UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MARK E. OSTERBACK, FREDERICK CLARK,)

DANNY L. ELDRIDGE, ALVIN M. FEW, )

LAVICTOR FLOURNOY, FRANK S. LOWRY, )

BRIAN D. MESSENGER, ROBERT PERI, )

SALVATORE J. RICCI, HECTOR M.

)

RIVAS, CARLOS RUIZ, LAWRENCE J. )

SARGENT, ANTONIO L. WARD, WILLIE )

J. WATSON, NEBUCHADNEZZAR WRISPER, )

individually, and on behalf of a )

Class of all others similarly

)

situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MICHAEL W. MOORE, in his

)

official capacity as Secretary, )

Florida Department of Corrections; )

PAUL C. DECKER, in his official )

capacity as Warden of Baker

)

Correctional Institution; WARREN )

W. CORNELL, in his official

)

capacity as Warden of Charlotte )

Correctional Institution, DAVID L. )

PRIDGEN, in his official capacity )

as Warden of Columbia Correctional )

Institution; LONNIE E. HOLMES, in )

his official capacity as Warden of )

Everglades Correctional Institu- )

tion; JAMES V. CROSBY, JR., in his )

official capacity as Warden of

)

Florida State Prison; CHESTER

)

LAMBDIN, in his official capacity )

as Warden of Martin Correctional )

Institution; JOSEPH S. PETROVESKY, )

in his official capacity as Warden )

of Santa Rosa Correctional Insti- )

tution; CLARK J. MOODY, in his

)

official capacity as Warden of

)

Taylor Correctional Institution; )

CHARLES E. GERMANY, in his official)

capacity as Warden of Washington )

Correctional Institution,

)

)

Defendants.

)

___________________________________)

Case No. 97-2806-CIV-MORENO MAGISTRATE JUDGE SORRENTINO
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION

Plaintiffs, individually, and as representatives of a class of persons similarly situated, sue defendants and allege:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that the defendants house inmates assigned to Close Management under conditions so harsh, atypical and punitive as to amount to Cruel and Unusual Punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 2. The conditions under which Close Management inmates are housed result in serious mental and physical deterioration. 3. The conditions under which Close Management inmates are housed poses a danger to the public since a large, although unknown number of inmates complete their sentence while on Close Management and are released directly from Close Management to the street.
JURISDICTION 4. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that this is a civil action arising under the Constitution of the United States. 5. Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) in that this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured to the plaintiffs by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. 6. The plaintiffs' claims for relief are predicated on upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which authorizes actions to redress the
2

deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, privileges and immunities secured to plaintiff by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
7. Declaratory relief is sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
8. Injunctive relief is sought pursuant to Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
9. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because at least one of the defendants resides in this District and a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District.
10. Plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees and costs is predicated upon 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which authorizes the award of attorney's fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
PARTIES 11. Plaintiff, MARK E. OSTERBACK, is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Walton Correctional Institution, located in Walton County, Florida. He was incarcerated at Everglades Correctional Institution, located in Miami-Dade County at the time this case arose. 12. Plaintiff, FREDERICK CLARK, is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Everglades Correctional Institution, located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
3

13. Plaintiff, DANNY L. ELDRIDGE, is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Taylor Correctional Institution, located in Taylor County, Florida.
14. Plaintiff, ALVIN M. FEW, is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Washington Correctional Institution, located in Washington County, Florida.
15. Plaintiff, LAVICTOR FLOURNOY, is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Taylor Correctional Institution, located in Taylor County, Florida.
16. Plaintiff, FRANK S. LOWRY, is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, located in Santa Rosa County, Florida.
17. Plaintiff, BRIAN D. MESSENGER, is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Washington Correctional Institution, located in Washington County, Florida.
18. Plaintiff, ROBERT PERI, is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Columbia Correctional Institution, located in Lake County, Florida.
19. Plaintiff, SALVATORE J. RICCI, is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Columbia Correctional Institution, located in Lake County, Florida.
20. Plaintiff, HECTOR M. RIVAS, is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Florida State Prison, located in Bradford County, Florida.
4

21. Plaintiff, CARLOS RUIZ, is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Charlotte Correctional Institution, located in Charlotte County, Florida.
22. Plaintiff, LAWRENCE J. SARGENT, is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Martin Correctional Institution, located in Martin County, Florida.
23. Plaintiff, ANTONIO L. WARD, is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Baker Correctional Institution, located in Baker County, Florida.
24. Plaintiff, WILLIE J. WATSON, is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, located in Santa Rosa County, Florida.
25. Plaintiff, NEBUCHADNEZZAR WRISPER, is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Florida State Prison, located in Bradford County, Florida.
26. Defendant, MICHAEL W. MOORE, is the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections. As such, he bears overall responsibility for the operation of all prisons under the supervision and control of the Florida Department of Corrections. He is sued in his official capacity.
27. Defendant, PAUL C. DECKER, is the Warden of Baker Correctional Institution. As such, he bears overall responsibility for the operation of that prison, including operation of the Close Management Unit at that prison. He is sued in his official capacity.
5

28. Defendant, WARREN W. CORNELL, is the Warden of Charlotte Correctional Institution. As such, he bears overall responsibility for the operation of that prison, including operation of the Close Management Unit at that prison. He is sued in his official capacity.
29. Defendant, DAVID L. PRIDGEN, is the Warden of Columbia Correctional Institution. As such, he bears overall responsibility for the operation of that prison, including operation of the Close Management Unit at that prison. He is sued in his official capacity.
30. Defendant, LONNIE E. HOLMES, is the Warden of Everglades Correctional Institution. As such, he bears overall responsibility for the operation of that prison, including operation of the Close Management Unit at that prison. He is sued in his official capacity.
31. Defendant, JAMES V. CROSBY, JR., is the Warden of Florida State Prison. As such, he bears overall responsibility for the operation of that prison, including operation of the Close Management Unit at that prison. He is sued in his official capacity.
32. Defendant, CHESTER LAMBDIN, is the Warden of Martin Correctional Institution. As such, he bears overall responsibility for the operation of that prison, including operation of the Close Management Unit at that prison. He is sued in his official capacity.
6

33. Defendant, JOSEPH S. PETROVESKY, is the Warden of Santa Rosa Correctional Institution. As such, he bears overall responsibility for the operation of that prison, including operation of the Close Management Unit at that prison. He is sued in his official capacity.
34. Defendant, CLARK J. MOODY, is the Warden of Taylor Correctional Institution. As such, he bears overall responsibility for the operation of that prison, including operation of the Close Management Unit at that prison. He is sued in his official capacity.
35. Defendant, CHARLES E. GERMANY, is the Warden of Washington Correctional Institution. As such, he bears overall responsibility for the operation of that prison, including operation of the Close Management Unit at that prison. He is sued in his official capacity.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 36. This action challenges the restrictions placed on Close Management inmates as authorized by Chapter 33-601.801-813, Florida Administrative Code. 37. The plaintiffs have no available administrative remedies which can serve to end the practices herein challenged. Therefor the exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), is not applicable to this matter. 38. There are no available administrative remedies because according to the express terms of Rule 33-103.001(4)(b), Florida
7

Administrative Code, inmates cannot file grievances regarding the
substance of state regulations. Each of the practices challenged
in this action is specifically authorized by state regulations,
to wit: Rule 33-601.801-813.
39. Despite the ban on grievances regarding the substance
of state regulations, plaintiffs and the plaintiff Class have
attempted to utilize the grievance process to challenge the harsh
and punitive restrictions of Rule 33-601.801-813. Each and every
grievance making such a challenge has been denied.
40. Plaintiff Mark Osterback grieved without success the
following issues:
A. Limitations on purchases of pens. See Plaintiffs' Appendix of Exhibits to original Complaint, Exhibit 31.
B. Limitations on purchase of stamps. See Plaintiffs' Appendix of Exhibits to original Complaint, Exhibit 34.
C. Lack of adequate furnishings in Close Management cells. See Plaintiffs' Appendix of Exhibits to original Complaint, Exhibit 45.
D. Restricted access to reading materials, periodicals, programs, canteen purchases, telephone, visitation, correspondence, association with other inmates, law library access, ability to seek protective management, personal property and outdoor exercise. See Plaintiffs' Appendix Supplement to First Amended Complaint, Exhibit 124.
E. Insufficient cell size and double celling of CMII and CMIII inmates. See Plaintiffs' Appendix Supplement to First Amended Complaint, Exhibit 126.
F. Visitation. See Plaintiffs' Appendix Supplement to First Amended Complaint, Exhibit 136.
G. Magazine subscriptions. See Plaintiffs' Appendix Supplement to First Amended Complaint, Exhibit 138.
8

H. Frequency of canteen purchases. See Plaintiffs' Appendix Supplement to First Amended Complaint, Exhibit 140.
I. Limitation on canteen items which can be purchased. See Plaintiffs' Appendix Supplement to First Amended Complaint, Exhibit 142.
J. Barring of Radios. See Plaintiffs' Appendix Supplement to First Amended Complaint, Exhibit 144.
41. Plaintiff Frederick Clark used the grievance process
without success on the following issues:
A. To complain about lack of educational opportunities, job opportunities, gaintime, and drug treatment programs while in Close Management. His grievances were rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on October 22, 1998 and July 7, 1999.
B. To complain about lack of safety in the Close Management Unit. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on November 6, 1998.
C. To complain about lack of access to legal materials while assigned to Close Management. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on July 22, 1998.
42. Plaintiff Danny L. Eldridge used the grievance process
without success on the following issues:
A. The refusal of the Correctional Officers on duty in the Close Management Unit to permit plaintiff to talk to a psychologist and their use of Mace and the writing of a disciplinary report rather than meeting his mental health needs. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on September 25, 1998. A second grievance, raising a similar issue, was denied on the same day.
B. The refusal of staff to arrange a cell change, resulting in plaintiff being assaulted by his cellmate and then receiving disciplinary action. The Florida Department of Corrections improperly rejected plaintiff’s grievance on October 28, 1998, on the grounds that it was not a “sensitive nature” grievance.
9

43. Plaintiff Alvin M. Few has used the grievance process
without success to grieve the following issues:
A. That the isolation, lack of out-of-cell recreation time, and lack of group activity, results in depression, hatred, anxiety and mental deterioration. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on July 27, 1999.
B. The refusal to permit Close Management inmates to have a radio results in psychological harm. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on July 27, 1999.
44. Plaintiff Lavictor Flournoy used the grievance process
without success to grieve the following issues:
A. That the absence of any programs for Close Management inmates poses a threat to his sanity and mental wellbeing and is likely to produce counterproductive behavior. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on February 15, 1999.
B. To complain about the use of chemical agents adversely affecting inmates not involved and to complain about the general unsanitary condition of the Close Management cells. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on March 1, 1999.
C. To complain about the condition of the mattresses supplied to Close Management inmates. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on February 22, 1999.
D. To complain about the inadequacy of the heating system in the Close Management Unit. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on February 15, 1999.
E. To complain about lack of sanitation when meals are served. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on March 16, 1999.
F. To complain about lack of opportunities to participate in programs and consequent lack of gaintime, resulting in having to serve a longer sentence. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on December 12, 1998.
10

45. Plaintiff Frank S. Lowry used the grievance process
without success to grieve the following issues:
A. The fact that inmates on Close Management were not permitted to possess the same type of personal items as is permitted inmates in general population. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on August 27, 1999.
B. The inability to obtain a pen when needed to prepare legal or other written materials. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on August 27, 1999.
C. The inability to obtain materials from the law library in a timely manner. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on August 27, 1999.
D. Lack of library books to read. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on September 9, 1999.
46. Plaintiff Brian D. Messenger has used the grievance
process without success to grieve the following issues:
A. To complain that inmates on Close Management were not permitted to have radios, or other privileges, and that a radio would cure a lot of depression and psyche problems. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on August 12, 1999.
B. To complain about lack of out-of-cell time, about isolation from other prisoners, about lack of access to telephones, to family, and to television, and to stress that Close Management damages the mental and physical well-being of inmates. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on August 12, 1999.
C. To complain that Close Management inmates could not purchase food items from the canteen and to ask that Close Management inmates be given more privileges. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on August 12, 1999.
47. Plaintiff Robert Peri used the grievance process
without success on the following issues:
11

A. To ask that the rule limiting the items Close Management inmates can purchase from the canteen be changed to permit Close Management inmates to purchase food products. The reply of the Florida Department of Corrections, dated August 15, 1996, informed the plaintiff that “the grievance process is not to be utilized to request rule changes.”
B. To ask that the time for outdoor yard privileges be increased. The Florida Department of Corrections rejected the grievance on July 17, 1997.
48. Plaintiff Salvatore Ricci used the grievance process
without success on the following issues:
A. That the oppressive housing conditions in the Close Management Unit caused a deterioration in his mental health. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on September 20, 1999.
B. That the heat, lack of ventilation, and the bright lights left on almost all night was having an adverse affect on his mental health. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on July 13, 1999.
C. That plaintiff Ricci’s documented needs for protection are ignored while he is housed in Close Management. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on June 9, 1999.
D. That items of personal property obtained from the prison canteen and permitted in one Close Management Unit are not permitted in another Close Management Unit. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on May 28, 1999.
49. Plaintiff Hector M. Rivas grieved without success his
placement on CM I despite the fact that he was acquitted by
reason of insanity of escape, the reason advanced by the Florida
Department of Corrections for his placement on Close Management
status. Plaintiff Rivas’ grievances were rejected by the Florida
Department of Corrections on June 17, 1998 and December 21, 1998.
12

50. Plaintiff Carlos Ruiz used the grievance process to complain about the punitive nature and psychological trauma caused by Close Management and to ask that Close Management inmates have the same opportunities as general population inmates. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on July 28, 1999.
51. Plaintiff Carlos Ruiz also filed a grievance at Charlotte Correctional Institution grieving that the conditions of Close Management are “cruel, inhuman, barbaric and animalistic,” destroys inmates’ minds, and renders them the “equivalent of human vegetables.” His grievance was rejected at Charlotte Correctional Institution on August 2, 1999. Although Plaintiff Ruiz filed a timely appeal to the Florida Department of Corrections, the Florida Department of Corrections has failed to respond in a timely manner.
52. Plaintiff Lawrence J. Sargent has used the grievance process without success to grieve the limitation on canteen purchases, specifically the limitation of purchases of postage stamps which prevents him from remaining in contact with his family members. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on May 4, 1999.
53. Plaintiff Antonio L. Ward used the grievance process without success to complain that Close Management conditions resulted in Cruel and Unusual Punishment and the mental deterioration of those subject to such conditions. His grievance was
13

rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on August 11,
1999.
54. Plaintiff Willie J. Watson used the grievance process
without success on the following issues:
A. Excessive heat and lack of ventilation in the cells, compounded by the covers placed over the windows which prevent air from coming in. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on August 11, 1999.
B. To complain about being restrained during visitation by handcuffs, handcuff cover (black box), waist chain and leg irons. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on August 27, 1999.
C. To complain about the unjustified writing of major disciplinary infraction for minor rules deviations caused by lack of understanding or carelessness. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on July November 18, 1999.
D. To complain about a pattern of threats and harassments directed toward Close Management inmates by staff. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on January 5, 1999.
E. Lack of opportunity to properly clean the Close Management cells. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on December 17, 1998. A similar grievance about unhealthy living conditions was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on May 5, 1999.
F. To complain about dirty showers in the Close Management Unit. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on December 17, 1998.
G. To complain that CM II and CM III inmates are housed in two man cells. His grievance was misread and then approved for further inquiry on February 12, 1999. On further inquiry, the grievance was rejected.
55. Plaintiff Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper used the grievance
process without success to complain about deprivation of voca-
tional, educational, and work activities, about lack of canteen
14

privileges, lack of a proper recreation yard, destruction of personal in-coming mail, inability to watch T.V. or listen to a radio, and lack of visitation. His grievance was rejected by the Florida Department of Corrections on June 30, 1999.
56. In addition to the grievances filed by the named plaintiffs, members of the plaintiffs’ class have literally filed hundreds, if not thousands of grievances directed toward the punitive conditions encountered by Close Management inmates. On information and belief, not a single grievance challenging the restrictions imposed by Chapter 33-601.801-813, Florida Administrative Code, has ever been granted.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 57. This action is brought by the named plaintiffs as a class action, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated. 58. The class of plaintiffs consists of all persons who are currently assigned to Close Management in prisons operated by the Florida Department of Corrections or who in the future will be assigned to Close Management. Within the general class are three subclasses, (1) persons who are currently or will be assigned to Close Management One, (2) persons who are currently or will be assigned to Close Management Two, and (3) persons who are currently or will be assigned to Close Management Three.
15

59. The plaintiffs' class consists of an unknown but large number of inmates, numbering in the thousands at any given time, so that joinder of all members is impracticable.
60. Controlling issues of law and fact are common to all members of the plaintiff class in that the imposition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment by way of the conditions imposed upon those in Close Management is common to all inmates in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections and is imposed as a matter of policy, pattern, practice and custom, in accordance with the specific provisions of Chapter 33-601.801-813, Florida Administrative Code.
61. The claims of the individual plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the plaintiff class. The named plaintiffs' right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment has been abridged and will be abridged in the future, contrary to the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
62. The defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the plaintiff class as a whole thereby making appropriate final injunctive and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
63. The policy, pattern, practice and custom with respect to Eighth Amendment rights of the plaintiff class present common questions of law and fact which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
16

64. The plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the members of the plaintiffs' class.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
65. Pursuant to Rule 33-601.801, Florida Administrative
Code:
Close management is the confinement of an inmate apart from the general population, for reasons of security, or the order and effective management of the institution, where the inmate, through his own behavior, has demonstrated an inability to live in the general population without abusing the rights and privileges of others. The goal of Close Management shall be toward assignment of the inmate to the least restrictive level to meet the management needs of the inmate and returning the inmate to open population as soon as the facts of the case suggest it is in the best interest of the security and order of the institution and public safety. To aid in this transition back into open population, the Close Management review team is authorized to place Close Management III inmates in work assignments outside the Close Management Unit and in assignments usually assigned to open population inmates. The secretary shall designate which institutions are authorized to house Close Management inmates, based on the needs of the department.
66. On information and belief, there are in excess of 3,200
inmates currently assigned to Close Management at various prisons
operated by the Florida Department of Corrections.
67. Close Management cells do not exceed 80 square feet in
area and are equipped with one or two bunks and a combination
toilet and sink. Some Close Management cells have foot lockers,
which are bolted to the floor. No other furniture is permitted.
17

68. Close Management cells have a window, generally placed high up on a wall and covered with security screening on the outside.
69. Inmates assigned to Close Management eat in their cells.
70. Close Management consists of three levels, known as Close Management I (“CM I”), Close Management II (“CM II”), and Close Management III (“CM III”).
71. CM I consists of single cell housing, which can last as long as 37 months, unless, as is often the case, it is further extended by the defendants.
72. Inmates assigned to CM I remain in their cells 24 hours per day, seven days per week, with the exception of three showers per week and three hours per week of outside exercise per week after 30 days of Close Management. The only other reasons why a CM I inmate might leave his cell are things such as visits every 90 days, medical callouts, or an attorney appointment.
73. CM II consists of single or double cell housing which can last as long as 25 months, unless further extended by the defendants.
74. Inmates assigned to CM II remain in their cells 24 hours per day, seven days per week, with the exception of three showers per week and three hours of outside exercise per week after 90 days. The only other reasons why a CM II inmate might leave his cell are things such as visits once every 60 days,
18

medical callouts, attorney visits, or in the case of a very few CM III inmates, a work assignment.
75. A few inmates assigned to CM II have an opportunity for work after a 90 day period of satisfactory adjustment following the first month of assignment to CM II if they have maintained a clear disciplinary record. On information and belief, the number of CM II inmates with work assignments is a very small percentage of the total CM II inmate population.
76. If they do have a work assignment, inmates in CM II can only work in the CM I area, the CM II area, or the death row housing area.
77. CM III consists of two-man cell housing for a period that by Rule should not exceed 13 months in duration, except at Florida State Prison, where CM III can last indefinitely.
78. Inmates in CM III can work inside or outside the Close Management Unit.
79. The restrictions set forth in this paragraph, all of which are set out in Chapter 33-601.801-813, Florida Administrative Code, are imposed on all Close Management inmates:
A. Inmates assigned to Close Management have no opportunity to participate in educational programs, with the exception of self-study in their cells.
B. Inmates in Close Management do not have the opportunity to participate in vocational, educational or self-betterment programs, other than by enrolling in correspondence courses if they can pay the cost.
19

C. Inmates in Close Management are not permitted to watch television.
D. Inmates in Close Management are not permitted to listen to a radio.
E. Inmates in Close Management are deprived of most of the personal property that inmates in general population are permitted to possess, including items that would help to alleviate the isolation caused by Close Management, such as chess sets.
F. Inmates in Close Management receive, at most, three hours of out-of-cell recreation per week, usually all on one day.
G. Inmates in Close Management are limited to three showers per week.
H. Inmates in Close Management are not permitted to visit the law library. They must request specific items from runners or clerks. Frequently, the requested items are never received.
I. Inmates in Close Management are not permitted to visit the regular library. A limited number of books are available in the Close Management Unit.
J. Inmates in Close Management, except for those with work assignments, are placed in restraints every time they leave their cell, even if only to take a shower.
K. Inmates in Close Management are not permitted to attend religious services or otherwise participate in group religious activities. Religious volunteers are not allowed to visit Close Management inmates.
20

L. Inmates in Close Management are not permitted to attend regular sick call. Instead, they must rely on the services of a non-physician to relay their complaints to the prison doctor.
80. Pursuant to Chapter 33-601.803-813, Florida Administrative Code, inmates assigned to CM I:
A. Can only participate in available approved programs that can be performed within their cells and then only after a minimum period of at least six months with a clear disciplinary record since assignment to Close Management.
B. Can only check out 1 soft back book from the library one time per week; possess no more than four personal soft back books.
C. Can only conduct routine inmate bank transactions once per month.
D. Can only make canteen purchases once per month, and then can only purchase a maximum of five health and comfort items and writing supplies, including stamps. They cannot purchase any food items.
E. Can subscribe to one magazine and possess no more than four magazines.
F. Can subscribe to one newspaper and possess no more than four issues.
G. Can only make emergency telephone calls and telephone calls to an attorney.
21

H. Can only receive a personal visit after 90 days following the first month in Close Management and then only if they have maintained a clear disciplinary record. All visits are non-contact, with the inmate restrained by leg irons, waist chain, handcuffs and handcuff cover (the “black box”).
I. Have no access to a day room or common room. 81. The same restrictions imposed by Chapter 33-601.803 and .811, Florida Administrative Code, on inmates assigned to CM I are imposed on inmates assigned to CM II, except that CM II inmates may have visits every 60 days. 82. The same restrictions imposed by Chapter 33-601.803 and .811, Florida Administrative Code, on inmates assigned to CM I are imposed on inmates assigned to CM III, except that CM III inmates may have visits every 30 days, with the possibility of contact visits, and may be permitted to use the day room after six continuous months with a clear disciplinary record and above satisfactory adjustment, and then only once a week for no more than two hours, and may be permitted to purchase a maximum of four food items from the canteen each month. 83. During the warm months, the heat and humidity in the Close Management cells is unrelenting. 84. In most Close Management Units, communication between inmates is forbidden and inmates who attempt to talk or otherwise exchange information are subject to further discipline.
22

85. In some Close Management Units, where the “no talking” rule is not enforced, the noise level can best be described as bedlam.
86. Out-of-cell recreation consists of placement in a small, generally concrete-floored cage (called “dog runs” or “kennels” by inmates). No recreation equipment is provided. CM I inmates are placed in individual cages. CM II and CM III inmates may be placed together in the small cages. When that happens, the small size of the cage precludes any meaningful physical activity.
87. Religious volunteers are not permitted in Close Management Units. Inmates on Close Management must rely for all their religious needs on the Prison Chaplain. If they and the Chaplain are not of the same faith, their needs go unmet.
88. Those Class members who lack the ability to read, have no means of contact with the outside world and nothing to occupy their time.
89. Prisoners assigned to Close Management are totally dependent on custodial staff for their every need. The harsh and punitive conditions imposed on the prisoners causes some staff members to treat prisoners in a hostile and uncaring manner and results in frequent harassment and threats directed at those in their care.
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS Mark E. Osterback
23

90. Plaintiff, Mark E. Osterback, is currently a Close Custody inmate at Walton Correctional Institution.
91. Plaintiff Osterback has previously been assigned to Close Management on two separate periods, for several months in 1995 and then between August 21, 1996 and October 30, 1997.
92. Plaintiff Osterback is serving a life sentence. There is a real possibility that he will again be placed on Close Management because of the length of his sentence and because the established policy, practice, custom and procedure calls for the return to Close Management of inmates who commit even minor infractions after release from Close Management.
93. While he was on Close Management, each of the restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 67 through 89 applied to plaintiff Osterback.
94. On or about January 7, 1997, while he was assigned to Close Management at Everglades Correctional Institution, plaintiff Osterback attempted to commit suicide.
95. As a result of the isolation, lack of opportunity for human interaction, and excessively restrictive practices of the defendants, plaintiff Osterback’s mental and physical health deteriorated while he was assigned to Close Management.
Frederick Clark 96. Plaintiff, Frederick Clark, is assigned to CM II at Everglades Correctional Institution.
24

97. Plaintiff Clark was originally placed on CM I on or about July 7, 1996, while at Sumter Correctional Institution, and continued in that status until on or about January 19, 1999.
98. Each of the restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 67 through 89 applies to plaintiff Clark.
99. Plaintiff Clark is currently a Psych III inmate. Prior to his placement on close Management, He was a Psych I inmate.
100. Prior to placement on Close Management, plaintiff Clark had not required any mental health treatment. While on Close Management, plaintiff Clark has attempted suicide, has required mental health treatment, and has received psychotropic medications.
101. Between December 10, 1997 and February 16, 1998, plaintiff Clark was housed at the mental Health Crises Stabilization Unit at the South Florida Reception Center.
102. As a result of the isolation, lack of opportunity for human interaction, and excessively restrictive practices of the defendants, plaintiff Clark’s mental and physical health has deteriorated while he has been assigned to Close Management.
Danny L. Eldridge 103. Plaintiff, Danny L. Eldridge, is assigned to CM III at Taylor Correctional Institution. 104. Plaintiff Eldridge has been on CM III since on or about March 30, 1998, and was in confinement beginning in September, 1997.
25

105. Each of the restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 67 through 89 applies to plaintiff Eldridge.
106. Although given a job assignment on paper on May 1, 1999 as a Close Management Orderly, plaintiff Eldridge did not actually go to work.
107. Plaintiff Eldridge is eligible to receive visits monthly. When he does have a visit, it is a non-contact visit and he is restrained with handcuffs, a waist chain, handcuff cover and leg irons.
108. Plaintiff Eldridge is not allowed to use the day room. 109. Plaintiff Eldridge has a history of mental health treatment dating to age 5. He has been on psychotropic medications, has attempted suicide, and has been an in-patient in a mental health treatment facility. 110. During his time on Close Management, plaintiff Eldridge has often seen the prison psychiatrist because of his mental problems. 111. As a result of the isolation, lack of opportunity for human interaction, and excessively restrictive practices of the defendants, plaintiff Eldridge’s mental and physical health has deteriorated while he has been assigned to Close Management.
Alvin M. Few 112. Plaintiff, Alvin M. Few, is assigned to CM I at Washington Correctional Institution. 113. Plaintiff Few has been on CM I since on or about May 13, 1999.
26

114. Previously, plaintiff Few has been assigned to Close Management from July, 1996 to January, 1997 and then again from July, 1997 to January, 1998.
115. Each of the restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 67 through 89 applies to plaintiff Few.
116. Plaintiff Few has received psychiatric care and psychotropic drugs in the past and has twice been sent to a Crisis Stabilization Unit by the Florida Department of Corrections.
117. As a result of the isolation, lack of opportunity for human interaction, and excessively restrictive practices of the defendants, plaintiff Few’s mental and physical health has deteriorated while he has been assigned to Close Management.
Lavictor Flournoy 118. Plaintiff, Lavictor Flournoy, is assigned to CM I at Taylor Correctional Institution. 119. Plaintiff Flournoy was originally assigned to CM II on or about October 8, 1997, while at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution. On or about October 7, 1998, his status was changed to CM I. 120. Each of the restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 67 through 89 applies to plaintiff Flournoy. 121. The isolation and lack of activity in the Close Management Unit is compounded by plaintiff Flournoy’s inability to obtain an sufficient amount of reading material to keep him occupied.
27

122. The isolation and lack of activity in the Close Management Unit is compounded by the strict enforcement of the no-talking rule, which prevents plaintiff Flournoy from communicating with other inmates.
123. The isolation and lack of activity in the Close Management Unit is compounded by plaintiff Flournoy’s inability to obtain religious materials from the Chaplain and by the inability of religious volunteers to visit the Close Management Unit.
124. As a result of the isolation, lack of opportunity for human interaction, and excessively restrictive practices of the defendants, plaintiff Flournoy’s mental and physical health has deteriorated while he has been assigned to Close Management.
Frank S. Lowry 125. Plaintiff, Frank S. Lowry, is assigned to CM I at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution. 126. Plaintiff Lowry was assigned to CM III on or about January 17, 1996, while at Washington Correctional Institution, and then transferred to Okaloosa Correctional Institution on January 19, 1996, where he remained on CM III, except for a 16 day period, until June 17, 1997, when he was transferred to the North Florida Reception Center for medical care. While at the North Florida Reception Center, plaintiff Lowry continued on CM III.
28

127. In the late summer or early fall of 1997, plaintiff Lowry began experiencing major mental health problems, including depression, anger and anxiety. Medications were prescribed.
128. In June, 1998, plaintiff Lowry was transferred, still on CM III, to Columbia Correctional Institution.
129. Plaintiff Lowry has a lengthy psychiatric history, including auditory and visual hallucinations, and has been treated with medication for depression and depressive symptoms.
130. On March 24, 1999, plaintiff Lowry declared a psychological emergency and was placed on suicide precautions. From March 30, 1999 through April 16, 1999, he was housed at a Crisis Stabilization Unit and then transferred to Lake Correctional Institution for inpatient mental health treatment.
131. On June 8, 1999, plaintiff was transferred to Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, where he was placed on CM I.
132. Each of the restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 67 through 89 applies to plaintiff Lowry.
133. As a result of the isolation, lack of opportunity for human interaction, and excessively restrictive practices of the defendants, plaintiff Lowry’s mental and physical health has deteriorated while he has been assigned to Close Management.
Brian D. Messenger 134. Plaintiff, Brian D. Messenger, is assigned to CM I at Washington Correctional Institution. 135. Plaintiff Messenger has been on CM I since on or about December 10, 1997.
29

136. Each of the restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 67 through 89 applies to plaintiff Messenger.
137. Although plaintiff Messenger is eligible to receive visits, he does not want his family to visit because it will be a non-contact visit of two hours or less, during which time he will be restrained with handcuffs, a waist chain, handcuff cover and leg irons.
138. Although the Prison Chaplain visits the Close Management Unit periodically, he only ministers to and distributes Christian religious materials. Plaintiff Messenger, whose faith is other than Christian, has no access to the religion of his choice.
139. The Close Management Unit at Washington Correctional Institution is very noisy. Because of the continual yelling and screaming, it can be very difficult to sleep. Some Close Management inmates ask for psychotropic medications solely to be able to sleep.
140. As a result of the isolation, lack of opportunity for human interaction, and excessively restrictive practices of the defendants, plaintiff Messenger’s mental and physical health has deteriorated while he has been assigned to Close Management.
Robert Peri 141. Plaintiff, Robert Peri, is assigned to CM I at Columbia Correctional Institution. 142. Plaintiff Peri has been on CM I since on or about July 13, 1996, beginning at Okeechobee Correctional Institution.
30

143. Each of the restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 67 through 89 applies to plaintiff Peri.
144. On May 4, 1999, while at the South Florida Reception Center for medical reasons, plaintiff Peri learned that he would be returned to the Close Management Unit at Okeechobee Correctional Institution. In an effort to avoid that, he cut his arms and swallowed two razor blades. He was then transferred to his current place of incarceration, the Close Management Unit at Columbia Correctional Institution.
145. Plaintiff Peri has received psychiatric care and psychotropic drugs in the past, including treatment at Florida State Prison during an earlier commitment.
146. Plaintiff Peri has undergone surgery three times for swallowing objects, including razor blades, and has been placed on psychotropic medications on account of that behavior.
147. Plaintiff Peri has gone on several hunger strikes to protest Close Management conditions.
148. Although Plaintiff Peri has received psychiatric care in the past, during his current placement on Close Management he has not received any psychiatric counselling.
149. As a result of the isolation, lack of opportunity for human interaction, and excessively restrictive practices of the defendants, plaintiff Peri’s mental and physical health has deteriorated while he has been assigned to Close Management. In particular, plaintiff Peri has lost strength in both his arms and legs, is depressed, and lives in constant fear.
31

Salvatore J. Ricci 150. Plaintiff, Salvatore J. Ricci, is assigned to CM I at Columbia Correctional Institution. 151. Plaintiff Ricci was placed on CM I on or about September 25, 1996. On July 3, 1997, he was assigned to CM II. On CM II plaintiff Ricci was required to live in a two-man cell. Because of a need for protection, plaintiff refused to live in a two-man cell. Rather than accommodate his need for protection, he was returned to CM I, where he remains. 152. Plaintiff was originally assigned to Close Management at Washington Correctional Institution. In August, 1998, he was transferred to Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, where he remained on CM I. In September, 1999, he was transferred to his present place of incarceration, where he continues to remain on CM I. 153. Each of the restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 67 through 89 applies to plaintiff Ricci. 154. While at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, during the warm months, the heat in the Close Management cells was oppressive. Despite the oppressive heat, the Close Management cells lack fans or meaningful ventilation. 155. At Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, lights were on for all but 6 ½ hours per day, resulting in sleep deprivation. 156. Plaintiff Ricci is a Psych 3 inmate and has a history of mental illness and receives psychotropic medications. He hallucinates, can’t remember things, hears voices, and is gener-
32

ally very depressed. While on Close Management, plaintiff Ricci has attempted suicide and has also attempted to injure himself.
157. Plaintiff Ricci has difficulty sleeping, which he attributes to the stress and anxiety caused by his Close Management and by the harassment he receives from Correctional Officers.
158. As a result of the isolation, lack of opportunity for human interaction, and excessively restrictive practices of the defendants, plaintiff Ricci’s mental and physical health has deteriorated while he has been assigned to Close Management.
Hector M. Rivas 159. Plaintiff, Hector M. Rivas, is assigned to CM I at Florida State Prison. 160. Plaintiff Rivas has been on CM I since on or about October 27, 1995. 161. Each of the restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 67 through 89 applies to plaintiff Rivas. 162. Plaintiff Rivas has been diagnosed in the past as extremely paranoid, agitated, and with a poor grasp of reality. Prior to his incarceration, he received both in-patient and outpatient mental health care. He currently takes prescribed psychotropic medications.
33

163. The reason for plaintiff’s initial placement on CM I was his escape from custody at Glades Correctional Institution. Plaintiff was found not guilty of escape by reason of insanity.
164. Plaintiff’s current psychiatric grade is III. 165. While on CM-I, plaintiff Rivas has attempted suicide and has attempted to otherwise harm himself. 166. As a result of the isolation, lack of opportunity for human interaction, and excessively restrictive practices of the defendants, plaintiff Rivas’ mental and physical health has deteriorated while he has been assigned to Close Management.
Carlos Ruis 167. Plaintiff, Carlos Ruis, is assigned to CM I at Charlotte Correctional Institution. 168. Plaintiff Ruis has been on CM I since on or about May 14, 1997. Previously, he has been assigned to Close Management Units for periods of time totalling nearly ten years. 169. During his time on Close Management, plaintiff Ruis has been at Washington Correctional Institution, Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, Union Correctional Institution, and Florida State Prison. 170. Each of the restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 67 through 89 applies to plaintiff Ruis. 171. Plaintiff Ruis has severe mental health problems and has received psychiatric care and psychotropic drugs in the past, both on and off Close Management. He has attempted suicide and
34

has been placed on suicide precautions. Currently, he is refusing to take his psychotropic medications.
172. As a result of the isolation, lack of opportunity for human interaction, and excessively restrictive practices of the defendants, plaintiff Ruis’ mental and physical health has deteriorated while he has been assigned to Close Management.
Lawrence J. Sargent 173. Plaintiff, Lawrence J. Sargent, is assigned to CM II at Martin Correctional Institution. 174. Plaintiff Sargent has been on CM II since on or about December 23, 1998. 175. Plaintiff Sargent is housed in a two-man cell. 176. Each of the restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 67 through 89 applies to plaintiff Sargent. 177. The Prison Chaplain visits the Close Management Unit approximately once a month. Because plaintiff Sargent is Catholic, and the Chaplain is not, plaintiff’s religious needs go unmet. 178. Prior to his transfer to Martin Correctional Institution, plaintiff Sargent was on Close Management at Washington Correctional Institution. There, he was subject to constant bedlam and pandemonium in the Close Management Unit. 179. While at Washington Correctional Institution, sleep was difficult because the lights remained on all night. Even after plaintiff left Washington Correctional Institution, he suffered from sleep disorder.
35

180. Prior to his placement on Close Management, plaintiff Sargent was receiving psychotropic medication and was, at one time, assigned to a Crisis Stabilization Unit. While on Close Management, he has not received any mental health care.
181. As a result of the isolation, lack of opportunity for human interaction, and excessively restrictive practices of the defendants, plaintiff Sargent’s mental and physical health has deteriorated while he has been assigned to Close Management.
Antonio L. Ward 182. Plaintiff, Antonio L. Ward, is assigned to CM I at Baker Correctional Institution. 183. Plaintiff Ward was placed on CM I on or about June 2, 1999. 184. Each of the restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 67 through 89 applies to plaintiff Ward. 185. As a result of the isolation, lack of opportunity for human interaction, and excessively restrictive practices of the defendants, plaintiff Ward’s mental and physical health has deteriorated while he has been assigned to Close Management.
Willie J. Watson 186. Plaintiff, Willie J. Watson, is assigned to CM I at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution. 187. Plaintiff Watson was placed on CM I on or about May 21, 1997, while at Washington Correctional Institution. He transferred to Santa Rosa Correctional Institution on September
36

23, 1997, and, on May 6, 1998, he was reclassified to CM II. On or about June 9, 1999, plaintiff Watson returned to CM I.
188. Plaintiff Watson was previously on Close Management at Florida State Prison from August 13, 1993 to May 10, 1994.
189. Each of the restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 67 through 89 applies to plaintiff Watson.
190. During the time plaintiff Watson was assigned to CM II, he was housed in a two man cell.
191. During the time plaintiff Watson was assigned to CM II, and now while assigned to CM I, he does not have a job or the opportunity to participate in any educational or other programs.
192. Plaintiff can have a visit monthly. It is a noncontact visit and plaintiff is restrained with leg irons, waist chain, handcuffs and handcuff cover.
193. Out-of-cell exercise takes place in a cage which is not equipped with any items that can be used for recreation or exercise. There is nothing to do but walk around in very limited space.
194. As a result of the isolation, lack of opportunity for human interaction, and excessively restrictive practices of the defendants, plaintiff Watson’s mental and physical health has deteriorated while he has been assigned to Close Management.
Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper 195. Plaintiff, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, is assigned to CM I at Florida State Prison.
37

196. Plaintiff Wrisper was placed on CM I in December, 1994.
197. Each of the restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 67 through 89 applies to plaintiff Wrisper.
198. While on Close Management, plaintiff Wrisper has attempted suicide and has attempted to otherwise harm himself.
199. While on Close Management, plaintiff Wrisper has been sent to a Crisis Stabilization Unit.
200. Out-of-cell exercise takes place in a cage which is not equipped with any items that can be used for recreation or exercise. There is nothing to do but walk around in very limited space. Plaintiff Wrisper does not participate in out-of-cell recreational opportunities because he believes that the outdoor cages — like dog kennels — impose cruel and unusual punishment.
201. As a result of the isolation, lack of opportunity for human interaction, and excessively restrictive practices of the defendants, plaintiff Wrisper’s mental and physical health has deteriorated while he has been assigned to Close Management.
CAUSE OF ACTION Cruel and Unusual Punishment 202. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 201 as if the same had been fully set forth herein. 203. Prisoners on Close Management have very little contact with other human beings. They are not permitted to work at normal prison jobs or to attend programs or other rehabilitative and vocational activities. They must eat in their cells.
38

Visitation is extremely limited, non-contact, and takes place while the inmate is fully restrained. There are no organized religious programs available, no religious volunteers permitted, no library access, and limitations on the quantity of reading material. Nor can Close Management inmates listen to a radio or watch television. Out-of-cell recreation, one time per week for no more than 3 hours, consists of placement in a barren, small cage.
204. The effects of Close Management on the plaintiffs, and the Class they represent, are profound. Placement of prisoners with serious mental disorders on Close Management exacerbates their underlying mental disorders, induces psychosis, and increases the risk of suicide or other self-inflicted harm. Even mentally healthy prisoners are likely to develop mental illness after placement on Close Management.
205. Due to their mental disorders, some Class members never voluntarily leave their cells, even to shower.
206. The restrictions imposed on inmates in Close Management, as alleged in this Complaint, are so punitive, atypical and harsh that they violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
207. If the punitive, atypical and harsh conditions imposed on inmates in Close Management are imposed for reasons of security, and not simply as punishment, they constitute a grossly exaggerated response to the problems created by inmates whose
39

behavior justifies heightened security and bear no rational relationship to any legitimate penological interest.
208. Each of the defendants knows, and has known for years, that a substantial number of the prisoners assigned to Close Management suffer from serious mental disorders.
209. Each of the defendants knows, and has known for years, that their Close Management policies, practices, procedures and customs exacerbate the mental disorders of the Class members.
210. The policies, practices, procedures and customs of the Florida Department of Corrections do not preclude placement of inmates with serious mental illness in Close Management.
211. As a result of the deliberate indifference of the defendants, inmates whose behavior is a function of mental illness are placed in Close Management and remain there, isolated and virtually untreated for years.
212. Many of the individuals assigned to Close Management either develop serious mental illness or aggravate their preexisting mental illness while assigned to Close Management.
213. Class members, when they are removed from Close Management for purposes of mental health treatment, are returned to Close Management upon completion of their treatment. The time spent in treatment does not count against the time periods for the three levels of Close Management placement set out in Chapter 33-601.802. Typically, the mental condition of prisoners returned to Close Management continues to deteriorate.
40

214. The double celling of inmates on CM II and CM III, in a very small area, with no opportunity for privacy, or even the ability to be alone for a short period of time, greatly increases the incidence of mental health problems, aggressive behavior and violence.
215. The near total social isolation, and the extraordinarily restricted environment, contributes to a high level of violence and frequent violations of the rules of the Department of Corrections.
216. When inmates assigned to Close Management act in a disruptive manner on account of those problems, the defendants impose even harsher restrictions, resulting in further mental and physical deterioration.
217. When inmates assigned to Close Management with mental health problems act in a disruptive manner, the defendants use physical force and/or chemical agents to restore order and to the offender.
218. When inmates assigned to Close Management with mental health problems act in a disruptive manner and the defendants use chemical agents, the use of the chemical agents adversely affects innocent bystanders, such as inmates in adjacent cells.
219. When inmates assigned to Close Management with mental health problems act in a disruptive manner, the noise and commotion they create adversely affects other inmates and contributes to the aggravation of their mental illness.
41

220. The conditions to which individuals assigned to Close Management are subjected causes a decline in the general physical health of many Close Management inmates.
221. Once confined to Close Management, inmates with preexisting mental illness find it even harder to comply with prison rules, especially the harsh and punitive rules imposed on those assigned to Close Management. As a result, they receive additional disciplinary charges and additional Close Management time, their mental and physical health deteriorates even further, and the cycle continues.
222. Inmates who enter Close Management without diagnosed pre-existing mental illness are likely to develop mental illness as a result of the harsh and punitive conditions of Close Management.
223. The housing of inmates in Close Management, as herein described, for long periods of time, and with extremely limited opportunities for social intercourse, participation in religious services and programs, and participation in rehabilitative programs and activities, and with extremely limited opportunities for exercise and recreational activities, results in the physical and mental deterioration of inmates assigned to Close Management.
224. Defendants know that the extraordinarily harsh, atypical and punitive conditions exacerbate existing mental illness and trigger serious mental illness in inmates who were not previously mentally ill.
42

225. Defendants know that the extraordinarily harsh, atypical and punitive conditions lead to a decline in the physical health of the inmates assigned to Close Management.
226. With full knowledge of the adverse affect Close Management has on the mental and physical health of inmates assigned to Close Management, defendants refuse to take any action to alleviate the harsh, atypical and punitive conditions of the Close Management system.
227. The policy, pattern, practice and custom of the defendants, as alleged in this complaint, violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that this Court: A. Certify this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. B. Declare that those portions of Chapter 33-601.801-813, Florida Administrative Code, governing Close Management, to the extent they impose restrictions on inmates in Close Management which are unnecessarily punitive violate the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. C. Declare that the conduct of the defendants, as alleged, violates plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment rights. D. Require the defendants to submit a plan to this Court for approval which will remedy the unconstitutional conditions experienced by inmates in Close Management.
43

E. Enter permanent injunctive relief enjoining the defendants, their successors in office, and their servants, agents and employees, and those acting in concert with them, from engaging in punitive conduct directed at inmates needing Close Management, and specifically enjoin the defendants to adopt polices, procedures and practices which will have the immediate impact of eliminating the unnecessarily punitive conditions imposed on those in Close Management.
F. Award attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
G. Grant plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted, Peter M. Siegel, Esq. Randall C. Berg, Jr., Esq. Florida Justice Institute, Inc. 2870 First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2310 305-358-2081 305-358-0910 (FAX)
and Christopher Jones, Esq. Florida Institutional Legal
Services, Inc. 925 N.W. 56th Terrace Gainsville, Florida (904) 336-2260 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
44

______________________________ By: Peter M. Siegel, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 227862 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was furnished to Kathleen M. Savor, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, 110 S.E. 6th Street, 10th Floor, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 by United States Mail on October 30, 2003.
Peter M. Siegel, Esquire
45

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 97-2806-CIV-HUCK MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROWN MARK OSTERBACK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL W. MOORE, et al., Defendants.
/
DEFENDANTS’ REVISED OFFER OF JUDGMENT Defendants, MICHAEL W. MOORE, et al., pursuant to Rule 68, Fed. R. Civ. Pr., denying liability and that the inclusion of provisions of this offer are all constitutionally mandated and that the failure to implement one or more of the terms of Rule 33-601.800, F.A.C. causes a constitutional deprivation, offer that a Judgment for Injunctive Relief may be entered against them, this offer and that relief to be construed consistent with The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S. C.§ 1997e and 18 U.S.C.§ 3626 . This offered Judgment shall provide that Defendants, by October 1, 2003, shall have fully implemented Rule 33-601.800, F.A.C., ( attached as Exhibit A and B to the initial September 27, 2001, offer of judgement) governing Close

Management (“CM”) as outlined herein. Program implementation terminology below is defined in that rule.
This offer of judgment contemplates a promptly phased implementation of a close management system to involve consolidation at four facilities (three institutions for male inmates and one institution for female inmates) operated by the Florida Department of Corrections (“The Department”).
The purpose of the Department’s close management system shall be to confine inmates, separate from the general inmate population, for reasons of security and for the order and effective management of the institution, because such inmates, through their individual behaviors, have demonstrated inability to live in the general population without abusing the rights and privileges of other inmates. The goals of the Department’s close management program shall be (1) progressive assignments of each inmate to the least restrictive level necessary and appropriate to manage each inmate and for the least amount of close management time deemed necessary by competent corrections and medical staff to assure the security and order of the institution and public safety, and (2) close management is not punishment.
In furtherance of these purposes and goals, the Defendants offer this phased plan to efficiently and effectively assure that there will be no constitutional deficiencies in the Department’s close management system and to provide Plaintiffs with timely enforcement means, as permitted by The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S. C.

1997e, and 18 U.S.C. 3626 , to remedy constitutional deficiencies in the CM system By this offer Defendants intend that Plaintiffs can seek to enforce violations of constitutional minima in Federal Court by communications to Defendants’ counsel and if required by motion practice and hearings; however no liberty interest, no other constitutional entitlement, and no rights under state law are intended or otherwise established by this offer for judgment.
THE OFFER I. The Phased Consolidation Plan A. Plan Overview and Components Effective operation and management of prisons require that certain inmates be confined apart from the general inmate population, due to risk of harm to others or threat to institutional security. In order to minimize potential harmful effects of close management housing, Defendants have developed a Close Management Consolidation Plan, the key components of which include the following: 1. Reduce the number of institutions that house CM inmates from ten
to four (one for females and three for males), to consolidate security, program, and mental health staff resources; and to facilitate more uniformity of program operation;
3

2. Conduct staff training on mental health issues relevant to the CM population;
3. Perform mental health screening before and after CM placement to help ensure timely access to necessary mental health services;
4. Assess behavioral risk for each CM inmate, in order to provide more objective information that will be useful for mental health and other service planning, as well as for administrative decisionmaking (e.g., modification of CM level or termination of CM status);
5. Provide full range of outpatient mental health services (e.g. group/individual counseling; case management; psychiatric consultation; psychotropic medications; and timely referral to inpatient care), commensurate with clinical need, as determined by the Defendant’s mental health staff;
6. Provide self-betterment/stimulation programming to CM inmates. B. Consolidation of CM Institutions The current and future CM population will be consolidated from the current 10 locations to four institutions: Dade C.I (females); Florida State Prison (FSP); Santa Rosa C.I.; and Charlotte C.I. The consolidation shall occur in two phases. In phase
4

1, the FSP physical plant shall be modified, and its staffing enhanced to house and treat most of the approximately 750 S-3 inmates who are currently assigned to CM. Phase I is scheduled to be completed by July 31, 2002, at which time, FSP will have a CM capacity of 1,074, and its primary mission shall be housing/treating CM inmates who are assigned a mental health grade of 3(S-3), as defined by Health Services Technical Instruction 15.05.18.
Phase II involves modification of the physical plants, and enhancement of staffing at Charlotte C.I. and Santa Rosa C.I., with a beginning date of July 15, 2002, and a scheduled completion date of October 1, 2003. With full implementation of phase II, Santa Rosa C.I. (CM capacity of 1,170) will house CM inmates who are classified as S-1 or S-2; and Charlotte C.I. (CM capacity of 780) will also house CM inmates who are classified as S-1 or S-2, as defined by Health Services Technical Instruction 15.05.18. CM inmates classified as mental health grade S-3 may be housed at these two institutions if the Department’s mental health staff have determined that they do not require the more intensive services that will be available at FSP provided that sufficient outpatient mental health services will be available at the secondary institutions.
Because of the small number of female inmates in Close Management, all female CM inmates will be housed in the same institution regardless of CM level or
5

psychiatric grade and all mental health and health services will be delivered based upon need of the individual inmate. All privileges, activities and services for CM inmates shall be equally available, regardless of whether the CM inmate is male or female.
C. Staff Training All security, classification, and program staff assigned to the four designated CM institutions shall receive training on suicide prevention (2 hours) and other mental health issues of relevance to care of CM inmates (3 hours), within 60 days after assignment and annually thereafter. D. Mental Health Screening Before CM placement, each inmate shall be referred to mental health staff, who shall advise classification staff as to whether the inmate is in need of mental health services, the level of outpatient mental health services required (and hence, in which of the three male CM institutions the inmate must be placed), or whether the inmate must be admitted to inpatient care (transitional or crisis stabilization) in lieu of CM placement. The determination made by mental health staff will in part be based upon a clinical interview of the inmate conducted not more than 30 days prior. Mental Health recommendations for placement shall be included on the Close Management Referral form and shall include the following:
a. Inmate is classified S-1 and mental status evaluation (clinical
6

interview) within the past 30 days indicated no significant mental or emotional impairment. Inmate may be placed at any Close Management institution. b. Inmate is classified S-2 and mental status evaluation (clinical interview) within the past 30 days indicated signs of mild to moderate mental or emotional impairment. Inmate may be placed at any Close Management institution that provides mental health services to S-2 inmates. Mental health staff will provide necessary care. c. Inmate is classified S-3 and mental status evaluation (clinical interview) within the past 30 days indicated inmate is mentally/behaviorally stable. Inmate may be placed at any Close Management institution that provide mental health services to S-3 inmates. Mental health staff will provide necessary care. d. Inmate is classified S-3 and mental status evaluation (clinical interview) within the past 30 days indicated signs of mild to moderate mental and/or behavioral instability. Inmate may be placed at any Close Management institution that provides mental health services to S-3 inmates. Mental health staff will provide
7

necessary care. e. Inmate shows symptomatology that requires inpatient mental
health are, and he/she has been referred for admission to an infirmary isolation room, transitional care unit, or crisis stabilization unit. After CM placement, each inmate shall receive ongoing mental health evaluation (clinical interview) at periodic intervals to assess mental functioning, and thereby determine need for mental health services. CM inmates who are classified as S-3 shall receive mental health screening at least every 30 days. CM inmates who are classified as S-1 or S-2 shall receive mental health screening at least every 90 days. The results of initial and ongoing mental health screening will be made available to the institutional classification team (ICT) and the state classification office (SCO). The ICT and SCO shall consider such information, together with other information relevant to an inmate’s institutional adjustment, in making recommendations or decisions regarding changes in CM level or CM status. The Director of Mental Health Services or designee shall serve as a consulting member to the State Classification Office. In addition to conducting the above periodic mental health screening, mental health staff will also perform weekly rounds in each CM unit, by personally observing
8

each inmate at cell front, and inquiring whether he/she has any mental health related problem. Inmates who are observed to present with new problems, whose known problems seem to be worsening, or who report mental health problems will be scheduled for clinical interview outside the cell.
E. Behavioral Risk Assessment Behavioral risk for each CM inmate shall be determined by a multi-disciplinary services team (MDST) composed of mental health, security, classification, and program staff. Behavioral risk shall be determined by the rating of specific risk factors such as “intentional self-injury” and “threat to safety of others.” Behavioral risk assessment will be performed within 14 days of CM placement; within three working days of a CM inmate’s involvement in a critical event (escape/attempt; suicide attempt or other action that could cause serious bodily harm; homicide/attempt; physical assault/attempt); and each time that the MDST reviews a CM inmate’s individualized service plan. The following will use behavioral risk assessment results: The MDST will use behavioral risk assessment results to help identify mental health related problems, and to plan appropriate mental health related services.
The institutional classification team will consider behavioral assessment results,
9

together with other information relevant to an inmate’s institutional adjustment, in making recommendations for modification of CM level or status.
The state classification office will consider behavioral risk assessment results, together with other information relevant to an inmate’s institutional adjustment, in its decisions regarding changes in CM level and CM status.
F. Mental Health Treatment Services A full range of outpatient mental health treatment services (e.g. psychiatric consultation; psychotropic medication; individual counseling; group counseling) will be provided in appropriate settings outside of the inmate’s cell, as part of an individualized service plan (ISP), which will be established and revised as needed by the MDST. An ISP will be developed/implemented within 14 days of CM placement, for each inmate having an Axis I Mental Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Schizotypal Personality Disorder, or Mental Retardation; and for each inmate who is at risk for developing such disorder, as determined by mental health staff. CM inmates who are receiving mental health treatment services will typically be classified as a mental health grade 2 (S-2) or mental health grade 3 (S-3). The ISP shall include mental health, education, and other program services addressing assessed needs, as determined by the MDST. CM inmates who are classified as S-1 will not typically have an open ISP, and
10

will not typically receive mental health treatment services, unless the inmate requires treatment for a mental disorder that does not impair his/her ability to function in the prison setting. For example, the CM inmate who is enrolled in sexual disorder group for a diagnosis of paraphilia, who presents with no other symptoms of mental disorder, and whose institutional adjustment is acceptable, may appropriately be classified as S1, while receiving group treatment through an ISP.
All CM inmates shall be allowed out of their cells to receive mental health services specified in the ISP, unless, within the past 48 hours, the inmate has displayed hostile, threatening, or other behavior that could portend harm or danger to others.
Security staff shall determine the type and level of restraint devices that the CM inmate will be subjected to while he is receiving mental health services outside of his/her cell. CM-1 and CM-2 inmates generally will wear restraints when outside of their cells, while CM-3 inmates will not.
G. Self Betterment/Stimulation Programming for CM Inmates. 1. Reading Material. CM Inmates shall immediately be permitted to obtain 3 soft cover books
per week from the institutional library and shall immediately be permitted 1 magazine subscription (with no more than 4 issues in the cell at a time) and 1 newspaper
11

subscription (with no more than 4 issues in the cell at a time). 2. Social Phone Calls. CM inmates shall immediately be permitted, in progressive stages based
upon their respective individual classifications, to make monitored telephone calls of length established by rule via cordless phones provided by the institution in the CM unit as follows:
a. CMI Inmates: 1 call every 30 days after 30 days of satisfactory adjustment;
b. CMII Inmates: 1 call every 14 days after 30 days of satisfactory adjustment;
c. CMIII Inmates: 1 call every 7 days after 30 days of satisfactory adjustment. [However if a CM inmate is transferred to less restrictive level due to satisfactory adjustment, the adjustment period is waived].
3. Broadcast media: 1. Radio: CM inmates of all levels may immediately purchase one
headphone/personal portable type radio through the institution Canteen. 2. Television: CMII and CMIII inmates shall be allowed access to social television
12

programs during day room periods, as described in section I.G.7. 4. In-Cell Educational Opportunities: Educational and literacy courses shall be immediately be available to all
CM levels unless precluded by safety or security concerns. 5. Cell-Front Tutoring: Wellness services shall be immediately expanded to CM inmates of all
levels who request participation in tobacco cessation, wellness education puzzles and the wellness education courses.
6. Canteen: a. CMI and II Inmates, following 30 day satisfactory adjustment period,
shall immediately have canteen privileges one time per week to include up to 5 nonfood items and 5 food items per week.
b. CMIII Inmates, following 30 day satisfactory adjustment period, shall immediately have canteen privileges one time per week to include up to 5 non-food items and 10 food items. [However if inmate is transferred to less restrictive level due to satisfactory adjustment, the adjustment period is waived].
7. Day Room Access: 1. CMII Inmates: After 30 days satisfactory adjustment, day room access
13

shall be immediately provided 2 days per week, not to exceed 4 hours daily or beyond 10 p.m., when day room is not being used for organized program activities.
2. CMIII Inmates: After 30 days satisfactory adjustment, day room access shall be immediately provided 5 days per week, not to exceed 4 hours daily or beyond 10 p.m., when day room is not being used for organized program activities. [However if an inmate is transferred to less restrictive level due to satisfactory adjustment, the adjustment period is waived. The number of inmates participating at any one time will be determined based upon considerations such as day room size, seating, and safety and security issues associated with the availability of supervising staff .]
8. Individual exercise shall be: a. After 30 day satisfactory adjustment period, 6 hours per week (3 days,
2 hours each) or assignment to restricted labor squad or other outside work squad 1 day per week. [Note: Exercise will increase from 3 hours per week to 6 hours week as the CM Consolidation Plan is phased in. The 6-hours per week of exercise will be fully implemented as of July 1, 2003 unless the CM Consolidation Plan is completed earlier].
b. Exercise apparatus provided in exercise yard. 9. Non-Contact Visits shall be:
14

a. CMI Inmates: After 30 days with no major disciplinary infractions, one 2-hour visit every 30 days by appointment.
b. CMII Inmates: After 30 days with no major disciplinary infractions, one 2-hour visit every 14 days by appointment.
10. Contact Visits shall be: CMIII Inmates: After 30 days with no major disciplinary infractions, one
contact visit every 14 days by appointment. [However if an inmate is transferred to less restrictive level due to satisfactory adjustment, the adjustment period is waived].
11. The above privileges may be suspended or reduced by an Institutional Disciplinary Team only for documented good cause consistent with the goals and purposes of close management.
II. Volunteers: Volunteers shall be recruited from the community, to the extent possible, to assist with chaplaincy and educational services. III. Implementation: The Defendants shall promptly promulgate all rule changes necessary to implement the Offer of Judgment and Injunction described herein. That implementation, and the services to be provided in this offer of judgment that are
15

necessary to avoid constitutional deficiencies in the CM program shall and can occur within appropriations by the Florida legislature to the Florida Department of Corrections for the initial phase in of the Close Management Consolidation Plan for fiscal year 2001-2002 ending June 30, 2002. A budget request, Issue Code 4500100 for 234 additional FTES and approximately $8.3 million, for the final phase of the Close Management Consolidation Plan has been submitted to the Florida Legislature for fiscal year 2002-2003. Defendant Secretary Moore shall immediately advise the Court in the event an appropriations short fall or budget over run jeopardizes his ability to implement this offer and plan.
IV. Enforcement of Constitutional Deficiencies: A. Monitoring of the implementation of the Injunction and Judgment
shall include the processes and authority of the Correctional Medical Authority (CMA), as provided in Fla. Stat. § 945.601, et seq. Defendants shall take corrective action required by the CMA so as to comply with constitutional obligations of this Judgment and Injunction as to provisions for medical care.
B. The Plaintiffs may also avail themselves of the procedures in the Administrative Grievance Procedure in Chapter 33-103 F.A.C.;
C. In addition to A and B above, and preferably upon the failure of the Defendants to respond within 30 days of receipt written allegations of constitutional
16

violations of the offer and Judgment and Injunction to Secretary Moore, Plaintiffs may, through their counsel, move the court for an enforcement order to remedy constitutional violations. This 30-day respond and cure time is preferred, except for constitutional violations deemed life threatening in which such events Plaintiffs’ counsel should telephonically and in writing specifically inform the general counsel of the Department of Corrections and litigation counsel of the details of such alleged constitutional violations . Compliance with Rule 7.1 A. 3, Local Rules for the Southern District is subsumed into this offer.
D. Defendants shall provide quarterly written CM implementation status reports and CMA public record reports to Plaintiffs’ counsel and to the Court beginning January 15, 2002, and shall afford Plaintiffs’ counsel reasonable access to the CM facilities , upon request for same, twice annually in 2002 and 2003.. That access shall be for one day per CM facility unless additional access time is ordered by the Court sua sponte or upon motion of the Plaintiffs.
V. Attorneys Fees: Defendants shall pursuant to Rule 68, Fed. R. Civ. Pro., the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S. C. 1997e, 18 U.S.C. 3626 and 42 USC § 1988 be subject to Judgment for reasonable costs and attorneys fees which have accrued to the date of the receipt of this offer on Plaintiffs’ counsel, that sum to be in an amount to
17

be determined by the Court upon negotiation between the parties within 45 days of
entry of Judgment and Injunction, or by adjudication of Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Attorney Fees after that time. Defendants shall be subject to additional attorney fees
and costs exposure for enforcement activity by Plaintiffs’ counsel to remedy
constitutional violations upon their motion practice and prevailing party status as
allowed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S. C. 1997e, 18 U.S.C. 3626 and
42 USC § 1988.
VI. Termination of Injunction:
The injunction entered pursuant to this Offer of Judgment shall be subject
to termination in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C.
§3626(b).
Respectfully submitted, ROBERT A. BUTTERWORTH ATTORNEY GENERAL
__________________________ CHARLES M. FAHLBUSCH Assistant Attorney General Florida Bar No. 0191948 Office of the Attorney General 110 S.E. 6th Street, 10th Floor Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 712-4600 Fax: (954) 712-4700
18

JAMES A. PETERS Special Counsel Florida Bar No. 0230944 Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Telephone: (850) 414-3300 Facsimile: (850) 414-9650 Tendered October 2, 2001 at 9:59 AM
19

 
 Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 1 of 74

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 97-2806-CIV-HUCK
MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROWN
MARK OSTERBACK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MICHAEL W. MOORE, et al.,
Defendants.

nco
Cl'lr-r-

C>

. r'T': ~...

__, ~~;-
o~':-

0
("")

,....,.

c

.
-:-·

r- _L-:. ;~

I
w

>~-
I (/.; :-:,.
:t-iC :;~c

I~ -u
::l: ~

-io en

· X -t:-

!-=J

=:"")

PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF DEFENDANTS' REVISED OFFER OF JUDGMENT Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 68, Fed.R.Civ.P., notify the Court of their acceptance this date of the attached Defendants' Revised Offer of Judgment subject to the fairness hearing required by Rule 23(e),

Fed.R.Civ.P.

Respectfully submitted,

Randall C. Berg, Jr., Esq. Peter M. Siegel, Esq.

Florida Justice Institute, Inc. 2870 First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2310
305-358-2081 305-358-0910 (FAX) rcberg®bellsouth.net

and

Christopher Jones, Esq.

Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc.
1010-B N.W. 8th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 2 of 74
352-375-2494 352-271-4366 (FAX)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
J~-e-g-e-1---~-.
Florida Bar No. 227862
/;
371
Date: October 3, 2001 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document less the attached Revised Offer of Judgment was furnished to Charles Fahlbusch, Esq., and Kathleen M. Savor, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, 110 S.E. 6th Street, lOth Floor, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 and James A. Peters, Esq., Special Counsel, Department of Legal Affairs, The Capitol, PL-01, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 by First Class United States Mail on October 3, 2001.

