ESSEX COUNTY INMATES et als., Plaintiffs v. JOSEPH DIVINCENZO, Essex County Executive, et als., Defendants

) United States District Court ) for the District of New Jersey ) ) CIVIL NO. 87-871 (HAA) ) Hon. Harold A. Ackerman. U.S.D.J. ) ) Frederick K. Becker, Special Master ) Bennet D. Zurofsky, Special Master ) ) THIRD CONSOLIDATED ) CONSENT ORDER

WHEREAS, on or about March 31, 2004, defendants moved plaintiff Essex County inmates held at the former Essex County Jail on Nelson Place in Newark, New Jersey and at the Essex County Jail Annex in North Caldwell, New Jersey, to the new Essex County Correctional Facility (ECCF) on Doremus Avenue in Newark, New Jersey,
WHEREAS, the Second Consolidated Consent Order (ASCCO@) and the Medical Consent Order (AMCO@) entered on August 8, 1995, were in effect at the time of the closing of the former facilities and the transfer of Essex County inmates into the ECCF,
WHEREAS, the ECCF was constructed and opened to remedy overcrowding and certain related conditions and practices in the former facilities,
WHEREAS, this Third Consolidated Order is intended to modify the remedies and obligations of the SCCO in a manner that takes into account the new structure and facilities of the ECCF,
WHEREAS, the parties agree that this modified Order is appropriate as the least intrusive remedy for currently existing conditions and practices affecting the constitutional rights of plaintiffs that warrant continuing injunctive and declaratory relief, specifically to relieve existing or threatened overcrowding, related deprivations, and associated deficiencies in living conditions, services and programs at the ECCF, as is herein set forth,
WHEREAS, the terms of this Order are intended to apply only until the defendants achieve and maintain timely and substantial compliance as herein defined and adopt policies to prevent recurrence of noncompliance with the provisions of the modified Order,
IT IS THEREFORE AGREED, as follows:

I. STANDARDS FOR POPULATION AND HOUSING A. ECCF Maximum Capacity
1. Definition: The overall maximum capacity of the ECCF shall be defined as the Operational Capacity for the facility and shall be based on the number of beds available for permanent inmate housing assignments (which shall exclude beds in ECCF segregation and medical units) and the physical facilities in each housing unit as set forth in the chart below.

ECCF Housing Units

Building 2- Level 1 (Males)
Building 2B Level 3 (Males)
Building 3B Level 1 (Males) Building 3B Level 3 (Males) Building 4B Level 1 (Males) Building 4- Level 3 (Females) Dorms
Medical (Males and Females)

B C D (Detention & PC) E Left E Right B Left B Right C Left C Right D (Detention & PC) E Left E Right B C D E B C D E B C D E B C D E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Cells
64 64 64 32 32 32 32 32 32 64 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1024

Bunks
128 128 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 50 48 48 50 48 48 48 42 2302

Operational Capacity
128 128 0 64 64 64 64 64 64 0 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 50 48 48 50 48 48 48
0 2132

2

2. Capacity Not to be Exceeded: The County shall not admit inmates to the ECCF in excess either of the overall Operational Capacity or the maximum number of bunks per unit reflected above which shall constitute the Housing Unit capacity. The County via fax shall send Plaintiffs' counsel each day a population tally for the ECCF in a format similar to that set forth above.
B. Remedial Action Related to Housing Capacity and Overcrowding 1. Affirmative Steps to be Taken by the County: If the ECCF population exceeds the
operational or any housing unit capacity as set forth above, respectively, for male inmates and female inmates, the County shall take affirmative steps that shall provide a reasonable likelihood of prompt additional housing capacity or the availability of alternatives to incarceration necessary to accommodate the number of male and female inmates, respectively, that are reasonably estimated to constitute the plaintiff class for which the County expects to be responsible for five years from the date of this Third Consent Order, to enable the ECCF population not to exceed the ECCF=s permissible Operational Capacity.
2. Temporary Housing at the ECCF. a. Temporary Beds. Temporary beds or cots appropriate for a detention facility may only be used after the County has taken the affirmative steps set forth above for remedial action. Temporary beds or cots may be used as set forth in this paragraph notwithstanding other standards for housing and living conditions set forth in this Order. b. Five Day Duration Limitation. When temporary beds are used, the County shall make every effort to assign inmates in a manner to insure that any individual inmate will not be required to sleep on such temporary beds or cots for more than five (5) days. The County shall re-assign inmates on temporary beds to the next available cell or dormitory bunk consistent with classification requirements. c. Services Maintained: Regardless of the population level, the County shall maintain the level of visitation, recreation, medical care, dental care, access to legal research facilities, food services, counseling, and other services to inmates required by this Order or Title 10A, Chapter 31 of the New Jersey Administrative Code. To meet the need for temporary housing, however, the County may not transform any recreation or program area into a housing unit to the detriment of communal space, recreation, programming, or movement. In the event of a public safety threat, however, personal visiting, recreation, and counseling may be suspended up to 72 hours or until the emergent situation is abated.
3. Alternatives to Incarceration: The County shall increase or maintain the number of beds made available for qualifying inmates in alternative programs to relieve overcrowding in the ECCF and to accommodate the recommendations of judges who sentence inmates to alternative programs. The County shall take all necessary action to ensure adequate placement of present and future Essex County inmates as projected by statistical trends to be identified by a study or report to be commissioned by the County as of December 2006. Planned growth must include adequate housing for up to five years at the ECCF site or appropriate programs to provide alternatives to incarceration or detention at facilities other than at the ECCF, including drug and alcohol treatment centers and housing to ensure continuity of treatment for offenders battling addiction.. The County shall advise
3

plaintiffs= counsel monthly of the number of beds available or planned for Essex County inmates in all such programs.
C. Housing Unit Conditions Related to Capacity: 1. Sleeping Conditions: The dayrooms, processing units or other common areas of the
ECCF shall not house inmates overnight. The County shall not place mattresses on the floor for sleeping or use cots without mattresses. All provisions concerning housing capacity and prohibitions on sleeping in common areas, or on floors or on mattresses on floors, apply to female inmates as well as male inmates.
2. Durational Limits in New Admission Quarantine Unit: The County shall make every effort to transfer inmates out of Medical Quarantine within one day of being medically cleared. If any circumstances cause inmates to remain in Medical Quarantine for more than one day after being medically cleared, then such inmates shall be allowed at least one hour of cell per day for recreation.
D. Capacity Notice Requirements When any cells or bunks cannot be used for more than a 30 day period, the County shall
notify Plaintiffs= counsel in writing, and shall identify the cells, the reduced capacity of the particular units, and the number of inmates held daily in the ECCF infirmary and detention areas during the previous 30 day period.
E. Contingency and Accreditation Plans To avoid the need for proceedings for sanctions and to expedite termination of this Order, the
County shall have a contingency plan in place to ensure that the County can comply with the ECCF=s maximum capacity and program requirements of this Consent Order even if unforeseen circumstances make compliance more difficult that originally expected. Toward this objective the County shall comply with the recommendations of the inspections conducted by the New Jersey Department of Corrections and shall make good faith efforts to attain accreditation from and adhere to the recommendations of the following bodies: the National Center for Correctional Health Care (NCCHC), the American Correctional Association (ACA) and the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). As part of this undertaking the County shall obtain an inspection by the NIC; when the NIC survey portion of this requirement is completed and while the County is in preparation for submission of materials for ACA accreditation, the County shall immediately make available for review a copy of such report to Plaintiffs' counsel, who.shall not disclose the contents of the report nor use the contents of the report against the County in this proceeding.
F. Remedies and Housing Unit Conditions The County shall maintain housing unit conditions in accordance with applicable regulatory
standards in Chapter 31, Title 10A of the New Jersey Administrative Code, including ratios between inmates and showers, toilets, and living space provided by N.J.A.C. 10A:31-3.7, 3.8. The County has discretion to maintain such ratios by: (a) retrofitting the structure of the ECCF to increase the available number of showers, accessible toilets, and the area of dayroom and recreational space, or (b) phasing out or limiting double bunking in housing areas with a ratio that is higher than provided for in this Agreement.
4

II. STANDARDS FOR SLEEPING AND LIVING AREAS A. Living Conditions
The County may use cells at the ECCF to house two inmates, provided that the conditions in the cells and living areas otherwise meet the provisions of this Agreement or applicable state regulations, including requirements for beds, showers, toilets, lavatories, ventilation, lighting, maintenance, housekeeping, and extermination. Inmates shall be out of their cells for the maximum time available, not to be fewer than three (3) hours per day, except for inmates in disciplinary segregation or, in individual cases, at the discretion of the Administrator.
B. Personal Hygiene Each inmate shall be issued necessary personal hygiene items including toilet paper, soap,
shampoo, toothpaste, toothbrush, comb, mirror, individual razors, and shaving cream or powder, and shall have the opportunity to shower and access to feminine hygiene supplies, as provided by standards in the New Jersey Administrative Code 10A:31-12.7 to maintain personal hygiene.
III. SERVICES AND PROGRAMS A. Recreation
1. Daily Recreation: All inmates in the ECCF shall have the opportunity to use a gymnasium or recreation area for a minimum of one hour each day, seven days per week.
2. Program Director: The County shall have a full-time Director of Recreation at the ECCF. The director shall be responsible for the design, implementation, and maintenance of the recreation schedule and recreation equipment. The Director shall have a college degree in physical education or equivalent year-for-year experience in physical education or instruction or management.
3. Staffing: The County shall hire or reassign sufficient staff to insure that inmates have access to the gymnasium or recreation areas of the ECCF for one hour a day.
4. Equipment: The County shall maintain a sufficient quantity of exercise equipment and supplies to provide a meaningful recreation program that ensures that inmates do not have to remain idle during their recreational period.
5. Repair of Non-Working Equipment: The County shall repair non-working equipment within 2 working days, and shall order any replacements within 5 working days for any equipment which cannot be repaired.
B. Visitation The County shall operate visitation a minimum of five days per week, which shall include
evening and weekend visiting hours. Each inmate shall have an opportunity for at least 30 minutes of visitation time each of three days per week. Children may visit during these times.
C. Law Library The County shall maintain an electronic law library for use by ECCF inmates. The County
5

shall insure that one staff person is minimally trained in the use of law books and computers, including legal research software, and is assigned responsibility to update legal materials and assist inmates to find the material they seek. Law library practices otherwise shall be in accordance with the standards of the New Jersey Administrative Code.
D. Religious Services 1. Accommodation of Religious Observance: The County shall adopt procedures to
accommodate the practice of religion within the ECCF, including, but not limited to, prayer in congregation and facilitation of individual counseling by members of a religious community, and other practices as allowed by N.J.AC. 10A:31-13.4 and 26.3.
2. Program Director: The County shall hire a Chaplain to provide or coordinate religious services for all religions represented in the ECCF population, as well as related religious education and programming, and to facilitate volunteers and donations. As necessary, the County shall provide a stipend for community leaders to meet any gap in volunteer services.
IV. FOOD SERVICE A. Food Quality
The County shall provide meals that are nutritionally balanced, varied, and satisfactorily palatable. Food shall be stored, served, prepared, and distributed in a safe, healthful, nutritional and sanitary manner.
B. Dietician Review A dietician or other qualified individual shall annually review the adequacy of food
service, preparation, and storage practices. The dietician shall examine the food being served, including the temperatures at which food is served, and shall review relevant documents. The dietician shall meet with food service personnel, confer with medical staff when appropriate, and have the opportunity to meet with inmates to discuss issues concerning food service. The dietician shall determine whether meals, including special diets, provide a nutritionally balanced, varied, satisfactorily palatable and adequate diet for all inmates and whether food is stored, prepared and served in a safe, healthful, nutritional and sanitary manner. The dietician shall recommend corrective action if necessary.
V. BEDDING, LAUNDRY, AND CLOTHING The County shall provide adequate amounts of bedding, towels, and properly-fitting clothing
and ensure a method for regularly laundering these items as provided by standards in the New Jersey Administrative Code 10A:31-12.1-12.4.
VI. STAFFING The County shall employ sufficient professional and support staff that in the professional
opinion of the administrative head of the facility are needed to perform the administrative functions of the jail, including but not limited to, those functions relating to inmate safety, classification, timely inmate release and for an Internal Affairs Bureau.
6

