Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 1 of 20 PAGEID #: 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

J.H.; B.H.; G.M.; S.M., T.T., C.W., B,F., G.F., W.S., and W.S.,1
Plaintiffs,
v.
MULTI-COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY,
923 Libelty Dr. Lancaster, OH 43130-8045,
and
DANA C. MOORE, in both her individual and official capacities,
Superintendent Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility 20475 Winstead Rd. Stoutsville, OH 43154-9612,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:14-CV-01608 JUDGE GRAHAM MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING
JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT I. Preliminary Statement
I. The Plaintiffs and other children incarcerated in the Multi-County Juvenile Detention Center are suffering harm at the hands of the Defendants through their policies and practices involving excessive and unnecessary solitary confinement and the use of mechanical restraints. This action seeks declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief; compensatory and,
1 Plaintiffs consist of individuals adjudicated to be juvenile delinquents and, for Plaintiffs who are still minors, their guardians. A Motion for Leave to File Complaint and Proceed Using Initials was filed on September 18, 2014, and is presently pending before the Court. Defendants will be informed of the Plaintiffs' full names.
-- 1 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 2 of 20 PAGEID #: 29

from the individual defendant, punitive damages; post-judgment interest; costs; and reasonable

attorneys' fees, when, despite the entreaties of children institutionalized at the Multi-County

Juvenile Detention Facility, their families, and Defendants' staff, they established and pursued

policies that had their Juvenile Detention Officers (I) use restraint chairs unnecessarily,

excessively, and for punitive purposes, locking Plaintiffs J.H., S.H., T.T., and other children in

them for up to 20 hours at a time, long after any need to restrain them had ended, proximately

causing pain and emotional distress; and (2) place Plaintiffs and other children arbitrarily,

unnecessarily, and for lengthy periods in solitary confinement in isolation cells where the

temperatures were regularly in the 50's, inadequate clothing and blankets were provided, and

leaving the cells for exercise, schooling or other activities was rare or nonexistent, proximately

causing detained children to suffer the symptoms of frostbite and hypothermia, such as burning,

numbness, tingling, itching, cold or diminished sensations, swelling, blisters, and/or purplish

blue skin on their fingers or toes, uncontrollable shivering of their body and chattering of their

teeth, dizziness, nausea, confusion, and impaired decision-making; the emotional distress of

having their pleas for relief ignored; and the anxiety that the symptoms would result in

permanent injury.

2.

Defendants' conduct constitutes deliberate indifference in violation of the 8th

Amendment of the United States Constitution, and is a substantial departure from acceptable

professional standards and judgment in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, and applicable Ohio constitutional provisions.

Defendants' punitive and damaging practices of unnecessary and excessive restraint and

seclusion run contrary to the basic rehabilitative nature upon which the juvenile court system is

-- 2 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 3 of 20 PAGEID #: 30
based, and are often imposed upon children who are presumptively innocent and being detained pre-trial. II. Jurisdiction and Venue
3. Jurisdiction over claims brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1871,42 U.S.C. § 1983, is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343(3) and (4).
4. Declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief and compensatory and, from the individual Defendant, punitive damages are sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201; 2202.
5. Costs and attorneys' fees may be awarded pursuant to the 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54.
6. Venue lies in this forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 82.1 because the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Fairfield County, Ohio, where Defendants are located and institutionalize children. III. Plaintiffs
7. J.H, age 18, was institutionalized at Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility under the supervision of Defendant Moore from late April 2013 through August 2013.
8. B.H., age 18, was institutionalized at Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility under the supervision of Defendant Moore from May of 20 13 through February of2014.
9. G.M., age 16, was institutionalized at the Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility from September 18, 2014 until October 28, 2014 under the supervision of Defendant Moore, and has previously been held there on several occasions, including from midJanuary, 2014 to May 14,2014.
-- 3 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 4 of 20 PAGEID #: 31
10. S.M. is the adoptive mother and guardian of G.M., and brings this action on her behalf.
II. T.T., 16, is presently institutionalized at Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility under the supervision of Defendant Moore and has previously been held there on several occasions, including from July 25,2014, through September 2,2014.
12. C.W. is the mother and guardian ofT.T., and brings this action on his behalf. 13. B.F., age 16, was institutionalized at Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility under the supervision of Defendant Moore on several occasions, most recently from April 25, 2014, through June 9, 2014. 14. G.F. is the mother and guardian ofRF., and brings this action on his behalf. IS. W.S., age IS, was institutionalized at Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility under the supervision of Defendant Moore from November 14, 2013, to February 13, 2014. 16. W.S. is the father and guardian of W.S., and brings this action on his behalf. 17. J.H., RH., G.M., T.T., B.F., and W.S. were institutionalized at Defendant MultiCounty Juvenile Detention Facility pending or subsequent to an adjudication in juvenile COUlt. IV. Defendants 18. Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Center ("Center"), a maximum security facility, is funded by the Ohio Counties of Fairfield, Licking, Hocking, and Perry, whose Commissioners comprise the Center's Joint Board of Commissioners which adopts an annual budget, appropriates all monies, and approves all grants and contracts for the Center; has sueand-be-sued capacity under O.R.C. § 305.12; at all times material to this Complaint, was a "person" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and acted under color of law; and controls through its policies
-- 4 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 5 of 20 PAGEID #: 32
the use and conditions of its isolation cells and restraint chairs. The facility has 54 beds and is designed to hold youth pending adjudication of their cases in juvenile court, although some youth are sentenced for short periods after disposition.
19. Defendant Dana C. Moore, who is being sued in both her individual and official capacities, initially served as the Assistant Superintendent of the Center when it opened in February 2004 and since became Superintendent; establishes the policies and directs the use by Juvenile Detention Officers of restraint chairs, the isolation bench, and solitary confinement in isolation cells and the conditions surrounding their use; and, at all times material to this Complaint, was a "person" under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and acted under color of law. V. Facts Concerning Solitary Confinement and Mechanical Restraints at MCJDC
20. At its facility, Defendants maintain three isolation cells. The cells are approximately six feet by ten feet, have a concrete floor without a rug or carpet, a metal sink and toilet, and a concrete sleeping bench, and are supplied only at night with a mattress and blanket.
21. Each of the isolation cells maintained by Defendants have a vent which maintains the temperature in the cell, and Defendants use this vent to adjust the temperature in the isolation cells to be in the mid-50's year round.
22. In addition to isolation cells, Defendants make use of a bench to which Plaintiffs and other children are shackled for days on end as punishment for rules infractions
23. Defendants also make use of two restraint chairs which are used to immobilize the arms and legs of children so that they can only move their head. Defendants use these chairs as punishment for rules infractions VI. Facts Concerning Plaintiff J.H.
-- 5 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 6 of 20 PAGEID #: 33
24. From April 2013 through August 2013, then 17-year-old J.H. spent the majority of his four-month sentence in solitary confinement either in an isolation cell or in a similar cell in Defendants' intake area. While in isolation, J.H. was only permitted to leave for a five minute shower each day. He spent his time in the isolation cells in mid-50's temperature dressed only in a smock top, a ShOlt sleeve shilt akin to a scrub top used in medical facilities, and ShOltS, with no underwear, and only received a blanket and mattress during nighttime hours. At times, even his smock top and shorts were taken away from him, and he was forced to endure the cell wearing nothing but paper shorts. During his time in isolation, J.H.'s skin would turn purple and his limbs would go numb.
25. On several occasions between April 2013 and August 2013, J.H. was placed in a restraint chair where he was unable to move anything but his head. On one occasion, Plaintiff J.H. was placed in a restraint chair from 5:30 a.m. until 9:30 p.m. for three straight days. When he was woken up in the morning, the restraint chair was beside him, and he was placed directly into it. Plaintiff J.H.'s wrists and ankles were cut to the point of bleeding by the restraints.
26. On another occasion, Plaintiff J.H. and another child were placed in restraint chairs and placed in the gymnasium, which was also kept at a chilly temperature, wearing nothing but paper shorts from 10 a.m. until the next morning.
27. While placed in a restraint chair, J.H. was frequently not permitted to get out for for long periods of time even for the purpose of urinating, with the result that he urinated while sitting in the chair.
28. In addition to time spent in isolation, on numerous occasions J.H. was shackled to a bench on the floor of the isolation hallway or the intake hallway for long periods. On one
-- 6--

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30114 Page: 7 of 20 PAGEID #: 34
occasion he was shackled to a bench for six consecutive days. On this and other occasions, he was forced to sleep on the floor in the hallway while his legs remained shackled to the bench. VII. Facts Concerning Plaintiff B.H.
29. From May of 2013 through February of 2014, then 16 year old B.H. spent four months of a nine-month sentence in isolation. On one occasion, he spent between 40 and 50 days continually in an isolation cell. While in isolation, RH. was only permitted to leave for a five-minute shower each day. He spent his time in isolation in temperatures in the mid-50's wearing only a smock top and shorts, with no underwear, socks or shoes, and only received a blanket and mattress during nighttime hours. At times, even his smock top and shorts were taken away from him, and he was forced to endure the cell wearing nothing but paper shorts. One one occasion, B.H. was allowed no clothing other than paper shorts for for eleven straight days.
30. During his time in isolation, B.H's toes and fingers would turn purple, his limbs would go numb, his lips would crack and he would have uncontrollable chattering of his teeth.
31. RH. was placed in a restraint chair on three separate occasions, the last time for five and a half to six hours during which time his limbs were not rotated.
32. RH. was shackled to a bench in the isolation hallway four to five times during his time at the Center. On one occasion he was so shackled for more than two days. On this and other occasions, he was forced to sleep on the hallway floor with his ankles shackled to the bench. VIII. Facts Concerning Plaintiff G.M.
33. From mid-January, 2014, to May 14, 2014, 16-year-old G.M. was repeatedly placed in solitary confinement in both the isolation and intake cells. While in isolation, G.M. was only permitted to leave for a five-minute shower each day. On one occasion, she was placed in
-- 7 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 8 of 20 PAGEID #: 35
an isolation cell for a full month. She spent her time in isolation in mid-50's temperatures wearing only a shirt and shorts, with no underwear bra, socks or shoes, and only received a blanket and mattress during daytime hours.
34. G.M. had been placed in isolation in earlier stays at the Center. On one stay, because of her involvement in a fight, she was placed in isolation for two months until when she was released from the Center. The next time that she was sent to the Center, G.M. was immediately placed back in isolation for an additional two months. Defendants claimed that G.M. "owed" them time in isolation.
35. During her time in isolation, G.M.'s feet turned purple, and she felt her hands losing circulation. At the end of one stay at the Center, when G.M. returned home her feet turned red, skin on her feet began peeling oft; and black spots were observed on her feet by her parents. For a period of several days afterwards, G.M.'s feet caused her a great deal of pain. IX. Facts Concerning PlaintiffT.T.
36. During his stay at the Center from July 25,2014, through September 2,2014, 16 year old T.T. was placed in an isolation cell for IS straight days. While in isolation, T.T. was only permitted to leave for a five-minute shower each day. He spent his time in isolation in mid50's temperatures wearing only a smock top and shotts, with no underwear, socks or shoes, and only received a blanket and mattress during nighttime hours.
37. During his time in isolation, T.T.'s lips and scars on his arms and legs would turn purple, his toes went numb, and he would have uncontrollable shivering and chattering of his teeth.
3S. On several occasions, when T.T. pulled his arms and legs inside of his smock top for warmth, he would be directed by staff members to remove his arms and legs from his shirt.
-- 8 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 9 of 20 PAGEID #: 36
39. On one occasion, T.T. was placed in a restraint chair for nine and a half hours without any rotation of his limbs except for the temporary freeing of his right hand so that he could feed himself a meal. X. Facts Concerning Plaintiff B.F.
40. During his stay at Center from April 25, 2014 through June 9, 2014, 16 year old B.F. was placed in an isolation cell for 25 straight days. While in isolation, B.F. was only permitted to leave for a five-minute shower each day. He spent his time in isolation in mid-50's temperatures wearing only a smock top and shorts, with no underwear, socks or shoes, and only received a blanket and mattress during nighttime hours.
41. During his time in isolation, B.F. suffered from uncontrollable shivering and chattering teeth, and skin began to flake off of his feet. XI. Facts Concerning Plaintiff W.S.
42. During his stay at the Center from November 14, 2013, through February 13, 2014, then-14 year old W.S. was placed in an isolation cell for 38 days. While in isolation, W.S. was only permitted to leave for a five-minute shower each day. He spent his time in isolation in mid-50's temperatures wearing only a smock top and ShOlts, with no underwear, socks or shoes, and only received a blanket and mattress during nighttime hours.
43. During his time in isolation, W.S.'s fingers and toes turned purple, his lips turned blue, and he suffered from uncontrollable shivering. XII. Other Facts Concerning the Use of Solitary Confinement and Restraints on
Plaintiffs 44. Plaintiffs and other children contined in the isolation cells developed methods to stay warm, including lying down by the base of the cell door to get heat from the hallway and
-- 9 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 10 of 20 PAGEID #: 37
pulling their arms, legs and face into their smock top. Defendants forbid both practices, and Defendants' employees would monitor isolation cells to ensure that children were not laying by the door crack or pulling their extremities into their smock top.
45. Some Plaintiffs and other children would attempt to stop up the air conditioning vent with toilet paper or clothing to keep the cold air out.
46. If toilet paper was used to stop up the air conditioning vent, Defendants would remove the toilet paper to ensure the passage of cold air, and the children would face discipline, including additional time in the isolation cells.
47. Some Plaintiffs and other children placed in the Center's isolation cells claimed to be suicidal in order to receive suicide suits which covered more of their bodies and helped keep them warm.
48. Some Plaintiffs and other children actively sought being placed in additional body restraints while in their cell because these restraints would help keep them warm.
49. To protest how cold the Center's isolation cells were and get temporary relief, some children, including Plaintiffs J.H. and B.H., would use their clothing or blanket to swipe at and break off sprinkler heads, thereby soaking their cell and requiring the child's removal from the cell.
50. In another protest against how cold the Center's isolation cells were and another effort to get temporary relief, some children, including Plaintiffs J.H. and B.H., would clog or rapidly and repeatedly flush toilets until they overflowed and soaked their cell, thereby requiring their removal.
-- 10--

