVENILE FACILITIES )

)

IN RE: TALLULAH CORRECTIONAL )

CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: JETSON CORRECTIONAL )

CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: SWANSON CORRECTIONAL )

CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: LOUISIANA TRAINING

)

INSTITUTE - BRIDGE CITY )

______________________________)

)

BRIAN B., et al.,

)

Plaintiffs.

)

)

v.

)

)

RICHARD STALDER, et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiffs

)

)

v.

)

)

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, et al,)

Defendants.

)

_____________________________ )

Civil No. 71-98-B
Civil No. CH 97-MS-001-B Civil No. CH 97-0665-B-M1 Civil No. CH 97-0666-B-M1 Civil No. CH 97-0667-B-M1 Civil No. CH 97-0668-B-M1 Civil No. 98-886-B-M1
Civil No. 98-947-B-1

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

1.

This Agreement resolves litigation concerning the

educational services in the State of Louisiana’s secure

juvenile training facilities. This litigation has arisen

from three sources: the long-standing consent decrees in

Williams v. McKeithen, Civ. No. 71-98 (M.D. La.); a

private lawsuit concerning conditions at the Tallulah

Correctional Center for Youth entitled Brian B. v.

Stalder, Civ. No. 98-0886-B-1; and a lawsuit filed by the

United States Department of Justice concerning conditions

in four of the State's post-adjudication secure juvenile

facilities, United States v. Louisiana, Civ. No.

98-0947-B-1. In order to resolve the education issues in

this litigation, the parties have entered into this

Agreement, which, if substantially complied with by the

State within the time frames specified below, will result

in the dismissal of the education claims. The terms of

this Agreement shall apply to the five secure juvenile

facilities operated by or on behalf of the State and any

new secure juvenile facility opened during the life of

the Agreement (except that provisions that address

specific institutions designated by name in the text of

the provision shall apply only to the designated

facility).

2.

As part of this Agreement, the State will revise as

Page 2 of 42

necessary its policies and procedures to ensure that they

are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement.

II.

DEFINITIONS

3.

The term “short term program” means a two-part program

designed to last for a minimum of 180 days, of which at

least 90 days and no more than 180 days will be in a

secure juvenile institution.

4.

The term “vocational education” shall not include pre-

vocational programs, such as the JSEP program.

5.

The term “teacher aide” means a person hired to provide

educational support services in a classroom who qualifies

for such a position in a Louisiana public school, and

shall not include confined juveniles.

6.

“Substantial compliance” exists where: (1) there has

been no willful departure from the terms of the

agreement; (2) there has been no omission in essential

terms; and (3) there has been performance in every

material particular. Noncompliance with mere

technicalities, or temporary failure to comply during a

period of otherwise sustained compliance, will not

constitute failure to maintain substantial compliance.

At the same time, temporary compliance during a period of

otherwise sustained noncompliance shall not constitute

substantial compliance. With respect to all provisions

setting forth specific numbers of staff to be employed,

substantial compliance shall require that the minimum

Page 3 of 42

required number of staff positions be funded and filled

and that the State actively recruit for, and fill

promptly, vacancies that may occur.

II.

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

7.

The State shall provide all juveniles confined in the

facilities with general education, vocational education,

special education, and related services as required by,

and in full compliance with: (1) the Fourteenth Amendment

of the United States Constitution; (2) the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 20 U.S.C. §§

1400 et seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder; (3)

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.

§ 794, and regulations promulgated thereunder, (4) the

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102 et

seq. and regulations promulgated thereunder; and (5) the

terms of this Agreement.

A. Education Authority

8.

Within 90 days of the execution of this Agreement, the

State shall hire a highly qualified, full-time person

with an advanced degree in education as the State

Director of Education who shall oversee and supervise

education services provided in all facilities.

9.

The State Director of Education’s duties shall include,

but not be limited to:

a.

Oversight of

educational programming in the

juvenile

facilities;

Page 4 of 42

b. Monitoring whether educational staffing and resources

are sufficient to provide adequate education to

all juveniles and to ensure compliance with this

Agreement;

c. Development and implementation of a quality assurance

program, as defined in ¶ 65, for all educational

services at all of the juvenile facilities,

including ensuring that deficiencies found through

the quality assurance program are remedied in a

prompt and effective manner;

d. Coordination of the State’s compliance with the terms

of this Agreement.

10.

Within thirty days of the execution of this Agreement,

the State shall employ or designate an appropriate

administrative staff member at each facility (who may be

the principal) who has a comprehensive understanding of

all relevant legal requirements relating to general,

vocational and special education services, to administer

the school program and coordinate each facility’s

compliance with the educational components of this

Agreement. This individual shall report, for the

purposes of this paragraph, to the State Director of

Education described in ¶¶ 8-9.

B. Number of Teaching Staff

11.

With the exception of shorter time-lines expressly set

forth in other provisions of this Agreement, the State

Page 5 of 42

shall, within two years of the execution of this

Agreement, hire and maintain a sufficient number of

certified general education, certified vocational and

certified special education teachers, including

substitute teachers and staff, to:

a. provide juveniles the opportunity to attend school

full-time;

b. provide for the vocational education programs required

in ¶¶ 56-60 below;

c. permit teachers adequate time for planning,

participation in IEP and other special education

activities, attend training and accomplish other

required administrative tasks;

d. comply with the case load limitations in Bulletin 1706,

Part B and, in addition, limit case loads for

special education teachers to no more than 22

students. If a special education teacher’s case

load exceeds 22 students for more than 5 days

during any 30 day period, then the State Director

of Education shall be notified and shall work with

the school to reduce the teacher’s case load to no

more than 22 students; and

e.

comply with the class size limitations set forth

in ¶ 12 of this Agreement.12. Class sizes shall not

exceed the following:

a. For general education: 17 students;

Page 6 of 42

b. For vocational education: 12 students;

c. For special education classes: 6 students, provided,

however, that up to 10 students may be served in

one class if a full-time, qualified teacher aide

is provided in the classroom.

d. For physical education classes: 20 students.

13.

Within 90 days of the execution of this Agreement the

State shall employ the following numbers of special

education teachers at each facility:

a. A total of at least 10 full-time equivalent (FTE)

special education teachers at Tallulah

Correctional Center for Youth (TCCY);

b. A total of at least 7 FTE special education teachers at

Swanson Correctional Center for Youth (SCCY);

c. A total of at least 3 FTE special education teachers at

Bridge City Correctional Center for Youth (BCCY);

d. A total of at least 8 FTE special education teachers at

Jetson Correctional Center for Youth (JCCY); and

e. A total of at least 5 FTE special education teachers at

the Jena Juvenile Justice Center (JJJC).

14.

Within 12 months of the execution of this Agreement the

State shall employ the following numbers of special

education teachers at each facility (and comparable

staffing levels at any new facility that may be opened

after the execution of this Agreement):

a. A total of at least 12 FTE special education teachers

Page 7 of 42

at TCCY;

b. A total of at least 8 FTE special education teachers at

SCCY;

c. A total of at least 4.5 FTE special education teachers

at BCCY;

d. A total of at least 12 FTE special education teachers

at JCCY; and

e. A total of at least 6 FTE special education teachers at

JJJC. 15.

Within 120 days of the execution of this

Agreement the State shall increase the total number of

qualified teacher aides employed at the secure juvenile

facilities to at least 68.

C. Qualifications of Teaching Staff

16.

The State shall immediately cease using tutors, aides,

and correctional staff as routine substitute teachers,

except as provided for in this paragraph.

a. The State shall develop and utilize a substitute

teacher pool with a sufficient number of teachers

to allow the routine use of teachers from the

substitute teacher pool to replace absent

teachers.

b. The State shall document efforts to secure substitute

teachers who meet the requirements for employment

as full-time teachers in Louisiana public schools.

c. In the event of anticipated absences and absences Page 8 of 42

lasting more than one day, the State shall provide a substitute teacher from the substitute teacher pool. In the event that none of the teachers in the substitute teacher pool is available, the State shall attempt to fill the vacancy with one of the school’s teacher aides. If no teacher aide is available, the State may fill the vacancy with other facility staff from a list maintained by the school of staff who have been documented to be at least twenty-one years old, have a high school diploma or its equivalent, have scored at or above the tenth grade level on a nationally validated achievement test, and have received specific training for substitute teaching as set forth in regulations promulgated by the Director of Education. d. In the event of an unexpected intra day absence, the State shall attempt to secure a substitute teacher from the substitute teacher pool if, given the timing and other circumstances of the absence, such arrangements are reasonably feasible. If securing a teacher from the substitute teacher pool is not reasonably feasible, or if efforts to use the substitute teacher pool are unsuccessful, the State shall attempt to fill the intra day vacancy with one of the school’s teacher aides.
Page 9 of 42

If no teacher aides are available, the State may

fill the intra day vacancy with other facility

staff from a list maintained by the school of

staff who have been documented to be at least

twenty-one years old, have a high school diploma

or its equivalent, have scored at or above the

tenth grade level on a nationally validated

achievement test, and have received specific

training for substitute teaching as set forth in

regulations promulgated by the Director of

Education.

17.

The State shall ensure that teachers teach only in their

areas of certification. The parties recognize, however,

that juveniles working on Carnegie units who are

occasionally housed in short-term special management

units, such as the STAGES or JUMP program at TCCY, may

receive instruction from teachers who are not certified

in all the areas in which they are teaching.

18.

If the State must use teachers with provisional

certifications according to Louisiana Bulletin 746,

Circular 665 at any facility, then the State shall

require those teachers to attain full-certification

within 5 years of the commencement of their employment or

three years in the case of special education teachers.

The State shall exert all reasonable efforts to recruit

certified teachers and to increase the percentage of

Page 10 of 42

fully certified teachers in each facility to a level

comparable to the percentage of fully certified teachers

in the public schools state-wide. The State shall

document efforts to recruit certified teachers at each

facility. The State shall provide teachers with adequate

training and support to assist their efforts to obtain

full certification. If courses necessary for the

fulfilment of certification requirements are not

reasonably available in the area in which a facility is

located, the State shall make reasonable attempts to, and

document efforts to, arrange for such courses to be made

available to teachers at that facility.

D. Training of Teaching Staff

19.

The State shall provide suitable in-service training, not

less than four days per year, to all school teachers,

substitute teachers, and school staff. This training

shall include enough time to facilitate their ability to

implement the provisions of this Agreement. This shall

include, but not be limited to, training regarding the

identification of students who may need special education

and/or related services.

20.

The State shall ensure that all teachers receive training

in effective behavior management techniques as well as

the training delineated in ¶¶ 19 and 40.

E. Pay for Teaching Staff

21.

The State shall ensure that no later than July 1, 2001,

Page 11 of 42

pay for academic and vocational teachers, teacher aides, and tutors working in any of the juvenile facilities shall be comparable to the pay of the Parish in which each facility is located and shall ensure that salaries of Department of Public Safety and Corrections teachers are in parity with the those of Special School District Number One. F. Other Educational Staff 22. The State shall employ staff identified in ¶¶ 23-26 to adequately screen and evaluate juveniles for eligibility for special education services, to ensure that transitional services and related services are being provided to all eligible juveniles in accordance with the IDEA and its implementing regulations, and to provide such related services required by students IEPs. 23. Within 30 days of the execution of this Agreement, the State shall ensure that each facility employs a full-time school psychologist to participate as appropriate in the development of IEPs, conduct psycho-educational assessments, to consult with teachers and staff, and to provide counseling related specifically to issues in juveniles’ IEPs and educational plans. The school psychologists required in this paragraph are included in the staffing requirements in ¶ 24. 24. The State shall ensure that the following staff are employed within 90 days of the execution of this Agreement:
Page 12 of 42

a. At BCCY: i. 1 FTE educational diagnostician; ii. 1 FTE school psychologist; iii 0.2 FTE speech therapist;
b. At JJJC: i. 1 FTE educational diagnostician; ii. 1 FTE school psychologist; iii. 1 FTE speech therapist;
c. At JCCY: i. 2 FTE educational diagnostician; ii. 1 FTE school psychologist; iii. 1 FTE social worker or psychologist; iv. 1 FTE speech therapist;
d. At SCCY: i. 2 FTE educational diagnostician; ii. 1 FTE school psychologist; iii. 1 FTE social worker or psychologist; iv. 1 FTE speech therapist;
e. At TCCY: i. 2 FTE educational diagnostician; ii. 1 FTE school psychologist; iii. 1 FTE social worker or psychologist; iv. 1 FTE speech therapist;
25. Within 120 days of the execution of this Agreement, the State shall ensure that each secure juvenile facility employs a full-time IEP Facilitator/Transition Services
Page 13 of 42

Coordinator. 26. In addition to the staff required by ¶ 24, the State shall
employ the following additional staff within 12 months of the execution of this Agreement: 0.8 FTE speech therapist at BCCY; G. Length of School Day 27. The State shall provide the following amounts of class time to juveniles: a. Juveniles in the intake units at Jetson shall be
provided a minimum of two hours per day of academic instruction; b. Educational programs shall operate five days per week, twelve months per year, with the exception of up to 40 days per year that may be used for scheduled holidays, periods providing for teacher vacations, if taken collectively, group training, and emergencies, provided that an additional 10 days may be taken in the first year of the implementation of this Agreement for the purposes related to the implementation of the Agreement. Educational instruction shall be based upon a 330 minutes of instruction per school day per juvenile except for occasional school assemblies. The 330 minutes of instruction each day of school shall include at least five fifty-five minute classes in vocational education and/or core academic subjects of math, reading/language arts, social studies, and
Page 14 of 42

sciences. 28. Juveniles who are within the compulsory school attendance
age range will be enrolled in school. 29. All juveniles, including those who exceed the mandatory age
for compulsory school attendance, shall be allowed and encouraged to participate in school full-time. Juveniles who exceed the mandatory age for compulsory school attendance shall be permitted to discontinue school attendance only after receiving counseling on the subject. The State shall also send notice of a juvenile’s decision to discontinue schooling to his or her parents. Any juvenile who withdraws from school shall have the right to be readmitted to school once every quarter. When the juvenile makes this request he or she shall be re-admitted to classes within one week of requesting to begin attendance again. 30. The State shall provide all juveniles with age-appropriate pre-vocational or vocational education in accordance with their educational plan. 31. Time spent during work details or routine security counts shall not be used to satisfy the length of school day requirements of ¶ 27. Time spent during counseling services, except when related to educational activities, shall not be used to satisfy the length of school day requirements of ¶ 27. 32. The State shall ensure that juveniles are not absent from classes in order to perform any routine work details.
Page 15 of 42

H. Instructional Space, Materials, and Equipment 33. Within 18 months of the execution of this Agreement, the
State shall provide sufficient administrative and classroom space for educational, special educational, and vocational educational services in the facilities adequate to ensure: a. each juvenile receives the amount of educational
services required in ¶ 27 in a class with no more than the number of students allowed in ¶ 12; b. each juvenile has a desk and/or other adequate space in each academic class; c. each classroom is constructed and configured to permit a reasonably quiet working environment conducive to learning; d. teachers are provided sufficient space to store needed instructional materials and equipment; and e. adequate space for compliance with this Agreement. 34. Within 12 months of the execution of this Agreement, the State shall complete at a minimum the construction of the following number and type of additional educational classrooms and school offices in the secure juvenile facilities: a. BCCY: 3 regular education classrooms, 1 special education classroom, and 3 offices; b. SCCY: 3 regular education classrooms, 2 special education classrooms and 2 offices; c. JCCY: 3 classrooms in the JRDC, 4 regular education
Page 16 of 42

classrooms, and 6 special education classrooms; d. TCCY: 3 regular education classrooms, 3 special
education classrooms, and 5 offices; and e. JJJC: 5 regular education classrooms and 5 offices. Each new classroom shall provide, at a minimum, 25 square feet per student and an additional space which shall be at least 25% of the space required for the students. 35. With 18 months of the execution of this Agreement, the State shall complete at a minimum the construction of the following additional classrooms in the secure juvenile facilities: a. JCCY: 3 vocational education classrooms; b. TCCY: 4 vocational education and 2 regular education
classrooms; and c. JJJC: 4 vocational education classrooms (presently
under construction). 36. Within 18 months of the execution of this Agreement, the
State shall provide juveniles with sufficient instructional materials and equipment for academic and vocational education for students, including but not limited to books, vocational equipment to implement the State curriculum for each vocational course being offered, and sufficient safety equipment for vocational shops. 37. Within 180 days of the execution of this Agreement, the State shall purchase a sufficient amount of library materials to support adequate instructional programs. The
Page 17 of 42

State shall provide and maintain adequate reading materials in designated areas of each housing unit that are accessible to the juveniles. The State shall ensure that juveniles have sufficient school supplies to be able to complete homework assignments in their housing units. 38. Within 180 days of the execution of this Agreement, the State shall ensure that all non-functional educational equipment (e.g., computers, shop equipment), is repaired or replaced or discarded in a timely manner, and that all missing, discarded or destroyed instructional materials are replaced in a timely manner. This section is not intended to discourage the State from acquiring donations of used equipment/materials which later be discarded and not replaced. It is also not intended to require the State to replace outdated or obsolete equipment or materials. I. Curriculum and Adequacy of Instruction 39. Within 280 days of the execution of this Agreement, the State shall complete development and implement an adequate correctional education curriculum for juveniles in shortterm boot camp programs; long-term programs; and in the intake units at Jetson. 40. The State shall develop and implement effective instructional strategies designed to engage troubled juveniles in education and differentiate instruction for juveniles’ individual strengths and needs. 41. The State shall ensure that all juveniles will be able to
Page 18 of 42

receive academic credit and/or educational advancement for their educational achievements at the facilities according to standards equivalent to those used by the public schools, and that such credits shall be transferable according to the general practice of public schools in Louisiana. 42. The State shall inform juveniles who have reached the age of sixteen of the opportunity to attain a General Educational Development certificate ("GED certificate"). The State shall offer preparation for testing and testing that leads to the attainment of a GED certificate. If a juvenile is released before completion of the testing, the State shall ensure that he or she is provided with appropriate information to complete the examination. J. Screening, Evaluation, Class Placement 43. Within 180 days of the execution of this Agreement, the State shall develop a system to request and secure juveniles’ prior educational records. To this end: a. The State shall develop and implement an automated
information management system to permit each facility to track requests for educational records; b. The State shall ensure that each facility has direct access to the current state-wide automated database for educational history; and c. The State shall either designate or hire sufficient number of trained persons to operate the system outlined in subsection (a).
Page 19 of 42

44. The State shall ensure that no later than the third business day after intake, the State shall request from the appropriate school district(s) all information about a juvenile that is relevant to the assessment of the juvenile's suitable educational instruction level and services to be provided to the juvenile, including previous general education records and special education records (including previous IEPs). The State shall make all reasonable efforts to obtain all available relevant educational information from the local school districts within ten business days of receipt of the request from a facility.
45. Within 14 days of intake, qualified staff shall conduct an Educational Placement Screening to determine each juvenile's suitable educational instruction level. This Educational Placement Screening shall include, but not be limited to: a. an evaluation of all available mental health records, educational records, testing results and other relevant information regarding the juvenile's educational history; and b. a personal interview with the juvenile by an experienced professional staff person with appropriate credentials in education, social work, psychology, or counseling, and specific training developed by the Director of Education. c. a screening for educational disabilities. The State
Page 20 of 42

shall develop an adequate interview protocol to screen for educational disabilities. The disabilities screening shall include, but not be limited to: 1. questions about whether the juvenile has been
previously identified by the public school system as having an educational disability; 2. previous educational history; 3. a sufficient review of medical records to determine whether certain disabilities are present or indicated, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, hearing impairments, speech or language impairments, visual impairments, mental retardation, traumatic brain injuries, or serious emotional disturbances adversely affecting educational performance. This review shall be coordinated between the school pupil appraisal staff at each facility and each facility’s health care and qualified mental health professional staff. 46. Using the information obtained in Educational Placement Screening, the State shall develop an educational plan for each juvenile within 14 days after they have been transferred from Juvenile Reception and Diagnostic Center to the general population of JCCY or to another secure juvenile facility. The educational plan shall include meaningful and specific educational and vocational goals as well as any
Page 21 of 42

special instructional concerns that have been identified. Educational plans shall be kept in the general files of the school in each facility and each teacher shall be given a copy of the plans for the juveniles he or she instructs. The educational plans shall be reviewed and revised, if appropriate, when the juvenile’s records are reviewed for the purpose of issuing report cards, but no less than three times per year. Report cards shall be issued quarterly to each juvenile and his or her parents. 47. When a juvenile reasonably requests to have his or her class placement re-evaluated or any staff member requests that a juvenile’s class placement be re-evaluated, such reevaluation shall be conducted in a timely manner. K. Special Education 48. Within 45 days of the execution of this Agreement, the State shall adequately screen and identify juveniles who are suspected to be in need of special education services. Absent documented exceptional circumstances, evaluations shall be conducted within 60 days of such identification. Screening and referral to evaluation shall be expedited for any student suspected of a severe impairment or who has been determined by facility personnel to be a danger to himself or others. Screening activities, such as educational, sensory and motor screenings, should be completed as a part of the evaluation for these students. The State shall provide adequate special education services to all juveniles
Page 22 of 42

eligible for such services. 49. If a juvenile has a previous IEP, appropriate educational
personnel shall implement the juvenile's IEP within 7 days of intake. The State shall convene an IEP meeting to review the adequacy of the plan for each student newly admitted to the Department. Modification of an IEP from a previous school shall only be made when the IEP team finds and documents that the unique needs of a student warrant a change. Any changes in the number of hours of services from previous IEPs shall be tied directly to the needs of each particular juvenile and shall not be reduced based on administrative convenience or lack of sufficient resources in the facility. Any reduction in the amount of special education services shall be reported to the educational authority established in ¶ 8. 50. If a juvenile has not been previously identified as having an educational disability, but there is another indication that the juvenile may be eligible for special education services by the screening described in ¶ 45 or parental, self, or staff referral, an adequate evaluation must be performed within the time limits prescribed by the IDEA. 51. The State shall conduct IEP meetings consistent with the time lines in the IDEA and the regulations promulgated thereunder and shall implement the IEP within 10 days of its completion. 52. The State shall integrate the IEP with the educational plan
Page 23 of 42

developed for each juvenile pursuant to ¶ 46.

53. The State shall ensure that appropriate facility and school

staff are involved in the development of IEPs and provision

of special education services to juveniles and that

counseling services offered to juveniles are appropriately

coordinated between the institutional staff and the school

in each facility.

54. The State shall develop a system to promote parent,

guardian, and surrogate involvement in IEP development and

placement meetings. The State shall attempt and shall

document efforts to involve parents and guardians directly

or via telephone conference in planning and implementing

their children's education programs or IEPs. The State

shall post in visiting, reception, and admitting areas

notices in each facility stating the rights of students,

parents, or guardians regarding education services,

including special education services. The State shall

establish and implement a surrogate parent program

(including a training program for parent surrogates). The

State shall appoint a surrogate parent when (a) no parent is

known; (b) after reasonable efforts, the State cannot locate

the child's parents; (c) the parents do not respond to the

school’s efforts to contact them or otherwise refuse to

participate in the IEP process; or (d) the juvenile is a

ward of the State.

55.

If a juvenile is discharged from any of the facilities

Page 24 of 42

before the educational evaluation is complete, the State

shall forward to the juvenile’s receiving school district

all information regarding screening and evaluations

completed to date, noting what evaluations are yet to be

performed.

L. Vocational Education

56.

The State shall develop and fully utilize a program of

vocational and pre-vocational education in all of the

facilities and shall provide juveniles with an opportunity

to participate in vocational and/or pre-vocational

education appropriate to their age and abilities, except

at BCCY, which shall be permitted to provide solely pre-

vocational education to all students so long as 85% of

juveniles at Bridge City are either in a short term

program or are under the age of 16.

57.

Juveniles shall not be excluded from vocational education

based solely on their level of academic achievement or

disability. The vocational education program to be

developed by the State shall include the employment of at

least the following number of vocational education

teachers within the 18 months of the Agreement:

a. A total of at least 5 FTE vocational education teachers

at TCCY;

b. A total of at least 6 FTE vocational education teachers

at SCCY;

c. A total of at least 6 FTE vocational education teachers

Page 25 of 42

at JCCY; and

d. A total of at least 4 FTE vocational education teachers

at JJJC.

e. Two additional vocational education teachers, to be

placed at a facility or facilities designated by

the Director of Education.

58.

The State shall ensure that students with disabilities are

eligible to participate in vocational education services

to the same extent as non-disabled juveniles. Such

students shall receive necessary reasonable accommodations

to facilitate such participation.

59.

The State shall ensure that all vocational courses

provided in the facilities meet the State curriculum

standards applicable to the specific courses and that they

employ safety procedures associated with certified

vocational education programs. The State shall ensure

that all work performed by juveniles in the vocational

classes is specifically required by the State’s course

curriculum and is performed in the sequence set forth in

the State curriculum for the specific course. The State

shall ensure that its selection of vocational courses in

each facility is related to employment opportunities

available in the State.

60.

The State shall ensure that juveniles who complete a

vocational program or some portion of a vocational program

that qualifies them to take certificate/license exams

Page 26 of 42

shall have the opportunity to take the exams.

M. Miscellaneous Provisions

61.

The State shall assist juveniles released from the

facilities in transferring to other schools, as

applicable, and shall provide all juveniles with adequate

information regarding the procedures to be followed in

order to attend other schools. The State shall provide

upon request a juvenile's school records to any subsequent

school that the juvenile attends.

62.

The State shall develop and implement a system that

records accurately and completely the performance and

achievement of each student and that ensures students'

rights to privacy and confidentiality in accordance with

State and federal law. These records shall be accessible

to appropriate staff, students, and students' parents,

guardians, or surrogates, the Monitor, and Plaintiff’s

counsel.

63.

The State shall ensure that female juveniles receive

equivalent academic and vocational educational services as

male juveniles.

64.

Within three months of the approval of the State’s

Educational Implementation Plan by the Plaintiffs or the

Court, the State shall ensure that every juvenile residing

in the facility at the time of the approval of the

Educational Implementation Plan is re-screened (but not

necessarily retested) for educational services and

Page 27 of 42

provided with appropriate educational services consistent

with the terms of this Agreement and the Educational

Implementation Plan.

65.

The State shall develop and implement adequate quality

assurance mechanisms to monitor the implementation of the

provisions of this Agreement.

N. Implementation Plan

66.

The State shall develop an Education Implementation Plan

that shall set forth, in detail, the steps to be taken to

implement the requirements of this Agreement. The

Education Implementation Plan shall include, among other

things, specific sections setting forth:

a. The plan for deployment of teaching staff within each

facility to satisfy the class sizes and teacher

student ratios and other staffing requirements in

¶¶ 11-12, 15; to satisfy the non-teacher special

education staffing requirements in ¶¶ 23-26; and

the vocational education staff requirements set

forth in ¶ 57 and procedures to track and document

fluctuations in populations or other changes that

would require an adjustment in the number and type

of staff. This section shall set forth a time

line for the funding, and a plan for recruitment

and filling of the required positions. This

section shall contain procedures for identifying

additional educational staffing required pursuant

Page 28 of 42

to fluctuations in populations or fluctuations in the identified needs of juveniles and procedures for addressing any deficiencies; b. All necessary construction or alteration of school facilities to ensure compliance with ¶ 12 (class size limits), ¶¶ 33-38 (instructional space, materials, equipment), and ¶¶ 56-60 (vocational education); c. Steps to be taken to increase the percentage of fully certified teachers in compliance with ¶ 18; d. Policies setting forth teacher training requirements and training materials to be used to provide such training pursuant to ¶¶ 19-20; e. The curricula required by ¶ 39; f. A description of steps to be taken to ensure
compliance with ¶ 40, including related training materials and/or programs to be utilized; g. Procedures, policies and training materials regarding educational screening, evaluation and class placement pursuant to ¶¶ 43-47; h. Procedures, policies and training materials regarding special education screening, evaluation and IEP development, pursuant to ¶¶ 48-55; i. Procedures, policies and training materials for the system to promote parent, guardian and surrogate
Page 29 of 42

involvement in the IEP process, pursuant to ¶ 54; j. A plan for the provision of vocational and pre-
vocational education services at each facility, pursuant to ¶¶ 56-60. This plan shall include: 1. A description of the various types of pre-
vocational and vocational programs to be implemented; 2. Criteria for determining which juveniles will be eligible for each of the various types of programs. The criteria shall not exclude juveniles from vocational education based on academic achievement (including reading ability), disability, or custody level (except for juveniles in short-term special management units, such as the STAGES or JUMP program at TCCY), or juveniles 16 years-old or older based on age. The criteria may exclude from vocational education juveniles younger than 16, in short-term programs or in the intake diagnostic unit. Juveniles younger than 16 or in short term programs shall, however, be given pre-vocational educational in lieu of vocational education.
Placement of eligible juveniles into particular vocational classes shall be based primarily on the educational needs of the
Page 30 of 42

juvenile, but may take into account other legitimate security considerations specific to the individual juvenile; and 3. Specific steps to be taken to recruit for and fill the positions created under the plan. 4. Juveniles adjudicated to the Short Term Offender Program or the Louisiana Intensive Training Program shall not be excluded from Vocational Education opportunities if they are removed from those programs upon judicial recommendation, administrative action by the State, or failure of the juvenile to complete the program within the maximum allowable time established for the program.

k. Procedures and policies for the implementation of ¶ 61;

and

l. Procedures and policies for the implementation of an

educational quality assurance system, pursuant to

¶ 65.