VII. SANCTIONS If the inmate population exceeds the maximum operational capacity at the ECCF, the County
shall be sanctioned for each inmate housed in excess of the overall population cap or the housing unit cap. If the County fails to comply with or provide the services, programs or procedures required by this Agreement, the County shall be sanctioned for its continued non-compliance based on the number of inmates adversely affected on a daily basis by the noncompliance. Upon application by plaintiffs, the Special Masters shall determine whether the County has violated the provisions of this Order and, if so, the daily amount of sanctions to be imposed. The parties may request a hearing on the amount of sanction that the Special Masters recommend for violations of services, programs, or procedures.
VIII. JURISDICTION, ACCESS, MONITORING AND DISMISSAL A. Jurisdiction
The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce or interpret this Agreement and shall resolve disputes using as guidance its standards and requirements.
B. Access to Relevant Documents Upon reasonable notice, plaintiffs= counsel or professional consultants shall have reasonable
access to the ECCF and all relevant records in order to ensure compliance with this Agreement.
C. Monitoring and Assessment of Compliance Within 90 days of the signing of this Order, Plaintiffs= counsel and the County shall meet to
review the areas of the Order where the County has achieved and not achieved compliance, at which time the County shall report corrective action to be implemented, along with a schedule to achieve compliance. The County may submit to Plaintiffs Counsel and the Special Masters a certification on each requirement in this Agreement with which it has reached substantial compliance based on personal knowledge or documentation evidencing fulfillment of the identified requirement. Plaintiffs may submit opposing certifications. Within six months of this Order, the parties shall submit to the Special Master their individual assessment of whether substantial compliance has been achieved with the Order and whether final dismissal of this action is warranted. The Special Masters shall provide the Court with their report and recommendation thereafter based on the submissions of the parties or, if necessary, based on testimony if requested by any party.
D. Termination of Order 1. Dismissal After Six Months of Substantial Compliance: Defendants may be dismissed
from portions or the entirety of this Order if the defendants achieve and maintain substantial compliance continually for a period of six months and adopt policies and procedures to prevent reoccurrence of non-compliance.
2. Proceedings: Applications for partial or complete dismissal may be made at any time, supported by certifications based on personal knowledge or documentation. Certifications establishing fulfillment of a requirement shall be presumed factually accurate, unless Plaintiff=s
7

counsel presents opposing certifications based on plaintiff class members= personal or direct knowledge or documentation to be rebut the application. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from any application for dismissal to file a response.
3. Compliance Presumptions: The County shall be presumed to have achieved substantial compliance with the MCO when it attains accreditation for its health care facility and practices from the NCCHC. The County shall be presumed to have achieved substantial compliance with the overcrowding remedies and capacity requirements of this Order when it has maintained the population at the ECCF and other facilities or programs in which Essex County inmates are detained under operational capacity of each facility or program for six months. Upon an application by the County for Dismissal or Termination of this Order, the County defendants shall have the burden of showing the requisite conditions have been achieved or met, and may use studies or reports prepared by the NCCHC, ACA or NIC for that purpose.
4. Access to Relevant Documents for Additional Six Months: For six months after the ultimate dismissal of this action, plaintiffs= counsel shall continue to have the right of access to plaintiff class members, individually or in representative groups, or documentation provided for in this Order, for the purpose of monitoring ongoing compliance with the standards set forth in this Order that may be related to the resumption of conditions or practices implicating violations of plaintiffs= constitutional rights.
The undersigned hereby consent to the form and entry of this Order:
Yvonne Smith Segars, New Jersey Public Defender Attorney for Plaintiffs

Date: _______

By: _____________________________ T. Gary Mitchell, Deputy Public Defender Inmate Advocacy Project, New Jersey Public Defender

Date: _______

By: _____________________________ Harry Del Plato, County Counsel Attorney for Essex County Defendants

IT IS ON THIS ______ DAY, OF __________ 2006, SO ORDERED:

________________________________________ Harold A. Ackerman, U.S.D.J.
8

 
 Case 2:87-cv-00871-HAA-ES Document 124 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 1 of 6

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

__________________________________________

)

ESSEX COUNTY INMATES et als.,

)

)

Hon. Harold A. Ackerman

Plaintiffs,

)

)

Civil Action No. 87-871 (HAA)

v.

)

)

OPINION AND ORDER

JOSEPH DIVINCENZO, Essex County

)

Executive, et als.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

__________________________________________)

ACKERMAN, Senior District Judge: “Like the legendary Phoenix, this class action litigation involving prison conditions . . . is
seemingly incapable of eternal rest.” Morales Feliciano v. Rullan, 378 F.3d 42, 45 (1st Cir. 2004). But, alas, after more than two decades, this, the oldest open case in the District of New Jersey, will finally be put to eternal rest. That is, for the reasons set forth below, I see no reason why this Court should remain involved in this matter. As a result, I will not approve the proposed Third Consolidated Consent Order, I will dismiss this case, and I will direct the Clerk to close the case.
On December 14, 2006, my Special Masters, Bennet Zurofsky, Esq. and Fred Becker, Esq., filed with this Court their Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) along with the proposed Third Consolidated Consent Order (“TCCO”). The proposed TCCO is intended to supersede the Second Consolidated Consent Order (“SCCO”), which was approved and entered by me on August 8, 1995.

Case 2:87-cv-00871-HAA-ES Document 124 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 2 of 6
Since the SCCO was entered, the landscape that initiated this lawsuit has changed dramatically, in at least two significant ways. First, a year after entry of the SCCO, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (the “PLRA”) in response “to concerns that similar consent decrees were crippling prison systems throughout the country.” Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Ridge, 169 F.3d 178, 182 (3d Cir. 1999). Second, Essex County built a new correctional facility at a cost of approximately $416 million. The combination of these two significant developments, after careful analysis, yields the conclusion that this Court no longer needs to be involved.
On March 9, 1987, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this case, alleging all manner of deplorable conditions in the Essex County Jail system, which at that time comprised the Essex County Jail in Newark, the Green Street holding facilities, and the Essex County Jail Annex in North Caldwell (collectively the “Jail Facilities”).1 The Complaint alleged that the Jail Facilities’ problems included: “sinks and pipes that are rusted and leaking sewage and water; walls and floors that are covered with filth; showers that are encrusted with green and black slime; rampant infestation by insects and rodents; exposed electrical wiring; crumbling ceilings, falling window panes, and rusted and rotted roofing.” (Compl. at ¶ 2.) In addition, the Complaint alleged that “the inadequate supply of bunks has forced hundreds of inmates to sleep on stretchers amid litter and puddles of water.” (Compl. at ¶ 3.) As noted above, Essex County opened a new corrections facility in early 2004 on Doremus Avenue in Newark, where all County inmates are housed. The Jail Facilities that instigated this litigation are no longer in operation.
1 I have had litigation involving these facilities going back to 1982, but the earlier cases have since been dismissed, e.g., Essex County Inmates v. Collier, Civ. No. 82-1945 (D.N.J. 1982).
2

Case 2:87-cv-00871-HAA-ES Document 124 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 3 of 6
On Friday, January 26, 2007, I visited the new 800,000-square-foot Essex County Correctional Facility (“ECCF”), accompanied by my law clerks. Also in attendance were counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants, as well as my Special Masters and Essex County Executive Joseph Divincenzo. Upon arrival, the Director of the ECCF and his senior level staff provided a formal introduction to the facility and its inner workings. In our visit to the ECCF, I observed virtually all aspects of the facility, namely those parts related to habitation, medication, recreation, sanitation, food service, and access to the courts, including the law library. On each and every element, I found the ECCF to be eminently adequate to the task at hand and run by absolute professionals with considerable experience in the corrections business. All told, I was highly impressed with both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the facility. Gone completely were the “horrifying, inhumane and utterly intolerable conditions” that plagued the Jail Facilities as alleged in the Complaint filed in 1987. (See Compl. at ¶ 2.)
With respect to the proposed TCCO, I am cognizant that it suggests, in effect, a sixmonth hiatus after which time this case would be formally closed, but would remain subject to reopening for an additional six months. But I believe that the PLRA prevents me from approving the proposed TCCO both in its present constitution and any conceivable future formulation.
The PLRA provides a district court guidance in navigating the labyrinth of managing prison systems. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c)(1) addresses consent decrees, such as the proposed TCCO, by declaring that “[i]n any civil action with respect to prison conditions, the court shall not enter or approve a consent decree unless it complies with the limitations on relief set forth in subsection (a).” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c)(1). Section 3626(a) provides the requirements for granting prospective relief, namely that “[t]he court shall not grant or approve any prospective
3

Case 2:87-cv-00871-HAA-ES Document 124 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 4 of 6
relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a).
The proposed TCCO only addresses the “occasional” overcrowding problem that has recurred from “time to time.” (R&R at 2.) The proposed TCCO does not, unlike the SCCO, address anything related to plumbing, bedding, sanitation, recreation, visitation, food service, legal access or safety. Apparently, the parties are in agreement that such violations have not occurred in even an occasional manner sufficient to warrant continued oversight by the Court. I am in full agreement with the parties in this regard.
The proposed TCCO, however, expressly declares that “the parties agree that this modified Order is appropriate as the least intrusive remedy for currently existing conditions and practices affecting the constitutional rights of plaintiffs that warrant continuing injunctive and declaratory relief, specifically to relieve existing or threatened overcrowding at the ECCF [Essex County Correctional Facility].” (TCCO at 1.) Although the proposed TCCO never specifically cites the PLRA, which unequivocally controls my consideration of the proposed TCCO, the quote from the previous sentence appears to be a somewhat oblique reference to the statutory language. Nevertheless, I hasten to note that I have never been provided with any documentation regarding what exactly the “existing or threatened overcrowding” currently is at ECCF. On the contrary, on the day I toured the facility, it was well below its 2,200 person capacity by nearly 90 persons. Moreover, the ECCF’s average daily prisoner population for 2006 was 2,081, again well below capacity.
Notably, Congress enacted the PLRA “to end the federal courts’ perceived micro-
4

Case 2:87-cv-00871-HAA-ES Document 124 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 5 of 6
management of our nation’s prisons.” Para-Prof’l Law Clinic at SCI-Graterford v. Beard, 334 F.3d 301, 303 (3d Cir. 2003). The PLRA specifically instructs a judge in my position to do only what is necessary to correct a violation of a federal right. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). But I am unable to perceive of any violation of a federal right to be corrected here. As a result, I cannot see how any proposed consent decree could pass the tripartite requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). That is, no consent decree could be sufficiently narrow, extend no further than necessary and be the least intrusive means of correcting a violation of a federal right if there is no federal rights violation in the first place. Therefore, I will not approve the proposed TCCO in this or any other form.
Despite my decision to close this case today, I note that a suit regarding any future violation of a federal right is not foreclosed by the PLRA, as some would argue. Instead, as the Third Circuit noted in Para-Professional in interpreting the PLRA, “if a prisoner is in imminent danger of a constitutional violation, the prisoner has prompt and complete remedies through a new action filed in State or Federal court and preliminary injunctive relief.” Para-Prof’l, 334 F.3d at 304. I am aware that the practical realities–including the state’s abolishment of the Inmate Advocacy Unit of the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender–significantly curtails any chances of successful litigation to protect inmate rights such that aggressive future litigation after the closing of this case is less likely. Such a reality, however, is a consequence of policy decisions within the state government, and clearly not within my jurisdiction to affect in any manner. The basis for this Federal Court’s involvement in a county jail facility–violations of a Federal Constitutional magnitude–has ceased to exist. Therefore, I must release my grasp because there is no longer anything within it.
5

Case 2:87-cv-00871-HAA-ES Document 124 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 6 of 6

I recognize that approval of the proposed TCCO, per all parties’ request, would likely result in the closing of this case in approximately six months. Nevertheless, whatever common sense I have says that I should act now. It is my earnest hope that the County Executive and his staff will continue with the progress they have made and maintain the ECCF as a model for the corrections industry. And so it is my fervent hope that the legendary Phoenix that is this case will at last find eternal rest.
Finally, this Court would be extremely remiss if it did not acknowledge the outstanding service of its two Special Masters, Messrs. Bennet Zurofsky and Fred Becker. Mr. Zurofsky has lived with this case and served this Court well since 1982. It is impossible to calculate with exactitude his outstanding service to the Court. Mr. Becker came on board in April 1995. As a lawyer with an outstanding reputation in this State, he has given his time and effort in an exemplary way. The Court is grateful to both of these gentleman.