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 11 of 20 PAGEID #: 38
51. When Plaintiffs J.H. and RH. and other children misused their clothing or blankets to protest how cold the Center's isolation cells were, their clothing or blanket was removed and replaced with paper underwear and sometimes a thin T-shilt.
52. Having only paper underwear and sometimes a thin T-shirt resulted in Plaintiffs J.B. and B.H. and other children being even colder in the Center's isolation cells.
53. Plaintiffs and other children placed in the Center's isolation cells for lengthy periods regularly suffered the symptoms of hypothermia and frostbite, such as burning, numbness, tingling, itching, cold or diminished sensations, swelling, blisters, and/or purplish blue skin on their fingers or toes; had uncontrollable shivering of their body and chattering of their teeth; became dizzy or nauseous; and experienced confusion and impaired decision-making.
54. Those symptoms were usually painful and produced anxiety about permanent injury to their fingers or toes.
55. The body temperature of Plaintiffs and other children placed in the Center's isolation cells often dropped to 96 degrees or so.
56. When a child's body temperature falls below 96 degrees, medical care for hypothermia should be sought.
57. The healthy range for a child's body temperature is 97.5 degrees to 98.9 degrees. 58. Hypothermia is defined as a drop in body temperature to 95 degrees or less. The condition develops over a period of time, anywhere from a few days to several weeks, and can be fatal ifnot detected promptly and treated properly. 59. Even consistent, mildly cool indoor temperatures of 60 degrees to 65 degrees can trigger hypothermia over time if a child is not properly clothed.
-- 11 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 12 of 20 PAGEID #: 39
60. When checked by Defendants' staff, some children even had to be removed from their isolation cells to have their extremities warmed, and Defendants' staff knew or should have known that these prisoners exhibited symptoms of hypothermia.
61. Plaintiffs and other children placed in the Center's isolation cells consistently complained to Defendants about how cold the isolation cells were, as did the families of Plaintiffs and other children and members of Defendants staff.
62. Defendant Moore and the Center's Juvenile Detention Officers and health care providers visited the isolation cells and had personal knowledge of the cold temperature. They were also aware of the temperature in the cells due to the complaints by Plaintiffs and other children, their families, and coworkers about how cold the Center's isolation cells were.
63. Because Plaintiffs knew that Defendants were aware of how cold the Center's isolation cells were and did nothing to change the conditions, they also suffered emotional distress at having their plight ignored.
64. Defendants' use of isolation and restraint practices is arbitrary, unnecessary, and ineffective as a behavior management tool. Defendants used isolation cells to punish children who failed to conform their conduct to the Center's rules and/or engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior and, when the isolation cells were unavailable, used shackling to a bench in the hallway or isolation in intake cells to punish them. The decisions made to use prolonged isolation and shackling with these children were extreme and unnecessary measures to manage behaviors; the fact that they continued well beyond the time youth were calm and under control indicates that the practices serve no legitimate penological purpose and are strictly punitive in nature.
-- 12 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 13 of 20 PAGEID #: 40
65. Defendants calculated the amount of time a child had to spend in an isolation cell as if the child had been sentenced to the cell; for example, when Plaintiff G.M. returned from spending a holiday with her family, she was placed back in the isolation cell because Defendants claimed that G.M. "owed" Defendants more time there.
66. Defendants purposely ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent to the complaints from Plaintiffs and other children about how cold the isolation cells were because Defendants wanted those prisoners to suffer pain, anxiety, and emotional distress.
67. Defendants reasoned that, the more intemperate the Center's isolation cells were, the more placement there would be a deterrent to Plaintiffs and other children who failed to conform their conduct to the Center's rules and/or engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior.
68. Defendants fUliher reasoned that, when Plaintiffs and other children failed to conform their conduct to the Center's rules and/or engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior, they deserved to be punished, and suffering pain, anxiety, and emotional distress from intemperate isolation cells was such a punishment. Such practices are incongruent with sound juvenile detention behavior management practices and fail to make facilities safer or more secure.
69. Defendants used shackling to the bench in the hallway and isolation in intake cells as another form of punishment, and those Plaintiffs and other children who were shackled or isolated in place suffered physical and emotional pain from this treatment; sleeplessness when they were not returned to cells with a mattress and bed; and anxiety and resentment at being treated in an inhumane manner.
70. Some of the Plaintiffs and other children institutionalized at the Center have been diagnosed with mental health or other behavioral disorders, including trauma, learning
-- 13 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 14 of 20 PAGEID #: 41
disabilities or cognitive impairments, and Defendants have, at all times material to this action, known that some of the Plaintiffs and other children institutionalized at the Center suffer from these conditions.
71. Plaintiffs and other children subjected to the isolation cells and mechanical restraints are socially isolated and forbidden to converse with others without reprimand. The social isolation of these youth adds additional stress and anxiety beyond the extreme physical conditions to which these youth are subjected.
72. Under Ohio Admin. Code § 5120:1-8-0.4, the temperature in an isolation cell is to be mechanically raised or lowered to acceptable comfort levels.
73. Defendants were obligated to comply with Ohio Admin. Code § 5120:1-8-04. 74. Defendants purposely and/or with reckless indifference violated Ohio Admin. Code § 5120: 1-8-04 to serve their deterrent and punitive ends. Maintaining cold isolation cells in these circumstances served no legitimate penological interest. 75. Plaintiffs and other children placed in the Center's isolation cells were not provided alternative ways, such as sweaters, gloves, heavy socks, thermal underwear, or thick blankets to keep warm. 76. Plaintiffs and other children placed in the Center's isolation cells typically remained in those cells for weeks. 77. Plaintiffs and other children placed in the Center's isolation cells were seldom if ever provided significant time out of the cells for exercise and other activities and allowed out only for a brief shower. 78. Some of the Plaintiffs and other children placed in the Center's isolation cells were seldom if ever permitted to attend class in the Center's school. Rather, they were given
-- 14 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 15 of 20 PAGEID #: 42
math worksheets, crossword puzzles or books under their door without direct instruction from a teacher or assistant. Students placed in isolation who were qualified for specially designed instruction and related services because of a learning disability or other qualifying condition did not receive the services required in their individual education plan. Prolonged isolation over the course of days, weeks and months denied children the right to attend school, including the right to special services as a student under a disability.
79. The Center's restraint chair was a sturdy wheelchair to which straps were affixed in a way that, when a child was bound in it, would prevent movement of the shoulders, torso, arms, and legs.
80. Defendants had their Juvenile Detention Officers maintain records reflecting that children never spent more than two hours immobilized in a restraint chair.
8!. Those records were falsified. 80. The purpose of the restraint chair is only to restrain a person who is posing an immediate threat to themselves or others. It is not a device to be used for punishment. 82. Plaintiffs HI., B.H., T.T. and other children were locked in a restraint chair long after any need to restrain them while they regained self-control had ended. 83. Defendants assumed that Plaintiffs J.H. and B.H. and other children who, while in a restraint chair, said they had to urinate or defecate were lying in order to be released for a break from the immobilization and adopted a policy that Juvenile Detention Officer should regularly refuse to release them to urinate or defecate. 84. Defendants assumed that Plaintiffs J.H. and B.H. and other children who, while in a restraint chair, said they were thirsty were lying in order to be given liquids which they could
-- 15 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 16 of 20 PAGEID #: 43
then spit at Juvenile Detention Officers, and Defendants adopted a policy that Juvenile Detention Officers should regularly refuse to provide requested liquids.
85. Plaintiffs J.H., B.H., T.T. and other children suffered significant discomfort after the first hour or so of being locked in a restraint chair, and that discomfort turned into pain the longer they were in the chair as their circulation was largely cut off, they felt dehydrated or the urge to urinate or defecate, and pressure sores developed.
86. Plaintiffs J,f-/., B.H., T.T. and other children who were locked in a restraint chair for hours at a time felt anger, resentment, and frustration and suffered emotional distress.
87. Defendants used restraint chairs to punish children who failed to conform their conduct to the Center's rules and/or engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior.
88. Defendants calculated the amount of time a child had to spend in a restraint chair as if the prisoner had been sentenced to the chair; for example, Plaintiffs heard Juvenile Detention Officers tell a child who was completely calm that he still owed them time in the restraint chair.
89. Plaintiffs J.H. and B.I-/' and other children complained to Defendants about misuse of the restraint chair as corporal punishment.
90. Defendants purposely and/or with recklessly indifference ignored the complaints from Plaintiffs and other children about misuse of the restraint chair as corporal punishment because Defendants wanted those prisoners to suffer pain and emotional distress.
91. Defendants reasoned that, the longer and more uncomfortable a child's immobilization in a restraint chair, the more placement there would be a deterrent to Plaintiffs and other children who failed to conform their conduct to the Center's rules and/or engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior. Such practice is contrary to well accepted professional
-- 16 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 17 of 20 PAGEID #: 44
standards regarding behavior management in juvenile justice facilities, is unnecessary, and serves no legitimate penological purpose.
92. Defendants further reasoned that, when Plaintiffs and other children failed to conform their conduct to the Center's rules and/or engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior, they deserved to be punished, and suffering pain and emotional distress from a restraint chair was such a punishment.
93. By 2013, a reasonably competent superintendent of a juvenile detention facility would have known that punishing children by exposing them to cold isolation cells in the circumstances surrounding that confinement, and prolonged immobilization in restraint chairs or chained to a bench violates the constitutional rights of these children. XIII. Claim for Relief: Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment
94. Paragraphs 1 through 93 above are re-alleged and incorporated herein. 95. Defendants, through the policies they established and pursued for their Juvenile Detention Officers, acted with callous and reckless disregard, inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on Plaintiffs in violation of the Eighth Amendment by their purposeful and/or deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' risk of harm and injuries from being placed unnecessarily and for lengthy periods in cold isolation cells without means to keep warm and under the circumstances of their confinement in those cells, and the injuries of Plaintiffs J.H., B.I-I., and T.T. suffered from being immobilized in restraint chairs hours after they had regained their selfcontrol XIV. Claim for Relief: Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process Rights 96. Paragraphs 1-95 above are re-alleged and incorporated herein.
-- 17--