67.

In developing the Education Implementation Plan, the State

shall consult with its own education expert (who shall be

retained from outside the Louisiana Department of

Education and the Louisiana Department of Public Safety &

Corrections) and with Dr. Sheri Meisel. If Dr. Meisel is

unavailable, she shall be replaced with another education

Page 31 of 42

III. 68. 69.
70.

expert acceptable to the Plaintiffs. This consultation shall include, at minimum, providing the experts with a draft of the final Education Implementation Plan for written comments prior to submission of the Plan to the Plaintiffs. ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING A. Procedures for Conditional Dismissal Upon execution of this Agreement, the parties shall jointly move the Court to stay further proceedings in United States v. Louisiana, Brian B. v. Stalder, Williams v. McKeithen, and all related In re: actions, relating to the provision of educational services. The State shall prepare the Educational Implementation Plan and serve it upon the Plaintiffs within five months of the execution of this Agreement. At the same time, the State shall provide the Plaintiffs with documentation that it has substantially complied with the specific terms of the Agreement set forth in ¶ 74(a) below that require compliance within five months of the execution of this Agreement. Within 30 days of receipt of the Plan, Plaintiffs shall respond in writing, identifying any objections to the adequacy of the Plan. If the Plaintiffs respond with any objections to the adequacy of the Plan, the parties shall confer and attempt in good faith to resolve any differences.

Page 32 of 42

71.

Upon execution of this Agreement, the parties shall

jointly move the Court to schedule a hearing to be held

seven months from the date of execution of this Agreement.

Two weeks prior to that date, the parties shall inform

the Court of any outstanding disagreements over the

content of the Education Implementation Plan.

72.

At the hearing, if the Plaintiffs have no outstanding

objections to the Plan, the Court shall conditionally

dismiss those portions of United States v. Louisiana,

Brian B. v. Stalder, Williams v. McKeithen, and all

related In re: actions, relating to provision of

educational services, contingent upon the State’s

substantial compliance with each of the terms of this

Agreement and implementation of the Education

Implementation Plan (hereinafter “order of conditional

dismissal”).

73.

If, at the hearing, the Plaintiffs continue to object to

portions of the Education Implementation Plan, the Court

shall decide whether to enter an order of conditional

dismissal over the Plaintiffs’ objections or to withdraw

its stay of the litigation relating to the provision of

educational services.

74.

Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Court shall enter an

order of conditional dismissal only if it finds, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that

a. the State has substantially complied with the following

Page 33 of 42

provisions of this Agreement:

1. ¶ 8 (hiring of State Director of Education);

2. ¶ 9 (designation of school education

coordinators);

3. ¶ 15 (hiring of teacher aides);

4. ¶¶ 13-14 (hiring of special education

teachers);

5. ¶ 25 (hiring of full-time IEP

facilitator/transition coordinators);

6. ¶ 24 (interim numbers and deadlines for

hiring of school psychologists, pupil

appraisal and related service providers);

7. ¶ 16 (creation and implementation of

substitute teacher pool);

8. ¶ 27 (length of school day);

9. ¶ 37 (provision of library materials);

10. ¶ 38 (non-functional equipment); and

b. the State’s proposed Education

Implementation Plan substantially complies with

each applicable term of this Agreement.

75.

The Plaintiffs shall bear the burden of proving that one

or more of the requirements in ¶ 74(a)-(b) have not been

met. If the Plaintiffs demonstrate that one or more the

requirements in ¶ 74(a) or ¶ 74(b) has not been met, then

the Court shall, at the request of the Plaintiffs,

withdraw the stay of litigation and set the case for

Page 34 of 42

trial.

B. Modification of the Education Implementation Plan

76.

The Education Implementation Plan may be modified at any

time after the Court has entered a conditional dismissal,

under the conditions set forth in this section in ¶¶ 77-78

below.

77.

The Education Implementation Plan shall not be modified

unless the modification is agreed to by the parties or

ordered by the Court. If the State desires to modify the

Education Implementation Plan, it shall notify the

Plaintiffs of this intent and the proposed amendment. If

the State has good cause to seek an expedited modification

of the Plan due to an emergency, then it shall so notify

the Plaintiffs and identify the reason expedited

modification is needed. The Plaintiffs shall review the

proposed modification and make their objections, if any,

within 6 business days of receipt of the proposed

modification. In all non-emergent cases, Plaintiffs shall

make any objection within 30 days from receipt of the

proposed modification.

78.

If the Plaintiffs do not object to the proposed

modification within the time limits set forth in ¶ 77, the

Plan shall be so modified. If the Plaintiffs object to

the proposed revision, the parties shall conduct good-

faith discussions to resolve the dispute. If the parties

are unable to reach an agreement within a reasonable time,

Page 35 of 42

the State may file a motion with the Court to modify the

Education Implementation Plan.

C. Non-Compliance with Terms of the Conditional Dismissal

79.

If the Plaintiffs believe that the State has failed to

substantially comply with one or more terms of this

Agreement or the Education Implementation Plan, they shall

so notify the State in writing. The parties shall conduct

good-faith discussions to resolve the dispute and may

agree in writing to adopt a plan of correction or

otherwise modify the Education Implementation Plan or this

Agreement. If the parties are unable to reach agreement

within 30 days of the Plaintiffs’ informing the State of

their allegations of non-compliance, the Plaintiffs may

file a motion with the Court to revoke the conditional

dismissal.

D. Final Dismissal

80.

Once the State has determined that it is in substantial

compliance with this Agreement, the State shall advise the

Plaintiffs in writing. The Plaintiffs and their experts

shall then have reasonable access to conduct compliance

tours consisting of tours of each of the secure juvenile

facilities within 2 months of the notification.

Plaintiffs shall endeavor to have only one expert

participate in the compliance tours at all of the

facilities. In no event shall more than one expert for

the plaintiffs participate in a compliance tour at any

Page 36 of 42

facility. No later than one month after the completion of

the tours, the Plaintiffs shall notify the State of any

alleged deficiencies in compliance with this Agreement or

the Education Implementation Plan and shall set forth in

reasonable detail remedial measures to remedy each

deficiency.

81.

If the parties are unable to reach an agreement regarding

the status of compliance within one month of the State’s

receipt the Plaintiffs’ notice regarding the status of

compliance, the State may file a motion for final

dismissal with the Court. If the Plaintiffs do not object

within 30 days of service of the motion, the Court may

grant the State’s motion. If the Plaintiffs do make an

objection, the Court shall hold a hearing on the motion.

Upon such hearing, the Court shall enter an order of final

dismissal with prejudice with respect to portions of

United States v. Louisiana, Brian B. v. Stalder, Williams

v. McKeithen, and all related In re: actions, relating to

the provision of educational services, unless the

Plaintiffs demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence

that the State is not in substantial compliance with the

terms of this Agreement or the Education Implementation

Plan.

82.

Nothing in this section shall preclude the parties from

jointly stipulating to the termination of portions of this

Agreement at any time.

Page 37 of 42

E. Monitoring

83.

Compliance with the terms of this Agreement and the

Education Implementation Plan shall be monitored by the

Court expert in Williams v. McKeithen.

84.

The Court expert in Williams v. McKeithen, may initiate

and receive ex parte reports and comments from an expert

selected and paid for by the Plaintiffs, and an expert

selected and paid for by the State.

85.

The State shall bear all the costs incurred by the court

expert, including, but not limited to, fees and expenses

(e.g. for site visits, administrative cost, and report

writing, and telephone calls made for consultation).

86.

The court expert shall be permitted to initiate and

receive ex parte communications from all parties and their

agents.

87.

In order to monitor compliance with this Agreement, the

court expert shall have reasonable access to all

facilities, residents, staff and documents. The court

expert shall have the right to conduct confidential

interviews with staff and residents. The State will not

interfere with the court expert’s access to parents and

care givers of residents or to former residents of the

facilities. At the request of the court expert, any

expert designated pursuant to ¶ 84 may accompany and

assist the court expert during tour of facilities,

inspection of documents and interviews with staff or

Page 38 of 42

residents.

88.

In order to monitor compliance with this Agreement, the

Plaintiffs and their expert(s) may conduct tours of the

secure facilities once each year during the life of this

Agreement at times mutually agreed by the parties.

89.

Until the termination of this Agreement, the State shall,

at their own expense, report to the court expert and to

the Plaintiffs, the following information for each

facility on a quarterly basis:

a. The number of juveniles housed at the facility on the

first day of each month;

b. The number of juveniles enrolled in school at the

facility on the first day of each month;

c. The number of juveniles enrolled in GED preparation

courses, Basic Skills I, Basic Skills II, pre-

vocational courses, vocational courses, and

Carnegie unit courses;

d. The number of juveniles enrolled in special education;

e. The number of juveniles in each month who were:

1. referred to the Student Building Level

Committee;

2. referred to the Pupil Appraisal Team for

special education evaluation;

3. the subject of an Individual Education

Program meeting;

f. The number and percentage of IEP meetings in each month

Page 39 of 42

at which a parent participated in person or by telephone; g. The number of percentage of IEP meetings in each month in which a parent surrogate participated; h. A list of every juvenile admitted to the institution within the prior three months who had been referred to Special School District Number One by the intake unit at Jetson Correctional Center for Youth and the date, type and result of any further assessment evaluation undertaken of that youth by the facility school; i. For each IEP meeting in each month:
1. The number of minutes per week of special education services, and the type and amount of any related services, set forth in the new IEP;
2. The number of minutes per week of special education services, and the type and amount of any related services, set forth in the most recent IEP prior to the one developed at that meeting, if available;
3. The number of minutes per week of special education services, and the type and amount of any related services, set forth in the most recent IEP developed in a public or
Page 40 of 42

private school for the student (excluding

schools in juvenile detention facility or

DPSC facilities), if available;

j. The name, certification type and area (e.g., Circular

665, Elementary Education), and the subject areas

of the class(es) taught, of each teacher employed

at the facility during each month;

k. The name, qualifications and job description of all

other employees working as teacher aides, related

services providers, transition services providers,

schools psychologists or social workers, or other

staff providing educational services directly to

students; and

l. A narrative description of the status of any planned

physical plant modification or expansion at the

facility’s school.

90.

During the Plaintiffs’ tours, the Plaintiffs and their

expert(s) shall have reasonable access to all facilities,

staff and documents, including the right to conduct

interviews with staff and contractors of the facilities

and confidential interviews with residents. Nothing in

this Agreement shall affect the ability of the Plaintiffs

to conduct confidential interviews with current and former

residents, parents of current and former residents, or

former facility staff.

91.

The State shall make reasonable efforts to promptly

Page 41 of 42

provide any document related to compliance with this

Agreement reasonably requested by the court expert or the

Plaintiffs’ counsel, but in any event shall provide such

documents within 10 business days of the request. This

shall include documents in the possession of any private

corporation owning, operating, or managing facilities for

the State. This shall not include, however, documents or

portions of documents that are subject to attorney-client

or work product privilege.

92.

In producing documents pursuant to ¶ 91 to the Plaintiffs,

the State shall bear the cost of providing up to 1,000

pages of copies of documents to the Plaintiffs

collectively per year. Any documents requested beyond

this amount shall, at the option of the State, be made

available for inspection and copying by the party, or

shall be copied by the State at a cost of 5 cents per page

to be paid by the requesting party.

Page 42 of 42

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

HAYES WILLIAMS, et al.

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

JOHN McKEITHEN, et al.

)

Defendants,

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

Amicus Curiae.

)

)

IN RE: JUVENILE FACILITIES )

)

IN RE: TALLULAH CORRECTIONAL )

CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: JETSON CORRECTIONAL )

CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: SWANSON CORRECTIONAL )

CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: LOUISIANA TRAINING

)

INSTITUTE - BRIDGE CITY)

)

IN RE: JENA JUVENILE JUSTICE )

CENTER

)

______________________________)

)

BRIAN B., et al.

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

RICHARD STALDER, et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

Civ. No. 71-98-B
Civ. No. CH 97-MS-001-B Civ. No. CH 97-0665-B-M1 Civ. No. CH 97-0666-B-M1 Civ. No. CH 97-0667-B-M1 Civ. No. CH 97-0668-B-M1 Civ. No. CH 98-0804-B-M1
Civ. No. 98-886-B-M1

August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA,

)

et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

_____________________________ )

)

A.A., et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS CORP., )

et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

Civ. No. 98-947-B-1 Civ. No. 00-246-C-M1

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction (¶1 - ¶9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 II. Definitions (¶10 - ¶19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 III. Juvenile Justice (¶20 - ¶75) . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 IV. Medical, Dental and Mental Health (¶76 - ¶116) . . . 60 V. Quality Assurance (¶117 - ¶121) . . . . . . . . . . . 77 VI. Compliance and Monitoring (¶122 - ¶141) . . . . . . . 87

August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
2

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR MEDICAL, DENTAL, MENTAL HEALTH, REHABILITATION AND JUVENILE JUSTICE ISSUES
I. INTRODUCTION 1. This Agreement is entered among the following: the United
States Department of Justice as identified in ¶ 10 (the “DOJ”), the private plaintiffs as identified in ¶ 14 (the “Plaintiffs”), and the State, as defined in ¶ 19 below. This Agreement settles and resolves four lawsuits (the “Lawsuits”) concerning the juvenile justice, medical, dental, mental health, and rehabilitative services in the State of Louisiana’s secure juvenile facilities. The four Lawsuits settled by this Agreement are: (1) Williams v. McKeithen, Civ. No. 71-98 (including the following subdockets opened in that action: In Re: Juvenile Facilities, Civ. No. CH 97-MS-001-B; In Re: Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth, Civ. No. CH 97-0665-B-M1; In Re: Jetson Correctional Center for Youth, Civ. No. CH 97-0666-B-M1; In Re: Swanson Correctional Center for Youth, Civ. No. CH 970667-B-M1; In Re: Louisiana Training Institute - Bridge City, Civ. No. CH 97-0668-B-M1; and In Re: Jena Juvenile Justice Center, Civ. No. CH 98-0804-B-M1);(2) Brian B. v. Stalder, Civ. No. 98-0886-B-1; (3) A.A. v. Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, Civ. No. 00-246-CMI; and (4) United
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
3

States v. Louisiana, Civ. No. 98-0947-B-1. In order to resolve the juvenile justice, medical, dental, mental health, and rehabilitation issues in this litigation, the parties have entered into this Agreement, which, if complied with within the time frames specified below, will result in the dismissal of the Lawsuits, except as provided in ¶ 9 below. The terms of this Agreement shall apply to the secure juvenile facilities operated by or on behalf of the State and any other secure juvenile facility opened during the life of the Agreement. All parties agree and recognize that the obligations contained in this Agreement and any remedies flowing therefrom are limited to conditions within the secure juvenile facilities and do not follow the juvenile after his/her final discharge from the facility. This provision shall not prevent the DPSC from continuing its current practice of providing short-term medications. This Agreement shall not increase or decrease any rights that juveniles held in secure facilities, on parole, or on probation supervision may or may not have upon their release from secure facilities. 2. As part of this Agreement, the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“DPSC”) shall revise as necessary its policies and procedures to ensure that they are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement. 3. The State denies any allegations upon which the Lawsuits are based. The State has
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
4

entered this Agreement in order to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. 4. The United States’ Jena Agreement and the Private Plaintiffs’ Jena Agreement, both
entered on or about April 13, 2000, are terminated and are of no further effect. The State agrees not to house juveniles at the Jena Juvenile Justice Center in Jena, Louisiana during the term of this Agreement. 5. Immediately upon execution of this Agreement, the parties shall jointly move the Court for an Order to conditionally dismiss the Lawsuits except as provided in ¶ 9 below. Immediately upon execution of this Agreement, the parties shall jointly move the Court for an Order terminating and rescinding all existing, orders, judgments or decrees that purport to address conditions of confinement in Louisiana’s secure juvenile facilities, except as set forth in this paragraph:
a. Consent orders. The effect of the following consent orders is stayed until either: (a) final dismissal of these actions, at which time all consent orders shall be terminated and shall have no prospective effect; or (b) 120 days following entry of an order reopening these actions: April, 1996 Order (Bridge City Correctional Center), November 14, 1996 Order (Swanson Correctional Center for YouthMonroe), April, 1998 Order (Jetson Correctional Center for Youth), and November 15, 1994 Order (Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth), as modified by orders dated February 21, 1995, November 19, 1996, December 22, 1995, November 12, 1997, November 20, 1997, December 16, 1997, December 23, 1997 and March 10, 1998.
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
5

b. Jurisdictional orders. The substantive effect of the following orders may have been

superceded, modified or rescinded; however, these orders may continue to be cited

and relied upon by the parties solely for the purpose of establishing this Court’s

jurisdiction, for the purpose of establishing class counsel or prevailing party status,

and for the purpose of supporting the “Attorney Fee Claims”:

June 10, 1975

Judgment adopting Special Master's report

August 6, 1980

Original judgment on attorney's fees/prevailing parties

January 24, 1983

Injunction to stop accepting juvenile until population limits set

February 7, 1983 Motion to set population limits on juvenile facilities

December 7, 1983 Stipulation and Consent Decree for adult facilities

April 24, 1984

Juvenile consent decree

November 26, 1986 Extension of consent decree

January 6, 1988

Extension of consent decree

October 27, 1988 Extension of consent decree

January 30, 1991 Class certification order

June 25, 1990

Original appointment of Nordyke and Denlinger

June 25, 1991

Ruling setting attorney fee rates

June 30, 1993

Extension of Consent Decrees and other Judgments

December 22, 1994 Order concerning TCCY

June 23, 1995

Order denying Motion by Transamerica

August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
6

Development

September 26, 1996 Order granting motion to terminate consent decrees for adult facilities except LSP and the Juvenile Facilities

April 1, 1997

Order granting motion by to release adult institutions except LSP and the juvenile facilities

September 24, 1998

Motion and Order Approving Settlement and terminating consent decree and supervision over LSP but preserving claims regarding Juvenile Facilities

December 9, 1998 Minute Entry concerning class certification in Brian B.

April 21, 1999

Order granting motion for partial dismissal of LSP

c. Surviving Orders. The following surviving orders are not stayed; however, all

surviving orders shall automatically terminate upon final dismissal of these actions

(unless previously modified or terminated):

June 21, 1989

Original appointment of Court expert

August 19, 1994

Order pertaining to the appointment of the Court Expert

September 26, 1996 Order appointing Expert John Whitley

The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the claims in the Lawsuits until the final judgment of dismissal is entered. 6. The Motion to Conditionally Dismiss shall include a request for the Court to order a “fairness” hearing under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as soon as notice

August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
7

can be given, pursuant to that Rule. This Agreement shall be void if the Court does not approve the settlement at that fairness hearing. The parties agree to ask the Court to hold in abeyance Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class in Brian B. v. Stalder and A.A. v. Wackenhut. If the Lawsuits are reopened, Plaintiffs may reurge these motions. In connection with the re-urging of these motions, the State agrees to permit Plaintiffs to name replacement class representatives in Williams, Brian B. and/or A.A. and to waive the requirements for exhaustion of administrative remedies, provided that Plaintiffs have given the State written notice of the claims to be asserted, at least ten days prior to reurging of the motion. 7. The Motion to Conditionally Dismiss shall include a request that the Court preserve the substance of any unasserted cross claims and third party demands that the State may have against other defendants in any of the Lawsuits until such time as a final judgment of dismissal is entered. 8. This Agreement shall be effective on September 1, 2000. The State’s obligations under this Agreement shall arise on June 1, 2001, except to the extent specific provisions establish a different deadline. 9. This Agreement compromises and settles all claims asserted in the Lawsuits except: a. Claims pertaining to the validity, applicability and constitutionality of the
administrative remedy procedure (ARP). Plaintiffs stipulate to the entry of an order dismissing all claims and allegations related to ARPs in the Lawsuits, without prejudice to their right to reassert those claims either in new actions or in
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
8

the Lawsuits if the Lawsuits are reopened in accordance with this Agreement. b. Claims pertaining to education issues. Claims relating to education issues are the
subject of a separate Settlement Agreement entered on or about November 1, 1999. c. Claims for attorneys fees. This Agreement does not purport to address Plaintiffs’ claims for attorneys fees in the Lawsuits. II. DEFINITIONS 10. The term “DOJ” shall refer to the United States Department of Justice. 11. The terms “facilities” and “secure juvenile facilities” refer to the Jetson Correctional Center for Youth (JCCY), the Swanson Correctional Center for Youth - Monroe (SCCY), the Bridge City Correctional Center for Youth (BCCY), the Swanson Correctional Center for Youth - Madison (SCCY-M) (formerly known as the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth), the Juvenile Reception and Diagnostic Center (“JRDC”), and any other facility used for the housing of juveniles owned or operated on behalf of the State during the operation of this Agreement, but excluding juvenile detention facilities. 12. The term "intake" refers to the day that the individual arrives at the reception and diagnostic center for admission into the secure juvenile facilities. 13. The term "juvenile" refers to any juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent and is residing at any facility during the operation of this Agreement. 14. The term “Plaintiffs” refers to the non-governmental agency private plaintiffs in Williams v. McKeithen, Civ. No. 71-98 (M.D. La.); Brian B. v. Stalder, Civ. No. 98-0886-B-1;
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
9

A.A. v. Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, Civ. No. 00-246-C-M1; and the suits entitled In Re: Juvenile Facilities, Civ. No. CH 97-MS-001-B; In Re: Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth, Civ. No. CH 97-0665-B-M1; In Re: Jetson Correctional Center for Youth, Civ. No. CH 97-0666-B-M1; In Re: Swanson Correctional Center for Youth, Civ. No. CH 97-0667-B-M1; In Re: Louisiana Training Institute - Bridge City, Civ. No. CH 97-0668-B-M1; and In Re: Jena Juvenile Justice Center, Civ. No. CH 98-0804-B-M1. 15. The term “serious mental illness” shall include disorders of mood and cognition (with the exception of mental retardation) that significantly interfere with functioning in at least one essential sphere of the juvenile’s life, e.g.: psychotic disorders, mood disorders, the aggressively mentally-ill, and juveniles who exhibit self-mutilating or suicidal behavior. 16. The term “mental retardation” refers to significant sub-average intellectual functioning with an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of 70 or below with concurrent deficits or impairments in present adaptive functioning in at least two of the following areas: communication, self care, home living, social/interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-direction, functional academic skills, work, leisure, health and safety, with onset before age eighteen. 17. The term “Provider” shall refer to a department, agency or division of Louisiana state government with particular expertise in the provision of medical, dental, and mental health care contracted by DPSC to provide medical, dental, and mental health care to juveniles. 18. The term “serious injury” means any injury that threatens a juvenile’s life or limb, or one that requires urgent treatment by a doctor, or severely restricts the juvenile’s usual activities, or requires follow-up by a doctor.
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
10

19. The term “State” shall refer to the Governor, the Secretary of the DPSC, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals and all Departments and Agencies of the State of Louisiana, and their employees, agents, contractors, and successors, who are wholly or partially responsible for the care of juveniles confined in the juvenile facilities, with the understanding that the Governor’s obligations under this Agreement have been delegated to the Secretary of the DPSC. As used in this Agreement, the term “State” shall not include or mean the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (“LSU”) or any of the institutions under its management or supervision. Notwithstanding any other language or provision contained in this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be construed to create any obligations flowing from Provider or LSU to Plaintiffs or DOJ. As used in this Agreement, the “State” shall not include the City of Tallulah or LaSalle Parish Hospital District Number 2.
III JUVENILE JUSTICE A. Protection from Abuse and Violence
20. The State shall establish and implement policies and procedures for the purposes of providing juveniles with safe and humane living conditions, protection from physical, sexual, and mental abuse by facility staff, and from juvenile-on-juvenile violence and sexual abuse, and other forms of victimization (such as “strong-arming”).
21. The State shall continue to advise all staff and juveniles on a regular basis that violence will not be tolerated and that the following conduct by either staff or juveniles is strictly
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
11

prohibited in all of the facilities and will result in disciplinary sanctions and referral for criminal prosecution, where warranted: (a) sexual abuse, (b) physical abuse, (c) emotional abuse, (d) corporal punishment, and (e) staff permitting, enticing, or inducing juveniles to assault each other. The State shall also immediately inform juveniles and staff that those who report alleged abuse will be protected from retaliation. 22. Within two months of the effective date of this Agreement, the State shall require all mandatory child abuse reporters at the facility to acknowledge their obligation in accordance with State law to report suspected child abuse and inform all mandatory reporters of the office and telephone number to which such suspected abuse should be reported. The State’s obligation under this section will be discharged upon obtaining employees’ signatures acknowledging their understanding. “Acknowledgment” training will be provided annually to all mandatory child abuse reporters.
If the Louisiana Department of Social Services contacts the State regarding an allegation of abuse, the State will insure that the allegation has been, or is being, investigated. 23. The State shall ensure immediately that all juveniles have adequate means to report abuse, including at a minimum, providing the juveniles with direct and confidential access to the Project Zero Tolerance (“PZT”) Hotline. The State shall ensure that all calls to the hotline are reviewed at a minimum twice daily by supervisory investigators.
Within two months of the effective date of this Agreement, the State shall ensure that there are at least two fully operational telephones in each of the housing units, at least
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
12

one operational telephone in each counselor’s office, and at least one operational telephone in the infirmary that juveniles may use to place a PZT call. The State shall ensure that a maintenance order is placed within one business work day for every juvenile telephone that is in need of repair and will make best efforts to ensure that the phone is repaired as soon as possible. 24. Within one month of the effective date of this Agreement, the State shall ensure that: (a) every juvenile who reports to a facility infirmary with an injury or pain shall be questioned by a health care staff, outside the hearing of officers or other juveniles, regarding the cause of the injury or pain; and (b) if in the course of the juvenile’s infirmary visit abuse is alleged or health care staff suspects abuse, the health care staff shall call the PZT Hotline following delivery of necessary medical care and adequately document the matter in the juvenile’s medical record, fill out an incident report, and log the PZT call in the infirmary log. 25. Within three months of the effective date of this Agreement, the State shall ensure that any allegation or incident involving neglect, abuse, excessive use of force, use of any type of chemical restraint, or incident/accident resulting in serious injury is adequately reviewed, investigated, and documented in a timely manner. If a full investigation (see ¶ 26 a - i) is not warranted, then the reasons why a full investigation is not conducted shall be documented in writing. In cases where a juvenile withdraws an allegation, the investigators shall record the investigation on the log, conduct a preliminary investigation to determine the circumstances and reasons for the withdrawal, and in cases where it is
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
13

warranted, complete the investigation of the abuse allegation. In no case shall an investigator do an investigation on an incident in which he or she was personally involved. Whenever practicable, PZT Investigators will interview juveniles outside of school hours; however, a juvenile may be removed from school by a PZT investigator as part of a PZT investigation, and the State shall not be required to comply with all academic and vocational program participation requirements for that juvenile for that day.
A letter confirming the outcome of the investigation shall be sent to parents/guardians or other close family members when those persons have identified themselves at the time of referral and have provided a mailing address. 26. The State shall promulgate and implement system-wide policies for the investigation of allegations of neglect, abuse, excessive use of force, and incidents and/or accidents resulting in serious injury. The policies shall identify the types of actions that normally would be taken in such an investigation including: a. Taking photographs of all visible injuries; b. Securing, examining and photographing all physical evidence; c. Interviewing the alleged victim and perpetrator in individual, private, in-person
interviews with a record made of the substance of the interview (written statements by staff or juveniles shall not be substituted for personal interviews); d. Identifying and interviewing privately, separately and in-person, all possible witnesses, including other juveniles and staff in the building or unit at the time of the incident;
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
14

e. Examining the juvenile’s and staff member's institutional, personnel and other records, including any prior allegations of abuse against the staff person whether substantiated or not;
f. Staff and juvenile witnesses to the alleged abuse are not, at any time after an incident, questioned or interviewed by staff who due to their assignments and/or relationship with the alleged perpetrator have or appear to have a conflict of interest in investigating the allegation;
g. Whenever there is reason to believe that a juvenile may have been subjected to physical sexual abuse, the juvenile is examined by non-DPSC health care personnel with special training and experience in conducting such assessments;
h. For all investigations not completed within ten working days, notification detailing the need for additional time and an estimate of the additional time needed shall be provided to the supervisory investigators; and
i. The investigation makes an explicit determination of whether any facility staff knew of, but did not report, the alleged abuse or provided false information during the investigation.
27. Every PZT investigation shall result in a written report. The report contents will be appropriate to the extent of investigation required to issue a finding. The report shall explicitly and separately set forth the following as appropriate to the investigation: a. each allegation of wrongdoing investigated; b. the name(s) of all alleged victims and perpetrators;
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
15

c. the names of all witnesses; d. the names of all persons interviewed during the investigation; e. all documents reviewed during the investigation; f. whether videotapes were examined and, if not, why not; g. all other sources of evidence considered; h. all PZT investigations and their results, involving the alleged victim(s) and
perpetrator(s); i. the investigator’s findings; j. the investigator’s reasons for his or her conclusion.
A copy of the summary/conclusion of the investigation of a substantiated allegation will be placed into the file of the juvenile who is the subject of the investigation. 28. The State shall employ trained, independent investigators at each facility with adequate experience and training in investigations to accomplish these tasks. The investigators shall prepare comprehensive written investigation reports, setting forth their complete investigative findings and the basis of their findings. The reports shall be simultaneously forwarded to the facilities’ wardens and supervising PZT investigators at Headquarters. These investigators shall report to the wardens of the facilities. If the warden is personally involved in a particular incident, then a PZT investigator assigned from DPSC Headquarters shall conduct the investigation. 29. The State shall employ at least the following number of FTE investigators within 12 months of the effective date of the Agreement:
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
16

JCCY 3

SCCY

2

BCCY 1.5

SCCY-M 3

In addition, the State shall employ two supervisory investigators who shall

supervise and assist the investigators and who shall monitor all calls made to the PZT

Hotline. The supervisory investigators shall report to the Office of the Secretary and shall

implement policies and procedures for the investigation of allegations of neglect, abuse,

violence, excessive use of force, and serious injury system-wide.