Conclusion and Order For the foregoing reasons, the proposed Third Consolidated Consent Order is hereby NOT APPROVED. In addition, this case is hereby DISMISSED and the Clerk shall mark this case CLOSED.

Newark, New Jersey Dated: February 5, 2007

/s/ Harold A. Ackerman U.S.D.J.

6

 
 , ,~ (" ;: '.--;.
!.~.~ -. , - - - .-

!~ THE TJHITED STATES DISTRIct COU~,!,
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

f!Jq
/ 'I

T I

E.5SEX c::.::rI'Y .]";_::. Jo....\.fN::::::{
IN¥2\TES, C:JR:::::"! W::::SS I THOJA'_~
~_:t."10TJR, : :.:::DGIC:< W. BOOKER,
JAl-f.ES SI1-!Otf , RCN,."l.LD MCCL.ENI)ON, : ROSETTA C~~XZ, CANDAC~
JOHNSON, ?OS~~IND ROBINSON, On
Eehal f c: The=sclves and All
O~her Persons Similarly S i t u a t e o::::,

CIVIL NC . 87 -5"7!.

FILED

'.US - [,
AT~_;.':'1' ~_ •• •••• • • •••••• •• "I\~ WIUIAM T. WALSH CLERK

Plaintiffs, v.

Eon. Harold A. Acker.man

:

U.S.D .J.

NICHOLAS ;...:.~_TO, County

Executive, TEO~_~S THOMPSON,

Acting A~ini5t=ator, THO~~ : Frederic Becker, Special Master

GIBLIN, ;res ident, Essex County Bea rd of Chose n

Bennet Zurofsky, Special Master
:

,

F=e~holcers, C~_~D ELL COOP~,

ADRI}.-NNE DAVI S I PEARL BE..?;.TTY,

JOEN }'..LJ.":'I , Jll..l~.5 Col;.Vil.NAUGE,

}._'t{Th-u'"R C"_;Y and MONROE JAY.

:

LITSTE}'..DS , Me!I!.be rs Es sex

Ccunty Bcare of Chosen

Freeholders, £M7LY W~BER,

Ac~ing Director, Depc-~ent of :

Public Se:ety, end Their

Successors in Office ,

:

Individually and in Their

Official capacities ,

:

WILLL'l;.M E. FAull"E....~,
Commissicner, New Jers ey Dep2.~--:iler:t of ccrrect:.ions,
Defendants.

:
:
SECOND CONSOLIDAT;D : CONSENT ORDER
:

:

ESSEX cot~ JAIL

CIVIL NO. 82-1945

IN¥_~TES, aUsSEL WATSON, STACY :

DAVIS, S;'lruEL BROWN, ROBERT

GAMBLE, O.l.NI E!.. RAw'"LS, J. C.

:

MILES, S;30N S?~NCE, CHARLES

F;_~, K~:r= E~IS, WILLIE

:

J::NKINS , ::~_'1A.:.\f F")"..R..t{rS ,

·..

r

JAH£S Ei3...QY , and. JOF_"l Sr,.y,

On Behalf of Themsalves and

All O~~e~ Psrscns Similarly

Si tua t ed ,

Plaintiffs , v.

Hon. Barold A. Ackerman

NICHOLAS A¥~TO, County

~xecutive, THOMAS TSOMPSON,

Acting Administ~ator, THOMAS

GIBLIN , President , Essex

County Board of Chosen

:

Freeholders, CARDELL COOPER,

ADRIANNE DAVIS, PEARL BEATTY,

JOHN· }'...LATI, JA,11ES c..~VANAUGH,

ARTHUR CL/l.Y and MONROE JAY

LOSTBADER, Me!Dbers Essex

County Board of Chosen

:

Freeholders, E¥~LY w~ER,

Acting Director, Department of

Public Safety, and The ir

Successors in Office ,

:

Individually and in Their

Official Capacities,

:

U.S.D.J. Frederic Be~~er, Soecial Master Bennet Zarofsky, Specia~ · Haster

and

:
WILLL2I..M s: _ FAUVER I

commissioner, New Jers e y

:

Oepartment of Corrections,

Defendants.
------------------------:

Subject

Ta ble of Contents of Second C onsolidated Co nsent O r der for Essex C oun ty Jail and Essex County J ail Annex

I.

Population and Housing at the ECl ...............• • ......••. . ....... 2

A. Maximum Capacity . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . .....•....... • • .. . ...... 2

B. Removal of State Sentenced lrunates ... . . .... . ......• . . . . . ...... 3

C. Adj ustments to Maxium Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -:. ; . .. . ..... 3

D. Contingency Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •• .... 4

E. Waiver of Future Population Increases and Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

II. Population and Housing at the EClA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . .....•.... 4 A. Maxiurn Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... '. ' . . . .... • •.....• . .... 4 B. Capacity Reductions .... ..... ..... ..... ..... .. •..... . . . .... 7 C. Replacement Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . .... • .. .... 8 D. Acquisition of Temporary Housing Units ....• . . . ...••. . ... • . . .. .. 8 E. Relocatable Confinement Facilities (RCFs) .. . ... . ....... . .. . ..... . 9 F. Women's Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . • . ... . . 9 O. Emergency Authority to Exceed the ECJA Maximum Capacity ... . ..... IO H. No Additional Housing Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 1. Adjustments to Maxium Capacity .............. . ........ . ..... 11

Ill. Notice Provisions Applicable to the ECl and EClA

11

A. Notice that the ECl or ECl A is Over Capacity . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . .. 11

IV. Standards for Living Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 A. . Sleeping Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •. .. .... ... . . . .•. . . .... 12 B. Minimum Safeguards fo r Dormitories ...........•... . .. •• .... . . 12 C. Living Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . • .....•........•. . .... 13 1. Single BunIOng 2. Cell ·Dimensions 3. Existing Cells at ECJA 4. Cell Contents 5. Donn Dimensions 6. Items Provided in Dormitories D. Personal Hygiene ... . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • • . . . . . .. 15 E. Dayroom and Eating AIeas ..... . ....•...... . ......•• .. ..... 16
v. Special Use Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 16
A. Commitment to Establish and Maintain Special Use Housing ...... . ... 16 B. Intake and Admissions ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . ..... . 17 C. Medical Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 D. Close Custoday and Observation Unit ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 E. Detention Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . .. 17 F. Classification ...... . _ ...... _ .. . . ... _ . .. _ .. _ . ... _ . __ . _ . . _ 18

Subject

Table of Contents of Second Consolidated Consent Order for Essex County Jail and Essex County Jail Annex (continued)

VI. Services and Programs ..... .... .....•...•....•... . .....• . . ..... 18 A. Recreation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . .. 18 B. Telephone Usage ........... • ....•....• . ..... .. -, ; . . . . . . .. 19 C. Visitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ..... . ....... .. ... .. . .. ..... 20 D. Law Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... .. ... 20 E. Effect of a 72 Hour Emergency on Provision of Services ... ... ..•.... 21

VII. Food Service .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . 21 A. Food Quality ... ..... .. . . ... . . .. . . ... .. .. . . . • .. . ..... ... 21 B. Dietician Review ... . .. . . . ••.........•. . .... ,' ... ....•.... 22 C. Special Diets .... . .. ......... . .•....•.... .. .• . .....•.... 22 D. Temperatures ... . ........... .. .•...••... ... ••• .. ... ... .. 23 E. Kitchen Workers ' Clothing ... . ... .. .. .•. . .•. . . ..... . . . . .... 23

VIII. Control and Elimination of Infestation ..........•. .. •...•. .. ...... . .. 24 A. Comprehensive Pest Control Program ... . . . ...•... . . .... . .... . . 24

IX. Fire Safety ......... . ... ... .... .... ... .. .......•......•..... 2S A. State Fire Safety Inspection . ..... ... ..• ... .• . .. ... .... •.. ... 2S B. County Fire Inspections .... .... . . ....•.... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S C. Fire Safety Systems . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . 2S D. Fire and Emergency Evacuation Plan . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 E. Fire Prevention Standards ....... . ....•. ..• ... •... . . . .. ... .. 27 F. Sanctions Re: Fire Safety .. .... .... ...• ... ....•... . . .•...... 27

X. Maintenance and Repair Requirements .. .. ..... . ... • ... • .. ....•...... 27 A. Physical Plant Maintenance at the Eel ... ..... ...• .. .... . .. . . .. 27 B. Short-Term Maintenance at the ECl ....• . .......•......... . ... 28 C. Maintenance Standards at the EClA ... . . . . .. .. .... . . ...• ... ... 29 D. Preventive Maintenance at the EelA ........ . ...... . ...... . .... 31 E. Comprehensive Physical Plant Repair Plan at the EClA ... ...• . ...... 32 F. Adequate Staffing for Maintenance and Repair ..... . ...... . •.. . ... 32

XI. Housekeeping ......... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ...... .. .... . ". 33 A. Written Housekeeping Plan ."" .••. .. . ... .. . .. •.. .... ... ... .. 33

\ , (

ii

Sub ject

Table of Contents of Second Consolidated Consent Order for Essex County Jail and Essex County Jail Annex (continued)

XII. XIII.

Bedding, Laundry and Clothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .. . ... .. ... ... 35

A. Bedding, Laundry and Clothing Plan ..... . ... .. . .. . . ..... ... . .. 35

B. Bedding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . ...-. •.. . . .... 35

1. Quality of Mattresses

2. Mattress Storage and Cleaning

3. Mattress Survey and Replacement

C. Laundry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

1. Laundry Procedures

2. Linesn

3. Blankets

4. Pillows and Mattresses

5. Towels

6. Outside Laundry Used

D. Clothing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . 36

1. Proper Clothing

2. Items of Clothing

3. Laundering of Clothing

a. Underwear and socks

h. Outer Clothing

c. Sleepwear

d. Personal Clothing

Medical Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 36

A. Organization of Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 36

B. Medical Staff Licenses and Accreditation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 37

C. Doctor and Nursing Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . •. .. . • .... 38

D. Intake Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .• . . . . •.... 38

E. Sick Call .....................•....... • . ...... . .... . ... 40

F. Medication ... .. ... . .......... •. ... . . . •. ... . .• . .... . ... 42

O . Clinics and Infirmaries ......••... • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 42

H. Consultations and Referrals ...•• . . . ..... . . • . . . . ... • . .. . •. . . . 42

I.

Surgery .. . ...... ........••.. •. . .. .. . •..... . . . .. . . . . ... 43

J.