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 18 of 20 PAGEID #: 45
97. The policies and practices of the Defendants regarding extended use of isolation and mechanical restraints under physically and mentally harmful conditions as a form of behavioral management are punitive, excessive and unnecessary, and deprive children subjected to them the required educational services, large muscle exercise, socialization and appropriate skill building opportunities. Such practices constitute a substantial departure from accepted professional standard and judgment and deny the Plaintiffs and other children the right to substantive Due Process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. XV. Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court: a. declare that Defendants jointly and severally have violated Plaintiffs' civil rights,
inflicting on them pain, emotional distress, and anxiety; b. declare that the actions of Defendants regarding extended restraint and seclusion
constitute a substantial departure from accepted professional standards and judgment, and are unnecessarily, punitive and harmful in the treatment of detained children; b. order such equitable relief as will make Plaintiffs whole for Defendants unlawful conduct; costs; and reasonable attorneys' fees; c. enjoin Defendants from operating the Center's isolation cells and restraint chairs in an unconstitutional manner; d. award to each Plaintiff compensatory damages in excess of $25,000, and, from Defendant Moore, punitive damages in excess of$25,000; and e. grant such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
-- 18 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30114 Page: 19 of 20 PAGEID #: 46

OF COUNSEL:
Louis A. Jacobs (002101) (LAJOhio@aol.com) 177 19th St., Apt. 9C Oakland, CA 94612 (614)203-1255 Fax (510) 250-9007

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Edward R. Forman Edward R. Forman (0076651) (efOrman@marshallandmorrow.com! John S. Marshall (0015160) Omarshall@marshallandmorrow.com! MARSHALL AND MORROW LLC 250 Civic Center Dr., Suite 480 Columbus, Ohio 43215-5296 (614) 463-9790 Fax (614) 463-9780
Andrew Biller (0081452) (andrewbilleresq@gmail.com! Trial Counsel for Plaintiffs The Law Firm of Andrew Biller Easton Town Center 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 (614) 604-8759 Fax (614) 583-8107
Kim Tandy (0076173) Rickell L. Howard (0081982)
Co-counsel for Plaintiffs Children's Law Center, Inc. 1002 Russell Street Covington, Kentucky 410 II Telephone: (859) 431-3313 Fax: 859-655-7553 ktandy@childrenslawky.org rhoward@childrenslawky.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
-- 19 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 20 of 20 PAGEID #: 47 Jury Demand
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of eight (8) on all issues and defenses triable to a jury.
By: lsi Edward R. Forman Edward R. Forman (0076651)
-- 20--

 
 Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/18/14 Page: 1 of 13 PAGEID #: 1

IN

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

J.H.: B.H.; L.H.: G.M.; and S.M.,’ Plaintiffs,

V.

MULTI-COUNTY JUVENILE

DETENTION FACILITY.

923 Liberty Dr.

:

Lancaster, OH 43130-8045,

and
DANA C. MOORE, in both her individual and official capacities,
Assistant Superintendent Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility 20475 Winstead Rd. Stoutsville, OH 43154-9612,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. JUDGE MAGiSTRATE JUDGE
JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

COMPLAINT

I.

Preliminary Statement

1.

This action seeks declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief; compensatory and.

from the individual defendant, punitive damages; post-judgment interest: costs: and reasonable

attorneys’ fees, for Defendants’ purposeful or recklessly indifferent violations of the Eighth

Amendment as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

when, despite the entreaties of juvenile prisoners, their families, and Defendants’ staff, they

1gthuPiaslardCinioatimnfsfps. lacAionntM,siaosnttidoofnDifenofdreinvLdiedaaunvateslstwoaidlFljiulbdeeicCianotfemodrpmltaoeidnbteoajfuntvdheePnPriolleaciedneetdilfifnUsq’suilneunglltsInnaaitnmidae,lssf.ohrasPblaeienntifffislewd hcoonatreemsptiollramnienoourssl,ythweiitrh

1 --

--

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/18/14 Page: 2 of 13 PAGEID #: 2

established and pursued policies that had their Juvenile Detention Officers (1) use restraint chairs for punitive purposes, locking Plaintiffs J.H. and B.H. and other juvenile prisoners in them for hours long after any need to restrain them had ended, proximately causing pain and emotional distress; and (2) place Plaintiffs and other juvenile prisoners for lengthy periods in solitary confinement in isolation cells where the temperatures were regularly in the 50’s, inadequate clothing and blankets were provided, and leaving the cells for exercise or other activities was significantly limited, proximately causing juvenile prisoners to suffer the symptoms of frostbite and hypothermia, such as burning, numbness, tingling, itching, cold or diminished sensations, swelling, blisters, and/or purplish blue skin on their fingers or toes, uncontrollable shivering of their body and chattering of their teeth, dizziness, nausea, confusion, and impaired decision making; the emotional distress of having their pleas for relief ignored: and the anxiety that the symptoms would result in permanent injury.

IL Jurisdiction and Venue

2.

Jurisdiction over claims brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. 42 U.S.C. §

1983, is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §1331, 1343(3) and (4).

3.

Declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief and compensatory and, from the

individual defendant, punitive damages are sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201; 2202.

4.

Costs and attorneys’ fees may be awarded pursuant to the 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and

Fed, R. Civ. P. 54.

5.

Venue lies in this forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(h) and S.D. Ohio Civ. R.

82.1 because the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Fairfield County, Ohio.

where Defendants are located and institutionalize juveniles.

2

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/18/14 Page: 3 of 13 PAGEID #: 3

III. Parties

6.

J.H, age 18, was institutionalized, after being adjudicated a juvenile delinquent, at

Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility under the supervision of Defendant Moore

from late April 2013 through August 2013.

7.

B.H., age 17, was institutionalized, after being adjudicated a juvenile delinquent.

at Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility under the supervision of Defendant

Moore from May of 2013 through February of 2014.

8. behalf.

L.H., is the parent and natural guardian of B.H., and brings this action on his

9.

G.M., age 16, was institutionalized, after being adjudicated a juvenile delinquent,

at Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility under the supervision of Defendant

Moore on several occasions. most recently from mid-January, 2014, to May 14, 2014.

10. S.M. is the adoptive mother and guardian of G.M., and brings this action on her

behalf.

11. Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Center (“Center”). a maximum security facility, is funded by the Ohio Counties of Fairfield. Licking, Hocking. and Perry, whose Commissioners comprise the Center’s Joint Board of Commissioners which adopts an annual budget, appropriates all monies, and approves all grants and contracts for the Center: has sue
and-be-sued capacity under O.R.C. § 305.12; at all times material to this Complaint, was a
person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and acted under color of law: and controls through its policies the use and conditions of its isolation cells and restraint chairs.
J 2. Defendant Dana C. Moore, who is being sued in both her individual and official capacities, has served as the Assistant Superintendent of the Center since it opened in February
3 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/18/14 Page: 4 of 13 PAGEID #: 4
2004; establishes the policies and directs the use by Juvenile Detention Officers of restraint chairs and solitary confinement in isolation cells and the conditions surrounding their use: and, at
all times material to this Complaint, was a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and acted under
color of law.
IV. Facts 13. Defendants have maintained a chilly temperature throughout the center, and its
isolation cells are the coldest areas in the Center. 14. The temperature in the Center’s isolation cells hovers in the 50’s and, when the
weather outside is freezing or hot, becomes even colder. 15. The Center is heated, and the thermostats are placed in locations which result in
the Center’s isolation cells receiving little heat when the temperature outside is freezing. 16. The Center is air-conditioned, and the thermostats are placed in locations which
result in the Center’s isolation cells receiving excessive cold air when the temperature outside is hot.
17. The Center’s isolation cells were windowless, had concrete floors without a rug or carpet, metal sinks and toilets, and a concrete sleeping bench, supplied only at night with a mattress,
18. Plaintiffs and other juvenile prisoners placed in the Center’s isolation cells consistently complained to Defendants about how cold those cells were.
19. The families of Plaintiffs and other juvenile prisoners consistently complained to Defendants about how cold those cells were.
20. Some members of Defendants’ staff consistently complained to Defendants about how cold those cells were.
4-- --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/18/14 Page: 5 of 13 PAGEID #: 5

21. Defendant Moore and the Center’s Juvenile Detention Officers and health care providers knew about the complaints by Plaintiffs and other juvenile prisoners, their families, and coworkers about how cold the Center’s isolation cells were.
22. Plaintiffs and other juvenile prisoners placed in the Center’s isolation cells for lengthy periods regularly suffered the symptoms of hypothermia and frostbite, such as burning, numbness, tingling, itching, cold or diminished sensations, swelling, blisters, and/or purplish blue skin on their fingers or toes; had uncontrollable shivering of their body and chattering of their teeth: became dizzy or nauseous; and experienced confusion and impaired decision-making.
23. Those symptoms were usually painful and produced anxiety about permanent injury to their fingers or toes.

24. The body temperature of Plaintiffs and other juvenile prisoners placed in the Center’s isolation cells often dropped to 96 degrees or so.

25. When a juvenile’s body temperature falls below 96 degrees, immediate medical care for hypothermia should be sought.

26. degrees.

The healthy range for a juvenile’s body temperature is 97.5 degrees to 98.9

27. When checked by Defendants’ staff, some juvenile prisoners even had to be removed from their isolation cells to have their extremities warmed, and Defendants staff knew or should have known that these prisoners exhibited symptoms of hypothermia.
28. Because Plaintiffs knew that Defendants were aware of how cold the Centers isolation cells were and did nothing to keep harm, they also suffered emotional distress at having their plight ignored.

--5 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/18/14 Page: 6 of 13 PAGEID #: 6
29. Defendants used isolation cells to punish juvenile prisoners who failed to conform their conduct to the Center’s rules and/or engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior.
30. Defendants calculated the amount of time a juvenile prisoner had to spend in an isolation cell as if the prisoner had been sentenced to the cell; for example, when Plaintiff G.M. returned from spending a holiday with her family, she was placed back in the isolation cell because Defendants claimed that G.M. owed’ Defendants more time there.
31. Defendants purposely ignored and/or were recklessly indifferent to the complaints from Plaintiffs and other juvenile prisoners about how cold the isolation cells were because Defendants wanted those prisoners to suffer pain. anxiety. and emotional distress.
32. Defendants reasoned that, the more intemperate the Center’s isolation cells were. the more placement there would be a deterrent to Plaintiffs and other juvenile prisoners who failed to conform their conduct to the Center’s rules and/or engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior.
33. Defendants further reasoned that, when Plaintiffs and other juvenile prisoners failed to conform their conduct to the Center’s rules and/or engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior, they deserved to be punished, and suffering pain, anxiety. and emotional distress from intemperate isolation cells was such a punishment.
34. Plaintiffs and many of the other juvenile prisoners institutionalized at the Center have been diagnosed with behavioral or psychological conditions and/or abuse of licit or illicit drugs.
35. Defendants have, at all times material to this action, known that Plaintiffs and many of the other juvenile prisoners institutionalized at the Center have been diagnosed with behavioral or psychological conditions and/or abuse of licit or illicit drugs.
6-- --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/18/14 Page: 7 of 13 PAGEID #: 7

36. Placements in the Center’s isolation cells rarely deterred juvenile prisoners from failing to conform their conduct to the Center’s rules and/or engaging in destructive or disruptive behavior because their behavioral or psychological conditions and/or abuse of licit or illicit drugs hampered their ability to make a rational cost-benefit analysis about future punishment before they engaged in misconduct.

37. Under Ohio Admin. Code § 5120:1-8-0.4. the temperature in an isolation cell is to
be mechanically raised or lowered to acceptable comfort levels.