Osterbac\notice.act

- 2-

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 3 of 74
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 97-2806-CIV-HUCK MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROWN MARK OSTERBACK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL W. MOORE, et al.,
_____________D__ef_e_nd_a_n_ts_._______/
DEFENDANTS' REVISED OFFER OF JUDGMENT Osterback.OJ.Final.Revised.l 0.2.0 l.wpd (I 02PMFOJ)
Defendants, MICHAEL W. MOORE, et al., pursuant to Rule 68, Fed. R. Civ. Pr., denying liability and that the inclusion of provisions of this offer are all constitutionally mandated and that the failure to implement one or more ofthe terms ofRule 33-601.800, F.A.C. causes a constitutional deprivation, offer that a Judgment for Injunctive Relief may be entered against them, this offer and that relief to be construed consistent with The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S. C.§ 1997e and 18 U.S.C.§ 3626. This offered Judgment shall provide that Defendants, by October

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 4 of 74
1, 2003, shall have fully implemented Rule 33-601.800, F.A.C., (attached as Exhibits A and B) governing Close Management ("CM") as outlined herein. Program implementation terminology below is defined in that rule.
This offer ofjudgment contemplates a promptly phased implementation of a close management system to involve consolidation at four facilities (three institutions for male inmates and one institution for female inmates) operated by the Florida Department of Corrections ("The Department").
The purpose ofthe Department's close management system shall be to confine inmates, separate from the general inmate population, for reasons of security and for the order and effective management ofthe institution, because such inmates, through their individual behaviors, have demonstrated inability to live in the general population without abusing the rights and privileges of other inmates. The goals of the Department's close management program shall be (1) progressive assignments of each inmate to the least restrictive level necessary and appropriate to manage each inmate and for the least amount of close management time deemed necessary by competent corrections and medical staff to assure the security and order of the institution and public safety, and (2) close management is not punishment.
In furtherance of these purposes and goals, the Defendants offer this phased plan to efficiently and effectively assure that there will be no constitutional
2

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 5 of 74
deficiencies in the Department's close management system and to provide Plaintiffs with timely enforcement means, as permitted by The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S. C. 1997e, and 18 U.S.C. 3626, to remedy constitutional deficiencies in the CM system By this offer Defendants intend that Plaintiffs can seek to enforce violations of constitutional minima in Federal Court by communications to Defendants' counsel and if required by motion practice and hearings; however no liberty interest, no other constitutional entitlement, and no rights under state law are intended or otherwise established by this offer for judgment.
THE OFFER I. The Phased Consolidation Plan A. Plan Overview and Components Effective operation and management of prisons require that certain inmates be confined apart from the general inmate population, due to risk of harm to others or threat to institutional security. In order to minimize potential harmful effects of close management housing, Defendants have developed a Close Management Consolidation Plan, the key components of which include the following: 1. Reduce the number of institutions that house CM inmates from
ten to four (one for females and three for males), to consolidate
3

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 6 of 74
security, program, and mental health staff resources; and to facilitate more uniformity of program operation; 2. Conduct stafftraining on mental health issues relevant to the CM population; 3. Perform mental health screening before and after CM placement to help ensure timely access to necessary mental health services; 4. Assess behavioral risk for each CM inmate, in order to provide more objective information that will be useful for mental health and other service planning, as well as for administrative decisionmaking (e.g., modification of CM level or termination of CM status); 5. Provide full range of outpatient mental health services (e.g. group/individual counseling; case management; psychiatric consultation; psychotropic medications; and timely referral to inpatient care), commensurate with clinical need, as determined by the Defendant's mental health staff; 6. Provide self-betterment/stimulation programming to CM inmates. B. Consolidation of CM Institutions The current and future CM population will be consolidated from the current 10
4

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 7 of 74
locations to four institutions: Dade C.I (females); Florida State Prison (FSP); Santa Rosa C.I.; and Charlotte C.I. The consolidation shall occur in two phases. In phase 1, the FSP physical plant shall be modified, and its staffing enhanced to house and treat most of the approximately 750 S-3 inmates who are currently assigned to CM. Phase I is scheduled to be completed by July 31, 2002, at which time, FSP will have a CM capacity of 1,074, and its primary mission shall be housing/treating CM inmates who are assigned a mental health grade of 3(S-3), as defined by Health Services Technical Instruction 15.05.18.
Phase II involves modification of the physical plants, and enhancement of staffing at Charlotte C.I. and Santa Rosa C.I., with a beginning date of July 1 2002, and a scheduled completion date of October 1, 2003. With full implementation of phase II, Santa Rosa C.I. (CM capacity of 1, 170) will house CM inmates who are classified as S-1 or S-2; and Charlotte C.I. (CM capacity of780) will also house CM inmates who are classified as S-1 or S-2, as defined by Health Services Technical Instruction 15.05.18. CM inmates classified as mental health grade S-3 may be housed at these two institutions if the Department's mental health staff have determined that they do not require the more intensive services that will be available at FSP provided that sufficient outpatient mental health services will be available at the secondary institutions.
5

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 8 of 74
Because of the small number of female inmates in Close Management, all female CM inmates will be housed in the same institution regardless of CM level or psychiatric grade and all mental health and health services will be delivered based upon need of the individual inmate. All privileges, activities and services for CM inmates shall be equally available, regardless of whether the CM inmate is male or female.
C. Staff Training All security, classification, and program staff assigned to the four designated CM institutions shall receive training on suicide prevention (2 hours) and other mental health issues of relevance to care of CM inmates (3 hours), within 60 days after assignment and annually thereafter. D. Mental Health Screening Before CM placement, each inmate shall be referred to mental health staff, who shall advise classification staff as to whether the inmate is in need of mental health services, the level ofoutpatient mental health services required (and hence, in which of the three male CM institutions the inmate must be placed), or whether the inmate must be admitted to inpatient care (transitional or crisis stabilization) in lieu of CM placement. The determination made by mental health staffwill in part be based upon a clinical interview of the inmate conducted not more than 30 days prior. Mental
6

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 9 of 74
health recommendations for placement shall be included on the Close Management Referral form and shall include the following:
1. Inmate is classified S-1 and mental status evaluation (clinical interview) within the past 30 days indicated no significant mental or emotional impairment. Inmate may be placed at any Close Management institution.
2. Inmate is classified S-2 and mental status evaluation (clinical interview) within the past 30 days indicated signs of mild to moderate mental or emotional impairment. Inmate may be placed at any Close Management institution that provides mental health services to S-2 inmates. Mental health staff will provide necessary care.
3. Inmate is classified S-3 and mental status evaluation (clinical interview) within the past 30 days indicated inmate is mentally/behaviorally stable. Inmate may be placed at any Close Management institution that provide mental health services to S-3 inmates. Mental health staff will provide necessary care.
4. Inmate is classified S-3 and mental status evaluation (clinical interview) within the past 30 days indicated signs of mild to
7

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 10 of 74
moderate mental and/or behavioral instability. Inmate may be placed at any Close Management institution that provides mental health services to S-3 inmates. Mental health staff will provide necessary care. 5. Inmate shows symptomatology that requires inpatient mental health are, and he/she has been referred for admission to an infirmary isolation room, transitional care unit, or crisis stabilization unit. After CM placement, each inmate shall rece1ve ongomg mental health evaluation (clinical interview) at periodic intervals to assess mental functioning, and thereby determine need for mental health services. CM inmates who are classified as S-3 shall receive mental health screening at least every 30 days. CM inmates who are classified as S-1 or S-2 shall receive mental health screening at least every 90 days. The results of initial and ongoing mental health screening will be made available to the institutional classification team (ICT) and the state classification office (SCO). The ICT and SCO shall consider such information, together with other information relevant to an inmate's institutional adjustment, in making recommendations or decisions regarding changes in CM level or CM status. The
8

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 11 of 74
Director of Mental Health Services or designee shall serve as a consulting member to the State Classification Office.
In addition to conducting the above periodic mental health screening, mental health staff will also perform weekly rounds in each CM unit, by personally observing each inmate at cell front, and inquiring whether he/she has any mental health related problem. Inmates who are observed to present with new problems, whose known problems seem to be worsening, or who report mental health problems will be scheduled for clinical interview outside the cell.
E. Behavioral Risk Assessment Behavioral risk for each CM inmate shall be determined by a multi-disciplinary services team (MDST) composed of mental health, security, classification, and program staff. Behavioral risk shall be determined by the rating of specific risk factors such as "intentional self-injury" and "threat to safety of others." Behavioral risk assessment will be performed within 14 days of CM placement; within three working days of a CM inmate's involvement in a critical event (escape/attempt; suicide attempt or other action that could cause serious bodily harm; homicide/attempt; physical assault/attempt); and each time that the MDST reviews a CM inmate's individualized service plan.
9

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 12 of 74
The following will use behavioral risk assessment results: • The MDST will use behavioral risk assessment results to help identify mental health related problems, and to plan appropriate mental health related services. • The institutional classification team will consider behavioral assessment results, together with other information relevant to an inmate's institutional adjustment, in making recommendations for modification of CM level or status. • The state classification office will consider behavioral risk assessment results, together with other information relevant to an inmate's institutional adjustment, in its decisions regarding changes in CM level and CM status. F. Mental Health Treatment Services A full range of outpatient mental health treatment services (e.g. psychiatric consultation; psychotropic medication; individual counseling; group counseling) will be provided in appropriate settings outside of the inmate's cell, as part of an individualized service plan (ISP), which will be established and revised as needed by the MDST. An ISP will be developed/implemented within 14 days ofCM placement, for each inmate having an Axis I Mental Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Schizotypal Personality Disorder, or Mental Retardation; and for each inmate who is at risk for developing such disorder, as determined by mental health staff. CM inmates who are receiving mental health treatment services will typically be classified
10

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 13 of 74
as a mental health grade 2 (S-2) or mental health grade 3 (S-3). The ISP shall include mental health, education, and other program services
addressing assessed needs, as determined by the MDST. CM inmates who are classified as S-1 will not typically have an open ISP, and
will not typically receive mental health treatment services, unless the inmate requires treatment for a mental disorder that does not impair his/her ability to function in the prison setting. For example, the CM inmate who is enrolled in sexual disorder group for a diagnosis of paraphilia, who presents with no other symptoms of mental disorder, and whose institutional adjustment is acceptable, may appropriately be· classified as S-1, while receiving group treatment through an ISP.
All CM inmates shall be allowed out of their cells to receive mental health services specified in the ISP, unless, within the past 48 hours, the inmate has displayed hostile, threatening, or other behavior that could portend harm or danger to others.
Security staffshall determine the type and level ofrestraint devices that the CM inmate will be subjected to while he is receiving mental health services outside of his/her cell. CM-1 and CM-2 inmates generally will wear restraints when outside of their cells, while CM-3 inmates will not.
11

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 14 of 74
G. Self Betterment/Stimulation Programming for CM Inmates. 1. Reading Material. CM Inmates shall immediately be permitted to obtain 3 soft cover books
per week from the institutional library and shall immediately be permitted 1 magazine subscription (with no more than 4 issues in the cell at a time) and 1 newspaper subscription (with no more than 4 issues in the cell at a time).
2. Social Phone Calls. CM inmates shall immediately be permitted, in progressive stages based
upon their respective individual classifications, to make monitored telephone calls of length established by rule via cordless phones provided by the institution in the CM unit as follows:
a. CMI Inmates: 1 call every 30 days after 30 days of satisfactory adjustment;
b. CMII Inmates: 1 call every 14 days after 30 days of satisfactory adjustment;
c. CMIII Inmates: 1 call every 7 days after 30 days of satisfactory adjustment. [However if a CM inmate is transferred to less restrictive level due to satisfactory adjustment, the adjustment period is waived].
12

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 15 of 74
3. Broadcast media: a. Radio: CM inmates of all levels may immediately purchase one
headphone/personal portable type radio through the institution Canteen. b. Television: CMII and CMIII inmates shall be allowed access to social television
programs during day room periods, as described in section I.G. 7. 4. In-Cell Educational Opportunities: Educational and literacy courses shall be immediately be available to all
CM levels unless precluded by safety or security concerns. 5. Cell-Front Tutoring: Wellness services shall be immediately expanded to CM inmates of all
levels who request participation in tobacco cessation, well ness education puzzles and the wellness education courses.
6. Canteen: a. CMI and II Inmates, following 30 day satisfactory adjustment
period, shall immediately have canteen privileges one time per week to include up to 5 non-food items and 5 food items per week.
b. CMIII Inmates, following 30 day satisfactory adjustment period, shall immediately have canteen privileges one time per week to include up to 5 non-
13

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 16 of 74
food items and 10 food items. [However if inmate is transferred to less restrictive level due to satisfactory adjustment, the adjustment period is waived].
7. Day Room Access: a. CMII Inmates: After 30 days satisfactory adjustment, day room
access shall be immediately provided 2 days per week, not to exceed 4 hours daily or beyond 10 p.m., when day room is not being used for organized program activities.
b. CMIII Inmates: After 30 days satisfactory adjustment, day room access shall be immediately provided 5 days per week, not to exceed 4 hours daily or beyond 10 p.m., when day room is not being used for organized program activities. [However if an inmate is transferred to less restrictive level due to satisfactory adjustment, the adjustment period is waived. The number of inmates participating at any' one time will be determined based upon considerations such as day room size, seating, and safety and security issues associated with the availability of supervising staff.]
8. Individual exercise shall be: a. After 30 day satisfactory adjustment period, 6 hours per week (3 days,
2 hours each) or assignment to restricted labor squad or other outside work squad l day per week. [Note: Exercise will increase from 3 hours per week to 6 hours week
14

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 17 of 74
as the CM Consolidation Plan is phased in. The 6-hours per week of exercise will be fully implemented as of July 1, 2003 unless the CM Consolidation Plan is completed earlier].
b. Exercise apparatus provided in exercise yard. 9. Non-Contact Visits shall be:
a. CMI Inmates: After 30 days with no major disciplinary infractions, one 2-hour visit every 30 days by appointment.
b. CMII Inmates: After 30 days with no major disciplinary infractions, one 2-hour visit every 14 days by appointment.
10. Contact Visits shall be: CMIII Inmates: After 30 days with no major disciplinary infractions,
one contact visit every 14 days by appointment. [However if an inmate is transferred to less restrictive level due to satisfactory adjustment, the adjustment period is waived].
11. The above privileges may be suspended or reduced by an institutional disciplinary team only for documented good cause consistent with the goals and purposes of close management.
II. Volunteers: Volunteers shall be recruited from the community, to the extent possible, to
15

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 18 of 74
assist with chaplaincy and educational services. III. Implementation: The Defendants shall promptly promulgate all rule changes necessary to
implement the Offer of Judgment and Injunction described herein. That implementation, and the services to be provided in this offer of judgment that are necessary to avoid constitutional deficiencies in the CM program shall and can occur within appropriations by the Florida legislature to the Florida Department of Corrections for the initial phase in of the Close Management Consolidation Plan for fiscal year 2001-2002 ending June 30, 2002. A budget request, Issue Code 4500100 for 234 additional FTEs and approximately $8.3 million, for the final phase of the Close Management Consolidation Plan has been submitted to the Florida Legislature for fiscal year 2002-2003. Defendant Secretary Moore shall immediately advise the Court in the event an appropriations short fall or budget over run jeopardizes his ability to implement this offer and plan.
IV. Enforcement of Constitutional Deficiencies: A. Monitoring of the implementation of the Injunction and Judgment
shall include the processes and authority of the Correctional Medical Authority (CMA), as provided in Fla. Stat.§ 945.601, et seq. Defendants shall take corrective action required by the CMA so as to comply with constitutional obligations of this
16

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 19 of 74
Judgment and Injunction as to provisions for medical care. B. The Plaintiffs may also avail themselves of the procedures in the
Administrative Grievance Procedure in Chapter 33-103 F.A.C. C. In addition to A and B above, and preferably upon the failure ofthe
Defendants to respond within 30 days ofreceipt written allegations ofconstitutional violations of the offer and Judgment and Injunction to Secretary Moore, Plaintiffs may, through their counsel, move the court for an enforcement order to remedy constitutional violations. This 30-day respond and cure time is preferred, except for constitutional violations deemed life threatening in which such events Plaintiffs' counsel should telephonically and in writing specifically inform the general counsel ofthe Department ofCorrections and litigation counsel ofthe details of such alleged constitutional violations. Compliance with Rule 7.1 A. 3, Local Rules for the Southern District is subsumed into this offer.
D. Defendants shall provide quarterly written CM implementation status reports and CMA public records reports to Plaintiffs' counsel and to the Court beginning January 15, 2002, and shall afford Plaintiffs' counsel reasonable access to the CM facilities and CM inmates upon request for same twice annually. That access shall be for one day per CM facility unless more time is ordered by the Court sua sponte or upon motion of the Plaintiffs.
17

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 20 of 74
V. Attorneys Fees: Defendants shall pursuant to Rule 68, Fed. R. Civ. Pro., the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S. C. 1997e, 18 U.S.C. 3626 and 42 USC § 1988 be subject to Judgment for reasonable costs and attorneys fees which have accrued to the date of the receipt of this offer on Plaintiffs' counsel, that sum to be in an amount to be determined by the Court upon negotiation between the parties within 45 days of entry of Judgment and Injunction, or by adjudication of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees after that time. Defendants shall be subject to additional attorney fees and costs exposure for enforcement activity by Plaintiffs' counsel to remedy constitutional violations upon their motion practice and prevailing party status as allowed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, 18 U.S. C. 3626 and
42. u.s.c. § 1988.
18

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 21 of 74

VI. Termination of Injunction: The injunction entered pursuant to this Offer of Judgment shall be
subject to termination in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §3626(b).

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT A. BUTTERWORTH ATTORNEY GENERAL

GENERAL COUNSEL Florida Bar No. 0277878 Florida Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Telephone: (850) 488-2326 Facsimile: (850) 922-4355

C~HAMRL.ES[M.cFiAHQLB.USkCH~-~
Assistant Attorney General Florida Bar No. 0191948

pecial Counsel Florida Bar No. 0230944 Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Telephone: (850) 414-3300 Facsimile: (850) 414-9650
10.02.01AM (102PMFOJ)
19

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG NEMORANDUM

Document 241

,.. Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 22 of 74 ,. ~ - - - ~· .;1 ~·J.lrt1PING AND RETURN

TO: Liz Cloud, Chief, Bureau of Administrative Code

DATE: September 19, 2001

SUBJECT: Notice to be Published in F.A.W.

Agency ' s Tit 1 e No . : _ _D_e_.p~a_r_t_m_e.:..:n~t----=o-=f----=C:._:o:....:r:....:r=-e=-c=-t=i-=o.:..:n:....:s----=T::....:l=-·t.::....::.l-=-e--=-3-=3-

PLEASE PUBLISH THE ATTACHED NOTICE IN THE OF THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE WEEKLY.

September 28, 2001 ISSUE

x Rule Development Proposed Rule

Petition to Initiate Rule De~laratory Statement

Notice of Change/Withdrawal Emergency Rule

--. Petition For Variance/Waiver
Miscellaneous

Meeting/Workshop/Hearing

Bid/Request for Proposal

LIST OF FILES ON DISK: ---'-6-'-0-'-1-'-80-'-0-'--..:n.:.:r:..:d-'---=s-=e.,._p-'-t.::.1.=-9_-0-=-.::.1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Name and Phone number of Person to be contacted regarding the attached

notice:

Perri K. Dale

*****************************************************************
BILLING INFORMATION The invoice for cost of publication should be sent to:
(please fill out complete address)

Department: Department of Corrections

Division/Bureau: Legal Services

Contact Person: Perri K. Dale

Address:

2601 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, FL, 32399-2500

..:·-~:- ...

Phone No. : (850) 488-2326 SC 278-2326 Purchase Order No. :

.·:-: -u [::i.1' ::~-:;

;:~

-~ ~

'Tar·s.sE:cT·roN. To .BE. coMJ?i.ETEo.B)t .TiiE:. i3UREiu ·0;.·iDMrNrs'TRiTr~oi)~. ·:.~~ ~·

::. •

(/)f';

-

:;;::-:::· ''--0

~-. ~-~j

* FAW file name

lines per notice

;..,2' :::>. L.;.!

***** ************** ****** *** ********* ************** ** ****'a*'"=*-"l **·"'*:Jc **.·...-·

EXHIBIT A

r;:=:;.;:~::~;-!
~ -, _;..,.,

\..._')
~.
C.v CJ

D:"~-i-'-l" •

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 23 of 74

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

~ULE TITLE:

RULE NO.:

Close Management

33-601.800

PURPOSE AND EFFECT: The purpose and effect of the proposed rule is

to revise the conditions of confinement and the privileges

provided to close management inmates.

SUBJECT AREA TO BE ADDRESSED: Close management

SPECIFIC AUTHORITY: 944.09 FS

LAW IMPLEMENTED: 944.09 FS

IF REQUESTED IN WRITING AND NOT DEEMED UNNECESSARY BY THE AGENCY

HEAD, A RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP WILL BE NOTICED IN THE NEXT

AVAILABLE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE WEEKLY.

THE PERSON TO BE CONTACTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED RULE DEVELOPMENT

AND A COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT, IF AVAILABLE, IS:

Perri King Dale, 2601 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida

32399-2500

THE PRELIMINARY TEXT OF THE PROPOSED RULE DEVELOPMENT IS:

33-601.800 Close Management.

(1) Definitions.

-;:_.......,,-...

(a) No change .

f::f:;' ~> "':'·....__, ~ ....~ ~

(b) Medical Staff Clinical health ~c?rQ ·personnel - ({~ie~J't.h -~:_:·;/

' '

C.•J :":

..;

.. : _;

r......; ....;./ .......... . ..

care· professional whose primary responsibility is the !"'~uov~iori :'

,.!t~:.j' :.:'?_. .:. __._/

(""")(I;

........

,... -~

;:-:'::..;.'i_::-::-_-,.;
i;:r"";:.i

..t.:)
c.._,

."'~", ' :

I L_; / .....~_,

1

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 24 of 74
of physical health care to inmates physician, clinical associate, nurse, Correctional Hedical Technician Certified (CHTC) I p.:;;ychologist, psychology intern, psychology resident or psychological specialist.
(c) Mental Health Staff - a health care professional whose primary responsibility is the provision of mental health care to inmates.
~+et Close Management (CM) - the confinement of an inmate ·.
apart from the general population, f@r reasons of security or the order and effective management of the institution, where the inmate, through his or her eTffi behavior, has demonstrated an inability to live in the general· ·population without abusing the rights and privileges of others.
~+at No change.
J..il-fe+ Individualized Service Close Hanagement Plan (ISP} - a
dynamic, written description of problems, goals, and services which is developed and implemented by the multi-disciplinary services team (MOST) and the inmate. An ISP shall be developed and implemented for each CM inmate who suffers from mental impairment . or is at· significant risk for developing such impairment, as determined by mental health staff program plan developed for
individual inmates determined to be at r.i.slc · for deterioration of . ~,
mental health functioning as a result of prolonged confinement.

' .,_

2

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 25 of 74
The plan utilizes a variety of therapeutic activities, prevention, and intervention components from available mental health and program resources to prevent potential deterioration of mental health and adaptive functioning.
l.91_-tf-1- Multi -disciplinary Services Close Hanagement Program Team - a team of an interdisciplinary team of representatives from mental health, programfr, classification, and security staff which assesses behavioral risk for each CM inmate and develops and implements an individualized service··. plan for each CM inmate who suffers from mental impairment or is at significant risk for developing such impairment, as This team dmrelops and monitors close management plans for individual inmates in close management determined by mental health staff to be at risk for potential deterioration of mental health or adaptive functioning as a result of prolonged confinement.
(h) Critical Event - inmate involvement, after CM placement, in one or more of the following behaviors: suicide attempt or other action that could have caused serious bodily harm; homicide; attempted homicide; escape; attempted escape; physical assault; attempted physical assault.
(g) through (n) renumbered (i) through (p) No change .-tgt Review - where used herein, refers to the.: eyaluation of pertinent
, . ~
information or documentation concerning an inmate's confinement
' ..._
3

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 26 of 74

status to determine if changes or modifications are required or

recommended.
ill-fftt Visit - where used herein, refers to the official

tour and inspection of a close management unit by a staff member.
ill+i+ Institutional Classification Team (ICT) - the team

consisting of the warden or assistant warden, classification

supervisor, and chief of security, that is responsible for making

work, program, housing and inmate status decisions at a facility

and for making other recommendations to the State Classification

Office (SCO).

i l l+1+ Institutional Classification Team Docket

the

official record of an ICT hearing;.

(m)+*t Major Rule Violation

any assault, battery or

attempted assault or battery; any spoken or written threat

towards any person; inciting, attempting to incite or

participating in any riot, strike, mutinous act or disturbance; fighting; possession of weapons, ammunition, explosiv'es or escape

paraphernalia; and any escape or escape attempt.

(n)~ Offender Based Information System (OBIS)

the

. department's computer offender database system which is utilized

to organize and store security, classification, program and other

offender information.

. .

.~ r

4

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 27 of 74

(o) -tmt Restricted Labor Squad - an armed supervision work
squad consisting of individually shackled close management II or III inmates ·who work outside the secure perimeter on institution

grounds.
JEl+Rt Senior Correctional Officer - a correctional officer

lieutenant or above.

(o) Special risle inmate any inmate 11ho has demonstrated

behavior that is harmful to himself or herself.

lgl~ No change.

.·

(2) No change.

(3) Procedures for Placement in Close Management.

(a) Close management is the -confinement of an inmate apart

from the general population, for reasons of security, or the order

and effective management of the institution, where the inmate,

through his or her ewfl behavior, has demonstrated an inability to

live in the general population without abusing the rights and

privileges of others. The secretary shall designate which

institutions are authorized to house close management inmates,

based on the needs of the department.

(b) No change.

(c) Prior to docketing an inmate's case for close

management, the classification .. superviso~ ~ill submit a referral . ~ ·,
to the senior psychologist for evaluation of the inmate utilizing

'··, 5

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 28 of 74
the Close Management Referral Assessment, DC6-128. Form DC6-128 is incorporated by reference in subsection (19) paragraph (18) of this rule.
(d) Mental health staff will complete the close· management referral assessment mental health record revieH within five -t-woworking days of receipt and return it to of Form DC6 128 from the classification supervisor. If the senior psychologist determines that no further evaluation is needed, he or she Hill for ....ard Form DC6 128 to the classification ·.super~isor Hith relevant recommendations. If the senior psychologist determines that further evaluation is needed, either the senior psychologist or psychiatrist uill conduct an interJim.r and evaluation ·.vith the inmate to determine the treatment needs of the inmate. The senior psychologist or psychiatrist r,rill fon:ard Form DG6 128, Close Management Referral Assessment, to the classification supervisor ~Jith the rccofilffiendation for the ·inmate. The reco:rnmendation \dll include the follmring placement options: unrestricted placement, placement in a close management facility in ~vhich there is a provision for out patient mental health services, placement in a close management facility where intensive mental health services are available, or close management not recommended because of the inmate's current mental health condition.· t1 summary of the clinical findings upon uhich the recommendation is based shall be
"·l.. 6

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 29 of 74

provided to the classification supervisor.

(e) Upon receiving the completed close management referral

mental health assessmentL the classification supervisor will

submit the case for ICT Docket. The ICT will evaluate the

recommendations for close management placement and the mental

health assessment, interview the inmate, and document its

findings and recommendations on the Report of Close Management,

Form DC6-233C. Form DC6-233C is incorporated by reference in

subsection (19) paragraph (18) of this rule. The inmate will be

given a minimum of forty-eight hours to prepare for the review

unless waived by completing a Close Management Wavier, Form DC6-

265. Form DC6-265 is incorporated·by reference in subsection (19)

paragraph +±St of this rule. The inmate may present inform~tion

verbally or in writing for consideration by the ICT. The team

will document on Form DC6-233C that the inmate was informed of

his or her allotted time to prepare for the review. The ICT is

authorized to postpone the case review to allow an inmate

additional time to prepare. If an extension of time is given, the

team will document such pos~ponement on form DC6-233C.

(3) (f) through (5) No change.

(6) Close Management Facilities.

(a) No change.

..

:•

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 30 of 74

(b) The only exception to paragraph Section (6) (a) is during

an emergency situation as declared by the warden or duty warden.

The emergency will be made known to the regional director and to

the emergency action center in the c~ntral office. If ·the

exception exists in excess of 24 hours, the warden or duty warden

must get specific authorization from the regional director to

continue to house inmates beyond the 24 hour period in such

conditions.

(c) through (d) No change.

·.

(e) Water Supply to CM Units. All close management cells

will be equipped with toilet facilities and running water for

drinking and other sanitary purposes. Water in the cell can be

turned off when necessary due to misbehavior. .Misbehavior is

defined as any activity exhibited by an inmate which causes an

interruption in the water system and its proper function, such as

intentionally clogging a toilet bowl or sink with paper in order

to then flood the housing area. It also includes the intentional

misuse of the water for such purposes as throwing it on staff or

other inmates, or mixing it with another substance for an

unauthorized purpose (inmate mixes water with soap or shampoo and

apply to the floor or himself or herself to hinder cell

extraction) . In such event, the inmate w...i.l-l' be furnished with.an
adequate supply of drinking water by other means to prevent

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 31 of 74

dehydration. This action can be taken in addition to formal disciplinary action being taken against the inmate pursuant to e~tablished procedures regarding disciplinary action. Any mi"sbehavior from an inmate and subsequent action . by security staff will be documented on the Daily Record of Segregation, Form DC6-229. Form DC6-229 is incorporated by reference in subsection
Jl2l paragraph (18) of this rule.
(f) Prior to placement of an inmate in a close management cell, the cell will be thoroughly. inspected by the housing officer to ensure that it is in proper order. The housing officer shall document the cell's condition on Form DC6-221, Cell Inspection. After such time, the·inmate housed in that cell will be responsible for the condition of the cell. Form DC6-221 is incorporated by reference in subsection (19) paragraph (18) of

this rule.
(g) No change.
.,
(h) Inmates shall be weighed upon entering close management,
at least once a week while in close management, and upon leaving
close management. The weight of the inmate shall be documented on
Form DC6-229, Daily Record of Segregation.
(7) Individualized Service Close Management Plan (ISP)

(GHP) •

..

:•

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 32 of 74
(a) The multi-disciplinary services close management program team consisting of representatives from mental health, programs, classification, and security will develop an ISP, Form DC4-643A,
staff. Form DC4-643A is incorporated by reference in subsection (19) of this rule.
(b) The ISP GMP will be developed based on the inmate 1 s needs assessment and will take into consideration the inmate 1 s behavioral risk, as determined by·. the MDST in accordance with subsection (8) of this rule CM level.
(c) The ISP GMP will incorporate mental health, programs, and other services required to address identified problems and to prevent the development or exacerbation of mental and other adjustment problems therapeutic activities and may include prevention and intervention components. The purpose of the plan will be to increase sensory stimulation using a variety of activities from available mental health and program resources.
(d) An ISP shall be established within 14 days of CM placement of each inmate who suffers from mental impairment, or who is at significant risk for developing such impairment, as determined by mental health staff.
(e) If an ISP exists at the time o!.CM placement, it shall be updated within 14 days of CM placement to reflect current
·., 10

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 33 of 74
problems, goals, services, and providers. The ISP shall also be updated within 14 days of an inmate's transfer between CM institutions.
(f) The· MOST shall review; and if indicated, revise the ISP as needed, but not less frequently than the following:
1. Within three working days of the inmate's involvement in a critical event.
2. Within 30 days of establishing or updating an ISP.
3. 120 days after the initial (3D day} review.
4. Every 180 days after the 120 day review, until mental health staff determines that ongoing mental health care is no longer necessary, at which time the ISP will be closed.
(g) The ISP shall be signed by each member of the MOST. (8} Behavioral Risk Assessment. (a) The MOST shall determine behavioral risk of each CM inmate by completing the Behavioral Risk Assessment, Form DC4729. Form DC4-729 is incorporated by reference in subs' ection (19) of this rule. (b) Behavioral risk shall be determined as follows: 1. Within three working days of the inmate's involvement in a critical event. 2. Within 14 days of CM placement. 3. Each time that the MOST reviews the ISP.
'·, 11

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 34 of 74
(c) Security shall consider results from the behavioral risk assessment and other information relevant to staff and inmate safety and institutional security in determining the level of restraints required during out-of-cell activities such as individual or group counseling.
(d) The ICT shall consider results from the behavioral risk assessment and other information relevant to institutional adjustment, staff and inmate safety, and institutional security when making recommendations for modfEication of the inmate's CM status.
(e) The SCO shall consider results from the behavioral risk assessment, results from mental health evaluations that have been completed, and other information relevant to institutional adjustment, staff and inmate safety, and institutional security in its review of ICT recommendations made after CM placement.
(9) Mental Health -Services.
.,
(a) Chapter 33-404, F.A.C., Mental Health Services, shall apply to CM inmates except where otherwise specified herein.
(b) CM inmates shall be allowed out of their cells to receive mental health services as specified in an ISP unless, within the past 48 hours, the inmate has displayed hostile,
.. threatening, or other behavior that cou.l.d. present a danger to
··.,, 12

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 35 of 74
others. Security staff shall determine the level of restraint required while CM inmates access services outside their cells.
l!Ql+&t Conditions and Privileges.
(a) through (b) No change: (c) Personal Property -- Inmates shall be allowed to retain personal property including stamps·, watches, rings, writing paper, envelopes and health and comfort items unless there is a indication of a security problem. Close management inmates at all
levels shall be allowed to possess a "walkman" type radio with
approved headphones as is allowed for general population inmates. Exceptions or removal of any item will be documented on the DC6229. An Inmate Impounded Personal. Property List, Form DC6-220, will be completed by security staff and signed by the inmate designating what personal items were removed. The original will then be placed in the inmate's property file and a copy of the form will be given to the inmate for his or her records. If items of clothing, bedding or personal property are removed in order to prevent the inmate from inflicting injury to himself or herself or others or to prevent the destruction of property or equipment, staff shall re-assess the need for continued restriction every.72 hours thereafter. The warden, based on this assessment, will make
the final determination on the continued 'd. enial or return of the • ~ f
items. The items will be returned to the inmate when no further
13

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 36 of 74
behavior or threat of behavior of the type leading to the restriction has occurred. Radios are not authorized for an inmate in. close management. Form DC6-220 is incorporated by reference in . Rule 33-602.220, F.A.C.
(d) No change. (e) Personal Hygiene--Inmates in close management shall meet the same standards in regard to personal hygiene as required of the general inmate population. 1. No change. 2. Male inmates shall be required to shave at least three times per week. The possession and use of shaving powder in close management is prohibited. An inmate housed in close management who is medically exempt from using shaving razors will be clipper-shaved at least three times per week. 3. Hair care shall be the same as that provided to and required of the general population·inmates.
.,
(f) Diet and Meals--All inmates in close management shall receive normal institutional meals as are available to the general inmate population except that if any item on the regular menu might create a security problem in the confinement area, then another item of comparable quality shall be substituted. An
alternative meal (special management .. mea~l·may be provided for . ~ '
any inmate in close management who uses food or food service
·., 14

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 37 of 74
equipment in a manner that is hazardous to himself or herself, staff, or other inmates. The issuance of a special management meal will be in strict accordance with Rx-ule 33-602.223, F.A.C. Any deviation from ~stablishe~ meal s~rvice is. to be documented by security staff on the Daily Record of Segregation, Form DC6229.
(g) Canteen Items. 1. Inmates in CMI and II, following 30 days satisfactory adjustment, will be a1lowed to make·. canteen purchases once per week month unless restricted by disciplinary action. Canteen purchases are subject to the follmdng limitations, unless modified by the ICT: ----±-1-;:-. Inmates in CMI . and II · will be allowed to purchase up restricted to a limit of five non-food items and five food items. In .making this determination, with the exception of stamps and notebook paper, it is the number of non food items that is
-,
counted not the type of item. For example, three security pens counts as three items, not one item. Twenty-five stamps or fewer will count as one item and two packages or less of notebook paper will count as one item.
2. Inmates in CMI II, following 30 days satisfactory
adjustment, will be allowed to make cant;e.e. _n· ·purchases once each • ~r
e·.;ery t~1o week-s- unless restricted by disciplinary action. Canteen
'-., 15

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 38 of 74
purchases are subject to the follm1ing limitations, unless modified by the ICT: Inmates in CMIII will be allowed to purchase ~.restricted to five non-food items and ten ~ food items. In making the determination, with the exception of stamps and notebook paper for food, it is the number of ~ items that is counted not the :type of item. For example, three packages of cookies count as three items, not one item.
3. Any disciplinary reports received by an inmate in which there is a guilty finding and ~placement in disciplinary confinement or suspension of canteen privileges between the time that he or she requests canteen food items and the delivery of those items will result in disapproval of the requested items.
4. The ICT has· the authority to suspend privileges for canteen purchases •,,rhen the inmate fails to comply ·,Jith the rules and procedures established for close management. Any action takeri by the ICT regarding the suspension or limiting of privileges
....
~.·ill be docurnented on the Daily Record of Segregation, DC6 229. (h) No change. (i) Counseling Intervim.·s Counseling shall be provided to
close management inmates in cell or out of. cell Hhen deerned necessary by mental health staff. The ICT 'dill determine ;:hether
an inmate in close management may be .. remo~ed·from his or her cell
, =I
·,... 16

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 39 of 74
to attend any counseling session when they determine that it is safe to do so, or Hhether counseling must talce place in cell.
_ill-H+ Legal Access -- An inmate in close management will have access to his or h~r personal legal papers and law books and have correspondence access with the law library. Access to the law library will be obtained through delivery of research materials to an inmate's cell, and access to visits with research aides certified inmate la·..· clerles. Although the inmate may not be represented by an attorney at any aGirninistrative hearing under this rule, access to an attorney or aide to that attorney will be granted for legal visits at any reasonable time during normal business hours. Indigent inmates .will be provided paper and .writing utensils in order to prepare legal papers. Inmates who are not indigent will be allowed to purchase paper and envelopes for this purpose by completing Form DC6-251, CMI and II Canteen Order, or Form DC6-252, CMIII Canteen Order, within the stated time frames. Forms DC6-251 and DC6-252 are incorporated by reference in subsection (19) paragraph (18) of this rule. Typewriters or typing services are not considered required items and will not be permitted in confinement cells. Inmates with disabilities that hinder the preparation of legal correspondence will be allowed the use of auxiliary ~~ds '(writer/reader). An
:•
inmate who is provided an auxiliary aid shall also be allowed

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 40 of 74

access to a research aide certified la\: clerk for the purpose of

preparing legal documents, legal mail, and filing grievances.

(k) through (1) renumbered (j) through (k) No change.

Jll+mt Reading materials

Reading materials, including

scriptural or devotional materials and books -that are in

compliance with admissibility requirements, are allowed in close

management units unless there is an indication of a threat to the

safety, security, or sanitation of the institution. If it is

determined that there is a safety, ··security or sanitation risk,

the items will be removed. Such removal of reading materials will

be documented on Form DC6-229, Daily Record of Segregation. If

items are removed in order to prevent the inmate from inflicting

injury to himself or herself or others or to prevent the

destruction of property or equipment, staff shall re-assess the

need for continued restriction every 72 hours thereafter. The

warden, based on this assessment, will make the final
.,
determination on the continued denial or return of the items. The

items will be returned to the inmate when no further behavior or

threat of behavior of the type leading to the restriction has

occurred. An inmate who ·receives services from the Bureau of

Braille and Talking Book library will be allowed to have his tape

. player, devotional or scriptural materia~ tapes, and other books ~
on tape which are in compliance with Rule 33-501.401, F.A.C.

'··~ 18

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 41 of 74

(m)--fftt Exercise -- Those inmates confined on a 24-hour

basis excluding showers and clinic trips may exercise in their

cells.

If the inmate requests a physical fitness program

handout, the wellness sp~cialist or the confinement officer shali

provide the inmate with an "in-cell exercise guide and document

such on the Daily Record of Segregation, Form DC6-22 9. However,

if confinement extends beyond a . 30 day period, an exercise

schedule shall be implemented to ensure a minimum of three hours

per week of exercise out of ~ors. The assignment and

participation of an inmate on the restricted labor squad or other

outside work squad required to work outside at least one day per

·week will satisfy the minimum exercise requirements for the week.

Such exercise periods shall be documented. on Form DC6-22 9. The

ICT is authorized to restrict exercise for an individual inmate

only when the inmate is found guilty of a major rule violation.

In this instance, a major rule ·violation is defined as: any

assault, battery or attempted assault or battery; any spoken or

written threat towards any person; inciting, attempting to incite

or participating in any riot, strike, mutinous act or

disturbance; fighting; possession of weapons, ammunition,

explosives or escape paraphernalia; escape or escape attempt.

. Inmates shall be notified in writing of~.. th- is decision and may ~
appeal through the grievance procedure. The denial of exercise

~-,~ 19

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 42 of 74
shall be for no more than 15 days per incident and for no longer than 30 days in cumulative length. Medical restrictions d~termined by health services staff can also place limitations on the amount and type of exercise permitted. Such restrictions of exercise periods will be documented on the Daily Record of Segregation, Form DC6-229. A disabled inmate who is unable to participate in the normal exercise program will have an exercise program developed for him that will accomplish the ·need for exercise and take into account·. the particular inmate's limitations. Close management inmates shall be allowed equal access to outdoor exercise areas with exercise stations.
(n} At a minimum, wellness ·services for close management inmates at all levels shall be provided through cell-front tutoring, wellness puzzles, and the wellness education course.
Jlll+9r Programs and Privileges in Close Management Units.
(a} While in a close management unit, an inmate's movement within the institution and contacts with other individuals will be restricted. Privileges will also be limited depending on the specific close management level. If an inmate transfers to a less restrictive level due to satisfactory adjustment, the adjustment period required for any privilege shall be waived.
.. (b} CMI. Privileges for an inmate. assigned to CMI who
maintains a satisfactory adjustment are as follows:
\~ 20

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 43 of 74
1. Participation in available approved programs, including in-cell educational opportunities, that the inmate can perform within the cell unless precluded by safety or security concerns after a minimum period of at least · 60 days ;Jith a clear disciplinary record since assignment to close management;
2. Check out three en-e soft-back book from the library at least once per week and possess no more than three eRe soft back books at any given time. An inmate who receives services from the Bureau of Braille and Talking Book Library will be allowed to chec·k out three en-e book~ on tape per week and possess no more than three books en-e at any given time, even though the actual number of tapes may be more than three eRe per book;
3. Conduct routine inmate bank t~ansactions onee per month; 4. Subscribe to one magazine and newspaper as provided for in Brule 33-210.101, F.A.C., and possess no more than four issues of each at any given time; an inmate who receives seryices from the Bureau of Braille and Talking Book Library will be allowed to receive up to four issues of a magazine; 5. Make one telephone call of the length allowed by Rule 33602.205, F.A.C. every 30 days following 30 days of satisfactory adjustment as well as emergency telephone calls and telephone calls to an attorney as explained in rule 33~602.205;
.. ~
·., 21

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 44 of 74
6. Receive one two-hour non-contact a per.::>_onal visit .!2_y appointment after completing 30 -6-G days of satisfactory adjustment in close management status and having no major rule violations maintained a clear disciplinary record during this period since assignment to close management. If found guilty of any major rule violations disciplinary infractions while assigned to CMI, the inmate is eligible to be considered for visits 30 -6-G days following release trom disciplinary confinement or the disciplinary hearing, if a penalty other than disciplinary confinement was imposed;
7. The inmate is eligible to receive one two-hour noncontact personal visit5 by appointment after each subsequent 30 -6-G day period with no major rule violations a continued clear disciplinary record and satisfactory adjustment while in the status unless security or safety concerns would preclude a visit. All visits for CMI inmates in CMI will be non-contact visits.
(c) CMII. In addition to the programs provided for CM I inmates and those privileges outlined in J...!...!.l-t-91-(b} 1.- ~.§.. of this rule,· the following privileges are authorized: cell front counseling and program offerings shall. be made available to inmates \rho desire to participate.
1. CMII inmates will be eligible to· receive one two-hour
. ~
non-contact personal visit5 by appointment:
22

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 45 of 74
~-±--..- After completing 30 days of satisfact?ry adjustment in close management status and having no major rule violations maintained a clear ciisciplinary record since being assigned to close management.
b.~ If found guilty of any major rule violations disciplinary infraction while assigned to CMII, the inmate is eligible to be considered for ~ visit~ 30 days following release from disciplinary status or the disciplinary hearing if a penalty other than disciplinary confinement was imposed, with no major rule violations a continued clear disciplinary record.
E.:.-:3--:- The inmate is eligible to receive personal visits .Qy appointment after each subsequent 14 ~ day period with no major rule ·violations a continued clear disciplinary reqord and satisfactory adjustment while in the status unless security and safety concerns would preclude a v1sit. All visits for inmates in CMII will be non-contact visits.
2. CMII inmates shall be allowed to make one telephone call of the length allowed by Rule 33-602.205, F.A.C. every 14 days after 30 days of satisfactory adjustment as well as emergency telephone calls· and calls to. attorneys as provided in rule 33602.205, F.A.C.
3. CMII inmates, following 30 days satisfactory adjustment,
:•
shall be allowed access to the day room area for social purposes
'··~ ·2 3

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 46 of 74
to include watching television programs for up to two days per week, not to exceed 4 hours per occasion or to extend beyond 10:00 PM. This is allowed only when it does not conflict with organized program activities. The number of participants at any one time will be determined by the shift supervisor in consultation with the duty warden. This determination will be based on considerations such as day room size, availability of seating, and safety and security issues associated with the
availability of supervising staff as Mell as staff available for
response should a problem develop. CMII inmates will be restrained during the above-described dayroom access unless determined by the chief of security that the inmate can safely participate without restraints.
(d) CMIII. In addition to the programs privileges provided above for CM I inmates, and those privileges outlined in
(11) +9-1- (b) 1.- 4 •..s-. of this rule, the following privileges are
authorized: cell front or out of cell counseling and program offerings shall be made available to inmates Hho desire to participate.
1. CM III inmates will be entitled to the folloHing: a.-±--. One two-hour contact A personal ~isi t by appointment after completing 30 days of sat.:..sfactory adjustment in close
..
management status and having no major rule violations maintained
24

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 47 of 74
a clear disciplinary record since being assi9ned to close management. CMIII inmates shall be subject to placement on noncontact status as outlined in Rule 33-601.709, F.A.C.
b.~ If ·found guilty of a disciplinary infraction while assigned to CM III, the inmate is eligible to be considered for visits 14 days following release from disciplinary status or the disciplinary hearing if a penalty other than disciplinary confinement was imposed, and the inmate has no major rule violations a continued clear disciplinary record.
c.~ The inmate is eligible to receive one two-hour contact personal visit~ by appointment after each subsequent 14 day period with no major rule violations a continued clear disciplinary record and satisfactory adjustment while in the status unless security or safety concern would preclude a visit. The warden will determine the conditions of the visit, Hhether the visit is to be contact or non contact, and tQ.e level of supervision and restraint required.
2.~ Day room privileges after 30 days six continuous months ~dth a clear disciplinary record and above satisfactory adjustment shall be allowed access to the day room area for social purposes to include watching televis~on programs for up to five days per week, not to exceed 4 hours· per occasion or to extend beyond 10:00 PM. This is allowed only when it does not
·... 25

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 48 of 74
conflict with organized program activities. The number of participants at any one time will be determined by the shift supervisor in consultation with the duty warden. This determination will . be based on considerations such as day room size, availability of seating, and safety and security issues associated with the availability of supervising staff as well as staff available for response should a problem develop \lithin the close management unit unless security and safety concerns ·..·ould preclude day room activities. This privilege will be limited to once per .,,.eelc for up to t~.·o hours in duration. CMIII inmates shall not be restrained for dayroom activities unless security or safety concerns require otherwise.
3. CMIII inmates shall be allowed to make one telephone call of the length allowed by Rule 33-602.205, F.A.C. every seven days after 30 days of satisfactory adjustment as well as emergency telephone calls and calls to attorneys as provided in, Rule 33602.205, F.A.C.
(12)~ Suspension Of Privileges. (a) In addition to the suspension of privileges through disciplinary action, the ICT has the authority to suspend privileges for inmates in close management status Hho fail to comply ~vith the rules and procedures esfablished for close management.
' '"·,, 26

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 49 of 74
+frt The ICT shall suspend an inmate's privileg~s if security and safety concerns would preclude an inmate from receiving certain privileges. Any action taken by the ICT regarding the suspension or limiting of privileges will be documented on the Daily Record of Segregation, Form DC6-229. Privileges suspended by the ICT in excess of 30 ~ days will require the review and _approval of the SCO.
llll~ No change. Jl!l~ Restraint and Escort Requirements.
(a} CMI.
1. Prior to opening a cell for any purpose, including exercise, health care medical . or disciplinary call-outs,
telephone calls, recreat~on, and vis-iting, the a±± inmates in the
eeH shall be handcuffed behind his or her their back-s-. If documented medical conditions require that the inmate-s- be handcuffed in front, waist chains will be used in addition to the handcuffs and the escort officers shall be particularly vigilant.
~-f-l:rt- No change. 1..:._-+et- Prior to escorting an inmate from a cell the inmate shall be thoroughly searched. If the inmate is being taken outside the immediate housing unit or designated adjacent exercise area, leg irons and other restraint devices shall be
:•
applied.
'..,_ 27

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 50 of 74
(b) CMII. The same restraints and escort r~quirements as provided for CMI inmates above apply to CMII inmates with the exception that the senior correctional officer shall be authorized to· approve unrestrained participation in group and individual counseling, dayroom access, and inside work assignments.
(c} CMIII. Unless precluded by specific safety and security concerns, CMIII inmates shall be ~scorted within the unit and to exercise areas attached to the unit a$ well as to all program and pri vi~ege activity participation without restraints. The warden shall base any determination to require restraints on the security and safety needs of his or her individual institution and CM unit.
(d) Due to the unique mission of close management units, it is understood that more than one inmate may be out of his or her
'-
cell within the unit at any one time. However, whenever inmates are being escorted in restraints, there shall be one officer with each inmate and the inmates shall be kept at a distance from each other which would preclude any unauthorized physical contact. Extreme care shall be exercised when escorting restrained inmates in areas where unrestrained inmates are present. When possible, unrestrained inmates will be returned to:. their cells, removed

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 51 of 74
from the wing or, at a minimum, closely supervised by additional staff until the escort of restrained inmates is completed.
~~ Contact by Staff. (a) The following staff members shall be required to officially inspect and tour the close management unit. All visits by staff shall be documented on the Inspection of Special Housing Record, Form DC6-228. Form DC6-228 is incorporated by reference in subsection (19) paragraph (18) of this rule. The staff member shall also document his or her visit on the Daily Record of Segregation, Form DC6-229, if there is any discussion of significance, action or behavior of the inmate, or any other important evidential information which may have an influence or effect on the status of confinement. These visits shall be conducted at a minimum of: 1. through 3. No change. 4. Daily by medical staff a clinical health care person. 5. through 6. No change. 7. Weekly by a psychologist or his or her mental health staff designee. 8. through 9. No change. 10. ."tt least once a month by a member of the ICT to ensure that the inmate's ~.·clfare is properly .provided for, and to
:•
determine the time and method of release or any program changes.

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 52 of 74

(11) Special Risk Inmates.

(a) Any inmate \iho has demonstrated behavior that is or

co.uld be harmful to himself or herself shall be designated as a

special rislc inmate. If the inmate demonstrates bizarrc,·mcntally

disordered, or self destructive behavior, the health services

department shall be immediately contacted to determine if special

·..·atch or suicide Hatch procedures shall be initiated.

(b) Suicidal inmates shall be removed to a designated area

;1herc a correctional officer or health care staff provides

observation. Visual checks shall be made in accordance ·.dth

medical protocols or at least every 30 minutes and shall be

documented on Form DC1 650, Observation Checklist/Restraint

Observation Checklist, until the inmate is no longer considered a

special risk inmate. All actions taken by staff \dth regard to

special risk inmates shall be documented on Form DC6 229 and

folloHcd \<'ith an Incident Report, Form DC6 210. Form OG4 650 is

incorporated by reference in paragraph (18) of this rule. Form

DC6 210 is incorporated by reference in Rule 33 602.210.

(16)~ Review of Close Management.

An (a)

ICT member shall review inmates in close managernen·t

at least once every week for the first 60 days. and once every 30

days thereafter. The purpose shall be toward_~educing the

inmate's status to the lowest management level or returning the

'\,. 30

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 53 of 74
inmate to general population as soon as the facts cf the case indicate that this can be done safely. During the review, the ICT sha.ll consider the results of the behavioral risk assessments and mental health evaluations that have b~en compieted prior ·to th~ review, and other information ~elevant to institutional adjustment, staff and inmate safety, and institutional security.
(b) Any inmate assigned to close management for more than 3G days shall be given a psychological screening assessment by mental health professional staff to determine the inmate's mental condition. The assessment shall include a personal interviC\;. if deemed necessary by mental health staff. }'.11 such assessments shall be documented in the mental health record. The psychologist or psychological specialist shall prepare a report to the ICT with the facts of the case. The ICT shall then make a decision regarding continuation of confinement. Any recommendations by the psychologist or psychologist specialist that the inmate be released from close management shall be fonmrded by the ICT to
the sco. If the decision is to continue confinement 1 a ne•.r
psychological screening assessment shall be completed at least every 90 day period.
(c) The close management program team (CHPT) ·..rill rcvicH each CHP at least 30 days after the impleme-ntation of the plan
. ~ I
and at least every 60 days thereafter. Hm:e•.•er 1 the C~4PT shall
\ 31

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 54 of 74
meet \Jithin 7 days if mental health staff dete:"Cmine that more immediate attention is required. All changes and ormodifications ·,dll be documented on the inmate's CHP. The CHPT' s revieh' (and interview, if neces6aty) will in~lude the following:
1. A status assessment of the inmate's participation, 2. A status evaluation of the close management plan's objectives and goals, and the ability to meet the inmate's needs; 3. A determination if changes or modifications to the current plan are needed. 4. The CHP Hill be available in the CH unit. The original Hill be placed in the mental health record. ..n.ll changes to the plan Hill be attached to the original mental health record and the copy maintained in the CM unit. (b)~ All services provided by any mental health or program staff member shall be recorded on the Daily Record of Segregation, Form DC6-229 Close Hanagement Activity Pa,rticipation Log, Form DC6 129, which shall be kept in the officers' station of the CM unit. When the form has been completely filled-out or the inmate has been released from the CM unit, a copy shall be placed in the irimate file and the ·original shall be filed-in the mental health record. tF~o~r~m~D~C~6-±lr2~9~i~s~1r·n~ceo~r~p~o~r~a~t~e~d~bevy~r~e~f~e~r~e~n~cee in (18) of this rule.
. ~ r
(c)~ No change.
'..._ 32

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 55 of 74
(d)~ The ICT shall review the report of close management prepared by the classification officer, consider the results of behavioral risk assessments and mental health evaluations and other information relevant to institutional adjustment, staff and inmate safety, and institutional security, and insert any other information regarding the inmate's status and interview the inmate. The ICT's recommendation shall be documented in OBIS and the Report of Close Management, Form DC6-233C. If it is determined that no justifiable safet~ and security issues exists for the inmate to remain in close management the ICT shall forward their recommendation for release to the SCO for review. For an inmate to remain in close management the ICT shall justify the safety and secu~ity issues or circumstances that can only _be met by maintaining the inmate at the current level or a lower level of management.
M -f-B- The SCO shall conduct an onsi te interview., with each
inmate at least once every six months or as often as necessary to determine if continuation, modification, or removal from close management status is appropriate. The SCO shall review all reports prepared by. the ICT concerning an inmate's close management status, consider the results of behavioral risk assessments and mental health evaluations :arrd other information
:•
relevant to institutional adjustment, sta.ff and inmate safety,

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 56 of 74
and institutional security and may interview the inmate be.fore determining the final disposition of the inmate's close management status. If it is determined that no justifiable safety and security issues exist for the inmate to remain in close management the SCO shall cause the inmate to _be immediately released. For an inmate to remain in close management, the SC:O shall determine based on the reports and documentation that there are safety and security issues or circumstances for maintaining the inmate at the current level -or at a lower level of management. The SCO' s decision shall be documented in OBIS and the Report of Close Management, Form DC6-233C. The ICT shall advise the inmate of the SCO's decision.
(17)~ Close Management Records. (a) No change. (b) A Daily Record of Segregation, Form DC6-229, shall be maintained for each inmate as long as he is in close m~nagement. Form DC6-229 shall be utilized to document any activities, including cell searches, items removed, showers, recreation, haircuts and shaves. If items that inmates in close management are not prohibited from posse~sing are denied ~r removed from the inmate, the shift supervisor or the senior 9orrectional officer must approve the action initially. The;. Central Office ADA coordinator shall be contacted within 24 hours if any i tern is
' '-., 34

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 57 of 74
removed that would be considered an auxiliary aid Qr device that ensures a disabled inmate an equal opportunity as a non-disabled inmate. The items denied or removed shall be documented on Form DC6-22 9 and the chief of security shall make the final decision in regard to the action no later than the next working day following the action. Staff shall re-assess the need for continued restriction every 72 hours thereafter as outlined in subsection (10) of this rule. The confinement housing officer shall make a notation of any unusual occurrences or changes in the inmate's behavior and any action taken. Changes in housing location or any other special action shall also be noted. Form DC6-229 shall be maintained in the housing area for 30 days. After each 30 day review of the inmate, Form DC6-229 shall be forwarded to the ICT for review. Once reviewed, these forms shall be forwarded to classification to be filed in the institutional inmate record.
(c) An Inspection of Special Housing Record, Form DC6-228, shall be maintained in each close ·management area. Each staff person shall sign the record when entering and . leaving the confinement area. Prior to leaving the confinement area, each staff member shall indicate any specific prob,l.ems, including any inmate Hho requires special attention. Upon: :.c·ompletion, Form DC6228 shall be maintained in the housing area and forwarded to the
\, 35

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 58 of 74
chief of security on a daily Heekly basis wher~ it . shall be maintained on file pursuant to the current retention schedule.
l!Ql~ Staffing Issues. (~) Officers assigned to a ~onfinement unit shall be reviewed rotated to another assignment every 18 months for a period of at least one year by the chief of security to determine whether a rotation is necessary. The chief of security shall review personnel records, to include performance appraisals, incident reports, uses of force, arid any other documentation relevant to the officer's assignment and job performance; interview the officer and the officer's supervisors for the period of review; and shall make a recommendation to the warden as to the necessity of a rotation. The warden shall review the recommendation, request additional information, if necessary, and make the final determination as to whether the officer continues in the current assignment or is rotated to another a~signment. Any officer assigned to a confinement post shall be authorized a minimum period of five days annual leave ~r a five day assignment to a less stressful post every six months. (b) No change.
Jl2l+±S+ Forms. The following forms referenced in this rule
are hereby incorporated by reference. Cop~es of any of these forms are available from the Forms Control Administrator, Office
'..... 3 6

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 59 of 74

of the General Counsel, Department of Correctiqns, 2601 Blair

Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500.

(a) Form DC4 650, Observation Checklist/Restraint Observation

Checklisb, effectivri.dat~ 2 12 01 .

..@1_--f:l:7t- Form DC6-128, Close Management Referral Assessment,

effective date

2 1 01.

(c) Form DC6 129, Close Hanagement P.ctivity Participation Log, effective date 2 1 01.

(b) Form DC4-643A, Individualized Service Plan, effective date

~+at Form DC6-221, Cell Inspection, effective date

2 12 01.

(d)~ No change.

ill-f-:B- Form DC6-229, Daily Record of Segregation, effective

date

-2 12 01.

-(-f- )~ Form DC6-233C,

Report

of Close Management 1
'

effective

date

-2 1 01.

l9l+flt Form DC6-251, CMI and II Canteen Order, effective date

-2 1 01.

Jbl~ Form DC6-252, CMIII ·Canteen Order, effective date 2 1 01.
Jllf1+ No change.

',, 37

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 60 of 74 (j) Form DC4-729, Behavioral Risk Assessment, effective date
Specific Authority 944.09 FS. Law Implemented 944.09 FS .. HistoryFormerly "33-601. 801..:.. 813, Substantially Amended 2-1-01, Amended Name of Person Originating Proposed Rule: Richard Dugger
\ 38

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001
_.STATE. OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECfiONS
INSPECflON OF SPECIAL HOUSING RECORD

Page 61 of 74

Institution._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

DATE TIME INITIALS

REMARKS

Housing Area._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

DATE TIME INITIALS

kEMARKS

INSTRUCTIONS: mAOvinesmidetisiccntaooilmpiysuntmoamfnaflntyreuesmoprfibneteshseripsnoetfcafoitvairvmilsehistio,ssuatisosnindrbgeeD.qumiTsicarheiiepndsltiaebniynainrediydtiirCaienlocstemiianvmcdeh.iictstaeHpteeeocmwtihaeealvmt heaborl,leurisisnfinmavgriaesitinettsosthlaioenreciitanimtaseltaditdthiuenitsimtohfnooe.rrmheCofuoersreariqcenuhcgettinaiomtrnleyeaa,·l thahOanevfyfeeincmbteeraryeskneisnhcrohecquehcluadkirrgeebdede,. made on this form at the time of each visit.
siuUnhsmnoinduageltder.a"esrnemtmeruacsrhukbsss"penaqcoueteenistthiernefqnouarmimreaedti.aonTndhcenounsmcuepbreenrrivnoigsfitnhagnisyoinfifnmimcaeatreteoonwn htdhouetry"e,DqmuaiierledysiRcsaeplceosctriadaflfo,hfoaSnredgDlirinesggcaiaptinloidnna"griyFvoeCrmaombDmriCeit6ft-ee2ex2p9mlafenomartbithoeranst,
When this form is completely filled, it should be maintained as a permanent record of the institution.
EXHIBIT B
DC6-22S

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 62 of 74
State of Florida Department of Corrections
Close Management Waiver

Identifying Inmate Information

DC#______________

Inmate Name----------------------------------

A. D Waiver of 48 Hour Waiting Period

I waive my right to the provision of Rule 33-601 stipulating that the inmate will be given 48 hours to prepare for a close management hearing and is not to commence prior to 48 hours unless waived. My signature below attest to the fact that I do so voluntarily and that I understand that the close management hearing may commence at the
discretion of the Institutional Classification Team Chairman.

B. D Waiver of Right to be Present at Close Management Hearing
I waive my right to be present at the close management hearing. My signature below attests to the fact that ·I do so voluntarily and that I am aware that the close management hearing will be conducted in my absence.

Inmate Signature Signature of Witnessing Employee

Date

Refusal of Right to be Present at Close Management Hearing

The inmate identified in Section above refused to appear at the Close Management Hearing

and refused to affix his signature to: Section A. D

Section B. D

My signature attests to the fact that the inmate was given the opportunity to be present at the close management hearing and that the inmate voluntarily refused to be present and refused to participate in attesting to that decision by signing this form.

Signature of Witnessing Employee

- - - - - - - - - - - - Date

Additional Comments:

DC0-265

Original: Inmate File

Copy: Central Office

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 63 of 74

·DRAFT State of Florida
Department of Corrections

Close Management Referral Assessment

To: Mental Health at - - - - - - From: Institutional Classification Team Re: Close Management Referral

Date: - - -I------'I- - -

Inmate: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DC#______ is being considered for placement in Close Management.

Please review this inmate's mental health record and recommend appropriate placement based on this inmate's vulnerability to mental health problems which may be exacerbated by prolonged segregation.

Institutional Classification Supervisor or Designee

·•

Mental Health Recommendations
Date Received: I I - - - - ' - - - - ' - - -
The mental health record for the above-named inmate was reviewed. A clinical interview was/was not indicated.
The following is recommended based upon the record review or the record review and clinical interview, as indicated above:

_ _ Unrestricted close management placement _ _ Close Management facility with outpatient mental health services _ _ Close Management is not recommended at this time due to inmate's
current placement or referral to an IMR or inpatient mental health unit. _ _ Close Management Plan required: _ _ Close Management plan not required. Comments:

Clinician Signature and Stamp
DC6-128

Date: ___/____;/___

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 64 of 74

STATE OF FLORIDA- DEPARTMENf OF CORRECTIONS INDIVIDUALIZED SERVICE PLAN (PART I)
DSM DIAGNOSIS: AXIS I

DRAFT
DATE:
Revised:

AXIS II
AXIS III
AXIS IV AXISV PATIENT STRENGTHS: Strengths which may affect his/her success in achieving treatment goals. (Write dates when changes are made.) Date:

·,
PATIENT LIMITATIONS: Limitations which may affect his/her success in achieving treatment goals. Date:

0.
Inmate Name_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
DC#_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ RIS _ __
Date of Birth_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Institution_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Individualized Senice Plan (Part I)
DC4-643A Part I of m

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 65 of 74

STATE OF FLORIDA- DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS INDIVIDUALIZED SERVICE PLAN (PART IT)

DATE: -----------------------

PROBLEM #___PAGE:

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION:,_______________________________________________________

LONG-TERM GOALS AND TARGET D A T E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DATE

SHORT-TERM GOALS AND TARGET DATES

STATUS

INTERVENfiON (number and frequency)

RES PONS IDLE PERSON

.

·,
STATUS: A-ACTIVE C-ACCOMPLISHED R-REVISED D-DISC'ONT. INUED I-INACTIVE
''
Irunate Name_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
DC#_______________rus_ _ __
Date of Birth,____________________ Institution,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
m Indhidualized Senice Plan (Part
DC4-643A Part II of III

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 66 of 74

STATE OF FLORIDA- DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
INDIVIDUALIZED SERVICE PL~ (PART Ill)

TYPE TYPE TYPE TYPE TYPE TYPE

TITLE INMATE

SIGNATUREIINITIALS

DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE INIT INIT INIT INIT INIT INIT

PSYCHIATRISf

MENTAL HEALTH RN
.
PSYCHOLOGISf

PSYCH. SPECIALISf

ACTIVITY THERAPISf
·, CORR. OFFICER
REVIEW TYPE CODE: I=INITIAL 14=14-DAY REVIEW 30=30-DAY REVIEW 90=90-DAY REVIEW 180=180-DAY REVIEW S=SPONTANEOUSUPDATE YOUR SIGNATURE ABOVE INDICATES THAT YOU HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OR REVIEW OF THIS SERVICE PLAN
Inmate Name ----------------------------DC# -------------------- RJS Date of Birth ------------------------------
Institution
Indhidualized-S-e-rv-ic-e-P~la-n-(-Pa-r-t I-ID------------------DC4-643A Part III of III

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 67 of 74

1mate Name:._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
>C#:.~-------------------------------
lstitution: :ell Number:._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

DAILY RECORD OF SEGREGATION

This is sheet number

on this inmate's current confinement.