Dental Care . . . . . . . . . . . . ..••. . . . . . . . . . • ... . . ..•... .. . . .. 43

K. AIDS and Chronic Illnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . . . . 44

XIV . Comprehensive Staffing Analysis and Plan . . .. . . . . . . . . .... . . • .....•... 45 A. Staffing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . ...•... . 45

iii

/-
\
Table of Cont ents of Second Consolid ated Consent Order for Essex Cou nty Jail and Essex Coun ty Jail A nne~ (continued)
Subject

XV . Alternatives to Incarceration Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . ... 45 A. Reports on ISP and Community Service Programs ........•....•• . .. 45 B. Pre-Trial Supervision and Services Program ........... _•....•.... 45 I. Non-Profit Bail Bond Agency 2. Residential Substance Abuse Program 3. Custodial Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program C. Sentencing Project ...... ... ....... .. .... . . . ...•... . . .... . 46

XVI. Project Coordination ... . ...••...••.. . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . 46

XVII. Sanctions ........................ . ...... .. . . . : ..•• ... . ... .. 46 A. Sanctions on Maximum Capacity Violations . . . . . . . ....• . . . . . . . . . . 46 I . Automatic Sanctions ....... .. . . . .. ........ . ... ... .... 46 2 . Sanctions During Emergency Situations .. ......•. ... •• . .... 47 3. Notice to Seek to Mitigate or Defer Sanctions ...... ....... .. 47 4. Plan to Address the Emergency ........... .... ....• .. ... 47 B. Sanctions on Services, Programs and Procedures Violations . .. ... ..... 47 1. Automatic Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . 47 2. Hearing on Sanctions ................... .. .....•. . ... 47 C. Use of Sanctions ... ...... . ... . .... .. . . .....•••... . •... . . 48 1. Monitoring and Compliance Purposes . . . . . . . .•• . ... . •..... 48 D. Sanction Proceedings .. .. ....................••....••..... 48

XVIII. A.
B.
C. D.

Jurisdiction, Access and Monitoring ..... .•.. .....••.. . . .• ..... 49 Jurisdiction ..... ... ............ .•••• .. .... •.....••..... 49 1. Coun's Jurisdiction ..... . ..... ... ...... . ...... .. ..... 49 2. Partial Dismissasl ..... . ... ... .. . . . . . . . . .. .. ..• . .... . 49 Access to the EeJ and EClA and Relevant Documents ......••. . .... 49 Monitoring Reports ..... . ........... .... . . . ....... _ • _ . .... 49 Compliance .. .. ... . ...... . ............. . . . ...... ••. . . .. 49 I. Full Compliance ... . _ . . ..• .. .•••.... . . . ••....•...... 49

iv

a wc~.~;s, ~~e C~u~ has direc~ed ~~e pa~ies t= e~~er in~~
S~c~nd ' Cc~sc:idatec Ccr.sen~ Order t.~at incorpc=~~es all t3e
parties' c'...!::!.u.!.=.tive rights a~d obligations in the pr;'l::'~'.!s consent
c=~e=s in ~~is case; and

wn~~~~, ~~is Second Consolidated Consent Order incorporates all t.~e righ~s and obligaticns of t.~e following consent or=ers and agreements in ~~e consolidated case Essex CountV' Jail Inmates v. Amato, and Essex County Jail Annex Inmates v. hrnat;:

1. Consolidated Consent Order ("CCO") (ente.:::ed January 5,
1990); and

2. S.aco:ld Consolidated Consent Order ("2CCO") (exec'.!ted by t3e parties in Oc~ober and Nove!Ilber 1992 but never exec'.!ted or entered by t.~e Court); and

~~, this Second Consolidated Consent Order inco~orates

all the rights and obligations of the following consent orders in

Essex County Jail Inmates v. Amato:

.

1. Consent Judgment (lfCJII) (entered October 14, 1982);

2. Supplemental Consent Order Modifying and Amending the Consent Jud~ent of october 14, 1982 ("SC01") (entered February 4,
1985);

3. SUDole~ental Consent Order Modifying and Amending the Consent Jucgwent of Octob~ 14, 1982 ("SC02") (entered April
22, 1987);

4. Third SUDDlemental Consent Orde::- ("SC03") (entered December 27, 1988); and

w"~REAS, this Second Consolidated Consent Order incorporates
all the rights and obligations of the following consent orders in Essex County Jail Annex Inmates v. Amato:

1. Settlement Agreement between County Defendants and Plaintiffs ("SA") (entered November 4, 1987);

2. Conse.nt Order Eet-..een County Defendants and Plaintiffs ("CO") (entered November 23, 1987); and

3. Second Consent Order ("C02") (entered April17, . l989); and

wM~REAS, the facilities at the Essex County Jail (ECJ) and the Essex County Jail Annex (ECJA) continue to be inadequate to meet the terms of this Second Consolidated Consent Order (2CCO at 2);
and

1

. 'J • I !.

,"; . .~:~~~~ti:~(.t~·.~,:~

.'. :.{~t~~ .:':' .". ,.... . ,

, "'. ' '! ,

.;~ . :: -

'." , ."

W-~~~, ~~is , Second C=nsolicat ed Consent Orde~ resolves

plainti£:::s I cla.i:1S for injunc"":i·,.e and declarat=~ re~ief; 2.!1c.

W-~~, ~~e following provisions shall be bind~ng upon ~~e p~ies and thei= successors in of:::ice and shall be e~£orce~le as
an order of the COlL..-t;

IT IS THEREFORE AGaE~, as follows:

I. Poculation and HousioO' at the Essex Count,., Jail (::CJ\'

A. Maximum Caoacitv at the ECJ

1- 594 Inmates: The maximum capacity of ~'1e ECJ is 594 inmates (C1 at 4; ceo at 4; seDl at 2-3; SC02 at 1; seo) at 3, 15) .

2. Housinc unit CaDS: The county shall house ~~e following number of inmates in each of following housing units at the ECJ:

a. General Population Cells: no more than 1 inmate in the 464 general population cells on the third through eleve..'1th floors (CO at 4);

b. Detention Cells : no more than 1 inmate in ~l:le 8 detention cells on the fourt..'l through eleYenth floors (eJ at
4);

c. Quiet Cells: no more than 1 inmate in each of the 3 "t'"..elfth floor "quiet cells" (CJ at 4);
d. Discioliparv Cells: no more than 1 inmate in each of the S t'"...elfth floor disciplinary cells with toilets (CJ at 4);

e. Civil Area on 12try Floor: no more than 2 inmates in each of the 5 cubicles of the twelfth floor civil area (CJ at 4);

f .. Tie::- Han Dorm: no more than 6 inmates in the t'".o1elfth floor ntier man" dorm (c:I at 4);
q. Second Floor Hart,: no more than 48 inmates in the nor...n.side second floor dormitory (CJ at 4); and
h. Second Floor South: no more than 50 inmates in the southside second floor dormitory (CJ at 4).
3. Limited ~uthoritv to Exceed caoacitv In Periods of
Eme~enc'r

a. 72 Hour Emeraencv caDacitv: During periods of emergency
and on immediate notice by telephone to plaintiffs' counsel and subsequent written notice to the Special Mas~ers and all
parties, the county defendants may house up to 3S additional

2

• <'

<--- inma '!:~S ace-Ie
t!'lan 72 hcu=s anc ...

C~~ a~ the EC~ for peric~s cf r.:: mere i.e were t~an fou~ times . ~ a"y 1:cr::::!1.

("seDl at 4 ).

b. E::1ercenc'" Si t':.1a '=! en Qe f ~ ned. : The emergency s:" =1.:.2. '=.'::"cr: mus~
invclve an event suc!1 as a fire I disasi:er I =:" ot, or t!1e unex=ec~ed or unforeseeable closina of a jail or =~~ t~ereof,
but shall net include any situatio~ caused by fl'::::"t':.laticns in inmate population associated with criminal jus~i=e prac"tices,
prosecutorial policies, 1a''''' enforce!!l.ent ac"t.ivities I c~anges in criminal laws , changes in judicial sentencing ~atte~s , or a
reduc"tion in or the te~ination of any program o!;=eratect ~n t-~e County to provide or assist in providing, pre-tr:"al r:!lease or
non-custodial dis?osition alternatives (SeQ3 at 16).

4. DayrooIDs: The ECJ dayrooms shall not COUSe inmates overn~gnt. Eoweve~ , in an e~ergency sit~ation as defined above, this practice is pe~it~=d fer a total of no more than 72 hours a
week (Co! at 4).

5. Mattresses and Cots: The County shall not place
mattresses on ~~e floer for sleeping or use c~ts without mattresses. However, in an emergency, ~~is practice is pe~itted for a total of no more ~~an 72 h o urs a week (CJ at 4 ) .

B. Removal of State- Sentenced Inmates at the Eel

1. State Re!!\oval of State- Sentenced Inmates Over Cao: commissioner Fauve~ agrees to remove any state-sentenced inmates who cause the ECJ population to exceed 594 inmates (CJ at 4).
c. Ad;us~ents t o Maximum Cao2.citv

1. Unusable Cells or Bunks: The capaci ty of each floor or
housing unit at the ECJ shall be reduced by the number of cells or bunks that are unusable or inoperable for any reason, including any cell in which the sink or toilet has been inoperable for an
unreasonable period of time unless suitable access to sink or toilet facilities has been arranged (SC01 at 5).

2. HousinO' in Infirmary or Detention Areas: The ECJ" s ma.xi.mum capacity may re!!lain unchanged if the numbe.!." of inmates appropriately housed in the infirmary or detention areas equals or exceeds the number of bunks which cannot be used (SCD1 at 5).
J. Notice of Reduced Caoaci tv: When any cells or bunks cannot be used tor more than a 30 ciay period, the County shall notity plaintiffs' counsel and the Masters every 30 days in writing, and shall identify the cells, the reduced capacity of the particular tloors or units, and the number of inmates held daily in the ECJ"s infirmarf and detention areas during the previous 30 day p.eriod (SC01 at 5).

3

4. Ne'!; ::''::: cf pcc;;!3.t i -::n eve;- C.acac~,;v! when e'la= t::'; EC.J co_u:'!,':::'-::n exceecs 594 inmat:es fer more: t;:an 4 days, =.!'le C:::unty s!lall l::u:Je-=.~at::!ly notify 't-'1e C:::l!== and plain=:'ffs' c:::unsa!. by tale~hcn e ane =e:ques~ a prompt hearing t~ reduce ~~e ECJ t:ocula'Ci en . A~ 'C.."lis hearing , tJ.'te Ccunt:v shall re!Jo~ t= t:!le Court
~~ t ot3 ! ECJ pe~ulation and whe= e and in what nuMbers inmates are
c~nfined c=nt=a~! t o thi s Consent Orde=. This report shall include ~e inmates' c~ar; es, bail, le~~~ of confinement, s~at~s of their court proceedings , related matters, and recommendations, if any, regarcing who may be safely released or t=ansferred fr=m the ECJ_ The Court shall ~~e~ enter an appropriate order (CJ at 5- £)_
D. contiocepcv Pl an
1_ Cont inc encv Plan in PIe ce: To avoid the need for proceedings for sanctions, the County shall have a contingency plan in place to ensure ~"'at the County can comply wi t.:'1 the ECJ's maximUlil capacity and program require!!l.ents of this Consent Orde~ even if unforeseen circumstances make compliance more difficult than originally expected (CeO at 4; SC03 at 3; C02 at 2)_
E. waive: of Future Poculation Inc~e:s es and Agregment
1. No Population C:o Increases at ECJ: In exchange for the plaintiffs' agree~ent to allow the ECJ po pulatio n to exceed the 594 maximum c apacity by 42 inmates from February 1, 1 985 to April 30, 1986, the county shall not seek or implement, at any time or for any r eason, any fur-o-her population increase at ~'1e ECJ even if presented with unanticipated, emergent or unforeseeable cir~~~ances (SC01 at 5)_
2 _ Re'!:lort of Future Poculati o n Needs : The County shall submit to the Special Masters, t'1e Court, and plaintiffs a report, by July 1, 1985 and December 1, 1985, that states the steps taken to meet any present and future needs for additional inmate housing to reduce ECJ overcrowding. This report shall provide a clear slnnmary of existing plans and expected timetables (SC01 at 6) •
.II.,.._PQ'QulatioD and Bousine at the Essex Countv Jail Annex (ECJA)l
A. Maximum Capacity at the ECJb
1- 729 Inmates: The ECJA maximum capacity is 627 male inmates and 102 female inmates_ The total maximum capacit.y is 729 inmates (C02 at 3).
2_ caoacitv Not To Be Exceeded: The County shall not admit inmates in excess of the maximum capacity and shall not allow the ECJA population to exceed 729 inmates at any time unless authorized by ~~is Agree~ent ( SA at 5 ) _
4

• J. Ec u sinc Unit c~c s : The ECJA housing unit c~;s a -o.~

We s t Wine' c e l l bl ock

c :!l s

Bu n k s

G!"::s s Bed s

A B
C
0 E F
G
Ii
Subt otal

18
18
18
18
18 18 18 18 144

1

18

1

18

1

18

1

18

1

18

1

18

1

18

1

18

1.44

East Wine Dorms :

Dorms Bunks

Gros s Be ds

6

20

120

Satellite 1: Re l ocateable Confine ment Facilitv CRCF \ Unit

A Donn B C.Hb1ac]c
c Cellblock
0 Cellblock E OarolS
F Cellblock
G cellblock Ii Cellblock
K Cellblock Subtotal

Cells
12 12 12
12 12 12 12 84

J:!O :clll;2 4
4
a

~YDks
3
1 1 1
3
1 1 1 1

$Z;r:o s s :e~ds 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
loa

s a tellite 2 : (Wo men's Buildino)

A
B
c
0 E F
Sut!:t2t al

Cells 17 17 17 17 17 17
102

:eunk::;
1
1 1 1
1 1 102

Grolii s :eed~
17 17 17 17 17 17 102

1 The plaintiffs have attempted to portray accurately the population caps in the following housing areas. It is not the plaintiffs' intention to alter any of the capacity requirements of prior con~ent orders.
5

. .