30. Within three months of the effective date of this Agreement, the State shall ensure that:

a. all employees or contractors against whom physical abuse or sexual misconduct is

substantiated shall be appropriately processed through a performance appraisal

action or disciplinary action.

Where significant physical abuse or sexual misconduct is substantiated, or

where there is a pattern of substantiated abusive behavior, the employee or

contractor shall be terminated and shall not knowingly be employed at another

secure juvenile facility;

b. allegations of criminal sexual misconduct and physical abuse by staff resulting in

lacerations requiring sutures, fractures, serious injuries, or death are referred for

evaluation of the appropriateness of criminal prosecution to state authorities, the

United States Attorney’s Office in the district in which the facility is located, and

August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
17

the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice; and c. Any staff member under investigation for physical abuse or sexual misconduct shall
be separated from any contact with juveniles or placed on leave if the State has a reasonable basis to believe that abuse or sexual misconduct warranting termination of employment may have occurred. 31. The State shall keep records of the results of every PZT investigation at the facility and in a central registry maintained by the State. These records shall be maintained in a manner that permits investigators and other appropriate personnel to easily access every PZT investigation involving a particular staff member or juvenile. A copy of the summary/conclusion portion of every PZT investigation substantiating misconduct by staff shall be permanently placed in the staff member’s personnel record. 32. Within nine months of effective date of this Agreement, the State shall establish the Multiple Allegation Database (MAD). This database will be used to screen for staff with multiple allegations to determine those whose behavior may need to be modified. a. The MAD shall collect and record the staff’s complete name, the date of each allegation of abuse or misconduct against the staff, the date each alleged event occurred, the name of the staff or juvenile making the allegation of abuse or misconduct against the staff, the identifying number of the investigation done in response to the allegation, the outcome of the investigation, and the discipline, training, or counseling imposed or mandated as a result of the investigation, if any. b. The MAD shall be maintained during the staff’s employment and for five years
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
18

after the staff leaves employment. c. The Youth Programs Compliance Division shall review staff with three or more
allegations of abuse or misconduct relating to safety or welfare of juveniles within a two-year period and, if warranted, take appropriate follow-up action (such as meeting with the staff, recommending remedial training, counseling, transfer, reassignment, or disciplinary action). 33. As part of each PZT investigation, investigators shall examine the PZT investigation history of the parties involved in the current investigation. This shall include reference to the central PZT registry maintained by the State. 34. The State shall document in the personnel record of every person hired after the entry of this Agreement that the facility has consulted the facility records and the central PZT registry to determine whether the candidate has ever been the subject of a substantiated PZT investigation at any facility in the State and to review any other complaint history. 35. No facility may knowingly hire any individual who has had an allegation of abuse substantiated against him or her that resulted in termination of employment or resignation to avoid termination. In addition, the MAD shall be checked as part of the preemployment review process. And, to the extent possible, the MAD shall be updated within 180 days of creation to include all cases of substantiated abuse that resulted in termination or resignation to avoid disciplinary action within the previous 365 days.
36. Within four months of the effective date of this Agreement, the State shall confirm that
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
19

criminal background checks, as described herein, have been completed on all existing staff and the State will complete criminal background checks on all prospective employees and existing employees whose background check does not conform to the requirements of this paragraph. A background check shall include checking with the National Crime Information Center and the Louisiana Computerized Criminal History system. The State shall complete the above checks on all prospective employees before they have any contact with juveniles. Additionally, finger prints of all employees, existing and prospective, shall be submitted to the State Police in accordance with the Louisiana Child Protection Act. The State shall take appropriate action to protect the welfare and safety of the juveniles based upon the information obtained from the checks. By April 1, 2002, the State shall provide the United States with information identifying all correctional officers employed on March 15, 2002 in a manner sufficient for the United States to review each officer’s arrest and conviction records through the National Crime Information Center. During the Private Plaintiffs’ and the United States’ compliance tour, the State shall provide to the United States evidence of the specific personnel action taken regarding any employees identified by the United States with criminal convictions or arrest records. 37. Within 12 months of the effective date of this Agreement, the State shall install round-the-clock closed circuit video cameras in the following areas of Louisiana’s juvenile facilities: common areas of administrative segregation/single cell housing units, common areas of medical care areas, dining halls, dormitory sleeping areas, and dormitory day
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
20

rooms. Cameras will be positioned in order to eliminate and/or reduce blind spots. The system shall record video from each camera at a rate of not less than 7.5 frames per second. All tapes shall be retained for a period of 50 days, except that any tape recording of an incident that is the subject of a (1) PZT investigation, (2) referral for prosecution or actual criminal prosecution, (3) civil lawsuit, or (4) request by counsel for an investigation to be conducted or for the tape to be retained shall be maintained indefinitely. PZT investigators shall review at least 12 hours of random videotape footage per month per institution. 38. The State shall not use corporal punishment on juveniles. B. Staffing/Capacity 39. The State agrees that the juvenile facilities shall be subject to the following population limitations as of the effective date of this Agreement: Swanson Correctional Center for Youth - Madison Unit 512 Jetson Correctional Center for Youth 600 Swanson Correctional Center for Youth -
Monroe 370 * Bridge
City Correctional Center for Youth
180 * This capacity may be temporarily exceeded if needed to accommodate the closure of the Jena Juvenile Justice Center.
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
21

a. The State agrees that, within 3 months of the effective date of this Agreement, the capacity of the individual housing units within each of the juvenile facilities will be limited in accordance with the schedule in ¶¶ 40-43.
b. The State may exceed the capacities of residential dorms by two float beds on a temporary basis (up to four days) in order to accommodate transfers or other movements of juveniles within the facility. The State will not, however, increase the capacity of a residential dormitory - even on a temporary basis - if such an increase would violate good correctional practice or would violate State Fire Code limitations. The use of float beds under this provision shall not result in an increase of the overall population limit for any facility, as previously set forth in this paragraph.
c. Within 12 months of the effective date of this Agreement, the State shall post correctional officers and/or other direct care workers in housing units as set forth in ¶¶ 40-43. Correctional officers assigned to residential units shall accompany the juveniles housed in those units on a roughly proportional basis throughout the day.
d. Whenever three direct care staff are assigned to a residential unit, at least two of those staff members must be correctional officers.
40. Swanson Correctional Center for Youth - Madison

Dormitory or Cellblock

Capacity

Staff 24 hour

Staff 3 to
11

August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
22

Dormitory or Cellblock
Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Montana A Montana B Java A Java B Java C Java D Kentucky A Kentucky B

Capacity

Staff 24 hour

Staff 3 to
11

36

2

1

36

2

1

36

2

1

36

2

1

-

-

-

36

2

1

36

2

1

36

2

1

36

2

1

32

2

1

32

2

1

20

2*

20

2*

20

2*

20

2*

20**

2*

20**

2*

August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
23

Dormitory or Cellblock
Kentucky C Kentucky D

Capacity

Staff 24 hour

Staff 3 to
11

20**

2*

20**

2*

Louisiana A

20

2*

Louisiana B

20

2*

Louisiana C

20

2*

Louisiana D

20

2*

TOTAL

512

• Except 10 p.m. - 6 a.m., then 1 correctional officer per quad with 1 rover per building.
** Administrative Segregation beds - not included in total capacity
a. No staffing is required for individual quads of Java, Kentucky or Louisiana if quad is not occupied.
b. Echo is removed from the capacity count and will be a recreational building. c. If the population of any dormitory is reduced to 25 or below, then the 3 p.m. - 11
p.m. swing shift may be eliminated. d. On weekends, one full-time staff member (from the above chart) who will receive
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
24

training appropriate to his or her duties will structure leisure activities for each dorm or cellblock. 41. Swanson Correctional Center for Youth - Monroe

Dormitory or Cellblock
Holly A Holly B Holly C Holly D Cypress A Cypress B APD Mimosa Pecan Willow Red Bud McKoin

Capacity Staff 24 hour

Staff 3 to 11

36

2

1/3

36

2

1/3

36

2

1

36

2

1/3

16*

1**

16

2**

30

3

36

2

1

36

2

1

36

2

1

36

2

1

36

2

1

TOTAL

370

August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
25

• Administrative Segregation beds - not included in total capacity.
** Cypress A & B share an additional rover 16 hours per day. a. If the population of any dormitory except the APD is reduced to 25 or below, then the 3 p.m. - 11 p.m. swing shift may be eliminated. b. On weekends, one full-time staff member (from the above chart) who will receive training appropriate to his or her duties will structure leisure activities for each dorm or cellblock except that Holly A, B, and D shall be considered one housing unit for purposes of this paragraph. c. When Cypress A converts to the mental health unit, an additional 24-hour post will be added and the 16 hour rover post will be eliminated. The overall capacity will then increase from 370 to 386 beds.
42. Bridge City Correctional Center for Youth

Dormitory or Cellblock

Capacity

Staff Staff 24 hour 3 to
11

Open Dorm

20

Brown

50

Kennedy

30

Lincoln

40

King

40

2

3

2

1

2

1

2

1

August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
26

Dormitory or Cellblock

Capacity

Staff Staff 24 hour 3 to
11

TOTAL

180

a. If Brown Dormitory is reduced to 36 or below, staffing may be reduced to two 24hour posts and one 3 p.m. - 11 p.m. post.
b. On weekends, one full-time staff member (from the above chart) who will receive training appropriate to his or her duties will structure leisure activities for each dorm.
43. Jetson Correctional Center for Youth

Dormitory or Cellblock

Capacity

Staff 24 hour

Staff 3 to
11

Rosebud Ivy Leaf Ivy Leaf Oakwood Willowwood Maplewood

52 52 8 ** 40 40 40

3

3

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
27

Dormitory or Cellblock
Elmwood Magnolia Evergreen Walnut Pinecrest Alpha Bravo Hunt Delta A Delta B Delta C

Capacity

Staff 24 hour

Staff 3 to
11

40

2

1

40

2

1

40

2

1

42

2

1

40

2

1

50

3

50

3

50

3

12**

1*

12

1*

12

1*

TOTAL

600

*

Plus 2 rovers 6 a.m. - 10 p.m.

Plus 1 rover 10 p.m. - 6 a.m.

** Administrative Segregation beds- not included in total

capacity.

a. If the population of any dormitory is reduced to 25 or below, then the 3 p.m. - 11

August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
28

p.m. swing shift may be eliminated. b. If the population of Rosebud or Ivyleaf is reduced to 36, then one of the three 24-
hour posts may be eliminated but one 3 p.m. - 11 p.m. staff member shall be added. c. On weekends one full-time staff member (from the above chart) who will receive training appropriate to his or her duties will structure leisure activities for each dorm and cellblock. 44. Except as provided below, the State shall not permit correctional officers working in juvenile housing units to work more than 120 hours in any 14-day period, nor more than 5 consecutive days. During an emergency, the Warden may initiate a variance to this paragraph. The definition of emergency shall not include problems associated with understaffing. 45. Within three months of the effective date of this Agreement, the State shall develop a plan, timetable and performance objectives for reducing turnover and vacancy rates for direct care staff. The State shall make their best efforts to reduce the annualized turnover rate of direct care staff in each facility to below 100%, and the State shall make their best efforts to maintain the number of vacant positions in each facility at no more than 15% of budgeted positions within six months of the effective date of this Agreement. The State shall make their best efforts to reduce the annualized turnover rate of direct care staff in each facility to below 50%, and the State shall make their best efforts to maintain the number of vacant positions in each facility to no more than 5% of the budgeted positions,
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
29

within one year of the effective date of this Agreement. A. Direct Care Staff Training 46. Within 23 months of the effective date this Agreement, the State shall ensure that all staff who have direct contact with juveniles are adequately trained and can demonstrate competence in the following areas: a. stages of adolescent development; b. communication skills, including specific instruction on verbal de-escalation
techniques; c. behavior management and the management of aggressive behavior; d. basic training relating to juveniles with mental health issues, including recognizing
signs of mental retardation, developmental disabilities and mental illness and appropriate methods of interaction with such juveniles; grief and loss among juveniles; and measuring and monitoring behavior changes; e. crisis prevention and intervention, including the prevention and intervention in suicidal behavior and self-mutilation; f. basic Constitutional and legal rights of juveniles in juvenile facilities; g. report writing; h. basic training relating to medical care, including basic medical terminology; recognizing and responding to seizure disorders; common side effects of prescription and non-prescription medication; and confidentiality of medical information;
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
30

i. the physical and emotional needs of pregnant residents (for staff working with female juveniles);
j. universal precautions to prevent infection with TB and AIDS; k. certification in first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation; l. accommodations needed for mentally ill and physically or developmentally disabled
juveniles; m. fire safety and evacuation procedures and conducting of regular emergency
evacuation drills; n. use of force policy; and o. Project Zero Tolerance and the grievance system. 47. Within 23 months of the effective date of this Agreement, all direct care staff and all case workers shall be taught effective, non-punitive ways to manage juveniles. Case workers shall have a working knowledge of the rehabilitative and/or mental health treatment plans of the juveniles in their care. Direct care staff shall be provided enough information by caseworkers regarding treatment and/or rehabilitative issues of the juveniles in their caseload to facilitate the direct care staff’s supervision of the juveniles. 48. Within 23 months of the effective date of this Agreement, the State shall ensure that all staff who have regular and routine contact with juveniles are adequately trained concerning the standards for physical management of juveniles and what constitutes abuse. a. Employees will take all reasonable steps to minimize situations requiring a use of
force and to minimize the amount of force used in those situations. When
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
31

possible, actions other than use of force, such as staff presence, verbal directions and warning, crisis intervention techniques, and passively removing a juvenile from an area of group activity without the use of physical handling, will be used; b. Force will be used only as a last resort to control the juveniles; c. The amount of force used will be proportional to the threat to which it is a response and cease when the resistance ceases; d. Force may be used only: i. To prevent an escape; ii. To prevent an act which could result in death or severe bodily harm to the
juvenile or another person; iii. To defend one’s self or others against a physical assault; iv. To separate participants in a fight; v. To prevent substantial damage to property; and vi. When necessary, to enforce legal orders and instructions. e. Whenever possible, force will not be used against juveniles with mental illness or mental retardation before appropriate medical, mental health, or counseling personnel can be called to the scene. f. The first action taken to gain control will be direct, verbal instructions to cease the behavior, unless the employee perceives that life or health will be jeopardized, or that there is a substantial threat to security. g. When determining the need to use force, factors to be considered include but are
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
32

not limited to: lack of appropriate response to repeated direct orders and other efforts to temper the situation, severity of the situation and/or behavior, threat to self or others, and disruption to the unit or program. The State shall ensure that within twenty-three months of the effective date of this Agreement and presentation to the Plaintiffs, the DOJ and the Court Expert of the training course material, all staff who have contact with juveniles shall attend a competency-based training course in restraint methods that will include passive restraint methods. Failure of existing staff to successfully complete the program will result in adverse performance appraisal action and the training will be rescheduled. The State will use the performance appraisal to remove staff who repeatedly fail to meet the requirements of this paragraph. Newly recruited or hired staff must successfully complete the training prior to having any contact with juveniles. The training program shall be tailored to adolescent correctional populations, rather than adult correctional populations, and will include communication techniques, basic counseling, conflict resolution, therapeutic interventions, and the physical and emotional needs of adolescents in addition to other accepted physical management techniques. The material for the course shall be presented to the Court Expert, the DOJ and Plaintiffs for review prior to adoption. 49. All new correctional officers shall receive a minimum of 120 hours of pre-service training. All other new staff shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of pre-service training. All staff with regular or daily contact with juveniles, including correctional officers, shall receive an additional 40 hours of training each year. Staff with minimal contact with juveniles such
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
33

as clerical/office staff shall receive an additional 16 hours of training each year. Preservice training and annual training will include topics as described in ¶ 46. Under no circumstances shall newly recruited or hired direct care workers be assigned to supervise juveniles until they have successfully completed competency based testing in all of the areas of training set forth in ¶ 48. This shall not apply to supervised on-the-job training. Correctional officers who transfer from adult institutions to juvenile institutions must complete the components of training related to juveniles prior to assuming their duties. Failure of existing staff to successfully complete the program will result in adverse performance appraisal action and the training will be rescheduled. The State will use the performance appraisal system to remove staff who repeatedly fail to meet the requirements of this paragraph. The State shall meet the requirements of this paragraph within twentythree (23) months of the effective date of this Agreement. B. Positive Behavior Management/Discipline 50. The State shall develop and implement within 23 months of the effective date of this Agreement a uniform positive behavior management system for juveniles in the facilities. The system shall be designed to provide incentives for positive behaviors and shall define specific disciplinary consequences for specific negative behaviors. The system shall be explained orally and in writing to all juveniles during the intake and orientation process. The explanation will include discussion of the adverse effects on early release consideration that Schedule B disciplinary reports can have. 51. Within 23 months of the effective date of this Agreement, staff shall be instructed and
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
34

trained to address minor behavior problems through informal counseling and the use of the positive behavior management system (including through the withdrawal of privileges). 52. Upon receipt of a Schedule B disciplinary report, a juvenile shall have an opportunity to meet with a designated staff member to discuss the disciplinary report. The designated staff member shall offer to aid the juvenile in any disciplinary hearing on the disciplinary report and shall provide such assistance if asked. 53. Every juvenile who receives a Schedule B disciplinary report shall receive a disciplinary hearing pursuant to disciplinary procedures as promulgated by the DISCIPLINARY RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS, First Edition, 1993 as amended by memo of November 19, 1996, except as modified by this document. The polices and procedures shall include: a. Written notice describing the alleged violation(s); b. Impartial hearings before a disciplinary committee consisting of two employees
representing different programs of the institution. The disciplinary committee shall not include any staff person who was involved in the issuance of the disciplinary report. The entire hearing shall be held in private and tape recorded and shall result in written findings of fact and disposition. The tape shall be kept indefinitely; c. Right to an appeal. C. Classification 54. The State shall issue and enforce classification criteria regarding housing assignments.
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
35

The criteria shall include applicable risk factors based on age, gender, maturity, size, offense history, institutional behavior and/or program participation, offense, education, mental health history and any special needs of the juveniles. 55. Staffings shall be used to develop reports to courts of continuing jurisdiction, updating of the case plan, and (except for STOP/LITE/juveniles and juveniles sentenced under provisions of Louisiana Children’s Code Article 897.1) determining if a juvenile has met the guidelines for or should otherwise be considered for a recommendation for reassignment, release, or discharge from a secure setting. Staffing determinations/recommendations shall be based upon guidelines which primarily consider treatment protocols and/or continued treatment provided through community/non secure programs, custody level, progress in institutional educational, vocational treatment programs and/or approved educational/vocational and exit plans.
Staffings shall be held in private and shall normally be attended only by those staff involved in the staffing. Other staff such as the case worker’s supervisor, Warden or other administrators may attend as deemed necessary for supervision/observation purposes. Each staffing shall be attended by the case worker and at least two of the following individuals: one of the juvenile’s teachers (who shall be the juvenile’s special education teacher if the juvenile is receiving special education services), the school’s guidance counselor/school psychologist/school social worker, a security staff member who supervises the juvenile in the juvenile’s living unit; a mental health professional providing individualized services to the juvenile; or a member of the medical staff who is familiar
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
36

with the juvenile’s medical care if the juvenile is receiving on-going medical treatment (e.g., for chronic health care needs). If not represented at the staffing, written comments or reports shall to be used in the staffing to ensure that education, medical, mental health and security activities are considered. The juvenile shall be encouraged to attend and participate in the discussion. If a juvenile is not making progress, the treatment team shall discuss strategies for addressing the impediments to progress and shall modify the treatment plan accordingly. 56. Any decision that results in an extension of time a juvenile must spend in a short term program or results in removal from a short term program shall be personally reviewed by the facility warden, deputy warden or assistant warden who shall review the relevant documentation prior to determining whether to approve the decision for the extension. Notice and reasons for the extension will be provided to the court of jurisdiction and the juvenile’s last known attorney of record. 57. Within 23 months of the effective date of this Agreement, the DPSC shall develop and implement guidelines for the placement of juveniles in specialized behavior management units and such guidelines shall take into account the medical and mental health status of the juvenile, and shall provide, at a minimum: a. For the criteria by which a juvenile can be initially transferred to such a unit, which
shall include a hearing; b. For documentation of all reasonable less restrictive alternatives attempted before
the decision was made to place a juvenile in such a unit, unless the severity of the
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
37

offense indicates otherwise; c. For the development of a written, individualized and detailed program plan that
shall set forth measurable short-term goals and concrete criteria for the juvenile’s removal from the unit and be provided to the juvenile. The State shall attempt to complete the program plan within 72 hours of placement, exclusive of weekends and holidays; d. Appropriate programming for special needs juveniles placed in these units; e. That the warden of a facility approve the decision to transfer a juvenile to such a unit. Where such assignment results in a transfer to a different facility, it must be approved by both wardens, where applicable, or by the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Youth Development if the wardens do not agree. f. DPSC shall provide to the Provider a list of juveniles transferred to a specialized behavior unit. D. Access to Courts 58. The State shall establish and implement policies and procedures to assure that: a. juveniles have meaningful access to telephones for privileged communications with their attorneys. b. juveniles have meaningful and confidential attorney-client communications through the mail. No privileged mail shall be opened except by the intended recipient except that correspondence may be opened for contraband if it is opened in the presence of the juvenile.
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
38

c. The State shall provide adequate paper, pens/pencils, envelopes and postage to indigent juveniles for legal communications.
d. A juvenile’s right to confidential communications with attorneys is protected. 59. Within four months of the effective date of this Agreement, the State shall fund three new
staff attorney positions and three new paralegal positions for the Louisiana Indigent Defense Assistance Board, which positions shall be dedicated to representing juveniles in secure custody in connection with appeals of their adjudications and modifications of their disposition. These attorneys and paralegals may also assist juveniles in secure facilities by referring those juveniles to other attorneys for possible representation in pursuing claims arising out of their conditions of confinement. 60. The State shall cooperate with attorneys representing juveniles in secure facilities in making those juveniles’ institutional records available in connection with any appeal or modification of their dispositions. E. Chemical Agents 61. Upon execution of this Agreement, the only chemical agent that may be kept or used shall be 100% OC spray. Only the Warden, Deputy Warden or Assistant Warden, or when they are not present at the facility, the highest ranking officer at the facility, shall be permitted to authorize the use of the spray. The authorizing Warden or officer must be present at the use of the spray. They may not delegate this authority to any other person. Only employees specifically trained in the use of chemical spray shall be permitted to use the spray. The chemical spray shall not be intentionally sprayed in the face of any juvenile.
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
39

Employees shall be trained to not intentionally spray juveniles in the face. The State shall ensure that the Warden, Deputy Warden or Assistant Wardens are trained in the correct use of these sprays to prevent excessive exposure, the hazards associated with such sprays, and the first aid response to exposure situations. Within two months of the effective date of the Agreement, all use of chemical agents shall be videotaped, with sound recording, and the tape of the incident shall be maintained for the duration of this Agreement for inspection by the Plaintiffs, the DOJ, and the Court Expert. The State shall ensure that the chemical spray is only used under the following terms: a. Chemical agents shall not be used except under the conditions set forth below and
with prior approval, after personal observation of the situation, from the Warden, Deputy Warden or Assistant Warden if one of these officials is at the facility. If the Warden, Deputy or Assistant Warden is not at the facility, prior approval may be given, after personal observation of the situation, by the highest ranking security officer on duty at the facility. However, such approval shall not be required in the case of a large-scale disturbance (such as an attempted mass escape) that poses an imminent danger to the public, staff or other juveniles, so long as in such an event the Warden, Deputy or Assistant Warden is notified as soon as practicable; b. Chemical agents shall not be carried on the person of any individual. Chemical agents shall not be stored in any cellblock or living area, but shall be securely stored in a separate location. Chemical agents shall not be removed from this secure storage area unless (1) for use in staff training (2) for product disposal or
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
40

(3) as authorized pursuant to subsection (a) in response to a situation described in subsection (c), provided however that the authorizing official need not make a personal observation of the situation prior to authorizing the removal of the chemical agents from the secure area. c. Chemical agents shall only be authorized when: i. A juvenile is posing a direct and immediate threat of injury to staff or
another juvenile; ii. The juvenile is creating a sustained disturbance that jeopardizes the
effective monitoring and supervision of the unit to the extent that the safety of juveniles or staff is endangered, which persists despite efforts to deescalate without the use of chemical agents, and the use of chemical agents is the only means to avoid a physical confrontation that would likely result in injury to juveniles or staff; or iii. The use is necessary to prevent an escape. The State shall ensure that exposed juveniles are seen by medical staff whenever spray is used. The State shall ensure that juveniles with known chronic respiratory conditions (including asthma) are not subjected to chemical spray. However, this shall not prohibit the use of chemical spray when it is necessary to prevent or quell a large scale disturbance where such juveniles are present. In no event shall staff use a chemical spray as punishment, discipline, retaliation, for the purpose of inflicting pain, for staff’s convenience, or after handcuffs have been applied.
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
41