Initial date of confinement..__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _•

DRAFT

Date Confined._ _ _ _ _ _ ___ Weight______

D Datae tDeisc.h,a-rg,e-d-._ ,-_ --_ -:_ --_ --_--_--_-

Weight_ _ __ _ Weight._____

Da!o

Tvoe Confinement

Diet Soecifv

Time AM PM
M1 PM M1 PM M1 PM M1 PM M1 PM M1 PM M1 PM AM PM M1 PM AM PM M1 PM M1 PM M1 PM M1 PM M1 PM M1 PM

CUSTODIAL DEPARTMENT

Physical

Appearance

Attitude

---

-

Remarks

Initials

Date

Hour

MEDICAL DEPARTMENT

Condition

Action and Remarks

Initials

•'
-

-

-

JC6-229

·page I of2
;'

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 68 of 74

Inmate Name·
Cell Number: Item Inspected
Walls Window Pillow Mattress Bunk Sink Ceiline Floor Toilet Door Lockinl! Device
Li~ht
Inmate's Signature:
Officer's Signature:

Date Inmate Entered:
Condition (Good, Sot., Poor)

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Cell Inspection
Number·

Noted Discrepancies

Date Inmate Exited:
Condition (Good, Sat., Poor)

Noted Discrepancies

Inmate's Signature:

Cell Number Item Inspected
Walls Window Pillow Mattress Bunk Sink Ceiling Floor Toilet Door Locking Device Light Inmate's Signature:

Date Inmate Entered:
Condition (Good, Sa~. Poor)

Officer's Signature:

Officer's Signature:

Noted Discreoancies

DRAFT

Correctional Institution

Date Inmate Exited:
Condition (Good, Sa~. Poor)

Noted Discrepancies

-

.

Inmate's Signature:

-

Officer's Signature:

Cell Number: Item Inspected
Walls Window Pillow Mattress Dunk Sink Ceiling Floor Toilet Door Lockin2 Device Li2ht Inmate's Signature:
Officer's Signature:

Date Inmate Entered:
Condition (Good, Sat, Poor)

Noted Discrepancies

Date Inmate Exited:
Condition (Good, Sat, Poor)

Noted Discrepancies

Inmate's Signature: Officer's Signature:

Cell Number Item Inspected
Walls Window Pillow Mattress Bunk Sink Ceiling Floor Toilet Door Locking Device Light Inmate's Signature:
Officer's Signature:

Date Inmate Entered:
Condition (Good, Sat, Poor)

Noted Discrepancies

Date Inmate Exited:
Condition (Good, Sat, Poor)

Noted Discrepancies

Inmate's Signature: Officer's Signature:

This form will be completed when ao For open population lnmatos housed

!ornate Is loltlally placed In a coonoemeo!/close maoagemeot In a secure housing unit, this form will be completed when an

cell and each time a cell cbaoge takes place. Inmate Is Initially placed In the cell aod tach

This time

form a cell

will be maintained with change takes place.

the

DC6-229

form

for

connoemeo!/CM

Inmates.

DC6-221

,.

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 69 of 74

Date Reviewed

!INSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION TEAM I STATE CLASSIFICATION OFFICE REVIEW

Action

Remarks - Disposition

Signature

l
ICT's REVIEW

Signature

Date

Tl'ISTRUCfiONS: Complete this form in one original only on every inmate placed in either administrative or disciplinary confinement or close management. If the inmate is in administrative or disciplinary confmement, maintain this form in the housing area for one week, then forward to the ICT for review, and then forward to Classification for filing in the institutional inmate record. If the inmate is in close management, maintain this form in the housing area for thirty (30) days. After each 30 day review by the ICT, forward to Classification to be filed in the institutional inmate record. If inmate is remaining in confmement, fill out the heading of another form on this inmate.

Weigh inmate on entry to confmement, once a week thereafter, and on discharge. Custodial department "physical appearance" and "attitude" columns- indicate by one of the following and add additional comments to explain:
Excellent, Very Good, Good, Satisfactory, Fair, Poor, Unsatisfactory

REMARKS: Full and complete remarks are required In the following situations:

Custodial Department- Officer in Charge

Medical

I. Unusual occurrences in inmate's behavior;

1. Immediate health care services (code

2. It becomes necessary to notify the medical department;

#1);

3. It becomes necessary to restrict any privilege or remove any

2. Call out for a physician's appointment

clothing, bedding, or comfort item for the inmate's own

or laboratory, x-ray, tests, etc., (code

protection or to prevent destruction;

#2);

4. If inmate refuses food; 5. ~ell changes;

3. No action required (code #3); 4. Referral to mental health (code #4);

6. Release to population;

5. Co-pay, if inmate requests care which

7. To further explain a notation made under "physical appearance" or

results in a health care encounter at that

"attitude."

time (code #5);

6. Medication administration (code #6).

ADDITIONAL REMARKS:

Mental Health
1. Refer to medical for follow-up of physical health related complaint (codeMH 1);
2. Immediate mental health care services needed due to urgent or emergent concerns (code MH 2);
3. No action required (code MH 3); 4. Schedule for nonemergent follow-up by mental health (code MR
4).

Classification I. At each review of
the case; 2. On release from
confmement.

'

DC6-229

Page 2 of2 ,.

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001
DRAFT

Report of Close Management

State of Florida

Department of Corrections

DC#:

l_ Inmate Name:

Facility:

I. 0 Referral for Assi~ment to Close Management

/

0 Review of Inmate's Assignment to Close Management Status

Date of Current Initial assignment to CM: Close Management Status Level:
Rcconunendations/Conunenr:/:\

Date Assigned to Current CM level:

Page 70 of 74

Signature:

Date:

II.

Notice of Close Management Review: You are hereby notified that you shall receive a review by the Institutional

Classification Team no earlier than 48 hours from the time this notice is delivered. You aie pennittcd to submit information

0 0 to the Team verbally or in writing regarding:

the consideration ofplacement on Close Management Status or the

status of your assignment to Close Management

Notice Delivered by:

Date:

, at

a.mlp.m.

III. Institutional Classification Team Action:

Date:

Staff Assistance Provided:

0 Yes

0 No

Findings:

, at

a.mlp.m.

Action Recommended:
0 Assigned to Close Management I 0 Assigned to Close Management II 0 Assigned to Close Management Ill 0 Disapproved for placement in Close Management 0 Continue current Close Management status

0 Release from Close Management status 0 Reassign from Close Management! to Close Management 0 Reassign from Close Management II to Close Management _ _ _ 0 Reassign from Close Management IIIIo Close Management _ _ _

Member
IV. SCOReview:

Member
0 Approve

Member
0 Disapprove

0 Modify

Signature:

Date:

DC6-233C

Distribution: White - Centr2l Office

Pink - Inmate File

Canory- Inmate

Green · Inmate

Poge I & 2

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 71 of 74

State of Florida Department of Corrections
CLOSE MANAGEMENT I & II CANTEEN ORDER

DRAFT

You are hereby advised that should you complete and submit this form and then refuse delivery, you are subject to disciplinary action and loss of canteen privileges! This order will not be processed if this section is not filled out completely and accurately. Any disciplinary report received between the time this order is submitted and delivery shall result in disapproval of those requested items.

SIGNATURE:
PRINTED NAME: ----------------------------- DC#:
CELL#: - - - - - - - - - - - DOB (yy/rnrnldd):

TAXABLE(¥) YES (N)NO
NON-FOOD ITEMS (LIMIT 5) LIMIT 1 EACH EXCEPT AS NOTED

FOOD ITEMS (LIMIT 51

ITEM DESCRIPTION

PRICE QTY

POSTAGE STAMPS (max .34
25) (N)
No. 10 ENVELOPES (max .48
1 PK OF 25 (Y)
NOTEBOOK PAPER (max 1.33
2 PKS) (200 Sheets) (Y)
SHOWER SHOES MD M .80 SHOWER SHOES LG M .80

SHOWER SHOES

.80

EXTRA LARGE M

WHITE ENVELOPES

.42

1Ox13 5PK (Y)

SECURITY PENS (Y)

.74

DENTURE ADHESIVE (N) 3.90

HAIR BRUSH NO HANDLE 1.17

(Y)

SOAPDISH M

.34

IVORYSOAP M

.56

TOOTHPASTE M

1.10

DENTAL FLOSS LOOPS 2.82

(Y)

ANTI-PERSPIRANT (Y)

2.48

AM/FM CLEAR RADIO (Y) 17.74

HEADPHONES M

11.98

BATIERIES AA 2PK (Y) 1.34 BATIERIES AAA 2PK M 1.34

TOTAL REC'D

ITEM DESCRIPTION
SALTINES 10=11TEM (N) PEANUT BUTIER SQZR 5=11TEM (N} CRUNCHY CHEEZE DOODLE (N) PLAIN CHIP (N)
SNICKER BAR (Y)
COOKIES- CHOC CHIP (N) E-Z DIGBY BAG CANDY (Y) HONEY BUN (Y)

PRICE QTY
.07
.30
.18
.18 .58 .49
.67
.52

..

TOTAL REC'D

ORDER RECEIVED BY: DC NUMBER ORDER DELIVERED BY:

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 72 of 74

State of Florida Department of Corrections
CLOSE MANAGEMENT III CANTEEN ORDER

DRAFT

You are hereby advised that should you complete and submit this form and then refuse delivery, you are subject to disciplinary action and loss of canteen privileges! This order will not be processed if this section is not filled out completely and accurately. Any disciplinary report received between the time this order is submitted and delivery shall result in disapproval of those requested items.

SIGNATURE:
PRINTED NAME: ----------------------------- DC#:
CELL#: - - - - - - - - - - - DOB (yy/rnrn!dd):

TAXABLE( YES (N)NO

NON-FOOD ITEMS (LIMIT 5) LIMIT 1 EACH EXCEPT AS NOTED

·.

FOOD ITEMS LIMIT 10

ITEM DESCRIPTION
POSTAGE STAMPS (max
25J (N) No. 10 ENVELOPES (max 1 PKOF 25M NOTEBOOK PAPER (max
2 PKS) (200 Sheets) M SHOWER SHOES MD M SHOWER SHOES LG M

PRICE QTY
.34
.48
1.33
.80 .80

TOTAL REC'D

ITEM DESCRIPTION
SALTINES 10=1 ITEM (N) PEANUT BUTTER SQZR 5=11TEM (N) CRUNCHY CHEEZE DOODLE (N) PLAIN CHIP (N)
SNICKER BAR (Y)

PRICE QTY
.07
.30
.18
.18 .58

SHOWER SHOES EXTRA LARGE (Y) WHITE ENVELOPES 1Ox13 SPK (Y) SECURITY PENS (Y)
DENTURE ADHESIVE (N) HAIR BRUSH NO HANDLE
(Y)
SOAPDISH M
IVORYSOAP M
TOOTHPASTE (Y)
DENTAL FLOSS LOOPS
(Y)
ANTI-PERSPIRANT M
AM/FM CLEAR RADIO (Y)
HEADPHONES (Y)
BATIERIES AA 2PK M
BATIERIES AAA 2PK (Y)

.80
.42
.74 3.90 1.17
.34 .56 1.10 2.82
2.48 17.74 11.98 1.34 1.34

COOKIES- CHOC CHIP .49

(N)

E-Z DIGBY BAG CANDY .67

(Y)

HONEY BUN (Y)

.52 ·,

..

TOTAL REC'D

ORDER RECEIVED BY: DC NUMBER
ORDER DELIVERED BY:
n r L ..,~,

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 73 of 74

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFF1CE OF HEALTH SERVICES
BEHAVIORAL RISK ASSESSMENT

DRAFT

Instructions: To be completed on each CM inmate, after CM placement, as follows: \'.'it!Un 14 days of CM placement; within 30 days of the initial assessment; within 120 days of the initial assessment; every 180 days thereafter; and within 72 hours of a critical event (escape, escape attempt, homicide, homicide attempt, physical assault, physical assault attempt, suicide atteip.pt). Record rating for each risk factor; multiply the rating by the assigned weight to determine score for each factor; sum all scores to obtain total score. Any risk factor with a rating of 2 or higher must be addressed on the individualized service plan. The total score and individual risk factor ratings/scores are intended to be used with other pertinent information for service planning and administrative decision making. Original to be filed in the health record, with copy to the confidential section of the master (classification) file.
Legend for translating total score to potential risk level: 1-14 =mild; 15-29 =moderate; 30-60 =severe;> 60 =very severe.
S-Grade:_ _ _ _ _ CM Level:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date Assigned to CM:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Dates ofCM level changes during current CM status (N/A if no change in level):_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____:_

RISK FACTOR
A. Major Axis I Disorder (Schizophrenia/Other Psychotic
Disorder/Bipolar Disorder/Major Depression):
0. No history. 1. Diagnosis is present, but symptoms in remission (well
controlled w/treatment). 2. Diagnosis is present with mild symptoms/impairment. 3. Diagnosis is present with moderate symptoms/impairment. B. Suicide Attemptsffhreats: 0. No history. 1. Pre-/postincarceration attempt within past three years;
threat within past year. 2. Pre-/postincarceration attempt within past two years; threat
within past six months. 3. Pre-/postincarceration attempt within past year; 4. threat within past thirty days.
c. Intentional Self-Injury (without suicide intent):
0. No history. 1. Pre-/postincarceration attempt within past three years;
threat within past year.
2. Pre-/postincarceration attempt within past two years; threat
within past six months.
3. Pre-/postincarceration attempt within past year; threat
within past 30 days.
D. Substance Abuse: 0. No history. 1. History of alcohol abuse or illegal drug use.
2. Use of illegal drugs in prison within past three years. 3. Trafficking illegal drugs in prison within past three years.

RATING
. .

WEIGHT 1 1 1 3

SCORE

Inmate Name_____________ DC#_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Race/Sex_ __
Date of Birth,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Institution._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

This fonn is not to be amended, revised, or altered without approval of the Deputy Director of Health Services Administration

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 241 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/04/2001 Page 74 of 74

RISK FACTOR

BEHAVIORAL RISK ASSESSMENT RATING WEIGHT SCORE

E. Predatory Behavior:

0. No history.

I. Coercion/intimidation behaviors within past two years.

2. Coercion/intimidation behaviors within past year.

3. Coercion/intimidation behaviors within past six months.

F. Threat to Safety of Others (acts or attempted acts of

\iolence which caused or could have caused injury,

including sexual assault/battery):

0. No history.

I. Acts or attempted acts of violence within past two years. 2. Acts or attempted acts ofviolence within past year.

4

3. Acts or attempted acts of violence within past six months.

G. Homicidal Behavior:

0. No history

I. Any pre-/postincarceration history of involvement in an

incident resulting in a death.

2. Any pre-/postincarceration incident causing death within the past two years.

5

3. Any incident causing death within the past year.

H. Threat to Institutional Security (e.g., serious property

damage/instigating; inciting or involvement in a riot;

trafficking in contraband; hostage-taking; or attempts to

commit above acts):

0. No history.

I. Disruption within past two years.

2. Disruption within past year.

4

3. Disruption within past six months.

I. Escape Threat:

0. No history.

I. Any history of escape/escape attempt.

2. Any escape/escape attempt within past two years.

5

3. An_y_ esca_lJe/escape attempt with pasty_ear.

J. Disruptive Behavior (documented pattern of conduct that

disrupts orderly institutional operations):

0. No history.

I. Pattern evident within past two years.

2. Pattern evident within past year. 3. Pattern evident within past six months.

3

Legend for Translating Total Score to Potential Risk Level: 1-14 =Mild 15-29 =Moderate 30-60 = Severe > 60 = Very Severe
Inmate Name._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ DC#_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Race/Sex_ __ Date of Birth____________ Institution _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
DC4-'29 Page 2 orz

TOTAL SCORE
This fonn is not to be amended, revised, or altered without approval of the Deputy Director of Health Services Administration

 
 ,. Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 428 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2002 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 97-2806-CIV-HUCK MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROWN

MARK OSTERBACK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MICHAEL W. MOORE, et al.,
Defendants.

O]C r-ILED by

D.C.

FEB 25 2002
CLARENCE MADDOX
S-CLERK U.S- DIST. CT. D. OF FLA-- MIAMI

ORDER
The parties, at the request of the Court, having agreed upon a Notice to Class Members concerning contact with the Court, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged that
1. The Court approves the attached Notice to Class Members. 2. The defendants will distribute the Notice to all inmates in Close Management Units and further agree to provide a copy of the Notice to all inmates incoming to the Close Management system beginning five (5) business days after the entry of this Order and continuing for a period of a month following the entry of this Order. 3. The defendants will translate the Notice into Spanish, in-house, for Spanish-speaking inmates. 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to sign and date the Notice and return an original to counsel for the defendants in order that counsel may carry out paragraphs two (2) and (3) of the Order.

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 428 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2002 Page 2 of 4

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Miami-Dade County,

Florida this

d~
day of

Paul C. Huck Judge United States District Court
cc: Charles Fahlbush, Esq. Randall C. Berg, Jr., Esq. Peter M. Siegel, Esq. Christopher Jones, Esq.

2

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 428 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2002 Page 3 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 97-2806-CIV-RUCK MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROWN

MARK OSTERBACK, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MICHAEL W. MOORE, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

------------------~----------)

NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS

On December 27, 2001, this approved the settlern nt of the Close Management litigation by entering as the Order of the Court, the Revised Offer of Judgment.
The purpose of this Notice is to advise all cla s members
currently assigned to Close Management that the time fo:c filing objections has ended and the Court will take no acti objections rec.eived after December 26, 2001.
The purpose of this Notice is also to advise al class

and that you should not contact the Court by letter, r otherwise, to ask the Court for assistance in resolving pr blerns you may experience while assigned to Close Management or ther problems you may encounter while in prison. However, if you believe that the Department of Corrections is not imp ementing

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 428 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2002 Page 4 of 4

particular provisions of the Revised Offer of Judgm t in a fair

and good faith manner consistent with its terms.

should use

the Department of Corrections' grievance process to ring your

particular concerns to the attention of the Departme t. If your

particular concerns are not resolved to your satisfa tion, you

should advise class counsel of your particular conce ns.

You may contact class counsel by writing to:

Peter M. Siegel, Esq. Randall C. Berg, Jr., Esq. Florida wustice Institute, Inc. 2870 First Union Financial Center 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2310

This Notice has been distributed pursuant to th Order of

the Court.

' 2002.

Cler ,

District

Southern District of

2

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 97-2806-CIV-HUCK MAGISTRATE JUDGE TURNOFF

MARK OSTERBACK, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MICHAEL W. MOORE, et al.,

)

)

Defendants. )

______________________________)

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TERMINATE REVISED OFFER OF JUDGMENT
AND PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY,
AND RESTORE CASE TO TRIAL CALENDAR AND
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A STATUS CONFERENCE Plaintiffs’ respond to Defendants’ Motion to Terminate Revised Offer of Judgment, and move to reopen discovery and restore this matter to the trial calendar, and move for a status conference, and state: I. The Reasons for the Osterback v. Moore Litigation For decades the courts have agreed that conditions of confinement which can only be characterized as foul, inhuman or in violation of basic concepts of decency violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment. See Laaman v.

Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. 269, 310 (D.N.H. 1977). Now, despite the two years of time afforded the Florida Department of Corrections to eliminate such conditions, the only fair characterization of the Close Management units operated by the Florida Department of Corrections is that they continue to be foul, inhuman and operated in violation of basic concepts of human decency.
The core of this action is Plaintiffs’ claim “that the defendants house inmates assigned to Close Management under conditions so harsh, atypical and punitive as to amount to Cruel and Unusual Punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Second Amended Complaint, § 1. Plaintiffs further alleged that the “conditions under which Close Management inmates are housed result in serious mental and physical deterioration.” Second Amended Complaint, § 2. Moreover, the conditions “pose a danger to the public since a large, although unknown number of inmates complete their sentence while on Close Management and are released directly from Close Management to the street.” Second Amended Complaint, § 3.
In sum: The effects of Close Management on the plaintiffs, and the Class they represent, are profound. Placement of prisoners with serious mental disorders on Close Management exacerbates their underlying mental disorders, induces psychosis, and increases the risk of suicide or other self-inflicted harm. Even mentally healthy prisoners are likely to develop mental illness after placement on Close Management. Second Amended Complaint, § 204.
2

In addition, for all Close Management inmates, the harsh
conditions “constitute a grossly exaggerated response to the
problems created by inmates whose behavior justifies heightened
security and bear no rational relationship to any legitimate
penological interest.” Second Amended Complaint, § 205.
In reports filed with this Court more than two years ago,
Plaintiffs’ experts opined that the conditions imposed on Close
Management inmates clearly ran afoul of the Eighth Amendment.
A. Craig Haney
Professor Craig Haney, with very extensive experience in
evaluating the psychological impact of isolation of prisoners,
summarized his opinions:
14. Prisoners who are confined in the Close Management Units that I toured and inspected are being subjected to extremely harsh treatment and deprived conditions of confinement. Long-term exposure to this kind of treatment and these particular conditions is not only psychologically painful—and the prisoners in these units are certainly in pain—but it is damaging and dangerous. Because of extreme nature of the treatment and deprivations inflicted in these units, the overall conditions and practices that prevail lack penological justification.
15. There appear to be an unusually high number of mentally ill and otherwise psychologically vulnerable prisoners in the Close Management Units I toured and inspected and from which my representative sample of interviewees was selected. Whatever the psychological screening and monitoring practices that are in operation in these facilities, if any, they have not been effective in diverting mentally ill and psychologically vulnerable prisoners from these units (for which they are uniquely unsuited). Nor have they properly identified those prisoners whose mental health or psychological stability
3

may have further deteriorated once confined to Close Management.
16. These unjustifiably harsh conditions of confinement appear to have existed in the Florida Department of Corrections for some time. There is evidence that Department of Corrections officials knew or should have known about the adverse psychological consequences of such confinement, yet did nothing to ameliorate these damaging conditions. Indeed, the unnecessarily punitive policies that prevail—ones that include not only extraordinary levels of deprivation but management control techniques that are dangerous and wildly out of proportion to the offense that provokes them—can only have existed with the full knowledge and support of many correctional officials in the state.
Professor Haney’s conclusion was that:
48. The Florida Close Management Units I evaluated subject prisoners to extremely deprived, restrictive, and oppressive living conditions. Prisoners in these units lack meaningful opportunities for programming of any kind. They are isolated in the most total and complete way possible in modern correctional practice— punished for talking, prohibited from congregating with one another, visit under such limited conditions that most of them discourage visitors of any kind (many of whom would be required to travel long distances for non-contact visits). They are significantly more deprived and oppressive than those in many other institutions with which I am familiar, and certainly worse than conditions in one notorious facility that the federal judge who examined it concluded “may press against the outer bounds of what most humans can psychologically tolerate.”
49. Not surprisingly, there was an extremely high level of psychological trauma and symptoms of psychopathological reactions to isolated confinement manifested by the prisoners whom I interviewed. In addition to this isolation-related trauma, these units also appear to be housing an unusually high percentage of mentally-ill and psychologically-vulnerable prisoners who are uniquely unsuited for such harsh confinement. There were also widespread complaints voiced by prisoners about rampant overuse of force, primarily in the form of excessive pepper spraying for relatively trivial infractions. Prisoners in these units appear to feel desperate
4

and hopeless in part because they believe there is no possible or realistic way out of their current level of harsh confinement; indeed, many of them have spent many years living under such deprived conditions. Finally, virtually nothing is done to prepare Close Management prisoners for the extraordinarily difficult transition from such degraded and unusual living conditions into the freeworld.
50. There is no penological justification possible for these extreme practices. Continued operation of Close Management, as presently constituted in the Florida Department of Corrections, appears to reflect deliberate indifference to the psychological health of the prisoners confined therein.
Report of Professor Craig Haney, filed September 21, 2001 (Docket
Entry 233, Exhibit F.) (Paragraph Numbers from Report, footnotes
omitted).
B. Chase Riveland
Mr. Chase Riveland, a corrections professional with vast
experience, first explained that the Close Management regime of the
Florida Department of Corrections is unique in several ways,
including:
11. c. The conditions under which the CM inmates are kept, particularly the CM I and CM II inmates, are as austere, or more austere, than any ‘supermax’ or administrative segregation program in the country.
11. d. The only clear behavioral standard that inmates can identify that would contribute to their ability to move out of CM is that they must be free of disciplinary reports for at least six months. All other criteria appear to be the subjective decisions of the local and central office classification staff.
11. e. The number of inmates found in CM status with documented past or present mental health problems are startlingly high. Over one-half of the inmates interviewed had documentation in their files of past or
5

present mental health problems, and a high percentage of those are taking prescribed medication for those problems. Most jurisdictions prohibit such persons from their extended control settings, particularly those on psychotropic medications.
Mr. Riveland then opined that:
25. It is my opinion that the impact of these sterile environments, particularly on inmates who have not been placed there based on actual misbehavior while in prison (such as inmates placed on Close Management based on preprison actions) and those that are mentally ill or intellectually limited, is very destructive. The absence of social interaction, the withdrawal of most humane privileges, the absence of reasonable stimulus, the isolation, and the stigma of being housed in an environment thought to hold but the worst-of-the-worst all blend into a setting that probably will cause a deterioration of most human beings.
Mr. Riveland further opined that the Department of Corrections
could improve its operation of the Close Management program in the
following ways:
32. a. Develop Rules that are more specific regarding which inmates may be placed in Close Management and for what specific behaviors, limiting those reasons to major rule violators and dangerous individuals.
32. b. Chronic or acute mentally ill inmates should be excluded from this group.
32. c. ‘Nuisance’ inmates, those with multiple minor violations should be excluded from this group.
32. d. The Rules should be specific as to the CM level the inmate will be in based on the potential threat the inmate’s behavior poses to the safety and security of the institution.
32. e. Other than a brief orientation/observation period, inmates should be allowed privileges similar to general population, other than separation from other inmates if that is necessary for the protection of inmates or staff.
6

32. f. Specific timeframes — much more frequently than present -- should be adopted for review for placement at a lower CM level, or return to general population. The presumption being that CM is not a punitive status and that the inmate should be moved to a lower level—to include general population--as soon as they no longer present a threat to the institution.
32. g. The CM I level should be reserved for only the inmates who have displayed violent, assaultive, escape, or inciting a disturbance behavior.
32. h. CM II and III should be patterned after the program operation at Bay Correctional Institution-but with specific timeframes for review for movement to a lower level or to general population.
Report of Mr. Chase Riveland, filed September 21, 2001 (Docket
Entry 233, Exhibit D) (Paragraph Numbers from Report).
C. Seymour Halleck
Dr. Seymour Halleck, a psychiatrist with extensive experience
evaluating and treating prisoners, reported that:
. . . it should not be surprising that the majority of the people I saw were mentally ill. The illness these individuals demonstrated, however, were so severe and so painful to them that I was not prepared for the degree of suffering I saw. All but a handful of the seventy-seven inmates I saw were in deep distress. These are not individuals who just happened to have a mental disease and happened to be in prison. Rather they are individuals whose illnesses were created or exacerbated by the conditions of close management. Some inmates became ill for the first time while in CM. Others who had been quite ill on the outside managed to control their illness and make fair adjustments prior to coming to CM. When exposed to the stresses of close management their illnesses became more florid.
Report of Dr. Seymour Halleck, filed September 21, 2001(Docket No.
233, Exhibit E, page 15). Dr. Halleck went on to report that:
The purpose of any highly controlled unit like CM is to restrain or incapacitate offenders who are likely to hurt
7

themselves or others. It is basically a safety measure. Although the intentions of those that restrain or incapacitate may be to do no harm, inmates will experience lost freedoms as psychologically painful. Restraint will have a punitive quality whether intended or not. Clearly the best security units operate by using just enough restraint to guarantee safety. Use of additional punishment to accompany restraint serves absolutely no correctional purpose. The problem with the Florida Department of Corrections’ Close Management system is that it uses severe punishment of inmates such as gassing, teasing, writing people up for little reason, and sensory deprivation, not for reasons of control or safety but as a form of mindless retribution. The degree of excessive restraints or punishments put upon individuals in the CM unit is unnecessarily creating serious mental problems for inmates.
Halleck Report, page 20.
Dr. Halleck’s Report concluded with a series of recommenda-
tions, including:
1. There should be a constant moving towards an attitude that discomforts imposed upon inmates for purposes of restraint or incapacitation are sufficient. It should be the philosophy of staff that additional punishment which does not serve safety purposes should not be perpetrated upon inmates unless they have seriously violated rules.
2. Mentally ill patients must be provided the quality of treatment that is provided to mentally ill persons in other settings. This means timely and effective treatment with possible release to population or long term treatment units rather than punishment units.
3. The Department of Corrections needs to spell out in detail why an inmate will be sent to close management, what criteria will be used for this assignment, and what criteria will be used for determining how the individual will get out of CM. The rules need to be made clear, they need to be communicated to the inmates, and they need to be followed.
Halleck Report, page 23.
Finally, Dr. Halleck noted that:
8

Of all of the deficiencies in the program which I have enumerated above, the one which I found most distressing and most dangerous to the community, is the practice of releasing inmates directly from CM to the free community. Nearly every inmate should be living in a relatively nonrestrictive prison unit during the last few months of his sentence. Here he should receive counselling, vocational guidance, and other planning to help him adjust on the outside. The practice of releasing seriously mentally ill patients on medication from CM to the community needs to be modified either by transferring these individuals to a less restrictive hospital unit before they go home or by providing a program of effective counselling within the CM unit. The former solution is of course the better one.
Halleck Report, page 24, Docket No. 233.
II. Defendants’ Response to the Litigation
Defendants’ response to the litigation was to propose a
judgment which, inter alia, provided the Department of Corrections
with two years in which to remedy the obvious problems evident in
the close management units. The Department’s plan included
consolidation of the then existing Close Management units,
affording close management inmates a limited set of the rights and
privileges afforded other inmates, more extensive mental health
screening and services, and more centralized and consistent review
of close management status decisions.
The Department has failed to live up to each and every promise
made to resolve this litigation. Consolidation has not taken place
as set forth in the Revised Offer of Judgment. While rights and
privileges exist on paper, many inmates are deprived of those
rights and privileges by ad hoc rule-making, arbitrary decisions,
9

and the failure of staff to implement the Revised Offer of Judgment in good faith. Likewise, while there has been some improvement in mental health screening and services, the existing services fall far, far short of meaningfully addressing the needs of close management inmates. The idea of centralized and consistent review of close management status decisions has clearly fallen by the wayside as the number of close management inmates has grown by nearly 50% in the last year.
In addition to the general failure to implement the Revised Offer of Judgment in a way that would meaningfully resolve the problems which led to this litigation, the level of abuse, intimidation, and retaliation has clearly increased over the last two years.
Nor has the Department shown any interest in working with the Plaintiffs to seek ways to resolve problems. During the course of the two year implementation period, the Department has never seen fit to discuss any proposed deviations from the Revised Offer of Judgment with the Plaintiffs. Instead, during the two year implementation period, Plaintiffs’ complaints about the operation of the close management units were met with one of two responses: (1) “[a]s you know, the department has until October 1, 2003, to fully implement the Revised Offer of Judgment. . . Thus, your complaint appears premature” or (2) “your request does not rise to
10

the level of a constitutional violation and is outside the scope of
the Revised Offer of Judgment.”1
III. There Are Current, Ongoing Violations of the Eighth Amendment for Which Prospective Injunctive Relief Is Necessary — the Revised Offer of Judgment Should Be Set Aside and the Matter Restored to the Trial Calendar
Plaintiffs agree that consistent with the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, injunctive relief can only be continued upon a showing
of current violations of federal constitutional rights for which
prospective injunctive relief is necessary.2 The Plaintiffs, after
a suitable time for discovery,3 are prepared to prove the existence
1. Defendants’ claim that plaintiffs have only complained about Close Management conditions on isolated occasions is simply not true. Over the course of the two year implementation period, Plaintiffs’ counsel have written to Defendants’ counsel approximately 85 times. Defense counsel has responded about 50 times, and of those responses, at least 20 have been made more than six months later. It is also fair to say that with very few exceptions, none of the responses made by Defendants have been positive. In addition, the Court is aware of, and can take judicial notice of, the numerous pro se filing alleging a wide-range of violations of the Revised Offer of Judgment
2. Defendants’ argument that the Revised Offer of Judgment should be terminated for failure to make the findings required by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1), is the epitome of bad faith. Defendants drafted the Revised Offer of Judgment. Now, they tell the Court that the Court erred in entering the very judgment they proposed. The proposition that a party who deliberately leads a court into error is not entitled to relief needs no citation of authority.
3. Discovery is necessary because the Defendants have limited the ability of the Plaintiffs to monitor and evaluate their progress to the bare minimum offered in the Revised Offer of Judgment and have made no effort ask for input by the Plaintiffs or to otherwise cooperate in an effort to improve the Close Management system, other than to allow the Plaintiffs to submit written comments with reference to possible changes in the Close Management Rules.
11

of present, ongoing violations of constitutional rights. The preliminary reports of Dr. Seymour Halleck, Dr. Craig Haney, and Mr. Chase Riveland, filed with this Response and Motion, and summarized below, all attest to the fact that most of the problems that prompted this litigation, and which the Defendants promised to remedy during their two year implementation period, still exist. The manner in which the Close Management units of the Florida Department of Corrections still operate continues to cause mental illness where there was no mental illness before or to aggravate pre-existing mental illness. Conditions are still foul, inhuman and in violation of basic concepts of human decency.
A. Craig Haney Professor Haney, while acknowledging certain improvements (Second Report of Professor Craig Haney, ¶¶ 12-14), found that many very serious problems remain which still inflict gratuitous pain and suffering, and place prisoners at grave risk of long-term psychological damage. Report, ¶ 15. Among the problems Professor Haney identified were (1) large numbers of prisoners who report being on CM status for many years, years far in excess of what can be penologically justified, years long past the point in time when psychological deterioration would be expected to occur (Second Report, ¶ 16), (2) a policy of maximizing the deprivation and punitive control inflicted on prisoners coupled with a lack of meaningful activity for prisoners on CM I and very limited
12

activities for prisoners on CM 2(Second Report, ¶ 17) and (3) extreme levels of deprivation and idleness (Second Report, ¶22).
According to Professor Haney, “the indices of psychological trauma and psychopathological symptoms of extreme isolation that I saw manifested in the prisoners I interviewed continued to be extremely high and, for some, dangerously severe.” Second Report, ¶ 24. In addition to the continuation of problems Professor Haney observed in 2001, it appeared that problems relating to excessive use of chemical agents and excessive writing of disciplinary reports had increased in the last two years. Second Report, ¶¶ 2831. Moreover, the use of Florida State Prison (and Union Correctional Institution) to house those Close Management inmates most at risk can best be described as an abject failure. Second Report, ¶¶ 33-38. The same lack of concern for the mental health needs of inmates was evident in the housing of female Close Management inmates at Lowell Correctional Institution. Second Report, ¶ 39. Professor Haney’s conclusion, that “too little of significance has changed, too much of the inhumane regime remains intact, and several important problems appear to have gotten worse” (Second Report, ¶ 40) cries out for further relief in this matter.
B. Chase Riveland Mr. Riveland’s Report, after identifying many of the changes resulting from the Revised Offer of Judgment, notes that “the life of an inmate on CM I has changed very little from the visits made
13

in 2001.” Expert Report of Chase Riveland, ¶ 14. In 2001, Mr.
Riveland stated that “the amount of spray and gas used throughout
the system is excessive.” By 2003, the use, and threats to use gas,
had grown worse. Expert Report of Chase Riveland, ¶¶ 15 & 16.
Mr. Riveland’s earlier opinion that inmates were assigned, or
retained on, Close Management in an inappropriate manner, was only
reinforced by his 2003 prison visits. He opined that:
. . . little has changed with the FDOC use of Close Management. Many inmates interviewed have either been placed or retained on Close Management for rules violations having nothing to do with violence, serious contraband possession, possession of weapons, gang leadership, or, attempted or actual escape. ‘Catchall’ phrases governing placement in Close Management such as: “A history of disciplinary action or institutional adjustment reflecting an inability to live in general inmate population without disrupting the operation of the institution; . . .” allow nearly any inmate receiving a disciplinary report to be placed in CM. Many of the inmates found in CM in FDOC are dealt with in other jurisdictions through disciplinary hearings and finite and determinate periods of time (for example, 30 or 60 days) in disciplinary segregation, then returned to general population. Using Wisconsin and Ohio (both of whom have been the recipients of intervention by Federal courts): both exclude mentally ill inmates and both contain only those inmates who have been violent, serious escape risks, and those that have been leaders in serious institutional disturbances.
Expert Report of Chase Riveland, ¶ 20.
Conditions under which CM I and CM II inmates are kept
continue to be “are as austere, or more austere, than any
‘supermax’ or administrative segregation program in the country.”
Expert Report of Chase Riveland, ¶ 21. The sterile environment,
particularly for “those that are mentally ill or intellectually
14

limited, is very destructive. The absence of social interaction, the withdrawal of most humane privileges, the absence of reasonable stimulus, the isolation, and the stigma of being housed in an environment thought to hold but the worst-of-the-worst all blend into a setting that probably will cause a deterioration of most human beings.” Expert Report of Chase Riveland, ¶ 25. Mr. Riveland concluded (Expert Report of Chase Riveland, ¶ 26) by stating that:
My opinion of the FDOC Close Management program has not changed since my 2001 visits. Generally accepted correctional practices are not being adhered to. No correctional objective is being served. No legitimate penalogolical objective can be established for the extremely austere conditions for extended periods of time and for such large numbers of inmates. The conditions at there best are inhumane.
C. Dr. Seymour Halleck Dr. Halleck Preliminary Report notes that “notwithstanding the reality that some changes have been made, the C. M. environment at all of the institutions I visited remains one which consistently raises serious threats to the C. M. inmates’ mental health and sometimes to their physical health.” Report, ¶ 5. While the level of sensory deprivation has diminished, “fear of the correctional officers has grown more prominent in the past two years. Report ¶ 6. In sum, his “overall assessment” of the mental health of the inmates he saw in 2003 “was that they were no better but slightly worse than the inmates” he saw in 2001. Report, ¶ 12 IV. Specific Facts Entitling Plaintiffs to Relief
15

In addition to the finding of Professor Haney, Dr. Halleck, and Mr. Riveland, Plaintiffs believe that at a trial, the evidence would show that:
1. Although the Revised Offer of Judgment purported to limit prisons with Close Management units to Florida State Prison, Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, Charlotte Correctional Institution, and Dade Correctional Institution, the Defendant has ignored that part of the agreement. As a result, Close Management units now exist at Florida State Prison, Union Correctional Institution, Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, Charlotte Correctional Institution, and Lowell Correctional Institution. There is, apparently, a plan to add an additional Close Management unit at yet another prison.
2. The Revised Offer of Judgment called for extensive mental health screening and services. Screening, and especially services, are minimal and inconsistent at best. While large numbers of Close Management inmates can only be described as seriously mentally ill, the methods by which the Close Management units operate continues to cause and/or contribute to the mental illness of the inmates confined in the Close Management units.
3. Security staff members do not treat the mentally ill inmates with the special consideration they need. The large majority of CM inmates at Florida State Prison, Union Correctional Institution and Lowell Correctional Institution have severe
16

psychological and psychiatric disorders and intensive treatment needs. Because of the severity of their disabilities, these inmates should not be housed in the harsh CM environment at all.
4. Security staff who supervise Close Management inmates are either not appropriately trained to recognize inmates who are mentally ill and the symptoms of their illnesses or, if they are trained, ignore their training.
5. Although Close Management units continue to operate as facilities for the mentally ill, staff do not respond to the needs of these inmates in a humane manner consistent with the special needs of the inmates housed there. Security staff routinely respond to manifestations of inmates’ psychological disorders with the use of chemical agents, with other physical abuse, with disciplinary reports, with verbal harassment, or with indifference. The environment at all of the prisons with Close Management units is not appropriate for mentally ill inmates.
6. A range of self-betterment and stimulation programming was identified in the Revised Offer of Judgment. While the activities setout in the Revised Offer of Judgment have, in general, been implemented, many Close Management are denied the right to participate in the activities called for by the Revised Offer of Judgment. Security staff accomplish this in two ways. First, many Close Management inmates are placed on disciplinary status for extended periods of time, sometimes stretching over
17

years. While on that status, they are deprived of all selfbetterment and stimulation programming. Second, Defendants have implemented (totally outside the terms of the Revised Offer of Judgment) what is called “suspension of privileges,” a process with no procedural safeguards which allows low level Correctional Officers to deny any or all of the rights and privileges set out in the Revised Offer of Judgment.4 As a result of these two factors, many Close Management inmates are housed for years without access to books, a radio, educational programming, family visitation, phone calls, T.V. or dayroom time, thus continuing the isolation and lack of simulation which is such a great contributor to the mental health problems of the inmates.
7. Inmates report that they are so desperate to leave Florida State Prison that they refuse prescription psychiatric medications in order to reduce their psych or “S” grade, a tactic they believe will enable them to obtain a transfer to another prison. Many of these prisoners are severely depressed or psychotic. By refusing anti-depressants they are risking their mental health and, possibly, their safety.
8. Security staff members constantly abuse inmates with verbal threats and taunts, use racial epithets, and chemical agents, such as pepper spray. This institutionally accepted and encouraged practice compromises the physical and psychological
4. See Exhibit D. 18

safety of Close Management inmates. Also, this unchecked use of force severely compromises the effectiveness of the available mental health services.
9. At Florida State Prison, inmates have been told that their psychological or “S” grade will not be lowered if they receive a disciplinary report or are the subject of chemical agents.5 Rather than exploring why mentally ill CM inmates are routinely disciplined and gassed, the prison administration has chosen to encourage these practices in a way that negatively impacts on mental health care. It is this type of refusal to acknowledge the mental health needs of CM inmates that demonstrates that Florida State Prison is not a suitable therapeutic environment. When Florida State Prison staff respond to what they perceive as an infraction, they make no inquiry as to whether an inmate’s behavior is a manifestation of mental illness and they routinely respond with force to behavior that inmates cannot control because of their mental illness.
10. Inmates who complain about CM conditions run a real and substantial risk of retaliation. Inmates report that writing a grievance may result in the use of chemical agents, refusal of food or placement on the management meal, and the writing of false disciplinary reports. Even if this is not true, the perception that it is true is so widespread as to adversely impact on the
5. See Exhibit E. 19

entire CM operation. The denial of food, for purposes of punishment and retaliation, is an issue that has arisen subsequent to the entry of the Revised Offer of Judgment. According to inmates, correctional officers, while engaging in this type of conduct, will make derogatory statements about the reforms supposedly adopted as a result of Osterback.
11. Inmates report that correctional officers often enforce local rules prohibiting inmates from talking to each other, even during dayroom activities, looking out their cell window to the outside, or standing at their door and looking out the cell door window, and will use chemical agents or loss of rights and privileges very quickly as a punishment.
12. None of the prisons housing Close Management inmates are air-conditioned. Nevertheless, at some prisons staff enforce local rules requiring all inmates to be fully dressed while in their cells even on stifling summer days.6
13. The adequacy of the in-cell heating systems at some prisons is doubtful. Nevertheless, Close Management inmates are not permitted to purchase winter clothing, such as sweatshirts, to combat the cold, or obtain extra blankets to keep warm. Nor are
6. See Exhibit F. 20

they permitted to purchase sneakers, gym shorts, or T-shirts to use during recreation periods.7
14. Inmates report that correctional officers will often deny Close Management inmates the right to recreation, use of the dayroom, and even meals.
15. Inmates who have been accused of an obscene or profane act (masturbating) are denied recreation because they are placed in the rec cages with their hands cuffed behind their backs. Likewise, inmate who have gotten into fights are kept in restraints during recreation.8
16. Many inmates have been assigned to Close Management for years and years. For many, particularly those at Florida State and Union Correctional Institution, it is the result of the environment where unsatisfactory behavior, corrective consultations, use of force, and disciplinary reports are a foregone conclusion.
17. Inmates (many of whom are mentally ill) continue to leave prison for the free-world from Close Management without any type of transition programming or assistance, thus putting all of us at risk.
7. Prior to the Revised Offer of Judgment, close management inmates could purchase these types of items from the canteen. There omission from the Revised Offer of Judgment was clearly an oversight by all parties. Nevertheless, utilizing its typical meanspirited approach to Close Management, the Defendants have refused remedy the problem.
8. See Exhibit G. 21

18. Inmates report that some Correctional Officers do their best to provoke inmates and, when inmates, who are locked in their cells, respond by talking back, they are subjected to unjustified punishment and retaliation.
22

V. Constitutional Violations Identified In Davenport v. DeRobertis, 844 F.2d 1310, 1313 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 908 (1989), the Court said: “the record shows, what anyway seems pretty obvious, that isolating a human being from other human beings year after year or even month after month can cause substantial psychological damage, even if the isolation is not total.” See Grassian, Psychological Effects of Solitary Confinement, 140 Am.J. Psychiatry 1450 (1983). “[M]any, if not most, inmates [in a CM-like unit] experience some degree of psychological trauma in reaction to their extreme social isolation and the severely restricted environmental stimulation.” Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146, 1235 (N.D.Cal. 1995). Because of that, inmates at high risk for suffering very serious or severe injury to their mental health should not be placed in a Close Management setting. “Such inmates are not required to endure the horrific suffering of a serious mental illness or major exacerbation of an existing mental illness before obtaining relief.” Madrid v. Gomez, supra, 889 F. Supp. at 1265 (citation omitted). Placement of a seriously mentally ill inmate in Close Management unit “is an Eighth Amendment violation in and of itself.” Jones’El v. Berge, 164 F. Supp. 2d 1096. 1116 (W.D. Wis. 2001). See also, Ruiz v. Johnson, 37 F. Supp. 2d 855, 914 (S.D. Tex. 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 243 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 2001), adhered to on remand, 154 F. Supp. 2d 975 (S.D. Tex. 2001).
23

Florida continues to house many inmates with pre-existing psychiatric illness, and many inmates vulnerable to psychiatric illness if confined in isolation, in its Close Management units. At least a third of the inmates currently confined in Close Management should not be maintained in Close Management, in accordance with Madrid and Jones’El. Yet, rather than meet the needs of its mentally ill inmates, evidence at trial would show that the Department of Corrections is expanding the use of Close Management.
For those inmates whose mental health status is not a disqualification, the wide range of abusive practices and restrictions, such as use of chemical agents, arbitrary deprivation of rights and privileges, lack of opportunity to engage in verbal communication with other inmates, all coupled with a regime of fear, intimidation and retaliation, serves no purpose other than to punish those assigned to Close Management. These gratuitous punitive practices, all of which have survived the changes mandated by the Revised Offer of Judgment, serve no legitimate penological purpose and have no place in a prison facility allegedly intended to house prisoners who must be separated from the general prison population for reasons of security.
Two years ago, the Plaintiffs argued that the Close Management Consolidation Plan, which consolidates the male Close Management units at three prisons, Santa Rosa Correctional
24

Institution, Charlotte Correctional Institution, and Florida State Prison, would be clearly detrimental to Close Management prisoners, pointing out that (1) two of the prisons, Santa Rosa Correctional Institution and Florida State Prison, have reputations for brutality which are borne out by the excessive use of chemical agents, as compared with other prisons housing Close Management inmates,9 (2) it makes both visiting and telephone contact that much more difficult because of the distances involved, and (3) it continues to allow defendants to house known mentally ill inmates under conditions which exacerbate their mental illness or to make those without any manisfistation of mental illness, mentally ill. Plaintiffs’ Partial Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 232. As evident from the recent reports of Drs. Haney and Halleck, and Mr. Riveland, the same problems continue to exist.
The arbitrary and ad hoc suspension of privileges, without any type of notice or opportunity for review, violates the due process requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 567-69, 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974).
VI. Request for Status Conference, Discovery and Trial
9. Rather than reduce the use of gas at Florida State Prison and Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, the Defendants increased the use of gas elsewhere.
25

Plaintiffs’ request a status conference for the purpose of setting discovery parameters and scheduling a trial date. See Cason v. Seckinger, 231 F.3d 777 (11th Cir. 2002).
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons Plaintiffs respectfully request that Defendants’ Motion be denied, and that, after a status conference, and the opportunity for discovery, the matter be scheduled for trial.
Respectfully submitted, Peter M. Siegel, Esq. Randall C. Berg, Jr., Esq. Florida Justice Institute, Inc. 2870 Wachovia Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2310 305-358-2081 305-358-0910 (FAX) pmsigel@bellsouth.net
and
26

Christopher Jones, Esq. Florida Institutional Legal
Services, Inc. 1010-B N.W. 8th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 352-375-2494 352-271-4366 (FAX) cmjfils@bellsouth.net Attorneys for Plaintiffs
______________________________ By: Peter M. Siegel, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 227862 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correction copy of the foregoing document was furnished to Jason Vail, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs, PL-01 The Capitol, Tallahassee, Fla. 32399-1050, by First Class U.S. Mail on January 8, 2004.
______________________________ Peter M. Siegel, Esquire
27

 
 Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/1998 Page 1 of 5

MARK OSTERBACK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, Jr., et al.,
Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 97-2806-Civ-MORENO MAGISTRATE JUDGE SORRENTINO · ·:...,

REPORT OF ,~.-·- .

MAGISTRATE JUDGE;_, .

- ...__ ,--
I u-·-.-. .

-

__, .,1_

0

Mark Osterback, Thomas Gross and Darryl E. Williams, detainees at the Everglades Correctional Institution, have filed a pro se Complaint (DE# 1) pursuant to 42 u.s.c. §1983, contesting the constitutionality of the Florida Department of Corrections "Close Management" policies as set forth in Fla.Admin.Code Ann.r. 33-38, et. seq., (1996). 1 All three plaintiffs have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

The plaintiffs seek to bring this suit as a class action with themselves as representatives of a class consisting of (1) all inmates, including plaintiffs, who are in close management at Everglades Correctional Institution, E-Dormitory; (2) all future inmates who will be in close management in F-Dormitory and (3) all future inmates to be housed in close management, regardless of
fro~/Cf 1close Management is the "confinement of an inmate apart
the general population, for reasons of security, or the order and '!~A
effective management of the institution, where the inmate, throu PfJ<:/
his own behavior, has demonstrated an inability to live in the general population without abusing the rights and privileges of others." Fla.Admin.Code Ann r. 33-38.001 (1996).

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/1998 Page 2 of 5
which institution to which they are confined or into which dormitory they are placed. The plaintiffs' Motion To Certify Plaintiffs' Complaint As A Class Action (DE# 15) gives a detailed list of what constitutes present and future inmates.
The district court is accorded broad discretion in determining whether a suit should proceed as a class action. There are four prerequisites which must be satisfied to allow certification of a class: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed.R.Ciy.P. 23(a). The burden is on the party seeking class certification to establish his right to do so, and all four of the prerequisites must be satisfied. Once the plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Fed.R.Ciy.P. 23(a), he must demonstrate that the class he seeks to represent falls within one of the sub-categories of Fed.R.Ciy.P. 23(b). Ayery y. Powell, 695 F.Supp. 632, 643 (D.N.H. 1988).
In this case, the plaintiffs have failed to meet the prerequisites for class certification pursuant to Fed.R.Ciy.P. 23 (a). The plaintiffs have failed to show that the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class under Rule 23(a) (3). The class, as described
2

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/1998 Page 3 of 5
in the plaintiffs' Motion To Certify Plaintiffs' Complaint As A Class Action (DE# 15) consists of inmates at various institutions throughout Florida, not only those at Everglades Correctional Institution. These inmates consist of those who are temporarily out of close management status for medical or psychiatric reasons and those temporarily housed in crisis stabilization units at various facilities because of a mental health crisis. The plaintiffs cannot show with any certainty that the conditions they have allegedly experienced at Everglades Correctional Institution are similar to the experiences of all other prisoners housed in close management at other institutions in Florida.
The plaintiffs also fail to meet the requirement of Rule 23 (a)(4). It does not appear that these prose plaintiffs can fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
One of the factors the Court must consider in determining the adequacy of representation is the qualification and experience of the person actually conducting the litigation. Competent representation is crucial because a judgment rendered in a class action suit for injunctive relief is binding on all members of the class, thereby preventing others from later raising the same claims. See Williams y. Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370, 1381-82 (11 Cir.
1982), cert. denied, 464 u.s. 832 (1983). Often the ability of the
class representative to protect the interests of the class depends on the quality of counsel. Gonzales y. Cassidy, 474 F.2d 67, 72-73
3

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/1998 Page 4 of 5

(5 Cir. 1973). Because a layman does not ordinarily possess the legal training and expertise needed to protect the interests of the proposed class, the Courts are loath to certify a class represented by a ~ se litigant. In the seminal case of Oxendine y. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4 Cir. 1975), the Court held that it was error to permit an imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action.

In view of the existing case law and the facts particular to this case, it is recommended that the plaintiffs' Motion To Certify Plaintiffs' Complaint As A Class Action (DE# 15) be denied.

Objections to this report may be filed with the District Judge within ten (10) days of receipt of a copy of the report.

DATED:

Gzc_L__/J_ ~
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: Mark Osterback, Pro Se

DC# 745238

Everglade
1601 s.w.

s

Correctional 187th Avenue

Institution

Miami, FL 33265

Darryl E. Williams, Pro Se

DC# 578845

E16v0e1rgsl.awd.e

s

Correctiona 187th Avenue

l

Institution

Miami, FL 33265

4

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/1998 Page 5 of 5 Thomas Gross, Pro Se DC# 926497 Everglades Correctional Institution
1601 s.w. 187th Avenue
Miami, FL 33265
5

 
 Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/1998 Page 1 of 1

MARK OSTERBACK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, Jr., et al.,
Defendants.

USONUITTEHDERNSTADTISETSRDICISTTROFICTFLOCORUIDRAT

CASE NO. 97-2806-Civ.-MORENO

.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SORRENTINO

ORDER

. .

FILED by si:.

LJ. C.

i E:3 0 S \9%

CARLOS JUENKE CLERK U.S. DIST. CT. $.0. OF FLA. • MIAMI

For the reasons stated in the Report of Magistrate Judge and upon independent review of the file, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that

The plaintiffs' Motion To Certify Plaintiffs' Complaint As A

Class Action (DE# 15) is Denied.

~¥ ' ORDERED at Miami, Florida, this

day of

'19~

cc: Mark Osterback, Pro Se Darryl E. Williams, Pro Se Thomas Gross, Pro Se

 
 Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2000 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 97-2806-CIV-MORENO

MARK OSTERBACK, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR., et al.,

- - £I riLED bY-~ D.C.
JUL 2 6 2000

______D_e_fe_n_d_a_nt_s_. ______________________./

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND OVERRULING DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS
THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable Charlene H. Sorrentino, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Require Plaintiffs to Refile under New Case Number (docket no. 93), filed on December 1, 1999, and Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (docket no. 101), filed on January 25. 2000. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on June 16, 20001, and recommended that the motion to dismiss and require Plaintiffs to refile a new case be denied, and that the motion to certify the class be granted. The Court has reviewed the entire file and record. The Court has made a de novo review ofthe issues that the objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation present, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is

0 1Magistrate Judge Sorrentino filed an amendment to the Report in which she corrected a
typographical error that resulted in the omission ofthe last two words in the report. The amendment reflects the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the motion for class

certification be granted.

'

~ 1

y-

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2000 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 97-2806-CIV-MORENO ADJUDGED that United States Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. Therefore, it is ADJUDGED that the motion to dismiss require Plaintiffs to refile a new case (d.e. #93) is DENIED. It is also ADJUDGED that the motion to certify the class (d.e. #101) is GRANTED. Finally, it is ADJUDGED that the Defendants' objections (d.e. # 118) are OVERRULED.
1'-'
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this li.day of July, 2000.

I

copies provided:

I

U.S. Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino

Peter M. Siegel, Esq. Randall C. Berg, Jr., Esq.
Florida Justice Institute, Inc. 2870 First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131

Christopher Jones, Esq. Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc. 1110-C N.W. 8th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601

Kathleen M. Savor, AAG Office of the Attorney General Republic Tower, 1Oth Fl. 110 Southeast Sixth Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

2

 
 Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 243 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2001 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 97-2806-CIV-HUCK MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROWN

MARK OSTERBACK, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MICHAEL W. MOORE, et al., )

)

_____________D_e_fe_n_d_an_ts_._))

JOINT CLASS ACTION NOTICE STATEMENT

The parties, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to this Court's Order of October 2, 2001, submit the following proposal for providing notice of settlement to the class members:
1. Attachments. Attached hereto are a proposed Order (Exhibit A), "Notice of Class Action Settlement" (Exhibit B), and an Affidavit for the Warden or Officer in Charge of each prison or facility housing inmates in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections (Exhibit C) pertaining to the distribution and posting of the Notice of Class Action Settlement.
2. Distribution. The "Notice of Class Action Settlement," in English and Spanish, will be distributed to every correctional facility housing inmates, as set forth below.

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 243 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2001 Page 2 of 12
3. Provisions for Notice. The "Notice of Class Action Settlement" will be posted in English and Spanish in conspicuous locations easily accessible by inmates at Florida State Prison and all other major institutions including annexes operated by the Florida Department of Corrections other than work camps, road prisons, contract drug facilities, and Community Correctional Centers. Such locations shall include all dayrooms, all inmate bulletin boards, and all general and law libraries.
4. Inmates in confinement status, including close management, administrative confinement, protective management and disciplinary confinement, and inmates who are housed in an infirmary or in any other manner that would preclude access to the designated posting areas on the date of posting, shall be individually hand delivered a copy of the notice on the date of posting.
5. Duration of Posting. The Notice shall be posted by November 26, 2001, and shall remain posted for not less than a continuous period of fifty-one (51) days, that is, until midnight, January 16, 2002.
6. Costs of Notice. The cost of translation into Spanish of the Notice of Class Action and Revised Offer of Judgment, the cost of duplication, and the costs of posting and distribution shall be borne by the Defendants.
7. Defendant Moore shall advise each facility in writing of the anticipated receipt of the notices and of the facilities' obligation to post or otherwise distribute the notices.
8. Completion of Giving Notice. After posting or otherwise giving notice to all inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections, each Warden or Officer in Charge
2

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 243 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2001 Page 3 of 12
r

of a prison or facility shall sign and submit an Affidavit in the form set forth in Exhibit C to Defendant Moore or his designee and Defendant Moore or his designee shall provide the completed Wardens' Affidavits to Plaintiffs' counsel no later than the date of the fairness hearing.
9. The parties, having discussed this matter by phone, have agreed that counsel for the Plaintiffs may initial this Joint Class Action Notice Statement on behalf of counsel for the Defendants.

Respectfully submitted,
Peter M. Siegel, Esq. Randall C. Berg, Jr. Esq.
Florida Justice Institute, Inc. 2870 First Union Financial Center 200 S. Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131-2310 (305) 358-0910 FAX
Christopher Jones, Esq. Florida Institutional Legal
Services, Inc. 1010-B N.W. 8th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 352-375-2494 352-271-4366 (FAX)
Counsel for the Plaintiffs

Respectfully submitted,
Robert Butterworth Attorney General
Charles Fahlbusch, Esq. Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General 110 S.E. 6th Street 10th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 954-712-4692 954-712-4700 (FAX}
Counsel for the Defendants

?~-

' .... fly:

Peter M. Siegel, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 227862

By: Charles Fahlbusch, Esq. Florida Bar No.01 91948

C:\WP\PRINT\J-NOTICE.WPD

3

ClBas/0e9/12:09071-cv0-05:208506-D9L5G4-712D-4o7c0u0ment 243 EnteFrLeAd. oAn.GF. LFSTD. DLAoUcDk. et 10/11/2001 PPAGaEge 042of 12

9. The parties, having discussed this matter by phone, have ag ,eed that counsel for the Plaintiffs may initial this Joint Class Action Notice Statement on behalf of counsel for the Defendants.

Respectfully submitted,
Peter M. Siegel, Esq. Randall C. Berg, Jr. Esq.
Florida Justice Institute, Inc. 2870 First Union Financial Center 200 S. Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131-2310 (305) 358-0910 FAX
Christopher Jones, Esq. Florida Institutional Legal
Services, Inc. 1010-B N.W. 8th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 352-375-2494 352-271-4366 (FAX)
Counsel for the Plaintiffs

Respectfully submitted, Robert Butterworth Attorney General
Charles Fahlbusch, Esq. Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
110 S.E 6th Street
10th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 954-712-4692 954-712-4700 (FAX)
Counsel fur the Defendants

By: Peter M. Siegel, Esq. Florida Bar No. 227862

c.ti.t 'M . h~.,..._.""---1...
By: Charles Fahlbusch, Esq. Florida Bar No.0191948

F:\USERS\RISK\Chuck\J_NOTICE

3

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 243 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2001 Page 5 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 97-2806-CIV-HUCK MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROWN

MARK OSTERBACK, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MICHAEL W. MOORE, et al., )

)

_____________D_e_fe_n_d_an_ts_._))

ORDER
Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Acceptance of Defendants' Revised Offer of Judgment. The parties have also filed a Joint Class Action Notice Statement and this proposed Order. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., notice will be given to all class members and they will be given an opportunity to file comments, support of, or objections to the Revised Offer of Judgment. A fairness hearing will then be held to determine whether the settlement should be approved by the court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement, exhibit B to the Joint Class Action Notice Settlement, and attached to this Order to provide a deadline for filing objections, is APPROVED. 2. A fairness hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., is hereby scheduled for _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 2002, at _ _ _ (A.M. P.M.) in Courtroom Number 6 at

EXHIBIT It -

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 243 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2001 Page 6 of 12
the United States Courthouse, 99 N.E. 4th Avenue, 10th Floor, Miami, Florida 33132. 3. On or before November 26, 2001, pursuant to Rule 23(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., the
Florida Department of Corrections shall provide the Notice of Class Action Settlement and all exhibits thereto to those members of the Plaintiffs' class presently in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. The Notice of Class Action Settlement shall be the notice attached to this Order and certified by the Clerk of the Court and will be posted in English and Spanish in conspicuous locations easily accessible by inmates at Florida State Prison and all other major institutions including annexes operated by the Florida Department of Corrections other than work camps, road prisons, contract drug facilities, and Community Correctional Centers operated by the Florida Department of Corrections or by any private contractor. Posting locations shall include all dayrooms, all inmate bulletin boards and all general and law libraries. A copy of the Revised Offer of Judgment and all exhibits thereto will be made available to inmates for inspection in the prison library system. Inmates without access to a library may request a copy for review from the Librarian and a copy will be provided by the Librarian or other official designated by the Warden at the facility where you are incarcerated.
4. Inmates in confinement status, including close management, administrative confinement, and disciplinary confinement, and inmates who are housed in an infirmary or in any other manner that would preclude access to the designated posting areas on the date of posting, shall be individually hand delivered a copy of the notice on the date of posting.
2

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 243 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2001 Page 7 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 97-2806-CIV-HUCK MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROWN

MARK OSTERBACK, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MICHAEL W. MOORE, et al., )

)

____________D_e_f_en_d_an_t_s._))

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO ALL INMATES CURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
By Order of U.S. District Judge Paul Huck, a hearing will be held on _______, 2002, at _____ (A.M. P.M.) in Courtroom Number 6 at the United States Courthouse, 99 N.E. 4th Avenue, 1Oth Floor, Miami, Florida 33132, upon the Notice of Plaintiffs' Acceptance of Defendants' Revised Offer of Judgment in the above-captioned case. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the Court will approve the Revised Offer of Judgment.
The class of Plaintiffs in this case consists of all persons who are currently assigned to Close Management in prisons operated by the Florida Department of Corrections or who in the future will be assigned to Close Management. Within the general class are three subclasses, (1) persons who are currently or will be assigned to Close Management One, (2) persons who are currently or will be assigned to

EXHIBIT _11=~

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 243 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2001 Page 8 of 12
Close Management Two, and (3) persons who are currently or will be assigned to Close Management Three.
As an inmate in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, you are or may become a member of the class. The Defendants, while denying liability, have tendered and counsel for the Plaintiffs have accepted a Revised Offer of Judgment. Its terms, which will become effective upon final, non-appealable judicial approval by the Court, describe the way in which the Florida Department of Corrections will operate Close Management in the future. A copy of the entire Revised Offer of Judgment is available for your inspection upon request to the Librarian, or other official designated by the Warden at the facility where you are incarcerated.
If the Revised Offer of Judgment is approved by the Court, you will be bound by its terms. The substance of the Revised Offer of Judgment provides for the Florida Department of Corrections to:
1. Reduce the number of institutions that house CM inmates from ten to four (one for females and three for males), to consolidate security, program, and mental health staff resources; and to facilitate more uniformity of program operation;
2. Train staff on mental health issues relevant to the CM population; 3. Perform mental health screening before and after CM placement
to help ensure timely access to necessary mental health services; 4. Assess behavioral risk for each CM inmate, in order to provide
more objective information that will be useful for mental health
2

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 243 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2001 Page 9 of 12
and other service planning, as well as for administrative decisionmaking (e.g., modification of CM level or termination of CM status); 5. Provide full range of outpatient mental health services (e.g. group/individual counseling; case management; psychiatric consultation; psychotropic medications; and timely referral to inpatient care), commensurate with clinical need, as determined by the Defendant's mental health staff; 6. Provide self-betterment/stimulation programming to CM inmates. If you are satisfied with the terms of the Revised Offer of Judgement, it is not necessary that you appear at the hearing or take any other action at this time. However, any member of the class may show cause, if any, why the Revised Offer of Judgment should not be approved as fair, adequate and proper, and why judgment approving the Revised Offer of Judgment should not be entered. You may submit written comments and objections for consideration by the Court. All written comments and objections must include the case number of this matter (CASE NO. 972806-CIV-HUCK) and must be mailed no later than January 23, 2002 to: Clarence Maddox, Clerk of Court United States District Court Southern District of Florida 301 North Miami Avenue, Rm. 150 Miami, FL 33128
3

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 243 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2001 Page 10 of 12
Anything you send to the Court must include a Certificate of Service stating
that you have also mailed a copy of your comments and objections to the attorneys
for both the Plaintiffs and Defendants, who are listed below:
Charles Fahlbusch, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 110 S.E. 6th Street, 1Oth Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Attorney for Defendants
Peter M. Siegel, Esq. Randall C. Berg, Jr., Esq. Florida Justice Institute, Inc. 2870 First Union Financial Center 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2310 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
You may obtain further information about this matter from the attorneys for the
Plaintiffs by writing to:
Peter M. Siegel, Esq. Randall C. Berg, Jr., Esq. Florida Justice Institute, Inc. 2870 First Union Financial Center 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2310
This Notice has been posted pursuant to the Order of the Court.
Dated: - - - - - - ' 2001.