Satell ite ; (!.o we:- Unit~ and 4 (:;:;me:- Ucit\: Mobile !::::Iate Unit
CM!U \:l

12 in~a~=s in each ti2~; Sut~~tal: 192 beds

Sat=11ite 5 (Modular Housing Oni~ )l

S2 inmates in each of 4 quads; Subtotal: 208 bees

Male (Weekend use only) l. - Tailor Shop 2 - Shoe Shcp SubtQta!

Dorms
1 1
2

Bunks 30 30 60

G!"oss Beds 30
-3"0
60

Tota ls:

Cells Dorms

G:-oss Beds

Male Cells
Male Dorms
Male Total

228

312

14

168

576

Female Cells

102

102

Fe.!!1ale Total

102

Grand Total

330

35

678

4. Reus ina Unit C20 Not Exceeded : The population of any housing unit shall at no time exceed its maximum capacity (SA at
7) •

5. 95% Canaci ty: The County· shall make every effort to
insure that the population of each housing unit does not exceed 95% of its capacity (SA at 7).

6. Reoort of J ail Peoulation and Capacjtv: Every 2 weeks, the County shall file a report with plaintiffs' counsel setting
forth the EC3A's daily population count at 12 a.m. for each day of
the preceding t"',olO we~'Ic. period, separately listing tbe number of
inmates beld in. ~ach. housing unit set forth above (SA at 8).
7. SioC'le::':BunJdng: .only one inmate may be housed in each of the ECJA's usable ge..'''1eral..,.popu.lation cells. (C02 at 5; SA at 5).

8. Double-Bunkina: As of August 1, 1990, the county may no

:I This housing unit was not covered by any prior consent agres:'!Ilent because it did not exist at the time of the prior agreements .
:. This housing unit was not covered by any prior consent order because it did not e.."Cist at the time of the prior agreeme..."'1ts.
6

--;. ';'J,::J:: ,~.

-:

,~--

10nqe=

(C~2 · at 5; 2'::::0 at ";).

9. Dc uble-;ur.k Rezor::s: The C~unt:r shall mai·n~~in :-ec:Jrc.s to identi!y t...'te cells wib c.c~l.e bunks , t!le inmates c::nXl.nec. in douele-bunked cells, and ~~e c.ates of ~~eir confine~ent (SA at 29 ) .

10. P:-ooer- Classific<!"':ion: In all housing units, inmat.es shall be appropriately classified based on ~~eir s~atus as detainees or sentenced inmates, or based on safety, security, or medical reasons (C~ at 7; SA at 5 ) .

11. BausiDe Stander-as: In all housing units, t.~e -CO"l!r.ty sball comply wit...'t all the minimum require~ents of t~is Agreement, including space require~ents (SA at 5).

a. C=-oacitv Reductions
redUC~~l0 1. Caoacitv Reductions in the ECJA: The County shall
the max.i!num capacity in the Ec.:TA from 747 males to 627 males an ~Vf

from 162 females to 102 females, as follows (C02 at 3):.

~

a. East Wincr The County shall reduce the maximum capacity in
the East Wing from 180 male inmates to 120 male inmates (40 inmates per floor, with 20 inmates per dorm) to provide at le~s~ 45 square feet of living space per inmate and 35 square feet of dayroom space pe~ inmate (C02 at 3).

b. West Wina The County shall not, under any circ:.ImStances, locate inmate beds in the cellblock corridors of the West Wing. This reduces the ECJA capacity by 72 inmates (C02 at :3; S}.. at 3).

c. Hale Satellite Unit The County shall use the Hale Satellite Onit only for male inmates sentenced to wee..ltend confinement. The maximum capacity in this unit is 60 inmates. The number of inmates housed in this unit shall not be counted in the Annex's general population counts (C02 at 3).

d. Women's Buildjng (Satelljtg 2) The County shall eliminate the housing areas in the baseMent of the Women's Building, convert this space to provide indoor active recreation, and reduce the maximum. capacity for the Women's Buildinq from 1.62 to 102 (C02 at 3-4).

e. Closina o~ Hew Wino The County shall per:anently close the New Wing on August 1, 1990 and shall cease housing inmates in that building on that date. This reduces the EC.J"A. capacity by 297 inmates (CO at 11; SA at 4).
q . "Q",u..t. ~"o"f~.S..5e.:.y""",,,·c..e~-,B"eg"_,,,·5~ The County shall reduce the ECJA maximum. capacity by the number of non-r.olorking cells or unusable bed space in any housing unit. For example, the

7

,

."~)~!;:';jr"~:)~~~~~,~< .

.'I!I ' •

'.. ."

, ..... ",. ~

unusa!:!..e: ' bee :" s-;;'ace in t..'"le St.a~= t=aile!"s rec.:":==5 t.b.e ECJA

c~pac:' -=y by 60 in!:lates. Max::"::lu:ur. c.=.pac: -:.y s::.:.!.l . also be

reduce":' !:v ar-v cells or becs lis~=c:. as Qut-o"i-sE:="rice on t..'1e ECJA's Daily Population Sheet, and by any additic~=! numbe= of

cells desicnated, as a result of craceedincs before t..'1e Mast2=s, as~ non-',",orking or non-use.:.bie due to ~ a ncn-c....orking

sink or t~ilet or a broken window (C02 at 4i S~ at 3).

C. Re~l~ceme~t Housinc

1. Ne~... Mcdul~r Unit (Satellite 5): The county 5~all acquire a modular hcusing unit with at least 200 beds to be lc=ated-at the ECJA . These beds shall be considered replacement !:eds for the housing unit reduc~ions set fo~~'1 above (C02 at 4).
a. Dou~le Bunkina: The County may employ doub~=-bunking in
t-~e cells of t-~is unit, provided the · cells meet s~ate require~ents for single cell occupancy and provided that the common space (including showers, dayrooms, eati~g area, and recreation areas) meets state requirements for t-~e · number of occupants in the housing unit (C02 at 4).

b . Ad"iustment to Maximum Caoacitv: Upon appl':'cation, the ECJA's maximum capacity may be increased by 90% of t-~e number of beds in satellite 5. The county may apply to use this additional bed-space only to restore the total ECJ"A capacity to a 747 male maximum capacity (C02 at 4).
D. Ac=uisition of Temoorarv Housincr units

1. Trai ! ers (Satellites 3 and · 4' : By April 3, 1990 I the County shall complete the cons~~ction of trailer facilities which will house 192 inmates on a temporary basis (CCO at 5).

a. Comoliance With State Recruirements: The t=ailer units shall meet s~te requirements for occupancy for 192 inmates, including the provision of showers, bathroom facilities, dayrooms, eating areas, and rec=eation areas (CCO at 6);
b. Diswissal of Sanctions Imoosed: Upon completion of the t:'aile::- units, the County may seek dismissal of the $~,905,300 in san~ions that the Court imposed for popul.ation violations. If the county fails to complete the trailer program as specified above, the plaintiffs may se~k an or~er requiring the County to deposit immediately $~,905,300 in an interest bearing account that the special Masters will a~nister, and plaintiffs may seek additional Court sanctions (ceo at 6):

c_ Ad"iustment to Capacitv: Upon the completion of the
t=ailer units, the parties may apply to the Court to adjust the EC1A ' s maximum. capacity upward by the number of beds which the t=ailer units .provide or dowuward by the nUlilbe::- of beds

8

.-
a:loc~~=c by p=icr c=nsa~~ ==je~s t= hcus~ng ur.:~s wh~c~ ara
c:.csac., t::::l be cl .... :ied, or c~:::=r..;ise u:lusac.. ecce ~::. 6; C02 at
1) .
2. 5e-=--=i o 05 Clos?'; if 8e'lcnC Renai;;: The Count'I s~all close those sec--=ions of ~~e ECJA ~~a~ are beyond reasonable repair and sha~l reduce ~~e population su=ficient t~ mest the ta=ms of this Agree~ent. The county shall ac~ire te~porary hous~~q units for the population that mus't re!llai:;. incarcerated.. The County shall maint~in contingency plans to i~plement ~~is paragraph (SA at 30).
E. Relccate:ble Confineme~t facilities (RCFS) ( ;etel~ite 1)

1. Renlacement or Reoair: By January 1, 1993, the County shall decide whether to replace or repair Satellite 1, also knO':.ll1 as the ReFs.
2. Fac~ors to Consider: The County shall base its decision on an outside consultant's evaluation of th.e usefulness of the RCF's, taking into account the County's obligation to end doub1.ebunking of these units, the nesc. to repair the ReFs to provide safe and sanitary housing for inmates, the County's obligation to add fire safety measures to brins- the RCFs into compliance with applicable regulations and the Court Order Finding the County De~a~cants in Conte~pt, enterec August 3, 1989 (2CCO at 4).
F. women's Eousino

1. Plan to Reduce ove;-c;-owdina in Women's cousino: To increase available bed space and reduce the ECJA female population, the county shall do the following:
a. Notice to Deoartment of COrrections: The County sha~l immediately notify the Department of Corrections whenever a state-sentenced fe!llale irmate is eligible for transfer to s~ate custody (C02 at 5);
b. Renovation of petention Cellblock: The County sha1.~ renovate the cellblock used for disciplinary confinE!!llent in the Woma~'s Building so at least 10 of the 17 cells may be used for general population inmates (C02 at 5);

c. Indoor Rec;-eation Arel!: The County shall convert one base!Dent unit in the Women's Building into an indoor active rec=eation area for woma~ inmates (C02 at 5);

d. RenovatioD of Base:gent for LivinO" SPace: The County shall

renovate the other basement unit in the Women's Building to

provide a living space for up to 25 inmates, provided that the

renovated living unit meets the standards set forth in this

Agreement, · including space requirements.

Once this

renovation is completed, ~~e County may apply t~ modify the

9

.•.•• "" t •

----

"

e. C';:Js"t.=-·c~:';n cf 2;0 Ee'; uri{~: By Nove!!ilie:- 1 , 1994, t-~e C':)I.lr."::! shall c:::ns-::::-..:.c-= a 2=C ced. medula.:- facili-=', t:::= wc:::!"1 at t.~e ::CJA. wt=n t-~is uni~ is ccmple;::ec. , the' C=I.!."'1ty s~all rencvate t.'le c::r:;'an"t Wome!l's Building (2CCO at 3).

G. ;ciercre nC'J ~tuth9r;' tv t;o ;xce~d the rCJ? Maxi:n1.!;': Cacac i tv

1. .3;,uthoritv to Exceod ca;s purine an EmerC'eioC'J: I!l an
emergency situation caused. by a s~dden, reasonably unexpectec and
unforese~=ble event , ~e County may ec=ommodate additicnal inmates in te~pora~J quarters for up to one week , provided t3at:

a. Emercrepc" Situation Defined: The emergency sit:1a:t.ion
involves an e'rent such as fire, disaster, rict , or the
!Jnex;ected or unforeseeable. closing of a jailor a part thereof, but shall not iZlclude any situation caused by
fluC":uations in inmate population associated ......it-;. criminal
justice practices, prosec.ltorial policies, la~ enforce!Oent activities r changes in crainal laws, changes in judicial sentencing pat~erns, or a re.duc~ion in or the te~ination of
any program operated in ~~e county to provide, or assis~ in
providing, pre-t=ial rele=.se or non-cus"t.odial disposition alt~rnatives (SA at 6 ) .

b. Inmates Retain Riahts Under this Agreement : Inmates confined in te~pora-~ quarte=s during an emergency retain all rights to programs, services, and adequate living conditions
set forth in this Agreement (SA at 6).

c. Noti c e t o Plaintiffs: The Administrator shall provide notice to plaintiffs' counse l of any e~ergency declared under thi~ paragraph immediately by telephone and within 24 hours in writing. The notice shall s-:'ate the number of inmates at the ECJA, the ntmber of inmates added by the e!!I.e!:'gency, the locations where these inmates are housed, and the expected
impact on conditions, services or programs available to all inmates (S~ at 6).