62. Every usage of chemical spray shall be documented in a chemical agent report and every removal shall be documented in a log maintained for this purpose. The chemical agent report shall describe the behavior of the juvenile with sufficient particularity to enable a reviewer to determine independently whether the above requirements of ¶ 61 have been complied with (i.e., the documentation shall not simply restate, paraphrase or refer to the above conditions warranting use of chemical spray).
63. A copy of the Accident and Injury Report (“A&I”) and UOR shall be placed in the file of the juvenile against whom the chemical restraint was used. G. Mechanical Restraints
64. Within two months of the effective date of this Agreement, the State shall not use mechanical restraints except under the following circumstances. The use of mechanical restraints shall be limited to the minimum period of time necessary to enable the juvenile to gain control of his behavior. When a handcuff belt is not used, handcuffs shall be applied behind the back in a manner to minimize the risk of injury to the juvenile and the staff person responsible for supervising the juvenile. The State shall not use mechanical restraints except under the conditions set forth below: a. For transportation of juveniles outside the facility, the State may use handcuffs, leg irons, and/or handcuff belts; b. For movement of juveniles within the facility, no mechanical restraints shall be used except under the following conditions. Handcuffs and/or a
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
42

handcuff belt may be used if the facility has documented that the juvenile poses a current escape risk or has engaged in a recent pattern of assaultive behavior toward staff or other juveniles, as determined and authorized by a ranking security shift supervisor. Leg irons may only be used for transportation within the facility if the conditions of subparagraph (d) are met; c. For movement of juveniles within the facility to transport a juvenile from general population to a restrictive housing area after a fight or other serious incident, handcuffs and/or a handcuff belt may be used; d. For control of a juvenile who, after less restrictive measures have not been successful, continues to engage in aggressive or assaultive behavior that is a clear and present danger to the juvenile, another juvenile, staff, or the security of the facility, a handcuff belt, and/or leg irons may be used. In this instance, such use of mechanical restraints shall require continuous one-on-one physical supervision and must be approved by the ranking supervisor (Captain or higher) on duty at the facility. The staff person shall ensure that the physical needs of the juvenile are met promptly; e. For intra-facility movement of juveniles in administrative segregation for disciplinary reasons, handcuffs and/or a handcuff
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
43

belt, may be used. Although a routine medical examination after the use of mechanical restraint is not required, immediate medical treatment shall be provided if there is a visual indication of an injury or if the juvenile identifies a specific medical complaint. No other forms of mechanical restraints may be used (including 4 or 5 point restraints and the handcuff “black-box”). This, however, does not apply to medical or mental health restraints ordered by a medical or mental health professional. 65. Every use of a mechanical restraint, other than as authorized under ¶ 64(a) and (e), shall be documented. The use of mechanical restraints shall be documented on a UOR or in a log maintained for this purpose. Documentation to reflect compliance with ¶ 64 shall describe the behavior of the juvenile with sufficient particularity to enable a reviewer to determine independently whether the above requirements of ¶ 64 have been complied with (i.e., the documentation shall not simply restate, paraphrase or refer to the above conditions warranting use of mechanical restraints). 66. The State shall promulgate a policy setting forth which staff are permitted to carry mechanical restraints and where all other mechanical restraints are to be stored. 67. Every facility shall maintain inventory log books for all mechanical restraints. One log book shall be kept at each location where mechanical restraints are stored. The log book shall contain the following information for mechanical restraint devices in the facility: a. A unique identifying number recorded in the log book and on the device (such as a serial number);
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
44

b. For every time the device is removed from its storage location: i. The date and time of its removal; ii. The name of the person removing the device; iii. The name of the person authorizing its removal and a brief statement of the reason (e.g., transportation outside the facility); iv. The date and time the device was returned; and v. A statement of whether the mechanical restraint was used while the device was checked out.
G. Living Conditions 68. The State shall establish and implement policies and procedures assuring adequate
sanitation in the kitchen and eating areas, as well as all living areas. Such policies and procedures shall include: a. The provision of cleaning supplies on a daily basis in order that the living and
sleeping areas may be cleaned; b. Regular, daily cleaning of the shower and toilet area of each dormitory and
cellblock; c. Thorough daily cleaning, using accepted institutional methods, of the kitchen and
eating areas. 69. Within twelve months of the effective date of this Agreement, female staff shall not
regularly or routinely view male juveniles toileting or showering and male staff shall not regularly or routinely view female juveniles toileting or showering unless the affected
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
45

shower and toilet areas screen the genital areas of juveniles showering and using the toilet. 70. The State shall provide adequate personal hygiene items to juveniles, including sufficient
soap, shampoo, hair brushes or combs, toothbrushes, toothpaste and deodorant for daily hygiene needs. 71. The State shall establish and implement policies and procedures assuring that each juvenile has sufficient and appropriately cleaned clothing. 72. The State shall make best efforts to insure that all living units at SCCY-M are climate controlled by October 31, 2000, and will give notice with an explanation if the project is not completed on time. 73. Upon the effective date of the Agreement, the State shall provide for at least one hour of outdoor exercise, weather permitting, including weekends and holidays to each juvenile except when: a. contra-indicated for medical reasons; or b. a juvenile in administrative segregation continues to present an immediate danger
to others. Utilization of provision (b) shall require the approval of the Warden/Deputy Warden, or Assistant Warden. In the absence of the Warden/Deputy Warden or Assistant Warden, application of provision (b) may be authorized only by the highest ranking officer at the institution. Within 12 months of the effective date of this Agreement, each facility shall provide adequate recreational equipment and activities adapted for special needs juveniles.
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
46

Each facility shall provide adequate recreational equipment. Adequate indoor recreational opportunities shall be provided in the event of inclement weather.
The State shall maintain information in logbooks in dormitories, cellblocks, school and the infirmary to record outdoor exercise activities. H. Cell Restriction 74. Locking a juvenile in a room for prolonged periods of time, except during sleeping hours (cell restriction), shall occur only in three contexts -- administrative segregation, protective custody, and removal from regular programming. Use of cell restriction in these contexts shall be governed by the requirements set forth below, provided, however, that all staff training to fully implement parts (a)(iv), (a)(ix), and c(v), may not be completed until 23 months after the effective date of this Agreement. a. Administrative Segregation
i. Juveniles can be placed in the administrative segregation unit only when their continued presence in general population poses a threat to the safety of the juvenile, staff or other juveniles or is a substantial threat to the security of the institution. This includes activities that are destabilizing or highly disruptive to programming.
ii. Juveniles living in dormitories may only be placed in administrative segregation pending a hearing on their disciplinary charge. Juveniles engaging in suicidal or self-mutilating behavior shall not be held in administrative segregation for behaviors resulting from their conditions.
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
47

iii. The State shall ensure that only a staff member of the rank of Lieutenant or higher places a juvenile in administrative segregation. The staff placing a juvenile in administrative segregation shall obtain the approval of the Warden or the Warden’s designee as soon as possible.
iv. Staff shall make visual contact with each juvenile in administrative segregation at least every 15 minutes (or more, depending upon the juvenile’s emotional state) and otherwise monitor the condition of each juvenile. Staff shall record essential information about each juvenile in administrative segregation. Staff shall alert mental health staff if a juvenile begins to exhibit symptoms of a deterioration in emotional state while in cell restriction in accordance with the guidelines set forth in subparagraph 74(a)(ix).
v. For juveniles held in administrative segregation, disciplinary hearings shall be held every day. A juvenile’s disciplinary hearing shall be held within 24 hours or at the first scheduled hearing after the disciplinary writeup. Juveniles may not be subjected to cell restriction as a penalty resulting from a disciplinary hearing.
vi. Juveniles in administrative segregation may be held in cell restriction until calm. Staff shall make all efforts to assist juveniles in administrative segregation to regain control of their behavior. If the juvenile is calm but the security shift supervisor believes that the juvenile will likely be
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
48

disruptive in programming, he may be excluded from programming. If a juvenile’s stay in administrative segregation exceeds 24 hours due to the investigation of a serious incident, the juvenile will be permitted to participate in the 7 ½ hour programming schedule unless he is a danger to others. The daily time out of cells shall not be contingent upon any planned or scheduled programming available to the juvenile. vii. Programming for juveniles in administrative segregation may only be ended if the juvenile engages in the behaviors listed in subparagraph 74(c)(iii). viii.A juvenile in administrative segregation shall be routinely provided with reading and writing materials unless his current behavior indicates that possession of such materials would be a danger to the health of the juvenile or others. ix. Juveniles with mental retardation or serious mental illness shall be assessed and treatment rendered if clinically indicated within three hours of being placed in administrative segregation (if the juvenile remains in administrative segregation). The assessment shall be conducted by a licensed qualified mental health professional (“QMHP”) on-call, on-site at the facility.
After regular business hours, weekends, and holidays, the on-site nurse will be notified immediately, who will perform the assessment and
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
49

contact the on-call QMHP via telephone. If indicated, the on-call QMHP will go the facility for a face-to-face assessment and, if deemed indicated by the QMHP, confer with the psychiatrist on-call.
Based upon the assessment, clinically indicated treatment will be rendered. On-call nurses will be trained to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness. In situations when a juvenile is determined to be seriously mentally ill, and a danger to self or others, the juvenile will be placed in a "crisis" bed designated at each facility. Admission to and discharge from crisis beds are by physician orders only. Respite beds will also be designated for those juveniles in need of immediate supervision and intervention secondary to serious mental health needs, although not a level of danger to self or others. Admission to and discharge from respite beds are by physician orders only. In these situations for mentally retarded juveniles and seriously mentally ill juveniles, the mental health treatment team will revise and/or develop a treatment plan, if needed. The treatment plan will consist of written statements which specify a particular course of therapeutic interventions and the roles of the qualified health care personnel.
Crisis and respite beds will be established at each of the juvenile institutions within 23 months of the effective date of this Agreement. b. Protective Custody
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
50

i. Juveniles in protective custody shall be visited at least once each day by a mental health professional and shall be clinically assessed and treated as deemed appropriate. On weekends, these functions may be performed by a registered nurse with mental health training.
ii. Juveniles in protective custody shall be permitted to be out of their cells for at least nine hours a day and participate in programming (including recreation) each day.
iii. Programming for juveniles in protective custody may only be ended if the juvenile engages in the behaviors listed in ¶ 74(c)(iii).
iv. Protective custody shall be used as a temporary housing measure in order to allow investigation and/or counseling to determine the factors which resulted in a juvenile’s placement in protective custody and shall end when a safe and appropriate housing assignment is available.
c. Removal from Regular Programming i. The State may not assign a juvenile to cellblock housing without a hearing. ii. A juvenile who is housed in a cellblock may be removed from programming and placed in his assigned cell only in accordance with ¶74(c)(iii) and shall have opportunities to rejoin programming in accordance with ¶74(c)(iv). For juveniles who have not been removed from programming in accordance with ¶74(c)(iii) the daily time out of cells shall be a minimum of 9 hours and shall occur regardless of whether there is any planned or
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
51

scheduled programming available to the juvenile. iii. Program participation may be ended only if the juvenile engages in:
a) Repeated failure to follow orders, where the failure to comply is destabilizing;
b) Repeated interference with staff or other juveniles’ duties; c) Improper sexual behaviors; d) Fighting; e) Substantial destruction of property; or f) Violent conduct that creates an imminent danger to other juveniles
or staff. The decision to remove a juvenile from programming shall be approved by a ranking security staff member Lieutenant or higher and documented in a log. iv. If a juvenile is removed from programming before noon, the juvenile shall be evaluated by a ranking security shift supervisor before evening recreation to determine whether the juvenile can be permitted to participate in evening recreation. The juvenile shall be permitted to participate in evening recreation unless the ranking security shift supervisor determines that, based on documented interim behavior, the juvenile is likely to engage in conduct described in ¶74(c)(iii) and documents the basis for his belief in a log maintained for this purpose; provided, however, that every juvenile
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
52

shall be permitted an opportunity to participate in programming at the beginning of each day. v. Juveniles with mental retardation or serious mental illness and who are assigned to a cellblock, who have been removed from regular programming shall be assessed and treated, when deemed clinically appropriate, as soon as possible after they have been denied the opportunity to participate in three consecutive opportunities for programming. For example, a juvenile who is not permitted to participate in afternoon, evening, and the following morning’s programming shall be reviewed as soon as possible following the denial of the juvenile’s opportunity to participate in the morning programming. Such review shall be in accordance with the protocols established in ¶74(a)(ix). Subsequent to such review and assessment, a licensed QMHP may recommend release of the juvenile from cell restriction to a respite bed or another location if the juvenile is not currently a danger to others. 75. Within three months of the effective of this Agreement, when a juvenile is placed on cell restriction pending a disciplinary hearing, a copy of the disciplinary report reflecting this action will be placed into the juvenile’s file. IV. MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND MENTAL HEALTH 76. To assist the State in achieving compliance with the terms of this Agreement, effective July 1, 2000, the State shall enter into a three-year contractual relationship with Provider.
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
53

The Provider shall be agreed to by all parties. During the first year of the three-year contract, the Provider will begin to furnish during the first year, medical, mental health, and dental services for JCCY and JRDC, and quality assurance and monitoring services for the other secure juvenile facilities operated in Louisiana. Provider shall also furnish adolescent behavioral and mental health training throughout Louisiana’s secure juvenile system, beginning in year two. The Provider shall also develop a plan for a comprehensive medical, mental health, and dental program at all of Louisiana’s secure juvenile facilities. Provider shall provide comprehensive medical, mental health, and dental services at all of Louisiana’s secure juvenile facilities by the end of the second year of the three-year contract. The contract shall be subject to cancellation within the three-year term only if the Legislature fails to approve the necessary funding. 77. The DPSC, acting with and through the Provider, shall develop policies and procedures addressing access to, and delivery of, medical, mental health, and dental services for the juveniles confined in the secure juvenile facilities. These policies and procedures shall meet the standards and requirements of Provider and the terms of this Agreement. 78. The DPSC, acting with and through the Provider, shall assume responsibility for the administration of the delivery of medical, mental health, and dental services at JCCY and JRDC during the first year of the contract. These services shall be provided generally in compliance with the proposal set forth in Attachment A. 79. During year one of the contract, the parties agree that Attachment B would result in medical, mental health, and dental staffing which is adequate for JCCY and JRDC. The
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
54

parties recognize that Attachment B was designed to reflect a phase-in partial year staffing pattern. If the Provider deviates from Attachment B, the State must nonetheless provide medical, mental health, and dental staffing which is adequate.
The parties agree that Attachment C would result in medical, mental health, and dental staffing which is adequate for JCCY and JRDC. If the Provider deviates from Attachment C, the State must nonetheless provide medical, mental health, and dental staffing which is adequate.
In year one, the current level of medical, mental health and dental services at BCCY, SCCY, and SCCY-M shall not be reduced. 80. Provider shall develop and implement a quality assurance program throughout Louisiana’s juvenile facilities which shall comply with the terms of this Agreement. Provider shall develop and implement a quality assurance program that shall continuously evaluate the medical, mental health, and dental services programs at all the facilities, identify problems, make recommendations for corrective action and, in collaboration with DPSC, determine whether the recommendations have been followed. The program should include but not be limited to establishment of standards, monitoring of performance, and analysis of deficits. The quality assurance program shall use data provided by DPSC and other sources and shall be based on random sampling. All of the functions will be commenced at all secure juvenile facilities by the beginning of year two of the three year contract. Provider’s quality assurance program shall include, but not be limited to, the components listed below:
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
55

a. Monitoring compliance with medical, mental health, and dental policies and procedures;
b. Monitoring compliance with the medical, mental health, and dental components of this Agreement;
c. Inspecting a random sample of the medical, mental health, and dental records; d. Interviewing a random sample of staff, administrators and juveniles at each facility; e. Monitoring each facility’s efforts to prevent suicide; f. Starting during year three, monitoring the behavior modification program (BMP)
to: 1) assess the efficacy of the program and make recommendations for enhancements as deemed appropriate and 2) assess the effectiveness of the training provided the correctional officers including that which is specifically tailored to managing juveniles with serious mental illness, mental retardation, or behavior disorders; g. Monitoring the treatment of juveniles with serious mental illness or mental retardation in any high security unit; h. Monitoring the adequacy of medical, mental health and dental documentation at each facility; i. Performing death reviews; j. Monitoring serious injuries or hospitalizations resulting from a serious injury or serious illness; k. Monitoring suicide attempts and self-mutilations;
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
56

l. Monitoring medical emergencies; m. Monitoring outcomes for juveniles treated by Provider at JCCY and JRDC during
year two of the three year contract and, in ensuing years, at all facilities; and n. Monitoring whether juveniles’ individualized intervention plans are being
implemented. 81. The Provider shall provide all the medical, mental health and dental care for JCCY and the
JRDC. The parties agree that Attachment D, E, and F would result in medical, mental health, and dental care which is adequate for JCCY and JRDC. If the Provider deviates from Attachment D, E, or F, the State must nonetheless provide medical, mental health, and dental care which is adequate. 82. The Provider shall plan and implement a system-wide program to supplement the training of all DPSC staff who have direct contact with juveniles, including correctional staff and counselors. The training shall include instruction in adolescent behavior and in identification and response to mental illness and mental retardation. The parties agree that Attachment G would result in training which is adequate. If the Provider deviates from Attachment G, the State must nonetheless provide training in adolescent behavior and in identification and response to mental illness and mental retardation which is adequate and the State shall notify Plaintiffs and the DOJ of all such deviations. Provider shall also supplement the training of all facility investigators concerning investigatory techniques used in child abuse investigations. 83. By August 1, 2001, Provider shall provide adequate medical, dental, and mental health
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
57

professionals and staff in order to comply with all relevant State and Federal laws and regulations for the juvenile population of JCCY and the intake operations of JRDC. By August 1, 2002, Provider shall provide adequate medical, dental, and mental health professionals and staff in order to comply with all relevant state and federal laws and regulations for the juvenile population of all other juvenile facilities. 84. Within 3 months of the effective date of this Agreement, Provider shall survey the suicide hazards in any area in the juvenile facilities in which juveniles with suicidal or selfmutilating behaviors shall be housed and make recommendations to DPSC to correct the hazards. The State shall either remove any hazards identified by Provider within one month after the inspection or provide written reasons why the hazards will not be removed. Copies of the reasons shall be provided to the Court Expert and Plaintiffs, along with a description of alternative safety precautions that DPSC will make, if any. 85. Juveniles identified with serious medical needs shall be transferred to JCCY as soon as possible, unless security concerns prevent such a transfer. Juveniles with serious mental illnesses shall be transferred to either SCCY or JCCY as soon as possible, unless security concerns prevent such a transfer. DPSC will provide Provider with information on juveniles who have been prescribed more than one psychotropic medication or who have chronic medical conditions. 86. During year one at JCCY and JRDC only and in ensuing years at all facilities, decisions regarding the medical, mental health, and dental care of a juvenile shall be made by Provider. If DPSC determines that a decision by Provider cannot be implemented, DPSC
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
58

shall provide the reason in writing to Provider, the Court Expert, DOJ, and the Plaintiffs. 87. Provider shall screen and assess all juveniles at intake and make recommendations
concerning the needs of each juvenile to be met by the juvenile’s individualized intervention plan. DPSC shall develop an individualized intervention plan based, among other things, on Provider’s recommendations. Provider’s recommendations shall also be provided to the State Director of Education if the assessment includes indicators for a possible special education placement. 88. Based on the outcomes of the screenings and assessments discussed above, within thirty days of intake, Provider shall develop a specific, individualized, goal and outcomeoriented mental health treatment plan for all seriously mentally ill juveniles. Provider shall begin implementation of the treatment plans for these juveniles at JCCY by the end of year one and, in ensuing years, at the other secure facilities. The plan shall address all psychiatric and psychological needs of the juvenile and shall include competency-based treatment goals and objectives. The juvenile’s family shall be given the opportunity and shall be encouraged to be involved in the treatment, unless the facility documents with particularity why such participation is likely to be harmful to the juvenile. Individual behavior treatment plans shall be developed and implemented, where the Provider deems it appropriate. The treatment team responsible for implementing the treatment plans shall meet at least every 90 days to assess the efficacy of the plan and make revisions where indicated.
Juveniles removed from school for medical, dental or mental health consultations,
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
59

examinations or appointments shall be exempt on that day from the provisions of the education settlement regarding specific academic and vocational program participation when applicable. 89. During year one at JCCY and JRDC only and in ensuing years at all facilities, Provider shall develop and ensure implementation of appropriate protocols as referred to in Attachments D, E, and F. During year one, the protocols shall be distributed to other facilities as they are developed. 90. If Provider determines that a juvenile’s mental health needs cannot be met in DPSC, Provider shall advise DPSC and DPSC has an affirmative obligation to contact the Court with jurisdiction over the juvenile and provide that information to the Court and last known counsel of record in a timely manner. 91. Medical/mental health restraints shall not be used unless specifically ordered by a physician or psychiatrist. Soft or leather restraints, rather than metal mechanical restraints, shall be utilized for this purpose. There shall be no standing orders for medical/mental health restraints. This does not apply to any order by a physician or psychiatrist that is issued in response to an individual juvenile’s current medical or mental health condition. Medical/mental health restraints shall be used only in the infirmary under constant supervision and conducted according to current accepted professional standards on medical restraints. 92. Suicide watch shall only be conducted with adequate staff supervision. The infirmary will be used on a priority basis for suicide watch unless the medical needs of another juvenile
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
60

take priority as determined by a physician. The second priority will be individual rooms that are suicide resistant and are equipped with video surveillance cameras. In the event there is a need for additional beds, these will be jointly identified by DPSC and the Provider. 93. Provider shall make best efforts to hire board eligible or board certified child and adolescent psychiatrists to fill psychiatric staffing positions. In the event that board certified and board eligible child and adolescent psychiatrists cannot be found, psychiatrists with adolescent experience shall be hired, whenever possible. These psychiatrists shall be supervised by board certified or board eligible child and adolescent psychiatrists. 94. Within 3 months of the effective date of this Agreement, DPSC and Provider shall develop and implement procedures for reporting to the Warden and to the Youth Programs Compliance Division any problems with abuse or neglect that they uncover during their duties. Provider staff shall comply with their obligations as mandatory reporters of child abuse as discussed in ¶ 22 of this Agreement. 95. Provider shall not use medical students to fulfill any of their responsibilities under this Agreement. It is not anticipated that Provider will use first-year residents on-site to fulfill any of their responsibilities under this Agreement. Any pediatric second-year resident used on-site shall have on-site staff physician supervision. 96. Juveniles at JRDC who are scheduled for placement in boot camp will be identified to Provider and Provider shall make recommendations to DPSC on the juvenile’s suitability
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
61

for this program, with reference to any physical and mental limitations of the juvenile. DPSC shall implement the recommendations or if they cannot implement the recommendations, DPSC has an affirmative obligation to return to the Court having jurisdiction over the juvenile to inform the Court and the juvenile’s last known counsel of record that DPSC cannot implement the recommendations. 97. For all juveniles who are receiving services from Provider and who are being released, Provider shall provide after- care planning relevant to the services provided to that juvenile by Provider. This planning will be provided during year one at JCCY and JRDC only and in ensuing years at all facilities. 98. By the end of year one at JCCY and JRDC only and by the end of year two at all facilities, Provider’s nursing staff shall perform daily sick call in all high security housing units. Provider shall ensure that access to medical care shall not be within the decision-making authority of correctional staff. 99. During year two, Provider shall train all existing and new nursing staff concerning when to refer a medical condition to the facility physician. 100. During year two, Provider shall train all staff having contact with juveniles to recognize and respond appropriately to common medical conditions, including, in particular, preservation and transportation of avulsed teeth. 101. Provider shall provide an assessment and timely treatment, when they deem it appropriate, to juveniles who have been identified to Provider as having recently experienced significant trauma either by being sexually exploited by other juveniles or staff or by
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
62

having physical confrontations with other juveniles or staff. DPSC will provide information as agreed upon with Provider to identify juveniles who may have suffered such trauma. 102. Provider shall develop a crisis bed and a respite bed at each facility in accordance with Provider’s facilities plan at JCCY and JRDC and by the end of year two of the three- year contract at all other secure juvenile facilities. 103. By year three, the training provided by Provider will include training for those identified staff who issue disciplinary reports and/or who participate in disciplinary courts and who, therefore, should be trained to make reasonable accommodations for the needs of juveniles with serious mental illness and mental retardation. 104. Correctional staff - and not medical staff of either the Provider or DPSC (including EMT’s) - will actually initiate and prepare any disciplinary report for malingering. No juvenile will be disciplined or written up for malingering based on the juvenile’s access to the medical care system through emergency or regular sick call, regularly scheduled clinics or physicians’ clinics until after the physician has evaluated the patient and determined that the juvenile’s complaint or complaints had little or no merit. DPSC’s DISCIPLINARY RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS, First Edition, 1993 shall be revised to be consistent with this provision. 105. Juveniles shall not receive disciplinary reports for refusing to take mental health tests or for refusing to take psychotropic medications. 106. The State shall not discipline juveniles for suicidal behaviors. The State shall not discipline
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
63

juveniles for self-mutilating behaviors, where those behaviors result from a mental health disorder, mental illness or anxiety or fear over the juvenile’s safety. No juvenile shall be disciplined for self-mutilation unless a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnoses malingering based on reasons other than anxiety or fear over the juvenile’s safety. In this context, selfmutilation does not include tattooing, body piercing, or similar conduct. Obvious selfmutilations will not result in disciplinary writeups. 107. The State shall ensure that each living unit has a Hoffman 911 tool and that all staff are trained on its location and use. 108. Juveniles shall have a written release plan except in cases where release cannot be reasonably anticipated. The plan must address living arrangements, work or school plans, other needs relevant to the juvenile, and where applicable, follow-up care for medical or mental health needs. 109. Based on the outcomes of the screenings and assessments discussed above or other
legitimate sources, juveniles with the highest need for substance abuse treatment shall either be scheduled for assignment to a therapeutic
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
64

August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
65

environment or other stand-alone or integrated program designed for substance abuse counseling and treatment. All reasonable efforts shall be made to make assignments to these programs as soon as possible, once a juvenile is identified. Parents/legal guardians and family members shall be given the opportunity and shall be encouraged to be involved in the treatment, unless the facility documents

with particularity why such participation is likely to be harmful to the juvenile. All other juveniles shall be provided substance abuse education as part of their intervention plan. Substance abuse education and intervention programs shall be modified to accommodate the needs of juveniles with learning or developmental disabilities. 110. Based on the screenings and assessments discussed above, the State shall develop and implement an individualized intervention plan for each juvenile that addresses areas such as education, life skills, medical, and other intervention needs of the juvenile.
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
66

Implementation of the plan shall begin upon assignment of the juvenile following transfer from JRDC. Under normal circumstances and absent unusual testing or evaluation requirements, transfer should occur by 30 days of intake. The individualized intervention plan shall include meaningful and specific short-term and long-term intervention goals. The juvenile’s family shall be given the opportunity and shall be encouraged to be involved in the intervention plan, unless the facility documents with particularity why such participation is likely to be harmful to the juvenile. The intervention team responsible for implementing the intervention plans shall meet at least every third month to assess the efficacy of the plan and make revisions where indicated. DPSC will ensure that counseling services are provided, sufficient to satisfy the requirements of juveniles’ individualized education plans. 111. For each juvenile receiving psychotropic medications, direct care, counseling, and educational staff shall observe, monitor and record data that will be available to the treatment team in order to assess the effect of a particular medication. A member of the juveniles’s treatment team shall communicate with direct care, counseling, and educational staff, and make efforts to communicate with families to review treatment and intervention progress and data collected by staff to assess the efficacy of treatment and intervention, so that the mental health providers can make revisions when clinically indicated. 112. Case managers shall be notified of disciplinary infractions, problem behaviors (including being removed from programming three consecutive times), and incidents of violence involving juveniles on their respective caseloads. The case managers shall utilize this
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
67

information to implement appropriate interventions, to determine that underlying causes of

behavioral problems are being addressed in counseling, and/or to make referrals to the

Provider.

113. Each facility shall develop and implement an adequate

intervention program which

shall be determined by the needs of individual juveniles. The intervention program shall

provide counseling and programming as needed as recommended by the treatment team.

Counseling may be provided by qualified staff with appropriate background and training.

114. Each facility shall create and maintain daily schedules in each assigned housing unit or

special program (such as STOP, LITE, etc.) that shall set forth the planned program and

operational activities for all juveniles in the assigned unit or program for every hour of

every day of the week. Such schedules will include time for permissible leisure activities.

Shift supervisors shall document on a UOR the cancellation of any major activity

scheduled for that shift.

115. As part of the treatment and intervention plan of each juvenile, the State shall encourage

family reunification where reunification is appropriate. Each juvenile shall have:

a. An opportunity to make telephone calls to his or her home as arranged by the

juvenile’s case worker at State expense when the juvenile’s case worker

determines that the call promotes the goals of the juvenile’s intervention plan.