C:\WP\PRINT\NOT-SETT.WPD

Clerk, U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida
4

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 243 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2001 Page 11 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 97-2806-CIV-HUCK MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROWN

MARK OSTERBACK, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MICHAEL W. MOORE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

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

AFFIDAVIT OF CLASS NOTICE POSTING COMPLIANCE

State of Florida )

)

55.

County of _ _ )

Before me, the undersigned authority personally appeared ____________ who being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am the Warden or Officer in Charge of the prison or facility set forth in Paragraph Three of this Affidavit.
2. I have been provided with a copy of the Joint Class Action Notice Statement.
3. I certify that a t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (name of facility) the Notice of Class Action in the above-captioned case was posted on November 26, 2001, or otherwise made available to all inmates as set forth in Joint Class Action

EXHIBIT C

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 243 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2001 Page 12 of 12
Notice Statement, and was checked daily for posting for a continuous period of fiftyone (51) days, until midnight, January 16, 2002, and re-posted during that time period if missing.
Further Affiant Sayeth Not.
(Type name)
Sworn and Subscribed to before me this _ day of December, 2001. The Affiant, _ _ _ _ _, who personally appeared before me at the time of notarization, and produced satisfactory evidence that he is the individual described in and who is executing the instrument by producing by one of the following methods: Affiant is personally known to me _ Affiant produced an ID __
ID Type ID Number _ _ _ _ __
Name: Notary Public, State of Florida Commission Number:

C:\YP\OSTERBAC\NOTICE-2.YPD

2

 
 Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 308 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2001 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 97-2806-CIV-HUCK

MARK OSTERBACK, eta/.

Plaintiffs, vs.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, eta/.
_______________D__ef_e_nd_a_n_ts_._/

NOV 16 2001

. :-~ll[l~tE MADDOX

. · .u.S. DIST. CT.

2.:" ,~, ~ IC<

.. , ..

FLA.· MIAMI

OMNIBUS ORDER DENYING CLASS MEMBERS' PROSE MOTIONS

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon numerous pro se motions filed by various

individuals who appear to be members of the class. This litigation was certified as a class action on

July 25, 2000 and the class was represented by counsel long before that date. While class members

may file their objections to the proposed settlement, which is currently pending, individual class

members do not have standing to file prose motions. Upon considering the motions, having heard

argument from counsel, and being otherwise duly advised, it is therefore

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the following motions are DENIED:

1.

Motion to Strike Appearance ofCounsel Peter M. Siegel, Esq. [DE#260-1];

2. Motion to Strike Appearance of Counsel Randall C. Berg, Jr. [DE#259-1 ];

3. Motion to Restyle Case Name [DE#263-1];

4. Motion for Voluntary Dismissal [DE#265-1];

5. Motion to Strike and Reserve [sic] the Amended Complaint [DE#261-1];

6. Motion for Dissolution of Class [DE#264-1];

7. Motion to Amend the Complaint [DE#262-1];

8. Motion to Dismiss [DE#278-1];

9. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [DE#290-1];

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 308 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2001 Page 2 of 2
10. Motion for Preliminary Injunction [DE#290-2]; 11. Motion to Show Cause [DE#296-1 ]; 12. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [DE#296-2]; and 13. Motion for Rule 60(b) Relief from Order Granting Leave to Proceed IFP [DE#305-1].
DONE in Chambers, Miami, Florida, this 16th day ofNovember, 2001.

Copies furnished to: Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino Charles M. Fahlbusch, Esq. Peter M. Siegel, Esq.

Paul C. Huck United States District Judge

 
 Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 344 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2001 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 97-2806-CIV-HUCK

MARK OSTERBACK, et al.
Plaintiffs, vs.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, et a!.
_______________D__ef_e_nd_a_n_ts_._/

tlLED by~ D.C.
DEC 0 6 2001
CLARENrE MADDOX rLCRK lJ. S. DlST. CT. S.D. OF FLA .. MlAMI

OMNIBUS ORDER DENYING CLASS MEMBERS' PROSE MOTIONS

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon numerous pro se motions filed by William C.

Eason and Michael T. Coolen, individuals who appear to be members of the class. This litigation

was certified as a class action on July 25, 2000 and the class was represented by counsel long before

that date. While class members may file their objections to the proposed settlement, which is

currently pending, individual class members do not have standing to file pro se motions. Upon

considering the motions, and being otherwise duly advised, it is therefore

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the following motions are DENIED:

1.

"Emergency" Motion For Temporary Restraining Corder and/or Preliminary Injunction

[DE#334]; and

2. Motion to Reject Revised Judgement [sic] Offer [DE#338], although the Court will consider

this motion as an objection to the proposed settlement.

DONE in Chambers, Miami, Florida, this 6th day ofDecember, 2001.

Copies furnished to: Charles M. Fahlbusch, Esq. Peter M. Siegel, Esq.

Paul C. Huck United States District Judge

 
 Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 383 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/28/2001 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 97-2806-CIV-HUCK/BROWN

MARK OSTERBACK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, et al.,
__________D_e_fe_n_d_a_n_ts_. __________./

.. ··' v~.;
. , ,.._~~~ il~-~- r/1/I.DDOX
:1. ~- UiS r. CT.
,- FLA,- I~ lAM I

ORDER ENTERING DEFENDANTS' REVISED OFFER OF JUDGMENT This matter came on to be heard pursuant to the Order entered October 10, 2001 approving the Notice of Class Action Settlement and giving notice that the fairness hearing required by Rule 23(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., would be conducted December 26, 2001 at 1:30 p.m. The Order entered October 10, 2001, also outlined the procedures to be followed for giving notice to the class members and gave them notice of the opportunity to file comments, support of, or objections to the Defendants' Revised Offer of Judgment which had been accepted by the Plaintiffs and filed on October 1, 2001. Several factors may be considered in determining whether a proposed settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable: "(1) the likelihood of success at trial; (2) the range of possible recovery; (3) the point on or below the range of possible recovery at which a settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable; (4) the complexity, expense and duration of litigation; (5) the substance and amount of opposition to the settlement; and (6) the stage

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 383 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/28/2001 Page 2 of 3

of proceedings at which the settlement was achieved." Bennett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.2d

982,

986

(11

1 h

Cir.

1984)

(citations

omitted).

Because the defendants offered, and plaintiffs accepted, an offer of judgment prior

to trial, the Court is not in a position to predict what the outcome would have been.

However, the Court notes that the parties agree that defendants have an obligation to

provide for the food, clothing, shelter and necessary medical treatment, including mental

health treatment, to inmates in Close Management in the Florida Department of

Corrections. The Court further notes that plaintiffs seek only injunctive and declaratory

relief. As evidenced by the defendants' motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs'

response thereto and the documents submitted in support thereof, both parties have legal

and factual arguments in support of their respective positions. The Offer of Judgment and

acceptance thereof sets forth a plan that, if implemented, the parties believe should result

in a system that provides at least minimum requirements of the Eighth Amendment for

inmates held in close management. The Court finds that the scope of relief provided

meets or exceeds that which would be ordered by the Court after a full trial on the merits.

The Court further notes that both class counsel and counsel for defendants support

and urge approval of the accepted Offer of Judgment.

The Court has reviewed the comments and objections submitted by class members

and potential class members, conducted the fairness hearing, and considered argument

of counsel, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the objections and comments of current and

prospective class members have been adequately responded to by the accepted Revised

Offer of Judgment or, otherwise, by the Defendants and that the relief set forth in

2

Case 1:97-cv-02806-DLG Document 383 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/28/2001 Page 3 of 3
Defendants' Revised Offer of Judgment is sufficient to correct the violations of the federal right complained of by the plaintiff class. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Revised Offer of Judgment is found to be a fair and just resolution of this cause. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Revised Offer of Judgment is adopted and entered as a Final Order and Judgment as of this date. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all pending motions are denied as moot. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over Defendants' Revised Offer of Judgment, entered this date as a Final Order and Judgment for the term stated therein. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over awarding plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Clerk of the Court administratively close this case for statistical purposes.
i'--
DONE and ORDERED in chambers in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida this d0
day of December, 2001.

cc: Charles Fahlbusch, Esq. Randall C. Berg, Jr., Esq. Peter M. Siegel, Esq. Christopher Jones, Esq.

Paul C. Huck United States District Judge
3

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 58 PageID 2433

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRIZT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

MARK E . OSTERBACK, et a1 .,
Plaintiffs, v. JAMES R. MCDONOUGH, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:04-cv-210-J-25JRK

ORDER I. S t a t u s
On August 28, 1997, pro se Plaintiffs Mark Osterback, Thomas Gross and Darryl E. Williams initiated this case by filing a Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. #1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 1983 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On November 19, 1997, they filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. #16), captioned as a class action on behalf of all present and future inmates on close management (hereinafter CM) status1 at Everglades Correctional Institution.
On March 3, 1999, counsel appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. On November 1, 1999, counsel filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #91) (hereinafter SAC), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

'CM is the confinement of inmates, separate from the general
population, for reasons of security and for the order and effective management of the institution, because such inmates, through their individual behaviors, have demonstrated an inability to live in the general population without abusing the rights and privileges of other inmates. There are three levels of CM: CM I, CM I1 and CM 111, with CM I being the most restrictive. All three CM levels carry with them significant restrictions of privileges.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 58 PageID 2434
In the SAC, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants house inmates assigned to CM under conditions so harsh, atypical and punitive as to amount to cruel and unusual punishment in deprivation of their rights under the Eighth Amendment. They contend that the restrictive conditions under which CM inmates are housed result in serious mental and physical deterioration.
On June 16, 2000, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case recommended that Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Class (Doc. #101) be granted (a class consisting of all persons who are currently assigned to CM in prisons operated by the Florida Department of Corrections or who in the future will be assigned to CM, with three subclasses: (a) persons who are currently or will be assigned to CM I, ( b ) persons who are currently or will be assigned to CM 11, and (c) persons who are currently or will be assigned to CM 111) (Docs. #116, #117). On July 26, 2000, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #120).
On October 3, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Acceptance of
Defendants' Revised Offer of Judgment (Doc. #241) . The Revised
Offer of Judgment (attached to Doc. #241) (hereinafter ROJ) was intended to minimize the potentially harmful effects of CM by: (1) reducing the number of institutions that house CM inmates from ten institutions to four institutions (one for females at Dade Correctional Institution and three for males at Florida State Prison, Santa Rosa Correctional Institution and Charlotte Correctional Institution); (2) conducting staff training on mental health issues relevant to the CM population; (3) performing mental

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 3 of 58 PageID 2435
health screening before and after placement in CM to help ensure timely access to necessary mental health services; (4) assessing behavioral risk for each CM inmate, in order to provide more objective information to be used for mental health and other service planning and administrative decision-making; (5) providing a full range of outpatient mental health services (for example, group and individual counseling, case management, psychiatric consultation, psychotropic medications and timely referral to inpatient care) that are commensurate with clinical need; and, (6) providing self-betterment/stimulztion programming to CM inmates.
On December 26, 2001, the co.~rtentered an order finding that the scope of relief provided by the ROJ met or exceeded that which would have been ordered by the court if Plaintiffs had prevailed at a trial on the merits; finding that the relief set forth in the ROJ was sufficient to correct the violations of the federal right complained of by the Plaintiff class; adopting the ROJ as a Final Order and Judgment; retaining jurisdiction over the ROJ for the term stated therein; and directing that the clerk of the court administratively close the case. See Order Entering Defendants' Revised Offer of Judgment (Doc. #383), filed December 27, 2001. The case was closed on December 27, 2001.
On December 19, 2003, Defendants filed Defendants' Motion to Terminate Revised Offer of Judgment (Doc. #681), in which Defendants requested to have the injunctive relief that was included in the Order Entering Defendants' Revised Offer of Judgment (Doc. #383) terminated in accordance with the Prison

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 4 of 58 PageID 2436

Litigation Reform Act (hereinafter P L R A ) ~and the express terms of Section VI of the ROJ.' Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Discovery, and Restore Case to Trial Calendar (Doc. #684), in which Plaintiffs requested that the court reopen discovery and schedule an evicentiary hearing, affording the Plaintiffs the opportunity to prove that the injunction should not be terminated because there are current and ongoing violations of the class members' federal constitutional rights."

' The PLRA provides that, in "any civil action with respect to

prison conditions in which prospective relief is ordered," such

relief shall be terminable upon the motion of any party or

intervener "2 years after the prospective relief [ . ] "

the 18

date the U.S.C. 5

3c6o2u6r(tb)g(r1a)n.tedAddoritiaopnparlolvye,d

18 U.S.C. S 3626 (b)(2) provides that "a defendant or intervener

shall be entitled to the immediate termination of any prospective

relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a

finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no

further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal

right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the

violation of the Federal right."

The ROJ provides that the "injunction entered pursuant to
this Offer of Judgment shall be subject to termination in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. 5 3626(b)." ROJ at 19.

4 The PLRA provides that:

Prospective relief shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation.

18 U.S.C. S 3626(b)(3). Plaintiffs have the burden of proving current and ongoing constitutional violation(s). Cason V. Seckinger, 231 F.3d 777, 782-83 (11th Cir. 2000).

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 5 of 58 PageID 2437
After these two motions were filed, the Defendants filed a Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. # 6 3 4 ) , in which they argued that the case should be transferred to this Court for resolution of the two motions because, as a result of the implementation of the ROJ, there are no CM correctional institutions located in the Southern District. Plaintiffs did not object to the Motion to Transfer Venue, and the case was transferred to this Court.
On April 21, 2005, this Court entered an order finding that the ROJ was subject to termination pursuant to the PLRA and the express terms of the ROJ, and concluding that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to give the Plaintiffs the opportunity to prove that the conditions in CM are unduly harsh and punitive, in violation of Eighth Amendment, due to the combined long-term effect of: (1) the lack of training of CM staff regarding the mental health needs of CM inmates or the failure to adhere to any training that is provided; (2) inadequate mental health screening of CM inmates; (3) the failure to ensure that CM inmates have timely access to necessary mental health services; (4) the lack of qualified mental health staff at CM institutions; (5) the failure of the mental health staff to take any meaningful steps to address an inmate's mental health needs due to restrictions placed by security staif; (6) the housing of CM inmates in units that are unsuited for extended confinement; (7) the enforcement of unpromulgated and arbitrary rules prohibiting inmates from talking to each other; (8) the lack of access to the day-room and to reading materials, telephones, radios and television; (9) the lack

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 6 of 58 PageID 2438
of opportunity to exercise; and, (10) the inability of CM inmates to take advantage of educational opportunities, make canteen purchases or engage in visitation. See the Court's Order (Doc. #i'l8), filed April 21, 2005.
The Court gave the parties the opportunity to engage in discovery, and after granting several continuances, the evidentiary hearing commenced on Monday, September 11, 2006, and concluded on Thursday, September 21, 2006. Thirty-two CM inmates from the five institutions that currently house CM inmates testified5 at the hearing. Three class representatives were present in the courtroom for the hearing and testified in person. The remainder of the inmate witnesses appeared in Court via the video-conferencing medium. Additionally, Plaintiffs called Chase Riveland as an expert in the field of corrections and Dr. Kathryn Burns as an expert in the field of psychiatry and the delivery of mental health services in correctional institutions. Plaintiffs also called several other fact witnesses and submitted two depositions. Dr. Roderick W. Hall testified on behalf of the Defendants as an expert in clinical psychiatry, program evaluation, quality assurance and training. The Defendants also called Dr. John Martin as an expert in the delivery of psychiatric services in prison, Dr. Max A. Linn as a statistical expert and James R. Upchurch as an expert in the field of corrections. Finally, the Defendants called assistant
'AS will hereinafter be explained, two of these inmates were incompetent and their testimony will be disregarded.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 7 of 58 PageID 2439
wardens from each of the five CM institutions and several other fact witnesses.
The evidentiary hearing transcript (Doc. #831 through Doc. #839)6 was filed on November 29, 2006. On February 27, 2007, the Defendants filed Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Doc. #841). On February 28, 2007, Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Doc. #842). Thus, this case is ripe for review.
11. Rulinus on Admissibilitv of Evidence At the hearing, the Court deferred ruling on the admissibility of several exhibits and some testimony. Before making any findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court will now address the admissibility of this evidence. Defendants objected to the admission of PE' 9 and PE 10 (the 2001 and 2003 reports of Chase Riveland). V4 at 87-90. The Court provisionally admitted these exhibits and deferred ruling on the objection. V4 at 90. Later during the hearing, Plaintiffs notified the Court that these two exhibits were already part of the record (Doc. #233 and Doc. #586). V4 at 106-07. Thus, the Defendants' objections to these two exhibits are overruled, and these two exhibits shall be received as PE 9 and PE 10.
The evidentiary hearing transcript consists of nine volumes. The Court will hereinafter refer to these volumes as V1 through V9.
7 The Court will hereinafter refer to Plaintiffs' Exhibits as "PEW and Defendants' Exhibits as "DE."

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 8 of 58 PageID 2440
Defendants also objected to the admission of PE 129 (a publication authored by Chase Riveland entitled, "Supermax Units Overview and General Considerations"). V4 at 167. The Court provisionally admitted this exhibit and deferred ruling on the objection. V4 at 167. Upon further review, the objection is overruled and PE 129 is admitted for the limited purpose of establishing the qualifications of Chase Riveland.
Defendants moved to strike :he testimony of two incompetent inmate witnesses, Sherman Gainer and Joseph Berry. V5 at 211. The Court took the motion under advisement. V5 at 213. Given the fact that both parties agreed that these two inmates are incompetent, the motion is granted and their testimony is stricken.
Plaintiffs objected to DE 121 (a compilation of weekly status reports detailing compliance with the CM regulations). V8 at 122. The Court took the objection under advisement and the exhibit was not admitted into evidence. After the hearing, Defendants notified the Court that they were withdrawing this exhibit. See Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of the Exclusion of Defendants' Exhibit 121 (Doc. #828), filed September 27, 2006. Thus, Plaintiffs' objection to this exhibit is moot.
Defendants moved the Court tc accept DE 26 (the expert report of Dr. John Martin), and Plaintiffs objected to the expert report only to the extent that it contained an opinion regarding the standard of care in the community. V7 at 60-61. The Court took the motion to accept the evidence under advisement until the

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 9 of 58 PageID 2441
examination of Dr. Martin was completed. V7 at 6 1 . Thereafter, Plaintiffs moved to strike the portion of the report pertaining to the community standard of care. V7 at 1 1 6 . The Court denied the motion to strike. V7 at 1 1 6 . Afrer the examination of Dr. Martin was completed, the Court did not rule on the motion to accept this exhibit. See V7 at 1 4 3 . Thus, the Court now grants the motion and receives DE 26 into evidence.
Plaintiffs objected to the admission of DE 52D (the American Correctional Association Accreditation Reports for Charlotte C I ~ ) on the basis that the reports were hearsay. V8 at 99. The Court took the objection under advisement. V8 at 100. Plaintiffs also objected to the admission of DE 52C (the American Correctional Association Accreditation Reports for Santa Rosa CI) on the basis that he reports were hearsay. V8 at 149. The Court took the objection under advisement. V8 at 149. Neither exhibit was admitted at the hearing. Upon review, the objections are sustained and the exhibits will not be received into evidence.
The Court also accepted the depositions of Victoria Pence and Dr. Craig W. Haney as PE 298 and PE 299, respectively. V6 at 8 , 1 0 . However, the Court directed the parties to designate the portions of these depositions that they wanted the Court to consider. V6 at 8 . The Court also gave the parties ten days to object to those portions of the depositions identified as relevant by opposing counsel. V6 at 8.
he Court will hereinafter refer to the term "Correctional
Institution" as "CI."

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 10 of 58 PageID 2442
On September 19, 2006, Plaintiffs provided the Court and opposing counsel with Plaintiffs' Notice of Designation of Dr. Craig Haney's Deposition Excerpts. V7 at 48-51; PE 298A. On September 26, 2006, Defendants filed Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Notice of Designation of Dr. Craig Haney's Deposition Excerpts (Doc. #825). Upon review, the Defendants' objections are overruled.
On September 26, 2006, Defendants' Notice of Designation of Dr. Craig Haney's Deposition Excerpts Craig Haney Deposition Dated August 31, 2005 (Doc. #826) was filed. Plaintiffs did not file any objections to the portions of Dr. Haney's deposition that were identified by Defendants. Therefore, the Court will consider those portions of Dr. Haney's deposition that were identified by the Defendants and the Plaintiffs as being relevant.
111. Findinqs of Fact and Conclusions of Law A. Relevancv and Credibilitv Determinations In making these findings of fact, the Court focused on the relevant evidence regarding currerLtand ongoing conditions. Thus, testimony and other evidence regarding incidents that allegedly occurred several years ago was generally disregarded. Additionally, the Court focused on evidence concerning the conditions in CM. Some of the inmates who appeared at the evidentiary hearing testified about conditions in disciplinary confinement, which are much more restrictive and harsh than the

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 11 of 58 PageID 2443
conditions in CM.' See PE 45. The conditions in disciplinary
confinement are not at issue in this case; therefore, such
irrelevant testimony and evidence was disregarded.
Although the Plaintiffs' and Defendants' mental health experts
were eminently qualified to render opinions in their fields of
expertise, the Court finds the following, based on the credible
evidence presented.
B. General Eiahth Amendment Law
As noted previously, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
house inmates assigned to CM under conditions so harsh, atypical
and punitive as to amount to cruel and unusual punishment in
deprivation of their rights under the Eighth Amendment. They also
contend that the restrictive conditions under which CM inmates are
housed result in serious mental and physical deterioration.
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The "cruel and unusual punishments" standard applies to the conditions of a prisoner's confinement. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,
. . . 345-46, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2398-99, 69 L.Ed.2d 59
(1981).
Even so, "the Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons. " Id. at 349, 101
1n fact, the Court was distressed to hear that several CM inmates have remained in disciplinary confinement for years and years at a time. The isolation and severe conditions that these inmates have experienced for such a long period of time may well rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation; however, as noted before, the conditions in disciplinary confinement are not before this Court in this case. Furthermore, such isolated cases would more appropriately be addressed in individual civil rights actions rather than a class action suit.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 12 of 58 PageID 2444

S.Ct. at 2400. If prison conditions are merely "restrictive and even harsh, they are part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society." Id. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399. Generally speaking, prison conditions rise to the level of an Eighth Amendmen: violation only when they "involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain." Id.

Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1288-89 (11th Cir. 2004)
(footnote omitted).

"The Supreme Court has developed a two-part analysis to govern

Eighth Amendment challenges to conditions of confinement." Id.

"First, the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, 'sufficiently
. serious [ ] "' Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (quoting

Wilson V. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). The second component

is objective: "the prisoner[s] must show that the defendant prison

officials 'acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind' with

respect to the condition[s] at issue." Chandler, 379 F.3d at 1289

(quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992)). " In

prison-conditions cases that state of mind is one of 'deliberate

indifference' to inmate health or safety[.]" Farmer, 511 U.S. at

834 (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 303). "Wilson and subsequent

cases refer to these two required elements as an 'objective

component' scrutinizing the alleged deprivation and a 'subjective

component' examining the official's mental intent." Campbell v.

Sikes, 169 F.3d 1353, 1363 (11th Cir. 1999).

The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim is

"contextual and responsive to 'contemporary standards of decency."'

Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8 (citation omitted).

To satisfy the

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 13 of 58 PageID 2445
objective prong for a conditions of confinement claim, "extreme
deprivations are required." Id. at 9. Thus, only the deprivations
denying "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities" are
sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment
violation. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981); see also Chandler, 379 F.3d at 1289.
"Nothing so amorphous as 'overall conditions' can rise to the
level of cruel and unusual punishment when no specific deprivation
of a single human need exists." Wilson, 501 U.S. at 305. In
Wilson, the Supreme Court noted that:
Some conditions of confinement may establish an Eighth Amendment violation "in combination" when each would not do so alone, but only when they have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need such as food, warmth, or exercise--for example, a low cell temperature at night combined with a failure to issue blankets.
Id. at 304.
The Eighth Amendment protection against deliberate
indifference to prisoners' serious medical needs extends to
conditions that threaten to cause health problems in the future, as
well as current serious health problems. Helling v. McKinney, 509
U.S. 25, 32-33 (1993) (addressing an Eighth Amendment complaint by
an inmate regarding exposure to second-hand smoke). Thus,
conditions that pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to the
Plaintiffs' future health meet the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim. Id. at 35.
Also with respect to the objective factor, determining whether [the Plaintiffs']

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 14 of 58 PageID 2446
conditions of confinement violate the Eighth Amendment requires more than a scientific and statistical inquiry into the seriousness of the potential harm and the likelihood that such injury to health will actually be caused by exposure to [harsh conditions]. It also requires a court to assess whether society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk. In other words, the prisoner musz show that the risk of which he complains is not one that today's society chooses to tolerate.
Id. at 36.
With respect to the subjective component of an Eighth
Amendment violation, a prisoner must show that the defendant prison
officials were deliberately indifferent to the risk of serious
harm.
The proper standard is that of deliberate indifference. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2327, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). Negligence does not suffice to satisfy this standard, id. at 305, 111 S.Ct. at 2328, but a prisoner need not show that the prison official acted with "the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm [would] result," Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1978, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). In defining the deliberate indifference standard, the Court stated:
[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 15 of 58 PageID 2447
Id. at 837, 114 S.Ct. at 1979. Furthermore, the official may escape liability for known risks "if [he] responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted." Id. at 844, 114 S.Ct. at 1982-83. Chandler, 379 F.3d at 1289-90. In sum, a deliberate indifference claim has three components: "(1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard of that risk; (3) by conduct that is more than negligence." Id. at 1290 n.21 (quoting Farrow v. West,
320 F.3d 1235, 1245 (11th Cir. 2003)) .
C . Findinus Reuardinu the Ten Relevant Factors (1) Findings with r e s p e c t t o the a l l e g e d l a c k o f t r a i n i n g o f CM s t a f f regarding t h e mental health needs o f CM inmates and t h e a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o adhere t o any t r a i n i n g t h a t i s provided.
The ROJ provides that " [all1 security, classification, and program staff assigned to the four designated CM institutions shall receive training on suicide prevention (2 hours) and other mental health issues of relevance to care of CM inmates (3 hours), within 60 days after assignment and annually thereafter." ROJ at 6. In accordance with the ROJ, the DOC provides these two courses to train DOC staff on mental health issues with CM inmates, and provides refresher training annually. V6 at 123; V8 at 133-34, 157-58, 182, 193-94; V9 at 25; PE 299 at 92.
The first course is entitled, "Incarceration Management." V6 at 123. This course lasts approximately three hours. V8 at 53. In this course, the various signs and symptoms of the major mental disorders are described as well as the possible impact of those disorders on inmates housed in CM units. V6 at 123; V8 at 44. The

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 16 of 58 PageID 2448
course also teaches officers to recognize behaviors that are associated with various mental health disorders and to make appropriate referrals to mental health professionals. V 8 at 4 4 .
This course also teaches the officers crisis de-escalation procedures, how to be an active listener and how to interact with CM inmates. V8 at 4 4 - 4 5 . Training on de-escalation procedures includes learning techniques to avoid threatening the inmate, such as not staring at the inmate directly in the eyes, not standing directly in front of the inmate, standing to the side of the inmate in a nonthreatening manner, attempting to ascertain what is wrong with the inmate, and attempting to resolve the situation. V 8 at 136.
The second course focuses on suicide prevention and lasts approximately two hours. V 6 at 1 2 3 ; V 8 at 53. This course was designed to acquaint staff with the various warning signs of suicide risk and to advise staff that it is necessary to immediately refer any individual displaying those warning signs to the appropriate health care staff for follow-up. V 6 at 123; V 8 at 4 3 . This course also trains officers how to respond to suicide attempts. V 8 at 4 3 .
These two courses are delivered by videotape. V 6 at 1 2 4 . The presenter on the tape is a licensed psychologist; however, the facilitator who plays the videotape may or may not be a mental health professional. V 6 at 1 2 4 - 2 5 ; V 8 at 1 8 4 . Typically, a mental health professional appears at the end of the session to answer any questions that the participants may have. V 6 at 1 2 4 ; V 8 at 1 8 4 .

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 17 of 58 PageID 2449
CM staff are also trained cn how to respond to inmates who refuse mental health care. V8 at 45. They are taught to continually observe the situation and to refer the issue to mental health professionals. V8 at 45.
If an inmate declares a psychological emergency, CM staff members are trained to take the threat seriously, to notify mental health staff, and to ensure that mental health staff respond to the dormitory to intervene. V8 at 135, 158, 183; V9 at 26. If the inmate is compliant, officers are trained to restrain him and to try to remove him from anything he may use to harm himself until mental health staff arrive. V8 at 135, 158. If an inmate is not compliant, the staff member is trained to constantly observe the inmate until mental health staff arrive. V8 at 135.
The Court finds that CM staff are adequately trained on suicide prevention and other mental health issues of relevance to the care of CM inmates. DE 25 at 12." The training that is provided comports with the constitutional guarantee against cruel and usual punishment. See Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Doc. #841) at 60-62.
However, the record reveals that some correctional officers do not always adhere to that training. Some inmates reported that

. . . ' O D ~ . Burns testified that "it would appear that the training

[of CM staff] is insufficient based on

the numbers of

mentally ill [inmates] we found in the CM units." V3 at 191; PE 14

at 6. However, she admitted that she did not review any lesson

plans or view any training tapes, nor did she attend any of these

training sessions. V4 at 20; PE 14 at 6. Thus, the Court did not

find her opinion regarding the adequacy of training to be

persuasive.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 18 of 58 PageID 2450
some officers occasionally ignore inmates who declare a psychological emergency by telling them to wait until a person from the mental health staff comes by the cell or by stating that they will not take any action in response to the declared emergency unless the inmate cuts himself or otherwise attempts to harm himself.
For example, inmate Carl Mullings testified that he heard an inmate declare a psychological emergency" in March of 2006, and the officer told the inmate to wait until mental health staff came by the cell to declare his psychological emergency. V1 at 67-68. See also V1 at 165-68 (relaying an instance where an officer ignored an inmate's repeated declarations of a psychological emergency at Charlotte CI, another instance where the officer told the inmate he had to "see blood" before he would receive emergency psychological care, and another instance where an officer ignored a CM inmate's declaration of a psychological emergency and the inmate thereafter cut himself); V2 at 110 (testifying that an officer told an inmate that he had to "see blood" before he would receive emergency psychological care); V3 at 32-34 (relaying an instance where an inmate declared a psychological er.ergency, which was ignored, and was only taken out of her cell after cutting herself); V5 at 16-17 (testifying that he declared a psychological emergency and the
h his inmate also testified about instances when he declared
psychological emergencies; however, the most recent instance was in January of 2003, which is too long ago to be considered in this Court's assessment of current and ongoing violations. See V1 at 36.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 19 of 58 PageID 2451
officer ignored his request to see a doctor); V5 at 33-42 (relaying an instance where officers repeatedly ignored inmate Tony Phillips when he declared psychological emergencies throughout the day, and then inmate Tony Phillips committed suicide by hanging himself); V5 at 69-70 (testifying that he declared a psychological emergency and the officer told him that they do not respond to psychological emergencies "unless they see blood"); V5 at 190 (testifying that he had to cut himself to obtain psychological assistance); V5 at 24243 (relaying an instance where correctional officers did not respond to an inmate who declared a psychological emergency and the inmate thereafter took some pills and cut himself); PE 14 at 12; PE 298 at 239.
Other inmates reported that CM inmates were sometimes sprayed with chemical agents or beater in response to declaring a psychological emergency instead of being referred to mental health staff. V1 at 171-72 (relaying an instance where an inmate was sprayed with chemical agents in response to his declaring a psychological emergency); V5 at 13 (testifying that he has observed several inmates being beaten or sprayed with chemical agents "just for declaring a psychological emergency").
However, the record also reflects that some inmates occasionally declare a psychological emergency for secondary gain (secondary gain is doing something for some other purpose than the initial request, such as an inmate declaring that he is suicidal, even though he is not, so that he can be removed from CM and placed in an air-conditioned crisis stabilization unit, see V4 at 57).

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 20 of 58 PageID 2452
For example, inmate Lavictor Flournoy testified that he has no mental health needs, but he has declared psychological emergencies for non-mental health reasons, such as when he was threatened or harassed by others and when officers refused to let him shower and left him in his cell with his hand-cuffs on until the shift changed. V2 at 241, V3 at 16. The time that he declared a psychological emergency because he was left in his cell with his hand-cuffs on, he did so to document that he had handcuffs on all night. Nevertheless, the male nurse who responded referred him to mental health staff the following day. V3 at 15-16. Inmate Lanora Malone declared a psychological emergency merely because an officer allegedly lied about something she had done. V3 at 115. Victoria Pence, a former psychiatric nurse who worked at Santa Rosa CI in 2005, testified that inmates with no history of mental illness would threaten suicide in the summer so that they would be placed in an air-conditioned isolation management room. PE 299 at 89, 99.
Clearly, if an inmate declares a psychological emergency for secondary gain, not because he is actually suffering from severe psychological distress, there would not be an Eighth Amendment violation if the officer ignored the inmate. However, the Court must inquire whether the occasional failure of CM officers to adhere to their training by failing to respond to a bona fide psychological emergency (such as where an inmate is threatening to harm himself or kill himself) rises to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 21 of 58 PageID 2453

Prisoners have the right "to receive medical treatment for

illness and injuries, which encompasses a right to psychiatric and

mental health care, and a right to be protected from self-inflicted
injuries, including suicide." Cook ex re1. Estate of Tessier v.

Sheriff of Monroe County, Fla., 402 F.3d 1092, 1115 (11th Cir.

2005) (quoting Hamm v. DeKalb County, 774 F.2d 1567, 1574 (llth

Cir. 1985)). To establish an Eighth Amendment violation for

failure to protect against self-inflicted injuries, a prisoner must

show that the prison official(s) displayed deliberate indifference

to the prisoner's threat of taking of his own life. Id.

"To establish a defendant's deliberate

indifference, the plaintiff has to show that
the defendant had ' (1) subjective knowledge of

a risk of disregard[ed]

.

s.er.itohuast

harm; [and] (2) risk; (3) by conduct

that is more than mere negligence. "' Id. at

987 (quoting McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d

1248, 1255 (11th Cir. 1999)). Under this

Circuit's precedent, in a prison suicide case,

deliberate indifference requires that the

defendant deliberately disregard "a strong

likelihood rather than a mere possibility that

the self-infliction of harm will occur." Id.

at 986 (emphasis in original) (quoting Popham

v. City of Talladega, 908 F.2d 1561, 1563

(11th Cir. 1990)). " [TIhe mere opportunity

for suicide, without more, is clearly

insufficient to impose liability on those

charged with the care of prisoners." Id.

(quoting Tittle, 10 F.3d at 1540).

Id.

The record reflects that there are some isolated instances

where an inmate truly was suicidal or otherwise suffered from

severe psychological distress, the officer(s) who responded to the

declared psychological emergency failed to summon mental health

staff despite the inmate's apparent distress, and the inmate

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 22 of 58 PageID 2454
thereafter attempted to commit suicide (and in one case actually committed suicide) or otherwise harmed him or herself. Those isolated cases rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim.
Furthermore, situations where a CM officer assaults an inmate who declares a psychological emergency instead of summoning mental health staff also violate the Eighth Amendment. See Valdes v. Crosby, 450 F.3d 1231, 1236 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding that, in its prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, the Eighth Amendment places restraints on prison officials, who may not, for example, use excessive physical force against prisoners, and noting that "[bleing violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society") (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832). The record reflects that there may be some isolated instances where a CM officer assaulted an inmate who declared a psychological emergency instead of summoning mental health staff.
The Court will not address whether the isolated Eighth Amendment violations identified above are sufficient to warrant further enforcement of the ROJ unril the Court has made findings with respect to the remaining nine factors at issue in this case.
( 2 ) Findings with respect t o the allegedly inadequate mental health screening of CM inmates.
The DOC has a classification system that rates an inmate's mental health from grade S1 through grade S5. V3 at 163-65; V6 at 90. The mental health grade system is designed to classify

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 23 of 58 PageID 2455
individuals in the prison system in accordance with their level of impairment and their level for need of services. V6 at 93, 95.
An inmate with an S 1 grade does not have any current mental health needs. V3 at 163; PE 1 4 at 5 ; DE 26 at 5 . An inmate with an S2 grade has mild impairment in adaptive functioning within general inmate housing, but can be managed in the population with appropriate case management and brief psychological counseling, when necessary. V3 at 163; PE 1 4 at 5; DE 26 at 5 . An S2 inmate may have a psychiatric diagnosis, but he or she would not be considered to be seriously and persistently mentally ill. V3 at 163-64; PE 1 4 at 5. Inmates with mental retardation are also assigned an 52 grade. V3 at 164. An inmate with an S3 grade has moderate impairment in adaptive functioning due to an Axis I disorder (a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or major depression) or a personality disorder (either a schizotypal or a borderline personality disorder). V3 at 164; PE 14 at 5; DE 26 at 5-6. An S4 grade is reserved for inmates who require in-patient treatment in a transitional care unit. V3 a t 164-65. Finally, an S5 grade is given if the inmate requires intensive treatment in an isolation management room, transfer to a crisis stabilization unit or psychiatric hospitalization. V3 at 165; PE 1 4 at 6.
The DOC has a mental health screening process upon an inmate's intake to the DOC. V6 at 94. Inmates are received into the DOC at a reception center. V6 at 94. On the day of an inmate's arrival at a reception center, health care staff screen the inmate for

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 24 of 58 PageID 2456
acute mental health issues. V6 at 94-95. Within eight days of an inmate's arrival at a reception center, an inmate receives a full mental health screening, which includes a clinical interview, psychological testing, intelligence quotient testing, and testing of the inmate's "relative level of hopelessness." V6 at 95. On the basis of the clinical interview and the results of the various tests, an inmate is assigned a mental health grade. V6 at 95. The DOC is complying with this intake screening procedure, which is appropriate and satisfactory. V6 at 95."
Before any inmate is placed into CM, the classification supervisor at that particular institution ensures that a mental health referral form is completed and sent to mental health staff. V8 at 110. Mental health staff then interview the inmate, look at his medical history and decide whether the inmate may be placed in CM or whether .the inmate needs in-patient mental health care. V6 at 96; V8 at 110. This mental health assessment advises the decision-makers (typically the classification staff) what level of mental health care the inmate needs. V6 at 96. If the inmate requires in-patient mental health care, the inmate is placed in an in-patient facility instead of being placed in CM. V8 at 111. The DOC is complying with these assessment procedures. V6 at 96.
There are also mental health screening procedures for inmates after they have been placed in CM. V6 at 98. Inmates who are
I' 1n making any findings that the DOC is complying with the pertinent standards or procedures, the Court has utilized an eighty percent compliance measure, which is commonly used in evaluating programs. See V6 at 87-89.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 25 of 58 PageID 2457
classified as grade S3 must undergo a mental status examination within five days of placement in CM, and then every thirty days thereafter. V6 at 98-99. Inmates who are classified as grade S2 must undergo a mental status examination within thirty days of placement in CM, and then every ninety days thereafter. V6 at 98. The DOC is complying with these assessment procedures, which are adequate. V6 at 99, 104.
After an inmate is in CM, the classification team relies upon a behavioral risk assessment to determine the inmate's progress through the CM system. V8 at 111-12. Mental health staff complete a portion of this assessment and the inmate's mental health is one factor that is considered in making the assessment. V8 at 111.
Based upon the above factual findings and the expert report of Dr. Roderick Hall, see DE 25B at 12, the Court finds that the DOC's mental health screening of CM inmates is more than adequate and is in substantial compliance with the terms of the ROJ. See ROJ at 69. The Court further finds that the DOC is complying with these screening procedures. Clearly, the DOC's mental health screening procedures do not result in any Eighth Amendment violation. See Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Doc. # 8 4 1 ) at 58-59. (3) Findings with respect to the alleged failure to ensure that CM inmates have timely access to necessary mental health services.
CM inmates are advised of their points of access to the mental health system. V6 at 99; DE 26 at 2 0 . Inmates are advised that they may access mental health services by participating in group

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 26 of 58 PageID 2458
and/or individual therapy, by submitting an inmate request form, or, in the case of an emergency, by declaring a mental health emergency to any staff member. V4 at 22; V6 at 100-01; V8 at 13637.
Medical staff conduct rounds daily, and dispense medication during these rounds. V8 at 147. Mental health care staff also visit CM units on a weekly basis13 to ask, or attempt to ask, the inmates whether they have any mental health issues or needs. V1 at 71, 81; V2 at 46, 94; V4 at 21; V6 at 101; V8 at 97, 147. If the inmate does have a mental health need, he or she is scheduled for a follow-up interview and then called out to an interview room for that interview. V6 at 101.
Sick call is a time each day that medical staff members make themselves available to discuss any concerns an inmate may have about his health. V6 at 102. During sick call, a medical staff member travels to the CM unit to visit each inmate so that the inmate can tell the staff member if he has a sick call issue. V6 at 103; V8 at 97. Inmates may access mental health care by telling the nurse that they have a mental health emergency. V6 at 103.
As noted previously, inmates may access mental health care by submitting an inmate request form. In the records reviewed Dr.
I 3 ~ h eDefendants' expert statistician, Dr. Max Linn, conducted a statistical analysis that demonstrated the DOC was complying with the weekly mental health rounds requirement approximately ninetyone percent of the time at Lowell CI, ninety-two percent of the time at Union CI, ninety-five percent of the time at Florida State Prison, ninety-six percent of the time at Charlotte CI and ninetyseven percent of the time at Santa Rosa CI. V6 at 218-221; DE 24.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 27 of 58 PageID 2459
Roderick Hall, such requests were very common. V6 at 104-05. The
responses to these requests were generally timely and appropriate
to the issue raised by the inmate. V4 at 23; V6 at 105.
Inmates are also offered counseling, if it is needed. V6 at
110. Inmates with an S2 or S3 grade generally have access to at
least one hour of counseling each week. V6 at 110-11. The record
reflects that S2 and S3 grade CM inmates are receiving at least one
hour of counseling per week. V6 at 111. In addition to individual
counseling, CM inmates are offered and engage in group therapy. V2
45, 171; V9 at 13. Both individual and group therapy are being
provided in an appropriate manner. V7 at 99-100.
Inmates may also access mental health care by declaring a
psychological emergency if the inmate requires immediate assessment
and/or treatment. V6 at 111, The inmate may declare a
psychological emergency to any staff member.14 V6 at 111. DOC
l4 correctional officers are required to check on CM inmates every thirty minutes. V8 at 116, 155, 177; V9 at 18. Medical staff make rounds in the CM dormitories daily and mental health staff make rounds weekly. V8 at 116, 155, 177; V9 at 18-19. The housing supervisor is required to make rounds daily. V8 at 116. Meals are delivered three times per day. V8 at 117, 177. A classification officer makes rounds daily with a sealed box, in which inmates may place inmate request forms. V8 at 119. Depending on the institution, inmate runners and laundry officers make rounds in the dormitories either daily, two to three times a week or once a week to exchange laundry. V8 at 117; V9 at 20-21. The colonel, assistant wardens and the warden xake rounds at least weekly. V8 at 116, 176; V9 at 18. Educational staff make rounds at least once a week. V8 at 116, 177. The chaplain also makes weekly rounds. V8 at 116. Thus, CM inmates have many opportunities to declare a mental health emergency to other staff members if the correctional officer who initially responds to a declared psychological emergency ignores the inmate's request for assistance.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 28 of 58 PageID 2460
policy requires the staff member to immediately refer that inmate to health care staff. V6 at 111. As noted above, some inmates have reported that some staff members occasionally refuse to refer an inmate who has declared a psychological emergency to health care staff; however, other inmates report that mental health staff is summoned when an inmate declares a psychological emergency. V1 at 40; V3 at 33-34, 64, 105, 115-18, 120-21; V5 at 116.
The DOC has a case management system, whereby a case manager is assigned to work closely with an inmate to coordinate his or her mental health care. V6 at 105-06. This case manager coordinates the inmate's care with the psychiatrists, psychologists and nurses to ensure that the inmate has good access to mental health care. V6 at 106. Inmates with an S2 classification meet with their case managers a minimum of every sixty days. V6 at 106. Inmates with an 5 3 classification meet with their case managers a minimum of every thirty days. V6 at 106-07. These case management reviews are being conducted and are satisfactory. V6 at 107.
Inmates with mental health problems also have an individual service plan. V6 at 107. This plan for the treatment of an inmate is drafted by a multi-disciplinary team consisting of a psychiatrist, a senior psychologist, a case manager and a psychologist specialist with a master's degree in psychology. V7 at 91. This document summarizes the inmate's mental health issues which are the focus of the inmate's current treatment. V6 at 107. It also outlines the goals or objectives of the treatment and the interventions to help accomplish those goals. V6 at 107.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 29 of 58 PageID 2461
Additionally, the plan identifies the professional who is responsible for carrying out these interventions. V6 at 107.
An individual service plan is a well-accepted standard of care in clinical settings. V6 at 108. Such a plan provides a record so that providers can understand which treatments have been positive and measure the relative degree of progress. V6 at 108. If the progress is not satisfactory, the plan provides for a means to modify the interventions or other activities to benefit the inmate. V6 at 108. Finally, the plan provides for continuity of care and accountability for appropriate care. V6 at 108. The record reflects that inmates have such individual service plans and these plans are complete and adequate. V6 at 108-09; V7 at 91-95.
The DOC also conducts clinical case summaries. V6 at 109. A clinical case summary is a clinical review of a particular case, which includes a review of the history of the case, the current problems the inmate is experiencing, and the current interventions that are being used to address those problems. V6 at 109. This review is done to ensure that the current focus of care is adequate and the current level of care is sufficient to meet the documented needs of the inmate. V6 at 109. These clinical case summaries are typically conducted on a yearly basis, and sometimes more frequently if the need arises. V6 at 109-10. These clinical case summaries are being conducted in a timely and adequate manner. V6 at 110.
The inmates with psychiatric problems are psychiatrically evaluated. The psychiatric evaluations conducted by the DOC are

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 30 of 58 PageID 2462

memorialized on a six-page form and include the history of the

inmate's present illness, the diagnosis and an initial treatment

plan. V7 at 69. These evaluations are being conducted in a timely

and adequate manner. V7 at 69-73.l"he

history of CM inmates'

present illnesses are adequately reflected on these forms. V7 at

75-78 .I6

A psychiatrist is supposed to meet with a patient for a

regular follow-up examination at least once a month to evaluate his

mental status, to assess the effect of medication, to ascertain if

there are any side effects from taking the medication, to gauge the

improvement or need for a change in medication or dosage and to

order additional laboratory tests, if needed. V7 at 98. These

follow-up examinations are being conducted. V1 at 80; V2 at 36-38;

V5 at 31, 201-02, 227; V7 at 98-99.

Psychiatrists conduct a medical status examination almost

every time they meet with an inmate. V7 at 79. This type of

examination assists the psychiatrist in diagnosing an inmate and

determining whether the inmate requires medication. V6 at 79.

These medical status examinations are being conducted in a timely,

complete and adequate manner. V 7 at 79-80. The psychiatrists

within the DOC are generally making diagnoses that are consistent

with the CM inmates' histories and evaluations. V7 at 83-85.

'' Of the 302 CM inmate medical records reviewed by Dr. John
Martin, only three contained untimely or inadequate psychiatric evaluations. V7 at 69-73.
l6 Dr. Martin found that 295 of the 302 CM inmate medical records he reviewed were adequate in this regard. V7 at 78.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 31 of 58 PageID 2463
Before an inmate begins taking medication, DOC policy requires that baseline laboratory tests and a baseline cardiogram be conducted. V7 at 85. Periodically, thereafter, laboratory tests are conducted to ensure that the inmate is not being harmed by the medication. V7 at 85. These laboratory tests are being conducted in a timely and appropriate manner. V7 at 85-88.
DOC officials are required to obtain written consent from an inmate prior to administering medication to that inmate. V7 at 89. The DOC is obtaining this consent in the vast majority of cases. V 7 at 89-91. The medications that are prescribed for CM inmates with psychological or psychiatric disorders are appropriate for the target symptoms these inmates exhibited and the medications are being appropriately administered. V 7 at 88-89.
Sometimes DOC officials are not required to obtain consent to administer medications in an emergency situation. V7 at 95. Such a situation might arise if an inmate is a danger to himself or others and the inmate refuses to give consent or there is insufficient time to obtain consent. V 7 at 95. In such a case, a psychiatrist will issue an emergency treatment order and security staff will restrain the inmate so that the medication can be administered. V7 at 95.
The DOC utilizes an isolation management room to temporarily house a CM inmate who is suicidal, in a very manic state, psychotic or otherwise a danger to himself or others. V 7 at 96. An inmate may also be admitted to a crisis stabilization unit or a

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 32 of 58 PageID 2464
transitional care unit if the inmate requires a higher level of inpatient care. V7 at 97.
Inmates also have the right to refuse mental health care. V4 at 56; V6 at 128; DE 26 at 19; DE 25B at 13. In fact, inmates often refuse such care for a variety of personal reasons. V1 at 56, 59, 105, 183-84; V2 at 63-64; 94; V3 at 123; V6 at 128. If an inmate refuses mental health services, a mental health clinician speaks with that inmate about the refusal. V8 at 17. If the inmate continues to refuse services, he is asked to sign a refusal form, which is witnessed by the clinician and a third party. V8 at 17. In the inmate refuses to sign the form, the clinician and the third party sign the form, noting that the inmate refused to sign it. V8 at 17.
Based on the above findings and the expert reports of Defendants' mental health experts (Dr. John G. Martin and Dr. Roderick L. Hall), the Court finds that CM inmates have timely and adequate access to necessary mental health services. Furthermore, CM inmates are receiving treatment that meets or exceeds community standards and comports with basic standards of psychiatric care. V4 at 51-53; V7 at 101-02; DE 25B at 11-12; DE 26 at 20-24, 26. Thus, the access to mental health care that CM inmates enjoy does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. See Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Doc. #841) at 57-58.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 33 of 58 PageID 2465
(4) Findings with respect t o the alleged lack o f qualified mental h e a l t h s t a f f a t CM i n s t i t u t i o n s .
There is no required ratio of health care staff to inmates. V6 at 127-28. Instead, there are sufficient health care staff members if the inmates are receiving timely access to care. V6 at 1 2 8 ; V7 at 1 0 8 . There are an adequate number of mental health staff to meet the psychiatric needs of CM inmates. V7 at 103; DE 25B at 1 2 ; DE 26 at 24-26. Furthermore, the level of staffing provided by the DOC for the care of CM inmates exceeds community standards. DE 26 at 2 6 . The level of mental health staff in CM units comports with constitutional requirements. See Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Doc. # 8 4 1 ) at
62-63. (5) Findings with respect t o the alleged f a i l u r e o f the mental health s t a f f t o take any meaningful s t e p s t o address an inmate's mental health needs due t o r e s t r i c t i o n s placed by security s t a f f .
Security staff are not permitted to interfere with the delivery of mental health services to CM inmates. V8 at 1 3 5 , 1 8 4 . Security staff do not have the authority to cancel or postpone a health care appointment of an inmate unless there is a security crisis such as the inmate flooding his cell or threatening to assault someone. V6 at 1 0 2 ; V7 at 1 7 0 ; DE 1 5 .
Security staff are not permitted to bribe inmates to not access mental health services. V8 at 1 3 7 . Security staff are not allowed to offer extra trays of food in exchange for an inmate not accessing mental health services. V8 at 1 3 7 . Nevertheless, some

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 34 of 58 PageID 2466
inmates sometimes refuse a psychiatric call-out in exchange for an extra tray of food. V5 at 52-60.
Security staff are not present in the room when mental health staff meet with an inmate. V8 at 146. It is not possible for security staff to overhear confidential conversations between mental health care staff and CM inmates when they meet in the rooms that are set aside for mental health call-outs. V3 at 38; V8 at 95-96.
Some inmates reported that some guards try to discourage inmates from attending group therapy by searching their cells and/or destroying their property when they are meeting with mental health staff or by offering the inmates the option of engaging in recreation instead of group therapy. V1 at 82, 85; V2 at 64. Other inmates reported that they decided not to participate in mental health call-outs because they have to be restrained when they leave their cells. V1 at 84-85, 194; V5 at 120. Other inmates reported that officers tell mental health staff who respond to declared psychological emergencies that the inmate is merely a management problem or that the inmate is "playing games." V1 at 169-70; V2 at 245; PE 11 at 28. One inmate reported that a psychologist specialist who ran group therapy was not able to distribute materials about bipolar disorder to inmates because security staff would not permit her to do so. V5 at 99. Another inmate stated that security staff will "run the doctors off the wing and tell them we got something to do." V5 at 229. Another inmate testified that he is afraid to declare a psychological

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 35 of 58 PageID 2467
emergency because he believes that officers will deprive him of food if he does so. V6 at 18."
On the other hand, Victoria Pence testified that correctional officers would occasionally request that she refer an inmate for care because the inmate appeared to be depressed or crying or the inmate was refusing to eat. PE 299 at 103. Other inmates testified that security staff did not interfere with the delivery of mental health services and some inmates testified that security staff actually encouraged them to participate in mental health call-outs. V1 at 40-41, 105, 193; V2 at 44, 191; V3 at 69, 79, 91, 130; V5 at 15. Many other inmates go to group therapy and do not feel intimidated by security staff. DE 26 at 22. They endure being shackled and handcuffed because they feel that they are benefitting from group therapy and/or individual sessions. DE 26 at 22.
The Court finds that there are isolated instances where security staff interfere with the delivery of mental health services. However, the Court finds that any restrictions placed by security staff do not have a significant effect on the ability of mental health staff to take meaningful steps to address CM inmates' mental health needs. Thus, the Court finds that any restrictions placed by security staff that temporarily interfere
" A "drive-by" is prison slang for an officer going by an inmate's cell with the food cart, but failing to deliver a meal to that inmate. V6 at 19. This inmate testified that he has often witnessed "drive-bys" occurring to inmates who have declared a psychological emergency. V6 at 19.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 36 of 58 PageID 2468
with or impede the delivery of mental health services do not rise to the level of a federal constitutional violation.
( 6 ) Findings w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e h o u s i n g o f CM inmates i n u n i t s that are allegedly unsuited for extended confinement.
Each CM cell is between sixty-four and seventy-eight square feet. V4 at 166. Each cell contains one or two bunks, a toilet, a sink, a bench and a writing surface. V8 at 91, 143, 169, 188; V9 at 8. Two lockers are welded under the bottom bunk. V8 at 91, 169; V9 at 8. CM cells have a window that permits the inmate to look outdoors (there are two windows in the back of the cells at Union CI). V7 at 160; V8 at 91, 143, 169, 188; V9 at 9. The cell doors are solid; however, all CM cell doors also have a window that permits the inmate to see what is happening on the wing. V7 at 160-61; V8 at 91, 143, 169; V9 at 9. The cell door also has a slot near the knee level, through which food trays are passed. V3 at 173; V5 at 12.
The dormitories that house CM inmates have ventilation systems, but are not air conditioned. V2 at 29; V5 at 11, 151; V7 at 161. It is hot in the cells in the summer and sometimes cold in the winter if the heating system is not working properly. V2 at 154-55, 99-100, 195, 214; V3 at 173; V5 at 239. Inmates are permitted to wet their clothing to help them keep cool in the summer and they may wrap themselves in blankets to keep warm in the winter. V2 at 118, 120; V5 at 11-12. There are no showers in the cells, but inmates are able to take a "bird bath" in their

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 37 of 58 PageID 2469
sinks and they are usually taken to shower three times per week. V1 at 93; V7 at 155.
CM inmates may not possess a fan, television or other electrical appliances, except a radio. V1 at 31-33, 66; V2 at 154. In some CM cells, correctional officers control the electric lighting. V1 at 32; V5 at 12, 151. Additionally, in some CM cells, inmates are not able to flush the toilet and they must wait for an inmate runner or a correctional officer to flush it for them. V5 at 10-12.
Inmates are permitted to possess some personal property, including stamps, rings, personal correspondence, legal materials, admissible reading materials, and photographs. V7 at 155-56. They may also possess a radio, paper, a pen and comfort items. V7 at 155. Inmates also receive cleaning supplies to clean their cells once a week. V2 at 162-63.
Inmates in CM have the same cell furnishing as inmates in the general population. V5 at 155. CM inmates also receive the same clothing and bedding that general population inmates receive. V7 at 155. The barber and grooming services for CM inmates and open population inmates are also the same. V5 at 156. CM inmates also receive the same three meals each day that open population inmates receive. V7 at 156.
CM I inmates do not have roommates; however, CM I1 and CM I11 inmates are usually housed with two inmates in each cell. V8 at 92, 169. CM I1 and CM I11 inmates have roommates to assist them

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 38 of 58 PageID 2470
in transitioning back into the open population by interacting with another inmate. V8 at 170.
At Charlotte CI, there are four quads in each dormitory and twenty-six cells in each quad. V8 at 90. Each quad has one dayroom, which is located in the middle of the quad. V8 at 93. Each quad also has an eight foot by twelve foot room that is used for group therapy, educational courses and religious meetings. V8 at 9 5 . There is a smaller room in each quad that is used for oneon-one interviews or counseling. V8 at 95.
At Santa Rosa CI, CM inmates are housed in six dormitories. V8 at 141. Each dormitory has three wings, with a total of 129 cells. V8 at 142-43. Each wing has a dayroom and two program rooms. V8 at 143. Behind each dormitory is a recreation yard. V8 at 142.
At Lowell CI, there are two CM wings. V8 at 169. There are sixteen cells on the top tier and sixteen cells on the bottom tier of each wing. V8 at 169. There are two rooms for mental health call-outs. V8 at 170. There is one room that is used for group counseling. V8 at 170. There are two dayroom areas. V8 at 17071.
CM I inmates are the only level of CM inmates housed at Union CI. V8 at 1 8 8 . Approximately 161 CM I inmates are housed at Union CI. V8 at 1 8 8 . Two rooms in each dormitory are set aside for CM inmates to meet with mental health staff for individual or group therapy. V8 at 1 8 8 - 8 9 .