2. capacitv Exceeds Limits for Qve~ One Week: If the County
anticipates "the need to exceed the capacity limits for more than one wee.."I(., the County shall notify plaintiffs as soon as practicable
ot the reason for exceeding the c~pacity and its solution to comply
with the population cap (SA at 7).

H. No Additional Eousina Argas

1. Limitations on Use of Additional Areas for Housing: Except in emergencJ situations as defined in this Agreement, the County shall not use other ECJA. areas as housing units and sh.al~ not add beds or bunks to designated housing areas unless the County

10

. j ••• ' : ; , .: .

"1 •• '

.~

secures ~~e a~=ee~e~~ ot pla~~~iffs, . c=unsal and ~~e C===~ssicner

of ccr=ac-=.ions t..,.at t..'le pa=-::.':"culc. ..o erea is usable ar:::' t..'1at ue p=oposec use wi!! comply .i~~ all applic~ble build':"ng ==~es (S~ at

5).

2. Cour;. Resclution of Dis"Outes: T~e parties 1:lay request t!lat t.'le Cour:. resolve any cispute cOrlcer:;.ing whet.'1er a housing area is usable (SA at 5).

J. Corri¢ors: Except in e~eraent situations as defined in this Ac;=ee!llent, the ECJA shall not use corridors for dcrmitories
(S.... at 6).

1. Unusable BausiDe Units or Bee snac!!: Unless t.'lis Aqree!!l.en-c specifically provides other-Jise, the parties shall reduce the ECJA's maximum · capacity by any bed space or complete housing unit removed from USe. Conversely, the parties may inc=ease the ECJA's ma.x.illl.um capacity by the c=eation, renovation, or const--uc-:ion of neW" housing units in accordance with t.'le provisions of this agreement (SA at 6)0
III. Notice P-ovisions Aoolicable to the EGJ and ECJ~
A. Notice t.,at ECJ or ECJh is Ove= caoacitv
1. whenever the population of the ECJ approaches or reaches
the maximum capacity or Whe!1e~re~ the population at the ECJA
reaches 95% of t..'le maximum capacity established in this Agree.!!l.e..'1t, the CO~'1ty shall:
a. Notifv Countv PrQseCJtor and Public Defender: Notify the County Prosecutor and state Public Defender (Essex Region) of this condition and request that review be sought of the bail status of pre-trial detainees to dete-~e it any reductions or conv~sions to R.O.R. status can be made (CJ at 5; SA at
29) ;
b. Notifv Assignment Judaes and Bail Judoej Notify the Assignment Judge I Criminal Assignment Judge and the Eail Judge of this condition so they may take appropriate action to respond to bail reques~ (CJ at 5; SA at 29);
c. Not! fv SentgpciDo Judoes: Notify all judges who have sentenced persons to a te.-"""1!I. of ilIlprisonment in the ECJ or ECJA so they may take appropriate action to reduce sentences tor prisoners whose sentences are about to expire and whose early release would pose no risk to the public (CJ at 5; SA at 29 ) ;
d. Notifv Municipal courts: Notify all municipal courts in Essex county which have local. lock-up facilities and request
11

"
t-'lat pe:E=::S ar=es':.ec be he:c. in t..'1e lcc!<.-!.!'!:s I :-~::.::e!'" t:...~an ~=~ns=e==sc t~ ~~e Ccunty Ja~l (CJ a~ 5; SA a~ 29); anc
e. Net!; ", De!)a:-,,;;nent: of Co:.-= ~-=-:: i OD S ; Nctify t!1e Ne'." Je.::-s&.y
Cepa~en~ of Cor=ec~ions anc re~ue5t ~~e removal of persons
~ho have =een sentenced to t=~ of igcrisonment in t..'1e state ~=isons ?;.c reformatories or held on violations of pa=cle, but not yet:. t=ansterred to the state system (c::J at 5: Sri. at 29).
IV. $tandarcs tor Livinc Conditions
A. Slo~~i~a Conditions (c=~i£ication required )- (C02 at 14-15 )
1. Items Provided: Each inmate shall receive, at a miniMum, a b~~, a mattress, ~~O sheets, tMO blankets, a pillow and a pillow case (SA at 9).
2. No SlQQ~ina on Floor" Required: The county shall not require any inmate to sleep on the floor or on a mattress placed on a floor (SA at 9).
3. Cots and Mattress2S: The County shall. not require any
inmate to sleep on a cot or on a mattress placed on a st=etcher.
Howeve~, in an e~ergency situation as defined in paragraph II ( G),
inmates may be required to sleep on a cot or on a mat~ess placed on a stretcher for a period not to exceed 1 week (SA at 9).
B. Minimum Safeauards for Dormitories
, Senar~tion of Bunks with Solid Partitions: The County shall separate all bunks which abut or touch 't.;ith a solid partition (SC01 at 9).
2. Seocbation bv Maximum Distance: The County shall separate all bunks in the second floor dormitories by the maximum distance possible, but in no event shall there be less than 2 feet be~Meen each bunk (SCCl at 12).
3. Individual Assignment of Bunks: Officers shall assign and maintain bunk spaces (not to include cots) for each inmate and record these assignments in a log (SeCl at 8).
.. In each section of this Aaree!!lent where a certification is required, the County shall certify its compliance with the relevant section and shall support its certification with all available documentation, including all relevant directives, memoranda, correspondence,' purchase orders I requisitions or other documents re1ated to ~~e certified statements.
12

,
4. Lc~ of E CC 5:~C A55:cn~ei.ts : T~e leg c= all c=~ hcus ing
inass:'c::.x:enc5 s!lall i::::::'icate for e=.c:: in=at.=: ( 1 ) t.:te ca y recei'red \:..Se dor:::., (2 ) eac:: day housac. in t..'1e dc::.-:J, ( 3) ·t!;e c.ay t=a;.sfe~=ec out of t.~e d o ~ , anc (4) ~~ e inw e ~= r s l o c~~i o n after t.'1e t=ansfer (SeOl a~ 9 ) .
5. Offer of Si::cle Cell af~e: 45 Oavs: Any inmat.e housed in ~'1e seccne floor cormitories for mere t~an 45 days shall be offered appropriate single cell housing (SeCl at 8).
6. Lichtincr: The County s~all r~ove any improper obs~~ctions on light. fixtures, insure that bulbs are usad~hich are capable of delivering light to the maximug wattage, and replace inoperable lighting fixtures within the time period set fo~~ in ~'1is Agree~ent ( SeCl at 9).
7. Officer Sta::ina: The County shall assign, at all times, a minimum of four officers to ~~e ECJ's secene fl e or to insure inmate safety in the dormitory units (Se01 at 9).
S. Post ~ssignments: The County shall maintain separate posts for each of t..,!e to.Jo dor.ns, the dayroom, and the control center (SeOl at 9 ) .
9. Supmissi o n of Do cuments: The County shall provide plaintiffs' counsel with copies of all incident and disciplinary reports, maintenance requests and repair completion records, involving ~e second floor dormitories and dayroom, and the ~Jelt~~ fleor civil area, until the ECJ population returns to 594 inmates. The repor---s and records for each suc-=ess.ive monthly period (e.g., January 1993 ) shall be "supplied by the firs~ day of the ~ird following month ( e.g., April 1, 1993 ) (SCOl at S).
C. Livjna Conditions
1. Sinale Bunkina: Only one inmate shall be housed in each cell or single occupancy room, except as otherNise authorized in this Agreement (SA at 9).
2. Cell Dimensions: Eac!:J. cell or single occupancy room shall have a floor area of at least 60 square feet (SA at 9).
3. Existina Cells at tGJA: The County may use existing cells at the ECJA if it meets the other provisions of this Aqree~ent, including require~ents for sbowers, toilets, lavatories, ventilation, lighting, maintenance, housekeeping and exte~ation. Neve~~eless, inmates shall not be conrined in these cells for more than 12 hours per day except for disciplinary segregation or, in individual cases, at ~~e disc=etion of the Administ.-ator (SA at 9).
13

, .
'~ 4.

",:. .
eel! · C:::nt<:.~~s: · - ::.!.-=~ s':";;gle ce.:...:.. c= room sha..:...:.. c=::~::!i!1

or provide a~ le:s~ ~~e f=~lowing (Ce~~::ca~.:..on reqc:=ec ) (C~2

at 17-1.a) :

a. <."'.~D.K : a wc=king sink wi~~ hot a~c cold r~nni:lg wa~er (SA at 9, 1J; C02 at 18);

b. Toilet: a _orki~q toilet which can be flushec by t~e inmate (SA at 9, 12; C02 at 18);

c. Showe~s: c:::ntrolled access for 12 hours per day t~ an
area providing shower facilities in a ratio of not less than ~ shower to 15 inmates (SA at 9);

d. Bunk: a bunk (SA at 9);

e. stor~~e Stace: a locker or other s~oraqe space ( SA at
9) ;

f. Liahtina: artificial lighting of at least 30 footcandles at 30 inc~es above the floor. The County shall
install and maintain security lighting fixtures inside each cellblock sufficient to previde adequate light for reading, safety and health (SA at 9 and 20);

c. Air Circulation: Ventilation which circulates at least 10 cubic feet of fresh or purified air per minute with from ~O% to 100% fresh outside air depending on the season (SA at
9) ;

h. Acoustic s : acoustics that ens~r2 noise levels that do not inte=fere with ncr.wal human activities and are no~lly
less than 70 decibels on the A scale (dBA) during the day and 45 dEA during sleeping hours (S~ at 10);

i. Heat and Ventilation: adequate heating and ventilation to prov~ae te~peratures with a normal comfort range (S~ at
10);

j. Access to Desks: cont=olled ac=ess during non-sleeping hours to desks, tables or other furniture suitable for use in reading and writing ( SA at 10).

5. porm Dimensions: Each ne~ dorm or multiple occupancy room shall have a floor area of at least 75 square feet of living space per person, excluding shower and lavatory facilities, and 3S square feet of dayroom space per person. Existing dorms shall have a floor area of at least 45 square feet of living space per person, excluding shower and lavatory facilities, and 3S square teet of dayroom space per person (SA at 10).

14

\ .
•

~f.jl~(~:~~fy?;,~,:~·;~:. .~.~ >:.' '".::. ,'.~.~:,:~:::~ :';'.:- .. '.: ',' _,:",';:'

6. !-:~!!!S p;=v!'de-= / l~ OC';,-;I1.t~:-!.es: .: Ocr:;!.':' -==r~ .e5 __ . cul.':.':'?le

oc~~pancy r=c=s or areas ' shall provide:

a. Tcilgts and Si!1X::s: W"orking flush t,:,ilet's a:::::' lava==ries ." in ~~e ra~io of 1 toilet and 1 sink tc eve~ 8 i~~a~es. For areas oc=~pied exclusively by male inmates, uri~als may be SuCs~ituted in place of up to half of ~,e requi=ed number of
toilets (SA at la, 12) (Certification required) (C02 at 18);

b. Showe~s: shower facilities in the ratio of 1 to 15 inmatss (SA at 10):

c. Wats:: hot and cold running water with app=opria~e
mixing devices in ~~e showers and lavatories (S~ at la, 13);

d. Mi~Qrs: mirrors over lavatories (SA at 10 ) ;

e. Orinkinc Fountain or Cues: sanitary type d=inking
fountain or single service drinking cups for eac!l dormitory and cellblock (SA at 10);

f. Personal storace Soace: personal lockers or other
adequate space and equipment for storage and safe keeping of pe~sonal belongings (SA at 10):

g. Lichtina: artificial lighting of at least 30 footcandles at 30 inches above the floor (SA at 10 ) ;

h. Air CirCUlation: ventilation which circulates at least
50 cubic feet of fresh or purified air per minute with from
10% to 100% of f~esh outside air depending on the season (SA at 10);

i. Acoustics: acoustics that insure noise levels that do not interfere with normal human activities and are nqr.nally less than 70 decibels on the A scale (dBA) during the day and 45 elBA during sleeping hours (SA at 10);
j. Heatina: adequate heating to provide teJD.peratures with a normal com£ort range , (SA at 10); and

k. Access to Desks: controlled access during non-sleeping bours to desks, tables or other furniture suitable ~or use in reading and writing (SA at 11).
o. Personal Hvaiene (Ce~ification required) (C02 at 24-
25)

1. Ite!ns Issued: Each inmate', shall be issued adequate amounts of necessary personal hygiene items, including toilet paper, soap, shampoo, toothpaste, toothbrush, comb, mirror, individual razors, and shaving cream or powder. Female inmates

15

sha~l !"'=-::aive necessary fe~ini::e hygiene s;Jpplies. ;',az::::.-s s::'2.11

not be used by more toan one i~=2.~e. If cent=al1y s~::::.-e~, raz==s

and oc~=:.- ic=~s for individual ~se sball be marked i:: a manne:.-

anc whic~ i=encifies the inmate usi~~ ~,e item by name,

~~e i~e~s

shall ce s~ore~ in a sanitarj, hygienic manner. The

Adminis~:.-ator may determine ~,a~ items which pose a legitimate

securi~y concern shall net be r=~ained in the inmat e's possession

(SC01 a~ 12: SA at 11).