These calls are in addition to the juvenile’s opportunities to make collect telephone

calls on a daily basis.

b. Access to adequate paper, pen or pencil and envelopes for three letters a week to

August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
68

correspond with their family. Indigent juveniles will be provided postage and other juveniles may purchase stamps in the canteen. Staff will encourage juveniles to write to their parents, guardians, and families where appropriate; c. Visitation opportunities available a minimum of three times a month for a minimum of three hours each visit. Each facility shall advise parents and/or guardians that special visits may be approved by the Warden on a case-by-case basis for those who are not able to visit on regular visiting days. Visitation shall not be suspended as a disciplinary sanction unless the disciplinary infraction occurred during a visit. When appropriate, mental health staff shall take advantage of times before or after visits by families to meet to discuss juveniles’ mental health histories. Juveniles approved for special visits shall be exempt on that day from the provisions of the education settlement regarding specific academic and vocational program participation when applicable. 116. Initial institutional assignment will be driven by such factors as the needs of the juvenile, location of the program(s) beneficial to the juvenile, location of the juvenile’s home, availability of space, gender, gang affiliation and other factors. V. QUALITY ASSURANCE 117. The State shall create a Youth Programs Compliance Division (YPCD). The State shall recruit and hire a Director of the YPCD, who shall be highly qualified for the position. The Director shall begin employment within nine months of the effective date of this Agreement. The State shall provide the Director with staff as outlined in this Agreement
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
69

and sufficient resources to perform the tasks required by this Agreement, including: a. Monitoring compliance with DPSC policies in all facilities, with emphasis on
policies relating to issues addressed in this Agreement; b. Conducting audits and other quality assurance activities as described in ¶ 118; c. Monitoring compliance with the juvenile justice components of the Agreement; d. Coordinating quality assurance activities related to this Agreement performed by
various DPSC offices to prevent unnecessary duplication of efforts; e. Monitoring the ARP program; f. Monitoring the work of the PZT investigators, required by ¶ 29. 118. Within twelve months of the effective date of this Agreement, the Director of YPCD shall create and implement a written quality assurance program, as defined in ¶ 117 with the following elaboration and supplementation: a. The comprehensive audits required by ¶ 117(b), shall include, at a minimum:
i. Inspection of a minimum random sampling of institutional and educational records, unit logs, accident and incident reports, and use of force reports;
ii. Random interviews with staff, administrators and juveniles at each facility; iii. Random contacts with the parents or other care givers of juveniles confined
in the facilities; iv. Inspection of the physical plant; v. Random contacts with juvenile court judges, public defenders and other
officials having regular contact with the facility or its residents;
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
70

vi. Review of a sample of the disciplinary hearing tapes and security videotapes. On-site observation of disciplinary hearings may be conducted in lieu of the tape review;
vii. Determination of compliance with DPSC policies and the requirements of this Agreement relating to: staffing levels and juvenile supervision, use of force, disciplinary practices, positive behavior management programs, grievance procedures, use of chemical and mechanical restraints, fire safety, adequacy of juvenile recreation and exercise, sanitation, juvenile access to hygiene items and clothing, juvenile-on-juvenile violence, implementation of classification criteria, conditions in special management or other high security units, and the adequacy of all facility documentation; and
viii.A written report recording the findings of the audit. b. Additional unannounced, periodic site visits at each facility. c. Review of the reports, UOR’s and/or other documentation of significant incidents
(as defined by the Director of YPCD), which shall include, at a minimum: deaths; serious injuries; hospitalizations resulting from a serious illness; suicides and serious suicide attempts; escapes or other serious breaches of security; and medical emergencies. A review that results in significant findings shall result in an immediate written report to the Secretary of DPSC (with copies to the Assistant Secretaries, applicable Warden and PZT Supervisory Investigators as appropriate) and shall include a detailed description of the findings and recommendations;
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
71

d. Policies and procedures for auditing chemical spray canisters and reliably determining whether the canister has been discharged. Facility supervisory staff and YPCD auditors shall routinely conduct such audits. If it appears that a canister has been used without required documentation, YPCD shall be notified and shall request that the PZT Investigator conduct an investigation. The YPCD shall notify the Warden and the appropriate PZT Supervisory Investigator of the incident and the investigation request;
e. Requirements that when, through audits, review of investigations, or other quality assurance activities, the YPCD finds substantial non-compliance with the requirements of DPSC policies or this Agreement, the Secretary of the DPSC, Assistant Secretaries and the Warden shall be advised in writing of the details of the non-compliance and a plan of correction shall be developed by the Warden. The YPCD will monitor the plan and report findings to the Secretary and Assistant Secretaries as appropriate;
f. Collection and analysis of data, particularly emphasizing detection of patterns of incidents, problems and issues. This shall include, at a minimum, collection and analysis of data regarding: i. allegations of abuse and substantiated abuse, including analysis of whether a disproportionate number of allegations of abuse are related to individual staff members, particular shifts or time periods, particular units or locations within units, or arise during particular activities;
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
72

ii. the subject matter and quantity of grievances; iii. the number and type of disciplinary reports issued, in relation to the
effectiveness and adequacy of the facility’s positive behavior management system; and iv. the number and percentage of juveniles who achieve minimum custody level; the number and percentage of juveniles who achieve the requirements for modification of disposition; the number and percentage of juveniles who are recommended for modification of disposition; the number and percentage who receive modification of disposition; the number of juveniles in each short-term program who are held beyond their minimum release date and the amount of time each juvenile is held beyond their minimum release date. g. Each institution shall designate staff to perform the following functions: i. Designated staff members shall help juveniles informally resolve complaints, file grievances and shall review and record all grievances. If a grievance is filed, the Warden will designate a staff member to conduct fact-finding of all applicable information and return the grievance to the Warden for rendering the institutional response. A designated staff member shall retain copies of all responses to grievances and shall monitor the grievance procedure to ensure timely responses to all grievances. Designated staff members shall be available to assist juveniles who wish to pursue their grievance to the Secretary’s level; and
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
73

ii. Designated staff members shall be available to meet with every juvenile receiving a Class B disciplinary report prior to the disciplinary hearing and to assist the juvenile at his request in any disciplinary hearing if the report is contested.
119. YPCD staff shall have complete and unfettered access to all facilities, records, staff and residents. All DPSC and facility staff shall be informed of their obligation to cooperate in all YPCD operations.
120. The State shall provide YPCD staff as follows: a. four YPCD auditors to perform the on-site audits required by ¶¶ 117-118; b. two central office YPCD employees to perform data collection and analysis; c. two administrative support staff for the central YPCD office; d. facility-based PZT investigators: 3 for JCCY; 2 for SCCY; 3 for SCCY - M; and 1.5 for BCCY; and e. at least one facility-based administrative support staff for each facility to assist the PZT investigators. If these numbers should prove to be insufficient to perform the duties required by this Agreement, the State shall take reasonable actions to assist the staff of YPCD and request additional position(s), supplies and/or equipment through the budgetary process.
121. Within four months of the effective date of this Agreement, the State shall appoint two independent auditors, acceptable to all parties, to perform quality assurance checks on investigations. If the parties are unable to agree on the selection of auditors, then the
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
74

parties shall solicit the participation of the Court in selecting the auditors from among the candidates proposed by the parties. The cost of the auditors shall be shared equally (50/50) by the DPSC and the DOJ. a. The State shall provide the auditors with full access to the files compiled for all
completed investigations and the Multiple Allegations Database described in ¶ 32. b. The auditors shall sign assurances that they will maintain the confidentiality of all
records that they review. c. The month following appointment of the auditors pursuant to this paragraph, the
DPSC shall furnish the auditors a monthly report from the central database of investigations generated pursuant to ¶ 31 of this Agreement conducted during the previous month. i. For the first monthly audit, the auditors shall randomly select up to 30% of
the investigations completed at each institution during the previous month for review and evaluation from the central database. ii. For the remaining eleven months of audits, the auditors shall select up to 30% of the investigations completed system wide from the executive summaries of all investigations completed during the previous month. As part of each month’s 30% sample, the auditors may select the 30% randomly, or alternatively, the auditors have the discretion to select all or some of the investigations to be audited solely by the following criteria: 1) investigations completed at a particular institution, and/or 2) by a particular
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
75

investigator, and/or 3) a particular type of investigation (such as all rape investigations; all investigations involving incidents in which the juvenile was seriously injured; all investigations involving incidents that were not recorded on videotape etc.). iii. In auditing their 30% monthly sample, the auditors may review up to four additional investigations completed during the preceding month to the extent deemed necessary in order to adequately audit any individual investigations, provided however that the auditors may not include these investigations in their questions pursuant to ¶ 121(d). d. The DPSC investigators shall comply with any reasonable request for information from the auditors. e. The auditors shall issue a monthly report to the parties and to the Court Expert describing their review and analysis. i. If the auditors determine that individual investigations are incomplete or otherwise not in compliance with the requirements of ¶¶ 25, 26, and 27 of this Agreement, the auditor shall identify those investigations. The auditors shall specifically identify the deficiencies and shall provide written instructions for completing the investigations properly. The State shall resubmit completed investigations to the auditors within 30 days. ii. If resubmitted investigations do not address the deficiencies to the satisfaction of the auditors and it was within the capacity of the DPSC to
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
76

remedy the deficiency, then, in furtherance of this review function, the auditors may conduct such on-site interviews or review the documents, including tapes, as the auditors, at their sole discretion, may deem appropriate. At all times, the auditors are to serve in an auditing capacity and are not to substitute themselves as investigators.
VI. COMPLIANCE AND MONITORING 122. Not later than March 1, 2001, the State shall submit to DOJ and Plaintiffs, a draft
comprehensive plan for providing medical, mental health and dental services at all of the secure juvenile facilities, including a staffing proposal for all of the facilities for the two year period beginning July 1, 2001 (the “Systems Proposal”). 123. DOJ and Plaintiffs shall submit any comments on the Systems Proposal to the State, in writing, not later than April 1, 2001. The parties shall meet promptly thereafter and attempt in good faith to resolve any disputes regarding the Systems Proposal not later than May 1, 2001. a. If the parties agree on the substance of the Systems Proposal by May 1, 2001, then
the DPSC shall request that funding for the first year of the Systems Proposal be included in the 2001-2002 fiscal year executive budget. If funding for the first year of the Systems Proposal is not included in the final approved State budget as of July 1, 2001, then, on or before August 1, 2001, the Plaintiffs, acting collectively, and/or the DOJ may move to reopen/reactivate the medical/mental health and dental claims
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
77

in the Lawsuits. b. If the DOJ or Plaintiffs do not accept the Systems Proposal, then, the Plaintiffs,
acting collectively, or the DOJ shall have the right to move to reopen/reactivate the Lawsuits for the purpose of litigating the medical and mental health claims in the Lawsuits. If a motion to reopen/reactivate the Lawsuits is not filed on or before May 15, 2001, then the Systems Proposal shall be deemed accepted and approved by all parties. 124. Dr. Trupin, Dr. McPherson, and Dr. Peck shall serve as the Medical/Mental Health Experts under this Agreement. In the event that any one or more of these individuals is unable or unwilling to serve as a Medical/Mental Health Expert, then the Plaintiffs, DPSC and DOJ jointly shall select a pediatrician (or a physician who is not a pediatrician, if all parties agree), psychiatrist, and/or psychologist to replace that individual or those individuals. If the parties are unable to agree on the selection of the replacement Medical/Mental Health Expert, then the DPSC and the DOJ shall each nominate a replacement and shall solicit the participation of the Court in selecting the replacement from the individuals nominated by the DOJ and DPSC. The reasonable fees and expenses of the Medical/Mental Health Experts shall be shared equally by the State and the DOJ. 125. Each of the Medical/Mental Health Experts shall conduct only one compliance tour of each secure juvenile facility. The purpose of these tours shall be to assess the State’s substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement and the Systems Proposal. It is the parties’ intent that the Medical/Mental Health Experts conduct their tours as a group and attempt
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
78

to reach consensus on issues common to their fields of expertise. Unless the parties agree, after consultation with the experts, to a different procedure, each site tour shall be conducted between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. within a single three day period, and documents shall be requested only during normal business hours. During these site tours, the Medical/Mental Health Experts shall have reasonable access to all facilities, staff and documents relating to the areas of their compliance tours. The State will make facility and Provider personnel available to all Medical/Mental Health Experts. The Medical/Mental Health Experts shall have the right to conduct confidential interviews with juveniles. The State shall have the right to have a non-attorney representative present during any interviews with staff, Provider personnel, or contractors. The Medical/Mental Health Experts may make reasonable and timely requests for copies of documents either before, during, or after the tours and DPSC agrees to provide these documents to the experts within a reasonable time frame. The experts will use their best efforts to minimize the number of documents requested. 126. The Medical/Mental Health Experts shall conduct their compliance tours of all of Louisiana’s secure juvenile facilities at times mutually agreed upon by the parties and shall generate and submit written reports of their findings. The Medical/Mental Health Experts will meet with the Provider, warden and other staff of each facility at the conclusion of each tour in order to discuss their findings. All site tours shall be conducted and all reports shall be submitted during the period between August 1, 2002 and December 2, 2002. Medical/Mental Health Experts will submit their reports as promptly as possible following
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
79

each tour, but in no event more than 60 days after each tour. These reports shall be distributed only to counsel for the DOJ, Plaintiffs, and the State, and to the Court Expert. Upon receipt of the reports, the State shall have 15 days in which it may respond to any findings or describe any remedial action that it may contemplate. The reports shall not be filed in the record of these proceedings or otherwise publicly released unless Plaintiffs, acting collectively, or DOJ deem it necessary to attach such reports to a motion to reopen the Lawsuits, or unless the Court orders these Lawsuits to be reopened/reactivated.
127. In addition to the Medical/Mental Health compliance tour of each of the secure juvenile facilities described in ¶¶ 125 and 126, the parties agree that Dr. Trupin and Dr. Peck shall visit the Jetson Correctional Center for Youth upon the conclusion of the first year of this Agreement. The visit shall be scheduled at a time mutually agreed by Dr. Trupin, Dr. Peck, the Provider, and the Court Expert. The purpose of the visit will be to provide Dr. Trupin and Dr. Peck an opportunity to review the progress that has been made in implementing the medical, dental and mental health provisions during the first year of this Agreement. The parties anticipate that the visit will last no more than two days, but Dr. Trupin, Dr. Peck and the Provider may extend the length of the visit if they deem it appropriate. No written report of the visit will be prepared, but Dr. Trupin and Dr. Peck will advise the State, the Provider, Plaintiffs, DOJ, and the Court Expert of areas in which they believe that the State and/or the Provider have not yet achieved compliance with the medical, dental and mental health provisions of this Agreement. The exit interview conducted by each expert will be
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
80

tape recorded and the tapes made available to the State, Plaintiffs, the DOJ, and the Court Expert. All documents and information obtained during these technical assistance tours may be offered into evidence if Plaintiffs or the DOJ move to re-open the Lawsuits, subject to the entry of appropriate orders to protect the confidentiality of juvenile records and subject to any evidentiary objections to admissibility that may be asserted by the State. The exit interview tape recordings may be used for impeachment purposes. 128. Compliance with the juvenile justice provisions of this Agreement shall be monitored by one expert selected by the DOJ and one expert selected by the State (the “Juvenile Justice Experts”). The Juvenile Justice Experts shall conduct only one compliance tour of each of Louisiana’s four secure facilities. The purpose of these tours shall be to assess the State’s substantial compliance with the juvenile justice provisions of this Agreement. It is the parties’ intent that the Juvenile Justice Experts conduct their tours together with the Court Expert and attempt to reach consensus on juvenile justice issues. Unless the parties agree after consultation with the experts to a different procedure, each site tour shall be conducted between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. within a single three-day period, and documents shall be requested only during normal business hours. During these site tours, the Juvenile Justice Experts and two DOJ or Plaintiffs’ attorneys shall have reasonable access to all facilities and documents relating to the areas of their compliance tours. The State will make facility and Provider personnel available to all Juvenile Justice Experts. One attorney for the State and one attorney for the DOJ or Plaintiffs each shall be present as observers only during any interviews with juveniles, staff, Provider personnel or
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
81

contractors. The Juvenile Justice Experts may make reasonable and timely requests for copies of documents either before, during, or after the tours and DPSC agrees to provide these documents to the experts within a reasonable time frame. The experts will use their best efforts to minimize the number of documents requested and will not request the production of documents already produced in accordance with this Agreement. 129. The Juvenile Justice Experts shall conduct the compliance tours of each secure juvenile facility at times mutually agreed upon by the parties and shall generate and submit written reports of their findings. One DOJ or Plaintiffs’ attorney and one State attorney may accompany each of the Juvenile Justice Experts on the compliance tour, provided, however, that no more than two DOJ or Plaintiffs’ attorneys and no more than 2 State attorneys would be present at the facility during the tour. All site tours shall be conducted and all reports shall be submitted during the period between August 1, 2002 and December 2, 2002; provided, however, that juvenile justice tours shall not be conducted concurrently with the medical/mental health compliance tours. These reports shall be distributed only to counsel for the DOJ, Plaintiffs, the State, and to the Court Expert. Upon receipt of the reports, the State shall have 15 days in which it may respond to any findings or describe any remedial action that it may contemplate. The reports shall not be filed in the record of these proceedings or otherwise publicly released unless Plaintiffs, acting collectively, or DOJ deem it necessary to attach such reports to a motion to reopen the Lawsuits, or unless the Court orders these Lawsuits to be reopened/reactivated. 130. In addition to the Juvenile Justice compliance tour of each of the secure juvenile facilities
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
82

described in ¶¶ 128 and 129, the parties agree that Paul DeMuro, the State’s juvenile justice expert, and the Court Expert shall visit each secure juvenile facility upon the conclusion of the first year of this Agreement. The visit shall be scheduled at a time mutually agreed by the parties and the Court Expert. The purpose of the visit will be to provide Mr. DeMuro and the State’s expert an opportunity to review the progress that has been made in implementing the juvenile justice provisions during the first year of this Agreement. The parties anticipate that visits to each facility will last no more than two days, but Paul DeMuro and the State’s expert may agree to extend the length of the visits if they deem it appropriate. No written report of the visits will be prepared by Paul DeMuro and the State’s expert. However, each expert will advise the State, Plaintiffs, the DOJ, and the Court Expert of areas in which he or she believes that the State has not yet achieved compliance with the juvenile justice provisions of this Agreement. The exit interview conducted by each expert will be tape recorded and the tapes made available to the State, Plaintiffs, the DOJ and the Court Expert. All documents and information obtained during these technical assistance tours may be offered into evidence if Plaintiffs or the DOJ move to re-open the Lawsuits, subject to the entry of appropriate orders to protect the confidentiality of juvenile records and subject to any evidentiary objections to admissibility that may be asserted by the State. The exit interview tape recordings may be used for impeachment purposes. 131. If the DOJ or Plaintiffs have cause to believe that the State’s non-compliance with this Agreement threatens the immediate health and safety of juveniles, then the DOJ or Plaintiffs
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
83

shall immediately notify the Court Expert and the State of the specific provisions of this Agreement that they believe have been violated and the facts upon which this allegation is based. The State shall have a reasonable opportunity to investigate and respond to the allegations. If the DOJ or Plaintiffs are not satisfied with the State’s response, then the parties commit to meet and attempt to resolve the dispute informally with the assistance of the Court Expert in an expeditious manner. If the DOJ or Plaintiffs still believe that the State’s noncompliance threatens the immediate health and safety of juveniles, then the Plaintiffs, acting collectively, or DOJ shall have the right to move the Court to reopen or reinstate this litigation to the extent necessary for the Plaintiffs, acting collectively, or DOJ to investigate whether the State’s noncompliance threatens the immediate health and safety of juveniles and to seek emergency judicial relief, if necessary, for the conditions that threaten the immediate health and safety of the juveniles. If Plaintiffs, acting collectively, or DOJ seek emergency judicial relief, they have the burden to prove that the conditions violate the federal constitutional or federal statutory rights of the juveniles. 132. The parties consent and agree to entry of a final judgment dismissing with prejudice all allegations in the Lawsuits relating to juvenile justice, medical, mental health and dental issues at all of Louisiana’s secure juvenile facilities at any time on or after January 21, 2003 unless the Plaintiffs, acting collectively, or DOJ, has moved for an order reopening and reactivating the Lawsuits prior to January 21, 2003. 133. Compliance with the terms of this Agreement and the Systems Proposal also shall be monitored by the Court Expert in Williams v. McKeithen. The State shall bear all costs
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
84

incurred by the Court Expert, including, but not limited to that expert’s fees and expenses (e.g. for site visits, administrative costs, report writing, and telephone calls made for consultation). 134. In order to monitor compliance with this Agreement, the Court Expert shall have reasonable access to all facilities, residents, staff and documents. The Court Expert shall have the right to conduct confidential interviews with staff and residents. 135. Until the termination of this Agreement, the State shall, at its own expense, provide the Court Expert, the DOJ and one of the law firms representing the Plaintiffs with the following documents for each of the secure juvenile facilities, on a quarterly basis: 1. C-005-001 and C-005-003 reports, together with all attachments described in
DPSC regulations; 2. All Use of Force reports, with applicable accident and injury reports; 3. All Chemical Agent reports; 4. Comprehensive audits prepared by the Youth Program Compliance Division
pursuant to ¶ 118(a) of this Agreement; 5. Comprehensive audits prepared by the Provider pursuant to ¶ 80 of this Agreement; 6. A list of correctional officers identified during the preceding quarter with three or
more allegations within a two year period as provided in ¶ 32(c). 7. The headquarters central PZT logs for the preceding quarter. 8. Current medical, mental health, and dental staff positions and vacancies at all secure
juvenile facilities.
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
85

The State will also provide the DOJ copies of all of the PZT reports (including all attachments, videos, and any other documents) which are selected by the auditors for review under ¶ 121.
Each quarterly report shall be distributed not later than thirty (30) days after the end of the quarter. The first quarterly report shall include only the information in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (g), and (h) above. The first quarterly report shall cover the period from October 1, 2000 through December, 31, 2000 and shall be distributed not later than January 31, 2001. Subsequent reports will be distributed in the same manner each quarter. The State shall continue to report certain incidents to Keith Nordyke and the Court Expert in accordance with the practice generally described in correspondence dated November 3, 1999. 136. Upon the effective date of this Agreement, the State shall make the following documents available for inspection by attorneys for the Plaintiffs during normal business hours, subject to reasonable limitations and notices: a. All ARPs and grievances submitted by juveniles; b. All juvenile disciplinary reports; c. All PZT reports (including all attachments, videos, and any other documents
referenced in the PZT reports); d. Infirmary logs; e. Trip logs to hospitals; f. Juvenile Master case records and medical, dental and mental health records;
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
86

g. Mechanical restraint logs; h. Recreation logs; and i. Chemical agent logs. 137. The State shall make reasonable efforts to promptly provide any document related to compliance with this Agreement reasonably requested by the Court Expert or by Plaintiffs or DOJ, but in any event shall provide such documents within ten business days of the requests. This shall not include, however, documents or portions of documents that are subject to attorney client or work product privilege. In producing documents to Plaintiffs or DOJ pursuant to this paragraph or paragraph 136, the State shall bear the cost of providing up to 2000 pages of copies of documents to the Plaintiffs collectively per year. Any documents requested beyond this amount shall, at the option of the State, be made available for inspection and copying by the party, or shall be copied by the State at a cost of 5 cents per page to be paid by the requesting party. 138. For purposes of this paragraph, the substantive provisions of this Agreement shall be divided into six categories: (1) medical and dental, (2) mental health and rehabilitative services, (3) staffing and capacity, (4) juvenile justice quality assurance, (5) access to courts, and (6) all other juvenile justice provisions (including protection from abuse and violence, direct care staff training, positive behavior management/discipline, classification, chemical agents, mechanical restraints, living conditions, and cell restriction).
If the Plaintiffs, acting collectively, or DOJ believe that the State has failed to substantially comply with one or more of these six categories during the term of this
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
87

Agreement, then they shall so notify the State in writing. The parties shall conduct goodfaith negotiations to resolve the dispute and may agree in writing to adopt a plan of correction or otherwise modify the Agreement. If the parties are unable to reach agreement within 30 days of the Plaintiffs’ or DOJ informing the State of their allegations of non-compliance, then the Plaintiffs, acting collectively, or DOJ may file a motion with the Court to reopen the Lawsuits with respect to that category or categories. The State shall respond to the motion within 20 days. If the Court enters an order to reopen any one of these categories, then the provisions of that category are terminable at the discretion of the State.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a motion to reopen this Agreement solely for the purpose of seeking emergency judicial relief under ¶ 131, above, will not, in and of itself, terminate the State’s obligations under the remaining provisions of the Agreement.
This Agreement shall, in any event, terminate and shall be of no further effect whatsoever after January 21, 2003, regardless of the State’s compliance or non-compliance with the terms of this Agreement or the Systems Proposal, and regardless of whether the Lawsuits have or have not been reopened/reactivated. 139. The parties agree to meet and attempt resolution of any issues involved in the Lawsuits prior to any new litigation and prior to any new filings in the Lawsuits. The parties acknowledge that the Court has historically facilitated informal discussions between and among the parties in efforts to achieve agreement regarding controversies that demand resolution, and the State and the Plaintiffs will agree, to the extent possible, to seek the
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
88

Court’s assistance in facilitating informal resolution to such controversies. 140. This Agreement and the Systems Proposal shall not be construed to create an obligation to
an individual juvenile, and failure to comply with this Agreement and the Systems Proposal shall not be deemed a breach of any civil duty to a juvenile. 141. Nordyke and Denlinger and Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana (“JJPL”) shall be permitted to interview juveniles in all secure facilities for purposes of monitoring this Agreement. The DPSC may impose reasonable limitations on such interviews; however, attorney contacts with juveniles for purposes of monitoring the Agreement shall not be governed by DPSC Regulation C-01-004. The State shall pay reasonable attorneys fees and expenses to class counsel in monitoring this Agreement, as set forth below. Class counsel are Nordyke and Denlinger and JJPL. Nordyke and Denlinger shall submit detailed billing statements for all fees and expenses on a monthly basis. JJPL waives fees for monitoring unless and until the Lawsuits are reopened in accordance with this Agreement; provided, however, that JJPL may seek recovery of fees for time spent in connection with a successful motion to reopen, and JJPL reserves the right to seek recovery of attorney fees and expenses that are incurred after the Lawsuits are reopened. JJPL and the State shall enter a separate agreement to address reimbursement of expenses incurred by JJPL in monitoring this Agreement. The fees paid for monitoring this Agreement shall be as determined by the Court. Either party may seek relief from the Court, including but not limited to seeking the Court’s assistance in facilitating informal resolution to disputes and/or filing appropriate motions to resolve any disputes concerning the payment of fees
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
89

and expenses. Plaintiffs are not required to reopen or restore the Lawsuits to the Court’s docket in order to seek such relief.
Class counsel reserve the right to seek recovery of fees for other tasks (other than monitoring) in the event the Lawsuits are reopened, provided, however, that the State reserves the right to challenge their entitlement to any such fees, and the reasonableness of such fees.
Class counsel will have 15 days from the granting of the State’s motion for final dismissal to submit for payment their final invoice for any remaining fees and expenses. Within 15 days of receipt of the final invoice, the State shall pay all undisputed items. If the State disputes any item, then any party shall have 60 days from the granting of that motion to seek relief from the Court. This done and signed on the dates below written.

FOR PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

____________________________ _________________________

Keith Nordyke Bar Roll 8556 Steven H. Rosenbaum, Chief

June Denlinger Bar Roll 1823 Robinsue Frohboese, Deputy Chief

Nordyke and Denlinger

Judith C. Preston

Box 237

Iris Goldschmidt

Baton Rouge, La. 70821

Trial Attorneys

Telephone: 225-383-1601

United States Department of Justice

Fax: 225-383-2725

Civil Rights Division

Special Litigation Section

P. O. Box 66400

____________________________ Washington, D.C. 20035

David J. Utter

Telephone: 202-514-6258

Bar Roll 23236

Fax: 202-514-6273

Gabriella Celeste

August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
90

Bar Roll 25363 Juvenile Justice Project
Of Louisiana 822 Camp St. New Orleans, La. 70130 Telephone: 504-522-5437 Fax: 504-522-5430

_________________________ DATE

_________________________ DATE

______________________________ L. J. Hymel United States Attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana 777 Florida St. Baton Rouge, La. 70802
_________________________ DATE
FOR DEFENDANTS
FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND ITS OFFICES, AGENCIES, AND DEPARTMENTS
RICHARD P IEYOUB Attorney General for the
State of Louisiana
BY:____________________________ Constance A. Koury
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
91

First Assistant Attorney General State of Louisiana 22nd Floor, State Capitol Baton Rouge, La. 70804-9095
Telephone: 225-342-7013 BY:____________________________
Richard Curry Bar Roll 4671 McGlinchey Stafford One American Place Suite 9000 Baton Rouge, La. 70825 Telephone: 225-383-9000 Fax: 225-382-3725 ________________________________ DATE
August 17, 2000 (1:04 pm) ::ODMA\GRPWISE|DOMAIN.POSTOFC:Client:6031.1
92

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

HAYES WILLIAMS, et al.

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Civ. No. 71-98-B

)

JOHN McKEITHEN, et al.

)

Defendants,

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,)

Amicus Curiae.

)

)

IN RE: JUVENILE FACILITIES ) Civ. No. CH 97-MS-001-B

)

IN RE: TALLULAH CORRECTIONAL ) Civ. No. CH 97-0665-B-M1

CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: JETSON CORRECTIONAL ) Civ. No. CH 97-0666-B-M1

CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: SWANSON CORRECTIONAL ) Civ. No. CH 97-0667-B-M1

CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: LOUISIANA TRAINING) Civ. No. CH 97-0668-B-M1

INSTITUTE - BRIDGE CITY)

)

IN RE: JENA JUVENILE JUSTICE ) Civ. No. CH 98-0804-B-M1

CENTER

)

______________________________)

)

BRIAN B., et al.

)

Plaintiffs,

) Civ. No. 98-886-B-M1

)

v.