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 39 of 58 PageID 2471
There are eleven CM wings at FSP. V 9 at 7. Bravo wing has solid floors between each floor, but the rest of the wings have open areas between the floors. V9 at 9. Nine dayrooms and twelve larger rooms are used for group mental health encounters. V 9 at 9-10. Multiple offices are also used for individual counseling. V9 at 10. There are numerous outdoor recreation areas. V 9 at 10.
There is simply no credible evidence that CM cells are not suited for extended periods of confinement. Although Plaintiffs' expert in the field of corrections, Chase Riveland, concluded that CM cells were not appropriate for extended periods of confinement due to the extreme heat in the summer and cold temperatures in the winter, see V4 at 154-55; PE 11 at 22-23, 28, the Court finds this conclusion to be unfounded. In Chandler, the Eleventh Circuit found that the temperatures and ventilation in the death row unit at Union CI "during the summer months are almost always consistent with reasonable levels of comfort and slight discomfort which are to be expected in a residential setting in Florida in a building that is not air-conditioned." Chandler, 379 F.3d at 1297 (footnote omitted). The court found that the conditions in those cells did not constitute an extreme deprivation, as required to establish the objective component of an Eighth Amendment violation. Here, too, the record reflects that CM inmates may experience discomfort, but there was no evidence that the conditions in the summer or winter resulted in any extreme

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 40 of 58 PageID 2472
deprivations." Thus, the Court finds that CM inmates are housed in units that are adequate for extended periods of confinement and the conditions in these units comport with constitutional requirements.
( 7 ) Findings with respect t o the a l l e g e d enforcement o f unpromulgated and a r b i t r a r y r u l e s p r o h i b i t i n g inmates from t a l k i n g t o each other.
There are no written rules or regulations that prohibit inmates from speaking to each other; however, inmates are not permitted to yell. V3 at 7-9; V7 at 171; V8 at 103, 155, 176, 178, 192; V9 at 21. Inmates are not permitted to yell due to security concerns. V7 at 172. For example, if inmates were permitted to yell, correctional officers would be unable to hear an inmate cry for help if he is being attacked by another inmate or having a heart attack.lg V7 at 172-73. Inmates are also not permitted to speak to other inmates when they are being transported from their cells to other locations, again due to security concerns. V1 at 87; V8 at 103-04.
"AS noted above, CM inmates zan wet their clothing or take a "bird bath" to help alleviate the heat in the summer. Also, inmates may wrap themselves in blankets to be protected from the cold if the heating system does not function properly in the winter.
lYIn their SAC, Plaintiffs acknowledge that "where the 'no talking' rule is not enforced, the noise level can best be described as bedlam. " SAC at 22, paragraph 85. Clearly, correctional officers must enforce some restrictions on the level of noise in the CM units to avoid such "bedlam" and to maintain security.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 41 of 58 PageID 2473
An inmate can speak to another inmate in an adjacent cell by speaking through the back window or by speaking through the vent in the cell. V1 at 86, 174; V5 at 60, 174, 190; V8 at 105, 178, 192-93. They can also speak to each other through the door to the cell. V4 at 61; V8 at 178, 192. Although it is not a generally accepted method of communicating, inmates also engage in "fishing," which is a term that inmates use for throwing a note out on a line to an inmate in another cell. V4 at 61; 196-97; PE 11 at 29.
Some inmates testified that they were permitted to speak with their cell-mate, but not to inmates in adjacent cells. V2 at 161, 194; V3 at 7-9, 38, 91, 106. Other inmates testified that it is a violation of the rules to speak with another inmate through the cell doors, windows and vents, see V1 at 46-48, 86, 196; however, inmates are not written up for a disciplinary violation simply for speaking to each other in their cells in a normal tone. V8 at 105, 179, 193; V9 at 22.
One inmate testified that he lost dayroom privileges or gaintime for speaking to another inmate. V2 at 115-6. Another inmate testified that some correctional officers will turn off the ventilation fans or turn off the lights at night, and then tell the inmates that they will not turn the fans or lights back on until the inmates stop talking. V5 at 122. Another inmate reported that he had been denied food or sprayed with chemical agents for talking. V5 at 174.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 42 of 58 PageID 2474
CM I1 and CM I11 inmates are permitted to speak with each other in the dayroom and the exercise yards, as long as they do not speak too loudly. V1 at 89; V 2 at 96; V3 at 92, 106, 126; V7 at 161-62; V8 at 104. Some inmates testified that they were not permitted to speak with anyone while engaging in recreation and others testified that they were permitted to speak only to the inmate in the "cage" next to them during recreation. V1 at 86, 177; V3 at 43-44.
Although there are occasions when an inmate loses privileges for simply speaking to another innate, the Court finds that these incidents are isolated. In sum, the Court finds that inmates have adequate opportunities to communicate with each other and that any restrictions against yelling or speaking too loudly are constitutional because: such restrictions are reasonably related to legitimate penological concerns; inmates have alternate means to communicate with one another; if inmates are permitted to speak loudly or yell, it would result in "bedlam" and jeopardize security in the CM units; and, there are no ready alternatives to prohibiting yelling or other disruptive behavior. See Overton v. Bazetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003) (noting that four factors are relevant in deciding whether a prison regulation affecting a constitutional right withstands constitutional challenge: whether it is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest; whether there are alternate means available to inmates to exercise the asserted right; what impact an accommodation of the right would have on guards, inmates and prison resources; and, whether

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 43 of 58 PageID 2475
there are "ready alternatives" to the regulation) ; Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 228 (2001) (noting that restrictions on inmate-toinmate communications pass constitutional muster only if the restrictions are reasonably related to legitimate and neutral governmental objectives).
(8) Findings with respect to the alleged lack of access to the dayroom and to reading materials, telephones, radios and television.
Dayrooms have televisions and benches for the inmates to sit on while engaging in recreational pursuits. V8 at 93. While in the dayroom, inmates may watch television, play cards, checkers or other games and use the telephone. V1 at 87, 105, 198; V2 at 35, 52, 113, 151; V8 at 93, 171; V9 at 11. The inmates may also speak with each other while they are in the dayroom. V1 at 89, 105, 175, 198; V8 at 94, 171; V9 at 11.
After the initial thirty-day adjustment period, CM I11 inmates are supposed to be provided access to a dayroom five days per week for up to four hours each visit. V6 at 212; V7 at 158. Cm I11 inmates are not restrained while they are in the dayroom. V8 at 94. CM I1 inmates are supposed to be provided access to a dayroom two days per week. V6 at 212. CM I1 inmates are restrained in the dayroom. V8 at 94, 144. CM I inmates are not eligible for dayroom access. V1 at 48; 87; V2 at 112, 149; V6 at 212; V8 at 114, 143.
Some inmates reported that they were occasionally not permitted to go to the dayroom, either because the officer falsely

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 44 of 58 PageID 2476
noted that they had refused to do so or because their uniforms or cells were unsatisfactory. V2 at 162, 195-96, 210. However, most CM I1 and CM I11 inmates report that they are usually offered access to the dayroom as set forth above; however, they are not always permitted to stay in the dayroom for the full four hours and they occasionally miss dayroom access due to inadequate staffing to escort the inmates. V 1 at 49, 87, 105-07, 198; V2 at 32, 35, 52, 113, 123, 149-50; V5 at 75-77, 93, 97; PE 11 at 7.
Dr. Linn's statistical analysis demonstrates that DOC officials are complying with the dayroom requirements for CM I1 and CM I11 inmates ninety-three percent of the time at Florida State Prison, ninety-five percent of the time at Santa Rosa CI and Union CI, and ninety-seven percent of the time at Charlotte CI and Lowell CI. DE 24; V6 at 218-221.
All CM inmates are permitted to have reading materials that are admissible under the DOC'S rules, including religious scripture and devotional materials. V7 at 156. They are also permitted to subscribe to a magazine and/or a newspaper and to have four issues of each publication in their possession at any given time. V2 at 157; V7 at 156; V8 at 115, 175; V9 at 16. They may also possess educational, mental health, wellness, legal and religious reading materials. V7 at 156; V8 at 115; V9 at 16. Additionally, all CM inmates may order books from the library. V1 at 198; V2 at 156; DE 27 at 9. One inmate testified that he had been denied access to reading materials on several occasions when he was not dressed correctly or the officer was in a bad mood. V2

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 45 of 58 PageID 2477
at 211. However, the vast majority of the inmates report that they are generally permitted to have authorized reading materials and read in their cells, unless they are in disciplinary confinement. V1 at 33, 163; V2 at 30, 229, 240; V3 at 65, 138; V5 at 11; PE 11 at 5.
CM inmates may make emergency telephone calls and calls to their attorneys as necessary. DE 27 at 9. Additionally, after the initial thirty days in CM, CM I inmates may make one, fifteenminute telephone call every thirty days. V1 at 89-90; V2 at 155; V6 at 37; V7 at 157-58; V8 at 115. CM I1 inmates are permitted to make one telephone call every fourteen days. V1 at 89-90; V2 at 155-56; V7 at 158; V8 at 115. CM I11 inmates are permitted to make one telephone call every week. V2 at 115; V7 at 158; V8 at 115. Inmates report that they are generally permitted to make these telephone calls, unless they are in disciplinary confinement. V2 at 122; PE 11 at 6.
All CM inmates are permitted to purchase a radio and headphones. V7 at 155; V8 at 115, 154, 176, 192; V9 at 16. Inmates report that they are allowed to purchase radios; however, if they are indigent, they are unable to purchase a radio or batteries for their radios. V1 at 33, 66, 164; V2 at 30, 208, 212, 239; V3 at 65, 138; PE 11 at 6.
Based upon the above findings, the Court finds that CM inmates are given adequate access to the dayroom and to reading materials, telephones, radios and television. Furthermore, any failure to provide the exact amount of access to these privileges

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 46 of 58 PageID 2478
that is set forth in the ROJ does not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation. See Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Doc. #841) at 55.
(9) Findings with respect to the alleged lack of opportunity to exercise.
Many inmates testified that they exercise in their cells. V1 at 33, 165; V2 at 30, 208; V8 at 192. Additionally, after an initial thirty-day adjustment period, CM inmates are supposed to receive two hours of outdoor exercise, three days per week. V6 at 211-12; V7 at 157; V8 at 114, 191; DE 15.
The outdoor recreation area is like a large "cage," with a concrete floor enclosed by chain link fencing. V1 at 50-51; DE 27 at 10. The dimensions of each outdoor recreation area is approximately ten feet by twenty feet by twelve feet. DE 27 at 10. Most of these recreational areas contain a pull-up bar and a dip bar. V1 at 51, 176; V2 at 96, 122, 149; V3 at 40. Some CM 111 inmates are permitted to go to a gymnasium three times per week, where they jump rope and jog or play basketball, volleyball, soccer and handball. V5 at 131.
Some inmates testified that they were occasionally denied recreation because the officer ignored their requests for recreation or their rooms or uniforms were unsatisfa~tory.~V1~ at 50; V2 at 95-96, 196, 204; V3 at 107; V5 at 122, 124, 157.
'O1n order to be permitted to go to the recreational yard, an inmate must make sure his bed is made, that all his possessions are in his locker, and that he is dressed in a pair of boxer shorts, with his clothes and shoes in his hands. V2 at 76-77, 120.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 47 of 58 PageID 2479
Inmates report that they are generally offered recreation three times per week, but some inmates refuse to go for various reasons and others reported that they were not permitted to stay in the recreation yard for the full two hours. V1 at 90-91, 176, 199; V2 at 32, 52-53, 67, 76, 149, 158; V3 at 41, 65-66; V4 at 199, 20102; V5 at 78, 124, 187-88, 218, 237; V6 at 22-23; PE 11 at 7.
Dr. Linn's statistical analysis demonstrates that DOC officials are complying with the exercise requirements for CM inmates eighty-one percent of the time at Florida State Prison, ninety-four to ninety-five percent of the time at Charlotte CI, ninety-five percent of the time at Union CI, ninety-eight percent of the time at Santa Rosa CI and ninety-nine percent of the time at Lowell CI. DE 24; V6 at 218-221.
Based upon the above-findings, the Court finds that CM inmates are provided with adequate opportunities to exercise. Any occasional failure to provide outdoor recreation in accordance with the terms of the ROJ is not the sort of extreme deprivation that would rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.
( 1 0 ) Findings with r e s p e c t t o t h e a l l e g e d i n a b i l i t y o f many CM inmates t o take advantage o f educational o p p o r t u n i t i e s , make canteen purchases or engage i n v i s i t a t i o n .
The DOC employs seventeen full-time certified academic teachers at the CM institutions (six at Santa Rosa CI, six at Charlotte CI, seven at Florida State Prison, one at Loweil CI and three at Union CI). V8 at 53, 55. CM I1 and CM I11 inmates are brought out of their cells to rooms for studying and lectures. V8

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 48 of 58 PageID 2480
at 48. All CM I inmates are authorized to receive cell-front
tutoring, wellness puzzles, wellness education courses and in-cell exercise guides. V7 at 157; V8 at 154; V9 at 15. CM I inmates are provided with educational material and then someone comes by the cell to discuss the inmate's educational progress and to answer any questions the inmate may have. V2 at 78; V8 at 48. Although CM I inmates are usually provided cell-front instruction, CM I inmates are occasionally removed from their cells for educational activities, such as GED studies. V2 at 78; V8 at 48, 153.
Adult education is available to inmates in CM, as well as GED educationziand basic literacy education. V1 at 53, 111-12, 20203; V2 at 33-34, 124, 156, 212-13; V3 at 39, 108, 122; V5 at 219; V8 at 47. The DOC also provides educational opportunities for CM inmates who have been identified as requiring special education. V8 at 47. CM I11 inmates may also participate in group education and self-help programs. V7 at 158.
The DOC provides a program called "Rethinking Personal Choices," which is designed to prepare CM inmates for re-entry into the open population and to teach them to function effectively without harming others while in an open population status. V3 at 106; V5 at 131; V8 at 49-50. This course is also open to CM inmates who are going to be released from CM back into the community. V8 at 51.
" In fact, seventy-two CM inmates received their GED in the
fiscal year preceding the hearing in this case. V8 at 47.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 49 of 58 PageID 2481
One inmate reported that he has never been offered any educational opportunities while in the custody of the DOC. V1 at 186. Another inmate testified that he had no opportunity to engage in vocational training on CM I. V2 at 32. Another inmate stated that there are no educational programs for CM I inmates. V2 at 240. However, most inmates testified that they had access to educational programs, unless they were in disciplinary confinement.
All CM inmates are permitted to make purchases from the canteen after they have had thirty days of good behavior. V7 at 156. CM I11 inmates are permitted to purchase five non-food items and ten food items from the canteen. V7 at 159. All levels of CM are permitted to make canteen purchases weekly. V8 at 115, 176. Inmates report that they are permitted to make purchases as set forth above. V2 at 98; PE 11 at 7.
All CM inmates are permitted to engage in visitation. V7 at 157; V9 at 19. CM I inmates are limited to one, non-contact visit for approximately two hours every thirty days. V7 at 157; V8 at 113, 174, 191. CM I1 inmates are permitted two, non-contact visits for approximately two hours every fourteen days. V7 at 157. CM I11 inmates may have contact visits every fourteen days. V7 at 159. Visitation occurs in the visiting park. V8 at 118; V9 at 19. The CM I and CM I1 inmates' non-contact visitation occurs in a secure cell in the visiting park. V8 at 118. CM I11 inmates visit with the open population inmates so that staff are able to evaluate their ability to integrate back into the open population.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 50 of 58 PageID 2482
V8 at 118. Inmates report that they are generally permitted to engage in visitation as set forth above; however, they may not do so because of other factors (for example, family members live too far away or the inmate does not desire to be seen by visitors because he is in restraints). V4 at 159; PE 11 at 7, 29.
Based upon the above findings, the Court finds that CM inmates have adequate access to educational opportunities, and have adequate opportunities to make canteen purchases and engage in visitation. Furthermore, any failure to provide the exact amount of access to these privileges that is set forth in the ROJ does not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation. See Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Doc.
D. Termination of the Iniunction
The Court previously found that the injunction in this case is subject to termination pursuant to the PLRA; however, as stated previously, the PLRA also provides that:
Prospective relief shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation. 18 U.S.C. 5 3626(b) (3). It is clear "that Congress intended 'current and ongoing' to mean a presently existing violation, not a potential, or even likely, future violation." Cason v. Seckinger, 231 F.3d 777, 783
50

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 51 of 58 PageID 2483
(11th Cir. 2000). Thus, the Eleventh Circuit has held that "a 'current and ongoing' violation is a violation that exists at the time the district court conducts the 5 3626 (b)(3) inquiry, and not a potential future violation." Id. at 784. As noted above, Plaintiffs have the burden of proving current and ongoing constitutional violation(s). Id. at 782-83.
In this case, the Court has limited its inquiry to whether the conditions in CM are unduly harsh and punitive, in violation of Eighth Amendment, due to the combined long-term effect of the ten factors set forth above. With regard to those factors, this Court has found that: (1) CM staff receive adequate training regarding the mental health needs of CM, but some officers occasionally fail to adhere to that training; (2) the DOC provides adequate mental health screening of CM inmates; (3) the DOC ensures that CM inmates have timely access to necessary mental health services; (4) there are sufficient qualified mental health staff at CM institutions; (5) mental health staff are able to take meaningful steps to address an inmate's mental health needs despite any restrictions placed by security staff; (6) CM inmates are housed in units that are suited for extended confinement; (7) although there are occasions when an inmate loses privileges for simply speaking to another inmate, these incidents are isolated, and CM inmates have adequate opportunities to communicate with each other; (8) CM inmates have adequate access to the day-room and to reading materials, telephones, radios and television; (9) CM inmates have adequate opportunities to exercise; and, (10) CM

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 52 of 58 PageID 2484
inmates have adequate access to educational opportunities, and
have adequate opportunities to make canteen purchases and engage
in visitation. The Court has found that Plaintiffs proved only one
constitutional violation with respect to the ten relevant factors
identified by the Court (the occasional failure of CM staff to
adhere to their training by failing to appropriately respond to a
bona fide psychological emergen~y).~'Accordingly, the Court will now inquire whether any of the injunctive relief contained in the
ROJ must not be terminated because the relief remains necessary to
correct the above-identified constitutional violation.
As an initial matter, the Court finds that these isolated
instances, which occurred to relatively few members of the class, are insufficient to demonstrate that there are current and ongoing
violations of the class members' constitutional rights. As noted
by the Defendants, to obtain system-wide relief, the Plaintiffs must show system-wide injury. See Defendants' Proposed Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Doc. #841) at 66-67. Proof of
isolated injuries that are not the result of a systemic defect
" Thus, the Court need not address whether the combined effect of the ten alleged deficiencies results in an Eighth Amendment violation since the Court has found the Plaintiffs have only proven a portion of the first alleged deficiency. Nevertheless, the Court notes that there was some evidence presented at the hearing that a few CM inmates experienced some mental deterioration; however, it is not clear what caused this deterioration (it is noteworthy that many of these inmates were in the much more restrictive disciplinary confinement during the relevant time periods). There was simply no credible evidence that the current conditions in CM confinement, by themselves, cause mental deterioration in CM inmates.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 53 of 58 PageID 2485
does not support system-wide relief. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996) ("the success of respondents' systemic challenge was dependent on their ability to show widespread actual injury, and [the District Court's] failure to identify anything more than isolated instances of actual injury renders its finding of a
. systemic . . violation invalid.").
However, even assuming arguendo that there are sufficient instances of a failure to respond appropriately to a bona fide psychological emergency to show a "continuing and ongoing" violation of the class members' Eighth Amendment rights, the Court finds that none of the provisions of ROJ, if enforced, would remedy such violations. An explanation follows.
As noted previously, the injunctive relief set forth in the ROJ was intended to minimize the potentially harmful effects of CM by: (1) reducing the number of institutions that house CM inmates from ten institutions to four institutions (one for females at Dade Correctional Institution and three for males at Florida State Prison, Santa Rosa Correctional Institution and Charlotte Correctional Institution); (2) conducting staff training on mental health issues relevant to the CM population; (3) performing mental health screening before and after placement in CM to help ensure timely access to necessary mental health services; (4) assessing behavioral risk for each CM inmate, in order to provide more objective information to be used for mental health and other service planning and administrative decision-making; (5) providing a full range of outpatient mental health services (for example,

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 54 of 58 PageID 2486
group and individual counseling, case management, psychiatric
consultation, psychotropic medications and timely referral to
inpatient care) that are commensurate with clinical need, as
determined by the DOC'S mental health staff; and, (6) providing self-betterment/stimulationprogramming to CM inmates. Plaintiffs
concede that the injunctive relief contained in the first and
fourth categories is due to be terminated.23 Accordingly, the injunctive relief contained in the first and fourth categories of
the ROJ will be terminated, and the Court will not address these two categories further.
Thus, the Court will now address the remaining provisions of
the ROJ to determine whether enforcement of these provisions
remains necessary to correct the potential current and ongoing
violation identified by the Court. The Eleventh Circuit has
stated that if a district court finds that a current and ongoing
violation exits, the court musE make written findings on the record about "whether the prospective relief aimed a t t h a t
13with respect to the first category of injunctive relief in the ROJ, Plaintiffs concede that the failure of the DOC to reduce the number of institutions that house CM inmates from ten institutions to four institutions (one for females at Dade Correctional Institution and three for males at Florida State Prison, Santa Rosa Correctional Institution and Charlotte Correctional Institution) does not result in a federal constitutional violation and, therefore, this provision of the ROJ is due to be terminated. See Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Doc. #842) at 96-97. Additionally, with respect to the fourth category of injunctive relief in the ROJ, Plaintiffs concede that the injunctive relief pertaining to the assessment of behavioral risk for each CM inmate is due to be terminated. See id. at 98.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 55 of 58 PageID 2487
violation remains necessary to correct it." Cason, 231 F.3d at
784 (emphasis added) .
The only injunctive relief in the ROJ that is aimed at correcting CM officers' inappropriate responses to CM inmates' mental health needs is entitled, "Staff Training," and states the following: "All security, classification, and program staff assigned to the four designated CM institutions shall receive training on suicide prevention (2 hours) and other mental health issues of relevance to care of CM inmates (3 hours), within 60 days after assignment and annualiy thereafter." ROJ at 6. The Court has found that, in accordance with this provision of the ROJ, the DOC provides these two courses to train DOC staff on mental health issues with CM inmates, and provides refresher training annually. Ordering the DOC to continue giving this training would be fruitless since CM staff have been receiving the training, but sometimes choose to ignore it. Clearly, further enforcement of this portion of the ROJ would not stop some officers from occasionally choosing to ignore the training they receive. Thus, this portion of the ROJ is due to be terminated because it does not correct the potential current and ongoing violation identified by the Court.
The remaining injunctive relief in the ROJ (contained in the portions of the ROJ entitled, "Mental Health Screening," ROJ at 69; "Mental Health Treatment," ROJ at 10-11; and, "Self Betterment/Stimulation Programming for CM Inmates," ROJ at 12-15) is not aimed at correcting CM officers' inappropriate responses to

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 56 of 58 PageID 2488
CM inmates' mental health emergencies. In any event, the Court has found that the DOC has been in substantial compliance with the injunctive relief set forth in these three sections of the ROJ. Clearly, further enforcement of these three sections of the ROJ would not stop some officers from occasionally responding inappropriately to CM inmates' mental health emergencies. Thus, these portions of the ROJ are due to be terminated because they do not correct the potential current and ongoing violation identified by the Court.
Accordingly, for all of the above-stated reasons, the Court will terminate the injunctive relief contained in the ROJ. However, the Court would like to note that the testimony and other evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing on this matter has demonstrated that the conditions in CM have dramatically improved2" since the implementation of the ROJ. Although the Court cannot order the DOC to keep the "Staff Training," "Mental Health Screening," "Mental Health Treatment," and "Self Betterment/ Stimulation Programming for CM Inmates," provisions of the ROJ in place, the Court strongly encourages the DOC to do so. These
" For example, before the implementation of the ROJ, CM
inmates could not watch television, could not possess a radio, were limited to three hours of outdoor recreation per week, were limited to three showers per week, were not permitted to visit the law library or the regular library, were not permitted to attend religious services or otherwise participate in group activities, and were not permitted to make any telephone calls other than emergency calls or calls to an attorney. See Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Doc. # 8 4 2 ) at 11.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 57 of 58 PageID 2489
provisions have clearly improved the general conditions in CM and the access to mental health services for CM inmates.
E. Additional Iniunctive Relief The Plaintiffs urge the Court to grant additional injunctive relief to correct any current and ongoing violations. See Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Doc. # 8 4 2 ) at 100-02. The Court declines to do so. As noted previously, to obtain system-wide relief, the Plaintiffs must show system-wide injury. The isolated violations identified by the Court above are not the result of a systemic defect and do not support system-wide relief.
IV. Conclusion Therefore, for all of the above-stated reasons, the Court will terminate the injunctive relief contained in the Order
Entering Defendants' Revised Offer of Judgment (Doc. #383) and
close this case. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED : 1. Defendants' Motion to Terminate Revised Offer of
Judgment (Doc. # 6 8 1 ) is GRANTED. The injunctive relief contained in the Order Entering Defendants' Revised Offer of Judgment (Doc. # 3 8 3 ) is hereby TERMINATED in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Case 3:04-cv-00210-HLA-JRK Document 852 Filed 03/25/08 Page 58 of 58 PageID 2490

2 . The C l e r k of t h e Court s h a l l c l o s e t h i s c a s e .

DONE AND ORDERED a t J a c k s o n v i l l e , F l o r i d a , t h i s

of

March, 2008.

ps 5/31
C : Counsel of Record

 
 Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 1 of 62
U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:97−cv−02806−DLG

CLOSED

Osterback, et al v. Dept. of Corrections, et al Assigned to: Judge Donald L. Graham Demand: $0 Case in other court: Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
06−16471−J 02−10441−A 02−10657−A 02−10883−A 02−11182−A 02−11182−A 02−15435−A 02−16307−A 03−14290−E 03−15513−D 03−15513−D 03−15554−D 03−15643−D 04−11172−E USCA, 10−11335−F Cause: 42:1983 State Prisoner Civil Rights Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/28/1997 Date Terminated: 12/27/2001 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Mark Osterback

represented by Peter Michael Siegel Florida Justice Institute 100 SE 2nd Street 4320 Bank of America Tower Miami, FL 33131−2309 305−358−2081 Fax: 358−0910 Email: peterms@bellsouth.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Thomas Albert Gross, Jr. 926497 Everglades Correctional Institution 1601 SW 187th Avenue Miami, FL 33185 ppp

Plaintiff Darryl E. Williams

represented by Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Marvin Jerelds

V.

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 2 of 62

Defendant
Secretary for the Department of Corrections Michael Moore, Secretary; Joe T. Butler, Superintendent, Everglades Correctional Institution, H.J. Sermon Assistant Superintendent, Everglades Correctional Institution, A.T. Price, Colonel, Everglades Correctional Institution, Captain

represented by Caryl Kilinski Department of Health Office of the General Counsel 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A−02 Tallahassee, FL 32399 850−245−4398 Fax: 850−413−8743 Email: caryl_kilinski@doh.state.fl.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles M. Fahlbusch Attorney General Office Department of Legal Affairs 110 SE 6th Street 10th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 954−712−4600 Fax: 954−527−3702 Email: chuck_fahlbusch@oag.state.fl.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters Attorney General Office Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol PL−01 Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850−414−3808 Fax: 414−9650 Email: jim.peters@myfloridalegal.com TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail Attorney General Office Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol PL−01 Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850−414−3300 Fax: 488−4872 Email: jay.vail@myfloridalegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Mary Savor Office of the Attorney General 110 SE 6 Street 10th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (561) 355−1641 Fax: (561) 355−4643 Email: ksavor@mypalmbeachclerk.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene Attorney General Office Department of Legal Affairs 1300 Riverplace Blvd., Suite 405 Jacksonville, FL 32207 904−348−2720 Fax: 904−858−6918

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 3 of 62

Email: vonhoene.kathleen@mail.dc.state.fl.us LEAD ATTORNEY

Maxine K. Streeter Conrad &Scherer 633 S Federal Highway 8th Floor PO Box 14723 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33302−4723 954−462−5500 Fax: 463−9244 Email: mks@conradscherer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Joe T. Butler

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles M. Fahlbusch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant H. J. Sermon

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles M. Fahlbusch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 4 of 62

Defendant A. T. Price
Defendant Captain Ricks

Kathleen Mary Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles M. Fahlbusch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Vail (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Kathleen Mary Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles M. Fahlbusch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 5 of 62

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Gloria White

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles M. Fahlbusch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Mary Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant S. Pichardo

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles M. Fahlbusch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 6 of 62

TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Mary Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Charles Matthews Warden of Everglades Correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Henry Alford Warden of Washington Correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 7 of 62

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
C. Hayes Correctional Probation Senior Supervisor, E.C.I.

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles M. Fahlbusch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Mary Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Sgt. F. T. Staten Correctional Officer II, E.C.I.; all in their official and individual capacities

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles M. Fahlbusch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Mary Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 8 of 62

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Frederick Clark

represented by Christopher Michael Jones Florida Institutional Legal Services Inc 12921 SW 1st Road Suite 107 #346 Newberry, FL 32669 352−375−2494 Fax: 352−331−5202 Email: christopher@floridalegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. Florida Justice Institute 100 SE 2nd Street 3750 Miami Tower Miami, FL 33131−2309 305−358−2081 Fax: 305−358−0910 Email: rberg@floridajusticeinstitute.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Danny L. Eldridge

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Alvin M. Few

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 9 of 62

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lavictor Flournoy

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Frank S. Lowry

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Brian D. Messenger

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Robert Peri

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 10 of 62

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Salvatore J. Ricci

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hector M. Rivas

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Carlos Ruiz

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lawrence J. Sargent

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 11 of 62

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Antonio L. Ward

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Willie J. Watson

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper individually, and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Paul C. Decker in his official capacity as Warden of

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 12 of 62

Baker Correctional Institution

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Warren W. Cornell in his official capacity as Warden of Charlotte Correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
David L. Pridgen in his official capacity as Warden of Columbia Correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 13 of 62

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Lonnie E. Holmes in his official capacity as Warden of Everglades Correctional Institution TERMINATED: 02/21/2001

Defendant
Chester B. Lambdin in his official capacity as Warden of Martin Correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Joseph S. Petrovesky in his official capacity as Warden of Santa Rosa Correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 14 of 62

Defendant J. Clark Moody in his official capacity as Warden of Taylor Correctional Institution also known as Clark J. Moody
Defendant Charles E. Germany in his official capacity as Warden of Washington Correctional Institution TERMINATED: 02/21/2001

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Vail (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 08/28/1997 09/02/1997
09/02/1997 09/09/1997
09/09/1997

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT/42 USC 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Act filed; FILING FEE not paid CHS B−3 (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/29/1997)
2 Clerk's Notice referring case to Magistrate Charlene H. Sorrentino, re: Administrative Order 93−69 and 96−55 (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/29/1997)
3 MOTION by Mark Osterback, Thomas Albert Gross Jr., Darryl E. Williams, Inmates for appointment of counsel (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/29/1997)
4 MOTION by Mark Osterback, Thomas Albert Gross Jr., Darryl E. Williams, Inmates for preliminary injunction (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/29/1997)
5 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino Re: DENYING [4−1] motion for preliminary injunction ; Signature date: 8/29/97 Motion no longer referred Objections to R and R due by 9/12/97 CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
6 ORDER denying [3−1] motion for appointment of counsel ( signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 8/29/97) CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
7 ORDER requiring payment of filing fee or motion to proceed in forma pauperis with detailed financial affidavit by Thomas Gross ( signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 9/8/97) CCAP (hd, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 09/11/1997 (Entered: 09/11/1997)
8 ORDER requiring payment of filing fee by installment; granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis by Darryl Williams ( signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 9/8/97) CCAP (hd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/11/1997)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 15 of 62

09/09/1997 09/10/1997 09/10/1997 09/24/1997 10/03/1997 10/10/1997 11/04/1997 11/19/1997
11/19/1997 12/09/1997 12/24/1997
12/24/1997 01/06/1998 01/06/1998 01/06/1998 01/12/1998 01/13/1998 01/13/1998 02/02/1998

9 ORDER requiring payment of filing fee by installment; granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis by Mark Osterback ( signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 9/8/97) CCAP (hd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/11/1997)
10 MOTION by Mark Osterback, Thomas Albert Gross Jr., Darryl E. Williams, Inmates to extend time to object to 8/29/97 report and recommendations (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/12/1997)
11 MOTION by Thomas Albert Gross Jr. to proceed in forma pauperis (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/12/1997)
12 Partial filing fee payment by Mark Osterback ; Receipt Number: 682051 in the amount of $ 1.30 (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/26/1997)
13 ORDER adopting [5−1] report and recommendations denying [4−1] motion for preliminary injunction ( signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 10/3/97) CCAP (hd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/09/1997)
14 Partial filing fee payment by Darryl E. Williams ; Receipt Number: 682733 in the amount of $ .83 (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/16/1997)
15 MOTION by Mark Osterback, Thomas Albert Gross Jr., Darryl E. Williams, Inmates to certify class action (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
16 AMENDED COMPLAINT by Mark Osterback, Thomas Albert Gross Jr., Darryl E. Williams , (Answer due 11/29/97 for Dept. of Corrections, for Joe T. Butler, for H. J. Sermon, for A. T. Price, for Ricks, for Gloria White, for S. Pichardo ) amending [1−1] complaint adding C. Hayes, F. T. Staten (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/21/1997)
17 APPENDIX SUPPLEMENT to: [16−1] amended complaint by Mark Osterback, Thomas Albert Gross Jr., Darryl E. Williams (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/21/1997)
18 ORDER requiring payment of filing fee by installment; granting [11−1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis ( signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 12/8/97) CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/11/1997)
19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino Re: [15−1] motion to certify class action be denied ; Signature date: 12/23/97 Motion no longer referred Objections to R and R due by 1/3/98 CCAP (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/1998)
20 ORDER dismissing as moot [10−1] motion to extend time to object to 8/29/97 report and recommendations ( signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 12/23/97) CCAP (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/1998)
21 MOTION by Mark Osterback, Thomas Albert Gross Jr., Darryl E. Williams, Inmates for evidentiary Hearing (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/09/1998)
22 OBJECTION by Mark Osterback, Thomas Albert Gross Jr., Darryl E. Williams, Inmates to [19−1] report and recommendations (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/09/1998)
35 MOTION by Mark Osterback, Inmates, Darryl E. Williams, Thomas Albert Gross Jr. for order permitting communication between plaintiffs (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/23/1998)
23 ORDER denying [21−1] motion for evidentiary Hearing ( signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 1/9/98) CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/20/1998)
24 NOTIFICATION of complaince with Magistrates order of 12/8/97 by Thomas Albert Gross Jr. (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/1998)
25 NOTICE of error of docketing statement on address by Thomas Albert Gross Jr. (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/1998)
26 MOTION by Thomas Albert Gross Jr. for clarification of [18−1] order requiring filing fee by payment (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/05/1998)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 16 of 62

02/03/1998 02/06/1998
02/17/1998 02/23/1998 02/23/1998 02/23/1998
03/24/1998 03/24/1998 03/26/1998 04/30/1998 05/26/1998 07/27/1998 08/11/1998
08/17/1998 08/18/1998 08/18/1998 08/18/1998 08/18/1998

27 ORDER denying [15−1] motion to certify class action ( signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 2/2/98) CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/09/1998)
28 ORDER denying [26−1] motion for clarification of [18−1] order requiring filing fee by payment; The court will grant nothing for this plaintiff until the partial fee of $9.40 is paid. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 2/5/98) CCAP (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/1998)
29 Partial filing fee payment by Thomas Albert Gross Jr. ; Receipt Number: 687561 in the amount of $ 9.40 (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/19/1998)
30 MOTION by Darryl E. Williams, Thomas Albert Gross Jr., Mark Osterback for clarification of [9−2] order, [7−2] order (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/26/1998)
31 MOTION by Darryl E. Williams, Thomas Albert Gross Jr., Mark Osterback compel payment of filing fee by installment and relinquish holds on prison accounts (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/26/1998)
Motion(s) referred: [31−1] motion compel payment of filing fee by installment and relinquish holds on prison accounts referred to Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino, [30−1] motion for clarification of [9−2] order, [7−2] order referred to Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/26/1998)
32 ORDER denying [31−1] motion compel payment of filing fee by installment and relinquish holds on prison accounts ( signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 3/24/98) CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/26/1998)
33 ORDER granting [30−1] motion for clarification of [9−2] order, [7−2] order ( signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 3/24/98) CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/26/1998)
34 NOTICE of change of address by Mark Osterback (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/30/1998)
36 MOTION by Mark Osterback to permit communication between parties (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/04/1998)
37 MOTION by Mark Osterback to effect service of process (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/28/1998)
49 Letter to the Court by Mark Osterback (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/25/1998)
38 ORDER granting [36−1] motion to permit communication between parties, granting [35−1] motion for order permitting communication between plaintiffs ( signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 8/11/98) CCAP (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/17/1998)
39 INITIAL ORDER OF INSTRUCTIONS TO PRO SE LITIGANT ( signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 8/17/98) CCAP (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/20/1998)
40 Notice of lawsuit and request for waiver of service for summons as to A. T. Price Mailed on: 8/17/98 30 days to file waiver. (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/21/1998)
41 Notice of lawsuit and request for waiver of service for summons as to F. T. Staten Mailed on: 8/17/98 30 days to file waiver. (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/21/1998)
42 Notice of lawsuit and request for waiver of service for summons as to S. Pichardo Mailed on: 8/17/98 30 days to file waiver. (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/21/1998)
43 Notice of lawsuit and request for waiver of service for summons as to C. Hayes Mailed on: 8/17/98 30 days to file waiver. (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/21/1998)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 17 of 62

08/18/1998
08/18/1998 08/18/1998
08/18/1998
08/18/1998
09/21/1998
11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998
12/23/1998 12/28/1998
01/05/1999 01/06/1999 01/06/1999 01/06/1999 01/06/1999 01/06/1999

44 Notice of lawsuit and request for waiver of service for summons as to H. J. Sermon Mailed on: 8/17/98 30 days to file waiver. (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/21/1998)
45 Notice of lawsuit and request for waiver of service for summons as to Ricks Mailed on: 8/17/98 30 days to file waiver. (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/21/1998)
46 Notice of lawsuit and request for waiver of service for summons as to Gloria White Mailed on: 8/17/98 30 days to file waiver. (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/21/1998)
47 Notice of lawsuit and request for waiver of service for summons as to Dept. of Corrections Mailed on: 8/17/98 30 days to file waiver. (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 05/23/2001 (Entered: 08/21/1998)
48 Notice of lawsuit and request for waiver of service for summons as to Joe T. Butler Mailed on: 8/17/98 30 days to file waiver. (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/21/1998)
50 NOTICE of change of address by Darryl E. Williams (DC# 579845− Everglades Correctional Institution, 1601 S.W. 187th AVE. PO BOX 65−9001, Miami, FL 33265−9001) (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/28/1998)
51 SUMMONS issued for H. J. Sermon (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
52 SUMMONS issued for A. T. Price (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
53 SUMMONS issued for C. Hayes (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
54 SUMMONS issued for S. Pichardo (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
55 SUMMONS issued for Dept. of Corrections (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
56 SUMMONS issued for Joe T. Butler (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
57 SUMMONS issued for F. T. Staten (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
58 SUMMONS issued for Ricks (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
59 SUMMONS issued for Gloria White (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
60 ORDER RE service of process requiring personal service upon an individual ( signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 10/30/98) CCAP (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
61 MOTION by F. T. Staten, S. Pichardo, Gloria White, H. J. Sermon for enlargement of time in which to serve a response (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/29/1998)
62 ORDER granting [61−1] motion for enlargement of time in which to serve a response reset answer due for 2/15/99 for Gloria White, for S. Pichardo, for H. J. Sermon, for Dept. of Corrections ( signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 12/28/98) CCAP (cp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/30/1998)
72 MOTION by A. T. Price, Dept. of Corrections to extend time to serve response (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/08/1999)
63 RETURN OF SERVICE executed for F. T. Staten on 12/7/98 Answer due on 12/27/98 for F. T. Staten (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/1999)
64 Return of service unexecuted as to C. Hayes (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/1999)
65 RETURN OF SERVICE executed for S. Pichardo on 12/18/98 Answer due on 1/7/99 for S. Pichardo (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/1999)
66 RETURN OF SERVICE executed for Gloria White on 12/7/98 Answer due on 12/27/98 for Gloria White (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/1999)
67 Return of service unexecuted as to Ricks (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/1999)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 18 of 62

01/06/1999 01/06/1999 01/06/1999 01/06/1999 01/11/1999
01/22/1999 02/19/1999
03/03/1999 03/03/1999
03/08/1999 03/08/1999
03/08/1999
03/15/1999 03/25/1999 03/25/1999 04/09/1999 04/09/1999 04/14/1999 04/19/1999
06/16/1999

68 RETURN OF SERVICE executed for A. T. Price on 12/18/98 Answer due on 1/7/99 for A. T. Price (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/1999)
69 RETURN OF SERVICE executed for H. J. Sermon on 12/7/98 Answer due on 12/27/98 for H. J. Sermon (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/1999)
70 Return of service unexecuted as to Joe T. Butler (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/1999)
71 RETURN OF SERVICE executed for Dept. of Corrections on 12/9/98 Answer due on 12/29/98 for Dept. of Corrections (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/1999)
73 ORDER granting [72−1] motion to extend time to 2/15/99 to serve response ( signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 1/6/99) CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/12/1999)
74 MOTION by Mark Osterback to substitute Michael Moore fr harry K. Singletary as party (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/26/1999)
75 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections, F. T. Staten, C. Hayes, S. Pichardo, Gloria White, A. T. Price, H. J. Sermon to dismiss complaint (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
76 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Mark Osterback, Darryl E. Williams by Peter Michael Siegel (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/04/1999)
77 MOTION with memorandum in support by Mark Osterback, Darryl E. Williams to extend time to 3/26/99 to respond to motion to dismiss (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/04/1999)
78 ORDER mooting [37−1] motion to effect service of process ( signed by Judge Sorrentino on 3/8/99) CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/09/1999)
79 ORDER granting [77−1] motion to extend time to 3/26/99 to respond to motion to dismiss ( signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 3/8/99) CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/09/1999)
80 ORDER granting [74−1] motion to substitute Michael Moore fr harry K. Singletary as party ( signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 3/8/99) CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/09/1999)
81 ORDER denying [37−1] motion to effect service of process ( signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 3/12/99) CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/17/1999)
82 RESPONSE by Darryl E. Williams, Thomas Albert Gross Jr., Mark Osterback to [75−1] motion to dismiss complaint (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/29/1999)
82 Request by Darryl E. Williams, Thomas Albert Gross Jr., Mark Osterback for leave to amend [16−1] amended complaint (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/29/1999)
83 OBJECTION by Dept. of Corrections to discovery request (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/12/1999)
83 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for protective order (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/12/1999)
84 NOTICE of Unavailability by Dept. of Corrections (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/1999)
85 RESPONSE by Mark Osterback, Thomas Albert Gross Jr., Darryl E. Williams, Inmates in opposition to [83−1] opposition response/objections to discovery request, and [83−1] motion for protective order (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/23/1999)
86 NOTICE of Unavailability of counsel Kathleen M. Savor from 7/21/99 through 7/28/99 by F. T. Staten, C. Hayes, S. Pichardo, Gloria White, Ricks, A. T. Price, H. J. Sermon, Joe T. Butler, Dept. of Corrections (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/17/1999)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 19 of 62

07/21/1999 08/31/1999 08/31/1999 09/01/1999 11/01/1999
11/17/1999 12/01/1999 12/02/1999 12/03/1999 12/10/1999 12/10/1999
12/14/1999 12/20/1999 12/23/1999

87 NOTICE of Change of Address of party by Mark Osterback (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/21/1999)
88 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino recommending that [75−1] motion to dismiss complaint be DENIED. Motion no longer referred. Signed on: 8/31/99 Objections to R and R due by 9/10/99 CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/03/1999)
89 ORDER granting [82−1] motion for leave to amend [16−1] amended complaint, granting in part, denying in part [83−1] motion for protective order ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 8/31/99) CCAP [EOD Date: 9/3/99] (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/03/1999)
90 ORDER denying [75−1] motion to dismiss complaint ( Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 9/1/99) CCAP [EOD Date: 9/8/99] (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/08/1999)
91 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION by Mark Osterback , amending [16−1] amended complaint adding Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector M. Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, James V. Crosby Jr., Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, Clark J. Moody, Charles E. Germany (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/04/1999)
92 MOTION with memorandum in support by All Plaintiffs to compel answer(s)/respond(ses) to interrogatories/request(s) for production (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/17/1999)
93 MOTION by All Defendants to dismiss No. 97−2806 , and require plaintiffs to refile under new case number (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/02/1999)
94 MOTION by All Defendants to extend time to 12/17/99 to respond to motion to compel (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/1999)
95 ORDER granting [94−1] motion to extend time to respond to motion to compel Response to motion reset to 12/17/99 for [92−1] motion to compel to interrogatories/request(s) for production (Signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 12/3/99) CCAP [EOD Date: 12/7/99] (ea, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/1999)
96 MOTION with memorandum in support by All Plaintiffs to extend time to 12/26/99 to respond to motion to dismiss (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/10/1999)
97 Waiver of service executed by Dept. of Corrections, F. T. Staten, C. Hayes, S. Pichardo, Gloria White, Ricks, A. T. Price, H. J. Sermon, Joe T. Butler, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, James V. Crosby Jr., Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, Clark J. Moody, Charles E. Germany (Attorney ), 12/3/99 Answer due by 2/1/00 for Charles E. Germany, for Clark J. Moody, for Joseph S. Petrovesky, for Chester B. Lambdin, for James V. Crosby Jr., for Lonnie E. Holmes, for David L. Pridgen, for Warren W. Cornell, for Paul C. Decker, for Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, for Dept. of Corrections, for Joe T. Butler, for H. J. Sermon, for A. T. Price, for Ricks, for Gloria White, for S. Pichardo, for C. Hayes, for F. T. Staten individually (attorneys name illegible) (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/10/1999)
98 ORDER granting [96−1] motion to extend time to respond to motion to dismiss Response to motion reset to 12/26/99 for [93−1] motion to dismiss (Signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 12/13/99) [EOD Date: 12/15/99] (ea, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/15/1999)
99 RESPONSE by All Defendants to [92−1] motion to compel answer(s)/respond(ses) to interrogatories/request(s) for production (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/22/1999)
100 RESPONSE by All Defendants to [93−1] motion to dismiss No. 97−2806 (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/23/1999)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 20 of 62

01/25/2000 01/25/2000 01/25/2000 01/31/2000 02/14/2000 02/22/2000
03/03/2000 03/03/2000 03/03/2000 03/03/2000 03/16/2000 03/22/2000 03/29/2000
04/11/2000 04/11/2000 05/15/2000
06/16/2000

101 MOTION by All Plaintiffs to certify class action (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
102 MEMORANDUM by All Plaintiffs in support of [101−1] motion to certify class action (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
103 Notice of filing matirials by All Plaintiffs in support of [101−1] motion to certify class action (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
104 Notice of filing declarations of Messenger, others/RESPONSE by All Plaintiffs in support of [101−1] motion to certify class action (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/01/2000)
105 MOTION by All Defendants to extend time to 3/11/00 to respond to motion for class certification (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/14/2000)
106 ORDER granting [105−1] motion to extend time to respond to motion for class certification; Response to motion reset to 3/11/00 for [101−1] motion to certify class action (Signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 2/20/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 2/22/00] (ea, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
107 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Jury trial set for 8/28/00 Calendar call set for 2:00 8/22/00 ( Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 3/3/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 3/6/00] CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/06/2000)
108 PRETRIAL ORDER filed: Scheduling Conference deadline: 4/3/00 ( Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 3/3/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 3/6/00] (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/06/2000)
109 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 5/29/00 ; ( Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 3/3/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 3/6/00] CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/06/2000)
110 NOTICE of plaintiffs addresses and DOC numbers by All Plaintiffs (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/06/2000)
111 RESPONSE by Dept. of Corrections, F. T. Staten, C. Hayes, S. Pichardo, Gloria White, A. T. Price, H. J. Sermon in opposition to [101−1] motion to certify class action (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/17/2000)
112 REPLY by All Plaintiffs to response to [101−1] motion to certify class action (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/23/2000)
113 ORDER dismissing as moot [92−1] motion to compel answer(s)/respond(ses) to interrogatories/request(s) for production (Signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 3/29/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 3/30/00] (ea, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/30/2000)
114 JOINT MOTION by All Defendants, All Plaintiffs to modify/ amend [109−1] Scheduling order, [107−1] Scheduling ORDER setting Jury trial (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/11/2000)
114 Rule 16.1 Scheduling Report of Scheduling Meeting with proposed scheduling order by All Plaintiffs, All Defendants (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/11/2000)
115 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [114−1] joint motion to modify/ amend [109−1] Scheduling order, [107−1] Scheduling ORDER setting Jury trial ( Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on y) CCAP [EOD Date: 5/16/00] (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/16/2000)
116 REPORT of Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino recommending that: 1) the defendants' [93−1] and [93−2] motion to dismiss and require plaintiffs to file a new case, under new case style be DENIED, 2) the plaintiffs' [101−1] motion for certification of a class consisting of all persons who are currently assigned to Close Management in prisons operated by the Florida Department of Corrections or who in the future will be assigned to Close Managment, with three subclasses: (i) persons who are currently or will be assigned to Close Management I; (ii) persons who are currently or will be assigned to Close Managment II; and (iii) persons who are currently or will be assigned to Close Management III. Motion no longer

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 21 of 62

06/20/2000 07/03/2000 07/07/2000 07/26/2000
07/28/2000 07/28/2000 07/28/2000 08/07/2000 08/07/2000 08/11/2000 08/21/2000 11/09/2000 12/22/2000 01/29/2001 02/02/2001 02/16/2001
02/21/2001

referred. Signed on: 6/16/00; Objections to R and R due by 6/26/00 CCAP (ea, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/19/2000)
117 AMENDMENT to [116−1] report and recommendations (Signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 6/20/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 6/21/00] (ea, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/21/2000)
118 OBJECTION by Dept. of Corrections, F. T. Staten, C. Hayes, S. Pichardo, Gloria White, A. T. Price, H. J. Sermon to [116−1] report and recommendations (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/05/2000)
119 RESPONSE by All Plaintiffs to Objections to [116−1] report and recommendations (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/10/2000)
120 ORDER adopting [116−1] report and recommendations denying [93−1] motion to dismiss No. 97−2806, denying [93−2] motion require plaintiffs to refile under new case number, granting [101−1] motion to certify class action ; overruling [118−1] objection ( Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 7/25/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 7/27/00] CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/27/2000)
121 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 3/16/00 ; ( Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 7/28/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 7/31/00] CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/31/2000)
122 ORDER referring case to mediation. 15 days to appoint mediator ( Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 7/28/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 7/31/00] (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/31/2000)
123 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Jury trial set for 6/18/01 Calendar call set for 2:00 6/12/01 ( Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 7/28/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 7/31/00] CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/31/2000)
124 ORDER transferring case to the calendar of Judge Paul C. Huck ( Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 8/7/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 8/8/00] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
CASE reassigned to Judge Paul C. Huck (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
125 Answer and affirmative defenses (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/14/2000)
126 NOTICE of attorney appearance for F. T. Staten, C. Hayes, S. Pichardo, Gloria White, Ricks, A. T. Price, H. J. Sermon, Joe T. Butler, Dept. of Corrections by Charles M. Fahlbusch (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/22/2000)
127 ORDER resetting calendar call reset calendar call for 8:30 6/13/01 before Judge Paul C. Huck ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 10/8/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 11/13/00] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/13/2000)
128 MOTION by All Plaintiffs to substitute parties (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/26/2000)
129 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for case management conference (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
130 ORDER SCHEDULING MEDIATION before Mediator: Karen Evans for 2/21/01 ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 2/2/01) CCAP [EOD Date: 2/5/01] (tb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/05/2001)
131 ORDER setting case management/ pretrial conference for 8:15 2/26/01 before Judge Paul C. Huck granting [129−1] motion for case management conference ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 2/16/01) CCAP [EOD Date: 2/20/01] (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/20/2001)
132 ORDER granting [128−1] motion to substitute parties; Charles Matthews is substitued for Lonnie E. Holmes; Henry Alford is substitued for Charles E. Germany; the name of Clark J. Moody is corrected to J. Clark Moody (Signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 2/21/01) CCAP [EOD Date: 2/22/01] (ea, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/22/2001)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 22 of 62

02/21/2001 02/26/2001
02/26/2001 02/26/2001 02/26/2001 03/16/2001 03/27/2001 03/27/2001 03/27/2001 03/27/2001 03/28/2001 03/29/2001
03/30/2001 03/30/2001 03/30/2001 03/30/2001 04/05/2001

133 JOINT STATUS REPORT by All Plaintiffs, All Defendants (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/22/2001)
134 REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER reset Jury trial for 6/18/01 before Judge Paul C. Huck , et calendar call for 8:30 6/13/01 , resetting discovery deadline for 5/25/01 , reset pretrial stipulation due for 6/5/01 ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 2/26/01) CCAP [EOD Date: 2/27/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
135 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Dept. of Corrections to extend time for production (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
136 STIPULATED ORDER for protective order ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 2/26/01) CCAP [EOD Date: 2/27/01] (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
Motion(s) referred: [135−1] motion to extend time for production referred to Magistrate Stephen T. Brown (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/11/2001)
137 ORDER RE−SCHEDULING MEDIATION before Mediator: for 4/9/01 at 9:30 ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 3/16/01) CCAP [EOD Date: 3/19/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/19/2001)
139 EMERGENCY MOTION by All Plaintiffs to continue trial , and for a revised scheduling Order (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 03/28/2001 (Entered: 03/28/2001)
138 EMERGENCY MOTION by All Plaintiffs to compel defendants to comply with Rule 34, certification and memo (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 03/28/2001 (Entered: 03/28/2001)
140 EMERGENCY MOTION by All Plaintiffs for leave to file copies of letters between counsel and certificate of counsel (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 03/28/2001 (Entered: 03/28/2001)
141 EMERGENCY MOTION by All Plaintiffs for failure to cooperate in discovery and seeking Order to enter upon land (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/28/2001)
142 ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE Status conference set for 2:00 3/30/01 before Judge Paul C. Huck ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 3CBI) CCAP [EOD Date: 3/29/01] CCAP (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/29/2001)
143 RESPONSE by F. T. Staten, C. Hayes, S. Pichardo, Gloria White, Ricks, A. T. Price, H. J. Sermon, Joe T. Butler, Dept. of Corrections to [138−1] motion to compel defendants to comply with Rule 34, certification and memo (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/30/2001)
144 MOTION by All Defendants to shorten time to provide answers to interrogatories and response to production (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/02/2001)
145 MOTION by All Defendants for mental Examinations of persons (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/02/2001)
146 RESPONSE by All Defendants to [141−1] motion for failure to cooperate in discovery and seeking Order to enter upon land (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/02/2001)
147 EMERGENCY UNOPPOSED MOTION by All Defendants for leave to file a copy of correspondence between counsel (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/02/2001)
148 ORDER hearing on pending discovery motions before Magistrate Stephen T. Brown set for 11:00 4/9/01 for [147−1] motion for leave to file a copy of correspondence between counsel, [145−1] motion for mental Examinations of persons, [144−1] motion to shorten time to provide answers to interrogatories and response to production, [141−1] motion for failure to cooperate in discovery and seeking Order to enter upon land, [140−1] motion for leave to file copies of letters between counsel and certificate of counsel, [138−1] motion to compel defendants to comply with Rule 34, certification and memo (Signed by Magistrate Stephen T. Brown on 4/5/01) CCAP [EOD Date: 4/6/01] (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/06/2001)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 23 of 62

04/05/2001
04/05/2001 04/06/2001 04/06/2001 04/06/2001 04/06/2001 04/06/2001 04/06/2001 04/06/2001 04/06/2001 04/09/2001 04/09/2001
04/09/2001 04/09/2001 04/09/2001
04/12/2001

149 ORDER denying [139−1] motion to continue trial; denying [139−2] motion for a revised scheduling Order; jury instructions and verdict form must be filed by 6/11/00, all discovery and related matters is referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen T. Brown; see order for details (Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 4/5/01) CCAP [EOD Date: 4/6/01] (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/06/2001)
149 ORDER REFERRING DISCOVERY MATTERS to Magistrate Judge Stephen T. Brown ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 4/5/01) CCAP [EOD Date: 4/6/01] (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/06/2001)
150 EMERGENCY MOTION with memorandum in support by All Defendants for protective order to preclude depositions simultaneous with inspections of correctional institutions (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
151 RESPONSE by All Plaintiffs to [150−1] motion for protective order to preclude depositions simultaneous with inspections of correctional institutions (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
152 MOTION by All Defendants to compel answers to interrogatories (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
153 NOTICE of filing unattached original affidavits of Wardens James Crosby, David Pridgen, Tim Mingo and supplemental affidavit of Warden Crosby by All Defendants (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
154 AFFIDAVIT of Tim Mingo by All Defendants Re: [146−1] motion response (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
155 AFFIDAVIT of David L. Pridgen by All Defendants Re: [146−1] motion response (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
156 AFFIDAVIT of James Crosby by All Defendants Re: [146−1] motion response (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
157 SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT of James Crosby by All Defendants Re: [146−1] motion response (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
158 Minutes of motion hearing emergency motion for protective Order, emergency motion to compel held before Judge Paul C. Huck on 4/9/01; Court Reporter Name or Tape #: O1D−29−1020 (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
Motion hearing re: [135−1] motion to extend time for production, [138−1] motion to compel defendants to comply with Rule 34, certification and memo, [152−1] motion to compel answers to interrogatories, [150−1] motion for protective order to preclude depositions simultaneous with inspections of correctional institutions, [147−1] motion for leave to file a copy of correspondence between counsel Motion hearing held, [145−1] motion for mental Examinations of persons, [144−1] motion to shorten time to provide answers to interrogatories and response to production, [141−1] motion for failure to cooperate in discovery and seeking Order to enter upon land, [140−1] motion for leave to file copies of letters between counsel and certificate of counsel (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
159 MOTION by All Defendants for leave to file amended answers and defenses (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
160 ORDER granting [159−1] motion for leave to file amended answers and defenses ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 4/9/01) CCAP [EOD Date: 4/10/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
161 AMENDED ANSWER and defenses to Complaint by F. T. Staten, C. Hayes, S. Pichardo, Gloria White, Ricks, A. T. Price, H. J. Sermon, Joe T. Butler, Dept. of Corrections, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, James V. Crosby Jr., Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Charles Matthews, Henry Alford : amends [125−1] answer (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
162 ORDER RE: PENDING MOTIONS denying [138−1] motion to compel defendants to comply with Rule 34, certification and memo, denying [150−1] motion for protective order to preclude depositions simultaneous with inspections of

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 24 of 62

04/13/2001 04/13/2001 04/13/2001 04/13/2001 04/16/2001 04/17/2001 04/20/2001 04/20/2001 04/23/2001 04/30/2001
05/01/2001
05/18/2001 05/22/2001
05/30/2001 06/13/2001

correctional institutions, granting [140−1] motion for leave to file copies of letters between counsel and certificate of counsel, granting [147−1] motion for leave to file a copy of correspondence between counsel, granting [145−1] motion for mental Examinations of persons, denying [144−1] motion to shorten time to provide answers to interrogatories and response to production, granting in part, denying in part [141−1] motion for failure to cooperate in discovery and seeking Order to enter upon land, and extending discovery deadline until 5/18/01 (Signed by Magistrate Stephen T. Brown on 4/10/01) CCAP [EOD Date: 4/13/01] (dr, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/13/2001)
163 NOTICE of status conference on all pending matters by All Plaintiffs (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2001)
164 EMERGENCY MOTION by All Plaintiffs to compel defendants to comply with Rule 34, certification and memo (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 04/16/2001 (Entered: 04/16/2001)
165 EMERGENCY UNOPPOSED MOTION by All Plaintiffs to continue trial , and and to revise [134−5] scheduling order (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 04/16/2001 (Entered: 04/16/2001)
166 REQUEST by All Plaintiffs for status conference (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2001)
167 JOINT ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNAVAILABILITY of trial date by All Plaintiffs, All Defendants (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/17/2001)
168 NOTICE of Mediation Hearing on 5/7/01 and 5/8/01 at 10:00 Paul A. Remillard added as mediator (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/18/2001)
169 NOTICE of withdrawal of emergency motion to compel defendants to comply with rule 34 by All Plaintiffs (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/23/2001)
WITHDRAWAL of [164−1] motion to compel defendants to comply with Rule 34, certification and memo (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/23/2001)
170 RESPONSE by All Defendants to [164−1] motion to compel defendants to comply with Rule 34, certification and memo (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/24/2001)
171 ORDER granting [152−1] motion to compel answers to interrogatories, on the merits, defendant's motion is well taken and objections to the interrogatories are overruled ( Signed by Magistrate Stephen T. Brown on 4/30/01) CCAP [EOD Date: 5/1/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/01/2001)
172 ORDER granting [165−1] motion to continue trial, [165−2] motion and to revise [134−5] scheduling order, mediation shall proceed as planned on 5/7/01 and 5/8/01, the parties shall be prepared for trial by 10/15/01 and at any time thereafter ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 4/30/01) CCAP [EOD Date: 5/2/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/02/2001)
173 JOINT MOTION by All Plaintiffs, All Defendants for a revised scheduling order and attached proposed revised scheduling order (tb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/21/2001)
174 ORDER RE−SETTING PRETRIAL DEADLINES granting [173−1] motion for a revised scheduling order, resetting discovery deadline for 9/21/01 , reset motion filing deadline for 9/28/01 , reset pretrial stipulation due for 10/1/01 (Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 5/21/01) CCAP [EOD Date: 5/23/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 05/23/2001 (Entered: 05/23/2001)
175 ORDER granting [135−1] motion to extend time for production until 5/29/01 (Signed by Magistrate Stephen T. Brown on 5/24/01) CCAP [EOD Date: 5/31/01] (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/31/2001)
176 UNOPPOSED MOTION by All Defendants for clarification of [175−1] order (tb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/14/2001)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 25 of 62

06/14/2001 06/29/2001 07/05/2001 07/10/2001 07/11/2001 07/11/2001 07/13/2001 07/17/2001 07/18/2001 07/18/2001
07/18/2001 07/19/2001 07/25/2001 08/08/2001 08/08/2001 08/10/2001 08/15/2001
08/15/2001

177 ORDER granting [176−1] motion for clarification of [175−1] order ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 6/13/01) CCAP [EOD Date: 6/15/01] (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/15/2001)
178 ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE Status conference set for 2:30 7/6/01 before Judge Paul C. Huck ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 6/29/01) [EOD Date: 7/2/01] CCAP (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/02/2001)
179 MOTION by All Defendants for monthly filing of plaintiff's time records (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/06/2001)
180 ORDER re−setting trial and calendar call reset Jury trial for 10/15/01 before Judge Paul C. Huck , reset calendar call for 8:30 10/3/01 ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 7/9/01) [EOD Date: 7/11/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
181 OPPOSITION by All Plaintiffs to [179−1] motion for monthly filing of plaintiff's time records (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/12/2001)
181 UNOPPOSED MOTION by All Plaintiffs for the monthly filing of defendants' time records (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/12/2001)
182 REPLY Memorandum by All Defendants to response to [179−1] motion for monthly filing of plaintiff's time records (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/16/2001)
183 MOTION by All Defendants for leave to file second amended answer and defenses {proposed pleading in docketing, pod 3} (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
184 ORDER granting [183−1] motion for leave to file second amended answer and defenses ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 7/18/01) [EOD Date: 7/20/01] (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/20/2001)
185 AMENDED ANSWER and defenses to Complaint by F. T. Staten, C. Hayes, S. Pichardo, Gloria White, Ricks, A. T. Price, H. J. Sermon, Joe T. Butler, Dept. of Corrections, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, James V. Crosby Jr., Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles Matthews, Henry Alford : amends [125−1] answer (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/20/2001)
186 ORDER denying [179−1] motion for monthly filing of plaintiff's time records ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 7/17/01f) [EOD Date: 7/20/01] (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/20/2001)
187 REQUEST by All Plaintiffs for leave to enter on land for inspection (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/20/2001)
188 ORDER denying without [187−1] motion for leave to enter on land for inspection ( Signed by Magistrate Stephen T. Brown on 7/23/01) [EOD Date: 7/26/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/26/2001)
189 NOTICE of filing subpoenas by All Plaintiffs (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/09/2001)
190 ORDER setting pretrial conference for 4:45 9/19/01 before Judge Paul C. Huck ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 8/7/01) [EOD Date: 8/9/01] (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/09/2001)
191 EMERGENCY MOTION by All Plaintiffs for protective order barring the conducting of mental health status exams of the named plaintiffs with certification of counsel (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/10/2001)
192 ORDER denying [191−1] motion for protective order barring the conducting of mental health status exams of the named plaintiffs ( Signed by Magistrate Stephen T. Brown on 8/14/01) [EOD Date: 8/16/01] (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
193 ORDER directing parties to respond to motion on or before 8/17/01. ( Signed by Magistrate Stephen T. Brown on 8/14/01) [EOD Date: 8/16/01] (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/16/2001)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 26 of 62

08/16/2001 08/17/2001 08/17/2001 08/17/2001 08/17/2001 08/20/2001 08/20/2001 08/20/2001 08/21/2001
08/23/2001 08/27/2001 08/27/2001 08/27/2001
08/28/2001 08/28/2001
08/28/2001
09/06/2001 09/06/2001 09/06/2001

194 EMERGENCY MOTION by Dept. of Corrections to compel cooperation with mental status examinations and for sanctions (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/17/2001)
195 NOTICE of filing declarations in support of response to defendants' emergency motion to compel and for sanctions by All Plaintiffs (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
196 RESPONSE by All Plaintiffs to [194−1] motion to compel cooperation with mental status examinations and for sanctions (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
197 DECLARATION by All Plaintiffs Re: [194−1] motion to compel cooperation with mental status examinations and for sanctions (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
198 DECLARATION by All Plaintiffs Re: [196−1] motion response (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
199 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections to amend and amendment to [194−1] motion to compel cooperation with mental status examinations and for sanctions (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/21/2001)
200 REPLY by Dept. of Corrections to response to [194−1] motion to compel cooperation with mental status examinations and for sanctions (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/21/2001)
201 NOTICE OF FILING EXHIBITS A and B to: [196−1] motion response by All Plaintiffs (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/21/2001)
202 ORDER denying [191−1] motion for protective order barring the conducting of mental health status exams of the named plaintiffs ( Signed by Magistrate Stephen T. Brown on 8/14/01) [EOD Date: 8/22/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/22/2001)
203 JOINT MOTION by All Plaintiffs, All Defendants for extension of time of various pretrial deadlines (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
204 NOTICE of filing witness list by All Defendants (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/28/2001)
204 Witness list by All Defendants (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/28/2001)
205 ORDER partially granting [203−1] joint motion for extension of time of various pretrial deadlines reset motion filing deadline for 9/10/01 ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 8/27/01) [EOD Date: 8/28/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/28/2001)
206 Witness list by All Defendants (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/29/2001)
207 ORDER granting [199−1] motion to amend and amendment to [194−1] motion to compel cooperation with mental status examinations and for sanctions ( Signed by Magistrate Stephen T. Brown on 8/27/01) [EOD Date: 8/29/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/29/2001)
208 ORDER and notice of hearing Motion hearing before Magistrate Stephen T. Brown set for 10:00 9/7/01 for [194−1] motion to compel cooperation with mental status examinations and for sanctions ( Signed by Magistrate Stephen T. Brown on 8/28/01) [EOD Date: 8/29/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/29/2001)
209 EMERGENCY MOTION by All Defendants to bar witnesses from testifying (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
210 NOTICE of filing amended witness list by All Defendants (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
210 AMENDED Witness list by All Defendants (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/07/2001)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 27 of 62

09/06/2001 09/06/2001 09/06/2001 09/07/2001 09/07/2001 09/07/2001 09/10/2001 09/10/2001
09/10/2001 09/10/2001 09/10/2001 09/11/2001 09/11/2001 09/13/2001 09/14/2001
09/14/2001

211 NOTICE of filing second amended witness list by All Defendants (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
211 Second Amended Expert Witness list by All Defendants (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
212 AMENDMENT by All Defendants to: [211−1] witness list (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
213 RESPONSE by All Plaintiffs to [209−1] motion to bar witnesses from testifying (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
214 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL by All Defendants of [194−1] motion to compel cooperation with mental status examinations and for sanctions (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
215 NOTICE of filing amended expert witness list by All Defendants (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
216 ORDER denying as moot [194−1] motion to compel cooperation with mental status examinations and for sanctions (Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 9/10/01) [EOD Date: 9/13/01] (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
217 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [209−1] motion to bar witnesses from testifying; plaintiffs will be limited to calling 18 inmates at trial; the names of these 18 witnesses will be provided to the defendants by 5:00 p.m. today; see order for details (Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 9/7/01) [EOD Date: 9/13/01] (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
218 MOTION by All Defendants for summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
219 EMERGENCY MOTION by All Defendants to extend time for furnishing of expert reports and to furnish expert depositions (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
220 UNOPPOSED MOTION by All Defendants for leave to file legal memorandum in excess of twenty page limit (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 09/18/2001 (Entered: 09/13/2001)
221 ORDER resetting pretrial conference for 4:45 10/10/01 before Judge Paul C. Huck (Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 9/10/01) [EOD Date: 9/13/01] (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
222 ORDER granting [220−1] motion for leave to file legal memorandum in excess of the twenty page limit (Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 9/10/01) [EOD Date: 9/13/01] (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
223 ORDER granting [220−1] motion for leave to file legal memorandum in excess of twenty page limit ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 9/13/01) [EOD Date: 9/14/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/14/2001)
224 NOTICE of Mental Health Examinations of plaintiffs of by All Defendants set for 9/14/01 at 8:00 a.m. for: Carl Mullings, Christopher L. Middleton, Trevell M. Robinson, DAvid Allen, Carlos Corrales Rubio, Corey Fields, Anthony Strickland, Robert Weaver, Marcus Bullock, Charles Jerry, Mike Salazar, Jerri Duncanson, Robert Rudisel, Richard S. Doss, Malcolm L. Love, Robert Lee Hudson, Terrick Crosby, Dennis D. Perry, James T. Young, Christopher T. Moore, Antwon Johnson, Tareyan Cook, Willie A. Lockett (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/17/2001)
225 NOTICE of mental health examinations of plaintiffs by All Defendants on 9/15−16/01 at 8:00 a.m. for: Edward C. Green, Troy M. Griffin, Kelvin Frazier, Eric Green, Maurice Williams, Tony Nealy, James W. Harkleroad, William Files, Charles King, Stephen Tetro, Troy Hall, Richard Hudson, Sylvester Butler, Antonion Jones, James Doby, Lionel Lespinasse, Francisco Marquez, Robert Roy, Sylvester Shuler, Robert M. Stokes, Darryl Streeter, William A. Briggs, Keith Clark, Albert Quinn, Herry Sherrod, Jay Sigler, Jessie B. Lang, John E. Odom, Johnny L. Capers, James D. Evans, Henry E. Donaldson, James J. McCallister,