38. Defendants were obligated to comply with Ohio Admin. Code § 5120:1-8-04.
39. Defendants purposely and/or with reckless indifference violated Ohio Admin.
Code § 5120:1-8-04 to serve their deterrent and punitive ends.

40.

Plaintiffs and other juvenile prisoners placed in the Center’s isolation cells were

provided flimsy blankets and towels that did not appreciably warm them.

41. Shoes or slippers were not permitted in the Center’s isolation cells. 42. Plaintiffs and other juvenile prisoners placed in the Center’s isolation cells were not provided alternative ways, such as sweaters, gloves, heavy socks, thermal underwear, or thick blankets to keep warm.

43. Juvenile prisoners placed in the Center’s isolation cells typically remained in those cells for weeks.

44. Plaintiffs G.M. remained in the Center’s isolation cells for nearly a month, while Plaintiffs J.H. and B.H. were there for months.
45. Plaintiffs and other juvenile prisoners placed in the Center’s isolation cells were seldom provided significant time out of the cells for exercise and other activities and often allowed out only for a brief shower.

--7--

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/18/14 Page: 8 of 13 PAGEID #: 8
46. Plaintiffs and other juvenile prisoners placed in the Center’s isolation cells ate their meals in those cells.
47. Some juvenile prisoners placed in the Center’s isolation cells resorted to feigning suicidal or self-destructive behavior so that Defendants would confine them in heavy restraints that covered their bodies and helped keep them warm.
48. To protest how cold the Center’s isolation cells were, some juvenile prisoners, including Plaintiffs J.H. and B.H., would use their clothing or blanket to swipe at and break off sprinkler heads, thereby soaking their cell and requiring the prisoners’ removal.
49. Another protest by some juvenile prisoners, including Plaintiff’s J.H. and B.H., against how cold the Center’s isolation cells were was to clog or rapidly and repeatedly flush toilets until they overflowed and soaked their cell, thereby requiring the prisoners’ removal.
50. When Plaintiffs J.H. and B.H. and other juvenile prisoners misused their clothing or blankets to protest how cold the Center’s isolation cells were, their clothing or blanket was removed and replaced with paper underwear and sometimes a thin T-shirt.
51. Having only paper underwear and sometimes a thin T-shirt resulted in Plaintiffs J.K. and B.H. and other juvenile prisoners being even colder in the Center’s isolation cells.
52. Maintaining cold isolation cells in these circumstances served no legitimate penological interest.
53. When Plaintiffs J.H. and B.H. engaged in severely destructive or disruptive behavior and seemed out of control. Defendants had their Juvenile Detention Officers place them in a restraint chair.
--8

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/18/14 Page: 9 of 13 PAGEID #: 9
54. The Center’s restraint chair was a sturdy wheelchair to which straps were affixed in a way that, when a juvenile prisoner was bound in it. would prevent movement of the shoulders, torso, arms, and legs.
55. Defendants had their Juvenile Detention Officers maintain records reflecting that juvenile prisoners never spent more than two hours immobilized in a restraint chair.
56. Those records were falsified. 57. Plaintiffs J.H. and B.H. and other juvenile prisoners spent many hours immobilized in a restraint chair, with Plaintiff B.F1. twice locked there for three hours and once for nearly six hours, while Plaintiff J.H. often spent the entire day that way. 58. Plaintiffs J.H. and B.H. and other juvenile prisoners were locked in a restraint chair long after any need to restrain them while they regained self-control had ended. 59. Defendants assumed that Plaintiffs J.H. and B.H. and other juvenile prisoners who, while in a restraint chair, said they had to urinate or defecate were lying in order to be released for a break from the immobilization and adopted a policy that Juvenile Detention Officer should regularly refuse to release them to urinate or defecate. 60. Defendants assumed that Plaintiffs J.H. and B.l-{. and other juvenile prisoners who, while in a restraint chair, said they were thirsty were lying in order to be given liquids which they could then spit at Juvenile Detention Officers, and Defendants adopted a policy that Juvenile Detention Officers should regularly refuse to provide requested liquids. 61. Plaintiffs J.H. and B.H. and other juvenile prisoners suffered significant discomfort after the first hour or so of being locked in a restraint chair, and that discomfort turned into pain the longer they were in the chair as their circulation was largely cut off. they felt dehydrated or the urge to urinate or defecate, and pressure sores developed.
--9--

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/18/14 Page: 10 of 13 PAGEID #: 10

62. Plaintiffs J.H. and B.H. and other juvenile prisoners who were locked in a restraint chair for hours at a time felt anger. resentment, and frustration and suffered emotional distress.
63. Defendants used restraint chairs to punish juvenile prisoners who failed to conform their conduct to the Center’s rules and/or engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior.
64. Defendants calculated the amount of time a juvenile prisoner had to spend in a restraint chair as if the prisoner had been sentenced to the chair: for example. Plaintiffs heard Juvenile Detention Officers tell a juvenile prisoner who was completely calm that he still owed them time in the restraint chair.
65. Plaintiffs J.H. and B.F1. and other juvenile prisoners complained to Defendants about misuse of the restraint chair as corporal punishment.
66. Defendants purposely and/or with recklessly indifference ignored the complaints from Plaintiffs and other juvenile prisoners about misuse of the restraint chair as corporal punishment because Defendants wanted those prisoners to suffer pain and emotional distress.
67. Defendants reasoned that, the longer and more uncomfortable a juvenile prisoner’s immobilization in a restraint chair, the more placement there would be a deterrent to Plaintiffs and other juvenile prisoners who failed to conform their conduct to the Center’s rules and/or engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior.
68. Defendants further reasoned that, when Plaintiffs and other juvenile prisoners failed to conform their conduct to the Center’s rules and/or engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior, they deserved to be punished, and suffering pain and emotional distress from a restraint chair was such a punishment.

10 --

--

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/18/14 Page: 11 of 13 PAGEID #: 11

69. Prolonged placements in the restraint chair rarely deterred juvenile prisoners from failing to conform their conduct to the Center’s rules and/or engaging in destructive or disruptive behavior because their behavioral or psychological conditions and/or abuse of licit or illicit drugs hampered their ability to make a rational cost-benefit analysis about future punishment before they engaged in misconduct.

70. interest.

Using restraint chairs in these circumstances served no legitimate penological

71. By 2013. a reasonably competent assistant superintendent of a juvenile detention facility would have known that punishing juvenile prisoners by exposing them to cold isolation cells and prolonged immobilization in restraint chairs the way the Center did violated the prisoners’ constitutional rights.

V.

Claim for Relief: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

72. Paragraphs I through 71 above are realleged and incorporated herein.
73. By their purposeful and/or deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ injuries from being placed for lengthy periods in cold isolation cells without means to keep warm and the injuries of Plaintiffs J.H. and B.H. from being immobilized in restraint chairs hours after they had regained their self-control, Defendants, through the policies they established and pursued for their Juvenile Detention Officers, inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on Plaintiffs in violation of the Eighth Amendment as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. VI. Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE. Plaintiffs pray that this Court:

a.

declare that Defendants jointly and severally have violated Plaintiffs’ civil rights,

inflicting on them pain, emotional distress, and anxiety:

11 --

--

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/18/14 Page: 12 of 13 PAGEID #: 12

b.

order such equitable relief as will make Plaintiffs whole for Defendants unlawful

conduct: costs: and reasonable attorneys’ fees;

c.

enjoin Defendants from operating the Center’s isolation cells and restraint chairs in

an unconstitutional manner;

d.

award to each Plaintiff compensatory damages in excess of $25,000, and, from

Defendant Moore, punitive damages in excess of $25,000: and

e.

grant such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Edward R. Forman Edward R. Forman (0076651)

John S. Marshall (0015160) arshall@marshalIandmorrowcon)
MARSHALL AND MORROW LLC 250 Civic Center Dr., Suite 480 Columbus. Ohio 43215-5296
(614) 463-9790
Fax (614) 463-9780

Andrew Biller (0081452) ii/.coiz) Trial Counsel for Plaintiffs The Law Firm of Andrew Biller Easton Town Center 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 (614) 939-9022 Fax (614) 583-8107

OF COUNSEL:
Louis A. Jacobs (002101) 1(L7A7J1 tOh 9hioSt@., aAopl.tc.o9rCn) Oakland, CA 94612 (614) 203-1255 Fax (510) 250-9007

Trial A ttornevs for Plaintiffs

12 --

--

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/18/14 Page: 13 of 13 PAGEID #: 13
Jury Demand Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of eight (8) on all issues and defenses triable to a jury.
By: /s/ Edward R. Porman Edward R. Forman (0076651)
13 --

 
 Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 1 of 27 PAGEID #: 193

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

JEFFERY HONESTY;

:

BRANDON HETTINGER;

:

G.M.; STEPHANIE MOATS;

:

T.T.; CASEY WILLIAMS,

:

B.F.; GLENDA FRAVEL;

:

W.S.; WAYNE SCHOENBERGER;

:

N.O.; TRACY O’BRIEN;

:

R.N.; THERESA THOMPSON;

:

J.J.; SALOME BEBBS.1

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

MULTI-COUNTY JUVENILE

:

DETENTION FACILITY,

:

923 Liberty Dr.

:

Lancaster, OH 43130-8045,

:

:

:

:

DANA C. MOORE, in both her individual :

and official capacities,

:

Superintendent

:

Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility :

:

-and-

:

:

STEVE DAVIS in his official capacity :

Fairfield County Commissioner

:

210 East Main Street Room 301

:

Lancaster Ohio, 43130,

:

:

-and-

:

:

Civil Action No. 2:14-CV-01608 JUDGE GRAHAM MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING
JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

1 Plaintiffs consist of individuals adjudicated to be juvenile delinquents and, for Plaintiffs who are still minors, their guardians. Plaintiffs who remain under the age of 18 are identified by initial only pursuant to This Court’s Order dated December 18, 2014 Docket Number 20.
-- 1 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 2 of 27 PAGEID #: 194

MIKE KIGER in his official capacity

:

Fairfield County Commissioner

:

210 East Main Street Room 301

:

Lancaster Ohio, 43130

:

:

-and-

:

:

DAVID LEVACY in his official capacity :

Fairfield County Commissioner

:

210 East Main Street Room 301

:

Lancaster Ohio, 43130

:

:

-and-

:

:

TIM BUBB in his official capacity

:

Licking County Commissioner

:

20 South Second Street Fourth Floor

:

Newark Ohio, 43055

:

:

-and-

:

:

DOUG SMITH in his official capacity

:

Licking County Commissioner

:

20 South Second Street Fourth Floor

:

Newark Ohio, 43055

:

:

-and-

:

:

DUANE FLOWERS in his official capacity :

Licking County Commissioner

:

20 South Second Street Fourth Floor

:

Newark Ohio, 43055

:

:

-and-

:

:

CLARK SHEETS in his official capacity :

Hocking County Commissioner

:

1 East Main Street Courthouse

:

Logan Ohio, 43138

:

:

-and-

:

:

JOHN WALKER in his official capacity :

Hocking County Commissioner

:

-- 2 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 3 of 27 PAGEID #: 195

1 East Main Street Courthouse

:

Logan Ohio, 43138

:

:

-and-

:

:

SANDY OGLE in her official capacity :

Hocking County Commissioner

:

1 East Main Street Courthouse

:

Logan Ohio, 43138

:

:

-and-

:

:

DAVID FRERIKS in his official capacity :

Perry County Commissioner

:

121 West Brown Street

:

New Lexington Ohio, 43764

:

:

-and-

:

:

ED KEISTER in his official capacity

:

Perry County Commissioner

:

121 West Brown Street

:

New Lexington Ohio, 43764

:

:

-and-

:

:

JIM O’BRIEN in his official capacity

:

Perry County Commissioner

:

121 West Brown Street

:

New Lexington Ohio, 43764

:

:

Defendants.