)

)

RICHARD STALDER, et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA,

)

et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

_____________________________ )

)

A.A., et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS CORP., )

et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

_____________________________)

Civ. No. 98-947-B-1 Civ. No. 00-246-C-M1

2003 Settlement Agreement
On November 1, 1999, the United States Department of Justice (hereinafter "DOJ"), the private plaintiffs, and the State of Louisiana (hereinafter "the State") signed an agreement resolving all claims regarding the provision of educational services at Louisiana's juvenile correctional facilities (hereinafter "the Education Agreement"). On August 31, 2000, the DOJ, the private plaintiffs, and the State signed a second agreement resolving the DOJ and private plaintiffs' claims regarding juvenile justice issues, and medical, dental, mental health, and rehabilitation services, and the private plaintiffs' claim regarding access to courts (hereinafter "the Juvenile Justice Agreement").
The parties agree that, based on their own assessments and the assessments of their experts, the State is in substantial compliance with the Education Agreement. The parties also agree that, based on their own assessments and the assessments of their experts, the State is in substantial compliance with many provisions in the Juvenile Justice Agreement. The DOJ and the private plaintiffs contend, however, that the State is not in substantial compliance with some important provisions in the Juvenile Justice Agreement.
-2-

In recognition of the State's substantial compliance with the Education Agreement and with many provisions of the Juvenile Justice Agreement, and in consideration of (1) the State's agreement to modify certain provisions of the Juvenile Justice Agreement; (2) the State's agreement to continue to implement policies and procedures that are substantially similar to the Education Agreement and the portions of Juvenile Justice Agreement that will be terminated; and (3) the State's agreement to continue to employ a State Director of Education to oversee the educational programs at the facilities, the parties agree to the following:
1. The parties agree to terminate the Education Agreement and shall jointly move the Court to dismiss with prejudice all claims regarding the provision of educational services at Louisiana's juvenile correctional facilities. [Note: Subject to an acceptable status report on purchases of vocational education materials].
2. The parties agree to terminate the Juvenile Justice Agreement, provided, however, that certain paragraphs of that agreement are incorporated into this Agreement and shall remain in effect until termination of this Agreement.
3. With regard to the juvenile justice provisions of the Juvenile Justice Agreement (paragraphs 20 - 75), the parties agree that the State is in substantial compliance with paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 29 (except the last sentence), 31, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 49 (except the second to last sentence), 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, and 75. The parties agree that these paragraphs, or portions of paragraphs, are terminated and are not incorporated into this Agreement. The parties agree that the following juvenile justice provisions in the Juvenile Justice Agreement are incorporated into this Agreement and shall remain in effect until termination of this Agreement: 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 (the last sentence only), 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 (the second to last sentence only), 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 69, 73, and 74.
-3-

4. With regard to the medical, dental, and mental health provisions of the Juvenile Justice Agreement (paragraphs 76 - 116), the parties agree to terminate all paragraphs that apply to services provided by Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center ("LSUHSC") at Jetson Correctional Center for Youth ("JCCY") and Bridge City Correctional Center for Youth ("BCCCY") except paragraphs 76 (as discussed in the last sentence of this paragraph), 80 (a - i and k - n), 101, 103, and 111. The parties agree that the Department of Public Safety and Corrections' ("DPSC") responsibilities in paragraphs 87, 90, 101, 103, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, and 116 are incorporated into this Agreement and shall remain in effect until termination of this Agreement. The parties agree that paragraphs 76 - 116 of the Juvenile Justice Agreement, as they pertain to Swanson Correctional Center for Youth - Monroe ("SCCY-Monroe") and Swanson Correctional Center for Youth - Madison Parish Unit ("SCCY-Madison"), are incorporated into this Agreement and shall remain in effect until termination of this Agreement. In addition, the parties agree to modify paragraph 76 to indicate that the State shall maintain its contractual relationship with LSUHSC during the life of this Agreement, provided that this shall not be interpreted to expand any contractual obligations of LSUHSC.
5. With regard to the quality assurance provisions of the Juvenile Justice Agreement (paragraphs 117 - 121), the parties agree to terminate paragraph 121. All other quality assurance provisions of the Juvenile Justice Agreement are incorporated into this Agreement and shall remain in effect until termination of this Agreement.
6. With regard to the compliance and monitoring provisions of the Juvenile Justice Agreement (paragraphs 122 - 141), the parties agree to terminate paragraphs 122, 123, 127, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135 (1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8) , and 138. Paragraphs 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 131, 135 (4, 5), 139, and 140 are incorporated into this Agreement and shall remain in effect until termination is accomplished according to the terms of this Agreement. During the life of this agreement, the DOJ's Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division and private plaintiffs agree that they will not seek authority for tours, inspections, or onsite monitoring of conditions at any of the secure facilities except as authorized by this Agreement. For purposes of monitoring this Agreement, the plaintiffs agree
-4-

to incorporate paragraphs 136, 137 and 141 into this Agreement with the following limitations:
A. The DOJ and private plaintiffs agree to limit their requests for review of documents for inspection and copying to no more than once per quarter at each institution. In addition, DOJ and private plaintiffs agree to review PZT reports at DPSC headquarters. The parties agree that DOJ, Nordyke & Denlinger, and Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana ("JJPL") each shall receive 1000 copies at no charge over the life of this agreement and that any copies over that amount shall be billed at $.25 a page;
B. Private plaintiffs agree to provide notice of requests to visit juveniles, who telephone and request a visit or who are identified by the facility in a "Nordyke Report," 48 hours in advance of any visit. In addition, once per quarter per institution, private plaintiffs may visit juveniles and review juveniles’ files for five days per institution. Any documents requested during these visits shall be done so in writing and private plaintiffs will work with the facility to list the documents requested contemporaneously with the request.
C. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit counsel for individual juveniles to conduct legal visits.
7. With regard to the jurisdictional provisions and definitions in the Juvenile Justice Agreement (paragraphs 1 - 19), the parties agree to terminate paragraphs 5(c)(as it pertains to the appointment of John Whitley as the Court Expert only), 7, 8, and 9(b). Paragraph 18 of the Juvenile Justice Agreement shall be amended to read as follows:
A. The term “reportable injury” means any injury that threatens a juvenile’s life or limb, or that requires urgent treatment by a doctor, or severely restricts the juvenile’s usual activities, or requires followup by a doctor. Whenever the medical staff at any of the juvenile correctional facilities has cause to believe that there has been neglect, abuse, excessive use of force, use of any type of chemical restraint, or any sexual abuse or sexual activity between at least two people one of whom
-5-

is a juvenile, then the medical staff will notify PZT. The medical staff at each juvenile correctional facility will also notify PZT of any reportable injury. In addition, the medical staff will make a written record of the date and time that they made the referral to PZT required by this subparagraph. All such records of referrals will be kept in one location at each facility.
Paragraphs 25, 26 and 29 of the Juvenile Justice Agreement shall be amended to substitute “reportable injury” for “serious injury”. The parties also agree to eliminate the phrase "the Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals and all Departments and Agencies of the State of Louisiana," in paragraph 19. All other jurisdictional provisions and definitions are incorporated into this Agreement and shall remain in effect until termination of this Agreement.
8. The State, with technical assistance from the Independent Expert, will develop and implement additional structured programming at each facility after school, in the evenings, and on the weekends. The structured programming shall be designed to support rehabilitation and reduce violence.
9. In an effort to enhance the quality and consistency of the youth's education and treatment at the facilities, the State will not, unless required by exigent circumstances, transfer youth from one facility to another once the initial placement has been made by the Juvenile Reception and Diagnostic Center ("JRDC") unless an interdisciplinary team meets to consider whether the youth's treatment, rehabilitation, and education, taken as a whole, would be better served at another facility. For purposes of this paragraph, the State shall form an interdisciplinary team, with advice and input from the Independent Expert, that may consist of a correctional officer from the youth's most recent dorm, one of the youth's current teachers (if the youth is in school), the youth's current caseworker, and the youth's mental health treatment provider (if applicable). When a youth is transferred, the State shall explain the reasons for the transfer and provide documentation in the youth's file. For purposes of this paragraph, exigent circumstances exist when there is a substantial threat to the safety of the juvenile, or others, or the security of the institution and
-6-

there is no time, as a practical matter, to convene an interdisciplinary team meeting.
10. In an effort to protect youth from harm and ensure that youth are receiving needed mental health services:
A. The State will not, unless required by exigent circumstances, house on Unit II at SCCY-Madison youth who are seriously mentally ill or have an IQ below 70; and
B. The State will not, unless required by exigent circumstances, transfer to Unit II at SCCY-Madison youth who are currently assigned to BCCCY or the short-term program at SCCY-Madison unless the juvenile is first evaluated by LSUHSC mental health staff at BCCCY, or the juvenile is transferred to JRDC for evaluation.
C. Ninety days after signing this Agreement, the State will house no more than 128 youth on Unit II at SCCY-Madison, including any youth from Unit I temporarily housed on Unit II, but not including youth housed in the infirmary.
D. For purposes of this paragraph, exigent circumstances exist when there is a substantial threat to the safety of the juvenile, or others, or the security of the institution and there is no time, as a practical matter, to convene an interdisciplinary team meeting.
E. If a youth in subparagraph (A) or (B) is sent to Unit II at SCCY-Madison because of exigent circumstances, the State shall include documentation of the exigent circumstances in the youth's file.
F. The limitations in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) can be modified only if (1) the purpose and use of one or more buildings on Unit II at SCCY-Madison changes substantially from its current maximum custody utilization, (2) the new purpose and use of one or more buildings on Unit II is shared, in writing, with the Independent Expert, DOJ and the private plaintiffs, and (3) the State consults with and receives input from the Independent Expert prior to implementing the new purpose and use of one or more of the buildings on Unit II. If the purpose and use for one or more buildings on Unit II
-7-

changes substantially, then the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B) cease to apply to those buildings only.
11. Within 45 days of signing this Agreement, the State shall reduce the population at SCCY-Madison to 245, and within 90 days of signing this Agreement, the State shall reduce the population at SCCY-Madison to 225. In addition, for as long as SCCY-Madison remains open, the State will:
A. continue to operate the LITE program on Unit I, unless the State (1) develops a plan, in writing, and provides a copy of the plan to the Independent Expert, DOJ, and the private plaintiffs, and (2) the State consults with and receives input from the Independent Expert prior to implementing the plan; and
B. within 90 days of signing the Agreement, the State shall (1) develop a plan for the future use of Unit II, (2) provide a copy of the written plan to the Independent Expert, DOJ, and the private plaintiffs, and (3) consult with and receive input from the Independent Expert prior to implementing the plan and any subsequent changes to the plan for Unit II. The State's plan for the future use of Unit II will include dates and deadlines for its implementation and completion and the State will adhere to those deadlines.
12. In order to further implement the paragraphs of the Juvenile Justice Agreement concerning the case management system (i.e., paragraphs 55, 56, 57, 80(n), 87, 90, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, and 115), the State, with technical assistance from the Independent Expert, will:
A. establish and implement policies and procedures that will make it the regular and routine practice for each youth to work with one caseworker during his or her time at a correctional facility;
B. make it the regular and routine practice for caseworkers to have an individual counseling session with a youth promptly when one of the following events occur: (1) the youth is in danger of having his custody level increased due to an increased number of disciplinary tickets; (2) the court denies the youth early release; (3) the facility either removes the youth from the shortterm program or extends his time in the short-term program;
-8-

or (4) the facility decides not to recommend the youth for early release even though he or she has maintained a minimum custody level for two consecutive quarters. The counseling session will be designed to help the youth develop concrete strategies for dealing with the problems (e.g., strategies for avoiding future tickets, strategies for completing the short-term program, strategies for obtaining a recommendation for early release). In addition, the caseworker will record notes from the counseling session in the youth's file. This counseling session does not replace or substitute the youth's regular, individual counseling session with the caseworker. The caseworker will be encouraged to share relevant information learned in these sessions with the interdisciplinary team during the youth's quarterly staffing and the team will decide whether the youth's individualized intervention plan ("IIP") needs to be modified to include additional programming or rehabilitative services;
C. establish and implement policies and procedures ensuring that the Office of Youth Development ("OYD") employees coordinate their efforts to ensure that motions, or letters if they are sufficient for that court, to modify youths' dispositions to less secure settings are timely filed with the court; and
D. continue to work with Dr. James Austin to identify youth deemed inappropriate for secure care and work with relevant State officials, including providing notification to the Louisiana Indigent Defense Assistance Board ("LIDAB"), to obtain a modification of disposition from the court for these youth.
13. The State will continue to improve access to courts provided to all incarcerated youth. To that end, the State will:
A. provide two attorneys to support and help develop access to the courts for youth. To that end, the parties agree that their principle responsibilities will be:
i. to monitor and support modifications of dispositions of those juveniles identified by the State as appropriate for modification and direct that information to the youth's attorney;
-9-

ii. notify the LIDAB when a youth seeks to retain counsel and the youth either never had an attorney or the youth's attorney no longer represents him/her; and
iii. train caseworkers and other facility staff to encourage juveniles to use the administrative remedies when the youth have a complaint.
B. amend DPSC policies and procedures regarding access to courts. To that end, the State will permit youth to visit and communicate confidentially with attorneys and place attorney's phone numbers on their approved telephone lists without parental consent. In addition, the State will adopt policies and procedures to recognize an attorney-client relationship without parental consent. Under these policies and procedures, the DPSC will recognize an attorney-client relationship without parental consent ten days after:
i. the DPSC has received a copy of the juvenile's written request for representation and a copy of the juvenile's written request that the attorney have access to documents from the juvenile's record (taking into account the limitations described below);
ii. the DPSC has received (a) a copy of a letter notifying the juvenile's parent or guardian that juvenile has requested representation and that the parent or guardian should notify DPSC or the court if they have any objection, and (b) "proof of mailing" from the post office verifying that this letter has been sent to the parent or guardian; and
iii. the attorney has provided a statement that he or she has made efforts to contact the parent or guardian.
The DPSC will recognize an attorney-client relationship ten days after receipt of these documents unless the DPSC or the parent or guardian has submitted an objection to the representation. The State agrees to provide access to the youth's education records if the attorney obtains parental consent from the youth's parent or guardian.
- 10 -

14. The juvenile administrative remedy procedure ("ARP") system at each facility will include, at a minimum, the following:
A. reasonable access to ARP forms and reasonable access to file ARP forms. The forms and a mechanism for filing the forms should be readily available in every dorm, school, and cafeteria;
B. assistance and/or accommodations for youth who, for any reason, are unable to file a timely written ARP;
C. a timely written response to the ARP that addresses the issue or concern raised in the ARP;
D. a mechanism to file an appeal in a timely manner to the Assistant Secretary. The Assistant Secretary or his designee will provide a timely written response; and
E. education about the purpose of the ARP system and the procedure for filing and appealing a ARP.
15. In an effort to clarify provisions in the Juvenile Justice Agreement regarding the PZT investigation system and to improve the quality of the PZT investigations, the State agrees to the following:
A. The lead investigator at each facility must have investigative experience outside of the Louisiana juvenile correctional system prior to being hired as a PZT investigator and must not have worked as a correctional officer at the institution at which the investigator will be working;
B. In Paragraph 32 of the Juvenile Justice Agreement, which requires the State to create a Multiple Allegation Database ("MAD") which tracks allegations of "abuse" and "misconduct," the term "misconduct" includes, at a minimum, any violation of Rule #10 (Entitled "Falsifying Documents or Making False Statements") in the Employee Rulebook that DPSC used in December 2002;
C. All current investigators must receive training to help improve their investigative techniques, standardize the PZT report writing format, and better
- 11 -

understand the standards they are required to apply. The training will be provided in consultation with the Independent Expert. The training will take into account the suggestions and comments of the two former auditors, Dale Dangremond and Terry Kincaid;
D. The PZT system will establish and implement a comprehensive training program, with technical assistance from the Independent Expert, that all current investigators will be required to complete by April 1, 2003. All new investigators hired during the life of this Agreement will be required to complete the training program within three months of being hired. New investigators who have not completed the training program shall only be assigned to investigations where they work under the close supervision of the lead investigator and shall not have the authority to conduct PZT investigations independently;
E. The State will address management problems that are uncovered during the course of a PZT investigation (e.g., inadequate staffing, contraband, location of fights or abuse, etc.);
F. The State will review and correct the disposition and sanction of any disciplinary ticket to ensure that it is consistent with the facts and findings of any related substantiated PZT investigation;
G. The State will inform, in writing, every youth who files a PZT complaint against a staff member of the outcome of the investigation. In addition, the State will notify the youth's parent or guardian in writing when their child is the victim listed on a substantiated case of staff-on-juvenile abuse; and
H. Concurrent with the release of the second quarterly report, the Independent Expert will identify, in a confidential letter to the parties, the names of PZT investigators, if any, who, despite efforts to train, are not producing adequate investigations on a regular basis. The Independent Expert's findings must be supported by examples of inadequate work product. The State agrees to take appropriate action such as reassigning the individuals to other non-investigatory positions.
16. Not later than February 1, 2003, DPSC shall assume responsibility for (1) hiring all PZT investigators,
- 12 -

(2) providing adequate initial and ongoing training for all PZT investigators, and (3) supervising, reviewing, and ensuring the quality of all PZT investigations. In making hiring decisions, preference will be given to applicants who have experience as an investigator prior to being hired as a PZT investigator. In addition, the State, after consultation and input from the Independent Expert, will develop and implement criteria for hiring PZT investigators and supervisors. The individual facilities and wardens are relieved of the responsibility of supervising PZT investigations. However, the wardens at each facility must still review PZT investigations that substantiate abuse or misconduct. The wardens at each facility must impose appropriate discipline for any substantiated abuse or misconduct. OYD must review the discipline that the wardens impose and ensure that the discipline is appropriate given the nature and severity of the abuse or misconduct.
17. In order to provide adequate and appropriate services for youth who have been identified in the LSUHSC assessment as (1) youth with IQs below 70; (2) victims of sexual abuse for whom LSUHSC has recommended treatment for sexual abuse; (3) youth adjudicated to secure care as a result of the commission of a sexual offense or youth currently diagnosed with a sexual disorder; and (4) youth currently diagnosed with a substance abuse disorder or substance dependency disorder, the State will, in consultation with LSUHSC, do the following:
A. design and implement individualized treatment plans for each youth covered in this paragraph;
B. provide appropriate programming for youth with an IQ below 70;
C. provide training to DPSC employees to implement the individualized treatment plans and programming effectively; and
D. provide continuing quality assurance to ensure that the treatment and programming is implemented properly and is achieving the desired outcomes.
18. In an effort to clarify paragraph 48 of the Juvenile Justice Agreement regarding the use of force, the parties agree to the following:
- 13 -

A. Paragraph 48(d) of the Juvenile Justice Agreement delineates the limited situations in which a staff member may use force; and
B. When a staff member uses force under paragraph 48(d), the use of force must be reasonable under the circumstances and comply with the other applicable requirements in paragraph 48.
19. A nationally recognized expert in juvenile corrections will serve as the Independent Expert. The Independent Expert will:
A. provide on-site technical assistance, and report on compliance with the remaining provisions of the Juvenile Justice Agreement and the terms of this Agreement;
B. hire qualified assistants with relevant and appropriate expertise – as determined by the Independent Expert;
C. issue written reports on a quarterly basis. The first report will cover the period ending on March 31, 2003 and will be issued by April 30, 2003. These reports will explain, in detail, the status of the State's compliance with the terms of this Agreement;
D. hold quarterly conferences with the parties so that the parties can discuss the Independent Expert's quarterly report.
20. In order to enable the Independent Expert to perform his duties, the parties agree that the Independent Expert and his staff will:
A. have reasonable access to all facilities, residents, staff, documents, videos, and any other materials that the Independent Expert needs to perform his duties.
B. be permitted to conduct confidential interviews with staff and residents at all facilities; and
C. be permitted to have ex parte communications with the parties.
- 14 -

21. The Independent Expert will evaluate the State's substantial compliance with this Agreement using three levels of compliance: primary compliance, secondary compliance, and operational compliance. The terms are defined as follows:
A. Primary compliance requires the creation of policies, procedures, rules, regulations, or directives to "comply" with the text of this Agreement;
B. Secondary compliance requires training, supervision, audit and inspection, and discipline to ensure that a specific policy is being implemented as designed; and
C. Operational compliance requires that the State has achieved both primary and secondary compliance, and that the State is following the directives in the dayto-day operations of the facilities.
22. The State’s compliance with this agreement shall be monitored by one expert selected by the DOJ and one expert selected by the State (the “Juvenile Justice Experts”). The Juvenile Justice Experts shall conduct only one compliance tour of each of Louisiana’s four secure juvenile facilities, and all such tours shall be conducted between October 1, 2003 and November 30, 2003. In addition, all reports shall be submitted by December 15, 2003. If necessary, the DOJ and private plaintiffs may spend four days at each facility. In all other respects, the Juvenile Justice compliance tours shall be conducted in accordance with guidelines set forth in paragraph 128 and 129 of the Juvenile Justice Agreement (except for the dates, which shall be controlled by this Agreement).
23. The State’s compliance with this agreement shall be monitored by Dr. Trupin, Dr. McPherson, and Dr. Peck. The Drs. shall conduct only one compliance tour of each juvenile facility, and all such tours shall be conducted between October 1, 2003 and November 30, 2003. In addition, all reports shall be submitted by December 15, 2003. One attorney from DOJ, one attorney from the private plaintiffs, and one attorney from the State may accompany Drs. Trupin and McPherson on their tours. To the extent possible, mental health compliance tours and juvenile justice tours will not be conducted concurrently. In all
- 15 -

other respects, the medical/mental health tours shall be governed by guidelines set forth in paragraphs 124-126 of the Juvenile Justice Agreement.
24. If the private plaintiffs or DOJ believe that the State has failed to substantially comply with this agreement, then they shall so notify the State in writing. The parties shall conduct good faith negotiations to resolve the dispute and may agree in writing to adopt a plan of correction or otherwise modify or extend this agreement. If the parties are unable to reach agreement within thirty days of the date on which the private plaintiffs or DOJ informed the State of their allegations of noncompliance, then the private plaintiffs, acting collectively, or DOJ may file a motion with the court to reopen the lawsuits. Notwithstanding the foregoing, JJPL shall have the right to independently move to bifurcate and reopen only the Brian B. action between December 15, 2003 and January 4, 2004 if JJPL claims that the State is not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The State shall respond to the motion within twenty days. If the court enters an order to reopen the lawsuits, then this agreement is terminable at the discretion of the State.
25. This Agreement shall, in any event, terminate and shall be of no further effect whatsoever after January 5, 2004, unless the private plaintiffs, acting collectively, or the DOJ has moved for an order reopening or reactivating the lawsuits prior to that date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, JJPL shall have the right to independently move to bifurcate and reopen only the Brian B. action between December 15, 2003 and January 4, 2004 if JJPL claims that the State is not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The parties consent and agree to entry of a final judgment dismissing with prejudice the lawsuits at any time on or after January 5, 2004 unless the private plaintiffs or the DOJ has moved for an order reopening or reactivating the lawsuits prior to that date.
26. The parties agree that all references to the Court Expert in paragraphs that are incorporated into this Agreement shall be deleted.
27. This Agreement is effective between the DOJ and the State immediately upon execution. This Agreement
- 16 -

is effective between the private plaintiffs and the State once the Court approves the Agreement. Simultaneously with their signing of this Agreement, counsel for the State and counsel for the private plaintiffs shall file a joint motion for preliminary approval of the Agreement under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for approval of class notice. If the Court does not approve the Agreement, the private plaintiffs shall have 20 days from the date they receive actual notice of the Court's decision to move for an order reopening and reactivating the lawsuits pursuant to paragraphs 132 and 138 of the Juvenile Justice Agreement. The requirement of prior goodfaith negotiations contained in paragraph 138 shall not be a bar to any such motion. During the pendency of the Court's approval of the Agreement, the State and the private plaintiffs agree to comply with it.

FOR PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Ralph F. Boyd, Jr. Assistant Attorney General
- 17 -

Civil Rights Division

____________________________ Keith Nordyke, Bar Roll 8556 June Denlinger, Bar Roll 1823 Nordyke and Denlinger Box 237 Baton Rouge, La. 70821 Tel: (225) 383-3601 Fax: (225) 383-2725
____________________________ DATE

_________________________ Steven H. Rosenbaum Chief Special Litigation Section
__________________________ Judith C. Preston Special Counsel Special Litigation Section
__________________________ Jeffrey J. Resetarits Trial Attorney Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-6255 Fax: (202) 514-6903
_____________________ DATE

___________________________ David Utter, Bar Roll 23236 Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana 1600 Oretha Castle Haley Blvd. New Orleans, LA 70113 Tel: (504) 522-5437 Fax: (504) 522-5430

________________________ David Dugas United States Attorney for Middle District of LA 777 Florida Street Baton Rouge, La. 70802 Tel: (225) 389-0443

___________________________ DATE

_________________________ DATE

FOR DEFENDANTS

FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND ITS

- 18 -

OFFICES, AGENCIES, AND DEPARTMENTS RICHARD P IEYOUB Attorney General for the State of Louisiana
____________________________ Richard Curry, Bar Roll 4671 M. Brent Hicks, Bar Roll 23778 McGlinchey Stafford One American Place Suite 9000 Baton Rouge, LA 70825 Telephone: (225) 383-9000 Fax: (225) 382-3725 ________________________________ DATE
- 19 -

 
 U.S. v. Louisiana -- Jena Agreement

Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs,
v.
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, et al, Defendants.
Civil No. 98-947-B-1
_____________________________
UNITED STATES' JENA AGREEMENT
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS
The United States has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in United States of America v. State of Louisiana, et al., Civil Action Number 98-947-B-1 on March 30, 2000.
For purposes of this Agreement, "Private Plaintiffs" refers to the putative class of plaintiffs appearing as plaintiffs in A.A., et al., v. Wackenhut Corrections Corporations, CA00-246CMI. The parties agree that class certification has not been ordered and that this Agreement does not address or affect the issue of class certification.
For purposes of this Agreement, "Defendants" refers collectively to Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, Warden Salvador Godinez, the State of Louisiana, Richard Stalder, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and The Honorable Murphy "Mike" Foster, Governor of the State of Louisiana, with the understanding that Governor Foster's obligations under this Agreement have been delegated to the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections.
Private Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction which seeks various injunctive relief, including relief to address alleged conditions of confinement at the Jena Juvenile Justice Center.
Agreement has been reached among Private Plaintiffs, the United States, and the Defendants for the purpose of resolving preliminary injunctive relief sought by the United States in United States v. State of Louisiana, and by the Private Plaintiffs in A.A. v. Wackenhut.
This United States' Jena Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered with the express purpose of resolving demands for preliminary injunctive relief asserted by the United States regarding conditions at Jena Juvenile Justice Center. This Agreement is a private settlement Agreement entered into for the sole purpose of resolving the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The parties acknowledge that the Jena Interim Agreement entered on November 6, 1998 has terminated. The Defendants' obligation to comply with the substantive provisions of this Agreement shall expire and shall be of no further effect after July 15, 2000. The United States and Defendants in this action do not hereby relinquish any rights which any party may have regarding the claims asserted or defenses to such claims in these lawsuits after July 15, 2000.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/us-v-lu/us-jena.htm

2/23/2007

U.S. v. Louisiana -- Jena Agreement

Page 2 of 15

The United States and Defendants agree to entry of an order conditionally dismissing the United States' claims for preliminary injunctive relief. The Governor of the State of Louisiana has delegated to the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections responsibility to assure compliance with this Agreement, and the Governor discharges his responsibility under this Agreement by conferring on the Secretary this responsibility.
Certain obligations assumed by Defendants in this Agreement may, at various points in time, be under the exclusive control of either Wackenhut or the State. The parties recognize that, in defense to any action to enforce this Agreement, either Wackenhut or the State may assert as a defense its lack of control over the circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations of the Agreement.
The Defendants deny the allegations on which the United States' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is based. The parties acknowledge that the State did not assume interim operational control until after this action or the motion for preliminary injunction was filed. In order to promote settlement of the broader litigation regarding conditions in juvenile facilities pending in United States v. Louisiana, however, Defendants and the United States enter this Agreement.
If the United States believes that Defendants have violated the commitments made in this Agreement, then, subject to opportunity to cure provided below, the United States may move to reopen the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
The United States agrees to provide written notice to all Defendants of any alleged violations of this Agreement, and the United States agrees to provide Defendants a ten (10) day period from receipt of written notice in which to cure such alleged violations before United States takes any action based upon such alleged violations except as provided in paragraph 43, below. It is Defendants' responsibility to produce evidence to United States within the ten (10) day cure period to demonstrate that such alleged violations have been cured. The United States' motion to reopen shall be filed no later than August 1, 2000.
Private Plaintiffs have agreed not to reopen their claim for preliminary injunctive relief or move to enforce this Agreement if the United States files a motion to reopen its preliminary injunction. Further, should the United States file a motion to reopen after Private Plaintiffs have filed a motion to reopen or a motion to enforce this Agreement, then Private Plaintiffs agree to dismiss their motion.
1. Upon execution of this Agreement, the Defendants shall house no more than 232 juveniles at Jena.
2. Upon execution of this Agreement, the Defendants shall house no more than 40 juveniles in each of the four open units, Eagle C and D and Falcon C and D, except that Defendants may house up to 48 juveniles in one of these units in order to facilitate a substance abuse therapeutic community, so long as the aggregate population of these four units does not exceed 160 juveniles. Defendants may house one additional juvenile in each of these units on a temporary basis in a float bed that will remain, for the most part, free in order to facilitate the transfer of juveniles within the facility.
3. Upon execution of this Agreement, the Defendants shall house no more than 24 juveniles in each of the three units Eagle A, Eagle B, and Falcon B.
4. The 12 single-cell disciplinary beds on Falcon A shall not be counted for purposes of calculating the population at Jena.
5. Within 14 days of the execution of this Agreement, the Defendants shall comply with the following