2. Towels: Each inmate shall be pr~vided one clean towel whic~ s~all be cleaned at leas~ ~Jice a week (SA at 11).

3. Showers: Each inmate s hall be allowed to s~ower daily (SA. at 11).

E. Davroom and Eatina Aroas

1 . Use of DayrooIDs Four Hcurs A Dav: Eac~ inmate shall receive a minimum of four hours of dayroom time, excluding meals (SCOJ at 6; SCD1 at 1~).

2. Loa Maintained: The County shall maintain a written log that r=c~rds inmate's movements to and from ~~e dayrooms of each housing unit (SCOJ at 6).

J. Eatina Area Standards: The County shall provide all inmates with eating areas that allow inmates to r eceive meals at tables in a sanitary e-~vironment away frem toilets, showers, cloggee floor drains, pooled water, and any know~ source of
sewage or septic water. The county shall provide enough tables
and cbairs or stools to enable all inmates to sit for at least 20
minutes during mealtime. However, the Administrator shall have the dis~=etion, in individual cases, to restrict access to these
facilities for inmates confined in disciplinary segregation (SA at 11-12 ).

4. Renovation: By August 1, 1989, the county shall complete all re!10vation of the dayroom and eating areas at the ECJA, including but not limited to, making all necessary repairs in the East Wing of the main building (C02 at 20-2~; SA at 11) (Ce~~fication required ) (C02 at 20-21 ) .
v. S?;C!AL OSE HOUSING

A. Commitment to Establish and Maintain Soecial Use Housina

1. Soecial Housino Unit for Soecial Uses: The County shall establish and maintain special housing units reserved for designated functions (SA at 7).

2. Tvoes of soecial Rousina Units: These special housing units shall include new admissions housing, medical housing. and

15

."\
3. Classif:c~t!cn o f !00a~=5: Only aDcr=~ria~elv classi!iec incates shall be hC~S2d i~ ~~~sa-special unIts (SA at
7) .
B. Int:ke and Admissicns
1. Senarate Intake Housina Area: The County shall maintain a sepa:ate housing area at be ECJ and the ECJA for t..'te intake and reception of inmates. If ~is housing area is c=eated from ne~ space, ~~is unit may be acced to the ECJA's maxiMum caEa~ity
(SeCJ at 10; SA at 7).
c. Medical Housinc
1. Ipfima=-v: The County shall maintain an infirmary at the ECJ and ECJA for inmates i~ need of medical attention or convalescent care. The infirmary shall be used solely to house inmates who should not be housed in the general population for medical reasons (SeQJ at 11; SA at 8).
2. Detention Cells: The medical housing units shall not include the detention cells (SA at 8).
3. Eosoit:l Evaluati o ns: The County shall immediately refer to the hospital those inmates in need of hospital or emergency room evaluation (SC03 at 11).
4. Psvchiatric Observation: The County sha~~ place menta~ly ill inmates in observation and/ or on suicide watch or shall refer them to an appropriate psychiatric facility (SC03 at
H) •
D. Close custodv and Obse=vation Unit
1. Close custodv and Obse~ation unit Maintained: The County shall establish and maintain a close custody and observation unit as a special needs housing unit for inmates in need of obse-~ation or close c~tody (SA at 7-8).
2. Detention Cells and Infirmarv: The county shall not use detention cells or medical do~ to house inmates in need of obse--vation and close custody (SA at 7-8).
E. Detention Unit
~. Purnose: The EC3A's detention unit shall only be used
to house inmates charged with or adjudicated guilty of a serious
violation of jail rules (SA at 8).
17

.-

2 .

~icme!1 :

ce~a!"'.-:.ion unit far fa!:lale

i:la':":.:~ain a
a,= 8)

J. .5 i .."':c :<? Bunk i.nc: The c..::ur:."::! shall house no mc== t..~an 1 inmata in eac~ of ~~e deten~icn cells (SA at 8 ) .

F. Class:ficatioo

1. Com:liance with State Reculations: Classific~,=ion of inmates in ger-eral population or in special use housing shall follow prac":ices set forth in applicabl e state regulat~ons (SA at
7) •

VI. Se;-"Iice:: and P!:'oorams

A. Rec~g2.tion Recui=e~ents (Certification re~i= ed) (C02 at 26-27 ).

1. One hour oer day re~=eation: ~l inmates in ~~e ECJ and
ECJA shall have the opportunity to use a gymnasium or rec=eation area outside t~eir housing units and dayrooms for a minimum of o n e hour eac~ day, seven days per week (SC03 at 6; CJ at 6; SeDl
at 10).

2 . P!"oc~am Director: The County shall have a full-time Director of I~at e Recreation at ~~e ECJ and a full-ti~e Director of Inmate Recreation at the ECJA. Each Director shall be
responsible for the design, imple~entation and maintenance of the rec=eation sc~edule and rec=eation equipment at their jail. Each Oire~or shall have a college degree in physical education or equivalent year-for-year experience in physical education inst-~ction or management ( ceO at 12, l3).

3 . Staffina: The County shall hire or reassign SUfficient staff to insure that inmates are t=ansported to the gymnasium and
recreation areas of the ECJ and the ECJA for one hour a day~ Staff assigned to insure compliance with this recreation requir~ent shall report to the respective Director of Inmate Recreation PrograJllS at the ECJ or ECJA. Gym periods shall not be
canceled due to the unavailability of staff, ~xcept for a documented ~ergency of which plaintiffs' counsel and the Special
Masters are notified (Ceo at 13; SC03 at 6).

4. Elevator: By December 31, 1993, the County shall const-~ct a ~~ird and fo~~ elev ator for the ECJ to facilitate
the transportation of inmates to recreation areas . The County shall submit quarterly repor-~ to plaintiffs' counsel and the Special Masters until the proje~'s completion. The report sha21 inclUde the c~nstruc--ion schedule, a description of ~~e portion
of the project completed, copies of contracts oe· re~~, and other . matters on the proje~'s status. The report shall include any changes in the constr~ction schedule and the reasons for the

1B

4 ; . c~anges (CC: :_ 13; 2C~: a~
5. Ex~~:: :' s e EC'u i crner:~: -L-:e Cour:-:::.y 5::a11 m2.i!':..~~ i..-: a suf!icie~~ ~~~~~i~y of exe=~is= e~uipoen-:::. and sa~91i~s ~~ provice a meaningful recreation progra:.:. -::':"at ens...:.res t:"a;: . inl::la-:.:s co not have t::: remai=: idle during their rec::- eaticnal perioe. (5.::'. at 26; C02 at 26-27).
6. Exer=~se Ecruiome~t outside t~e payroom: In ac=ition to providing ac=ess to a gyunasium or rec::-ea;:ion area, ~~= County shall ins~ll and maintain three items af exercise equ:~me~ . outside eac~ e.ayroom at ~~e ECJ. This equipment s~all be available to inmates during re~~lar dayrccm periods fc= supple~ent~l recreation (SCOl a~ 11).
7. se...-:,.:'ce Qr Be!)?i::: of Ncn-War-kine Recreation E~"..!i oment: The County de~endants shall re9air non-working equipme~~ within 2 working days, and shall order any repl ace~ents within 5 working days for any equipment which cannot be repaired (C02 at . 27) .
8. Renc~s: The County s hall submit a monthly re?ort to plaintiffs' ccunsel and ~~e Spe~ial Maste~s that incluces daily statistics on the inmate recreation programs, including an inventory of equipment in each recreation area, a lis~ing of any broken equipment or repairs made, and the actual number and the percent of inoates from each housing unit attending eac~ scheduled rec~eation period (ceo at 13).
9. s?nc~ions: If ~~e County fails to complet e ~~e rec::-eation re~ire~ents in this Order, t~e plaintiffs' ~ay, upon application t= the Court, Se2k to colle~ the sanctions for recreation violations i moosed b v the Court's Order of November 27, ~989, in Civil No. 82-1945 . - The pa~ies shall deposit any collected funes into an interest- bearing account ~~at ~~e Special Masters designate. Upon approval of the Masters, plain~iffs' counsel may spend these funds to ensure compliance wi t.~ the recreation require~ents of this Agreement (CCO at 13-14).
B. Tele~hQne Usaae
1. Lecel Calls: The County shall provide inmates with ac:ess to a telephone which shall be available for le~al calls whenever requi~ed (CJ at 7).
2. Porscnal Calls: The County shall provide inmates with the opportunity to make or receive at least ~wo pe:50nal phone calls a day which are of SUfficient len~_~ to provide meaningful conta~ with family and friends (CJ at 7).
3 . Acci-ional Teleohones: The County shall install one additional tele?hone in each hcusing unit of the ECJ, or inc=ease
19

~~e hec=s ef e?e~a~:on of ex~s~:~~ e= :e ~t=~es ~~ a~ :eas~ 7 a.M.
t~ 10 p.m. in e~de= t~ provide ur.lim~~ec legal c~ll s anc a mini~uc of t~o caily pers~na~ c~lls fer i~ma~es (S~=: at 12 ) .

C. Vis i~~ti QD ( Ce ~ificaticn requ:=ed ) (C02 a~ 28).

1. Visitina ecoths: Visiting t:oot!ls shall pr=·... ide a degree of c=mfc~ for visitors and inmates beth in the supe~~ised
contac~ visitation area and the non-contac~ visitaticn a=ea. Boo~~s in both visiting areas shall have s~ools or c~airs and a
shelf upon which papers may be placed. Booths shall be separated wi~~ pa=titions to maintain privacy during ~~e visi~s. Boo~
shall have clear windows anc a phone sys~em that provides clear
visual ~~d oral communication (SA at 25; C02 at 28 ).

2. puration and Frequencv of Visita~ion at toe ECJ:

Inmate s may have a~ leas~ 6 visits a week. Each inmate shall
bave at le~st 20 minutes of visitation time each day for six days

a week. Children may visit during these times. The County shall

provide evening visiting hours for inmates and their fa=ily and

friends

(Oat7).

3. Duration and frequency at the ECJA: Eac~ inmate shall bave at least 30 minutes of visitation time each day for five days a week (C02 at 28; SA at 25 ) .

4. Visit2tion Increases As Needed: The county shall not turn away visitors who cannot be accommodated during fixed visiting bours within regular visiting areas. Rathe=, the county shall hold visits in visiting areas ' on other floors or shall provide SUfficient correctional staff to extend visiting bours for any visitors waiting to visit with inmates at ~~e close of
visiting bours. A notice to this effect shall be posted in the
waiting areas for visitors (SA at 25; C02 at 28; SC03 at 6; SC01
at 9).

5. Contact Visits: The County shall provide for a supervised contact visitation program in the discretion of the jail administrator (SA at 25).

6. Visitation Loa; The officer who supervises visitation oppo~ities on each unit of the ECJ shall maintain a daily log that records all visits conducted in the unit, the date, the name
of each inmate receiving a visit, the time at the beginning and
at the end of the visit, and the signature or initials of the
officer making the log entry (CO at 28; C02 at 28).

O. Law Libra~: (Ce~ification required) (C02 at 28-29).

1. Access at the ECJ: Upon request, each inma~e may spend at least 2 hours. a week in the law library (SC01 at 11).

20

~, ;'-' ,,~,

,"",

.'

. '.