:

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT I. Preliminary Statement
1. The Plaintiffs and other children incarcerated in the Multi-County Juvenile Detention Center are suffering harm at the hands of the Defendants through their policies and practices involving excessive and unnecessary solitary confinement and the use of mechanical restraints. This action seeks declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief; compensatory and,
-- 3 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 4 of 27 PAGEID #: 196
from the individual defendant, punitive damages; post-judgment interest; costs; and reasonable attorneys’ fees, when, despite the entreaties of children institutionalized at the Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility, their families, and Defendants’ staff, they established and pursued policies that had their Juvenile Detention Officers (1) use restraint chairs unnecessarily, excessively, and for punitive purposes, locking Plaintiffs Jeffery Honesty, Brandon Hettinger., T.T., N.O., and other children in them for up to 20 hours at a time, long after any need to restrain them had ended, proximately causing pain and emotional distress; and (2) place Plaintiffs and other children arbitrarily, unnecessarily, and for lengthy periods in solitary confinement in isolation cells where the temperatures were regularly in the 50’s, inadequate clothing and blankets were provided, and leaving the cells for exercise, schooling or other activities was rare or nonexistent, proximately causing detained children to suffer the symptoms of frostbite and hypothermia, such as burning, numbness, tingling, itching, cold or diminished sensations, swelling, blisters, and/or purplish blue skin on their fingers or toes, uncontrollable shivering of their body and chattering of their teeth, dizziness, nausea, confusion, and impaired decisionmaking; the emotional distress of having their pleas for relief ignored; and the anxiety that the symptoms would result in permanent injury.
2. Defendants’ conduct constitutes deliberate indifference in violation of the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and is a substantial departure from acceptable professional standards and judgment in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and applicable Ohio constitutional provisions. Defendants’ punitive and damaging practices of unnecessary and excessive restraint and seclusion run contrary to the basic rehabilitative nature upon which the juvenile court system is
-- 4 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 5 of 27 PAGEID #: 197
based, and are often imposed upon children who are presumptively innocent and being detained pre-trial. II. Jurisdiction and Venue
3. Jurisdiction over claims brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343(3) and (4).
4. Declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief and compensatory and, from the individual Defendant, punitive damages are sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201; 2202.
5. Costs and attorneys’ fees may be awarded pursuant to the 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54.
6. Venue lies in this forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 82.1 because the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Fairfield County, Ohio, where Defendants are located and institutionalize children. III. Plaintiffs
7. Jeffery Honesty, age 18, was institutionalized at Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility under the supervision of Defendant Moore from late April 2013 through August 2013.
8. Brandon Hettinger, age 18, was institutionalized at Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility under the supervision of Defendant Moore from May of 2013 through February of 2014.
9. G.M., age 16, was institutionalized at the Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility from September 18, 2014 until October 28, 2014 under the supervision of
-- 5 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 6 of 27 PAGEID #: 198
Defendant Moore, and has previously been held there on several occasions, including from midJanuary, 2014 to May 14, 2014.
10. Stephanie Moats is the adoptive mother and guardian of G.M., and brings this action on her behalf.
11. T.T., 16, is presently institutionalized at Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility under the supervision of Defendant Moore and has previously been held there on several occasions, including from July 25, 2014, through September 2, 2014.
12. Casey Williams is the mother and guardian of T.T., and brings this action on his behalf.
13. B.F., age 16, was institutionalized at Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility under the supervision of Defendant Moore on several occasions, most recently from April 25, 2014, through June 9, 2014.
14. Glenda Fravel is the mother and guardian of B.F., and brings this action on his behalf.
15. W.S., age 15, was institutionalized at Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility under the supervision of Defendant Moore from November 14, 2013, to February 13, 2014.
16. Wayne Schoenberger. is the father and guardian of W.S., and brings this action on his behalf.
17. N.O., age 17, was institutionalized at Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility under the supervision of Defendant Moore on several occasions, most recently from mid-January of 2014 until May 14, 2014.
-- 6 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 7 of 27 PAGEID #: 199
18. Tracy O’Brien is the mother and guardian of N.O., and brings this action on his behalf.
19. R.N., age 16, was institutionalized at Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility under the supervision of Defendant Moore on eight separate occasions from 2008-2014. Most recently from mid-July 2014 through September 9, 2014.
20. Theresa Thompson is the legal guardian of R.N., and brings this action on his behalf.
21. J.J, age 15, was institutionalized at Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility under the supervision of Defendant Moore on several occasions, most recently in in January 2015.
22. Salome Bebbs is the mother and guardian of J.J. and brings this action on his behalf.
23. Jeffery Honesty, Brandon Hettinger, G.M., T.T., B.F., W.S., N.O., and R.N. were institutionalized at Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Facility pending or subsequent to an adjudication in juvenile court. IV. Defendants
24. Defendant Multi-County Juvenile Detention Center (“Center”), a maximum security facility, is funded by the Ohio Counties of Fairfield, Licking, Hocking, and Perry, whose Commissioners comprise the Center’s Joint Board of Commissioners which adopts an annual budget, appropriates all monies, and approves all grants and contracts for the Center; has sueand-be-sued capacity under O.R.C. § 305.12; at all times material to this Complaint, was a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and acted under color of law; and controls through its policies the use and conditions of its isolation cells and restraint chairs. The facility has 54 beds and is
-- 7 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 8 of 27 PAGEID #: 200
designed to hold youth pending adjudication of their cases in juvenile court, although some youth are sentenced for short periods after disposition.
25. Defendant Dana C. Moore, who is being sued in both her individual and official capacities, initially served as the Assistant Superintendent of the Center when it opened in February 2004 and since became Superintendent; establishes the policies and directs the use by Juvenile Detention Officers of restraint chairs, the isolation bench, and solitary confinement in isolation cells and the conditions surrounding their use; and, at all times material to this Complaint, was a “person” under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and acted under color of law.
26. Defendant Steve Davis is being sued only in his official capacity as Fairfield County Commissioner. Fairfield County is one of the counties that provide funding to MCJDC.
27. Defendant Mike Kiger is being sued only in his official capacity as Fairfield County Commissioner. Fairfield County is one of the counties that provide funding to MCJDC.
28. Defendant David Levacy is being sued only in his official capacity as Fairfield County Commissioner. Fairfield County is one of the counties that provide funding to MCJDC.
29. Defendant Tim Bubb is being sued only in his official capacity as Licking County Commissioner. Licking County is one of the counties that provide funding to MCJDC.
30. Defendant Doug Smith is being sued only in his official capacity as Licking County Commissioner. Licking County is one of the counties that provide funding to MCJDC.
31. Defendant Duane Flowers is being sued only in his official capacity as Licking County Commissioner. Licking County is one of the counties that provide funding to MCJDC.
32. Defendant Clark Sheets is being sued only in his official capacity as Hocking County Commissioner. Hocking County is one of the counties that provide funding to MCJDC.
-- 8 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 9 of 27 PAGEID #: 201
33. Defendant John Walker is being sued only in his official capacity as Hocking County Commissioner. Hocking County is one of the counties that provide funding to MCJDC.
34. Defendant Sandy Ogle is being sued only in her official capacity as Hocking County Commissioner. Hocking County is one of the counties that provide funding to MCJDC.
35. Defendant David Freriks is being sued only in his official capacity as Perry County Commissioner. Perry County is one of the counties that provide funding to MCJDC.
36. Defendant Ed Keister is being sued only in his official capacity as Perry County Commissioner. Perry County is one of the counties that provide funding to MCJDC.
37. Defendant Jim O’Brien is being sued only in his official capacity as Perry County Commissioner. Perry County is one of the counties that provide funding to MCJDC. V. Facts Concerning Solitary Confinement and Mechanical Restraints at MCJDC
38. At its facility, Defendants maintain three isolation cells. The cells are approximately six feet by ten feet, have a concrete floor without a rug or carpet, a metal sink and toilet, and a concrete sleeping bench, and are supplied only at night with a mattress and blanket.
39. Each of the isolation cells maintained by Defendants have a vent which maintains the temperature in the cell, and Defendants use this vent to adjust the temperature in the isolation cells to be in the mid-50’s year round.
40. In addition to isolation cells, Defendants make use of a bench to which Plaintiffs and other children are shackled for days on end as punishment for rules infractions
41. Defendants also make use of two restraint chairs which are used to immobilize the arms and legs of children so that they can only move their head. Defendants use these chairs as punishment for rules infractions VI. Facts Concerning Plaintiff Jeffery Honesty.
-- 9 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 10 of 27 PAGEID #: 202
42. From April 2013 through August 2013, then 17-year-old Jeffery Honesty spent the majority of his four-month sentence in solitary confinement either in an isolation cell or in a similar cell in Defendants’ intake area. While in isolation, Jeffery Honesty was only permitted to leave for a five minute shower each day. He spent his time in the isolation cells in mid-50’s temperature dressed only in a smock top, a short sleeve shirt akin to a scrub top used in medical facilities, and shorts, with no underwear, and only received a blanket and mattress during nighttime hours. At times, even his smock top and shorts were taken away from him, and he was forced to endure the cell wearing nothing but paper shorts. During his time in isolation, Jeffery Honesty’s skin would turn purple and his limbs would go numb.
43. On several occasions between April 2013 and August 2013, Jeffery Honesty was placed in a restraint chair where he was unable to move anything but his head. On one occasion, Plaintiff Jeffery Honesty was placed in a restraint chair from 5:30 a.m. until 9:30 p.m. for three straight days. When he was woken up in the morning, the restraint chair was beside him, and he was placed directly into it. Plaintiff Jeffery Honesty’s wrists and ankles were cut to the point of bleeding by the restraints.
44. On another occasion, Plaintiff Jeffery Honesty and another child were placed in restraint chairs and placed in the gymnasium, which was also kept at a chilly temperature, wearing nothing but paper shorts from 10 a.m. until the next morning.
45. While placed in a restraint chair, Jeffery Honesty was frequently not permitted to get out for long periods of time even for the purpose of urinating, with the result that he urinated while sitting in the chair.
46. In addition to time spent in isolation, on numerous occasions Jeffery Honesty was shackled to a bench on the floor of the isolation hallway or the intake hallway for long periods.
-- 10 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 11 of 27 PAGEID #: 203
On one occasion he was shackled to a bench for six consecutive days. On this and other occasions, he was forced to sleep on the floor in the hallway while his legs remained shackled to the bench. VII. Facts Concerning Plaintiff Brandon Hettinger
47. From May of 2013 through February of 2014, then 16 year old Brandon Hettinger spent four months of a nine-month sentence in isolation. On one occasion, he spent between 40 and 50 days continually in an isolation cell. While in isolation, Brandon Hettinger was only permitted to leave for a five-minute shower each day. He spent his time in isolation in temperatures in the mid-50’s wearing only a smock top and shorts, with no underwear, socks or shoes, and only received a blanket and mattress during nighttime hours. At times, even his smock top and shorts were taken away from him, and he was forced to endure the cell wearing nothing but paper shorts. On one occasion, Brandon Hettinger was allowed no clothing other than paper shorts for eleven straight days.
48. During his time in isolation, Brandon Hettinger’s toes and fingers would turn purple, his limbs would go numb, his lips would crack and he would have uncontrollable chattering of his teeth.
49. Brandon Hettinger was placed in a restraint chair on three separate occasions, the last time for five and a half to six hours during which time his limbs were not rotated.
50. Brandon Hettinger was shackled to a bench in the isolation hallway four to five times during his time at the Center. On one occasion he was so shackled for more than two days. On this and other occasions, he was forced to sleep on the hallway floor with his ankles shackled to the bench. VIII. Facts Concerning Plaintiff G.M.
-- 11 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 12 of 27 PAGEID #: 204
51. From mid-January, 2014, to May 14, 2014, 16-year-old G.M. was repeatedly placed in solitary confinement in both the isolation and intake cells. While in isolation, G.M. was only permitted to leave for a five-minute shower each day. On one occasion, she was placed in an isolation cell for a full month. She spent her time in isolation in mid-50’s temperatures wearing only a shirt and shorts, with no underwear bra, socks or shoes , and only received a blanket and mattress during daytime hours.
52. G.M. had been placed in isolation in earlier stays at the Center. On one stay, because of her involvement in a fight, she was placed in isolation for two months until when she was released from the Center. The next time that she was sent to the Center, G.M. was immediately placed back in isolation for an additional two months. Defendants claimed that G.M. “owed” them time in isolation.
53. During her time in isolation, G.M.’s feet turned purple, and she felt her hands losing circulation. At the end of one stay at the Center, when G.M. returned home her feet turned red, skin on her feet began peeling off, and black spots were observed on her feet by her parents. For a period of several days afterwards, G.M.’s feet caused her a great deal of pain. IX. Facts Concerning Plaintiff T.T.
54. During his stay at the Center from July 25, 2014, through September 2, 2014, 16 year old T.T. was placed in an isolation cell for 18 straight days. While in isolation, T.T. was only permitted to leave for a five-minute shower each day. He spent his time in isolation in mid50’s temperatures wearing only a smock top and shorts, with no underwear, socks or shoes, and only received a blanket and mattress during nighttime hours.
-- 12 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 13 of 27 PAGEID #: 205
55. During his time in isolation, T.T.’s lips and scars on his arms and legs would turn purple, his toes went numb, and he would have uncontrollable shivering and chattering of his teeth.
56. On several occasions, when T.T. pulled his arms and legs inside of his smock top for warmth, he would be directed by staff members to remove his arms and legs from his shirt.
57. On one occasion, T.T. was placed in a restraint chair for nine and a half hours without any rotation of his limbs except for the temporary freeing of his right hand so that he could feed himself a meal. X. Facts Concerning Plaintiff B.F.
58. During his stay at Center from April 25, 2014 through June 9, 2014, 16 year old B.F. was placed in an isolation cell for 25 straight days. While in isolation, B.F. was only permitted to leave for a five-minute shower each day. He spent his time in isolation in mid-50’s temperatures wearing only a smock top and shorts, with no underwear, socks or shoes, and only received a blanket and mattress during nighttime hours.
59. During his time in isolation, B.F. suffered from uncontrollable shivering and chattering teeth, and skin began to flake off of his feet. XI. Facts Concerning Plaintiff W.S.
60. During his stay at the Center from November 14, 2013, through February 13, 2014, then-14 year old W.S. was placed in an isolation cell for 38 days. While in isolation, W.S. was only permitted to leave for a five-minute shower each day. He spent his time in isolation in mid-50’s temperatures wearing only a smock top and shorts, with no underwear, socks or shoes, and only received a blanket and mattress during nighttime hours.
-- 13 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 14 of 27 PAGEID #: 206
61. During his time in isolation, W.S.’s fingers and toes turned purple, his lips turned blue, and he suffered from uncontrollable shivering. XII. Facts Concerning Plaintiff N.O.
62. During his time at MCJDC from December of 2012 through February of 2013, then-15 year old N.O. spent several days in an isolation cell. While in isolation, N.O. was only permitted to leave for a five-minute shower each day. He spent his time in isolation in temperatures in the mid-50’s wearing only a smock top and shorts, with no underwear, socks or shoes, and only received a blanket and mattress during nighttime hours.
63. N.O. was placed in a restraint chair on approximately 20 occasions for various lengths of time. On approximately one half of these occasions, he remained in the restraint chair for 8 or more hours. During N.O.’s time in the restraint chair, only one of his limbs would be rotated every hour.