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/us-v-lu/us-jena.htm

2/23/2007

U.S. v. Louisiana -- Jena Agreement

Page 3 of 15

security staffing requirements at all times juveniles are present except as provided below:
Eagle A 2
Eagle B 2
Eagle C 3
Eagle D 3
Falcon A 2
Falcon B 2
Falcon C 3
Falcon D 3
Notwithstanding the above, staff assigned to these units must be able to supervise juvenile movement including out-of-unit activities on a proportional staff/juvenile basis.
Defendants shall ensure that Falcon building is supervised by an on-site Lieutenant at all times the juveniles are in the building and that Eagle building is supervised by an on-site lieutenant at all times the juveniles are in the building. Non-security personnel shall not be used as substitutes for security staff to meet the requirements of this paragraph.
6. In the event that Wackenhut re-assumes operational control of the facility during the life of this Agreement, the following provision concerning the use of overtime shall apply, within 20 days of assuming control. Except for emergency situations, overtime for correctional security staff will be limited to 12 hours of unscheduled overtime pay per pay period. In the event of the need for overtime hours, volunteers will be utilized prior to the use of mandated overtime.
7. [Intentionally blank]
8. Within fifteen (15) days of the execution of this Agreement, the Defendants shall ensure that there are at least two fully operational telephones in each of the housing units, at least one operational telephone in each counselor office, and at least one operational telephone in the infirmary that juveniles may use to place a PZT call. The Defendants shall ensure that a maintenance order is placed within one business work day for every juvenile telephone that is in need of repair and will make best efforts to ensure that the phone is repaired as soon as possible.
9. Within five (5) days of the execution of this Agreement, Defendants shall ensure that the telephone numbers of the PZT Hotline, attorneys of record in this case, and facility investigators, are posted clearly next to each juvenile and infirmary telephone. Defendants shall post a sign asking the juvenile to speak clearly and spell his name if he gets a recording. Within 5 days, the "attorney contact" flier shall be posted next to the juvenile phones in living areas and infirmary.
10. [Intentionally blank]
11. Within ten (10) days of the execution of this Agreement, the Defendants shall require all mandatory

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/us-v-lu/us-jena.htm

2/23/2007

U.S. v. Louisiana -- Jena Agreement

Page 4 of 15

child abuse reporters, as defined in Louisiana Children's Code article 603, at the facility to acknowledge their obligation in accordance with state law to report suspected child abuse and inform all mandatory reporters of the office and telephone number to which such suspected abuse should be reported. Defendants' obligation under this section will be discharged upon obtaining employees' signatures acknowledging their understanding.
If the Louisiana Department of Social Services contacts the Defendants regarding an allegation of abuse, the Defendants will insure that the allegation has been, or is being investigated.
12. Within ten (10) days of the execution of this Agreement, the Defendants shall require each employee and contractor at the facility to acknowledge, in a signed statement, their awareness of their obligation to report suspected physical, emotional, verbal, or sexual abuse of juveniles to their supervisors, and to the PZT Hotline, where appropriate.
Within fifteen (15) days of the execution of this Agreement, the Defendants shall submit to the Court Expert, to the Private Plaintiffs, and the United States, copies of the signed statements referenced above. Employees who are on leave and contractors who are on vacation and unavailable during this time period will acknowledge their understanding of the obligations set forth previously and sign such statement of understanding upon their return to work. The signed statements shall include an affirmative statement that the employee or contractor intends to abide by the abuse reporting obligations. A copy of each such signed statement shall be placed in the personnel file of the signatory to the statement.
13. [Intentionally blank]
14. Within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Agreement, the State shall complete criminal background checks on all existing staff, and will complete criminal background checks on all prospective employees, including checking with the National Crime Information Center and the Louisiana Computerized Criminal History system. The Defendants shall complete the above checks on all prospective employees before they have any contact with juveniles. Additionally, finger prints of all employees, existing and prospective, shall be submitted to the State Police in accordance with the Louisiana Child Protection Act. Within (45) days of this Agreement, the Defendants shall take appropriate action to protect the welfare and safety of the juveniles based upon the information obtained from the checks. During the Private Plaintiffs' and the United States' compliance tour, Defendants shall provide to the United States evidence of the specific personnel action taken regarding any employees with criminal convictions. Defendants will not disclose names of individual employees.
15. Within twenty (20) days of the execution of this Agreement, the State shall assign one full-time qualified investigator to work at Jena, who shall report directly to the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Youth Development. DPS&C investigators shall conduct all PZT-related investigations.
16. Within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Agreement, the DPS&C shall conduct investigations of the four staff remaining at Jena as of April 10, 2000 with several allegations of abuse filed against them identified on page 21 of Dr. Nancy Ray's February 2000 report. The investigators shall recommend whether these four staff should continue to be employed at Jena. The Court Expert, Private Plaintiffs, and the United States shall be provided with the outcome of these investigations and an explanation if the recommendations are not followed. The names of the individual staff members shall be maintained confidential by all parties.
17. Within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Agreement, Defendants shall ensure that all PZT Hotline complaints and all allegations of abuse (including sexual victimization) in ARPs or grievances

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/us-v-lu/us-jena.htm

2/23/2007

U.S. v. Louisiana -- Jena Agreement

Page 5 of 15

or otherwise reported in writing or orally by juveniles or staff, are accepted and investigated by the DPSC state investigators. Each such investigation shall be recorded on a log. In cases where a youth withdraws an allegation, the investigators shall record the investigation on the log, conduct a preliminary investigation to determine the circumstances and reasons for the withdrawal, and in cases where it is warranted, complete the investigation of the abuse allegation. In no case shall an investigator do an investigation on an incident in which he or she was personally involved.
18. Upon execution of this Agreement, all employees or contractors against whom physical abuse or sexual misconduct is substantiated by the Defendants shall be appropriately disciplined. Where significant physical abuse or sexual misconduct is substantiated, or where there is a pattern of substantiated abusive behavior, the employee or contractor shall be terminated and shall not knowingly be employed at another State juvenile facility.
19. Upon execution of this Agreement, any staff member at Jena under investigation for physical abuse or sexual misconduct shall be separated from any contact with juveniles or placed on leave if the Defendants have a reasonable basis to believe that abuse or sexual misconduct warranting termination of employment may have occurred.
20. Within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Agreement, the Defendants shall instruct all staff on less restrictive non-physical responses that staff should employ to respond to juveniles' common behavior problems.
21. Within 45 days of execution of this Agreement, use of force by staff on juveniles at Jena shall only be used as defined below:
1. Employees will take all reasonable steps to minimize situations requiring a use of force and to minimize the amount of force used in those situations. When possible, actions other than use of force, such as staff presence, verbal directions and warning, crisis intervention techniques, and passively removing a juvenile from an area of group activity without the use of physical handling, will be used.
2. Force will be used only as a last resort to control the juveniles;
3. The amount of force used will be proportional to the threat to which it is a response and cease when the resistance ceases;
4. Force may be used only:
1. To prevent an escape;
2. To prevent an act which could result in death or severe bodily harm to the juvenile or another person;
3. To defend one's self or others against a physical assault;
4. To separate participants in a fight;
5. To prevent substantial damage to property; and
6. When necessary, to enforce legal orders and instructions.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/us-v-lu/us-jena.htm

2/23/2007

U.S. v. Louisiana -- Jena Agreement

Page 6 of 15

5. Whenever possible, force will not be used against juveniles with mental illness or mental retardation before appropriate medical, mental health, or counseling personnel can be called to the scene;
6. The first action taken to gain control will be direct, verbal instructions to cease the behavior, unless the employee perceives that life or health will be jeopardized, or that there is a substantial threat to security.
7. When determining the need to use force, factors to be considered include but are not limited to: lack of appropriate response to repeated direct orders and other efforts to temper the situation, severity of the situation and/or behavior, threat to self or others and disruption to the unit or program.
22. By the 10th of each month, the Defendants shall provide copies to the Court Expert, the Private Plaintiffs, and the United States of every Unusual Occurrence Report (UOR), Use of Force Report (UOF) and Accident/Injury Report (A&I) pertaining to a use of force during the preceding month. Collectively, the reports will include: (a) the date and time the force was used; (b) the identity of the staff using the force; (c) the identity of the juveniles on whom force was used; (d) the circumstances and justification for the use of force; (e) whether the juvenile was restrained; (f) an account of the other staff interventions utilized during the same incident, including the order in which they were used; (g) the date and time the juvenile was evaluated by medical staff; and (h) the results of the medical evaluation. A copy of the A&I shall be placed in the file of the juvenile against whom the use of force was employed.
23. Upon execution of this Agreement, the only chemical agent that Jena shall keep or employ shall be 100% OC spray. Gas grenades shall neither be kept nor used at Jena. Only the Warden, Deputy Warden or Assistant Warden, or when they are not present at the facility, the highest ranking officer at the facility, shall be permitted to authorize the use of the spray. The authorizing Warden or officer must be present at the use of the spray. They may not delegate this authority to any other person. Only employees specifically trained in the use of chemical spray shall be permitted to use the spray. The chemical spray shall not be intentionally sprayed in the face of any juvenile. Employees shall be trained to not intentionally spray juveniles in the face. The Defendants shall ensure that the Warden, Deputy Warden or Assistant Wardens are trained in the correct use of these sprays to prevent excessive exposure, the hazards associated with such sprays, and the first aid response to exposure situations. All use of chemical agents at Jena shall be videotaped, with sound recording, and the tape of the incident shall be maintained for the duration of this Agreement for inspection by the Private Plaintiffs, the United States, and the Court Expert. The Defendants shall ensure that the chemical spray is only used under the following terms:
a. Chemical agents shall not be used except under the conditions set forth below and with prior approval, after personal observation of the situation, from the Warden, Deputy Warden or Assistant Warden if one of these officials is at the facility. If the Warden, Deputy or Assistant Warden is not at the facility, prior approval may be given, after personal observation of the situation, by the highest ranking security officer on duty at the facility. However, such approval shall not be required in the case of a large-scale disturbance (such as an attempted mass escape) that poses an imminent danger to the public, staff or other juveniles, so long as in such an event the Warden, Deputy or Assistant Warden is notified as soon as practicable.
b. Chemical agents shall only be authorized when:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/us-v-lu/us-jena.htm

2/23/2007

U.S. v. Louisiana -- Jena Agreement

Page 7 of 15

1. A juvenile is posing a direct and immediate threat of injury to staff or another juvenile;
2. The juvenile is creating a sustained disturbance that jeopardizes the effective monitoring and supervision of the unit to the extent that the safety of juveniles or staff is endangered, which persists despite efforts to de-escalate without the use of chemical agents, and the use of chemical agents is the only means to avoid a physical confrontation that would likely result in injury to juveniles or staff; or
3. The use is necessary to prevent an escape.
The Defendants shall ensure that exposed juveniles are seen by medical staff whenever spray is used. The Defendants shall ensure that juveniles with known chronic respiratory conditions (including asthma) are not subjected to chemical spray. However, this shall not prohibit the use of chemical spray when it is necessary to prevent or quell a large scale disturbance where such juveniles are present. In no event shall staff use a chemical spray as punishment, discipline, retaliation, for the purpose of inflicting pain, for staff's convenience, or after handcuffs have been applied.
24. In every instance that chemical spray is used, the Defendants shall provide copies of every UOR, UOF and A&I involving the use of chemical spray to the Court Expert, the Private Plaintiffs, and the United States by the 10th of the month for the preceding month. Collectively, the reports will include: (a) the date and time the spray was used; (b) the identity of the staff using the spray; (c) the identity of the subject(s); (d) the circumstance and justification for use of force; (e) the estimated amount of spray used on the juvenile(s); (f) the observed results; (g) an account of the other staff interventions utilized during the same incident, including the order in which they were used; (h) the decontamination measures taken; (i) the date and time the juvenile(s) was evaluated by medical staff; (j) the results of the medical evaluation(s); and (k) the results of the investigation. A copy of the A&I shall be placed in the file of the juvenile against whom the chemical restraint was used.
25. Within ten (10) days of the execution of this Agreement, Defendants shall not use mechanical restraints except under the following circumstances. The use of mechanical restraints shall be limited to the minimum period of time necessary to enable the juvenile to gain control of his behavior. When a handcuff belt is not used, handcuffs shall be applied behind the back in a manner to minimize the risk of injury to the juvenile and the staff person responsible for supervising.
Defendants shall not use mechanical restraints except under the conditions set forth below:
a. For transportation of juveniles outside the facility, Defendants may use handcuffs, leg irons, and/or handcuff belts;
b. For movement of juveniles within the facility, no mechanical restraints shall be used except under the following conditions. Handcuffs and/or a handcuff belt may be used if the facility has documented that the juvenile poses a current escape risk or has engaged in a recent pattern of assaultive behavior toward staff or other juveniles, as determined and authorized by a ranking security shift supervisor. Leg irons may only be used for transportation within the facility if the conditions of subparagraph (d) are met;
c. For movement of juveniles within the facility to transport a juvenile from general population to a restrictive housing area after a fight or other serious incident, handcuffs

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/us-v-lu/us-jena.htm

2/23/2007

U.S. v. Louisiana -- Jena Agreement

Page 8 of 15

and/or a handcuff belt may be used;
d. For control of a juvenile who, after less restrictive measures have not been successful, continues to engage in aggressive or assaultive behavior that is a clear and present danger to the juvenile, another juvenile, staff, or the security of the facility, a handcuff belt, and/or leg irons may be used. In this instance, such use of mechanical restraints shall require continuous one-on-one physical supervision and must be approved by the ranking supervisor (Captain or higher) on duty at the facility. The staff person shall ensure that the physical needs of the juvenile are met promptly;
e. For intra-facility movement of the approximately 12 juveniles at any given time in administrative segregation for disciplinary reasons, handcuffs and/or a handcuff belt, may be used.
Although a routine medical examination after the use of mechanical restraint is not required, immediate medical treatment shall be provided if there is a visual indication of an injury or if the juvenile identifies a specific medical complaint.
No other forms of mechanical restraints may be used (including 4 or 5 point restraints). This, however, does not apply to medical or mental health restraints ordered by a medical or mental health professional.
26. Medical/mental health restraints shall not be used at Jena unless specifically ordered by the physician or psychiatrist. Soft restraints, rather than metal mechanical restraints, shall be utilized for this purpose. There shall be no standing orders for medical/mental health restraints. This does not apply to any order by a physician or psychiatrist that is issued in response to an individual juvenile's current medical or mental health condition. Medical/mental health restraints shall be used only in the infirmary under constant supervision and conducted according to current accepted professional standards on medical restraints. The log documenting the monitoring of each use of medical/mental health restraints shall be copied and reported by the 10th of the month to the Court Expert, Private Plaintiffs, and the United States for all such uses of restraint during the preceding month.
27. [Intentionally blank]
28. Every use of a mechanical restraint, other than as authorized under 25(a) & (e), shall be documented. The use of mechanical restraints shall be documented on a UOR or in a log maintained for this purpose. Documentation to reflect compliance with 25(b), (c) and (d) shall describe the behavior of the juvenile with sufficient particularity to enable a reviewer to determine independently whether the above requirements of Paragraph 25 have been complied with (i.e., the documentation shall not simply restate, paraphrase or refer to the above conditions warranting use of mechanical restraints). The UORs and/or the logs described above shall be made available during the compliance tour. Defendants will accommodate Private Plaintiffs' and the United States' reasonable requests for copies of specific UORs or logs.
29. Within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Agreement, the following suicide hazards shall be eliminated: elimination of the risk posed by the bar in windows throughout the facility, including in the medical isolation rooms, replacement or repair of all hanging appurtenances on any and all beds, elimination of the holes in the beds on Falcon A, and elimination of the risk posed by the knobs in the showers for juveniles with disabilities. Wackenhut will hire a consultant to assess the hanging risks posed by the cell doors in the infirmary and in Falcon and Eagle A and B and, as soon as practicable, implement any recommendations made by the consultant to eliminate suicide risks posed by the doors.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/us-v-lu/us-jena.htm

2/23/2007

U.S. v. Louisiana -- Jena Agreement

Page 9 of 15

Wackenhut will replace shower heads in the eight handicap accessible showers with fixtures that are more suicide resistant if such shower heads can be found. Alternatively, Wackenhut will develop a plan for detachable shower heads.
30. Suicide watch shall only be conducted with adequate staff supervision. All beds in the infirmary will be used on a priority basis for suicide watch unless the medical needs of another juvenile take priority as determined by a physician. In addition to the infirmary beds, an additional two suicide-resistant cells will be designated as overflow for suicide watch.
31. By the 10th of each month, the Defendants shall provide copies of logs and or reports/documentation to the Court Expert, the Private Plaintiffs, and the United States of each time that an juvenile was placed on suicide watch during the preceding month. Collectively, this information will include: (a) the date, time and place the suicide watch was initiated; (b) the reason the suicide watch was initiated; (c) the identity of the juvenile on suicide watch; (d) the name of the person authorizing the suicide watch and the terms and conditions of the suicide watch that was authorized; (e) the length of time the juvenile was on suicide watch; (f) the dates and times that the juvenile was evaluated by mental health professionals and medical staff (not including nurses) while on suicide watch; and (g) the results of the mental health and/or medical evaluations. Appropriate documentation of the suicide watch shall be placed in the file of the juvenile on suicide watch.
32. Locking a juvenile in a room for prolonged periods of time, except during sleeping hours (cell restriction), shall only occur in three contexts at Jena -- administrative segregation, protective custody, and removal from regular programming. Use of isolation in these contexts shall be governed by the following requirements:
A. Administrative Segregation
1. A juvenile can be placed in the 12 bed administrative segregation unit only when his continued presence in general population poses a threat to the safety of the juvenile, staff or other juveniles or is a substantial threat to the security of the institution. This includes activities that are destabilizing or highly disruptive to programming.
2. Juveniles living in dormitories may only be placed in administrative segregation pending a hearing on their disciplinary charge. Juveniles engaging in suicidal or self-mutilating behavior shall not be held in administrative segregation for behaviors resulting from their conditions.
3. The Defendants shall ensure that only a staff member of the rank of Lieutenant or higher places a juvenile in administrative segregation. The staff placing a juvenile in administrative segregation shall obtain the approval of the Warden or the Warden's designee as soon as possible.
4. Staff shall make visual contact with each juvenile in administrative segregation at least every 15 minutes (or more, depending upon the juvenile's emotional state) and otherwise monitor the condition of each juvenile. Staff shall record essential information about each juvenile in administrative segregation. Staff shall alert mental health staff if a juvenile begins to exhibit symptoms of a deterioration in emotional state while in cell restriction in accordance with the guidelines set forth in subparagraph 32(A)(9).

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/us-v-lu/us-jena.htm

2/23/2007

U.S. v. Louisiana -- Jena Agreement

Page 10 of 15

5. Disciplinary hearings shall be held every weekday and on Saturday. A juvenile's disciplinary hearing shall be held within 24 hours or at the first scheduled hearing after the disciplinary writeup. Juveniles may not be subjected to cell restriction as a penalty resulting from a disciplinary hearing.
6. Juveniles in administrative segregation may be held in isolation for a few hours until calm. Staff shall make all efforts to assist the juvenile in regaining control of his behavior. When the juvenile is calm, he shall be permitted out of his cell to participate in alternative programming in the administrative segregation unit for at least seven and a half hours a day until he receives his disciplinary hearing. The daily time out of cells shall occur regardless of whether there is any planned or scheduled programming available to the juvenile.
7. Alternative programming for juveniles in administrative segregation may only be ended if the juvenile engages in the behaviors listed in subparagraph 32 (C)(3).
8. A juvenile in administrative segregation shall be routinely provided with reading and writing materials unless his current behavior indicates that possession of such materials would be a danger to the health of the juvenile or others.
9. Juveniles with mental retardation (IQ of 70 or below) or serious mental illness including but not limited to: clinical depression, juveniles with an Axis I diagnosis, or a history of suicidal ideation or self mutilation shall be interviewed, assessed, and treated about three hours after being placed in administrative segregation if the juvenile is still in cell restriction. The assessment shall be conducted by the highest ranking mental health professional on site at the facility. In the event that there are no mental health professionals at the facility, the assessment shall be conducted by the highest ranking medical professional on site at the facility. Nurses who may conduct the assessment shall be trained to recognize the signs and symptoms of a juvenile experiencing exacerbation of his mental condition due to the effects of isolation. If a nurse determines that a juvenile is presenting symptoms of an exacerbated mental condition due to being held in isolation, the nurse shall confer with on-call mental health professionals, who shall decide a course of treatment for the juvenile. The mental health professionals shall determine what the course of treatment is for such juveniles held in cell restriction, including, if applicable, release from isolation for mental health reason, if they are no longer a danger to others, or, if the juvenile is determined to be fit to remain in isolation, the frequency of re-assessment of the effects of isolation on the juvenile.
B. Protective Custody
1. Juveniles in protective custody shall be reviewed, assessed and treated by mental health professionals at least once daily.
2. Juveniles in protective custody shall be permitted to be out of their cells for

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/us-v-lu/us-jena.htm

2/23/2007

U.S. v. Louisiana -- Jena Agreement

Page 11 of 15

at least seven and one half hours a day and participate in programming (including recreation) each day.
3. Alternative programming for juveniles in protective custody may only be ended if the juvenile engages in the behaviors listed in subparagraph 32(C)(3).
C. Removal from Regular Programming
1. Defendants may not assign a juvenile to cellblock housing without a hearing.
2. A juvenile who is housed in a cellblock, other than Falcon A, may be removed from programming and placed in his assigned cell only in accordance with paragraph 32(C)(3) and shall have opportunities to rejoin programming in accordance with paragraph 32(C)(4) The daily time out of cells shall occur regardless of whether there is any planned or scheduled programming available to the juvenile.
3. Alternative program participation may only be ended if the juvenile engages in:
i. Repeated failure to follow orders, where the failure to comply is destabilizing;
ii. Repeated interference with staff or other juveniles' duties;
iii. Improper sexual behaviors;
iv. Fighting;
v. Substantial destruction of property; or
vi. Violent conduct that creates an imminent danger to other juveniles or staff.
The decision to remove a juvenile from programming shall be approved by a ranking security staff member Lieutenant or higher and documented in a log.
4. If a juvenile is removed from programming before noon, the juvenile shall be evaluated by a ranking security shift supervisor before evening recreation to determine whether the juvenile can be permitted to participate in evening recreation. The juvenile shall be permitted to participate in evening recreation unless the ranking security shift supervisor determines that, based on documented interim behavior, the juvenile is likely to engage in conduct described in Part 32(C)(3) and documents the basis for his belief in a log maintained for this purpose. Provided, however, that every juvenile shall be permitted an opportunity to participate in programming at the beginning of each day. e. Juveniles with serious mental retardation (IQ of 70 or below) or mental illness including but not limited to: clinical depression, juveniles with an Axis I diagnosis, or a history of suicidal ideation or self mutilation and who are assigned to a cellblock, other than Falcon A, who have been removed from

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/us-v-lu/us-jena.htm

2/23/2007

U.S. v. Louisiana -- Jena Agreement

Page 12 of 15

regular programming shall be reviewed, assessed and treated as soon as possible after they have been denied the opportunity to participate in three consecutive opportunities for programming. For example, a juvenile who is not permitted to participate in afternoon, evening, and the following morning's alternative programming shall be reviewed as soon as possible following the denial of the juvenile's opportunity to participate in the morning programming. Such review shall be in accordance with the protocols established in subparagraph 32(A)(9). Subsequent to such review and assessment, a mental health professional may release the juvenile from cell restriction if necessary for mental health reasons and if the juvenile is not currently a danger to others.
33. By the 10th of each month, the Defendants shall inform the Court Expert, the Private Plaintiffs, and the United States in writing of each use of administrative segregation, protective custody and removal from regular programming (collectively, "cell restriction") during the preceding month, including: (a) the date, time and place of the use of cell restriction; (b) the duration of its use; (c) the identity of the staff authorizing the cell restriction; (d) the identity of the juvenile placed on cell restriction; (e) a copy of the disciplinary board's report; (f) the observed results; and (g) any mental health referral, if indicated. A copy of the disciplinary report shall also be placed in the files of the juveniles who were placed in cell restriction.
34. The Defendants shall not use group discipline/punishment as a sanction for the conduct of individual juveniles.
35. The Defendants shall not use corporal punishment, including but not limited to the practice of making juveniles lie face down on the floor with their head and feet elevated.
36. The Defendants shall not ticket or otherwise discipline juveniles for suicidal behaviors. The Defendants shall not discipline juveniles for self-mutilating behaviors, where those behaviors result from a mental health disorder, mental illness or anxiety or fear over the juvenile's safety. No juvenile shall be disciplined for self-mutilation unless a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnoses malingering based on reasons other than anxiety or fear over the juvenile's safety. In this context, self-mutilation does not include tattooing, body piercing, or similar conduct. Obvious self-mutilations will not result in disciplinary writeups.
37. Defendants, in conjunction with the mental health professionals at Jena and Swanson Correctional Center for Youth, will review juveniles with mental disabilities, including mental illness and mental retardation, to determine whether any juvenile shall be transferred to a DPS&C mental health treatment facility in accordance with the State's classification structure. The Department of Justice and Private Plaintiffs shall provide, from time to time during the life of this Agreement, names of juveniles they recommend for such a review, and Defendants will review these juveniles.
38. The Defendants shall exercise their best efforts to obtain the services of a board eligible child and adolescent psychiatrist in the event the contract with the individual currently in that position is terminated.
39. During the term of this Agreement, the Defendants shall exercise their best efforts to obtain the services of a pediatrician with experience in adolescent medicine to provide quality assurance and consultative services to the current physician at Jena.
40. Within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Agreement, the Defendants shall ensure that all

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/us-v-lu/us-jena.htm

2/23/2007

U.S. v. Louisiana -- Jena Agreement

Page 13 of 15

employees, current and prospective, have been screened for tuberculosis and that 25% of the employees are selected randomly and screened each quarter for illegal drugs in their urine.
41. Upon execution of the Agreement, the Defendants shall provide for at least one hour of outdoor exercise, weather permitting, including weekends and holidays to each juvenile confined at Jena except for:
a) when contra-indicated for medical reasons;
b) juveniles in administrative segregation who continue to present an immediate danger to others;
c) Juveniles who are housed in a cellblock, other than Falcon A, and who have been removed from programming in accordance with Paragraph 32(C)(3) and who have not been returned to programming in accordance with Paragraph 32(C)(4).
Utilization of provision (b) shall require the approval of the Warden/Deputy Warden, or Assistant Warden. In the absence of the Warden/Deputy Warden or Assistant Warden, application of provision (b) may be authorized only by the highest ranking officer at the institution; and
The Defendants shall maintain information in logbooks in dormitories, cellblocks, school and the infirmary to record outdoor exercise activities.
42. Upon execution of this Agreement, the Defendants shall provide each juvenile with sufficient clean clothing and shoes at Defendants' expense. The Defendants shall immediately implement a documented daily unit monitoring system to ensure that each juvenile has adequate clothing and shoes every day.
43. Compliance with the terms of this Agreement shall be monitored by the Court expert in Williams v. McKeithen. The Court Expert in Williams v. McKeithen may initiate and receive ex parte reports from an expert selected and paid for by the State, and an expert selected and paid for by Wackenhut.
The State shall bear all costs incurred by the Court Expert, including, but not limited to fees and expenses (e.g. for site visits, administrative costs, and report writing, and telephone calls made for consultation.)
The Court Expert shall be permitted to initiate and receive ex parte communications from attorneys for all parties.
In order to monitor compliance with this Agreement, the Court Expert shall have reasonable access to all facilities, juveniles, staff and documents. The Court Expert shall have the right to conduct confidential interviews with staff and juveniles.
In order to monitor compliance with this Agreement, the United States and its two experts may conduct one tour of the Jena Juvenile Justice Center between June 15 and July 15, 2000, at a time mutually agreed by the parties. The site tour shall be conducted between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and shall be concluded within a single three day period. Documents shall be requested only during normal business hours. During the United States' tour, the United States and its experts shall have reasonable access to all facilities and documents. The State Defendants and Wackenhut will cooperate in scheduling interviews with staff of the facility, during this tour, provided that counsel for State Defendants and Wackenhut are present. Private Plaintiffs and the United States shall be able to conduct private interviews with juveniles. Defendants' attorneys and experts shall conduct interviews with juveniles only in the presence

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/us-v-lu/us-jena.htm

2/23/2007

U.S. v. Louisiana -- Jena Agreement

Page 14 of 15

of juveniles' counsel. Juveniles' counsel will cooperate in scheduling juvenile interviews with Defendants' attorneys and experts. The United States' reports arising out of this tour shall be initially distributed to Defendants' counsel and the court expert. The parties shall simultaneously file all reports assessing compliance with this Agreement into the court record 14 days after the reports have been distributed. This provision shall not, however, prevent the United States from filing reports into the record in order to address dangerous or life threatening conditions (such as violation of suicide hazards) after the United States has given Defendants verbal notice of the dangerous or life threatening condition and a copy of the report and provided that Defendants shall have 24 hours to attempt to resolve the dangerous or life threatening condition.
The Defendants shall make reasonable efforts to promptly provide any document related to compliance with this Agreement reasonably requested by the Court Expert, Private Plaintiffs, or the United States within 14 days. Defendants shall cooperate with Private Plaintiffs' or the United States' reasonable requests to take photographs within the facility or to scan existing photographs. This shall not include, however, documents or portions of documents that are subject to attorney-client or work product privilege.
44. [Intentionally blank]
45. [Intentionally blank]
46. In addition to the information required in the above paragraphs to be provided by the 10th of the month to the Court Expert, the Private Plaintiffs, and the United States, the Defendants shall also provide copies of the following documentation on a monthly basis: (a) all accident and injury reports, (b) all ARPs or grievances filed; (c) all Unusual Occurrence Reports and (d) the investigation log and all investigations completed during the preceding month, including all preliminary investigations. This obligation does not alter or limit any obligation that exists separate and apart from this Agreement requiring the State to provide reports or other information to the Court, the Court Expert, or Private Plaintiffs' counsel in Williams.
47. The names of all individual juveniles and staff members shall be maintained confidential by all parties to this Agreement.
Agreed to by this ___________day of April 2000:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bill Lann Lee Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
Steven H. Rosenbaum Chief Special Litigation Section
Robinsue Frohboese Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section
______________________________________

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/us-v-lu/us-jena.htm

2/23/2007

U.S. v. Louisiana -- Jena Agreement

Page 15 of 15

Judith C. Preston Iris Goldschmidt Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section
WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS CORPORATION
______________________________________ Amber D. Martin Director, Contract Compliance
RICHARD L. STALDER, Secretary, Department of Public Safety & Corrections, HONORABLE MURPHY "MIKE" FOSTER, Governor, State of Louisiana
RICHARD P. IEYOUB Attorney General State of Louisiana
______________________________________ Richard A. Curry Special Assistant Attorney General
Dan E. West

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/us-v-lu/us-jena.htm

2/23/2007

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA


HAYES WILLIAMS, et al.