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 28 of 62

09/17/2001
09/20/2001
09/20/2001 09/20/2001 09/21/2001 09/21/2001 09/21/2001
09/21/2001 09/21/2001 09/24/2001 09/24/2001 09/24/2001 09/26/2001

Darren L. Yount, Oliver O. Jones, Donald F. Larrabee, Willie L. Neal, Walter L. Ratliff, Isac Sharpe, Kenneth S. West, Jeffrey Horton, Roger Lavallee, Willie McPhee, Jorge Rocha, Bruce Dunham, David Primm, Lamar Miffin, David Elliott, William Hickman, Michael Irwin, Anthony Parker, Walter Danzey, Jason Jones, Richard Nuzzo, Edward Wart, Jimmy K. Alcenat, Michael Smith, David Battle (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/17/2001)
226 ORDER granting [220−1] motion for leave to file legal memorandum in excess of twenty page limit, granting [219−1] motion to extend time for furnishing of expert reports and to furnish expert depositions until 10/4/01 ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 9/17/01) [EOD Date: 9/18/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/18/2001)
227 MOTION by All Plaintiffs for clarification of [217−1] order , or to modify/amend [217−1] ORDER granting in part, denying in part [209−1] motion to bar witnesses from testifying; plaintiffs will be limited to calling 18 inmates at trial; the names of these 18 witnesses will be provided to the defendants by 5:00 p.m. today; see order for details (Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 9/7/01) (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/21/2001)
228 MOTION by All Plaintiffs for clarification of [217−1] order , or in the alternative, to amend [217−1] order re: order on emergency motion to bar witnesses (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/21/2001)
229 NOTICE of inability to comply with pretrial scheduling deadlines by All Defendants and motion for extension of time to complete inmate mental status exams and to file expert report , for a continuance with certificate of consultation with opposing counsel (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/21/2001)
230 NOTICE of inability to comply with pretrial scheduling deadlines by Dept. of Corrections (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/24/2001)
230 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections for extension of time to complete inmate mental status exams and file expert report , for continuance with certificate of consulation with opposing counsel (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/24/2001)
231 NOTICE of attorney appearance for F. T. Staten, C. Hayes, S. Pichardo, Gloria White, Ricks, A. T. Price, H. J. Sermon, Joe T. Butler, Dept. of Corrections, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, James V. Crosby Jr., Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles Matthews by James Aaron Peters (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/24/2001)
232 PARTIAL RESPONSE by All Plaintiffs to [218−1] motion for summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/24/2001)
233 EXHIBITS to: [232−1] motion response by All Plaintiffs (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/24/2001)
234 AMENDED NOTICE of mental health examinations of plaintiffs' by All Plaintiffs (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/24/2001)
235 RESPONSE by All Defendants to [228−1] motion for clarification of [217−1] order, [228−2] motion to amend [217−1] order (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/25/2001)
236 SUPPLEMENT by All Defendants to: [230−1] notice (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/25/2001)
237 ORDER deferring ruling on [227−1] motion for clarification of [217−1] order under advisement, and deferring ruling on [227−2] motion to modify/amend [217−1] ORDER granting in part, denying in part [209−1] motion to bar witnesses from testifying; plaintiffs will be limited calling 18 inmates at trial; the names of these 18 will be provided to the defendants by 5:00 p.m. today; see order details, until the Plaintiffs provide a list of witnesses in accordance with the 9/25/00 hearing (Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 9/7/01) under advisement ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 9/26/01) [EOD Date: 9/27/01] (wc, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 09/27/2001 (Entered: 09/27/2001)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 29 of 62

09/27/2001
09/28/2001 10/01/2001 10/03/2001 10/10/2001 10/10/2001 10/11/2001 10/11/2001 10/16/2001 10/23/2001 10/23/2001 10/23/2001 10/23/2001 10/23/2001 10/23/2001 10/25/2001 10/25/2001 10/25/2001 10/25/2001

238 ORDER granting [230−1] motion for extension of time to complete inmate mental status exams and file expert report, denying [230−2] motion for continuance with certificate of consulation with opposing counsel ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 9/27/01) [EOD Date: 9/28/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/28/2001)
239 REPLY by All Defendants to response to [218−1] motion for summary judgment (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
240 CORRECTED REPLY by All Defendants to response to [218−1] motion for summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/02/2001)
241 NOTICE of acceptance of defendants' revised offer of judgment by All Plaintiffs (tb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/04/2001)
242 ORDER approving [241−1] notice, setting fairness hearing set for 12/26/01 at 1:30 before Judge Paul C. Huck ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 10/10/01) [EOD Date: 10/11/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
243 JOINT Class Action Notice Statement by All Plaintiffs, All Defendants (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
244 ORDER denying as moot [218−1] motion for summary judgment denying as moot [227−1] motion for clarification of [217−1] order ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 10/11/01) [EOD Date: 10/12/01] (tb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
245 NOTICE of Hearing: set settlement conference for 1:30 12/26/01 before Judge Paul C. Huck (tb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
246 ORDER substituting form to correct scrivener's error( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 10/16/01) [EOD Date: 10/18/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
247 NOTICE of objections to the conditions agreed upon the proposed settlement, re: [243−1] Joint Class Action Notice Statement by Dale Lee Lenoir (sn, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/2001 (Entered: 10/24/2001)
248 NOTICE of objections to the terms of the revised offer of judgment, re: [243−1] Joint Class Action Notice Statement by Doy J. Christian (sn, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/2001 (Entered: 10/24/2001)
249 NOTICE of objections to the proposed settlement agreement by Laron A. Mingo, re: [243−1] Joint Class Action Notice Statement (sn, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/2001 (Entered: 10/24/2001)
250 NOTICE of objections to proposed settlement agreement by Charles King, re: [243−1] Joint Class Action Notice Statement (sn, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/2001 (Entered: 10/24/2001)
251 NOTICE of objections to proposed settlement agreement by Louis Robenson, re: [243−1] Joint Class Action Notice Statement (sn, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/2001 (Entered: 10/24/2001)
252 NOTICE of objections to proposed settlement agreement by Louis Robenson, re: [243−1] Joint Class Action Notice Statement (sn, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/2001 (Entered: 10/24/2001)
253 NOTICE of revised offer of judgment by Franze Young, re: [243−1] Joint Class Action Notice Statement (sn, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/2001 (Entered: 10/26/2001)
254 NOTICE of response to class action settlement by Fred Johnson, re: [243−1] Joint Class Action Notice Statement (sn, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/2001 (Entered: 10/26/2001)
255 RESPONSE by Anthony Patino in opposition to [243−1] JOINT Class Action Notice Statement (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/26/2001)
256 OBJECTIONS/RESPONSE by Jireh Randall Kleppinger in opposition to [243−1] JOINT Class Action Notice Statement (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/26/2001)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 30 of 62

10/25/2001 10/25/2001 10/25/2001 10/25/2001 10/25/2001
10/25/2001 10/25/2001 10/25/2001 10/25/2001 10/25/2001
10/26/2001
10/26/2001 10/26/2001 10/26/2001 10/29/2001
10/29/2001 10/29/2001 10/29/2001 10/29/2001 10/29/2001 10/29/2001 10/29/2001

257 OBJECTIONS/RESPONSE by Hombre Lewis in opposition to [243−1] JOINT Class Action Notice Statement (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/26/2001)
258 OBJECTIONS/RESPONSE by James Arthur Lee in opposition to [243−1] JOINT Class Action Notice Statement (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/26/2001)
259 MOTION by Mark Osterback, Vincent Faustino Rivera to strike appearance of counsel Randall C. Berg, Jr. (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/26/2001)
260 MOTION by Mark Osterback, Vincent Faustino Rivera to strike appearance of counsel Peter M. Siegel, Esq. (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/26/2001)
261 MOTION by Mark Osterback, Vincent Faustino Rivera to amend [91−1] amended complaint (proposed pleading not attached) (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/26/2001)
262 MOTION by Mark Osterback, Vincent Faustino Rivera to strike and reserve [91−1] amended complaint (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/26/2001)
263 MOTION by Mark Osterback, Vincent Faustino Rivera to amend/restyle case name (proposed pleading not attached) (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/26/2001)
264 MOTION by Mark Osterback, Vincent Faustino Rivera for dissolution of class (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/26/2001)
265 MOTION by Mark Osterback, Vincent Faustino Rivera to voluntarily dismiss action (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/26/2001)
267 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL by Vincent Faustino Rivera of [244−1] order . EOD Date: 10/12/01; Filing Fee: $ FEE NOT PAID;; Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/29/2001)
266 ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE Status conference set for 10:00 11/2/01 before Judge Paul C. Huck ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 10/25/01) [EOD Date: 10/29/01] CCAP (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/29/2001)
268 OBJECTION by Glenn C. Smith to [243−1] notice (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/29/2001)
269 OBJECTION by Donald Perry to [243−1] notice (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/29/2001)
270 OBJECTION by Julio Mora to [243−1] notice (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/29/2001)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [267−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera as to Vincent Faustino Rivera (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/29/2001)
271 RESPONSE by Ronald Gates to [243−1] Joint Class Action Notice Statement (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
272 WRITTEN COMMENTS by Hector M. Rivas in objection to [243−1] Joint Class Action Notice Statement (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
273 RESPONSE by Robert Lee Hinson to [243−1] Joint Class Action Notice Statement (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
274 RESPONSE by John Edward Smith in opposition to [243−1] Joint Class Action Notice Statement (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
275 RESPONSE by Mark Oldner to [243−1] Joint Class Action Notice Statement (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
276 NOTICE OF OBJECTION by Brandon Evans to [243−1] Joint Class Action Notice Statement (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
277 AGREED MOTION by All Defendants to excuse late posting of translation at Everglades Correctional Institution (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/30/2001)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 31 of 62

10/30/2001 10/30/2001 10/30/2001 10/30/2001 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 11/01/2001
11/01/2001 11/02/2001 11/05/2001 11/05/2001 11/05/2001 11/05/2001
11/05/2001 11/05/2001
11/06/2001 11/07/2001 11/07/2001 11/07/2001
11/07/2001 11/09/2001

279 NOTICE of consent to become party plaintiff by Eugene Long (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/31/2001)
278 MOTION by Willie A. Scullock to dismiss defendant's revised offer of judgment plans (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/31/2001)
280 EXHIBITS to: motion to dismiss by Willie A. Scullock (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/31/2001)
281 OBJECTION by Willie A. Scullock to [243−1] notice (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/31/2001)
283 SECOND brief by Donald Perry to [243−1] notice of settlement agreement (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
284 RESPONSE by Clarence S. Allen to [243−1] notice of settlement agreement (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
285 RESPONSE by Clarence S. Allen in opposition to [243−1] notice of settlement agreement (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
282 ORDER granting [277−1] motion to excuse late posting of translation at Everglades Correctional Institution ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 10/31/01) [EOD Date: 11/1/01] (sk, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 11/01/2001 (Entered: 11/01/2001)
286 AFFIDAVIT by Julio A. Rivera−Davis re: [243−1] notice of settlement agreement (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
287 MOTION by Dept. of Corrections to excuse late posting of translation at Lake Correctional Institution (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/2001)
288 RESPONSE, partial objections and comments by Kurt J. Smith to [243−1] notice (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/06/2001)
289 APPENDIX to: [288−1] response by Kurt J. Smith (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/06/2001)
290 MOTION by William C. Eason for temporary restraining order , and/or for preliminary injunction (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/06/2001)
291 MEMORANDUM by William C. Eason in support of [290−1] motion for temporary restraining order, [290−2] motion for preliminary injunction (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/06/2001)
292 SECOND NOTICE of objection to [243−1] by Laron A. Mingo (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/06/2001)
293 ORDER granting [287−1] motion to excuse late posting of translation at Lake Correctional Institution ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 11/2/01) [EOD Date: 11/6/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/06/2001)
294 Statement by Julio Martinez re: treatment at confinement facility (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
295 OBJECTION by Carlos Ruiz to [243−1] notice (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/09/2001)
296 MOTION by Renaisctg Forter to show cause , and for temporary restraining order (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/09/2001)
298 Transcript Information Form re: as to Vincent Faustino Rivera [267−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera . No transcript requested. (ga, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
317 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of new case by John Freddrick (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
297 OBJECTIONS by John Pope to [243−1] notice (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/09/2001)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 32 of 62

11/09/2001 11/09/2001 11/13/2001 11/14/2001 11/14/2001 11/14/2001 11/14/2001 11/15/2001 11/15/2001 11/16/2001 11/16/2001
11/16/2001 11/19/2001 11/19/2001 11/19/2001 11/19/2001 11/20/2001 11/20/2001 11/20/2001 11/21/2001

299 OBJECTION by Robert L. Gibson in opposition to [243−1] notice (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
300 OBJECTION by Arthur Rudick to [243−1] notice (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
301 NOTICE of filing miscellaneous exhibits by George Jean (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/15/2001)
302 NOTICE of request for reply to response to letter by Daniel Fetzer (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/15/2001)
303 NOTICE to the Court re settlement agreement by James W. Harkleroad (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/15/2001)
304 AGREED MOTION by Dept. of Corrections to substitute form and excuse posting error which have been corrected (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/15/2001)
305 AMENDMENT by Willie A. Scullock to: [281−1] opposition response (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/15/2001)
306 MOTION by Vincent Faustino Rivera for rule 60(b) relief from Order granting leave to proceed ifp (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/16/2001)
NOTICE of Receipt of Notice of Appeal Transmittal Letter from USCA on 11/1/01 Re: [267−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera USCA NUMBER: 01−16160−I (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/19/2001)
307 MOTION by All Defendants for leave for James A. Peters to withdraw as attorney (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/19/2001)
308 OMNIBUS ORDER denying [296−1] motion to show cause, denying [296−2] motion for temporary restraining order, denying [290−1] motion for temporary restraining order, denying [290−2] motion for preliminary injunction, denying [278−1] motion dismiss defendant's revised offer of judgment plans, [265−1] motion to voluntarily dismiss action, denying [264−1] motion for dissolution of class, denying [263−1] motion to amend/restyle case name, denying [262−1] motion to strike and reserve [91−1] amended complaint, denying motion to amend [91−1] amended complaint, denying [260−1] motion to strike appearance of counsel Peter M. Siegel, Esq., denying [259−1] motion to strike appearance of Randall C. Berg, Jr. ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 11/16/01) [EOD Date: 11/19/01] (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 12/06/2001 (Entered: 11/19/2001)
309 NOTICE of inquiry by Donald Perry (docket sheet sent 11/19/01) (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/19/2001)
310 OBJECTION by Donnell Leto to [243−1] notice (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
311 OBJECTION by Shelton Jackson to [243−1] notice (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
312 OBJECTION by Torrence Allen to [243−1] notice (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
313 Written comments and objections for consideration by the Court by Torrence Allen re settlement agreement (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
314 Cause showing why revised offer of judgment is unacceptable to class members by Zoltan Dobi re: [243−1] notice (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
315 COMMENTS of by Willie J. Watson concerning the revised offer of judgment of the close management litigation law suit (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
316 OBJECTION by Kim P. Kruger to [243−1] notice (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
318 EMERGENCY grievance of reprial and retaliation of by James Arthur Lee (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2001)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 33 of 62

11/21/2001
11/21/2001 11/21/2001
11/23/2001 11/23/2001 11/26/2001 11/26/2001 11/26/2001 11/28/2001 11/28/2001 11/29/2001 11/29/2001
11/30/2001
11/30/2001 11/30/2001 12/03/2001 12/03/2001
12/03/2001 12/03/2001 12/03/2001 12/04/2001

319 NOTICE of show cause by member of class why the revised offer of judgment should not be approved and should not be entered by John Edward Smith (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
320 OBJECTION by John Edward Smith to [243−1] notice (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 11/26/2001 (Entered: 11/26/2001)
323 ORDER Substituting Form and Excusing Posting Error granting [304−1] motion to substitute form and excuse posting error which have been corrected ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 11/19/01) [EOD Date: 11/27/01] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/27/2001)
321 NOTICE Re: Pleading Filed by Vincent Rivera by Mark Osterback (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/27/2001)
322 DECLARATION by Mark Osterback Re: [321−1] notice re: pleading by Vincent Rivera (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/27/2001)
324 LETTER NOTICE of situations encountered by inmates by Carlos Ruiz (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/29/2001)
327 LETTER NOTICE of problems encountered with institution by William C. Eason (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/29/2001)
328 Letter of inquiry by Charles Gaskin to Clerk re cost of copies of pleadings −− docket clerk sent response 11/30/01 (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
325 LETTER by Mark H. Stone Jr. Re: Judgment (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/29/2001)
326 LETTER by Maurice A. Bryant Re: Class Action Settlement (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/29/2001)
329 LETTER Re: Rejection of Settlement by James Campo (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
330 ORDER granting [307−1] motion for leave for James A. Peters to withdraw as attorney ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 11/29/01) [EOD Date: 11/30/01] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
331 ORDER Striking Correspendence striking [324−1] letter notice ( Signed by Magistrate Stephen T. Brown on 11/28/01) [EOD Date: 12/3/01] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
332 LETTER NOTICE Re: Opposition to Judgment by Wayne J. Wilson (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
333 OBJECTION by Julio Martinez to revised offer of judgment (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
334 EMERGENCY MOTION by William C. Eason for temporary restraining order , and/or for preliminary injunction (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
335 MEMORANDUM by William C. Eason in support of [334−1] motion for temporary restraining order, [334−2] motion for preliminary injunction (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
336 OBJECTIONS by William C. Eason to Revised Offer of Judgment (nt, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 12/04/2001 (Entered: 12/04/2001)
337 ADDENDUM by William C. Eason to [336−1] objections to revised offer of judgment (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
338 MOTION by Michael T. Coolen to reject revised judgment offer (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
339 Complaint to Order Judgment on this Matters Above Against Risks and Threats, Etc./NOTICE of adoption of [1−1] complaint by George Jean (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/05/2001)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 34 of 62

12/05/2001 12/05/2001 12/05/2001 12/05/2001 12/06/2001
12/06/2001 12/06/2001 12/06/2001 12/06/2001 12/06/2001 12/06/2001 12/07/2001 12/07/2001 12/07/2001 12/07/2001 12/07/2001 12/07/2001 12/07/2001
12/11/2001 12/11/2001

340 MOTION by Larry Beamon to extend time to file objection (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
341 OBJECTION by Hector M. Rivas to Revised Offer of Judgment (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
342 NOTICE AND MOTION OF REJECTION by James Campo of Illegally Accepted Offer of Judgment (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
343 EXHIBITS 1 &2 to: [338−1] motion to reject revised judgment offer by Michael T. Coolen (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
344 OMNIBUS ORDER denying [338−1] motion to reject revised judgment offer, denying [334−1] motion for temporary restraining order, denying [334−2] motion for preliminary injunction ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 12/6/01) [EOD Date: 12/7/01] (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
345 Notice to court re objections to class (party name indecipherable) (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
346 MOTION/NOTICE for challenges and moves for proceedings, etc. by George Jean (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
347 NOTICE of objections to proposed class settlement by Glenn E. McNeal (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
348 OBJECTIONS AND COMMENTS by Andreas Reeves−Obojes for consideration by the Court concerning defendant's revised offer of judgment (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
349 CLASS MEMBER OBJECTIONS by George F. Warner, Michael T. Williams, Frankie Lee Bass, Donald Bean, Clarence England, Derrick Redden to proposed settlement (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
350 NOTICE concerning proposed settlement (unable to read name) (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
351 MOTION by Mark Osterback, Vincent Faustino Rivera for relief from order denying motion for appointment of counsel (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/10/2001)
352 My Comment Concerning the Revised Offer of Judgment by Michael Daive (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/10/2001)
353 WRITTEN Objections by Ben Alan Snipes to Class Action Being Settled and/or Consent Decree Entered (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/10/2001)
354 MOTION by Vincent Faustino Rivera to invalidate 09/09/97 &12/24/97 granting of in forma pauperis status by Magistrate Judge (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/10/2001)
355 ORDER denying [340−1] motion to extend time to file objection ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 12/07/01) [EOD Date: 12/10/01] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/10/2001)
356 NOTICE Re: Conditions of Confinement and Treatment by Arthur Rudick (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/10/2001)
357 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL by Vincent Faustino Rivera of [308−1] order . EOD Date: 11/19/01; Filing Fee: $ FEE NOT PAID;; Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (gp, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 01/09/2002 (Entered: 12/11/2001)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [357−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera as to Vincent Faustino Rivera (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/11/2001)
358 MOTION by Donnell Quarterman to extend time to submit objections (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2001)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 35 of 62

12/11/2001 12/11/2001 12/11/2001 12/11/2001 12/11/2001 12/11/2001 12/11/2001 12/11/2001 12/11/2001 12/11/2001
12/11/2001 12/11/2001
12/12/2001 12/12/2001 12/12/2001
12/17/2001
12/18/2001 12/18/2001 12/19/2001 12/21/2001
12/24/2001

359 COMMENTS and objections by Mark Osterback to proposed settlement agreement (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
360 COMMENTS on why revised offer of judgment should not be entered but further investigated by Daniel F. Sheridan (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
361 OBJECTIONS and comments by Edward Holland, re: proposed settlement agreement (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
362 RECOMMENDATION by Calvin McCutcheon, re: proposed settlement agreement (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
363 OBJECTION by John Scott Meyers to revised offer of judgment (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
364 NOTICE/affidavit in opposition to class action settlement by Kenneth Moffett (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
365 COMMENTS and objections by David P. Kever to proposed settlement (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
366 OBJECTIONS by Charles E. Carter to proposed class action settlement agreement (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
367 RESPONSE by James W. Harkleroad to the class action proposed settlement (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
368 RESPONSE/motion to reject plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and revised offer of judgment by defendants by Vincent Faustino Rivera (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
369 NOTICE/motion to cancel revised settlement offer of by Vincent Faustino Rivera (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
370 MOTION by Vincent Faustino Rivera, Mark Osterback to strike [243−1] revised settlement offer , and grant summary judgment for plaintiffs (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
371 LETTER Re: Revised Offer of Judgment by Ronnie Pugh (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/13/2001)
372 MOTION by Anthony Tedesco to extend time to show cause (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/13/2001)
373 WRITTEN OBJECTIONS by Robert Anthony Pasquince and Comments for Consideration by the Court Concerning Defendant's Revised Offer of Judgment (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/13/2001)
NOTICE of Receipt of Notice of Appeal Transmittal Letter from USCA on 12/13/01as to Vincent Faustino Rivera Re: [357−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera USCA NUMBER: 01−16975−I (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
374 RESPONSE by Donnell Quaterman in opposition proposed class action settlement, re: [241−1] notice (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
375 RESPONSE by Ricardo Little Roca in opposition to class action settlement, re: [241−1] notice (sn, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
376 MOTION: Amended Civil Complaint by Ernest Howard Nelson (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
377 MOTION by James Nelson for reconsideration of [308−1] OMNIBUS ORDER denying [296−1] motion to show cause, denying [296−2] motion for temporary restraining order, denying [290−1] motion for temporary restraining order, denying [290−2] motion for preliminary injunction (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/26/2001)
378 NOTICE of jail conditions by Carlos Ruiz (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/27/2001)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 36 of 62

12/26/2001 12/26/2001 12/26/2001 12/26/2001 12/26/2001 12/27/2001 12/27/2001 12/27/2001 12/31/2001 01/03/2002 01/03/2002 01/03/2002 01/04/2002 01/04/2002 01/04/2002 01/07/2002 01/08/2002 01/08/2002
01/08/2002
01/08/2002

379 MOTION by George Jean for service processes in judgment on the special damages (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/27/2001)
380 NOTICE of prison conditions by Kareem Abbas (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/27/2001)
381 Minutes of case settled held before Judge Paul C. Huck on 12/26/01; Court Reporter Name or Tape #: LARRY HERR (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/27/2001)
Settlement conference held before Judge Huck (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/27/2001)
382 AFFIDAVIT by David P. Kever Re: status of legal mail (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/27/2001)
383 ORDER entering revised offer for judgment , and dismissing /closing case ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 12/26/01) [EOD Date: 12/28/01] (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/28/2001)
CASE CLOSED. Case and Motions no longer referred to Magistrate. (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/28/2001)
384 RESPONSE by Juan F. Vega in opposition to [241−1] NOTICE of acceptance of defendants' revised offer of judgment by All Plaintiffs (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/28/2001)
385 MOTION to intervene only to the extent of moving Kilo from the Osterback class action by Bryant Kilo (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/02/2002)
386 LETTER NOTICE Re: Confinement by Kareem Abbas (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
387 ORDER striking [380−1] notice/correspondence from Kareem Abbas ( Signed by Magistrate Stephen T. Brown on 12/28/01) [EOD Date: 1/4/02] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
389 NOTICE of Inquiry by John F. Williams (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/2002)
388 ORDER striking [380−1] notice/correspondence from Kareem Abbas ( Signed by Magistrate Stephen T. Brown on 01/04/02) [EOD Date: 1/7/02] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/2002)
391 MOTION and AFFIDAVIT by Vincent Faustino Rivera to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ga, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/08/2002)
392 DESIGNATION by Vincent Faustino Rivera of record on appeal (ga, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/08/2002)
390 ORDER denying [385−1] motion to intervene only to the extent of moving Kilo from the Osterback class action by Bryant Kilo ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 01/07/02) [EOD Date: 1/8/02] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/08/2002)
393 ORDER of dismissal from USCA (certified copy) dismissing [357−1] appeal for failure to pay the filing fees USCA #: 01−16975−I USCA Order Date: 01/02/02 (ga, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/08/2002)
394 CORRECTED ORDER of dismissal from USCA (certified copy) dismissing [357−1] appeal for want of prosecution because appellant has failed to pay filing fee within the time fixed by the rules USCA #: 01−16975−I USCA Order Date: 1/3/02 (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/09/2002)
395 ORDER of dismissal from USCA (certified copy) dismissing [267−1] appeal for lack of jurisdiction. No motion for reconsideration may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir.R. 40−3 and all other applicable rules USCA #: 01−16160−I USCA Order Date: 1/3/02 (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/09/2002)
396 NOTICE of Inquiry by Andreas Reeves−Obojes [Copy of Docket Sheet sent on 1/9/02] (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/09/2002)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 37 of 62

01/09/2002 01/09/2002 01/09/2002 01/15/2002 01/18/2002 01/23/2002 01/23/2002 01/23/2002 01/23/2002 01/28/2002 01/31/2002 01/31/2002 01/31/2002
01/31/2002 02/01/2002 02/01/2002 02/01/2002
02/04/2002 02/04/2002

397 MOTION by James Campo to add exhibits to rejection filed , and to amend [329−1] notice on newly discovered evidence (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/10/2002)
398 ORDER denying [391−1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 01/09/02) [EOD Date: 1/10/02] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/10/2002)
399 OBJECTION by Arthur Rudick to Judgment (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/10/2002)
400 NOTICE of Filing Implementation Status Report by Dept. of Corrections (attachment) (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/16/2002)
402 Transcript Information Form re: as to Vincent Faustino Rivera [401−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera . No transcript requested. All necessary transcripts on file. (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/23/2002)
401 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Vincent Faustino Rivera of [398−1] order EOD Date: 01/10/02; Filing Fee: $ (FEE NOT PAID); Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/23/2002)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [401−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/23/2002)
403 ADDENDUM by James W. Harkleroad to: [367−1] response to the class action proposed settlement (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/24/2002)
404 SUPPLEMENT by Clarence S. Allen to: [367−1] opposition response (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/24/2002)
405 NOTICE of report of claim by Clarence Stanley Allen (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/31/2002)
NOTICE of Receipt of Notice of Appeal Transmittal Letter from USCA on 1/25/02 as to Vincent Faustino Rivera Re: [401−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera USCA NUMBER: 02−10441−A (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/31/2002)
406 NOTICE/MOTION for Temporary Stay by James W. Harkleroad (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/01/2002)
407 ORDER denying pro se [397−1] motion to add exhibits to rejection filed, denying [397−2] motion to amend [329−1] notice on newly discovered evidence ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 01/30/02) [EOD Date: 2/1/02] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/01/2002)
408 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Vincent Faustino Rivera of [383−3] order EOD Date: 12/28/01; Filing Fee: $ (FEE NOT PAID); Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/01/2002)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [408−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/01/2002)
410 UNOPPOSED VERIFIED MOTION by All Plaintiffs to extend time to negotiate plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses and, if unsuccessful, to thereafter file motion for attorneys' fees and expenses (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
411 ORDER granting [410−1] motion to extend time to negotiate plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses and, if unsuccessful, to thereafter file motion for attorneys' fees and expenses until 03/11/02. ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 02/01/02) [EOD Date: 2/4/02] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
409 Requesting for a copy of [383−1] by Salvatore J. Ricci (Copy sent 2/4/02). (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
412 NOTICE of inquiry by George Jean (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/05/2002)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 38 of 62

02/04/2002 02/04/2002 02/05/2002
02/05/2002 02/05/2002 02/05/2002 02/05/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002
02/07/2002 02/07/2002 02/11/2002 02/11/2002
02/12/2002 02/12/2002 02/12/2002 02/14/2002 02/14/2002 02/20/2002

412 MOTION by George Jean to transfer to another prison (sk, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 02/05/2002 (Entered: 02/05/2002)
418 NOTICE of Inquiry by Ricci Salvatore (Copy of Docket Sheet Mailed) (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/07/2002)
413 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM by Vincent Faustino Rivera re: [401−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera received on 2/5/02 from Court Reporter. (Returned to Court Reporter Coordinator) (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
414 NOTICE/RESPONSE Re: Settlement by Clarence S. Allen (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
415 NOTICE of Waiver to Reply, Motion by Clarence S. Allen (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
416 Statement of Legal Services, Writ, and Certification Authorization by Clarence S. Allen (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
417 RESPONSE by Clarence S. Allen in opposition to Revised Offer of Judgment (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
419 NOTICE of Inquiry by Anthony Patino (Copy of Docket Sheet Mailed) (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/07/2002)
421 Acknowledgement of Transcript Information Formas to Vincent Faustino Rivera re: [408−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera Transcript of: Minutes of Motion, Final Disposition, Settlement Conference, Disc Hearing and Hearings held 12/26/01−12/27/01,4/9/01 and 9 ; Court Reporter name: Larry Herr (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
420 NOTICE of Inquiry Re: Receipt of Motion to Reject Revised Judgment Offer by Michael T. Coolen (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
Copy of Docket Sheet Sent to: Michael T. Coolen Re: [420−1] notice of inquiry (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
NOTICE of Receipt of Notice of Appeal Transmittal Letter from USCA on 2/6/02 as to Vincent Faustino Rivera Re: [408−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera USCA NUMBER: 02−10657−A (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/11/2002)
423 ORDER granting [410−1] motion to extend time to negotiate plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses and, if unsuccessful, to thereafter file motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 2/11/02) [EOD Date: 2/12/02] (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
422 NOTICE OF APPEAL by James Campo of [407−1] order EOD Date: 2/01/02; Filing Fee: $ (FEE NOT PAID); Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [422−1] appeal by James Campo (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
424 NOTICE to the Court Re: Close Mangement Status by James W. Harkleroad (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/13/2002)
425 MOTION by Vincent Faustino Rivera to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/14/2002)
426 Transcript Information Form re: [408−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera . No transcript requested. All necessary transcript(2) on file. (vl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
427 ORDER of dismissal from USCA (certified copy) dismissing [401−1] appeal for want of prosecution because appellant has failed to pay filing fee to the district court within the time fixed by the rules USCA #: 02−10441−A USCA Order Date: 2/15/02 (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/20/2002)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 39 of 62

02/25/2002 02/25/2002 02/26/2002 02/26/2002 02/26/2002 02/26/2002 02/27/2002
02/28/2002
02/28/2002 03/01/2002
03/01/2002 03/01/2002 03/01/2002 03/01/2002 03/01/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002 03/05/2002

428 ORDER approving Notice to Class Members. (See Order for further details.) ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 02/25/02) [EOD Date: 2/26/02] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
429 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM by James Campo re: [422−1] appeal by James Campo received on 2/27/02 from Court Reporter. (Returned to Court Reporter Coordinator) (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
NOTICE of Receipt of Notice of Appeal Transmittal Letter from USCA on 2/15/02as to James Campo Re: [422−1] appeal by James Campo USCA NUMBER: 02−10883−A (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
430 NOTICE of inquiry by William C. Eason (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
431 MOTION by James Campo to Correct Notice of Appeal (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
431 MOTION by James Campo to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal for cost of transcripts (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
433 OMNIBUS ORDER DENYING PRO SE MOTIONS denying [412−1] motion to transfer to another prison, denying [425−1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, denying [431−1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, denying [431−1] motion to Correct Notice of Appeal ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 02/27/02) [EOD Date: 2/28/02] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
432 ORDER of dismissal from USCA (certified copy) dismissing [408−1] appeal for want of prosecution because appellant has failed to pay filing fee to the district court within the time fixed by the rules USCA #: 02−10657−A USCA Order Date: 2/25/02 (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
434 UNOPPOSED VERIFIED MOTION by All Defendants to extend time to negotiate plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses and, if unsuccessful, to thereafter file motion for attorneys' fees and expenses (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/01/2002)
435 ORDER granting [434−1] motion to extend time to negotiate plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses, granting [434−2] motion to thereafter file motion for attorneys' fees and expenses ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 03/01/02) [EOD Date: 3/4/02] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/04/2002)
436 MOTION by Vincent Faustino Rivera for reconsideration of [435−1] ORDER granting [434−1] motion to extend time to negotiate plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/04/2002)
437 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Vincent Faustino Rivera of [433−1] order EOD Date: 2/28/02; Filing Fee: $ (FEE NOT PAID); Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/04/2002)
438 MOTION by Vincent Faustino Rivera to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/04/2002)
439 MOTION by Vincent Faustino Rivera to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal transcripts (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/04/2002)
437 MOTION for Permission to Appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera in forma pauperis (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
Vincent Faustino Rivera's January 16,2002, motion for reconsideration of our January 3, 2002, order dismissing this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, is DENIED in re: USCA NUMBER: 01−16160−I (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/04/2002)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [437−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/04/2002)
440 OMNIBUS ORDER denying [437−1] motion in forma pauperis, denying [439−1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal transcripts, denying [438−1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on [EOD Date: 3/6/02] (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/06/2002)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 40 of 62

03/11/2002
03/11/2002 03/12/2002 03/12/2002 03/13/2002 03/13/2002 03/13/2002 03/14/2002 03/19/2002
03/21/2002 03/21/2002 03/21/2002 03/22/2002 03/26/2002
04/01/2002 04/02/2002 04/02/2002

443 ORDER denying [436−1] motion for reconsideration of [435−1] ORDER granting [434−1] motion to extend time to negotiate plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses. Vincent Faustino Rivera is ordered to cease filing pro se motions. (See Order for further details.) ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 03/11/02) [EOD Date: 3/13/02] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
444 Transcript Information Form re: as to Vincent Faustino Rivera [437−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera . No transcript requested. (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
441 NOTICE OF APPEAL by William C. Eason of [433−1] order EOD Date: 2/28/02; Filing Fee: $ (FEE NOT PAID); Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
442 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Vincent Faustino Rivera of [433−1] order EOD Date: 2/28/02; Filing Fee: $ (FEE NOT PAID); Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
NOTICE of Receipt of Notice of Appeal Transmittal Letter from USCA on 3/06/02 as to Vincent Faustino Rivera Re: [437−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera USCA NUMBER: 02−11182−A (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [441−1] appeal by William C. Eason (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [442−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
445 MOTION by James Campo to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/18/2002)
446 ORDER of dismissal from USCA (certified copy) dismissing [422−1] appeal for want of prosecution because appellant has failed to pay filing fee to the district court or file a motion for relief from the obligation to pay in advance to the district court clerk within the time fixed by the rules USCA #: 02−10883−A USCA Order Date: 3/14/02 (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
NOTICE of Receipt of Notice of Appeal Transmittal Letter from USCA on 3/15/02 as to William C. Eason Re: [441−1] appeal by William C. Eason USCA NUMBER: 02−11182−A (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/21/2002)
447 STATEMENT MEMORANDUM by James Nelson (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/22/2002)
448 ORDER denying [445−1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 3/21/02) [EOD Date: 3/25/02] (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/25/2002)
449 Transcript Information Form re: as to Vincent Faustino Rivera [442−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera . No transcript requested. (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/25/2002)
450 CORRECTED ORDER of dismissal from USCA (certified copy) dismissing for want of prosecution because appellant has failed to pay the filing fees or file a Consent Form authorizing such payment from the appellant's prison account to the district court clerk within the time fixed by the rules [422−1] appeal USCA #: 02−10883−A USCA Order Date: 3/14/02 (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/26/2002)
451 MOTION by F. T. Staten, C. Hayes, S. Pichardo, Gloria White, Ricks, A. T. Price, H. J. Sermon, Joe T. Butler, Dept. of Corrections to extend time to negotiate plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/02/2002)
452 Order reassigning case to Magistrate Judge Turnoff ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 4.1.02) [EOD Date: 4/3/02] (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/2002)
Magistrate identification: Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/2002)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 41 of 62

04/03/2002
04/03/2002 04/03/2002 04/15/2002 04/15/2002 04/16/2002
04/16/2002 04/18/2002 05/02/2002
05/03/2002
05/24/2002 05/28/2002
06/18/2002 07/17/2002 08/20/2002 09/10/2002 09/10/2002 09/12/2002

453 ORDER of dismissal from USCA (certified copy) dismissing [437−1] appeal for want of prosecution because appellant has failed to pay filing fees to the district court clerk within the time fixed by the rules USCA #: 02−11182−A USCA Order Date: 3/29/02 (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/2002)
Text not available. (Entered: 04/04/2002)
454 ORDER granting [451−1] motion to extend time to negotiate plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 4/3/02) [EOD Date: 4/4/02] (ct, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/04/2002)
456 Transcript Information Form re: as to Vincent Faustino Rivera [442−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera . No transcript requested. (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2002)
457 NOTICE of Filing Implementation Status Report by Dept. of Corrections (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2002)
455 ORDER of dismissal from USCA (certified copy) dismissing [441−1] appeal for want of prosecution because appellant has failed to pay the filing fee to the district court clerk within the time fixed by the rules USCA #: 02−11182−A USCA Order Date: 4/09/02 (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2002)
458 OBJECTION by Vincent Faustino Rivera to [452−1] order of Magistrate Judge Reassignment (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/17/2002)
459 NOTICE of Inquiry Re: Copy of Final Judgment Order by William M. West (Copy of Judgment Mailed) (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
460 VERIFIED MOTION by All Defendants to extend time to negotiate Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses , and, unsuccessful for leave to file motion for attorneys' fees and expenses (Proposed Order not attached) (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
461 ORDER granting [460−1] motion to extend time to negotiate Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses, terminating [460−2] motion for leave to file motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. (See Order for further details.) ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 05/03/02) [EOD Date: 5/6/02] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/06/2002)
462 JOINT MOTION by All Plaintiffs, All Defendants to enter attached order for attorney fees , Costs and expenses (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/28/2002)
463 ORDER granting [462−1] joint motion to enter attached order for attorney fees, granting [462−2] joint motion Costs and expenses. Defendant shall pay $399,000.00 with interest thereon at the rate of 2.33% by 09/01/02. (See Order for further details.) ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 05/28/02) [EOD Date: 5/29/02] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/29/2002)
464 NOTICE of request for injunctive relief by John Edward Smith (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/19/2002)
465 NOTICE of filing 7/15 quarterly STATUS implementation REPORT by Dept. of Corrections (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/18/2002)
466 LETTER Re: Violation of Rights by Raul R. Lopez (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/21/2002)
467 MOTION by Alejandro Figueredo to order immediate compliance with settlement agreement by defendants (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
468 OBJECTION/MEMORANDUM/COMPLAINT by Alejandro Figueredo in support of [467−1] motion to order immediate compliance with settlement agreement by defendants (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
469 ORDER denying [467−1] motion to order immediate compliance with settlement agreement by defendants ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 09/10/02) [EOD Date: 9/13/02] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/13/2002)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 42 of 62

09/12/2002 09/25/2002 09/30/2002
09/30/2002
09/30/2002
10/01/2002 10/15/2002 10/16/2002
10/16/2002 10/17/2002 10/24/2002 10/25/2002
10/28/2002 10/30/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002
11/13/2002 11/13/2002 11/15/2002
11/15/2002
11/18/2002

470 NOTICE of Inquiry Re: Hearing by James Nelson (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/13/2002)
471 Report by Juan F. Vega (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
472 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Alejandro Figueredo of [469−1] order EOD Date: 9/13/02; Filing Fee: $ (FEE NOT PAID); Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
473 MOTION by David C. Skrtich to re−open case , and for class counsel, Peter M. Seigel to give full and complete account of C.M. assaults as a direct result of this case filed herein (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
474 ORDER denying [473−1] motion to re−open case, denying [473−2] motion for class counsel, Peter M. Seigel to give full and complete account of C.M. assaults as a direct result of this case filed herein ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 09/30/02) [EOD Date: 10/1/02] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [472−1] appeal by Alejandro Figueredo (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
475 Transcript Information Form re: [472−1] appeal by Alejandro Figueredo . No transcript requested. No hearing. (vl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/15/2002)
NOTICE of Receipt of Notice of Appeal Transmittal Letter from USCA on 10/3/02 Re: [472−1] appeal by Alejandro Figueredo USCA NUMBER: 02−15435−A (vl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
476 NOTICE to the Court and All Parties by Johnny J. Union (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
477 NOTICE of Filing Implementation Status Report by Dept. of Corrections (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/18/2002)
478 MOTION by James Nelson for reconsideration of [474−1] order denying motion to reopen case (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/25/2002)
479 ORDER denying [478−1] motion for reconsideration of [474−1] order denying motion to reopen case ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 10/25/02) [EOD Date: 10/28/02] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
480 Witness Statement of by Michael Scott Warren (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/30/2002)
481 MOTION by Alejandro Figueredo to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with attached affidavit (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/06/2002)
482 NOTICE Re: Administrative Grievances by Roger Evans (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
483 ORDER denying certificate of appealability and [481−1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with attached affidavit ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 11/12/02) [EOD Date: 11/14/02] (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
484 NOTICE of Change of Address of Party by Kareem Abbas (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
485 NOTICE of counsel by James Nelson (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
486 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Vincent Faustino Rivera of [479−1] order EOD Date: 10/28/02; Filing Fee: $ (FEE NOT PAID); Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [486−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
487 ORDER denying certificate of appealability which was construed from [DE#486] the Notice of Appeal( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 11/18/02) [EOD Date: 11/19/02] (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/19/2002)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 43 of 62

11/25/2002 11/27/2002 12/02/2002 12/16/2002
12/26/2002 12/26/2002 12/26/2002 12/26/2002 12/26/2002 01/02/2003
01/02/2003 01/09/2003 01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/23/2003 01/24/2003
01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/29/2003

488 Transcript Information Form re: [486−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera . No transcript requested. (ga, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
489 First Monitoring Report by All Plaintiffs (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
NOTICE of Receipt of Notice of Appeal Transmittal Letter from USCA on 11/18/02 as to Vincent Faustino Rivera Re: [486−1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 02−16307−A (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
490 ORDER of dismissal from USCA (certified copy) dismissing [486−1] appeal for want of prosecution because appellant has failed to pay the filing fees to the district court clerk within the time fixed by the rules USCA #: 02−16307−A USCA Order Date: 12/13/02 (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/17/2002)
491 MOTION by Randall Wayne Anderson for order of enforcement (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/02/2003)
492 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies by Randall Wayne Anderson (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/02/2003)
493 MOTION by Randall Wayne Anderson to proceed in forma pauperis (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/02/2003)
494 Certificate Re: Inmate Account by Randall Wayne Anderson (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/02/2003)
495 Prisoner Consent Form and Financial Certificate by Randall Wayne Anderson (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/02/2003)
496 ORDER Denying Pro Se Motions. denying [493−1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis, denying [491−1] motion for order of enforcement ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 01/02/03) [EOD Date: 1/3/03] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/03/2003)
497 ORDER striking pro se document, Bryant Kilo's "statement of good cause" ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 01/02/03) [EOD Date: 1/3/03] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/03/2003)
498 Claim Inauguration for Party Representative and Individual Status of Prison Inmate by Clarence S. Allen (attachments) (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
499 NOTICE of Filing Implementation Status Report by Dept. of Corrections (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
499 IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT by Dept. of Corrections (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
500 Class Witness Statement by Michael Scott Warren and Request for Monetary Releif for More Monitoring by Class Attorneys (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
501 ORDER of dismissal from USCA (certified copy) dismissing [472−1] appeal for want of prosecution because appellant has failed to pay the filing fees(or file a CONSENT FORM authorizing such payment from appellant's prison account pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915) to the district court clerk within the time fixed by the rules USCA #: 02−15435−A USCA Order Date: 1/21/03 (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
502 ORDER denying [500−1] Pro Se Class Witness Statement and Request for Monitary Releafe ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 01/24/03) [EOD Date: 1/27/03] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
503 NOTICE Re: Reassignment to Magistrate Judge and Review by Counsel by James Nelson (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
504 NOTICE of Inquiry by Randall Wayne Anderson (Copy of Docket Sheet Sent) (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
505 MOTION by Robert Rose for order of enforcement against defendants (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2003)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 44 of 62

01/30/2003 02/14/2003
02/28/2003 03/07/2003 04/15/2003 05/05/2003 05/06/2003 05/06/2003 05/08/2003 05/20/2003 05/20/2003 05/22/2003 05/23/2003 05/28/2003 05/28/2003 06/09/2003 06/11/2003 06/26/2003 07/02/2003 07/03/2003

506 ORDER denying [505−1] motion for order of enforcement against defendants. (See Order for further details.) ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 01/24/03) [EOD Date: 1/31/03] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/31/2003)
507 NOTICE of attorney appearance and Subsititution of Counsel for F. T. Staten, C. Hayes, S. Pichardo, Gloria White, Ricks, A. T. Price, H. J. Sermon, Joe T. Butler, Dept. of Corrections, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, James V. Crosby Jr., Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles Matthews, Henry Alford by Maxine K. Streeter, Kathleen Marie Burgener (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/18/2003)
508 NOTICE Re: Violations and Deprivation by Ronald W. Clark Jr. (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
509 NOTICE/INQUIRY Re: Conditions of Confinement by James Nelson (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/11/2003)
510 NOTICE of Filing Quarterly Implementation Status Report Dated 04/15/03 by Dept. of Corrections (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2003)
511 MOTION by Robert O. Holm to inform and relief requested (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/06/2003)
512 ORDER denying [511−1] motion to inform and relief requested (Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno for Paul C. Huck on 5/6/03) [EOD Date: 5/7/03] (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/07/2003)
513 NOTICE of Violation and Abussing of rights by Jimmy L. Glenn (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/08/2003)
514 ORDER denying pro se motion/[513−1] notice relief from corporal punishment ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 5/8/03) [EOD Date: 5/9/03] (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/09/2003)
515 MOTION by Mitchell Matthew Monteverdi to intervene (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/21/2003)
516 ORDER denying [515−1] pro se motion to intervene ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 5/20/03) [EOD Date: 5/21/03] (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/21/2003)
517 MOTION by Willie Perry remety constitution deprivation (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
518 NOTICE of filing Interlocutory Injunctions and Intervention of the Class action settlement Federal Rule of Civil procedure rule 24A by A.J. James (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
519 ORDER DENYING PRO SE MOTION denying [517−1] motion remedy constitution deprivation. (Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 5/28/03) [EOD Date: 5/29/03] (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
520 ORDER denying [518−1] Pro se Motion/notice of interlocutory and Intervention. ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 5/28/03) [EOD Date: 5/29/03] (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
521 MOTION for intervention filed under FRCP 24 by George Brown (Exhibits attached) (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/10/2003)
522 ORDER denying [521−1] motion for intervention filed under FRCP 24 by George Brown ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 6/10/03) [EOD Date: 6/12/03] (ct, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
523 NOTICE of inquiry on motions by James Nelson (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/30/2003)
524 NOTICE of Absence/Unavailability by All Defendants for dates of: 07/21/03 to 08/04/03 and 08/11/03 to 08/25/03 (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/03/2003)
525 NOTICE of inquiry on status of case by A.J. James (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/07/2003)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 45 of 62

07/07/2003 07/07/2003 07/18/2003 07/30/2003 08/01/2003 08/05/2003 08/05/2003 08/19/2003 08/19/2003 08/19/2003 08/28/2003 08/29/2003 09/16/2003 09/16/2003
09/16/2003 09/16/2003 09/22/2003
10/02/2003 10/03/2003
10/03/2003

526 COMPLAINT by Willie Boddie (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
527 ORDER striking [526−1] pro se complaint ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 7/7/03) [EOD Date: 7/8/03] (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
528 NOTICE of filing status report dated 7/15/03 by F. T. Staten etal (mh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
529 MOTION by Mark Osterback to correct docket (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
530 ORDER denying [529−1] motion to correct docket ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 8/1/03) [EOD Date: 8/4/03] (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/04/2003)
531 Letter to the court by Michael Scott Warren (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
532 Letter to court by Jon Leuviere (no address provided) (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
533 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Vincent Faustino Rivera of [530−1] order EOD Date: 8/4/03; Filing Fee: $ (FEE NOT PAID); Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
533 MOTION by Vincent Faustino Rivera for certificate of appealability and memorandum of law (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [533−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
534 NOTICE/Statement of facts by Jimmy L. Glenn (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
NOTICE of Receipt of Notice of Appeal Transmittal Letter from USCA on 8/25/03 as to Vincent Faustino Rivera Re: [533−1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 03−14290−E (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
535 Transcript Information Form re: as to Vincent Faustino Rivera [533−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera . No transcript requested. (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
536 NOTICE of attorney appearance for F. T. Staten, C. Hayes, S. Pichardo, Gloria White, Ricks, A. T. Price, H. J. Sermon, Joe T. Butler, Dept. of Corrections, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Dept. of Corrections, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, All Defendants, Charles Matthews, Henry Alford by Jason Vail, Caryl Kilinski (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/17/2003)
537 NOTICE of Prison Conditions and Attorney Monitoring by Jimmy L. Glenn (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/17/2003)
538 NOTICE to Counsel for Plaintiff that defendants et al. is violation the agreements of revised settlement by Troy I. Thomas (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/17/2003)
539 ORDER of dismissal from USCA (certified copy) dismissing [533−1] appeal for want of prosecution because appellant has failed to pay the filing fee to the district court clerk within the time fixed by the rules USCA #: 03−14290−E USCA Order Date: 9/16/03 (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
540 EMERGENCY MOTION by All Plaintiffs for reasonable attorney−client access (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
541 ORDER Setting Oral Argument Motion hearing before Judge Paul C. Huck set for 11:00 10/6/03 for [540−1] motion for reasonable attorney−client access ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 10/02/03) [EOD Date: 10/6/03] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
542 RESPONSE by All Defendants to [540−1] motion for reasonable attorney−client access (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/06/2003)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 46 of 62

10/06/2003 10/07/2003 10/07/2003 10/07/2003 10/08/2003 10/14/2003 10/15/2003 10/16/2003 10/17/2003 10/21/2003 10/22/2003 10/22/2003 10/24/2003 10/24/2003 10/27/2003 10/27/2003 10/29/2003 10/30/2003 10/30/2003 10/30/2003

Motion hearing re: [540−1] motion for reasonable attorney−client access Motion hearing held (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/08/2003)
543 NOTICE/MOTION to Review Order of Reference by Vincent Faustino Rivera (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/08/2003)
544 Minutes of Hearing held before Judge Paul C. Huck on 10/06/03 re: [540−1] motion for reasonable attorney−client access; Court Reporter Name or Tape #: Patricia Sanders (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/08/2003)
545 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [540−1] motion for reasonable attorney−client access ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 10/07/03) [EOD Date: 10/8/03] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/08/2003)
546 ORDER denying pro se [543−1] notice/motion to Review Order of Reference ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 10/08/03) [EOD Date: 10/9/03] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/09/2003)
547 ORDER denying [533−1] motion for certificate of appealability and memorandum of law ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 10/14/03) [EOD Date: 10/16/03] (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
548 NOTICE to Counsel for Plaintiff that Defendants are Violating the Agreements of Revised Settlement by Troy I. Thomas (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
549 NOTICE of Filing Quarterly Report by Dept. of Corrections, F. T. Staten, C. Hayes, S. Pichardo, Gloria White, Ricks, A. T. Price, H. J. Sermon, Joe T. Butler (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/17/2003)
550 MOTION by Julio Mora for mailing address of attorney and implementation of Rule 33−602−800 FAL (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/20/2003)
551 MOTION by Vincent Faustino Rivera to strike [545−1] order re: attorney−client access (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
552 ORDER denying [551−1] motion to strike [545−1] order re: attorney−client access ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 10/22/03) [EOD Date: 10/23/03] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/23/2003)
553 EMERGENCY MOTION by Michael Scott Warren for immediate release (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/23/2003)
554 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Vincent Faustino Rivera of [546−1] order EOD Date: 10/9/03; Filing Fee: $ (FEE NOT PAID); Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
554 MOTION by Vincent Faustino Rivera for certificate of appealability (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [554−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
555 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Vincent Faustino Rivera of [547−1] order EOD Date: 10/16/03; Filing Fee: $ (FEE NOT PAID); Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/29/2003)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [555−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/29/2003)
556 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Vincent Faustino Rivera of [552−1] order EOD Date: 10/23/03; Filing Fee: $ (FEE NOT PAID); Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
556 MOTION by Vincent Faustino Rivera for certificate of appealability (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
557 ORDER denying [553−1] motion for immediate release ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 10/30/03) [EOD Date: 10/31/03] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/31/2003)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 47 of 62

10/30/2003 10/30/2003 10/31/2003 11/04/2003 11/04/2003 11/04/2003 11/04/2003 11/06/2003 11/06/2003 11/12/2003 11/12/2003 11/12/2003 11/18/2003 11/18/2003 11/18/2003 11/18/2003 11/21/2003 11/25/2003 11/25/2003
11/25/2003

558 ORDER denying [550−1] motion for mailing address of attorney and implementation of Rule 33−602−800 FAL ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 10/30/03) [EOD Date: 10/31/03] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
559 ORDER denying [554−1] motion for certificate of appealability ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 10/30/03) [EOD Date: 11/3/03] (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/03/2003)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [556−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
NOTICE of Receipt of Notice of Appeal Transmittal Letter from USCA on 10/30/03 as to Vincent Faustino Rivera Re: [555−1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 03−15643−D (hh, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 11/13/2003 (Entered: 11/04/2003)
560 Transcript Information Form re: as to Vincent Faustino Rivera [555−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera . No transcript requested. All necessary transcripts are already on file. (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
561 AFFIDAVIT by James Arthur Lee Re: Motion for Emergency Order to Show Cause, etc. (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
562 DUPLICATE NOTICE OF APPEAL by Vincent Faustino Rivera of [552−1] order EOD Date: 10/23/03; Filing Fee: $ (FEE NOT PAID); Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/06/2003)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [562−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/06/2003)
563 ORDER denying [561−1] affidavit/pro se motion ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 11/06/03) [EOD Date: 11/7/03] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
NOTICE of Receipt of Notice of Appeal Transmittal Letter from USCA on 10/31/03 as to Vincent Faustino Rivera Re: [562−1] appeal , [556−1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 03−15554−D (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
NOTICE of Receipt of Notice of Appeal Transmittal Letter from USCA on 10/30/03 as to Vincent Faustino Rivera Re: [554−1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 03−15513−D (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
564 NOTICE of violations of conditions of constitutional deprivation of the Osterback vs Moore settlement by Ronald W. Clark Jr. (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
565 NOTICE to court by James Nelson (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
566 Inquiry regarding attorney appointed to represent plaintiff James Nelson by James Nelson (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
567 NOTICE (with attachments) by James Nelson: please review petition for a wirt of certiorari ans supreme court of Florida file SC03−609 for more evidence (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
568 NOTICE by James Nelson (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
569 NOTICE of Error by Court and Class Counsel by Michael Scott Warren (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/21/2003)
570 SWORN AFFIDAVIT by Renwick Foster (unable to read document as presented) (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2003)
571 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM by Vincent Faustino Rivera re: [556−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera, [554−1] appeal by Vincent Faustino Rivera received on 11/26/03 from Court Reporter. (Returned to Court Reporter Coordinator) (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2003)
575 Notice of Filing and Order denying pro se motion(attached copy of criminal complaint). Pro se motions will not be reviewed by this Court. Questions and

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 48 of 62

11/26/2003 12/01/2003
12/01/2003
12/05/2003
12/09/2003
12/09/2003 12/09/2003 12/10/2003
12/12/2003 12/16/2003 12/18/2003 12/19/2003 12/19/2003 12/23/2003 12/24/2003
12/24/2003 12/24/2003 12/29/2003 12/30/2003 01/02/2004

problems on any issue must be directed to counsel for the class plaintiffs in care of Peter M. Siegel, Esq. ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 11/25/03) [EOD Date: 12/3/03] (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
572 Notice of compliance: by Clarence S. Allen with [552−1] order (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/01/2003)
573 ORDER of dismissal from USCA (certified copy) dismissing [554−1] appeal for want of prosecution because the appellant has failed to pay the filing fees to the district court clerk within the time fixed by the rules USCA #: 03−15513−D USCA Order Date: 11/17/03 (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/01/2003)
574 ORDER of dismissal from USCA (certified copy) dismissing [562−1] appeal, dismissing [556−1] appeal for want of prosecution because the appellant has fail to pay the filing fees to the district court clerk within the time fixed by the rules USCA #: 03−15554−D USCA Order Date: 11/21/03 (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/01/2003)
576 ORDER of dismissal from USCA (certified copy) dismissing [555−1] appeal for want of prosecution because the appellant has failed to pay the filing fees to the district court clerk within the time fixed by the rules USCA #: 03−15643−D USCA Order Date: 11/26/03 (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
577 NOTICE OF APPEAL by James Arthur Lee of [563−1] order EOD Date: 11/7/03; Filing Fee: $ (FEE NOT PAID); Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [577−1] appeal by James Arthur Lee (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
578 AFFIDAVIT by Renwick Foster (mh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/10/2003)
579 ORDER denying [556−1] motion for certificate of appealability ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 12/10/03) [EOD Date: 12/12/03] (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2003)
580 AFFIDAVIT by Renwick Foster (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
581 AFFIDAVIT by Renwick Foster (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/19/2003)
582 NOTICE of filing complaint against construed access order by All Plaintiffs (hd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/22/2003)
583 MOTION with memorandum in support by All Defendants to terminate revised offer of judgment (hd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/22/2003)
584 ORDER striking [582−1] notice/pro se document ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 12/19/03) [EOD Date: 12/24/03] (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/24/2003)
585 NOTICE of letter to the court by Renwick Foster (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
586 NOTICE of Filing Attached Materials in Support of Response to Motion to Terminate Revised Offer of Judgment and Motion to Reopen Discovery... by All Plaintiffs (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
587 RESPONSE by All Plaintiffs to [583−1] motion to terminate revised offer of judgment (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
587 MOTION by All Plaintiffs to reopen discovery , to restore case to trial calendar , and for status conference (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
588 Transcript Information Form re: as to James Arthur Lee [577−1] appeal . No transcript requested. (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/31/2003)
589 NOTICE of Change of Address of Party by William M. West (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/31/2003)
590 NOTICE of Filing Original Declaration of Dr. Seymour Halleck by All Plaintiffs (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/05/2004)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 49 of 62

01/02/2004 01/05/2004 01/09/2004
01/09/2004 01/12/2004
01/12/2004 01/12/2004
01/12/2004 01/13/2004 01/13/2004 01/15/2004 01/15/2004 01/16/2004 01/16/2004 01/20/2004 01/20/2004 01/21/2004 01/21/2004 01/21/2004 01/22/2004

590 Declaration of Dr. Seymour Halleck by All Plaintiffs (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/05/2004)
591 ORDER granting [587−3] motion for status conference setting status conference for 9:00 1/16/04 before Judge Paul C. Huck ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 01/05/04) [EOD Date: 1/6/04] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
592 MOTION by All Defendants to extend time to reply to response to motion to terminate revised offer of judgment and motion to reopen discovery, and restore case to trial calendar and motion for a status conference (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/12/2004)
593 MOTION by James Arthur Lee for temporary restraining order , and for preliminary injunction (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/12/2004)
594 ORDER granting [592−1] motion to extend time to reply to response to motion to terminate revised offer of judgment and motion to reopen discovery, and restore case to trial calendar and motion for a status conference Reply to Response to Motion reset to 2/6/04 for [587−1] motion to reopen discovery, reset to 2/6/04 for [587−2] motion to restore case to trial calendar ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 1/12/04) [EOD Date: 1/13/04] (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
595 ORDER denying [593−1] motion for temporary restraining order, denying [593−2] motion for preliminary injunction ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 1/12/04) [EOD Date: 1/13/04] (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
596 RESPONSE by All Plaintiffs to [592−1] motion to extend time to reply to response to motion to terminate revised offer of judgment and motion to reopen discovery, and restore case to trial calendar and motion for a status conference (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
597 MOTION by All Defendants to compel responses to interrogatorries (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
598 RESPONSE by All Plaintiffs to [597−1] motion to compel responses to interrogatorries (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/14/2004)
599 NOTICE of Inquiry and change of address by Michael Scott Warren (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
600 NOTICE of filing attached Quarterly Report by All Defendants (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
601 NOTICE of Hearing: this cause is est for a hearing on recusal for 1:30pm, 1/22/04 (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
Status conference held before Judge Paul C. Huck (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
602 Minutes of Status Conference held before Judge Paul C. Huck on 1/16/04; Court Reporter Name or Tape #: Patricia Sanders (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
603 MOTION with memorandum in support by All Plaintiffs for order on suggestion of appropriatness of recusal (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/21/2004)
605 NOTICE of Non−Consent to Magistrate Judge by All Plaintiffs (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/21/2004)
604 NOTICE of filing of disinterested party by Wayne J. Wilson (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/21/2004)
606 RESPONSE by All Defendants to [603−1] motion for order on suggestion of appropriatness of recusal (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
609 NOTICE of Change of Address of Party by Anthony Patino (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
607 Minutes of Hearing held before Judge Paul C. Huck on 01/22/04 re: [603−1] motion for order on suggestion of appropriatness of recusal; Court Reporter Name

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 50 of 62

01/22/2004 01/23/2004 01/26/2004
01/26/2004 01/26/2004 01/26/2004 01/27/2004 01/27/2004 01/27/2004 01/27/2004 01/27/2004 01/27/2004 01/27/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004
02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/04/2004 02/04/2004 02/05/2004 02/05/2004

or Tape #: Patricia Sanders (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
Motion hearing re: [603−1] motion for order on suggestion of appropriatness of recusal (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
608 CLIAM/RESPONSE by Clarence S. Allen to [591−2] order re: status conference (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
610 ORDER OF RECUSAL granting [603−1] motion for order on suggestion of appropriatness of recusal ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 01/23/04) [EOD Date: 1/27/04] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/27/2004)
CASE reassigned to Judge Donald L. Graham (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/27/2004)
618 MOTION by Clarence Stanley Allen to incorporate services process (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2004)
619 Statement of facts by Clarence Stanley Allen (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2004)
611 MOTION by Clarence S. Allen to incorporate service process (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
612 MOTION by Mark Osterback to incorporate services process (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
613 MOTION by Mark Osterback to incorporate service process (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
614 MOTION by Mark Osterback for services process (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
615 MOTION by Clarence S. Allen to incorporate service process (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
616 Statement of facts by Clarence S. Allen re: (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
617 NOTICE of filing documents that are currently being reviewed by Judge Paul C. Huck by Kareem Abbas (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
620 NOTICE of service of process by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
621 LEGAL NOTICE of by Renwick Foster (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
622 ORDER of dismissal from USCA (certified copy) dismissing [577−1] appeal for lack of jurisdiction USCA #: 03−16352−C USCA Order Date: 1/27/04 (hh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
623 NOTICE for reply order by Clarence S. Allen (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
624 MOTION by Clarence S. Allen for recommendative order in institutional medical staff assignee and examiner report (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
627 NOTICE of requesting copies by James Arthur Lee (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
625 NOTICE of claim report by Clarence S. Allen (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
626 NOTICE of incident report by Clarence S. Allen (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
628 MOTION by All Defendants to file reply longer than 10 pages (bb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/06/2004)
629 REPLY by All Defendants to response to [583−1] motion to terminate revised offer of judgment (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/06/2004)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 51 of 62

02/05/2004 02/05/2004 02/05/2004 02/06/2004 02/06/2004 02/06/2004
02/09/2004 02/12/2004 02/12/2004
02/12/2004 02/18/2004
02/20/2004 02/24/2004 02/24/2004 02/24/2004 02/27/2004
03/01/2004 03/02/2004 03/02/2004 03/02/2004 03/02/2004 03/02/2004 03/02/2004

630 MOTION by All Defendants for oral argument on [629−1] response reply (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/06/2004)
631 RESPONSE by All Defendants to [587−1] motion to reopen discovery, [587−2] motion to restore case to trial calendar (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/06/2004)
631 MOTION with memorandum in support by All Defendants for protective order to prevent discovery (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/06/2004)
632 RESPONSE by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/09/2004)
633 STATUS by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/09/2004)
634 MOTION with memorandum in support by All Defendants to transfer case to Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/09/2004)
635 NOTICE of correct name by James Compo (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/10/2004)
636 RESPONSE by All Plaintiffs to [628−1] motion to file reply longer than 10 pages (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
637 REPLY by All Plaintiffs to response to [587−1] motion to reopen discovery, [587−2] motion to restore case to trial calendar, [587−3] motion for status conference (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
637 RESPONSE by All Plaintiffs to [631−1] motion for protective order to prevent discovery (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
638 ORDER granting [628−1] motion to file reply longer than 10 pages ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 02/18/04) [EOD Date: 2/19/04] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/19/2004)
639 RESPONSE by All Plaintiffs to [634−1] motion to transfer case to Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/20/2004)
640 MOTION by Clarence Stanley Allen for reassignment process (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
641 Report for temporary assignment in order of reassignment/recusal by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
642 Response Pleading by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
643 NOTICE/ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE for 11:00 3/9/04 before Judge Donald L. Graham ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/27/04) [EOD Date: 3/1/04] CCAP (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
644 Pleading Correspondence under construed access by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/02/2004)
645 Associate pleading affidavit to report recommendation by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
646 Associate pleading affidavit to report recommendation by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
647 Reserve response by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
648 Claim filing process notice by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
649 Associate pleading affidavit to report recommendation by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
650 Associate pleading affidavit to report recommendation by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2004)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 52 of 62