64. For the last six weeks that he was at the center, N.O. was continually shackled to a bench in the intake area, and was unshackled only to go to the bathroom and to take a daily shower. During this time, he was required to sleep on the hallway floor while shackled to the bench, receiving only a CV Blanket (similar to a moving blanket) to sleep on.
65. On one occasion, N.O. was transported back to MDJDC following a juvenile court proceeding. When he arrived at MDJDC, one of his legs was shackled to a bench and he was ordered to strip, meaning that he was to remove his court clothing so that he could be placed in his smock and shorts. He refused to do so. Ms. Moore, who was physically present, ordered that N.O. be taken to the ground and have his clothing removed for him. N.O. was then forcibly taken to the ground by MCJDC employees and transport officers. N.O’s left leg was still
-- 14 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 15 of 27 PAGEID #: 207
shackled to the bench at the time he was taken down, and the resulting strain on his left leg tore his anterior cruciate ligament (ACL).
66. Following his injury, N.O. did not receive medical attention for his injury despite frequent requests and complaints. Instead, he was required to walk around and “stretch” his leg. Finally, N.O. went on a four day hunger strike until his leg injury was addressed. This resulted in a medical examination, which resulted in the diagnosis of a torn ACL. XIII. Facts Concerning Plaintiff R.N.
67. During his stay at the Center from mid-July 14, 2014, through September 9, 2014, then-15 year old R.N. was placed in an isolation cell for approximately 50 days. While in isolation the temperatures were in the 50’s, and R.N. was only permitted to wear a smock top and shorts, with no underwear, socks or shoes, and only received a blanket and mattress during nighttime hours.
68. On several occasions, R.N. was not permitted to wear a smock top and was left in the cold isolation cells with only a pair of shorts.
69. In addition to being placed in isolation cells, R.N. was placed in intake isolation for several days at a time. While in intake isolation R.N. became so cold that his entire body turned purple prompting a nurse to remove him from his cell and provide R.N. with several blankets to help warm him.
70. On numerous occasions, R.N. complained to staff that the isolation cells were too cold, but these complaints were futile as Defendant’s staff did nothing to alleviate the cold conditions.
71. R.N. was placed in the restraint chair between 20 and 30 times, the amount of time he spent in the chair varied between one and a half and three and a half hours. R.N. was not
-- 15 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 16 of 27 PAGEID #: 208
permitted to use the bathroom while restrained in the chair and never had his limbs rotated, even on occasions where he spent more than 2 hours in the chair. XIV. Facts Concerning Plaintiff J.J.
72. During his incarceration between September 4, 2014 and September 9, 2014, 15 year old J.J. was tackled to the ground despite having his hands placed on their opposite shoulders in the designated position which signaled compliance. Because his hands were in this position, J.J. was unable to break his fall and received a gash under his chin which required stitches.
73. During his incarceration between November and December of 2014, 15 year old J.J. was placed in intake for approximately one week.
74. During the same incarceration, after an incident in the isolation cells involving another youth, J.J. was moved from intake to isolation for the remainder of his incarceration, a period of around three weeks.
75. While in the isolation cell, J.J. was subjected to cold temperatures. While in the isolation cell, J.J.’s teeth chattered uncontrollably, his lips chapped, and he felt numbness in his arms and legs.
76. On one occasion, while in isolation J.J. was denied access to a mattress overnight. 77. On one occasion, J.J. was placed in a restraint chair for three hours and was not provided with limb rotation. XV. Other Facts Concerning the Use of Solitary Confinement and Restraints on Plaintiffs 78. Plaintiffs and other children confined in the isolation cells developed methods to stay warm, including lying down by the base of the cell door to get heat from the hallway and
-- 16 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 17 of 27 PAGEID #: 209
pulling their arms, legs and face into their smock top. Defendants forbid both practices, and Defendants’ employees would monitor isolation cells to ensure that children were not laying by the door crack or pulling their extremities into their smock top.
79. Some Plaintiffs and other children would attempt to stop up the air conditioning vent with toilet paper or clothing to keep the cold air out.
80. If toilet paper was used to stop up the air conditioning vent, Defendants would remove the toilet paper to ensure the passage of cold air, and the children would face discipline, including additional time in the isolation cells.
81. Some Plaintiffs and other children placed in the Center’s isolation cells claimed to be suicidal in order to receive suicide suits which covered more of their bodies and helped keep them warm.
82. Some Plaintiffs and other children actively sought being placed in additional body restraints while in their cell because these restraints would help keep them warm.
83. To protest how cold the Center’s isolation cells were and get temporary relief, some children, including Plaintiff’s Jeffery Honesty, Brandon Hettinger, N.O, and R.N. would destroy or attempt to destroy sprinkler heads in their cell, thereby soaking their cell and requiring the child’s removal from the cell.
84. In another protest against how cold the Center’s isolation cells were and another effort to get temporary relief, some children, including Plaintiff’s Jeffery Honesty, Brandon Hettinger, N.O., and R.N., would clog or rapidly and repeatedly flush toilets until they overflowed and soaked their cell, thereby requiring their removal.
85. When Plaintiffs Jeffery Honesty and Brandon Hettinger and other children misused their clothing or blankets to protest how cold the Center’s isolation cells were, their
-- 17 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 18 of 27 PAGEID #: 210
clothing or blanket was removed and replaced with paper underwear and sometimes a thin Tshirt.
86. Having only paper underwear and sometimes a thin T-shirt resulted in Plaintiffs Jeffery Honesty and Brandon Hettinger and other children being even colder in the Center’s isolation cells.
87. Plaintiffs and other children placed in the Center’s isolation cells for lengthy periods regularly suffered the symptoms of hypothermia and frostbite, such as burning, numbness, tingling, itching, cold or diminished sensations, swelling, blisters, and/or purplish blue skin on their fingers or toes; had uncontrollable shivering of their body and chattering of their teeth; became dizzy or nauseous; and experienced confusion and impaired decision-making.
88. Those symptoms were usually painful and produced anxiety about permanent injury to their fingers or toes.
89. The body temperature of Plaintiffs and other children placed in the Center’s isolation cells often dropped to 95 degrees or so.
90. When a child’s body temperature falls below 96 degrees, medical care for hypothermia should be sought.
91. The healthy range for a child’s body temperature is 97.5 degrees to 98.9 degrees. 92. Hypothermia is defined as a drop in body temperature to 95 degrees or less. The condition develops over a period of time, anywhere from a several hours to a few days, and can be fatal if not detected promptly and treated properly. 93. Even consistent, mildly cool indoor temperatures of 60 degrees to 65 degrees can trigger hypothermia over time if a child is not properly clothed.
-- 18 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 19 of 27 PAGEID #: 211
94 When checked by Defendants’ staff, some children even had to be removed from their isolation cells to have their extremities warmed, and Defendants’ staff knew or should have known that these prisoners exhibited symptoms of hypothermia.
95. Plaintiffs and other children placed in the Center’s isolation cells consistently complained to Defendants about how cold the isolation cells were, as did the families of Plaintiffs and other children and members of Defendants staff.
96. Defendant Moore and the Center’s Juvenile Detention Officers and health care providers visited the isolation cells and had personal knowledge of the cold temperature. They were also aware of the temperature in the cells due to the complaints by Plaintiffs and other children, their families, and coworkers about how cold the Center’s isolation cells were.
97. Because Plaintiffs knew that Defendants were aware of how cold the Center’s isolation cells were and did nothing to change the conditions, they also suffered emotional distress at having their plight ignored.
98. Defendants’ use of isolation and restraint practices is arbitrary, unnecessary, and ineffective as a behavior management tool. Defendants used isolation cells to punish children who failed to conform their conduct to the Center’s rules and/or engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior and, when the isolation cells were unavailable, used shackling to a bench in the hallway or isolation in intake cells to punish them. The decisions made to use prolonged isolation and shackling with these children were extreme and unnecessary measures to manage behaviors; the fact that they continued well beyond the time youth were calm and under control indicates that the practices serve no legitimate penological purpose and are strictly punitive in nature.
-- 19 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 20 of 27 PAGEID #: 212
99. Defendants calculated the amount of time a child had to spend in an isolation cell as if the child had been sentenced to the cell; for example, when Plaintiff G.M. returned from spending a holiday with her family, she was placed back in the isolation cell because Defendants claimed that G.M. “owed” Defendants more time there.
100. Defendants purposely ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent to the complaints from Plaintiffs and other children about how cold the isolation cells were because Defendants wanted those prisoners to suffer pain, anxiety, and emotional distress.
101. Defendants reasoned that, the more intemperate the Center’s isolation cells were, the more placement there would be a deterrent to Plaintiffs and other children who failed to conform their conduct to the Center’s rules and/or engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior.
102. Defendants further reasoned that, when Plaintiffs and other children failed to conform their conduct to the Center’s rules and/or engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior, they deserved to be punished, and suffering pain, anxiety, and emotional distress from intemperate isolation cells was such a punishment. Such practices are incongruent with sound juvenile detention behavior management practices and fail to make facilities safer or more secure.
103. Defendants used shackling to the bench in the hallway and isolation in intake cells as another form of punishment, and those Plaintiffs and other children who were shackled or isolated in place suffered physical and emotional pain from this treatment; sleeplessness when they were not returned to cells with a mattress and bed; and anxiety and resentment at being treated in an inhumane manner.
104. Some of the Plaintiffs and other children institutionalized at the Center have been diagnosed with mental health or other behavioral disorders, including trauma, learning
-- 20 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 21 of 27 PAGEID #: 213
disabilities or cognitive impairments, and Defendants have, at all times material to this action, known that some of the Plaintiffs and other children institutionalized at the Center suffer from these conditions.
105. Plaintiffs and other children subjected to the isolation cells and mechanical restraints are socially isolated and forbidden to converse with others without reprimand. The social isolation of these youth adds additional stress and anxiety beyond the extreme physical conditions to which these youth are subjected.
106. Under Ohio Admin. Code § 5120:1-8-0.4, the temperature in an isolation cell is to be mechanically raised or lowered to acceptable comfort levels.
107. Defendants were obligated to comply with Ohio Admin. Code § 5120:1-8-04. 108. Defendants purposely and/or with reckless indifference violated Ohio Admin. Code § 5120:1-8-04 to serve their deterrent and punitive ends. Maintaining cold isolation cells in these circumstances served no legitimate penological interest. 109. Plaintiffs and other children placed in the Center’s isolation cells were not provided alternative ways, such as sweaters, gloves, heavy socks, thermal underwear, or thick blankets to keep warm. 110. Plaintiffs and other children placed in the Center’s isolation cells typically remained in those cells for weeks. 111. Plaintiffs and other children placed in the Center’s isolation cells were seldom if ever provided significant time out of the cells for exercise and other activities and allowed out only for a brief shower. 112. Some of the Plaintiffs and other children placed in the Center’s isolation cells were seldom if ever permitted to attend class in the Center’s school. Rather, they were given
-- 21 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 22 of 27 PAGEID #: 214
math worksheets, crossword puzzles or books under their door without direct instruction from a teacher or assistant. Students placed in isolation who were qualified for specially designed instruction and related services because of a learning disability or other qualifying condition did not receive the services required in their individual education plan. Prolonged isolation over the course of days, weeks and months denied children the right to attend school, including the right to special services as a student under a disability.
113. The Center’s restraint chair was a sturdy wheelchair to which straps were affixed in a way that, when a child was bound in it, would prevent movement of the shoulders, torso, arms, and legs.
114. Defendants had their Juvenile Detention Officers maintain records reflecting that children never spent more than two hours immobilized in a restraint chair.
115. Those records were falsified. 116. The purpose of the restraint chair is only to restrain a person who is posing an immediate threat to themselves or others. It is not a device to be used for punishment. 117. Plaintiffs Jeffery Honesty, Brandon Hettinger, T.T., N.O. and other children were locked in a restraint chair long after any need to restrain them while they regained self-control had ended. 118. Defendants assumed that Plaintiffs Jeffery Honesty, Brandon Hettinger, and other children who, while in a restraint chair, said they had to urinate or defecate were lying in order to be released for a break from the immobilization and adopted a policy that Juvenile Detention Officer should regularly refuse to release them to urinate or defecate. 119. Defendants assumed that Plaintiffs Jeffery Honesty. and Brandon Hettinger and other children who, while in a restraint chair, said they were thirsty were lying in order to be
-- 22 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 23 of 27 PAGEID #: 215
given liquids which they could then spit at Juvenile Detention Officers, and Defendants adopted a policy that Juvenile Detention Officers should regularly refuse to provide requested liquids.
120. Plaintiffs Jeffery Honesty, Brandon Hettinger, T.T., N.O., R.N. and other children suffered significant discomfort after the first hour or so of being locked in a restraint chair, and that discomfort turned into pain the longer they were in the chair as their circulation was largely cut off, they felt dehydrated or the urge to urinate or defecate, and pressure sores developed.
121. Plaintiffs Jeffery Honesty, Brandon Hettinger, T.T., N.O., R.N. and other children who were locked in a restraint chair for hours at a time felt anger, resentment, and frustration and suffered emotional distress.
122. Defendants used restraint chairs to punish children who failed to conform their conduct to the Center’s rules and/or engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior.
123. Defendants calculated the amount of time a child had to spend in a restraint chair as if the prisoner had been sentenced to the chair; for example, Plaintiffs heard Juvenile Detention Officers tell a child who was completely calm that he still owed them time in the restraint chair.
124. Plaintiffs Jeffery Honesty. and Brandon Hettinger and other children complained to Defendants about misuse of the restraint chair as corporal punishment.
125. Defendants purposely and/or with recklessly indifference ignored the complaints from Plaintiffs and other children about misuse of the restraint chair as corporal punishment because Defendants wanted those prisoners to suffer pain and emotional distress.
126. Defendants reasoned that, the longer and more uncomfortable a child’s immobilization in a restraint chair, the more placement there would be a deterrent to Plaintiffs and other children who failed to conform their conduct to the Center’s rules and/or engaged in
-- 23 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 24 of 27 PAGEID #: 216
destructive or disruptive behavior. Such practice is contrary to well accepted professional standards regarding behavior management in juvenile justice facilities, is unnecessary, and serves no legitimate penological purpose.
127. Defendants further reasoned that, when Plaintiffs and other children failed to conform their conduct to the Center’s rules and/or engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior, they deserved to be punished, and suffering pain and emotional distress from a restraint chair was such a punishment.
128. By 2013, a reasonably competent superintendent of a juvenile detention facility would have known that punishing children by exposing them to cold isolation cells in the circumstances surrounding that confinement, and prolonged immobilization in restraint chairs or chained to a bench violates the constitutional rights of these children. XVI. Claim for Relief: Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment
129. Paragraphs 1 through 128 above are re-alleged and incorporated herein. 130. Defendants, through the policies they established and pursued for their Juvenile Detention Officers, acted with callous and reckless disregard, inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on Plaintiffs in violation of the Eighth Amendment by their purposeful and/or deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ risk of harm and injuries from being placed unnecessarily and for lengthy periods in cold isolation cells without means to keep warm and under the circumstances of their confinement in those cells, and the injuries of Plaintiffs Jeffery Honesty, Brandon Hettinger, T.T., and N.O. suffered from being immobilized in restraint chairs hours after they had regained their self-control XVII. Claim for Relief: Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process Rights 131. Paragraphs 1 through 130 above are re-alleged and incorporated herein.
-- 24 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 25 of 27 PAGEID #: 217