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

JOHN McKEITHEN, et al.

)

Defendants,

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)


Amicus Curiae.

)


)


IN RE: JUVENILE FACILITIES

)


)


IN RE: TALLULAH CORRECTIONAL )


CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: JETSON CORRECTIONAL

)

CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: SWANSON CORRECTIONAL )

CENTER FOR YOUTH

)

)

IN RE: LOUISIANA TRAINING

)

INSTITUTE - BRIDGE CITY )

)

IN RE: JENA JUVENILE JUSTICE

)

CENTER

)

______________________________

)

)

BRIAN B., et al.

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

RICHARD STALDER, et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________

)

Civ. No. 71-98-B
Civ. No. CH 97-MS-001-B Civ. No. CH 97-0665-B-M1 Civ. No. CH 97-0666-B-M1 Civ. No. CH 97-0667-B-M1 Civ. No. CH 97-0668-B-M1 Civ. No. CH 98-0804-B-M1
Civ. No. 98-886-B-M1

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA,

)

et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

_____________________________

)

)

A.A., et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS CORP., )

et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

_____________________________

)

Civ. No. 98-947-B-1 Civ. No. 00-246-C-M1

2004 Settlement Agreement
I. Introduction
1. On August 31, 2000, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), the private plaintiffs, and the State of Louisiana ("the State") signed an agreement resolving DOJ's and private plaintiffs' claims regarding juvenile justice issues, and medical, dental, mental health, and rehabilitation services, and the private plaintiffs' claim regarding access to courts ("the 2000 Settlement Agreement").
2. On January 17, 2003, DOJ, private plaintiffs, and the State signed a new settlement agreement that dismissed certain paragraphs from the 2000 Settlement Agreement, incorporated certain paragraphs from the 2000 Settlement Agreement, added a few new substantive paragraphs, and added an Independent Expert to monitor compliance and provide the State with technical assistance ("the 2003 Settlement Agreement").
3. The parties agree that, based on their own assessments and the assessments of their experts, the State is in substantial compliance with many paragraphs from the 2000 and 2003 Settlement Agreements. The DOJ and the private plaintiffs contend, however, that the State is
- 2 
-

not in substantial compliance with other provisions from the 2000 and 2003 Settlement Agreements.
4. In recognition of the State's substantial compliance with many paragraphs from the 2000 and 2003 Settlement Agreements, and in consideration of the State's agreement to continue to implement policies and procedures that are substantially similar to the portions of 2000 and 2003 Settlement Agreements that will be terminated, the parties agree to enter into this Settlement Agreement.
II. Jurisdictional Provisions and Definitions
5. With regard to the jurisdictional provisions and definitions from the 2000 and 2003 Settlement Agreements, the parties agree that paragraph 7 of the 2003 Agreement is incorporated into this Agreement and shall remain in effect until termination of this Agreement.
III. Juvenile Justice and Independent Expert
6.A. The parties agree to terminate the 2000 Settlement Agreement and the 2003 Settlement Agreement as they apply to Bridge City Correctional Center for Youth ("BCCCY") and Swanson Correctional Center for Youth - Madison Parish Unit ("SCCY-Madison").
B. The parties agree to jointly move the Court to dismiss all pending claims in Civil Action No. 71-98 and 97-MS-001 (including Civil Action Nos. 97-0665 through 97-0668) and Civil Action No. 98-947 as they pertain to BCCCY and SCCY-Madison.
C. Private Plaintiffs agree that Civil Action No. 98-886 shall remain conditionally dismissed and administratively closed. That action will be subject to reopening on July 1, 2004, but only if the facility is still being used to house juveniles adjudicated delinquent. The parties consent and agree to entry of a final judgment of dismissal, with prejudice, of 98-886 on or after July 1, 2004 unless SCCY-Madison is still being used to house juveniles adjudicated delinquent as of that date.
D. Any state law claims that are not asserted against the State in this action are not settled in this Agreement.
7. Prior to dismissal of the mental health claims involving BCCCY and SCCY-Madison, the State will provide DOJ and private plaintiffs with written confirmation of the following:
A. Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center ("LSUHSC") will provide treatment for juveniles diagnosed with substance abuse and substance dependency disorders at
- 3 
-

BCCCY. This shall include juveniles diagnosed by LSUHSC as having a serious mental illness ("SMI") and juveniles who are not diagnosed as SMI.
B. LSUHSC will design and develop the program content for a system-wide sexual offender treatment program at one or more of the following three facilities – JCCY, SCCYMonroe, and BCCCY – by no later than March 15, 2004. LSUHSC will provide copies of the program to DOJ and the private plaintiffs by no later than March 15, 2004. As part of implementation of the plan, after March 15, 2004, LSUHSC will assist in placing appropriate personnel in the program, conduct training, provide clinical supervision, and monitor the systemwide sexual offender treatment program. The program will be fully implemented within six months of executing this Agreement.
C. Within six weeks of executing this Agreement, LSUHSC will evaluate all juveniles at SCCY-Madison and BCCCY adjudicated to secure care as a result of committing a sexual offense and juveniles who are diagnosed by LSUHSC as having a sexual disorder and will identify any of those juveniles who should be removed from those facilities because their treatment needs would be better served at another facility. The State will implement that recommendation.
D. No juveniles diagnosed by LSUHSC at the Juvenile Reception and Diagnostic Center ("JRDC") as SMI will be housed at SCCY-Madison.
E. Juveniles with an IQ below 70 and/or juveniles adjudicated to secure care as a result of committing a sexual offense and juveniles who are diagnosed by LSUHSC as having a sexual disorder shall not be housed at SCCY-Madison unless the juveniles are participating in the Louisiana Intensive Training and Education Program ("LITE") program or the Therapeutic Community at that facility. If one of these juveniles are removed from LITE or the Therapeutic Community, then they will be removed from SCCY-Madison.
F. Juveniles diagnosed with a substance abuse or dependency disorder during intake assessment at JRDC will not be housed at SCCY-Madison unless they live in and receive substance abuse treatment in that facility's therapeutic community.
8. At Jetson Correctional Center for Youth ("JCCY") and Swanson Correctional Center for Youth - Monroe ("SCCY-Monroe"), the parties agree to incorporate into this Agreement paragraphs 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 45, 46 (except as to SCCY-Monroe), 47, 50, 51, 54, 55, 57, and 74 from the 2000 Settlement Agreement and paragraphs 8, 9, 12, 15, and 18 from the 2003 Settlement Agreement. The parties also agree that they will not terminate any juvenile justice paragraphs as they apply to JCCY and SCCY-Monroe until DOJ and private plaintiffs conduct compliance tours with their juvenile justice expert pursuant to paragraphs 15 and 17 of this Agreement.
- 4 
-

9. With regard to the Independent Expert, the parties agree to incorporate into this Agreement paragraphs 19, 20, and 21 of the 2003 Settlement Agreement. The parties also agree that the Independent Expert will continue to monitor and issue quarterly reports regarding all remaining paragraphs identified in this Agreement.
IV. Medical, Dental, and Mental Health
10. The parties agree to terminate all remaining paragraphs from the 2000 and 2003 Settlement Agreements as they apply to medical and dental care at all facilities. Further, the parties also agree to jointly move the Court to dismiss all claims as they apply to medical and dental care at all facilities.
11. The parties agree to incorporate into this Agreement all paragraphs relating to mental health services from the 2000 Settlement Agreement (paragraphs 76 [as modified by the 2003 Agreement] - 116) as they apply to SCCY-Monroe. The parties also agree to incorporate paragraphs 87, 101, 103, 108, 109, 110, 111, and 113 from the 2000 Settlement Agreement and paragraph 17 of the 2003 Settlement Agreement as they apply to JCCY. The parties agree that they will not terminate any mental health paragraphs as they apply to JCCY and SCCY-Monroe until DOJ and private plaintiffs conduct compliance tours with their mental health experts pursuant to paragraphs 16 and 17 of this Agreement.
V. Enforcement, Compliance Monitoring, and Termination
12. The parties agree to incorporate paragraphs 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 131, 135 (4, 5), 139, and 140 from the 2000 Settlement Agreement into this Agreement and agree that they shall remain in effect with regard to JCCY and SCCY-Monroe until termination is accomplished according to the terms of this Agreement. During the life of this Agreement, the DOJ's Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division and private plaintiffs agree that they will not seek authority for tours, inspections, or on-site monitoring of conditions at JCCY and SCCY-Monroe in any state or federal court proceeding except as authorized by this Agreement. For purposes of monitoring this Agreement, the parties agree to incorporate paragraphs 136, 137 and 141 of the 2000 Settlement Agreement as they pertain to JCCY and SCCY-Monroe into this Agreement with the following limitations:
A. The private plaintiffs agree to limit their requests for review of documents for inspection and copying at JCCY and SCCY-Monroe to no more than once every quarter. In addition, the State will provide a current roster of youth at JCCY and SCCY-Monroe to private plaintiffs by the fifth of each month. Finally, DOJ and private plaintiffs agree to review PZT reports regarding JCCY and SCCY-Monroe at the Department of Public Safety and Corrections' ("DPSC") headquarters. The parties agree that any copies shall be billed at $.25 a page;
- 5 
-

B. With regard to JCCY and SCCY-Monroe, private plaintiffs agree to provide notice of requests to visit juveniles who telephone and request a visit or who are identified by the facility in a "Nordyke Report," 48 hours in advance of any visit. In addition, once every quarter at JCCY and SCCY-Monroe, private plaintiffs may visit juveniles and review juveniles files for three consecutive days per institution. Any documents requested during these visits shall be requested in writing and private plaintiffs will work with the facility to list the documents requested contemporaneously with the request. In addition, private plaintiffs may conduct one additional visit at SCCY-Monroe and one additional visit at JCCY in order to meet with juveniles and review juvenile files for three consecutive days in advance of one of the tours to be conducted at each of those facilities under paragraphs 13 and 14 of this Agreement.
C. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit counsel for individual juveniles to conduct legal visits; and
D. In order to ensure that juveniles have adequate access to attorneys and the courts, the State agrees to continue to post the telephone numbers for the private plaintiffs in all dorms at all four secure juvenile facilities and to continue to permit all juveniles to make collect calls to private plaintiffs.
13. The State’s compliance with the juvenile justice components of this Agreement shall be monitored by one juvenile justice expert selected by the DOJ and one juvenile justice expert selected by the State (the “Juvenile Justice Experts”). During the tours, the DOJ and private plaintiffs may spend four days at each facility. In all other respects, the Juvenile Justice compliance tours shall be conducted in accordance with guidelines set forth in paragraphs 128 and 129 of the 2000 Settlement Agreement (except for the dates, which shall be controlled by this Agreement).
14. The State’s compliance with the mental health components of this Agreement shall be monitored by Dr. Eric Trupin and Dr. Pamela McPherson. One attorney from DOJ, one attorney from the private plaintiffs, and one attorney from the State may accompany Drs. Trupin and McPherson on their mental health tours. In all other respects, the mental health tours shall be governed by guidelines set forth in paragraphs 124-126 of the 2000 Settlement Agreement.
15. The State will notify DOJ and private plaintiffs, in writing, when it believes that it is in compliance with all paragraphs of this Agreement at JCCY and SCCY-Monroe. DOJ and private plaintiffs will then have 60 days to conduct the juvenile justice and mental health tours and finalize the experts' reports under paragraphs 13 and 14 of this Agreement.
16. This Agreement shall terminate and shall be of no further effect whatsoever 90 days after the State provides written notice to DOJ and private plaintiffs pursuant to paragraph 17 of this Agreement. The parties consent and agree to entry of a final judgment dismissing with
- 6 
-

prejudice the lawsuits 90 days after the State provides written notice pursuant to paragraph 17 of this Agreement unless the private plaintiffs or the DOJ has moved for an order reopening or reactivating the lawsuits prior to that date.
17. During the life of this Agreement, if the private plaintiffs or DOJ believe that the State has failed to substantially comply with this Agreement, then they shall so notify the State in writing. The parties shall conduct good faith negotiations to resolve the dispute and may agree in writing to adopt a plan of correction or otherwise modify or extend this agreement. If the parties are unable to reach agreement within 30 days of the date on which the private plaintiffs or DOJ informed the State of their allegations of noncompliance, then the private plaintiffs, acting collectively, or DOJ may file a motion with the court to reopen the lawsuits.
18. This Agreement is effective between the DOJ and the State immediately upon execution. This Agreement is effective between the private plaintiffs and the State once the Court approves the Agreement. Simultaneously with their signing of this Agreement, counsel for the State and counsel for the private plaintiffs shall file a joint motion for preliminary approval of the Agreement under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for approval of class notice. If the Court does not approve the Agreement, the private plaintiffs shall have 20 days from the date they receive actual notice of the Court's decision to move for an order reopening and reactivating the lawsuits pursuant to paragraphs 132 and 138 of the Juvenile Justice Agreement. The requirement of prior good-faith negotiations contained in paragraph 138 shall not be a bar to any such motion. During the pendency of the Court's approval of the Agreement, the State and the private plaintiffs agree to comply with it.
- 7 
-

FOR DEFENDANTS
FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND ITS OFFICES, AGENCIES, AND DEPARTMENTS
/s/ Richard P. Ieyoub
RICHARD P. IEYOUB Attorney General for the State of Louisiana
/s/ M. Brent Hicks
_/_s_/_R_i_c_h_a_r_d__Cu_r_r_y_____________ Richard Curry, Bar Roll 4671 M. Brent Hicks, Bar Roll 23778 McGlinchey Stafford PLLC One American Place Suite 9000 Baton Rouge, LA 70825 Telephone: (225) 383-9000 Fax: (225) 382-3725
____________________________ DATE

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
/s/ R. Alexander Acosta
R. Alexander Acosta Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
/s/ Shanetta Y. Cutlar /s/ Judith C. Preston /s/ Jeffrey J. Resetarits
_/_s_/__M_a_rk__D_a_l_y___________________ Shanetta Y. Cutlar, Chief Judith C. Preston, Deputy Chief Jeffrey J. Resetarits Mark Daly Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 616-9710 Fax: (202) 514-6903

FOR PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS
/s/ Keith Nordyke
/s/ June Denlinger
____________________________ Keith Nordyke, Bar Roll 8556 June Denlinger, Bar Roll 1823 Nordyke and Denlinger Box 237 Baton Rouge, La. 70825 Telephone: (225) 383-3601 Fax: (225) 383-2725
____________________________ DATE

______________________________ DATE
/s/ David R. Dugas
DAVID R. DUGAS UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
_/_s_/__J_o_hn__J_.__G_a_u_p_p______________ John J. Gaupp, LBN 14976 Asst. United States Attorney 777 Florida Street, Suite 208 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801 Telephone: (225) 389-0443 Fax: (225) 389-0685
___________________________
- 8 
-

DATE

/s/ Gabriella Celeste /s/ David Utter
___________________________ Gabriella Celeste, Bar #25363
 David Utter, Bar #23236
 Juvenile Justice Project
 of Louisiana
 1600 Oretha Castle Haley Blvd.
 New Orleans, LA 70113
 Tel: (504) 522-5437
 Fax: (504) 522-5430
 ___________________________ DATE
- 9 -

 
 FILED
u.s. OIST COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUJ<?bOLE DIST. OF LA MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

20Gb APR 28 P 4: 24

SHANNON ROBSHAW, et al. Plaintiffs,

SIGN_f~­
BY Cc;)!.JTY C~J=-i-~!J\

v.

Civ. No. 98-886-B-Ml

SIMON GONSOULIN, et al. Defendants,

HAYES WILLIAMS, et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN McKEITHEN, et al., Defendants.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, Defendants.

Civ. No. 71-98-B Civ. No. 98-947-B-l

JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum in Support, the parties, by and though their undersigned counsel, hereby jointly move this Court to enter the parties' attached proposed Order to dismiss these cases with prejudice on the grounds that Defendants have complied with the provisions of the 2004 Settlement Agreement.

-2-

Respectfully submitted,

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

FOR THE PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS

WAN J. KIM Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
SHANETTA Y. CUTLAR Chief Special Litigation Section
JUDY C. PRESTON Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section
T. Russell Nobile, Bar Roll 29039
Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 305 - 322 9 Fax: (2 02 ) 514 - 02 12

David Utter, Bar Roll 23236 Derwyn Bunton, Bar Roll 25944 Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana 1600 Oretha Castle Haley Blvd. New Orleans, LA 70113 Tel: (504) 522-5437 Fax: (5 04 ) 52 2 - 54 3 0
~rR01l8556 Keith B. Nordyke, LLC 427 Mayflower St. Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 383 - 3 60 1 Fax: (225 ) 383 - 2 72 5
FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND ITS OFFICES, AGENCIES, AND DEPARTMENTS

DAVID R. DUGAS United States Attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana

CHARLES C. FOTI, JR. Attorney General for the State of Louisiana

on, Bar Roll 9934 tates Attorney
treet, Suite 208 Baton Rouge, LA 70801 Telephone: (225) 389-0443 Fax: (225 ) 38 9 - 068 5

urry, Bar Roll 4671 Brent Hicks, Bar Roll 23778 McGlinchey Stafford PLLC 14th Floor, One American Place Baton Rouge, LA 70825 Telephone: (225) 383 - 9000 Fax: (225 ) 34 3 - 3 076

STATE OF LOUISIANA OFFICE OF YOUTH DEVELOPMENT C nstance A. Koury 1201 North 3rd Street Suite 6-200 Claiborne Building Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 342 -4253 Facsimile: (225) 342 - 9318
- 11 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHANNON ROB SHAW , et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
RICHARD STALDER, et al. Defendants,

Civ. No. 98-886-B-Ml

HAYES WILLIAMS, et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN McKEITHEN, et al., Defendants.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, Defendants.

Civ. No. 71-98-B Civ. No. 98-947-B-l

ORDER AND NOW, this __ day of -------- , 2006, upon consideration of and reliance upon the parties· Joint Motion to Dismiss, and the Memorandum in Support thereof, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED that such motion is GRANTED. The above-captioned cases are hereby DISMISSED with PREJUDICE.

THE HONORABLE JAMES J. BRADY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHANNON ROBSHAW, et al. Plaintiffs,

FILED U S OIST COURT . \"i!COLE OIST. OF LA

IGUb p,PR 28 P tr 24

~.,-- '9"""-r'\{9d~~\ "BYIGH-- v

[,i:..!'~; I ,,,,..~. ".

v.

Civ. No. 98-886-B-M1

SIMON GONSOULIN, et al. Defendants,

HAYES WILLIAMS, et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN McKEITHEN, et al., Defendants.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, Defendants.

Civ. No. 71-98-B Civ. No. 98-947-B-1

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE PARTIES' JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS

For the reasons set forth below, the parties in these cases jointly move this Court to enter the parties' attached Order dismissing these cases with prejudice on the grounds that the Defendants have substantially complied with the provisions of the

-2 -
settlement agreements such that sufficient mechanisms are in place to prevent patterns or practices that violate constitutional and federal statutory law. I. Background and Procedural History
In April 1996, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") notified Louisiana (the "State") that it was initiating an investigation into conditions at four Louisiana secure juvenile facilities. The facilities involved were the Swanson Correctional Center for Youth ("Swanson"); the Jetson Correctional Center for Youth ("Jetson"); the Louisiana Center for Youth at Bridge City ("Bridge City"); and the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth ("Tallulah,,).1 After its investigation, in June 1997, the Department of Justice sent a letter to the State delineating a number of unconstitutional and unlawful conditions that it found at the facilities.
During the Spring of 1998, the court in Williams v. McKeithen, Civ. No. 71-98-B, ordered the DOJ to retour these four facilities and submit a report on the conditions. 2 Williams was a private class action suit concerning prison and jail conditions in the State's correctional system. It included the State's secure juvenile facilities. In July 1998, a second private class

1

During the course of the proceedings, Tallulah was re-

named the "Swanson Correctional Center for Youth - Madison."

2

The Court's order was pursuant to the DOJ's amicus

status in Williams.

-3-
action lawsuit, Brian B. v. Stalder, Civ. No. 98-886-B-M13 , concerning conditions at Tallulah was filed.
In November 1998, DOJ filed United States v. Louisiana, Civ. No. 98-947-B-1, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141. The DOJ alleged that there were unconstitutional conditions and practices at these four facilities. Specifically, the Complaint alleged that the State failed to provide youth at the facilities with reasonably safe conditions, adequate educational, medical, dental, mental health, and rehabilitative services. This suit was later consolidated with Williams and Brian B.
In November 1999, the parties negotiated an agreement to resolve the education claims in the cases. The agreement was filed with the Court, together with a motion to conditionally dismiss the education claims from the cases pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. The Court conditionally dismissed the education claims in November 1999 and finally dismissed them in January 2003, when the State came into compliance with the education agreement.
In August 2000, the Parties entered into a settlement agreement ("2000 Settlement Agreement") resolving the claims in

3

Brian B. v. Stalder is now styled Robshaw v. Gonsoulin.

-4the cases concerning juvenile justice; medical, dental, mental health, and rehabilitative services; as well as claims by the private plaintiffs concerning access to courts. The parties filed the 2000 Settlement Agreement with the Court and moved that the Court conditionally dismiss the cases pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. The Court conditionally dismissed the cases in October 2000.
In January 2003, the parties entered into a second settlement agreement ("2003 Settlement Agreement"). Generally, this agreement dismissed or modified many of the provisions contained in the 2000 Settlement Agreement. However, it also established the appointed position of the Independent Expert to monitor compliance, submit regular reports to the parties, and provide the State with technical assistance.
In 2004, the parties entered into a third and final settlement agreement ("2004 Settlement Agreement"). This agreement terminated a significant number of the provisions contained in the 2000 and 2003 Settlement Agreements. Notably, the 2004 Settlement Agreement also terminated all provisions pertaining to the facilities at Bridge City and Tallulah. Further, it terminated all provisions pertaining to medical and dental care the remaining facilities. The result, generally, was

- 5that the remaining provisions concerned juvenile justice, rehabilitative services, and mental health care services at Swanson and Jetson.
In January 2006, the Independent Expert reported that the State had reached substantial compliance with the outstanding terms of the 2004 Settlement Agreement. On January 17, 2006, in accordance with ~ 15 of the 2004 Settlement Agreement, the State notified the parties that it was in substantial compliance.
In response to the State's notification, DOJ and the private plaintiffs toured Swanson the week of February 27, 2006 and Jetson the week of March 6, 2006. Accompanying and assisting the parties were Dr. Pam McPherson, Dr. Eric Trupin, and Mr. Jon Trzcinski. Dr. McPherson and Dr. Trupin advised the parties regarding mental health aspects of the tour, while Mr. Trzcinski assisted the DOJ with the juvenile justice issues. 4 Mr. Steve Robinson assisted the State with respect to juvenile justice issues. The provisions of the 2004 Settlement Agreement specified the scope and nature of the tours and required prompt written reports from each DOJ expert assessing the State's compliance, which the DOJ provided to the State.

4

Dr. Jim Austin, the Independent Expert provided for

under the 2003 Settlement Agreement, was present for portions of

these tours.

- 6II. Substantive Findings
Presently, only two key areas remain at issue concerning Swanson and Jetson: juvenile justice and mental health care. Following the tours, the parties agreed that the State was in substantial compliance with provisions of the 2004 Settlement Agreement concerning juvenile justiceS and mental health care. The State has taken a number of measures to improve the conditions at secure juvenile facilities.
The State has reduced significantly the number of youths housed at both Swanson and Jetson. 6 At the time of the tours, there were approximately 149 and 169 youths at Swanson and Jetson, respectively. Despite this dramatic reduction, the facilities have maintained the same staffing levels as that which existed at the time of the 2000 Settlement Agreement, thus creating a much lower ratio of youth-to-staff.
Staff at both facilities receive a sufficient amount of preservice and ongoing training. Staff training coordinators at each facility are responsible for ensuring that staff receive all necessary training.

S

Generally, "juvenile justice" issues involve matters

such as protection from harm, the use of excessive force,

inappropriate cell restriction, and proper training of custody

staff.

6

Over the last three years, there has been a statewide

reduction in the number of youth in secure care from 1200 to 400.

-7Both Swanson and Jetson have seen a dramatic and continued reduction in the number of fights between youth or between youth and staff. This reduction is a direct result of the dramatic reduction in populations at both facilities, improved youth-tostaff ratios, and increased staff training. Both facilities have installed a number of security cameras that constantly record the events in the housing units and allow for improved monitoring. Further, each facility now investigates any incident where there is an allegation of abuse or a serious injury resulting from a fight between youths. The State has committed significant resources to Project Zero Tolerance ("PZT"). PZT is an investigative unit established by the State that operates on the campus of each facility and conducts investigations into allegations of abuse or incidents in which a youth suffers a serious injury. Typically, each investigation involves a review of any available footage from the security cameras, and interviews of staff, youth, or witnesses. These investigations can be initiated in a variety of ways, including by youth or medical staff. With regard to mental health issues, the State has made significant progress in providing youth with behavioral health and rehabilitation services commensurate with generally accepted professional standards. Psychiatric staff are dedicated to providing the best services the profession has to offer to youth.

- 8-
Inter-disciplinary teams have been created and collaborate regularly on the treatment plans for individual youth. Youth have timely access to psychiatrists and are frequently monitored when receiving treatment. This high level of access has increased the emotional stability of the youth as well as the overall stability of Swanson and Jetson.
The State has developed and implemented a number of new initiatives to treat troubled youth. Both Swanson and Jetson have instituted a comprehensive behavior management program. This program focuses on a variety of issues such as anger management and substance abuse. Additionally, the State has established a specialized program for sex offenders.
As it has moved away from a correctional-based approach, the State has developed an innovative and unique model to care for youth in secure care: The Louisiana Model ("LAMOD"). To develop LAMOD, the State worked in collaboration with the Missouri Youth Services Institute and with the Annie E. Casey Foundation. 7 The program is not yet implemented throughout the system, but once it is, the State of Louisiana stands to become a national model in the care of youth in secure care facilities.

7

The Annie E. Casey Foundation is a private charitable

organization that seeks to develop and fund community programs

that more effectively meet the needs of at risk children and

families.

- 9III. Conclusion
The parties agree that the State has achieved substantial compliance with the provisions of the 2004 Settlement Agreement such that it is appropriate at this time to dismiss these cases. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant the Joint Motion to Dismiss and sign the attached proposed Order.

- 10 -

Respectfully submitted,

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WAN J. KIM Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
SHANETTA Y. CUTLAR Chief Special Litigation Section
JUDY C. PRESTON Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section
T. Russell Nobile, Bar Roll 29039
Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 305-3229 Fax: (2 02 ) 514 - 02 12

David Utter, Bar Roll 23236 Derwyn Bunton, Bar Roll 25944 Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana 1600 Oretha Castle Haley Blvd. New Orleans, LA 70113 Tel: (504) 522-5437
~5430
Keith Nordyke, Bar Roll 8556 Keith B. Nordyke, LLC 427 Mayflower St. Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 383 -360 1 Fax: (225 ) 383 - 272 5
FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND ITS OFFICES, AGENCIES, AND DEPARTMENTS

DAVID R. DUGAS United States Attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana

CHARLES C. FOTI, JR. Attorney General for the State of Louisiana

James L.

n, Bar Roll 9934

Asst. Un

Sates Attorney

777 Flori

reet, Suite 208

Baton Rouge, LA 70801

Telephone: (225) 389-0443

Fax: (225 ) 38 9 - 068 5

Richard Curry, Bar Roll 4671 M. Bren Hicks, Bar Roll 23778 McGlinchey Stafford PLLC 14th Floor, One American Place Baton Rouge, LA 70825 Telephone: (225) 383-9000 Fax: (225 ) 343 - 3076

STATE OF LOUISIANA OFFICE OF YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
onstance A. Koury 1201 North 3rd Stree Suite 6-200 Claiborne Building Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 342-4253 Facsimile: (225) 342-9318
-3-