03/02/2004 03/02/2004 03/03/2004 03/09/2004
03/10/2004 03/10/2004
03/10/2004 03/10/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004 03/18/2004 03/22/2004
03/23/2004 03/24/2004 03/24/2004 03/24/2004 03/30/2004 03/30/2004
03/30/2004 04/05/2004 04/06/2004

651 Associate pleading affidavit to report recommendation by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
652 Associate pleading affidavit to report recommendation by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
653 Letter by Nivaldy Torres (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/04/2004)
654 NOTICE OF APPEAL by James Arthur Lee of [595−1] order EOD Date: 1/13/04; Filing Fee: $ (FEE NOT PAID); Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
Certified copies of Notice of Appeal, Docket, and Order under appeal to USCA: [654−1] appeal by James Arthur Lee (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
655 ORDER granting [634−1] motion to transfer case to Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 3/9/04) [EOD Date: 3/11/04] (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
656 Letter by Nivaldy Torres (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
657 Letter by Ahmad Shareef (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
658 Pleading recommendation for incorporating reference docket by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
659 Pleading recommendation for incorporating reference docket by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
660 NOTICE in reserve issues by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
661 NOTICE in reserve issue by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
662 TRANSMITTAL letter with: court file and certified copies of docket sheet and transfer order Sent to: USDC MD/FL (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
NOTICE of Receipt of Notice of Appeal Transmittal Letter from USCA on 3/12/04as to James Arthur Lee Re: [654−1] appeal by James Arthur Lee USCA NUMBER: 04−11172−E (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
663 Correspondence Letter by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
664 MOTION by Clarence Stanley Allen for administrative assistance (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
665 CORRESPONDENCE NOTICE for administrative process reassignment by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
666 CORRESPONDENCE NOTICE for administrative process in order of reassignment by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
667 MOTION by James Arthur Lee to proceed in forma pauperis (tb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
668 Transcript Information Form re: as to James Arthur Lee [654−1] appeal by James Arthur Lee . No transcript requested. All necessary transcripts are already on file. (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
673 LETTER CORRESPONDENCE by John Freddrick (tb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
669 MOTION by James Arthur Lee to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
670 RESPONSE by Clarence Stanley Allen in opposition to [655−1] order (tb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 53 of 62

04/06/2004 04/08/2004 04/09/2004 04/23/2004 05/04/2004 05/06/2004 05/06/2004 06/02/2004 06/02/2004 06/04/2004 06/10/2004 07/21/2004 07/21/2004
08/03/2004 08/10/2004 08/26/2004 10/01/2004 10/19/2004 11/08/2004 04/29/2005

671 DIRECTION TO CLERK by Clarence Stanley Allen (tb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
672 ACKNOWLEDGMENT of receipt of: transfer order and court file (2 boxes) by: USDC M/D FL ; Date: 3/23/04 ; Other Court Case # 3:04cv210−J−25MCR (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
674 MOTION and affidavit by James Arthur Lee for temporary restraining order (pc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
675 MOTION by Brent Smith to be reviewed by Judge Brown (tb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
676 Response in service notice by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
677 Pleading in notification filing notice by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
678 Pleading file notice by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
679 Transfer venue response inquiry by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
680 Letter by William Hale (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
681 Letter from Psychi−3 Inmates (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
682 NOTICE of inquiry by James Nelson (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/14/2004)
683 Seeking enforcement of close management terms, rules and regulations by Rappsodi R. Ali (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
684 MOTION for back pay for Breach of Settelment Contract Agreement by Hector M. Rivas, Dale Lee Lenoir, Doy J. Christian, Laron A. Mingo, Charles King, Louis Robenson, Franze Young, Fred Johnson, Anthony Patino, Jireh Randall Kleppinger, Hombre Lewis, James Arthur Lee, Julio Mora, Donald Perry, Glenn C. Smith, Ronald Gates, Robert Lee Hinson, John Edward Smith, Mark Oldner, Brandon Evans, Willie A. Scullock, Julio A. Rivera−Davis, Kurt J. Smith, John Pope, Robert L. Gibson, Arthur Rudick, James W. Harkleroad, Donnell Leto, Shelton Jackson, Torrence Allen, Kim P. Kruger, Maurice A. Bryant, James Compo, Glenn E. McNeal, George F. Warner, Michael T. Williams, Frankie Lee Bass, Donald Bean, Clarence England, Derrick Redden, Ben Alan Snipes, Donnell Quarterman, Edward Holland, Calvin McCutcheon, Ricardo Little Roca, Kenneth Moffett, David P. Kever, Charles E. Carter (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
685 NOTICE of Breach Agreement of the Contract Settlementa by Marvin Jerelds (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/04/2004)
686 NOTICE of Breach Agreement of the Contract Settlement by Marvin Jerelds (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/11/2004)
687 STATUS REPORT by Clarence Stanley Allen (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
688 Report recommendation in response to order of re−designation by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
689 NOTICE to counsel for plaintiff that defendants, et al, are violating the agreements of the revised settlement by Douglas Walker (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/20/2004)
690 Supplement Notice of Counsel for Plaintiff that Defendant's,et al are Violating the Agreement of the Revised Settlement by Douglas Walker (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/10/2004)
691 NOTICE of correspondence from Andreas Obojes by Mark Osterback (bs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/03/2005)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 54 of 62

06/23/2005 07/11/2005 07/26/2005 07/27/2005 08/23/2005 09/06/2005 09/27/2005 09/28/2005 09/28/2005 11/01/2005
11/07/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005 12/07/2005
12/30/2005
12/30/2005 12/30/2005
12/30/2005
12/30/2005
12/30/2005
12/30/2005
12/30/2005

692 MOTION by Juan F. Vega to enforce injunction (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
693 MOTION by Juan F. Vega (pro se) to enforce Injunction (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
694 Letter by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
695 Letter by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
696 MOTION by Juan F. Vega to enforce injunction (bs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
697 NOTICE of filing documents by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
698 NOTICE of inquiry by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
Copy of docket sheet mailed to Clarence Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
699 Letter by Clarence Stanley Allen (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
700 ORDER DENYING RELIEF (see order for more details) ( Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 11/1/05) [EOD Date: 11/4/05] (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
701 Declaration of Willie Boddie (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
702 NOTICE of Change of Address of party by James Nelson (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
703 Notice of filing State court record of: appeal by Clarence Allen (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
704 ORDER that the Clerk of court is directed to return any and all correspondence and/or documents received from Clarence S. Allen or any other pro se litigant and include a copy of this order (Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 12/7/05) [EOD Date: 12/8/05] (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
705 Return mail undeliverable, DE#704, as to Rappsodi R. Ali, address corrected pursuant to dc.state.fl.us. Re−mailed on 1/9/06. (dg, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 01/10/2006 (Entered: 01/10/2006)
706 Return mail undeliverable, DE#700, as to John Freddrick, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 01/10/2006 (Entered: 01/10/2006)
707 Return mail undeliverable, DE#704, as to Donnell Leto, address corrected pursuant to dc.state.fl.us. Re−mailed on 1/9/06. (dg, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 01/10/2006 (Entered: 01/10/2006)
708 Return mail undeliverable, DE#704, as to Arthur Rudick, address corrected pursuant to dc.state.fl.us. Re−mailed on 1/9/06 (dg, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 01/10/2006 (Entered: 01/10/2006)
709 Return mail undeliverable, DE#704, as to Ben Alan Snipes, address corrected pursuant to dc.state.fl.us. Re−mailed on 1/9/06. (dg, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 01/10/2006 (Entered: 01/10/2006)
710 Return mail undeliverable, DE#704, as to Johnny J. Union, address corrected pursuant to dc.state.fl.us. Re−mailed on 1/9/06 (dg, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 01/10/2006 (Entered: 01/10/2006)
711 Return mail undeliverable, DE#704, as to Douglas Walker, address corrected pursuant to dc.state.fl.us. Re−mailed on 1/9/06 (dg, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 01/10/2006 (Entered: 01/10/2006)
712 Return mail undeliverable, DE#704, as to Michael Scott Warren, address corrected pursuant to dc.state.fl.us. Re−mailed on 1/9/06 (dg, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 01/10/2006 (Entered: 01/10/2006)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 55 of 62

01/04/2006 01/18/2006 01/20/2006
01/23/2006
01/23/2006
01/25/2006 01/25/2006 01/25/2006 01/25/2006 02/07/2006 02/13/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006

713 Return mail undeliverable, DE#704, as to Randall Wayne Anderson, address corrected pursuant to dc.state.fl.us. Re−mailed on 1/9/06 (dg, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 01/10/2006 (Entered: 01/10/2006)
714 MOTION by Mark Osterback (pro−se) requesting enforcement of settlement (pc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
715 ORDER that all pleadings and correspondence in this matter must be sent to proper venue; pursuant to order, DE#655, this matter was transferred to USDC, Middle, Florida; case closed ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 1/19/06) [EOD Date: 1/23/06] (hd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
716 ORDER that all pleadings and correspondence in this matter must be sent to proper venue; pursuant to order, DE#655, this matter was transferred to USDC, Middle, Florida; case closed ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 1/20/06) [EOD Date: 1/24/06] (hd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
717 ORDER that all pleadings and correspondence in this matter must be sent to proper venue; pursuant to order, DE#655, this matter was transferred to USDC, Middle, Florida; case closed, denying [696−1] motion to enforce injunction ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 1/20/06) [EOD Date: 1/24/06] (hd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
718 Return mail undeliverable, DE#700, as to Randall Wayne Anderson, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 01/30/2006 (Entered: 01/30/2006)
719 Return mail undeliverable, DE# 704, as to Robert O. Holm, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
720 Return mail undeliverable, DE#704, as to Bryant Kilo, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
721 Return mail undeliverable, DE704, as to Maurice A. Bryant, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
722 EMERGENCY MOTION by Arthur Rudick for sanction, intervene, appoint counsel (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
723 ORDER denying [722−1] motion for sanction, intervene, appoint counsel ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/10/06) [EOD Date: 2/14/06] (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
724 Return mail undeliverable, DE#716 &717, as to Kareem Abbas, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
725 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715, as to James Campo, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
726 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715, 716 &717, as to Michael Coolen, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
727 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715 &717, as to Robert Holm, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
728 Return mail undeliverable, DE#716, as to Shelton Jackson, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
729 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715 &716, as to Marvin Jerelds, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
730 Return mail undeliverable, DE#717, as to Mitchell Monteverdi, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
731 Return mail undeliverable, DE#716 &717, as to Ernest Nelson, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
732 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715, as to Robert Rose, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/24/2006)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 56 of 62

02/22/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/07/2006 03/07/2006 03/15/2006 03/15/2006 03/15/2006 03/15/2006 03/30/2006

733 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715 &716, as to Kurt Smith, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
734 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715, 716 &717, as to Juan Vega, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
735 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715 &716, as to Darryl Williams, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
736 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715 &716, as to John Williams, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
737 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715, 716 &717, as to Wayne Wilson, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
738 Return mail, DE#716 &717, undeliverable as to James Campo, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 03/16/2006 (Entered: 03/16/2006)
739 Return mail undeliverable, DE#717, as to John F. Williams, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
740 Return mail undeliverable, DE#717, as to Marvin Jerelds, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
741 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715 &716, as to Mitchell Monteverdi, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
742 Return mail undeliverable, DE#717, as to Kurt J. Smith, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
743 Return mail undeliverable, DE#716 &717, as to Randall Anderson, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
744 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715, as to Kareem Abbas, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
745 Return mail undeliverable, DE#716, as to Robert O. Holm, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
746 Return mail undeliverable, DE#717, as to Darryl Williams, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
747 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715, 716 &717, as to Donald Perry, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
748 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715, as to Raul Lopez, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
749 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715, as to Shelton Jackson, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
750 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715, as to Randall Anderson, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
751 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715, 716 &717, as to Maurice Bryant, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
752 Return mail undeliverable, DE#717, as to Shelton Jackson, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
753 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715, as to Ernest Nelson, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
754 Return mail undeliverable, DE#716 &717, as to Robert Rose, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
755 EMERGENCY MOTION by Mark Osterback (pro−se) to enforce defendants to comply with revised offer of judgement and orders (see motion for further details) (pc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 57 of 62

04/05/2006 04/24/2006 05/02/2006 07/13/2006 07/20/2006
07/24/2006
07/31/2006 11/15/2006
12/05/2006 12/05/2006 12/05/2006 01/05/2007 01/09/2007 01/16/2007 01/26/2007 02/01/2007 02/07/2007 02/08/2007 02/20/2007 02/22/2007

756 ORDER that all pleadings and correspondence in this matter must be sent to the proper venue, Middle District of Florida (Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 4/5/06) [EOD Date: 4/6/06] (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
757 Return mail undeliverable, DE#715, 716 &717, as to Bryant Kilo, bad address (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
758 NOTICE of inquiry by Johnnie F. Howard, a party of interest (Address not included). (pc, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 05/08/2006 (Entered: 05/08/2006)
759 REQUEST for Production of Documents (mh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
760 ORDER that all pleadings and correspondence in this matter must be sent to the proper venue; Pursuant to Order at DE #655, this matter was transferred to USDC, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division (Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 7/19/06) [EOD Date: 7/20/06] (bb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/20/2006)
761 ORDER that all pleadings and correspondence in this matter must be sent to the proper venue; Pursuant to Order at DE #655, this matter was transferred to USDC, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 07/23/06) [EOD Date: 7/25/06] (bb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
762 MOTION by Vincent Faustino Rivera for leave to file pro se pleading (bb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
763 ORDER denying 762 Motion for Leave to File ; all future pleadings shall not be filed in this court; all pleadings and correspondence to be filed in the Middle District of Florida. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 11/13/2006. (bs) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
764 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 763 Order on Motion for Leave to File by Vincent Faustino Rivera. (FEE NOT PAID) (pc) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
765 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability by Vincent Faustino Rivera. Responses due by 12/19/2006 (pc) Modified on 7/13/2007 (pc). (Entered: 12/12/2006)
766 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Vincent Faustino Rivera. (pc) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
767 Letter of inquiry to the Clerk, as to this case, from Kevin Osborn. (pa) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
768 USCA Case Number 06−16471−J for 764 Notice of Appeal filed by Vincent Faustino Rivera,. (pc) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
769 USCA ORDER OF DISMISSAL pursuant to the appellant has failed to pay the filing fees within the time fixed by the rules as to 764 Notice of Appeal filed by Vincent Faustino Rivera, (pc) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
770 NOTICE of Change of Address by Glenn C. Smith (ls) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
771 Notice/Letter to Peter Siegel re: TRO Santa Rosa from George Horn (ls) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Notice of Electronic Filing re 767 Letter US Mail returned for: not deliverable as addressed Email returned for: kim kruger (rb) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Notice of Electronic Filing re 767 Letter US Mail returned for: addressee unknown Email returned for: donnell leto (rb) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
772 NOTICE to the Class Santa Rosa Building Violations and Sadistic tremant, by Michael Scott Warren (pa) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 771 Letter US Mail returned for: return to sender Email returned for: William M. West (rb) (Entered: 02/22/2007)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 58 of 62

02/23/2007 02/27/2007 02/27/2007 03/02/2007
03/13/2007 03/13/2007 03/14/2007
03/14/2007 03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/19/2007 03/20/2007 03/22/2007 03/26/2007 03/26/2007 03/26/2007 03/29/2007 03/30/2007

773 Letter requesting removal from mailing list from Julio Martinez (ls) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 771 Letter US Mail returned for: return to sender no such number Email returned for: Donnello Leto (rb) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 771 Letter US Mail returned for: return to sender not deliverable as addressed Email returned for: Paul Remillard (rb) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
774 ORDER that all pleadings and correspondence in this matter must be sent to the proper venue. The correct address is 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202; This matter was transferred to the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division; all future pleadings shall not be filed in this Court; Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 03/01/2007 (bs) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 773 Letter US Mail returned for: return to sender no such person Email returned for: Torrence Allen (rb) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
775 NOTICE to be removed from the mailing list in this case, by Mark Osterback (pa) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 775 Notice (Other) filed by Mark Osterback, Email returned for: Jason Vail and Kathleen Marie Von Hoene Resolved by: Called Legal Assistant Jeanne Flowers who informed that these attorneys are not longer with the office. She will advise the person in charge of this case to file a motion to terminate the attorneys from the case. The attorneys cannot be located no forwarded address or an email address was found. E−mail address has been deleted and the attorneys were deactivated. (mc) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
776 NOTICE by James Arthur Lee to add his name to the case and mailing list.(pa) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
777 MOTION to Reopen Case or motion to restart discovery and memorandum of law, by Vincent Faustino Rivera. (lk) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
778 MOTION requesting Judicial Notice, by Vincent Faustino Rivera. (lk) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 767 Letter US Mail returned for: return to sender, refused, same address on file for Brent Smith (wpb2) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 763 Order on Motion for Leave to File US Mail returned for: return to sender, not deliverable as addressed, same address on file, need updating address for Torrence Allen (wpb2) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 763 Order on Motion for Leave to File US Mail returned for: return to sender, need updated address for Renwick Foster (wpb2) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 774 Order, US Mail returned for: return to sender, no longer here, released no forward address available, need updated address Kim P. Kruger (wpb2) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 773 Letter US Mail returned for: return to sender, not deliverable as addressed,unable to forward, need updated address for Donnell Leto (wpb2) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 774 Order, US Mail returned for: return to sender, deliverable as addressed, same address on file, need updated address for Paul Alfred Remillard (wpb2) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 773 Letter US Mail returned for: Lead Attorney, return to sender, not deliverable as addressed, same address on file, need updated address for Paul Alfred Remillard (wpb2) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 774 Order, US Mail returned for: return to sender, no such person, need DC# same address on file, need updated address for Torrence Allen (wpb2) (Entered: 03/30/2007)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 59 of 62

04/02/2007 04/02/2007
04/02/2007 04/04/2007 06/18/2007 06/20/2007
07/03/2007 07/12/2007 07/24/2007 07/24/2007 08/06/2007 08/22/2007 08/22/2007 08/22/2007 08/27/2007 09/04/2007
09/10/2007 09/20/2007

Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 774 Order,, 763 Order on Motion for Leave to File US Mail returned for: Return to sender, Insufficient address need updated address information for Brent Smith. (ww) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 763 Order on Motion for Leave to File US Mail returned for: Lead Attorney, return to sender, not deliverable as addressed, same address on file, need updated address for Paul Alfred Remillard (wpb2) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 763 Order on Motion for Leave to File US Mail returned for: return to sender, addressee unknown, need updated address for Donnell Leto (wpb2) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 768 USCA Case Number US Mail returned for: Return to sender, not at this address, need updated address information for Paul Remillard. (ww) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
779 Letter from Hubert Morris to Judge Brown RE: Unlawful conditions for inmates in close management in the Department of Corrections. (pa) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
780 ORDER re 779 Hubert Morris' correspondence. All pleadings and correspondence in this matter must be sent to the proper venue. All future pleadings shall not be filed in this Court. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 6/19/07.(gfw) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 780 Order, 779 Letter US Mail returned for: return to sender refused unable to forward for: Brent Smith (rb) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
781 ORDER all pleadings and correspondence in this matter must be sent to the proper venue. All future pleadings shall not be filed in this court.Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 7/12/07.(pc) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 780 Order, 779 Letter US Mail returned for: return to sender refused unable to forward for: Vincent Faustino Rivera (rb) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 780 Order, 779 Letter US Mail returned for: return to sender unclaimed unable to forward for: Ricci Salvatore (rb) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
782 MOTION for Reconsideration re 781 Order by Vincent Faustino Rivera. (bs) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 781 Order US Mail returned for: Not Deliverable as addressed − Unable to Forward : Paul Alfred Remillard (eg1) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 781 Order US Mail returned for: Not Deliverable as Addressed − Unable to Forward : Donnell Leto (eg1) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 781 Order US Mail returned for: Insufficient Address − Unable to Forward for: Kim P. Kruger (eg1) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 780 Order US Mail returned for: return to sender not deliverable as addressed unable to forward for: Roger Evans (rb) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
783 ORDER THAT ALL PLEADINGS AND CORRESPONDENCE IN THIS MATTER MUST BE SENT TO THE PROPER VENUE Re: 777 Motion to Reopen Case, and 778 Motion to Take Judicial Notice; Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 9/4/07. (lh) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
784 ORDER Denying 765 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability filed by Vincent Faustino Rivera, Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 9/7/07.(lh) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 783 Order on Motion to Reopen Case, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief US Mail returned for: return to sender no such number unable to forward for: Torrence Allen (rb) (Entered: 09/20/2007)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 60 of 62

09/21/2007 09/25/2007
09/25/2007 10/02/2007 10/02/2007
10/04/2007 10/16/2007
11/26/2007 12/10/2007 12/10/2007 12/10/2007 12/20/2007 12/21/2007 12/28/2007 12/28/2007 12/28/2007 01/02/2008 01/14/2008
03/31/2008

785 MOTION for Reconsideration re 784 Order by Vincent Faustino Rivera. (ail) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 783 Order on Motion to Reopen Case, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 784 Order US Mail returned for: return to sender no longer at this address unable to forward for: Kim P. Kruger (rb) (Entered: 09/25/2007)
786 NOTICE of Inquiry ( Copy of Docket sheet mailed 9/26/07) by Johnnie F Howard (ail) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 784 Order US Mail returned for: return to sender not deliverable as addressed unable to forward for: Torrence Allen (rb) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 783 Order on Motion to Reopen Case, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief US Mail returned for: return to sender not deliverable as addressed unable to forward for: Thomas Albert Gross Jr. (rb) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 783 Order on Motion to Reopen Case, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 784 Order US Mail returned for: return to sender refused unable to forward for: Brent Smith (rb) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 783 Order on Motion to Reopen Case, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 784 Order US Mail returned for: return to sender attemped not known unable to forward for: Donnell Leto (rb) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
787 ORDER denying 785 Vincent F. Rivera's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 11/26/07. (gfw) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
788 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Vincent Faustino Rivera as to 787 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Filing Fee: (FEE NOT PAID) (abd) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
789 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability by Vincent Faustino Rivera. (abd) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Docket Sheet and Order under appeal to US Court of Appeals re 788 Notice of Appeal (abd) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 787 Order on Motion for Reconsideration US Mail returned for: return to sender not deliverable as addressed unable to forward for: Roger Evans (rb) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
790 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM by Vincent Faustino Rivera re 788 Notice of Appeal. No Transcript Requested. (abd) (Entered: 12/26/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 787 Order on Motion for Reconsideration US Mail returned for: return to sender refused unable to forward for: Julio Martinez (rb) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 787 Order on Motion for Reconsideration US Mail returned for: return to sender not delioverable as addressed unable to forward for: Kim P. Kruger (rb) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
791 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT FROM USCA re 788 Notice of Appeal receipt of: NOA Transmittal date received by USCA 12/17/2007 USCA number 07−15839−C (abd) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
792 NOTICE of inquiry by Charles Matthews (tb) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
793 ORDER of DISMISSAL from USCA, this appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant has failed to pay the $450 docketing and $5 filing fees ($455) to the district court clerk within the time fixed by the rules, re 788 Notice of Appeal filed by Vincent Faustino Rivera, USCA #07−15839−C (abd) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
794 NOTICE of Inquiry by Germaine R. Ruddick (ls) (Entered: 04/01/2008)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 61 of 62

04/07/2008 05/23/2008 09/22/2008 09/29/2008 10/20/2008 10/30/2008 11/03/2008 11/25/2008
12/26/2008
06/19/2009 07/08/2009 08/05/2009
08/31/2009 09/17/2009
09/17/2009
09/22/2009
11/05/2009

795 ORDER denying 789 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 4/5/2008. (ls) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 795 Order on Motion for Certificate of Appealability US Mail returned for: return to sender insufficeint address for: Paul Alfred Remillard (rb) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
796 NOTICE of filing documentation by Donnell Quarterman (vjk) (Entered: 09/23/2008)
797 Letter to the Court from Robert Walker #352960 (tas) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
798 Letter to the Court from Robert Walker #352960 re Defendants are not in Complaince with the Ruling Decision reached (no address provided) (tas) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
799 MOTION to Reopen the Judgment Order and Memorandum of Law by Vincent Faustino Rivera. (tas) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
800 NONCOMPLIANCE of Osterback Agreement by James Nelson (tas) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
801 Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 787 Order on Motion for Reconsideration US Mail returned for: return to sender not deliverable as addressed unable to forward for: Donnell Leto. Notice not delivered by other means for this event (rb) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
802 Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 798 Letter. * US Mail returned for: Return to sender. Attempted − Not known. Unable to forward, for: Thomas Albert Gross Jr; Ricci Salvatore; Torrence Allen; Donnell Leto; Julio Martinez; William M. West. (Notice not delivered by other means for this event). (jmd) (Entered: 12/26/2008)
803 ORDER denying 799 Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 6/19/2009. (tas) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
804 MOTION/NOTICE for Reopening Judgment by James Nelson. (tas) (Entered: 07/09/2009)
805 Clerk's Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 803 Order on Motion to Reopen Case. US Mail returned for: Brent Smith . The Court has not located an updated address for this party. After two unsuccessful noticing attempts, notices from the Court will no longer be sent to this party in this case until a correct address is provided. First return/attempt (rb) (Entered: 08/05/2009)
806 ORDER denying 804 Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 8/31/2009. (tb) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
807 Clerk's Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 806 Order on Motion to Reopen Case. US Mail returned for: MARK H. STONE Return to Sender, Unable to Forward ... The Court has not located an updated address for this party. After two unsuccessful noticing attempts, notices from the Court will no longer be sent to this party in this case until a correct address is provided. (lbc) (Entered: 09/17/2009)
808 Clerk's Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 806 Order on Motion to Reopen Case. US Mail returned for: JULIO MARTINEZ Return to Sender, Unable to Forward ... The Court has not located an updated address for this party. After two unsuccessful noticing attempts, notices from the Court will no longer be sent to this party in this case until a correct address is provided. (lbc) (Entered: 09/17/2009)
809 Clerk's Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 806 Order on Motion to Reopen Case. US Mail returned for: Paul Alfred Remillard Return to Sender, Unable to Forward . The Court has not located an updated address for this party. After two unsuccessful noticing attempts, notices from the Court will no longer be sent to this party in this case until a correct address is provided. (lbc) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
810 NOTICE Of Inquiry by Arthur Rudick (Updated Docket Sheet Sent out on 11/06/2009) (jua) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

Case: 1:97-cv-2806 As of: 11/12/2014 02:14 PM EST 62 of 62

11/06/2009 02/16/2010 02/24/2010 03/12/2010
03/18/2010
03/18/2010 03/23/2010 03/26/2010 04/05/2010 04/30/2010

811 Address Updated in the system per de 810 (System Updated) (jua) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
812 MOTION to Reopening Judgement by James Nelson. (jua) (Entered: 02/17/2010)
813 ORDER denying 812 Motion to Reopen Judgment. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/24/2010. (cqs) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
814 Clerk's Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 813 Order on Motion to Reopen Case. US Mail returned for: return to sender not deliverable as addressed unable to forward. The Court has not located an updated address for this party. After two unsuccessful noticing attempts, notices from the Court will no longer be sent to this party in this case until a correct address is provided.US Mail returned for Paul Alfred Remillard (rb) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
815 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 813 Order on Motion to Reopen Case by Vincent Faustino Rivera. Filing Fees:$ (FEE NOT PAID) Copies sent to USCA and Counsel of Record. Within fourteen days of the filing date of a Notice of Appeal, the appellant must complete the Eleventh Circuit Transcript Order Form regardless of whether transcripts are being ordered [Pursuant to FRAP 10(b)]. For information go to our FLSD website under Transcript Information. (jua) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
816 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability by Vincent Faustino Rivera. (Motion construed per de 815 ) Responses due by 4/5/2010 (jua) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Docket Sheet and order sent to US Court of Appeals re 815 Notice of Appeal, by Vincent Faustino Rivera. (jua) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
817 ORDER denying 816 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 3/26/2010. (mc) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
818 Acknowledgment of Receipt of NOA from USCA re 815 Notice of Appeal, filed by Vincent Faustino Rivera. Date received by USCA: 3/26/2010. USCA Case Number: 10−11335−F. (cqs) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
819 ORDER of DISMISSAL from USCA for want of prosecution because the appellant Vincent F. Rivera failed to pay the filing and docketing fees to the district court within the time fixed by the rules; re 815 Notice of Appeal, filed by Vincent Faustino Rivera. USCA# 10−11335−F (mc) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

MARK OSTERBACK, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

)

MICHAEL W. MOORE, et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

)

____________________________________)

Case No. 97-2806-CIV-HUCK MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROWN

SECOND REPORT OF PROFESSOR CRAIG HANEY
1. I am currently a Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Santa Cruz. I continue to teach graduate and undergraduate courses at the University of California and have continued to conduct research on and write about conditions of confinement in maximum security prisons and the psychological effects of various forms of incarceration. In much of that work I have continued to focus specifically on the assessment of the psychological effects of confinement in so-called “lockup,” punitive segregation, or “supermax” confinement (in what are variously known as management control, security housing, high security or, in Florida, “Close Management” units). My educational background and professional qualifications were summarized in the first Report that I submitted to this Court. I have appended an updated curriculum vitae to the Second Report as “Appendix A.”

2
Initial Analysis of Close Management Conditions
2. In September, 2001, I filed a Report in the above titled action, summarizing my observations and opinions about conditions of confinement in a number of Close Management (or “CM”) units in the Florida Department of Corrections. That Report also contained my opinions about the psychological effects of the Close Management conditions on the prisoners who were housed within them. I also addressed the issue of whether the presence of conditions of confinement or patterns of treatment or correctional practices at these units reflected the apparent deliberate indifference of correctional officials.
3. As the basis for that Report in 2001, I conducted tours and interviews at various Close Management units (specifically, Florida State Prison, Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, Washington Correctional Institution, and Columbia Correctional Institution), and evaluated various documents provided to me by plaintiffs’ counsel in which current and future Florida Department of Corrections plans and procedures for Close Management units were described. I also reviewed an extensive number of depositions taken of various Department of Corrections employees in conjunction with this case.
4. In the course of my tours at these various facilities in 2001, I conducted structured interviews with a total of 51 randomly selected Close Management prisoners, asking each prisoner the same series of questions designed to assess their overall level of psychological trauma and psychopathological symptoms associated with solitary-like confinement. As I noted in my first Report, the randomness of the selection meant that I was given an opportunity to interview and assess the psychological reactions of a representative sample of prisoners

3
from the four Close Management units that I had inspected. In addition, because each prisoner was asked the same set of questions, it was possible to form an opinion about the dimensions of each prisoner’s level of adjustment and the nature of the psychological reactions he was experiencing while in Close Management.
5. The opinions I reached in my first Report were extremely critical of the conditions of confinement in the Close Management facilities I saw and the procedures I learned about and encountered in these units. I expressed serious concerns about the excessive punitiveness of these environments, the numerous complaints that were voiced by the prisoners whom I interviewed, and the psychological risks that were being taken subjecting persons to these conditions and treatment.
6. In that Report, I expressed the conclusions that: prisoners in the Close Management Units I toured and inspected were being subjected to extremely harsh treatment and deprived conditions of confinement; long-term exposure to such treatment and conditions was psychologically painful and potentially damaging and dangerous; an unusually high number of mentally ill and otherwise psychologically vulnerable prisoners were confined in the units I toured, suggesting that the psychological screening and monitoring practices that presumably were in operation in these facilities had not been effective in identifying and diverting mentally ill and psychologically vulnerable prisoners; and that the overall conditions and practices that prevailed lacked penological justification.

4
7. Further, I expressed the opinion that these problems appeared to be so systemic and long-standing that many Department of Corrections officials and employees either knew or should have known about the adverse psychological consequences of such confinement. Because these Department of Corrections officials and employees did nothing to ameliorate the damaging effects of these conditions and adverse forms of treatment, they were deliberately indifferent to the needs of Close Management prisoners.
Context and Basis of Second Report
8. After these opinions and those of two other plaintiffs’ experts, Dr. Seymour Halleck and Chase Riveland, were expressed, the parties to the present case entered into an agreed upon Offer of Judgment effective December 26, 2001. A two-year period was specified for the implementation of the terms of the Offer of Judgment.
9. At request of counsel for plaintiffs, I returned to assist in the assessment of present conditions of confinement. In order to accomplish this task, I visited Florida State Prison (on October 13, 2003), Union Correctional Institution (on October 14th), the Lowell Annex (on October 15th), Charlotte Correctional Institution (on November 12th), and the Santa Rosa Correctional Institution (on November 14th). A total of 47 randomly selected CM prisoners were interviewed on these visits.
10. I also reviewed a number of case-related documents provided by plaintiffs’ counsel. These included: Defendants’ Revised Offer of Judgment (dated October 2, 2001); Florida Department of Corrections Quarterly

5
Implementation Status Reports (dated January 15, 2002; April 15, 2002; July 15, 2002; October 15, 2002; January 15, 2003; April 15, 2003; July 15, 2003; October 15, 2003); Plaintiffs’ First Monitoring Report (dated November 26, 2002).
11. Unfortunately, many of the documents that have been requested as a result of my visit, including individual prisoner files, have not yet been provided. For this reason, the opinions and conclusions I provide below are provisional and subject to some revision once this additional information is forthcoming and I have had time to integrate it with my observations and interview data.
Improved Conditions in Close Management Units
12. Defendants have made a number of improvements in the conditions of confinement in Close Management since I toured these units and interviewed prisoners in 2001. For example, the overall physical plant at both of the facilities that I saw then and more recently (FSP and Santa Rosa) appeared to have been upgraded. This was especially evident at Santa Rosa where, at the time of my last visit, the facility was in serious disrepair. In addition, although I did not actually see them, it is my understanding that writing surfaces were installed inside the cells of at least some CM prisoners, allowing them to more easily write during the long hours in which they are confined in their cells.
13. Close Management prisoners have now been given access to radios and most of the ones whom I interviewed have taken advantage of this change in CM policy. Prisoners also report that they have improved access to canteen (more items can be purchased by those prisoners who have funds), and there is slightly more movement within the institution (for example, in the form of weekly group

6
therapy at some facilities, several hours of out-of-cell exercise and, for prisoners on CM II or above, dayroom access on a limited basis). Although prisoners gave very mixed reports about the frequency and nature of the contact, CM II prisoners appear to have minimal access to educational materials. Some CM I and II prisoners reported that the also were permitted to make telephone calls on a very limited basis. In addition, CM III prisoners are placed on work lists and can be assigned to a limited number of jobs within the institution.
14. Because it was originally a maximum security mainline prison, rather than a CM facility, Florida State Prison lacked adequate individual office space or larger group meeting or therapy rooms in which to provide services to a population of prisoners who were segregated on their housing units or tiers. Over the last two years, these offices and larger meeting rooms have been created by converting dayroom space on the housing wings. Essentially the same approach appears to have been followed at the Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, where dayrooms have been remodeled to provide limited offices and group meeting rooms in which, presumably, counseling and group therapy sessions can take place.
Continuing Problems in Close Management Units
15. Although the above mentioned changes represent improvements in some aspects of the day-to-day living conditions of Close Management prisoners, many very serious problems remain. Conditions of confinement in these facilities, and the way in which Close Management prisoners are treated in the Florida CM units that I recently visited still inflict gratuitous pain and suffering and place

7
prisoners at grave risk of long-term psychological damage. I discuss some of these continuing, serious problems below.
16. There continue to be large numbers of prisoners who report being on CM status for many years. Based on what the prisoners have told me, it appears that many CM terms continue to be far in excess of what can be penologically justified. It continues to be the case that prisoners are being kept in these units long past the point in time when psychological deterioration would be expected to occur. Many prisoners indicated either that they had no idea how or when they might be released, or that the excessive filing of DRs and unsatisfactory behavior reports makes it impossible for them to progress out of CM.
17. Despite the very modest improvements in living conditions, the CM units still appear to be run on a policy of maximizing the deprivation and punitive control inflicted on prisoners. The lack of meaningful activity for prisoners on CM I status and, to a somewhat less extent, for those on CM II status, continues to be a significant problem. With the exception of those prisoners who attend a onehour group counseling session each week (during which they typically are kept in restraints), Close Management I prisoners are still deprived of any group activity or meaningful social contact, eat all of their meals alone in their cells, and go for months, years, or indefinitely without experiencing caring human contact or touch. CM I prisoners are prohibited from participating in meaningful educational programming, meaningful vocational training, meaningful work, meaningful group religious services, or any other meaningful programs in which genuine selfbetterment of any kind reasonably can be expected to result. These facts have not been appreciably altered since I wrote about them in September, 2001. CM II

8
prisoners have extremely limited, and in my opinion still not nearly adequate, opportunities to participate in some of these type of activities.
18. Close Management prisoners are prohibited from participating in meaningful recreational activities while confined in their cells. Although they are now permitted to have radio—an important improvement, to be sure—they still are not allowed to converse with one another in a meaningful way. Although some CM II prisoners reported that they were given limited access to dayrooms where they could watch television, they were kept in restraints during this time, and dayroom access was limited to approximately less than four hours a week. Out-of-cell exercise now takes place three times per week, for about two hours each time, in small caged-in areas that typically have concrete floors and which prisoners appropriately refer to as “dog runs” or “kennels” that have little if any exercise equipment of any kind. However, prisoners reported to me that their opportunities for dayroom use and outdoor recreation often were skipped.
19. Close Management prisoners still are restricted to three showers per week. During the few instances in which they are permitted to leave their small cells, they are placed in restraints (including those times when they are taken to and from the shower). Close Management prisoners still are prohibited from visiting the library, from visiting the law library, or from attending regular sick call within the institution. Thus, they are thus completely dependent upon others for meeting needs as basic as obtaining reading materials and addressing their physical and mental health problems and concerns. In addition, Close Management prisoners still are prohibited from having the sort of material possessions and personal property that are basic to life in maximum security

9
prisons, such as hobby craft, chess sets, and other things that prisoners use safely and productively to pass time when confined to their cells.
20. Close Management prisoners still are prohibited from the kind of normal and frequent visitation that is helpful (and, for some prisoners, necessary) to maintain healthy social and personal relationships with family members, loved ones, and friends. Visitation for Close Management prisoners is still infrequent and, except for CM III inmates, non-contact and, I am told, continue to occur in some instances in inadequately lit visiting booths in which it is difficult if not impossible for prisoners and their visitors to even see one another.
21. Finally, the Close Management prisoners I interviewed told me that they still were prohibited from talking to one another while in their cells, repeatedly complaining about a policy by which they still are written up (and, in many instances, continued for additional terms in Close Management) for “talking on the door” or “talking on the window.” Prisoners report that they still can be chemically maced or gassed as a result of these talking infractions.
22. Not surprisingly, the CM I and CM II prisoners whom I interviewed continue to suffer as a result of these extreme levels of deprivation and idleness. As noted above, except for the few hours a week during which they are taken to their exercise cages (and, for at least some CM II prisoners, weekly access to dayrooms and very limited work opportunities), there is no meaningful out-of-cell activity at all for these prisoners. Thus, the out-of-cell time afforded Florida’s Close Management I and II prisoners is still extremely low. As one of them put it, “it’s like you are in hibernation—you sit back and say, ‘I have nothing to live for.’” Indeed, prisoners in these units still are living in an unnecessarily and

10
psychologically harmful level of emptiness and frustration created by conditions of extreme deprivation and the lack of virtually any meaningful activity. Although the property restrictions have been relaxed somewhat, prisoners continue to be subjected to unreasonable property limits, and to be denied opportunities to engage in the bare minimum of meaningful in- or out-of-cell programming that would be necessary for them to remain cognitively alert and intellectually functional.
23. Prisoners describe a cycle that is common in units like these that are poorly run and which place no real premium on cycling prisoners out as soon as possible. Prisoners come into CM for major or even relatively minor offenses but, because they cannot handle the deprivation and oppressiveness of the environment and the harshness of the control wielded by the correctional officers, receive additional, often very minor disciplinary write-ups that keep them in CM. As on of the put it, “once you get in, you can’t get out.” As another one put it, “Once you get back here, you get madder and madder. So you get DRs and unsatisfactories, and that means you can’t get out.” There is no program designed to teach already “mad” or angry prisoners how not to act to increased anger, especially not in the face of the deprivation and, from their perspective, harassment to which they are subjected.
24. Indeed, the indices of psychological trauma and psychopathological symptoms of extreme isolation that I saw manifested in the prisoners I interviewed continued to be extremely high and, for some, dangerously severe. Prisoners continue to suffer under the cruel conditions of their confinement. Like the prisoners I interviewed in 2001, many of them are acutely aware not only of

11
the painfulness of this harsh and deprived existence but also of the adverse psychological effects that are occurring within them.
25. There continues to be no systematic “decompression” or “step down” program in the Florida Department of Corrections by which most Close Management prisoners are properly and adequately prepared for their release from this form of restrictive custody. Some prisoners in the random sample whom I interviewed have release dates that will occur in the next year or two. Yet they remain in the most restrictive Close Management conditions—Level Is— and will be released directly out of Close Management into the freeworld.
26. This, too, defies commonsense and lacks penological justification. The Close Management Units in which Florida prisoners are being kept force a variety of behavioral adaptations and psychological adjustments on them that are difficult to relinquish and may become extremely dysfunctional, counterproductive, and potentially harmful once they re-enter free society. Failing to prepare Close Management prisoners for this profound transition is cruel (in the sense that it virtually guarantees their failure) and potentially dangerous (in the sense that it can increase the risk of re-offending with, in at least some instances, a worse level of offense).
Recently Exacerbated Problems in Close Management
27. In addition to the many unresolved, serious problems summarized above, there are several problems that appear to have become much more severe over the two-year period during which Defendants undertook reform of the Close Management units.

12
28. In my September, 2001 Report, I noted “an unusually consistent and often highly emotional set of complaints voiced by the prisoners I interviewed concerning the arbitrary and excessive use of chemical agents on prisoners and the correspondingly arbitrary and excessive issuing of disciplinary write-ups that were then used to retain prisoners in Close Management.” This very serious and penologically unjustified practice has not abated over the last two years. If anything, the prisoner complaints have intensified greatly.
29. Indeed, prisoners in all of the institutions I visited were preoccupied with the excessive use of pepper spray. As one of the put it, echoing a sentiment expressed by many others, “I’m scared to get gassed. They spray a whole can at you!” Another said, “You are always scared and under pressure.” And: “They have one solution for every problem—gas.” The prisoners are unanimous that being gassed is a frightening, traumatizing experience. As one of them put it, “gas is horrible, it immobilizes you, creates a real feeling of panic.”
30. Prisoners report that these “gassings” occur with very little or no provocation and are not used to defuse otherwise difficult situations or potential conflicts. Instead, they report that correctional officers use pepper spray as punishment—gassing prisoners for unpleasant but non-threatening infractions, returning to gas them after a conflict has ended, and otherwise using this very painful and potentially physically damaging form of control to hurt and intimidate prisoners. Indeed, many prisoners reported that the gassings occur at night, when the prisoners are sleeping. They noted that they sleep with their clothes on to protect them from the gassings if they occur.

13
31. In some units, in some institutions, they report that the gassing goes on more or less on a daily basis. The infractions can be extremely minor: a number of prisoners reported that gassings occur in response to offenses as trivial as talking, and in other instances for “nothing at all.” As noted, the gassings occur at all facilities I visited, including the two designated for psychiatrically vulnerable prisoners—FSP and Union. Indeed, UCI is supposed to be an enriched treatment environment for more acutely disturbed prisoners, yet the reports of gassing were at least as extreme than at the other facilities. Indeed, several prisoners reported that prisoners were gassed for having declared psychiatric emergencies (presumably because correctional officers viewed the declarations as “manipulative”).
32. One prisoner, who reported a long psychiatric history, told the following story: “In July of this year… I was crying out for help and I knew I wouldn’t be taken seriously. The guards just jump on prisoners when they ask for psychiatric help. They might say, ‘Go ahead, want help?’ meaning that you will get punished, maybe gassed for asking for it. Or they might take you out of your cell, out of view of the camera, and beat you, telling you, ‘don’t do this on our shift!’ because they don’t want to be bothered. So I took matters to the extreme because I knew it was the only way. I set myself on fire.” The outcome of this extreme cry for help, according to this prisoner, was that he was written up for arson, put in a strip cell for 21 days, and given no psychiatric assistance.
33. This cruel practice—gassing prisoners who are in need of mental health services—underscores the second exacerbated problem that now plagues the Florida Close Management units. Despite the reputation of the Florida State Prison as perhaps the most brutal and inhumane facility in the state prison system,

14
and despite the various staffing problems that have long plagued this institution, the Department of Corrections decided to use it as a facility where the state’s most psychiatrically vulnerable CM prisoners would be housed. As a Correctional Medical Authority Physical and Mental Health Survey of the Florida State Prison noted in June, 2002:“A new [mental health] program is being developed for inmates on close management status, which encompasses the majority of the inmates served. This program will, when fully operational, provide enhanced services to inmates who are identified at risk for deterioration in mental status due to placement in segregated housing.” 1
34. In my opinion, this plan was seriously misguided from the outset. Prisoners who are “identified at risk for deterioration… due to placement in segregated housing” need to be moved out of segregated housing, not merely concentrated in one large segregated housing unit. However, in addition to being poorly conceived, this plan has been extremely poorly implemented. Mental health services at FSP appear to be marginal at best. The prisoners I interviewed there—virtually all of whom appeared to be in need of significant mental health attention (and on psychotropic medications at the time of their interviews)— reported only minimal mental health contact. With the exception of no more than a superficial nod to the very serious mental health needs of the CM prisoners there, FSP is being run as a very large and very inhumane CM prison that happens to house an extremely disturbed population of prisoners.
1 The Correctional Medical Authority Physical and Mental Health Survey of Florida State Prison (dated June 4-7, 2002), p. 3.

15
35. Prisoners at FSP are given access to “group therapy” sessions, which occur on a weekly basis and typically last for no more than about an hour. According to the prisoner I interviewed at FSP (and those at other institutions who had been there), these group meetings typically provide no therapy at all, but merely an opportunity for isolated prisoners to have some minimal social contact with other persons. This opportunity for minimal social contact is an experience whose significance is not to be minimized, but neither is it to be confused with therapy. Prisoners are kept in restraints during their “group therapy” sessions, hardly an optimal way to promote rapport, candor, and trust.
36. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of prisoners—who were quite open about acknowledging their serious mental health needs—complained about the lack of compassionate, effective care from mental health staff. They reported things like: “ The mental health department here doesn’t help us—they just fill out charts.” Individual treatment sessions appear to be rare; obviously very disturbed prisoners reported being seen on an individual basis on a once a month or once every two month basis.
37. The use of Union Correctional Institution as a kind of mental health annex to FSP—“to better address the mental health needs of Florida State Prison close management inmates who require periodic inpatient mental health services”2—seems equally problematic. The very fact that this is seen as a costcutting innovation—“ensuring more timely and less costly access to inpatient care”—suggests that the movement of mentally ill prisoners from FSP to inpatient
2 Florida Department of Corrections Quarterly Implementation Status Reports, dated July 15, 2003, p. 3.

16
care and back again is expected to occur on a regular basis. This was born out by the prisoners I interviewed at both facilities. Indeed, one prisoner characterized it this way: “It’s like a merry-go-round—FSP, UCI, I can’t tell this difference. Sometimes I don’t know where I am.”
38. Again, this seriously misconceives the mental health needs of psychiatrically vulnerable prisoners. These prisoners need to be screened out of CM confinement entirely. Once identified, their mental health needs must be adequately addressed, and they need to be transitioned to safer, less stressful prison environments. There is no justification for recycling them back into the psychologically assaultive conditions that prevail in CM.
39. The handling of women CM prisoners, all of whom are housed at Lowell Correctional Institution, further underscores the lack of attention the Florida Department of Corrections has given to the mental health needs of its CM prisoners. An extremely high percentage of the women CM prisoners I interviewed at Lowell CI either reported long psychiatric histories or gave clear indication of immediate psychiatric problems (or both). Yet these women were housed under a standard Florida Department of Corrections CM regime, subjected to extremely deprived and oppressive conditions and treatment, and appeared to be getting little if any specialized mental health treatment (and certainly none commensurate with the problems they described). Not surprisingly, many reported and manifested symptoms of psychological trauma and the adverse effects of extreme isolated confinement.

17
Conclusion
40. Over the two-year period during which Defendants agreed to improve conditions of confinement for CM prisoners, too little of significance has changed, too much of the inhumane regime remains intact, and several important problems appear to have gotten worse. Based on the interviews I conducted in October and November, 2003, I have concluded that Florida Close Management Units continue to subject prisoners to extremely deprived, restrictive, and oppressive living conditions.
41. Prisoners in the Florida CM units I recently visited continue to feel desperate and hopeless in the face of this mistreatment. Many have come to believe that there is no possible or realistic way out of their current level of harsh confinement. As noted, many of them already have spent many years living under such deprived conditions.
42. Prisoners in these units still lack meaningful opportunities for programming, are punished for talking, prohibited from congregating with one another, and visit under such limited conditions that most of them discourage visitors of any kind (many of whom would be required to travel long distances for non-contact visits). They continue to be significantly more deprived and oppressive than those in many other institutions with which I am familiar, and certainly worse than conditions in one notorious facility that the federal judge who examined it concluded “may press against the outer bounds of what most humans can psychologically tolerate.”3 Indeed, in the course of my recent
3 Madrid v. Gomez, supra note 7, at 1267.

18
interviews with a representative group of these CM prisoners, I determined that many of them manifested symptoms associated with an extremely high level of psychological trauma and experienced the kind of psychopathological reactions that are created by extreme forms of isolated confinement.
43. In addition to this widespread isolation-related trauma, the CM units at FSP and UCI, in particular, house an unusually high percentage of mentally-ill and psychologically-vulnerable prisoners.4 Although supposedly intended as some sort of combined “CM treatment facility,” these facilities are glaringly inhumane, and house predominately prisoners who are uniquely unsuited for such harsh confinement. FSP was an especially disheartening experience. There are a remarkably large number of psychiatrically vulnerable prisoners housed in CM there. But simply concentrating them in one place, and providing them with group therapy once a week, does not turn an otherwise oppressive and abusive psychological environment into a “treatment facility.”
44. Moreover, an unusually high percentage of women CM prisoners housed at Lowell CI appeared to have significant mental health problems. Many reported extensive psychiatric histories and current mental health needs that were not being effectively addressed. Their continued placement in CM confinement cannot be justified in psychological or penological terms. Here, as with the other psychiatrically vulnerable CM prisoners, this kind of confinement is likely to lead to long-term perhaps permanent forms of psychological deterioration.
4 I should note that the screening is far from perfect. I encountered several prisoners at FSP and UCI who did not appear to have psychiatric histories or current psychiatric problems, and a number of prisoners in the CM units at other facilities who did.

19
45. Even in units supposedly designed to hold psychiatrically vulnerable prisoners, and certainly in the other CM units I visited, there were widespread complaints voiced by prisoners about rampant overuse of pepper spraying or “gassing” for relatively trivial infractions. The gassing appears to be administered for the purpose of punishment—that is, simply to inflict pain—and, as such, it is a practice utterly without penological justification.
Completed on December ___, 2003, at Santa Cruz, California.
___________________________________ CRAIG WILLIAM HANEY, Ph.D., J.D.

 
 AFFIDAVIT OF CHASE RIVELAND

Osterback, et. al., vs. Michael W. Moore, et al. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

CASE NO. 97-2806-CIV-HUCK

1. My name is Chase Riveland. My address is 5714 Deer Harbor Road, Post Office Box 367, Deer Harbor, Washington, 98243. I was requested by the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the above-stated case to review the conditions of close management incarceration in the Florida Department of Corrections.
2. My professional career, spanning thirty-nine years, has included experience in all aspects of corrections. That experience includes:
Consultant, trainer, expert witness, and writer on corrections issues, 1997 to present.
Secretary, Washington Department of Corrections, Olympia, Washington -- 1986 to 1997.
Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, Colorado Springs Colorado —1983 to 1986.
Deputy Director, Wisconsin Division of Corrections, Madison, Wisconsin —1982 to 1983.
Superintendent, Portage Correctional Institution, Portage, Wisconsin —1980 to 1982.
A variety of other correctional positions as enumerated in my resume, attached as Attachment A.
3. The opinions stated in this report are based on my 39 years of professional, management, and administrative experience in the field of corrections. I am knowledgeable about contemporary and generally accepted correctional policies, practices, standards, and procedures.
4. I have been retained as an expert witness in over twenty-five cases in state and federal courts over the past seven years. The cases in which I have been retained are listed in Attachment B. Additionally, I have appeared in court as a witness numerous times over the years, normally
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 1

as the defendant, in fulfillment of my job responsibilities as a correctional administrator.
5. I have authored a variety of papers, articles, book chapters, and a monograph. The list for the last ten years is attached as Attachment C.
6. I have toured, evaluated, and/or inspected conditions of confinement of prisons in the states of Wisconsin, Colorado, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, Iowa, New Hampshire, California, Montana, North Carolina, Maryland, Illinois, and Ohio. Also, Federal prisons at Chicago; Marion, Illinois; Florence, Colorado; Lompoc, California; Littleton, Colorado; Butner, North Carolina; Sheridan, Oregon and Oxford, Wisconsin. I have also toured prisons in Canada and Vietnam.
7. I have evaluated “ supermax” confinement (equivalent to Florida’s ‘close management’) in Wisconsin, Washington, California, Colorado, Ohio, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
8. I served as and expert witness for the defendants in a “supermax” confinement case in Ohio (Austin, et al. v. Wilkinson, et al, Defendants; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio); as an expert for the court monitor in a “supermax” confinement case in Wisconsin (Dennis E. Jone ‘el, et. al. v. Gerald Berge, et. al., United States District Court Western District of Wisconsin); and as an expert for the plaintiffs’ in David Ruiz, et al., Plaintiffs v. Gary Johnson, et al., Defendants, United States District Court: Southern District of Texas (a major portion of which was the evaluation of the Texas use of Administrative Segregation—an equivalent of the FDOC Close Management).
9. The opinions expressed in this statement are based on my knowledge, experience, and training in the field of corrections. They are also based on my review of Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) Administrative Rules, policies, and procedures (see Attachment F) as well as on personal visits to close management units located at the following prisons in Florida, during the period of October through November, 2003:
Florida State Prison Union Correctional Institution Lowell Correctional Institution Charlotte Correctional Institution Santa Rosa Correctional Institution
During those visits I interviewed a number of inmates ( 55 in all, see attachment E for a list by institution) in each institution ( some of whom I had interviewed during my visits in 2001) as well as a number of others,
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 2

some in interview rooms, and others at cell-front. I also reviewed pertinent FDOC policies and procedures.
10. In April, 2001 I toured Dade, Charlotte, Okeechobee, South Bay, Baker, and Union Correctional Institutions. In August, 2001 I toured Columbia Correctional Institution and Florida State Prison. During those tours I interviewed inmates at the front of their cells as well as in interview rooms and reviewed pertinent Florida Department of Corrections and Institution administrative rules, regulations, and policies. I submitted an Expert Report containing my observations and opinions dated August 26, 2001.
11. During my visits in 2003, in contrast to my experience in other similar cases, there was no briefing at the institutions by senior staff; I was not allowed to converse with staff; I was not allowed to inspect unit records; and I was not allowed to inspect food trays or other pertinent items. I was accom -panied on these five institution visits by Plaintiff’s attorneys and several of the defendants’ attorneys (Assistant Attorney Generals), as well as institution representatives.
12. The Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) has not yet provided the requested records of the inmates interviewed. Therefore I have not been able to confirm the veracity of the inmates’ statements, nor refute nor augment their information. It is my experience that inmate’s statements are generally accurate, particularly when the same information is repetitively stated by the majority of inmates.
13. The FDOC stated that it would make the following changes in administering the Close Management (CM) program. The following were those commitments and , underlined, what I was able to ascertain from inmate interviews (again. The failure to be allowed access to any materials, records, or conversations with staff severely limited the ability to fully assess the compliance or non-compliance with these agreed upon changes):
Reduce the number of institutions that house CM inmates from ten to four (one for females and three for males).
Apparently partially accomplished as there are now four CM facilities for males and one for females, although information suggests the intent to open an additional beds for CM inmates in the near future.
Provide staff training on mental health issues relevant to the CM population.
Unknown due to the failure to provide records nor allow access to staff interviews.
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 3

Perform mental health screening before and after CM placement. Unknown due to the failure to provide records nor allow access to staff interviews.
Assess behavioral risk for each CM inmate. Unknown due to the failure to provide records nor allow access to staff interviews.
Provide a full range of outpatient mental health services commensurate with clinical need.
Unknown due to the failure to provide records nor allow access to staff interviews.
All CM inmates eligible to receive three soft cover books and one magazine and one newspaper subscription.
Inmate interviews indicate that this is being provided.
CM I inmates to receive 1 telephone call every thirty days; CM II one every 14 days; and CM III every 7 days.
Inmate interviews indicate that this is generally being complied with, although several state that they are frequently told the “…phone is broken’, therfore disallowing the use.
All inmates may purchase a radio. This appears to being complied with, although a very high percentage of inmates are indigent and therefore do not have access. Those that do have them state that the radio is enormously helpful in passing time, providing stimulation, and keeping them in touch with the rest of the world.
CM II and III inmates allowed access to television programs in the dayroom.
Cm II and CM iii inmates interviewed relate that this is spotty. CM II inmates are placed in the dayroom in restraints with a couple of others, CM III without restraints. They indicate that short staffing and other excuses frequently eliminate or cut short these opportunities. Interestingly, while touring the Southbay Correctional Facility in 2001, all CM II and CM III inmates were allowed access to the dayroom and television unrestrained from early morning to early evening.
Education and literacy programs to be available to all inmates.
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 4

Such programs are available to CM I and CM II inmates through a staff person providing written materials cellfront. Not having access to records I was unable to determine the actual use, type of materials, nor failure to provide.
Wellness services shall be expanded to those inmates that request. Some wellness written materials are being provided. Again, Not having access to records I was unable to determine the actual use, type of materials, nor failure to provide. Interestingly, one of the programs apparently is a smoking cessation program. CM inmates generally have not had access to tobacco products for months or years.
CM I and II inmates will have access to canteen one time per week: five non-food items and five food items. CM III inmates up to five non-food and ten food items.
This apparently is being complied with according to most inmates, although the amount allowed is significantly less than other jurisdictions running extended control programs.
CM II inmates’ dayroom access two days a week, not to exceed four hours daily; CM III inmates five days a week not to exceed four hours a day.
According to inmate interviews this appears to generally being complied with, although several CM II inmates state that frequently the time is either shortened or eliminated for avariety of excuses, including staffing shortages.
Daily recreation (or work) three days a week, two hours each day. Exercise apparatus to be provided in the recreation yard.
This seems to generally being complied with.
CM I inmates to have one two-hour visit every thirty days; CM II one two-hour visit every fourteen days; and CM III one contact visit every fourteen days.
This seems to be complied with. Most inmates interviewed state that they don’t have visits either because the facility is too distant (and/or expensive) for their relatives/friends to travel too, or they do not want the friends relatives to see them in full restraints (CM I and CM II).
Standards were set for the numbers of visits to CM housing units for security and program staff.
Based on inmate interviews they seldom or ever see “rank” (Warden, Assistant Warden, and ranking correctional staff.
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 5

Not having access to records I was unable to determine the actual frequency of such visits/tours..
Review times for CM inmates were established at once per week for the 1st sixty days and once every thirty days thereafter.
Unknown due to the failure to provide records nor allow access to staff interviews.
14. The life of an inmate on CM I has changed very little from the visits made in 2001. There is little human contact other than with security staff who are either restraining them, passing out food or materials, doing periodic counts, or moving the inmate to the showers or recreation. Occasional cell-front visits from a chaplain, nurse, or caseworker would be the only other human contact available. Each inmate interviewed stated that inmates are not allowed to communicate either through the cell door or window. If caught doing so they run the risk of being issued a disciplinary report, or being ‘gassed’, or both.
Meals are eaten alone; legal access is the same as in 2001; no work is available; and time is passed by either sleeping; reading; writing letters; working out in the cell—or as reported by several inmates—pacing or staring at the walls.
They are now allowed a two hour visit every thirty days but most inmates state they have no visitors either due to the distance from relatives or that they do not want their family to visit and see them in hand and leg restraints during non-contact visits. Several inmates have not had visitors for years.
They have the ability to have a radio, but many are indigent and cannot afford to buy one. Televisions either in the cell, or out of the cell are not allowed. Those that do have radios report that they derive a great deal of pleasure from this small bit of stimulation.
If they have no recent disciplinary reports they may order three books from the library each week (most say that the number of books available are very limited and many are ragged).
They may order five food and five non-food items from the canteen each month, again if they have no recent disciplinary reports. Many are indigent and cannot afford to order from the commissary and with no opportunity for work, cannot earn money.
The CM I inmates I interviewed in 2003, at all five institutions I visited, were predominately individuals who had been in CM for long periods of time, frequently measured in years rather than months, primarily for
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 6

repetitive Disciplinary Reports (DR’s) rather than for assaults, escape attempts, gang membership, or other serious misbehavior. Indeed, it is very difficult for an inmate in CM I to commit a rule infraction severe enough to qualify as being a major violation. Most seem to be kept there for repetitive DR’ s. Exact reasons are unknown due to the failure to provide records nor allow access to staff interviews. The incidence of admitted past or present mental health problems remained extremely high at all facilities visited.
The inmates I interviewed were consistent, at each of the institutions in stating that the grievance system was a “sham”. They stated that if they filed a grievance regarding staff misconduct the grievance would either be “lost” or they would be subjected to threats of retaliation or in some instances would be subjected to chemical agents. When the singular legitimate recourse an inmate has to report wrongdoing in these sterile settings is eroded the feelings of impotence, frustration, and anger are the likely reactions. This is apparent from the many stories relayed by the CM inmates interviewed in 2003.
15. The most shocking information relayed from the inmates at all five institutions visited in October and November, 2003 was the widespread use of gas. Many of the inmates interviewed had been gassed themselves and all had seen it used in their housing units, many multiple times. The prevalent story from the inmates is that the gas (generally OC spray, but occasionally CS) is used not only for control of acting out inmates, but as a threat and as a punishment. Despite the isolated nature of CM I confinement, the inmates are prohibited from talking to other inmates through their cell doors or windows. Inmates interviewed frequently relate how they, or other inmates they observe, are threatened with gas—or actually exposed to it and generally are issued a disciplinary report (DR) also. The DR’s then result in retaining the inmate in their present CM status, and in some instances being raised to a higher CM status, as well as frequently resulting in a loss of ‘gain time’. Thus the already severe living conditions of Close Management I isolation are further worsened by prohibiting and punishing the inmate who even talks to another human being.
16. As I stated in my report in 2001: “The amount of spray and gas used throughout the system is excessive. Normally, acceptable practice would preclude their use until less onerous means of removal from a cell had been exhausted. Continued efforts to talk the inmate into compliance are the norm. Then, chemical use of force is normally only allowed if the inmates behavior is threatening to himself or others (when the inmate is single celled there are few instance when they are a danger to others), or when extreme damage is being done to the cell or its furnishings. Chemical gases and sprays are used in close management units visited
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 7

for failure to follow orders (such as talking to other inmates through the doors or windows), disrespect, and other comparatively minor infractions. Too often the use is not documented thoroughly or at all by video cameras. The use of spray and gas on inmates who are mentally ill and or on psychotropic drugs and on those who are asthmatic is also a major deviation from normally accepted practice. ”Based on my visits during 2003, the use of gas in close management units apparently has not only not been reduced but appears to have escalated.
17. The FDOC Administrative Policy 33-602.210 (Use of Force) specifically excludes the use of chemical agents from videotaping. As follows: “ All use of force incidents will be videotaped in their entirety, except that videotaping the administration of chemical agents is not required for use on an inmate creating a disturbance in his or her cell when the officer is attempting to resolve the situation without extracting the inmate from his cell.” Most other correctional jurisdictions require filming of the use of chemical agents. It appears that the excessive use of gas has replaced forced cell extractions in the FDOC. The use of filming allows the correctional jurisdiction to monitor the use of chemical agents to assure their use is not abused
18. In my 2001 report I stated that: “It is my opinion that the impact of these sterile environments, particularly on inmates who have not been placed there based on actual serious misbehavior while in prison (such as inmates placed on Close Management based on pre-prison actions) and those that are mentally ill or intellectually limited, is very destructive. The absence of social interaction, the withdrawal of most humane privileges, the absence of reasonable stimulus, the isolation, and the stigma of being housed in a n environment thought to hold but the worst-of-the-worst all blend into a setting that probably will cause a deterioration of most human beings.” The CM I inmates in the FDOC have experienced little change in conditions; remain devoid of meaningful human contact; and are still are over- represented by mentally ill, developmentally limited, and minoroffense inmates.
19. In my report in 2001 I stated that: “It is my opinion that the added factors of what, at least to the inmates, appears to be arbitrary movement between Close Management Levels and the difficulty in understanding what behavior is required to leave Close Management, add to the potentially damaging nature of the Close Management units, as operated by the Florida Department of Corrections.” Although the FDOC, by policy, states that it will review CM inmates more frequently, the perception of the inmates remains unchanged. The reality is unknown due to the failure to provide records nor allow access to staff interviews. Inmates still languish on CM I for extended periods of time, being retained for only minor rules violations or “unsatisfactory” behavior ratings. In contrast, most
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 8

jurisdictions that operate similar ‘extended control’ facilities and programs (such as the Ohio and Wisconsin ‘supermax ‘ facilities) allow progression much faster through the classes of control and set ‘target’ maximum timeframes for an inmate to be in such an environment (24 months and 36 months respectively for Wisconsin and Ohio). This presumptive maximum timeframe is despite the fact that each of those jurisdictions place only a fraction of their total prison population in such and environment.
20. In my report of 2001 I stated that: “Certainly there are those inmates that must be placed under stringent control in order that staff and other inmates may be protected, escapes prevented, and the order of the prisons preserved. However, the percentage of those inmates are small. Units such as the Close Management units should be restricted to only those inmates that clearly present those major threats—and then only as long as they continue to present such a threat. To include lesser offenders or to control them longer than necessary is simply punitive.”
I further stated that: “Inmates who chronically misbehave through minor rule violations, masturbating, talking inappropriately, etc. certainly present challenges to correctional administrators and staff. However, such behaviors can be dealt with through the disciplinary process that results in finite and time-limited periods in disciplinary segregation. Too frequently this type of inmate also suffers from mental illness, and placing them in the conditions found in Florida’s close management only aggravate the problem.”
“It is my opinion that the reasons inmates are placed in Close Management are vague and obscure. Although the Administrative Rule describing those inmates eligible for such placement are similar to those of other jurisdictions—the implementation of the rule is not. The actual reasons inmates are placed in close management vary greatly from defensible major rule violations; to repetitive minor violations; to behaviors that may be due primarily to mental illness or disability. Attempts to improve the consistency of decisions regarding such placements through centralizing the review appear to have failed.” It is my opinion that little has changed with the FDOC use of Close Management. Many inmates interviewed have either been placed or retained on Close Management for rules violations having nothing to do with violence, serious contraband possession, possession of weapons, gang leadership, or, attempted or actual escape. ‘Catchall’ phrases governing placement in Close Management such as: “A history of disciplinary action or institutional adjustment reflecting an inability to live in general inmate population without disrupting the operation of the institution;…” allow nearly any inmate receiving a disciplinary report to be placed in CM. Many of the inmates found in CM in FDOC are dealt with in other jurisdictions through disciplinary hearings and finite and determinates periods of time (for
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 9

example, 30 or 60 days) in disciplinary segregation, then returned to general population. Using Wisconsin and Ohio (both of whom have been the recipients of intervention by Federal courts): both exclude mentally ill inmates and both contain only those inmates who have been violent, serious escape risks, and those that have been leaders in serious institutional disturbances.
21. In my 2001 report I stated: “The conditions under which the CM inmates are kept, particularly the CM I and CM II inmates, are as austere, or more austere, than any ‘supermax’ or administrative segregation program in the country.” After touring the four FDOC Close Management facilities in 2003 and interviewing over fifty CM inmates I found nothing to suggest that that opinion should be modified.
22. In my 2001 report I stated that: “The only clear behavioral standard that inmates can identify that would contribute to their ability to move out of CM is that they must be free of disciplinary reports for at least six months. All other criteria appear to be the subjective decisions of the local and central office classification staff.” After touring the four FDOC Close Management facilities in 2003 and interviewing over fifty CM inmates I found nothing to suggest that that opinion should be modified.
23. In my 2001 report I stated: “The very few ‘privileges’ available to inmates in close management are often not provided or are withheld due to ‘short staffing’. Fewer than 3 hours per week of recreation time, few books that presumably can be exchanged at least weekly (one book per week for CM I); and infrequent clothing and bedding exchanges are commonly reported.” The reality is unknown due to the failure to provide records nor allow access to staff interviews. Inmate interviews would suggest that little has changed.
24. In my 2001 report I stated: “Florida’s CM 1 level …is as devoid of privileges and opportunities as the most severe segregation programs in the country that I have observed. Having recently toured numerous supermax facilities in the country in the course of writing a monograph on Supermax Prisons, I can personally form such an opinion. Where such similar severely restrictive programs exist they are only applied to the most chronically disruptive inmates. In Florida, they are applied to a much broader segment of the inmate population. The same can be said of CM II… .” Nothing I observe during my 2003 visits to the CM facilities would alter that opinion. For example, the “supermax” programs in Wisconsin and Ohio that serve more onerous populations, provide television sets (at state cost) to their populations in order to provide more stimulation to the inmate and to provide a wide range of programming. CM I’ s and CM II’ s in FDOC have little to provide stimulation (unless they have the resources to be able to purchase a radio) and extremely limited program options.
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 10

25. I stated in my 2001 report that: “It is my opinion that the impact of these sterile environments, particularly on inmates who have not been placed there based on actual misbehavior while in prison (such as inmates placed on Close Management based on pre-prison actions) and those that are mentally ill or intellectually limited, is very destructive. The absence of social interaction, the withdrawal of most humane privileges, the absence of reasonable stimulus, the isolation, and the stigma of being housed in a n environment thought to hold but the worst-of-the-worst all blend into a setting that probably will cause a deterioration of most human beings.” Nothing I observe during my 2003 visits to the CM facilities would alter that opinion. The CM program in FDOC remains sterile, austere, arbitrary, and in my opinion serves no correctional objective.
26. In my 2001 report I stated that: “It is my opinion that the degree of austerity, the denial of privileges, and the amount of time that inmates must serve in the Close Management program of the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) serves no correctional objective for the majority of inmates placed in such conditions. The development of policies governing the operation of the administration of prisons and other correctional residential facilities, if pursued consistent with generally accepted practices and standards, should meet the tests of demonstrating a "good faith" effort to improve the conditions of confinement. They should be consistent with community standards, deviating from that only when a legitimate penalogical interest can be established. Correctional administrators carry the professional burden of not unduly denying those under their custody those rights and privileges consistent with humane treatment. The Close Management program within the Florida DOC clearly exceeds, in its austerity, its harshness, and its ambiguous rules, conditions necessary to achieve a wide variety of correctional objectives. My opinion of the FDOC Close Management program has not changed since my 2003 visits. Generally accepted correctional practices are not being adhered to. No correctional objective is being served. No legitimate penalogical objective can be established for the extremely austere conditions for extended periods of time and for such large numbers of inmates. The conditions at there best are inhumane.
27. I am being reimbursed at the rate of $ 150 per hour (not to exceed $1,200/day) plus expenses.