132. The policies and practices of the Defendants regarding extended use of isolation

and mechanical restraints under physically and mentally harmful conditions as a form of

behavioral management are punitive, excessive and unnecessary, and deprive children subjected

to them the required educational services, large muscle exercise, socialization and appropriate

skill building opportunities. Such practices constitute a substantial departure from accepted

professional standard and judgment and deny the Plaintiffs and other children the right to

substantive Due Process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

XVIII.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:

a. declare that Defendants jointly and severally have violated Plaintiffs’ civil rights,

inflicting on them pain, emotional distress, and anxiety;

b. declare that the actions of Defendants regarding extended restraint and seclusion

constitute a substantial departure from accepted professional standards and judgment,

and are unnecessarily, punitive and harmful in the treatment of detained children;

b. order such equitable relief as will make Plaintiffs whole for Defendants unlawful

conduct; costs; and reasonable attorneys’ fees;

c. enjoin Defendants from operating the Center’s isolation cells and restraint chairs in

an unconstitutional manner;

d. award to each Plaintiff compensatory damages in excess of $25,000, and, from

Defendant Moore, punitive damages in excess of $25,000; and

e. grant such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

-- 25 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 26 of 27 PAGEID #: 218
Respectfully submitted,
By: ______________________ Edward R. Forman (0076651) (eforman@marshallandmorrow.com) John S. Marshall (0015160) (jmarshall@marshallandmorrow.com) Samuel M. Schlein (0092194) (sschlein@marshallandmorrow.com) Trial Counsel for Plaintiffs MARSHALL AND MORROW LLC 250 Civic Center Dr., Suite 480 Columbus, Ohio 43215-5296 (614) 463-9790 Fax (614) 463-9780
Andrew Biller (0081452) (andrewbilleresq@gmail.com) Co-counsel for Plaintiffs The Law Firm of Andrew Biller Easton Town Center 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 (614) 604-8759 Fax (614) 583-8107
Kim Tandy (0076173) Rickell L. Howard (0081982) Co-counsel for Plaintiffs Children’s Law Center, Inc. 1002 Russell Street Covington, Kentucky 41011 Telephone: (859) 431-3313 Fax: 859-655-7553 ktandy@childrenslawky.org rhoward@childrenslawky.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

OF COUNSEL:
Louis A. Jacobs (002101) (LAJOhio@aol.com)

-- 26 --

Case: 2:14-cv-01608-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/30/15 Page: 27 of 27 PAGEID #: 219 177 19th St., Apt. 9C Oakland, CA 94612 (614) 203-1255 Fax (510) 250-9007
Jury Demand Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of eight (8) on all issues and defenses triable to a jury.
By: ________________________ Edward R. Forman (0076651)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was filed with the Court on this 9th day of January, 2015, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. Parties may access this filing through the court’s filing system.
By: _______________________ Edward R. Forman (0076651)
-- 27 --

 
 Case: 2:14-cv-1608 As of: 03/30/2018 04:40 PM EDT 1 of 12
ADR−SettleWk,CLOSED,JURY,PROTO
U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio (Columbus) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:14−cv−01608−JLG−NMK

JH et al v. Multi−County Juvenile Detention Facility et al Assigned to: Judge James L Graham Referred to: Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King Cause: 28:1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Date Terminated: 11/17/2015 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

JH

represented by Edward Reilley Forman

Marshall and Forman LLC

250 Civic Center Drive

Suite 480

Columbus, OH 43215

614−463−9790

Fax: 614−463−9780

Email: eforman@marshallforman.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Biller Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 614−604−8759 Fax: 614−583−8107 Email: abiller@msdlegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Spenceley Marshall Marshall and Forman, LLC 250 Civic Center Drive Suite 480 Columbus, OH 43215−5296 614−463−9790 Fax: 614−463−9780 Email: jmarshall@marshallforman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Brooks Tandy Children's Law Center 1002 Russell Street Covington, KY 41011 859−431−3313 Email: ktandy@childrenslawky.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Louis Abraham Jacobs Marshall and Morrow LLC 177 19th Street, Apt. 9C Oakland, CA 94612−4642 614−203−1255 Fax: 510−250−9007 Email: LAJOhio@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rickell LaShea Howard Childrens Law Center, Inc. 1002 Russell Street Covington, KY 41011

Case: 2:14-cv-1608 As of: 03/30/2018 04:40 PM EDT 2 of 12

859−431−3313 Fax: 859−655−7553 Email: rhoward@childrenslawky.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff BH

represented by Edward Reilley Forman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Biller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Spenceley Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Brooks Tandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Louis Abraham Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rickell LaShea Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LH

represented by Edward Reilley Forman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Biller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Spenceley Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Brooks Tandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Louis Abraham Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rickell LaShea Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff GM

represented by Edward Reilley Forman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-1608 As of: 03/30/2018 04:40 PM EDT 3 of 12

Andrew Biller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Spenceley Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Brooks Tandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Louis Abraham Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rickell LaShea Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SM

represented by Edward Reilley Forman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Biller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Spenceley Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Brooks Tandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rickell LaShea Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jeffery Honesty

represented by Edward Reilley Forman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Spenceley Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Biller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Brooks Tandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Louis Abraham Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-1608 As of: 03/30/2018 04:40 PM EDT 4 of 12

Plaintiff Brandon Hettinger
Plaintiff Stephanie Moats
Plaintiff TT

Rickell LaShea Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Reilley Forman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Biller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Spenceley Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly Brooks Tandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Louis Abraham Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rickell LaShea Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Reilley Forman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Biller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Spenceley Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly Brooks Tandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Louis Abraham Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rickell LaShea Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Reilley Forman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-1608 As of: 03/30/2018 04:40 PM EDT 5 of 12

Andrew Biller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Spenceley Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Brooks Tandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Louis Abraham Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rickell LaShea Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Casey Williams

represented by Edward Reilley Forman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Biller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Spenceley Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Brooks Tandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Louis Abraham Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rickell LaShea Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff BF

represented by Edward Reilley Forman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Biller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Spenceley Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Brooks Tandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-1608 As of: 03/30/2018 04:40 PM EDT 6 of 12

Louis Abraham Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rickell LaShea Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Glenda Fravel

represented by Edward Reilley Forman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Biller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Spenceley Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Brooks Tandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Louis Abraham Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rickell LaShea Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff WS

represented by Edward Reilley Forman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Biller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Spenceley Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Brooks Tandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Louis Abraham Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rickell LaShea Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wayne Schoenberger

represented by Edward Reilley Forman (See above for address)

Case: 2:14-cv-1608 As of: 03/30/2018 04:40 PM EDT 7 of 12

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Biller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Spenceley Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Brooks Tandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Louis Abraham Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rickell LaShea Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff NO

represented by Edward Reilley Forman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Biller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Spenceley Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Brooks Tandy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Louis Abraham Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rickell LaShea Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tracy O'Brien

represented by Edward Reilley Forman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Biller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Spenceley Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Brooks Tandy

Case: 2:14-cv-1608 As of: 03/30/2018 04:40 PM EDT 8 of 12
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Louis Abraham Jacobs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rickell LaShea Howard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Multi−County Juvenile Detention Facility
Defendant Dana Moore TERMINATED: 11/16/2015
Defendant Steven Davis Defendant Mike Kiger Defendant David Levacy Defendant Tim Bubb

represented by John Stephen Teetor Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor, LLC Two Miranova Place Suite 700 Columbus, OH 43215 614−221−2121 Email: steetor@isaacwiles.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Stephen Teetor Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor, LLC Two Miranova Place Suite 700 Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 221−2121 Fax: (614) 365−9516 Email: mteetor@isaacwiles.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Stephen Teetor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Stephen Teetor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew Stephen Teetor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew Stephen Teetor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew Stephen Teetor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 2:14-cv-1608 As of: 03/30/2018 04:40 PM EDT 9 of 12

Matthew Stephen Teetor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Doug Smith

represented by Matthew Stephen Teetor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Duane Flowers

represented by Matthew Stephen Teetor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Clark Sheets TERMINATED: 03/09/2015

Defendant
John Walker TERMINATED: 03/09/2015

Defendant
Sandy Ogle TERMINATED: 03/09/2015

Defendant David Freriks

represented by Matthew Stephen Teetor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Ed Keister

represented by Matthew Stephen Teetor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jim O'Brien

represented by Matthew Stephen Teetor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/18/2014
09/18/2014 09/26/2014 09/29/2014 09/29/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 paid − receipt number: 0648−4732151), filed by JH. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Forman, Edward) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
2 MOTION for Leave to File by Plaintiffs BH, GM, JH, LH, SM. (Forman, Edward) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by John Stephen Teetor for Defendants Dana Moore, Multi−County Juvenile Detention Facility (Teetor, John) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
4 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Waiver sent to All Defendants. (Forman, Edward) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Dana Moore answer due 11/17/2014; Multi−County Juvenile Detention Facility answer due 11/17/2014. (er1) (Entered: 09/29/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-1608 As of: 03/30/2018 04:40 PM EDT 10 of 12

09/30/2014 10/30/2014 10/30/2014 10/30/2014 10/31/2014 11/06/2014
11/10/2014
11/11/2014 11/12/2014 11/17/2014 11/17/2014 11/17/2014 11/17/2014 11/18/2014 11/24/2014 11/24/2014
12/10/2014 12/12/2014

5 NOTICE of Hearing:Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 11/19/2014 02:15 PM before Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King. (jr1) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Rickell LaShea Howard for Plaintiffs BH, GM, JH, LH, SM (Howard, Rickell) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Kimberly Brooks Tandy for Plaintiffs BH, GM, JH, LH, SM (Tandy, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
8 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by JH. (Forman, Edward) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew Stephen Teetor for Defendants Dana Moore, Multi−County Juvenile Detention Facility (Teetor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
10 NOTICE by Defendants Dana Moore, Multi−County Juvenile Detention Facility NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS MULTI−COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY AND DANA C. MOORE CONCERNING EVIDENTIARY ISSUE (Teetor, John) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
11 RESPONSE to Motion re 2 MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum of Defendants Contra to Plaintiffs' Motion to File Complaint and Proceed Using Initials (Doc 2) filed by Defendants Dana Moore, Multi−County Juvenile Detention Facility. (Attachments: # 1 Press Release, # 2 Hopper Statement) (Teetor, John) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
12 Response by Plaintiff JH. (Marshall, John) (Entered: 11/11/2014)
13 ORDER. Replies to 2 MOTION for leave to proceed in this matter using initials as pseudonyms due by 11/18/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 11/12/2014. (pes1) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King: Telephone Conference held on 11/17/2014. (nmk0) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
14 ORDER. Pretrial Conference rescheduled to 11/24/2014 T 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 11/17/2014. (pes1) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
15 RULE 26(f) REPORT Of All Parties by Defendants Dana Moore, Multi−County Juvenile Detention Facility. (Teetor, John) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
16 J.H. ANSWER to 8 Amended Complaint filed by Dana Moore, Multi−County Juvenile Detention Facility. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Teetor, John) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
17 REPLY to Response to Motion re 2 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Plaintiffs BH, GM, JH, LH, SM. (Marshall, John) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 11/24/2014. (nmk0) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
18 PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL ORDER: This case is referred to the March 2015 SETTLEMENT WEEK. Motions to Amend due by 1/31/2015. Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures due by 1/15/2015. Primary Expert due by 6/15/2015. Rebuttal Expert due by 9/15/2015. Discovery due by 11/30/2015. Dispositive motions due by 1/15/2016. Final Pretrial Conference ready by 5/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 11/24/2014. (pes1) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
19 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by JH. (Forman, Edward) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
20 OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 2 Motion for Leave to File to Complaint and Proceed Using Initials. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file, within fourteen (14) days, a revised Amended Complaint that identifies the adult plaintiffs and the guardians of the minor plaintiffs, in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 12/12/2014. (pes1) (Entered: 12/12/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-1608 As of: 03/30/2018 04:40 PM EDT 11 of 12

12/24/2014 12/29/2014 01/06/2015 01/09/2015 01/12/2015 01/28/2015
01/30/2015 01/30/2015 02/05/2015 02/10/2015 02/13/2015
02/19/2015 02/19/2015
02/19/2015 02/24/2015 02/26/2015 02/27/2015 03/09/2015 03/17/2015

21 MOTION for Extension of Time to File New date requested 1/9/2015. by Plaintiffs BH, GM, JH, LH, SM. (Forman, Edward) (Entered: 12/24/2014)
22 ORDER granting 21 Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint − extended to 1/9/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 12/29/2014. (pes1) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
23 NOTICE by Plaintiffs BH, GM, JH, LH, SM (Biller, Andrew) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
24 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by JH. (Forman, Edward) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
25 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 1/12/2015. (pes1) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
26 MOTION for Leave to File MOTION OF DEFENDANTS MULTI−COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER AND DANA MOORE FOR DETERMINATION TO REMOVE ITEMS FROM PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE SAME UNDER SEAL by Defendants Dana Moore, Multi−County Juvenile Detention Facility. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of J. Stephen Teetor) (Teetor, John) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
27 STIPULATION for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint by Plaintiff JH. (Forman, Edward) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT Fourth Amended Complaint against All Defendants, filed by JH. (Forman, Edward) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
29 Notice of Mediation Conference: Mediator Melissa A Izenson to conduct Settlement Week Conference on 3/9/2015 at 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Mediator Check Sheet) (jr1) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
30 ORDER. Telephone Status Conference set for 2/19/2015 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 2/10/2015. (pes1) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
31 ANSWER to 28 Amended Complaint ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS MULTI−COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY AND DANA C. MOORE TO PLAINTIFFS' FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Dana Moore, Multi−County Juvenile Detention Facility. (Attachments: # 1 2014 ODYS Annual Audit Report) (Teetor, John) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King: Discovery Conference held on 2/19/2015. (nmk0) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
32 ORDER VACATING MEDIATION: The referral of the case to the March 2015 Settlement Week is VACATED. The parties shall report, no later than March 31, 2015, on the status of private mediation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 2/19/2015. (mas1) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
33 OPINION AND ORDER regarding Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 2/19/2015. (mas1) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
34 Objection by Plaintiff Jeffery Honesty. (Marshall, John) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
35 Unopposed MOTION Place Doc. No. 34 Under Seal re 34 MOTION for Reconsideration by Plaintiff Jeffery Honesty. (Forman, Edward) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
36 ORDER granting 35 Motion to File Objection Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 2/27/2015. (pes1) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
37 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiff JH (Marshall, John) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
38 ANSWER to 28 Amended Complaint ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, TO PLAINTIFFS' FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Tim Bubb, Steven Davis, Duane Flowers, David Freriks, Ed Keister, Mike Kiger, David Levacy, Jim O'Brien, Doug Smith. (Teetor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/17/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-1608 As of: 03/30/2018 04:40 PM EDT 12 of 12

04/02/2015 04/03/2015
04/06/2015 04/30/2015 05/07/2015 05/08/2015
07/30/2015 07/30/2015
09/01/2015 09/08/2015 09/08/2015 10/06/2015 10/06/2015 10/07/2015 11/16/2015 11/16/2015 11/17/2015

39 ORDER: The parties are ORDERED to file the required report no later than 4/6/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 04/01/2015. (sr1) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
40 STATUS REPORT Status Report of Defendants Concerning Private Mediation by Defendants Tim Bubb, Steven Davis, Duane Flowers, David Freriks, Ed Keister, Mike Kiger, David Levacy, Dana Moore, Multi−County Juvenile Detention Facility, Jim O'Brien, Doug Smith. (Teetor, John) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
41 ORDER. Status Report on settlement discussions due by 4/30/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 4/6/2015. (pes1) (Entered: 04/06/2015)
42 NOTICE by Plaintiff Jeffery Honesty Status Report of Parties (Marshall, John) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
43 MOTION to Amend/Correct Joint Motion to Amend Case Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Jeffery Honesty. (Marshall, John) (Entered: 05/07/2015)
44 ORDER GRANTING 43 Joint Motion to Amend Case Scheduling Order filed by Jeffery Honesty. The current pretrial schedule is SUSPENDED. Status Conference set for 7/30/2015 at 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 5/8/2015. (pes) (Entered: 05/08/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King: Status Conference held on 7/30/2015. (NMK) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
45 ORDER. The pretrial schedule remains SUSPENDED. Status Conference set for 9/3/2015 at 02:00 PM in Teleconference before Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 7/30/2015. (pes) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
46 ORDER. Status Conference CONTINUED to 9/8/2015 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 9/1/2015. (pes) (Entered: 09/01/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King: Status Conference held on 9/8/2015. (NMK) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
47 ORDER. Status Conference set for 10/6/2015 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 9/8/2015. (pes) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King: Status Conference held on 10/6/2015. (NMK) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
48 STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 10/6/2015. (pes) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
49 ORDER. Plaintiffs' Objections to Magistrate Judge's Ruling, ECF 34 , is DENIED without prejudice to renewal should the settlement not be finalized. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 10/7/2015. (pes) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
50 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 11/23/2015 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King. (jr) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
51 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Plaintiff Jeffery Honesty. (Marshall, John) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
52 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Plaintiff Jeffery Honesty. (Marshall, John) (Entered: 11/17/2015)