_____________________________ Chase Riveland Attachment A
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 11

_____________________ Date

CHASE RIVELAND
EDUCATION M.S.S.W. Degree, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1971 B.S. Degree, Sociology/Psychology, University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse, 1964 Strategic Management, Wharton College, University of Pennsylvania, 1978 Management In Corrections [MADCAP]-USC, 1980 J.F. Kennedy School of State and Local Government-Harvard, 1984 Aspen Institute, 1984
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Consultant, Expert Witness, Author, and Trainer. Riveland Associates, Deer Harbor, WA- January, 1997 to present Secretary, Washington Department of Corrections, Olympia, WA-July, 1986 to January, 1997 Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, Colorado Springs, CO1983 to 1986 Deputy Division Administrator, Wisconsin Division of Corrections, Madison-1982 to 1983 Warden, Portage Correctional Institution, Portage, WI-1980 to 1982 Milwaukee Regional Director, State Bureau of Community Corrections, Milwaukee, WI-1976 to 1980 Probation and Parole Supervisor, Madison, Janesville, and Jefferson, WI-1975 to 1976 Graduate Student Supervisor, University of Wisconsin and Division of Corrections -1974 to 1975 Financial Compliance Officer, Wisconsin Division of Corrections-1973 to 1974 Probation and Parole Officer and Institution Social Worker, Wisconsin Division of Corrections-1969 to 1971 Probation and Parole Officer, Wisconsin Division of Corrections, Appleton, WI1964 to 1966
RELATED EXPERIENCE Supervisor, Child/Adolescent Program, Mendota Mental Health Institute, Madison, WI-1972 Assistant to the Superintendent, Mendota Mental Health Institute, Madison, WI1973 Officer, U.S.Army-1966 to 1969 [Vietnam Veteran:1968-9] Ten years Commissioned service in Army Reserve and National Guard; Commander, Troop E, Fourth Armored Cavalry; 205th Infantry Brigade-1972-6) Principal Faculty Member, “Corrections Executive Excellence: National Institute of Corrections”; 1997 through present
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 12

Site Facilitator: Alaska; Criminal Justice Systems Assessment Project; 1997 – 2000 Multiple Consultant Events throughout the United States Serves as an Expert Witness in Multiple Corrections Related Cases Author of "Supermax Prisons: Overview and General Considerations" Commissioner, Washington Jail Standards Commission, 1986 to 1989 Member, Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 1986 to 1997 Member, Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, 1986 to 1997 Co-Chair: Washington State Law and Justice Counsel, 1991 to 1997 Chair, Colorado Pardons and Commutation Board, 1983-1987
MEMBERSHIP: PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS National Council on Crime and Delinquency (Board of Directors) 1998 to 2001 (Chair of the Board of Directors, July 2000 to 20001) Edna McConnell-Clark Justice Advisory Board-1988 to 1994 [Chair-1993 to 1994] Association of State Correctional Administrators-1983 to 1997 (presently an Associate) National Committee to Prevent Wrongful Executions: The Constitution Project; Board Member-2000 to present American Correctional Association Western Correctional Association Washington Correctional Association Washington Council On Crime and Delinquency Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy (Steering Committee Member) American Probation and Parole Association Editorial Board Member, Crime and Justice—A Review of Research Journal 1995 to present Editorial Board Member, Correctional Management Review - 1996 to present Editorial Board Member, Criminal Justice 2000, National Institute of Justice – 1999-2000 Trustee, Board of Trustees, Orcas Island Library-2004
HONORS National Governors Association Distinguished Leadership in Government Award1989 Association of State Correctional Administrators, Michael Franke Outstanding Director Award-1993 IARCA, Margaret Meade Award-1994 Maude Booth Award, Volunteers of America-1998 Washington Council on Crime and Delinquency, Mark Cooper Criminal Justice Lifetime Achievement Award-1998
……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………..
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 13

Attachment B Expert Witness Cases: Chase Riveland
David Ruiz, et al., Plaintiffs v. Gary Johnson, et al., Defendants Civil Action No. H-78-987 United States District Court: Southern District of Texas (Deposed and At Trial): Expert Witness for the Plaintiffs (civil case) 1998/1999
State of Washington, Plaintiff v. Robert Parker, Defendant King County Superior Court Case #; 96-1-07511-2 SEA (At tria)l (death penalty phase): Expert Witness for Defendant, 1998
State of Washington, Plaintiff v. Roberts, Defendant King County Superior Court (At trial) (death penalty phase) Expert Witness for Defendant 1997
State of Washington, Plaintiff v. Guy Rassmussen, Defendant Pierce County Superior Court Case #: 96-1-04481-6 At trial (death penalty phase) deposed)) Expert Witness for Defendant 1999
Lawrence, et al., v. Hollywood Entertainment, et al. Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernadillo, State of New Mexico Case #: CV 96-04039 Expert Witness for Plaintiffs, (civil case) 1998-2000 (Settled)
Woodruff v. United States of America United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Spartanburg Division Case #: 7 98-3770 24
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 14

Expert Witness for Defendants, (civil case) 1999-2000 (Settled)
Mark Knox v. Robert James Jenkins, Jr., et al. United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Civil Action No. 4:99-CV-03317 Expert Witness for the Plaintiff, (civil case) 2000-2001 (Settled)
Rochelle McGuire v. Charles Turnbo, et al United States District Court, District of North Texas, Fort Worth Division Case #: 4:91-CV-831-Y—USDC ND/Texas Expert Witness for Defendants (civil case), 2000-2001
State of Washington, Plaintiff v. Covell Paul Thomas, Defendant Pierce County Superior Court Cause No. 99-1-00397-9 At trial (death penalty phase) (at trial) (deposed), for the Defendant 2000
State of Oregon vs. Bryant Wayne Howard, Defendant Multnomah County Circuit Court Case No. 000143C Expert Witness for defendant (death penalty case) 2001
State of Washington, Plaintiff v. Brodie E. Walradt, Defendant Kitsap County Superior Court Cause No. 99-1-01101-3 Expert Witness for defendant (death penalty case) (at trial) 2001
State of Washington, Plaintiff vs. Allen Eugene Gregory, Defendant Pierce County Superior Court Cause No. 98-1-04967-9 Expert Witness for defendant (death penalty case)(deposed) 2001
Mark Osterback, et al., vs. Michael W. Moore, et al, Defendants U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division Case No.: 97-2806-CIV-HUCK Expert Witness for the Plaintiffs (civil case) 2001
Austin, et al. v. Wilkinson, et al, Defendants U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division Case No.: 4:01CV071 (At Trial): Consultant and Expert Witness for Defendants (civil case), 2001 George Benjamin Robinson v. Joe T. Chavez, et al United States District Court, Northern District of Texas Dallas Division
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 15

Case No. 3:98-CV-1205-R Expert Witness for Defendants, (at trial) 2001-2
State Of Washington, Plaintiff vs. Kevin William Cruz, Defendant King County Superior Court Cause #: (At trial) Expert Witness for Defendant (death penalty case)-2001-2002
Frances Hill, et al. Plaintiffs vs. State of Hawaii, et al. Defendants Circuit Court for the First Circuit of the State of Hawaii Civil No. 96-2592-06 (DTK) (At Trial): Expert Witness for the Defendants 2001-2002
Mario Valdes, et al, Plaintiff v. James V. Crosby, et al, Defendants United States District Court Middle District of Florida Jacksonville Division Case #: 3:01-CV-799-J-21 Expert Witness for the Plaintiff 2002-2003
Ordorf, V. Jefferson County United States District Court Western Division, Seattle, W Monitor, selected by Plaintiff and Defendant, 2003-5
Willie Mathews, Plaintiff v. James V. Crosby, et al, Defendant United States District Court Middle District of Florida Jacksonville Division Case #: 99-117-CV-J-20B Expert Witness for the Plaintiff 2002-2003 (Deposed)
Robin Darbyshire, Plaintiff v. Extraditions International, et al, Defendants United States District Court Colorado District Civil Action #: 02-N-718 (MJW) Expert witness for the Plaintiff, 2002-2003
Dennis E. Jone ‘el, et. al. v. Gerald Berge, et.al. United States District Court Western District of Wisconsin Civil Action #: 00-C-421-C Expert Witness for Court Monitor, 2003
State vs. Robert Paul Langley, Jr. Marion County Circuit Court
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 16

Case No. 88C21624 Expert Witness for Defendant; 2003 California vs. Flinner and Ontiveros Superior Court of California County of San Diego Case No. SCE 211301 Expert Witness for the Defendant, 2003 Victor Ramos, v. Fernandez,et al. United States District Court Southern District of Florida Miami Division CIVIL No. civ-02-2195 Expert Witness for the Plaintiff, (deposed) 2003-4 Nathan Essary v. Michael Chaney, et al. United States District Court Southern District of Texas Houston Division Civil Action No. H-02-3822 Expert Witness for Plaintiff, 2003-4 Marti Bartlett v. State of Washington, et al. Superior Court of the State of Washington King County NO. 02-2-18232-1 SEA Expert Witness for Defendant, (settled) 2003
.
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 17

Attachment C
Publications by Chase Riveland
“Prison Administration”; Chapter in Crime and Justice: A Review of Research; Volume 26 (Prisons) July, 1999.
Supermax Prisons: Overview and General Considerations; A monograph published by the U.S. Department of Justice/National Institute of Corrections under TA#98P4002; published in January 1999.
“Prisons Over The Next Several Decades; Guest Column for the Walla Walla Bulletin; accepted for publication in February, 1999.
“Leadership and The Corrections Executive”; with Robert Brown and Marie Mactavish; Corrections Management Quarterly; Aspen Publishing; Volume 2, Issue 4; Fall, 1998.
“The Correctional Leader and Public Policy Skills”; Correctional Management Quarterly; Aspen Publishing; Volume 1, Issue 3; Summer, 1997.
“Three Strikes and You’re Out Isn’t The Answer to Our Crime Problem”; Press release for the Campaign For Effective Crime Policy; September 18, 1996.
“Margaret Meade Lecture Series”; The IARCA Journal; February, 1995 “Let’s Invest in People, Not Prisons”; Guest editorial in the Seattle PostIntelligencer; March 17, 1994.
“Baseball or Public Policy”; Journal of Interpersonal Violence; September, 1994
“Punishment, Politics, and People”; Overcrowded Times; December, 1993
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 18

"Being a Director of Corrections in the 1990’s"; Federal Probation; published by the Administrative Office of the Courts; June 1991. A Review of “The Cost of Corrections: In Search of the Bottom Line”; Research in Corrections; Volume 2, Issue 1; February 1989. "Gubernatorial Styles: Is There a Right One?"; The Journal of State Government; v. 62, no.4, p 136, July/August 1989.
Attachment D Other Consulting Projects: Chase Riveland
1997 through present Corrections Executive Excellence One of three prime faculty for the National Academy of Corrections year-long course for aspiring corrections CEO’s at the federal, state and local level. EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 19

2002 Strategic Response in Prisons NIC funded project. As a member of a six person team conducted a national survey and developed strategic planning and response models.
2001-2002 Research Project w/ABT Associates/National Institute Justice funded Examination of six state-level correctional systems that have numerous juveniles sentenced to adult correctional systems.
March,2001 Management Assessment of Green Hill Juvenile Training School, Washington State Assessed onsite: staffing; utilization of new housing units; security; type of person needed as new superintendent. Contract with Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration, Department Of Social and Health Services, State of Washing ton. Product: Written report and verbal briefing.
October/November, 1997 Assessment of Montana Department of Corrections & moderated a statewide criminal justice session entitled ‘Corrections 2000’. Funded by the National Institute of Corrections on behalf of the Montana Department of Corrections Product: Written reports and coordinate and moderate a ‘vision’ conference for over one hundred criminal justice professionals and officials in Montana.
July/August1997 Assessment of Children’ s and Adult Protective Services in Washington State. Performed at the request of the Governor’s office; funded by the Department of Social and Health Services. With Mary Riveland. Product: Two reports and briefings to DSHS and Governor’s office..
March 1997 Through January , 2000 Criminal Justice System Assessment Project Served as site-coordinator in Alaska for national project. Led site assessment team, facilitated development of Alaska Criminal Justice Assessment Commission, wrote final assessment report. Product: Written report and facilitation of process.
February, 1997 Organizational Assessment Provided technical assistance to the Oregon Department of Corrections. Product: Oral briefing of Director of DOC and staff.
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 20

1980 through present Multiple instances of provision of technical assistance to correctional jurisdiction regarding prison classification, probation/parole classification, security issues, organizational design, operation of supermax prisons, etc.
1997 Technical assistance to Alaska DOC regarding efficiencies in organizational design. Evaluated management positions in the Alaska DOC for possible reduction due to legislative budget cuts. Product: Written report and debriefing to Commissioner.
2002-3 Strategic Management For prisons National Institute of Corrections project. Part of a team to develop a model for prisons.
Attachment E:
Florida State Prison Inmates Interviewed Jacob Conner, # 286615 (CMIII) Mark S. Jennings, # 286759 (CM II) Marvin E Kreisher, Jr., # 105139 (CM III) Robert Rudisel, # 193349 (CM I) William Boddie, # 636402 (CMI) David Baldwin, # 053309 (CM I) Willie T. Silmon, # 194285 (CM I) Xavier Washington, # 212089 (CM III) Larry Bostic, # 197090 (CMI) Frankie Derizzo, #553444 (CM I) Joseph C. Johnson, # 081349 (CMI) Stontraves Nash, # 722799 (CM I) Joaquin Nelson, # 197053 (CMI)
Union Correctional Institution Inmates Interviewed Paul Robinson, # 209978 Eric Green, # 192172 Troy Hall, # 082137 John Stable, # 894926 James Burke, # 884880 Kevin Robinson, # X07810 Sergio Radillo, # 185948 Craig Wall, # 140726
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 21

Theophilus Hyman, # 091832
Lowell Correctional Inmates Interviewed Lanou Malone, # 905012 Wildie Wells, # W11153 Collette Green, L21045 Cecelia Harris, # 807853 Brenda Young, # 635615 Taneria Godfrey, # Caradid O’Farrill, # L34481 Taneia Espy, # T12630 Brenda Yancy, # 635615 Bernadette Easley, # 160465
Charlotte Correctional Institution Gary Sessler, # 137085 Javier Fuentes, # 097407 Eugene Robbins, # 387285 Andre Sheffield, # 116194 Allen Roberts, # 085419 Horace Beard, # 796479 David Ruetter, # 117719 Kelvin Frazier, # 099699 Averil Powell, # 062047 Eric Clinkscale, # 185402 Alphonso Washington, # 386692 Toney Johnson, # 773764
Santa Rosa Correctional Institution William Hoggard, # 051274 Lionel Lespinasse, # 192818 Henry Kulka, # 544043 Lavictor Flournoy, # 352985 William Demps, 091027 David Byrnes, # 053824 Jadde Barker, # 509722 Antonio Ward, # 442770 Kinsey Mae, # 760831 Stefan Linden, # 588662 Tareyan Cooks, 388887
Attachment F
EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 22

Florida CM CMI

Ohio

CMII CMIII
Level 5 B

A Level 4
B A Wisconsin Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Level 4 Level 5

1/30 days inmate buy cell front

No

3/2hrs./wk 3/week

1/14 days 1/14 days

inmate buy inmate buy

dayroom in restraints dayroom

Dayroom/in restraints

3/2hrs./wk 3/2hrs./wk

3/week 3/week

1/month 2/month

state buy state buy

cellfront/

In cell

group and TV

cellfront

In cell

group and TV

5/1 hr./wk 5/week 5/wk-congre 5/week

1/week 2/day

state buy state buy

group and TV In cell

TV and in groups

In cell

5/wk congreg 5/week 5/week

1/month

state buy TV

Limited video 5/week

2/month 3/month 4/month

state buy state buy state buy

TV and Celfront Group and TV

In cell In cell

group and TV In cell

5/week 10/week 10/week

5/month

state buy

Group and In cell TV

* no anticipated limit on time spent in any category or on CM

10/week

** No anticipated on limit time in any level, but anticipated no more than threyears total

*** Anticipated total time to be 24 months

daily daily daily
daily daily

Indeterminat e *
" "
Indeterminat e **
"
" "
7 days *** 60 days 6 months
4 months 90 days

EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 23

EXPERT REPORT OF CHASE RIVELAND - 24

 
 Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 1 of 33
CLOSED, COMPLY, MCR
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:04−cv−00210−HLA−JRK

Osterback, et al v. Secretary, DOC, et al Assigned to: Senior Judge Henry Lee Adams, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt Demand: $0 Case in other court: Southern Florida, 97−cv−2806 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/23/2004 Date Terminated: 03/25/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Mark Osterback

represented by Christopher Michael Jones Florida Institutional Legal Services Suite 412 14260 W Newberry Rd Newberry, FL 32669 352/375−2494 Fax: 352/331−5202 Email: christopher@floridalegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

D. Gray Thomas Law Office of D. Gray Thomas, PA 865 May St Jacksonville, FL 32204 904/634−0696 Fax: 904/356−9667 Email: dgraythomas.law@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew R. Kachergus Sheppard, White &Kachergus, PA 215 Washington St Jacksonville, FL 32202 904/356−9661 Fax: 904/356−9667 Email: sheplaw@att.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel Florida Justice Institute, Inc. 3750 Miami Tower 100 SE 2nd St Miami, FL 33131−2309 305/358−2081 Fax: 305−358−0910 TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. Florida Justice Institute, Inc. 3750 Miami Tower 100 SE 2nd St Miami, FL 33131−2309 305/358−2081 Fax: 305/358−0910 Email: rberg@floridajusticeinstitute.org

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 2 of 33

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J. Sheppard Sheppard, White &Kachergus, PA 215 Washington St Jacksonville, FL 32202 904/356−9661 Fax: 904/356−9667 Email: sheplaw@att.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cullin Avram O'Brien Robbins Geller Rudman &Dowd, LLP Suite 500 120 E Palmetto Pk Rd Boca Raton, FL 33432 561/750−3000 Fax: 561/750−3364 Email: cobrien@rgrdlaw.com TERMINATED: 03/03/2006

Plaintiff Thomas Gross

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

D. Gray Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew R. Kachergus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J. Sheppard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Darryl Williams

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

D. Gray Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 3 of 33

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew R. Kachergus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J. Sheppard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Frederick Clark

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J. Sheppard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Danny L. Eldridge

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William J. Sheppard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 4 of 33

Plaintiff Alvin M. Few
Plaintiff Larvictor Flournoy
Plaintiff Frank S. Lowry

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J. Sheppard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J. Sheppard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J. Sheppard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 5 of 33

Plaintiff Brian D. Messenger
Plaintiff Robert Peri
Plaintiff Salvatore J. Ricci

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J. Sheppard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J. Sheppard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J. Sheppard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 6 of 33

Plaintiff Hector Rivas
Plaintiff Carlos Ruiz
Plaintiff Lawrence J. Sargent

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J. Sheppard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J. Sheppard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J. Sheppard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 7 of 33

Plaintiff Antonio L. Ward
Plaintiff Willie J. Watson
Plaintiff Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated

represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J. Sheppard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J. Sheppard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall Challen Berg , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William J. Sheppard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 8 of 33

V.
Defendant
Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

represented by Caryl Kilinski Office of the Attorney General PL−01 − The Capitol 400 S Monroe St Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850/414−3300 ext: 3632 Fax: 850/488−4872 Email: Caryl_Kilinski@oag.state.fl.us (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Aaron Peters Office of the Attorney General PL−01 − The Capitol 400 S Monroe St Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850/414−3808 Fax: 850/414−9650 Email: Jim.Peters@myfloridalegal.com TERMINATED: 10/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Vail Office of the Attorney General PL−01 − The Capitol 400 S Monroe St Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850/414−3300 Email: Jay.vail@myfloridalegal.com TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen M. Savor Office of the Attorney General Suite 1200 110 SE 6th St Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 561/355−1461 Fax: 561 355−4643 Email: ksavor@mypalmbeachclerk.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen Marie Von Hoene Office of the Attorney General PL−01 − The Capitol 400 S Monroe St Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850−414−3868 Email: Kathleen.VonHoene@myfloridalegal.com TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maxine K. Streeter Conrad &Scherer, LLP Suite 800

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 9 of 33

633 S Federal Hwy Ft Lauderdale, FL 33001 954/462−5500 Fax: 954/463−9244 Email: mks@conradscherer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan A. Maher Office of the Attorney General PL−01 − The Capitol 400 S Monroe St Tallahassee, FL 32399−1050 850/414−3300 Fax: 850/488−4872 Email: susan.maher@myfloridalegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Joe T. Butler Superintendent, Everglades Correctional Institution (E. I. C.)

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen M. Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
H. J. Sermon Assistant Superintendent, Everglades Correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 10 of 33

Defendant A. T. Price Colonel, Everglades Correctional Institution
Defendant Captain Ricks Correctional Officer Supervisor, Everglades Correctional Institution

Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen M. Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen M. Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Aaron Peters

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 11 of 33

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen M. Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Gloria Whote former Chief Classification Supervisor, Everglades Correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen M. Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
S. Pichardo former Chief Classification Supervisor,

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address)

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 12 of 33

Everglades Correctional Institution

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen M. Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
F. T. Staten Correctional Officer II, Everglades Correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen M. Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 13 of 33

Defendant Henry Alford Warden of Washington Correctional Institution
Defendant Charles Matthews Warden of Everglades Correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen M. Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen M. Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 14 of 33

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Paul C. Decker in his offical capacity as Warden of Baker County Correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen M. Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Warren W. Cornell in his offical capacity as Warden of Charlotte Correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen M. Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

represented by

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 15 of 33

David L. Pridgen in his offical capacity as Warden of Columbia Correctional Institution

Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen M. Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Lonnie E. Holmes in his official capacity as Warden of Everglades correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen M. Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address)

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 16 of 33

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Chester B. Lambdin in his official capacity as Warden of Martin Correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen M. Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Joseph S. Petrovesky in his official capacity as Warden of Santa Rosa Correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen M. Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 17 of 33

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
J. Clark Moody in his official capacity as Warden of Taylor Correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen M. Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Charles E. Germany in his official capacity as Warden of Washington Correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Aaron Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen M. Savor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 18 of 33

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maxine K. Streeter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Clarence Stanley Allen

Movant Vincent Rivera

Defendant
C. L. Hayes Correctional Probation Senior Supervisor, Everglades Correctional Institution

represented by Caryl Kilinski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Michael Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Vail (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Michael Siegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Marie Von Hoene (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2007

Date Filed 03/23/2004 03/23/2004 03/23/2004
03/23/2004
04/01/2004

# Docket Text
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: Monte C. Richardson (pwd) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
1 COMPLAINT filed (originally filed in Southern Florida on 8/28/97) (pwd) Modified on 03/25/2004 (Entered: 03/25/2004)
16 AMENDED COMPLAINT by Mark Osterback, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams amending [1−1] complaint ; adding C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten (pwd) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
Original file and docket sheet received from District of Southern Florida ( Case #: 1:97cv2806 Pleadings # 1−662) Certified docket sheet in file. (pwd) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
663 MOTION by Secretary, DOC, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote, S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E.

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 19 of 33

04/08/2004 04/09/2004 04/09/2004 04/12/2004 04/19/2004 04/23/2004 04/27/2004
04/28/2004 05/07/2004
05/13/2004
05/21/2004 06/07/2004 06/15/2004 06/15/2004 06/18/2004

Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany for status conference (pwd) Modified on 04/05/2004 (Entered: 04/02/2004)
664 RESPONSE by Mark Osterback, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams to [663−1] motion for status conference (mgg) Modified on 04/12/2004 (Entered: 04/08/2004)
665 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Mark Osterback, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams by William J. Sheppard, D. Gray Thomas, Matthew R. Kachergus (mgg) (Entered: 04/12/2004)
666 NOTICE for order to transfer venue by Clarence Stanley Allen (mgg) Modified on 9/8/2004 (PWD, ). (DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER ORDER #694) (Entered: 04/12/2004)
Correspondence received Titled: Direction to Clerk in transfer venue response by Clarence S. Allen (mgg) (Entered: 04/12/2004)
667 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 − TRACK 1. (ctc) (pwd) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
668 ORDER (certified copy) from USCA dismissing sua sponte appeal (doc. #654) for lack of jurisdiction, issued in lieu of Mandate and EOD: 4/21/04 USCA #04−11172−E (seg) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
669 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of [667−1] track 1 notice by Mark Osterback, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams, Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper (pwd) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
670 MOTION for James A. Peters to withdraw as attorney referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson (pwd) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
671 MOTION by Mark Osterback, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams, Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper with memorandum in support for status conference hearing , and to re−designate case track (pwd) (Entered: 05/10/2004)
672 NOTICE by Secretary, DOC, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote, S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany of unavailability of counsel from 7/19/04 to 7/30/04 (pwd) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
673 MOTION by Clarence Stanley Allen for stay/amendment in defendant's assignment pleading motion (mgg) Modified on 9/8/2004 (PWD, ).(DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER ORDER #694) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
674 DEFENDANT'S CLAIM ACKNOWLEDGMENT PLEADING IN CASE MANAGEMENT RULE by Clarence Stanley Allen (mgg) Modified on 9/8/2004 (PWD, ).(DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER ORDER #694) (Entered: 06/08/2004)
675 MOTION by Clarence Stanley Allen Titled: Pleading for Intent Contractual Agreement in Associated Program Assignment (pwd) Modified on 9/8/2004 (PWD, ).(DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER ORDER #694) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
676 MOTION by Clarence Stanley Allen Titled: Pleading Application in Assignment for Associate Party in Action of Arbitration (pwd) Modified on 9/8/2004 (PWD, ).(DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER ORDER #694) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
677 MOTION by Vincent Rivera with memorandum in support to review order designating track 1 case under Local Rule 3.05 , and / or to review order of reference referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson (jec) Modified on 9/8/2004 (PWD, ).(DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER ORDER #694) (Entered: 06/21/2004)

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 20 of 33

07/12/2004
07/15/2004 08/12/2004 08/27/2004
08/27/2004
08/27/2004
08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 09/02/2004

678 Document filed titled: Administrative Pleading Correspondence (filed by Pro Se party represented by counsel) by Clarence Stanley Allen (PWD, ) Modified on 9/8/2004 (PWD, ).(DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER ORDER #694) (Entered: 07/14/2004)
679 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 8/26/2004 02:00 PM in Courtroom 10 A before Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr.. (pg, ) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
680 RESPONSE by Clarence Stanley Allen. (MGG) Modified on 9/8/2004 (PWD, ).(DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER ORDER #694) (Entered: 08/13/2004)
681 MOTION to terminate revised offer of judgment by Henry Alford, Joe T. Butler, Warren W. Cornell, Paul C. Decker, Charles E. Germany, C. L. Hayes, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Charles Matthews, J. Clark Moody, Joseph S. Petrovesky, S. Pichardo, A. T. Price, David L. Pridgen, Captain Ricks, Secretary, Department of Corrections, H. J. Sermon, F. T. Staten, Gloria Whote. (PWD, ) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
682 NOTICE of filing attached materials in support of their response to Defendant's Motion to Terminate Revised Offer of Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery, and Restore Case to Trial Calendar and Plaintiff's Motion for Status conference by Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B − G)(PWD, ) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
683 RESPONSE to motion re 681 MOTION terminate revised offer of judgment filed by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Thomas Gross, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Mark Osterback, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Darryl Williams, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper. (PWD, ) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
684 MOTION to reopen discovery and restore case to trial calendar by Plaintiffs. (PWD, ) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
685 MOTION for a Status Conference by Plaintiffs . (PWD, ) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
686 NOTICE of Filing attached original Declaration of Dr. Seymour Halleck (PWD, ) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
687 MOTION to compel responses to interrogatories by Defendants. (PWD, ) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
688 RESPONSE to motion re 687 MOTION to compel by Plaintiff. (PWD, ) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
689 REPLY to response to motion re 681 MOTION terminate revised offer of judgment by Defendants. (PWD, ) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
690 MOTION for oral argument by Defendants . (PWD, ) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
691 RESPONSE to motion re 684 MOTION to reopen discovery and restore case to trial calendar by Defendants. (PWD, ) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
692 MOTION for protective order by Defendants. (PWD, ) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
693 REPLY to response to motion re 684 MOTION to reopen discovery and restore case to trial calendar and Response to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order by Plaintiffs. (PWD, ) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
694 ORDER granting 663 Motion for Status Conference, denying without prejudice 670 Motion to withdraw as attorney, granting 671 Motion for Status Conference, granting 671 Motion re−designate case track and the clerk shall re−designate this action as a Track Three Case, striking and directing clerk to return to the submitting parties 666 , 673 , 674 , 675 , 676 , 677 , 678 , and 680 − the clerk shall not accept any pro se filings from members of the plaintiff class in this action and shall return any submitted filings with a letter explaining that all pleadings must be submitted through class counsel, granting 685 Motion for Status Conference, denying 687 Motion to compel, granting 690 Motion for Oral Argument, granting 692 Motion for protective order, to the extent that the parties shall not engage in

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 21 of 33

09/02/2004 09/09/2004 09/14/2004
09/20/2004
09/29/2004 10/08/2004
10/18/2004 11/05/2004
11/19/2004 11/30/2004 11/30/2004 12/02/2004

discovery until after the Court determines whether reopening discovery is appropriate. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 9/2/2004. (MO) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 9/29/2004 02:00 PM in Courtroom 10 A before Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr.. (PWD, ) (Entered: 09/08/2004)
695 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 − track 3. Signed by Deputy Clerk on 9/9/2004. (pg, ) (Entered: 09/09/2004)
696 NOTICE OF SERVICE by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Thomas Gross, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Mark Osterback, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Darryl Williams, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper re 695 Related case order and notice of designation of tract 3 (PWD, ) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
697 UNOPPOSED MOTION for James A. Peters to withdraw as co−counsel by Henry Alford, Joe T. Butler, Warren W. Cornell, Paul C. Decker, Charles E. Germany, C. L. Hayes, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Charles Matthews, J. Clark Moody, Joseph S. Petrovesky, S. Pichardo, A. T. Price, David L. Pridgen, Captain Ricks, Secretary, Department of Corrections, H. J. Sermon, F. T. Staten, Gloria Whote. (PWD, ) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
698 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr.: Status Conference held on 9/29/2004. Oral argument heard on Document Nos. 679, 681, 684. (Court Reporter Deanne Moore.) (pg, ) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
699 ORDER directing Plaintiffs to file supplemental brief within 30 days as described in order; directing Defendants to file their response to Plaintiffs' supplemental brief within 30 days from the date it is filed; deferring ruling on 681 Motion to terminate revised offer of judgment and 684 Motion to reopen discovery and restore case to trial calendar until after the parties have complied with this order; granting 697 Motion to withdraw as attorney. Attorney James Aaron Peters terminated. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 10/8/2004. (MO) (Entered: 10/08/2004)
700 ADDITIONAL COPIES of documents received by John F. Williams (MGG) (Entered: 10/20/2004)
701 (DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER ORDER #708)MEMORANDUM in support Existence of Current and Ongoing Violations of Federla Rights Mandating an Evidentiary Hearing to Determine the Need for Further Injunctive Relief filed by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Thomas Gross, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Mark Osterback, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Darryl Williams, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper. (Siegel, Peter) Modified on 12/9/2004 (PWD, ). (Entered: 11/05/2004)
702 Remark: pro se filing returned pursuant to order #694 (SEG) (Entered: 11/19/2004)
703 (DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER ORDER #708) MEMORANDUM in opposition re 701 brief on the existence of current and ongoing violations of federal rights, filed by Secretary, Department of Corrections, et al. (Vail, Jason) Modified on 12/8/2004 (SPW). Modified on 12/9/2004 (PWD, ). (Entered: 11/30/2004)
704 MEMORANDUM in support re 703 Memorandum in opposition motion to file brief longer than 20 pages filed by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Vail, Jason) Modified on 12/3/2004; incorrect event used for document, see document #705 for corrected entry (SMS). (Entered: 11/30/2004)
705 (DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER ORDER #708) MOTION for leave to file Long Memorandum by Henry Alford, Joe T. Butler, Warren W. Cornell, Paul C. Decker, Charles E. Germany, C. L. Hayes, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Charles Matthews, J. Clark Moody, Joseph S. Petrovesky, S. Pichardo, A. T. Price, David L. Pridgen, Captain Ricks, Secretary, Department of Corrections, H. J. Sermon, F. T. Staten, Gloria Whote. (Refiled to correct document #704 originally filed as a memorandum in support.) (SMS) Modified on 12/9/2004 (PWD, ). (Entered: 12/03/2004)

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 22 of 33

12/02/2004
12/03/2004 12/08/2004 01/04/2005 01/07/2005
01/14/2005 01/14/2005 01/14/2005 01/24/2005
02/03/2005 02/07/2005 03/31/2005 04/21/2005
04/29/2005 05/04/2005

706 RESPONSE to motion re 705 MOTION for leave to file Long Memorandum filed by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Thomas Gross, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Mark Osterback, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Darryl Williams, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper. (SMS) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
707 MOTION for leave to file excess pages by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Vail, Jason) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
708 ORDER striking 701 Brief; Plaintiffs shall file an amended brief within 30 days and Defendants shall respond to the amended brief within 30 days from the date it is filed; striking 703 Response; striking 705 Motion to file Long Memorandum. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 12/8/2004. (MO) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
709 ORDER finding as moot 707 Amended Motion to File Long Memorandum. Signed by Judge Monte C. Richardson on 1/3/2005. (DLD) (Entered: 01/04/2005)
710 MEMORANDUM in support of the Existence of Current and Ongoing Violations of Federal Rights filed by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper. (Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 01/07/2005)
711 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 710 Memorandum in support, Memo in opposition to revised brief on constl violations filed by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Vail, Jason) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
712 MOTION for leave to file excess pages for memo in opposition to plaintiffs' revised brief by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Vail, Jason) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
713 MOTION for issuance of order to show cause by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1)(Vail, Jason) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
714 RESPONSE in opposition re 712 MOTION for leave to file excess pages for memo in opposition to plaintiffs' revised brief filed by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 01/24/2005)
715 RESPONSE in opposition re 713 MOTION for issuance of order to show cause why the plaintiffs should not be held in contempt, filed by Mark Osterback. (Berg, Randall) (NOTE: counsel notified to re−file document to include the correct form of substantive signature.) Modified on 2/7/2005 (SPW). (Entered: 02/03/2005)
716 RESPONSE in opposition re 713 MOTION for issuance of order to show cause filed by Mark Osterback. (Berg, Randall) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
717 NOTICE of supplemental authority re 711 Memorandum in opposition by Secretary, Department of Corrections (Vail, Jason) (Entered: 03/31/2005)
718 ORDER granting 712 Motion for Leave to File Long Memorandum; Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' Revised Brief 711 is accepted as properly filed, granting 684 Motion to reopen discovery and restore case to trial calendar as set forth in order, denying 713 Motion for order to show cause. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 4/21/2005. (MO) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
719 Emergency MOTION to extend time to October 1, 2005, and adjust evidentiary hearing date and schedule by Mark Osterback. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Unsworn Declaration of Craig Haney, Ph.D.# 2 Affidavit Unsworn Declaration of Kathryn Burns, M.D.)(Berg, Randall) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
720 RESPONSE in opposition re 719 Emergency MOTION to extend time to October 1, 2005, and adjust evidentiary hearing date and schedule filed by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S.

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 23 of 33

05/09/2005 05/25/2005 05/31/2005 06/13/2005
06/14/2005
06/21/2005 06/22/2005 06/23/2005
06/24/2005
06/24/2005 06/24/2005

Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 05/04/2005)
721 ORDER granting 719 motion to the extent set forth in this Order and rescheduling deadlines in this case. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 5/7/2005. (DLD) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
722 AMENDED STANDING ORDER − Filing of Documents that Exceed Twenty−Five Pages. Signed by all Jacksonville Judges on 05/25/05 (PAM) (Entered: 05/26/2005)
723 EMERGENCY NOTICE LETTER OF PETITION by Mark Osterback (PAM) (Notice Originally Filed in Case No. 3:05−cv−494−J−32MMH) (Entered: 06/01/2005)
724 EMERGENCY MOTION to compel Deposition of Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Halleck by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit e−mail correspondence# 2 Exhibit hearing transcript)(Kilinski, Caryl) Modified on 6/21/2005 (pwd, ). (Entered: 06/13/2005)
725 RESPONSE in opposition re 724 First MOTION to compel Deposition of Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Halleck filed by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 06/14/2005)
726 Notice filed by Anthony Cooper from Case Number 3:05−cv−564 (PAM) Per Chambers (Entered: 06/22/2005)
727 ORDER denying 724 Motion to compel deposition of Plaintiffs' Expert. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 6/22/2005. (MO) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
728 First MOTION to compel Inspection of Prisons, Request for Oral Argument, and Certificate of Counsel filed on an Emergency basis by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− P Rule 34 Request# 2 Exhibit B− D Response to P Rule 34 Request# 3 Exhibit C− Decl. of Peter M. Siegel# 4 Exhibit D − Decl. of Randall Berg, Jr.)(Capobianco, Cassandra) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
729 REQUEST for oral argument re 728 First MOTION to compel Inspection of Prisons, Request for Oral Argument, and Certificate of Counsel filed on an Emergency basis by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Capobianco, Cassandra) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
730 ORDER requiring Defendants to file a response to 728 Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion on or before June 30, 2005. Signed by Judge Monte C. Richardson on 6/24/2005. (DLD) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
731 NOTICE by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams re 728 First MOTION to compel Inspection of Prisons, Request for Oral Argument, and Certificate of Counsel filed on an Emergency basis Filing of Omitted Exhibit E

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 24 of 33

06/29/2005
06/29/2005
06/30/2005 06/30/2005 07/21/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit E)(Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
732 RESPONSE to motion re 728 First MOTION to compel Inspection of Prisons, Request for Oral Argument, and Certificate of Counsel filed on an Emergency basis filed by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Incident Reports# 2 Exhibit State Investigation# 3 Exhibit Affidavit of James upchurch# 4 Exhibit hearing transcript)(Kilinski, Caryl) Modified on 6/30/2005 (pwd, ). (THIS ENTRY/DOCUMENT WAS FILED IN ERROR AND IS A DUPLICATE OF DOCUMENT 733 ; THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED; PLEASE SEE DOCUMENT 733 ) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
733 RESPONSE to motion re 728 First MOTION to compel Inspection of Prisons, Request for Oral Argument, and Certificate of Counsel filed on an Emergency basis filed by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Incident Reports# 2 Exhibit State Investigation# 3 Exhibit Affidavit of James Upchurch# 4 Exhibit hearing transcript)(Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
734 RESPONSE to motion re 728 First EMERGENCY MOTION to compel Inspection of Prisons, Request for Oral Argument, and Certificate of Counsel filed on an Emergency basis filed by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote. (pwd, ) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
735 ORDER denying 728 Emergency Motion and 729 Request for Oral Argument. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 6/30/2005. (DLD) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
736 Emergency MOTION for protective order for Deposition of Dr. Craig Haney by Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Berg, Randall) (Entered: 07/21/2005)
737 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 736 Motion for protective order, w/ mo strike experts filed by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6)(Vail, Jason) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
738 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and MOTION to Expedite Response to Request for Production and Request for Oral Argument by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Berg, Randall) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
739 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 738 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, filed by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit e−mail# 2 Exhibit interview lists# 3 Exhibit)(Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
740 ORDER granting 736 motion for protective order to the extent set forth in this Order and requiring Defendants to file a response to the 738 emergency motion on or before July 27, 2005. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 7/22/2005. (DLD) (Entered: 07/22/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 25 of 33

07/25/2005 07/26/2005
07/26/2005
07/27/2005 07/27/2005
07/28/2005 08/22/2005 08/24/2005 08/26/2005 08/29/2005 09/02/2005

741 NOTICE of Appearance by Cullin Avram O'Brien on behalf of Mark Osterback (Attachments: # 1)(O'Brien, Cullin) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
742 RESPONSE in opposition re 738 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and MOTION to Expedite Response to Request for Production and Request for Oral Argument filed by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Request for Production# 2 Exhibit depostion extract# 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Interrogatories# 4 Exhibit Defendants' Response to Interrogatories# 5 Exhibit Plaintiffs' First Request for Production# 6 Exhibit Defendants' Response to First Request for Production)(Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
743 First MOTION to strike Defendants? Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs? Emergency Motion to Extend and Expedite Discovery and Objections to Plaintiffs? Second Post−Judgment Request for Production of Documents by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Berg, Randall) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
744 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 743 Motion to strike,, filed by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1)(Vail, Jason) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
745 REPLY to response to motion re 738 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and MOTION to Expedite Response to Request for Production and Request for Oral Argument filed by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Prodocution of Documents)(Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
746 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 738 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Motion to Expedite Response to Request for Production and Request for Oral Argument: the motion is granted to the extent that the deadlines are amended as set forth in Order, denying 743 Motion to strike; denying 737 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 7/28/2005. (MO) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
747 MOTION Court View by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
748 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 747 Motion for miscellaneous relief, re motion for view filed by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Vail, Jason) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
749 MOTION for protective order by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1)(Vail, Jason) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
750 ORDER requiring Plaintiffs to file a response to Defendants' Emergency Motion for Protective Order 749 on or before September 2, 2005. Signed by Judge Monte C. Richardson on 8/29/2005. (DLD) (Entered: 08/29/2005)
751 RESPONSE in opposition re 749 MOTION for protective order filed by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 09/02/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 26 of 33

09/06/2005 09/06/2005 09/06/2005 09/07/2005
09/13/2005 10/04/2005 10/06/2005 10/14/2005
10/14/2005
10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/14/2005

752 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply mo to reply, with attached reply by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1)(Vail, Jason) Modified on 9/6/2005 (pwd, ). (Counsel will re−file this document to comply with Local Rules) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
753 MOTION for leave to file reply by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Vail, Jason) Modified on 9/7/2005 (pwd, ). (Counsel will re−file with proper attachment) . (Entered: 09/06/2005)
754 REPLY to response to motion re 753 MOTION for leave to file reply, 749 MOTION for protective order filed by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Vail, Jason) Modified on 9/7/2005 (pwd, ). (Document to be re−filed as attachment.) (DOCUMENT STRICKEN SEE COURT ORDER #756) Modified on 9/16/2005 (DTS). (Entered: 09/06/2005)
755 Amended MOTION for leave to file Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Motion for Protective Order by S. Pichardo, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote. (Attachments: # 1)(Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
756 ORDER denying 747 Motion for Court View, granting 749 Motion for Protective Order to the extent set forth in order (see order for details), granting 755 Motion for leave to file reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 9/13/2005. (MO) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
757 MOTION to strike expert witness by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6)(Vail, Jason) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
758 NOTICE by Secretary, Department of Corrections re 746 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery,, Order on motion to strike, notice defendant availability for trial (Vail, Jason) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
759 MOTION to continue (Opposed) Hearing to a New Trial Calendar for Good Cause Shown by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Professor Craig Haney)(Sheppard, William) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
760 EXHIBIT LIST by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote.. (Attachments: # 1)(Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
761 WITNESS LIST by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote. (Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
762 EXHIBIT LIST of Plaintiffs by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams.. (Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
763 WITNESS LIST by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 10/14/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 27 of 33

10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005
10/25/2005 10/26/2005
10/27/2005 12/15/2005 12/19/2005 12/19/2005 01/30/2006
01/30/2006 02/10/2006
02/10/2006

764 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 759 Motion to continue, filed by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1)(Vail, Jason) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
765 MOTION pretrial conference scheduling by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Vail, Jason) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
766 RESPONSE in opposition re 757 MOTION to strike expert witness filed by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, Excerpts from Deposition of Max Linn# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, Excerpts from the Deposition of Craig Haney# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, Bibliography)(Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
767 MOTION file reply re 766 Response in opposition to motion,, re strike expert witness by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Vail, Jason) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
768 RESPONSE in opposition re 767 MOTION file reply re 766 Response in opposition to motion,, re strike expert witness filed by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
769 ORDER denying 757 Motion to strike plaintiff's expert witness, granting 759 Motion to continue hearing, granting 765 Motion for In−Person Scheduling Conference; scheduling conference set for 12/15/05 at 2:00 p.m., denying 767 Motion to file a Reply. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 10/27/2005. (MO) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
771 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr.: Status Conference held on 12/15/2005. Scheduling Order to enter Court Reporter: Deanne Moore (pg) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
770 ORDER re: filing of amended witness and exhibit lists; setting final scheduling conference for 2/24/2006 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 10A. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 12/16/2005. (MO) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
772 NOTICE of change of address by Randall Challen Berg, Jr (Berg, Randall) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
773 EXHIBIT LIST , Amended, by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams.. (Siegel, Peter) (DOCUMENT STRICKEN SEE Court's Order Dc. #780)Modified on 2/23/2006 (DTS). (Entered: 01/30/2006)
774 WITNESS LIST by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
775 MOTION to strike 773 Exhibit List, and objections to exhibits by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote. (Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
776 MOTION to strike 774 Witness list, and objections to witnesses by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit James Upchurch# 2 Appendix # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 Exhibit order)(Kilinski, Caryl) (Document STRICKEN SEE COURT'S ORDER #780)Modified on 2/23/2006 (DTS). (Entered: 02/10/2006)

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 28 of 33

02/17/2006 02/17/2006 02/17/2006 02/22/2006
03/03/2006 03/03/2006 03/17/2006 03/17/2006 03/17/2006 03/20/2006 03/22/2006 03/24/2006

777 MOTION for Cullin Avram O'Brien to withdraw as attorney by all plaintiffs. (O'Brien, Cullin) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
778 RESPONSE in opposition re 776 MOTION to strike 774 Witness list, and objections to witnesses filed by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
779 RESPONSE in opposition re 775 MOTION to strike 773 Exhibit List, and objections to exhibits filed by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
780 ORDER striking 773 amended exhibit list; an amended exhibit list due by 3/3/2006, finding as moot 775 Motion to strike plaintiffs' exhibits, striking 776 Motion to strike Plaintiffs' witnesses. Objections to and/or motion to strike 774 Amended Witness List due by 3/17/2006. Defendants shall inform the Court re: stipulation to authenticity of exhibits by 3/17/2006. The final scheduling conference reset for 3/22/2006 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 10A. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 2/22/2006. (MO) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
781 ORDER granting 777 motion to withdraw as attorney. Signed by Judge Monte C. Richardson on 3/3/2006. (DLD) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
782 EXHIBIT LIST , Second Amended by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams.. (Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
783 RESPONSE re 780 Order on motion to strike,,,,, filed by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote. (Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
784 OBJECTION re 782 Exhibit List, by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote. (Attachments: # 1)(Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
785 OBJECTION re 774 Witness list, by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13)(Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
786 RESPONSE re 785 Objection, and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Witnesses by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
787 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr.: Scheduling Conference held on 3/22/2006. Court Reporter: Deanne Moore (pg) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
788 ORDER setting hearing on motion to terminate the injunction for 9/11/2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 10A, overruling 785 Objections without prejudice, denying

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 29 of 33

03/30/2006
04/11/2006
04/13/2006
06/12/2006 06/29/2006 07/07/2006 07/20/2006 07/26/2006 07/31/2006 08/21/2006 08/22/2006 08/23/2006 08/31/2006 08/31/2006 09/01/2006

without prejudice 785 motion to strike Plaintiffs' witnesses, Objections 784 ruled on as set forth in order. (See Order for details re: presentation of witnesses and other matters, as well as for directive to the Clerk). Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 3/24/2006. (MO) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
789 WITNESS LIST by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
790 RESPONSE re 788 Order, filed by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote. (Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
791 RESPONSE re 788 Order, filed by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote. (Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
792 MOTION for Order Permitting Use of Electronic Equipment in the Jacksonville Courthouse by all plaintiffs. (Sheppard, William) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
793 ORDER granting 792 Motion for Order Permitting Use of Electronic Equipment in the Jacksonville Courthouse. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 6/29/2006. (MO) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
794 MOTION to allow electronic equipment, specifically laptops and cell phones by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Vail, Jason) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
795 ORDER granting 794 Motion to allow electronic equipment, specifically laptops and cell phones. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 7/20/2006. (MO) (Entered: 07/20/2006)
796 MOTION to substitute party by all defendants. (Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
797 NOTICE of Appearance by Susan A. Maher on behalf of Secretary, Department of Corrections (Maher, Susan) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
798 MOTION Re−schedule video conference location re 788 Order, by all defendants. (Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
799 ORDER granting 798 Motion to Re−Schedule Video Conference Testimony; the final paragraph on page 3 of 788 Order is modified as set forth herein. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 8/22/2006. (MO) (Entered: 08/22/2006)
800 TRIAL CALENDAR for trial term commencing 9/5/2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 10 A before Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 8/23/2006. (Attachments: # 1)(pg) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
801 MOTION to amend/correct 799 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by all defendants. (Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 08/31/2006)
802 ORDER granting 801 Motion to Amend Order of August 22 799 Designating Videoconferencing Locations for Inmate Witness Testimony. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 8/31/2006. (MO) (Entered: 08/31/2006)
803 NOTICE by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams re 788 Order, Plaintiffs' Notice of Inmate Witness Order (Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 09/01/2006)

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 30 of 33

09/05/2006 09/11/2006 09/11/2006
09/11/2006 09/11/2006 09/11/2006 09/12/2006 09/13/2006 09/14/2006 09/15/2006
09/17/2006 09/18/2006 09/18/2006 09/18/2006 09/19/2006 09/20/2006

804 TRIAL BRIEF by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Vail, Jason) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
805 MOTION to Take Judicial Notice of Plaintiffs' Exhibits 42, 43, 44 and 45 and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by all plaintiffs. (Sheppard, William) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
806 TRIAL BRIEF (Memorandum) by Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Sheppard, William) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
807 MOTION to quash subpoena requiring appearance of witness, Dr. Audrey Michal by all defendants. (Henderson, Mark) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
808 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr.: BENCH TRIAL held on 9/11/2006. Court in recess until 9/12/06 at 9:30 a.m. Court Reporter: Deanne Moore (pg) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
817 ORAL ORDER granting in part as to #42 &#43 and taken under advisement in part as to #44 &#45 805 Motion . Entered by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 9/11/2006. (pg) (Entered: 09/20/2006)
809 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr.: BENCH TRIAL held on 9/12/2006. Trial in recess until 9/13/06 at 9:30 a.m. Court Reporter: Deanne Moore (pg) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
810 ORDER denying 807 Motion to Quash Subpoena. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 9/13/2006. (MO) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
811 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr.: BENCH TRIAL held on 9/14/2006. Trial in recess until 9/15/06 at 9:30 a.m Court Reporter: Deanne Moore (pg) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
812 MOTION Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of the Admissibility of Deposition Testimony of Victoria Pence and Craig Haney by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams. (Sheppard, William) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
813 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 812 Motion for miscellaneous relief, to admit depositions of Pence and Haney filed by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1)(Vail, Jason) (Entered: 09/17/2006)
814 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr.: BENCH TRIAL held on 9/15/2006. Court in recess until 9/18/06 at 9:30 a.m. Court Reporter: Deanne Moore (pg) Modified on 9/20/2006 to correct docket text(LRB). (Entered: 09/18/2006)
815 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr.: BENCH TRIAL held on 9/18/2006. Court in recess until 9/19/06 at 9:30 a.m. Court Reporter: Deanne Moore (pg) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
816 ORAL ORDER conditionally granting 812 Motion re: Admissibility of Deposition Testimony of Victoria Pence and Craig Haney. Issued by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 9/18/2006. See minutes from 9/18/06 Doc. 815 for full details of order. (LRB) (Entered: 09/20/2006)
818 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr.: BENCH TRIAL held on 9/19/2006. Court in recess until 9/20/06 at 9:30 a.m. Court Reporter: Deanne Moore (pg) (Entered: 09/20/2006)
819 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr.: BENCH TRIAL held on 9/20/2006. Court in recess until 9/21/06 at 9:30 a.m. Court Reporter: Deanne Moore (pg) (Entered: 09/21/2006)

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 31 of 33

09/21/2006
09/21/2006 09/21/2006 09/21/2006 09/26/2006
09/26/2006
09/26/2006
09/26/2006 09/27/2006 10/04/2006 11/29/2006 11/29/2006 11/29/2006 11/29/2006 11/29/2006

820 NOTICE by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper, Thomas Gross, Darryl Williams Plaintiffs Supplemental Memorandum of Law (Jones, Christopher) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
821 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr.: BENCH TRIAL completed on 9/21/2006. Court Reporter: Deanne Moore (pg) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
822 EXHIBIT LIST by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (pg) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
823 EXHIBIT LIST by Mark Osterback, et al., (pg) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
824 NOTICE by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote Defendants' Objections to Pence Deposition (Von Hoene, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
825 NOTICE by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Notice of Designation of Haney Deposition Excerpts (Von Hoene, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
826 NOTICE by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote Defendants' Notice of Designation of Haney Deposition Excerpts (Von Hoene, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
827 Unopposed MOTION for transcript of Evidentiary Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Terminate Revised Offer of Judgment held on September 11−21, 2006 at Government Expense by all plaintiffs. (Berg, Randall) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
828 RESPONSE re 820 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) re def exhibit 121 filed by Secretary, Department of Corrections. (Vail, Jason) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
829 ORDER denying 827 Motion for the Government to Bear the Cost of Preparing a Transcript. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. on 10/4/2006. (MO) (Entered: 10/04/2006)
830 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by all defendants. (Von Hoene, Kathleen) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
831 TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial − (Volume 1) held on 9/11/06 before Judge Henry Lee Adams, Jr. Court Reporter: Deanne M. Moore. (Transcript filed separately) (pwd, ). (Entered: 11/30/2006)
832 TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial − (Volume 2) held on 9/12/06 before Judge Henry Lee Adams, Jr. Court Reporter: Deanne M. Moore. (Transcript filed separately) (pwd, ) . (Entered: 11/30/2006)
833 TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial − (Volume 3) held on 9/13/06 before Judge Henry Lee Adams, Jr. Court Reporter: Deanne M. Moore. (Transcript filed separately) (pwd, ) . (Entered: 11/30/2006)
834 TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial − (Volume 4) held on 9/14/06 before Judge Henry Lee Adams, Jr. Court Reporter: Deanne M. Moore. (Transcript filed separately) (pwd, ) (Entered: 11/30/2006)

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 32 of 33

11/29/2006 11/29/2006 11/29/2006 11/29/2006 11/29/2006 12/18/2006 02/27/2007
02/28/2007
03/21/2007 05/04/2007 07/27/2007 07/31/2007 09/04/2007 10/09/2007
11/05/2007 11/19/2007

835 TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial − (Volume 5) held on 9/15/06 before Judge Henry Lee Adams, Jr. Court Reporter: Deanne M. Moore. (Transcript filed separately) (pwd, ) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
836 TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial − (Volume 6) held on 9/18/06 before Judge Henry Lee Adams, Jr. Court Reporter: Deanne M. Moore. (Transcript filed separately) (pwd, ) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
837 TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial − (Volume 7) held on 9/19/06 before Judge Henry Lee Adams, Jr. Court Reporter: Deanne M. Moore. (Transcript filed separately) (pwd, ) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
838 TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial − (Volume 8) held on 9/20/06 before Judge Henry Lee Adams, Jr. Court Reporter: Deanne M. Moore. (Transcript filed separately) (pwd, ) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
839 TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial − (Volume 9) held on 9/21/06 before Judge Henry Lee Adams, Jr. Court Reporter: Deanne M. Moore. (Transcript filed separately) (pwd, ) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
840 ORDER granting 830 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by Judge Monte C. Richardson on 12/18/2006. (DLD) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
841 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT and conclusions of law by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote. (Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
842 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT and conclusions of law by Frederick Clark, Danny L. Eldridge, Alvin M. Few, Lavictor Flournoy, Mark Osterback, Frank S. Lowry, Brian D. Messenger, Robert Peri, Salvatore J. Ricci, Hector Rivas, Carlos Ruiz, Lawrence J. Sargent, Antonio L. Ward, Willie J. Watson, Nebuchadnezzar Wrisper. (Siegel, Peter) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
843 MOTION for Von Hoene and Vail to withdraw as attorney of Record by all defendants. (Kilinski, Caryl) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 03/21/2007)
844 ORDER granting 843 motion to withdraw as counsel. Signed by Judge Monte C. Richardson on 5/3/2007. (DLD) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
845 Unopposed MOTION for Peter M. Siegel to withdraw as attorney by all plaintiffs. (Berg, Randall) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (Entered: 07/27/2007)
846 ORDER granting 845 motion to withdraw as attorney. Signed by Judge Monte C. Richardson on 7/30/2007. (DLD) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
847 MOTION for judicial notice by Vincent Rivera. (MGG) (Modified on 12/31/2007 as to STRICKEN per Order #850)(SJW). (Entered: 09/05/2007)
848 NOTICE by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote (Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 10/09/2007)
Case reassigned to Judge James R. Klindt. New case number: 3:04−cv−210−J−25JRK. Judge Monte C. Richardson no longer assigned to the case. (SJW, ) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
849 NOTICE by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote (Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 11/19/2007)

Case: 3:04-cv-210 As of: 11/12/2014 02:21 PM EST 33 of 33

12/28/2007 01/31/2008
03/25/2008
07/19/2011
07/21/2011 07/28/2011 07/29/2011 08/01/2011 06/04/2013 07/19/2013

850 ORDER striking and returning 847 motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt on 12/28/2007. (DD) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
851 NOTICE by S. Pichardo, C. L. Hayes, F. T. Staten, Henry Alford, Charles Matthews, Paul C. Decker, Warren W. Cornell, David L. Pridgen, Lonnie E. Holmes, Chester B. Lambdin, Joseph S. Petrovesky, J. Clark Moody, Charles E. Germany, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Joe T. Butler, H. J. Sermon, A. T. Price, Captain Ricks, Gloria Whote (Kilinski, Caryl) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
852 ORDER granting 681 Motion to Terminate Revised Offer of Judgment. The injunctive relief contained in the Order Entering Defendants' Revised Offer of Judgment 383 is terminated in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Henry Lee Adams, Jr. on 3/25/2008. (MO) (Entered: 03/25/2008)
853 EMERGENCY NOTICE to the Court and to Counsel for Plaintiff by Troy Thomas (TL) (Edited filer, name on envelope reads Troy Thomas, modified on 7/20/2011) (TL). (STRICKEN pursuant to Order Doc. #854, modified on 7/22/2011) (TL). (Entered: 07/19/2011)
854 ORDER striking 853 notice and giving directions to the Clerk. Signed by Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt on 7/20/2011. (DD) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
855 EMERGENCY NOTICE to the Court and Counsel for Plaintiff filed by Troy Thomas (TL) Modified on 8/1/2011 (PAM). [Stricken and returned to Inmate Troy Thomas] (Entered: 07/28/2011)
856 ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt on 7/29/2011. (DD) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
857 NOTICE to withdraw re 855 Notice I. Thomas. (DTS) (Entered: 08/02/2011)
858 NOTICE to counsel regarding return of trial exhibits. (LRB) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
859 CLERK'S certificate of destruction of exhibits and/or exhibit substitutes (LRB) (Entered: 07/19/2013)