:2 _ Ac=g=~ '!;. t!1e ;";.:;~: T!le county s!1all p:-::v::::e ac::ess to the lat.; l.:.br='=:r a;. " le;s~ 40 hou=s per t.ie~k. Upcr. re~'.:.es~, each inmata may s;e~c a~ leas~ five t~o-hour per~ods a ' week in ~~e law
libra~!. If te;s~~le , ac::ess t:: t~e law li~rary s!1all be provide~ a~ L~e nex~ da~e sc~eculed for library use (SA at 25).

3 _ contents of La·.... Libra;-v:

a. Recommenced Lis~ of Books: The County shall maintain
t-~e ECJ and the ECJA law libraries in compliance wit-~ t-~e
fi.lll conte.n"CS lis"ted in t.,.e cur=ent edi ticn of L~e Ne·....
Jersey Stat::! Library's Rec:Jmmended List;. of Bocks for -Law Libraries in Ne~ Jersey County Jails. The County shall verify its c::mpliance on an annual basis (CJ at 7; SA at
25) •

"b. Cocies of t!Jis .~.creeme!'!t: The county shall maintain at all times 5 copies of this Agreement which shall be available for inmates to " revie~ and copy (SeOl at 14).

4. Staff inc of Law Libra=v: The County shall insure that
one st;.aff person is minimally t=ained in the use of law books and is assigned responsibility to update legal materials and assist;. inmates to find the material they seek (S~ at 27).

5. Law Libra:v LaC": The County shall maintain a log at the ECJ and ECJA that records inmates' requests for time in the law libra-~ and ac~ual law library use. This log shall be provided mon~y to Plaintiffs' c:Junsel and the Special Masters (2CCO at
4) .

E. Effe~~ of a 72 eour Eme raencv on Provision of Services:

1. se:vices Maintained: Regardless of the population level, the County shall maintain the level of visitation, recreation, medical care, dental care, access to legal research
facilities, food sarvices, counseling, and other services to inmates required by this Second Consolidated Consent Order.
However, pe--sonal Visiting, rec=eation and counseling may be
susp~~ded tor up to 72 bours in the event of a public safety
threat (CJ at 6 ) .

~I. Food Service

A. Food Qualitv

1. Nutritional. Varied. and Palatable Food: The County
shall provide meals that are nut=itionally balanced, varied, and satisfactorily palatable_ Food shall be st;.ored, served, prepared, and dis~~ibuted in a safe, healthful, nutritional and sanit:arj manner (SA a~ 21). (Certification required) (C02 at 21).

21

a=-! p

a

s

-

2. c':!.!r:

'Z

!=!;~'k
Ec " ;il

.

an <

d a

s

J

ua -;cb;-'j:~"='e;.<;;lVe··

The CCL:.n-cy in place of

r=sc::'.::.:2r.2.s.

::s:'a"C-~·-.:.e.=c

ra

c:..:':"ar m

ilk

and cJ milk pr)duc't.s. T!:e County shall se;:-.J"e f=·.li::. j\!ice c:::- a

pie-::::2 of f::-=sh f=uit t..·i~:: a::: leas-:=: one mea! a cay · (S;'. a-:: 22 ) .

(ce~i!ic~~:'on requir2~ ) ( C~2 a t 22) .

B. Dietician Revie·..:

1. Annual Dietician Revie·.... : A dietician or ot..'1.er qualified indi vidual shall annually revie'.... the adequacy of food service,
preparation and storage practices. The dietician shall examine the food being served, including the te~pe.ratures at wnic~ food is serve!!, and shall revie'.... rele'rant documents. The dieti.t;:ian shall meet wit..~ food se~.J"ices personnel, confer wit..'1. medical staff when appropriate , and have t..~e opportunity to meet wit..'1.
inmates to discuss issues concerning food service. The dietician shall dete~ne whether meals, including special diets, provide a
nutritionally balanced, varied, satisfactorily palatable and adequate diet for all inmates and whether food is stored,
prepared and served in a safe, healthful, nutritional and sanita.ry manner. The dietician shall taJt.e correct.i Va action if necessary (SA at 21) (Certification required) (C02 at il ) .

2. Diotician Reoor;: The dietician shall submit a report by August 1, 198B that provides recommendations to insure ~~at meals are nutritionally balanced, varied, and adequate and that foed is served, prepared ~~d stored in a safe, heal~~ful,
nutritional and sanitary manner. The dietician shall submit this report to the County and plaintiffs' counsel ( SA at 21-22 ) certification required ) (C02 at 21).

C. S~ecial Diets

1. P=ovision of Speci al Diets: The county shall provide s~ecial diets for inmates with medical needs and inmates with
legitimate religious requirements (SA at 22) (Certification required, including the syst~ by which County determines need
for medical diet) (C02 at 22).

2. Notice to Inmates: The County shall inform inmates that they are entitled to a special diet whenever a physician deems it medicallyaP9ropriate (e.g., dietary needs that may be associated with pregnancy, diabetes, ulcers, etc.) · and whenever a special diet is in accordance with legitimate religious requirements. The County shall inform inmates of the kinds of special d·iets available and the procedure they must follow to request a special diet (Certification required including the methods by which the
County informs inmates of right to special diet) (C02 at 22).

3. Monitorina: The county shall monitor inmates' receipt of s~ecial diets (SA at 22).

4. 1~:';ic:!! Die't: A. ~r:ysic':.=.n or au,::!"!.ori==~ mec..:c:=.2. s'::.a!! shall s.::=aen ne '.; ac!.ci t::=2S t.:: de':e=:nine whet!1e!" an i::=a~= needs a
sDPcial cie:: f=r mecical reasons. A physician cr di=~ician shall approve ~~e ac~~al meal plan ~,a~ an inmata o n a spec::l ciet
receives. T!:le food s2=·Jics mana~e= and Medic~l Unit s~a ll be immediately netified whene'rer an inmate is UIla!::le or refuses to eat a presc=il::ed diet. Special die'tS shall be re·;ie....ec on a timely basis by the foed service and medical s~affs ( SA at 22) (Certification required ) (C02 at 22 ) .
5. Relicious piets: (Certification requi=ed ) (C02 at 222J) The county shall provide nut=itionally balanced and adequate diets t= persons with legitimate religious requi=ements including, at a minimum:
a. ~~ee meals a dav similar in nut=itional value to the meals provided to o~~e= inmates (SA at 23);
b. where an inmate cannot, for religious reasons, eat the principal item served at a meal, the County shall provide a substitute item which is similar in nutritional value (SA at
23) ,
o. Temperaturgs (Certification required ) ( C02 at 23)
1. Food Te~neratures: The County shall maintain hot food at a t=mperat~e of at leas~ 140 aegrees Fahrer~eit until the food is act~ally served . Cola fooa shall be maintained at a temperature of no higher than 45 degrees Fahrer.heit until actually served. The County shall meet t.."lese 5~andard.s not on1.y in the cafeteria but also in other places where food is served such as segregation areas or satellfte housing units. T~pera~~e readings shall be maintained in a log (SA at 2J).
2. pish ¥ashina: The County shall maintain dish washer temp9--atures of at least 180 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature readings shall be maintained in a log (SA at 2J).
E. Kitchen Workers' Cl othino: (Certification required)
(CO2 at 24)
1. Clean outer Garments: The County shall provide all f ood se--vice personnel, including inmate workers, with clean outer garments to wear whenever they come into contact wi~~ food (SA at
23) •
23

'"
" "
VIII .

.., ". . ', ' ' ,". "-
. C;c;=xl .~= Elimi~at:~n of r~f'5~ ••icn;
r~~~i=ed) (2eO at 21 and 24)

(c=~:'!:c~~ion

A. C;';.Il:reGer.:=: i 'Ie pgs~ Ccnt-c 1 ?:-cc;-am

1. Pes:" Con;.;,:;)! in ~l! .J..!"eas t::> P;-e'/ent Reinfg::r::=.,:':'on: The
County shall imple:ent a comprahensive program to ext=~inate vermin in jail ho~sing units, eatinq areas, and t~e jail's kitchen. The County shall investigate and report on ~~e feasibility of obtaining a contrac~ wit-~ a pest c=nt=ol firm that will guarantes eli=.ination of roaches and the preventicn of reinfestation, not s~mply provide for pest control services (SA at
19-20) .

2. EIgments Required in post Cont=o! Procram; Cnder the Pest Cont=ol Prog;-a~, the County Shall:

a. Food Sucplies and Hidina Places: eliminate feed supplies and hiding places for roaches (SA at 20);

b. St=uctura1 Defects snd ooenincs: reoair all st--uctural defec~ and saal all openings that may ailow vermin to enter eithe~ the facility or L~e food storage, service and prepa=ation a~aas (SA at 20 and 23);

c. Crgcks aDC C~evices: spray c~acks and c~evices in
housing units, pipe chases and elseWhere as deemed p~ofessionally appropriate (SA at 20);

d. Routine SUrveillance: maintain routine surveillance for the reappearance of roaches or ve~in (SA at 20);

e. Report Ve=min When Observed: report the presence of
roaches or other vermin to the staff in charge of the infes~tion eradication program and to the pest control
operator (SA at 20);

f. oD~all Service: ma~e available on-call service from
the pest con~ol operator to insure prompt t=ea~a~t when ve~n are seen (SA at 20); and

q. Follow-up; ~~ictly follow any orders that the pest cont=ol operator provides to prevent reinfestation (SA at
20) ,

3. Sc~eens on Windows and Doors: The County shall place screens on all windows and doors to prohibit flies and "other
insects or animals from enterinq the fcod storage, service and preparation areas (SA at 23).

4. Pesticide Apolicators: Only licensed individuals shall apply pes~icides. Under no circumstances shall inmates or non~

24

5. L2::: Po::-::!; '.!! P':stic:'ces Cs?d: F~st.ic:"des k::c:..,·;: t=
induce r e5Lr. :~r.c= in a shcr~ pe:-icc of time 5::2.11 be a ...oided
wheneve::- pcssib~e (SA at 20 ).
IX. Fi:-e Safet·/
A. State f ire Safety Insoection
1. Fi~e Inspection and Reoo ~: The County s~all a=~ange for ~~e state fi~e marshall or an equivalent officer t~ make . a thorough inspec~ion of the ECJ and the ECJA and to iss~e a report noting deficie!1c~es and required corrective ac~ions (SeOl at 12. SA at 24).
2. Cou~tv Response to Fire Safety Deficiencies: The County shall submit a copy of the fire marshall's repo~ and t..:."e County's response to plaintiffs' counsel (SeOl at 12; SA at 24).
8. County Fire Iosnectioos
1. Mo nthlv Fire safety Insnec~ion: On a mon~~ly basis, the County shall te5~ or check all fire alarms, s~oke detect.ors, fire extinguishing systems, and locking syste~ necessary to release inmates and stat! in the event of a fire. Facility supervisors shall revie~¥· inspection repor-~ which are filed with a copy sa.'1t to plaintiffs' counsel (SA at 24).
2. Wri~ten Proc edures on fire Safety Inspections: The County shall adept wTitten procedu=es to govern fi~e inspections and shall provide forms to record ~~e inspections (S~ at 24-25).
C. Fi:? Safety Systems
1. Fire Safety SYstems Maintained: In each living unit of the ECl" and the ECJA, the County shall install and maintain in working order a smoke detector alarm system, including batteryoperated smoke detectors, a smoke sensory ala~ syste~, a sprinkler system, and a fire suppression system (CCO at 10; CJ at 7; SA at 24; sec) at S).
2. Seconq Exits: The County shall provide a second exit for every tloor which is distinctly and permanently marked, visible, kept clear, and maintained in usable condition (CCO at 10; SA at 24).
3. Fire-Retardant Beddina: (Certification required). The County shall only issue mattresses and mattress covers
constructed wi~" materials approved as tire retardant by the New
Jersey Depa:-tJnent of Community Affairs, the Bureau of Fire Safety
25

.•.
(C3 ~t 1; SA a~ 25 ).
4. I::s;= _~,i:':.icr; of F;':-=: Sa!.:,:" Svs-::ems: DU=:'ng t!le
ins~allation of' L~e fire s~~cre5s:=n svs~e~ a~ the . ECJ I 1:-"le .County may tempc=a=ily exc eed L~e ~cuslng unit caps (SeD) at 5) •
5. Monthlv RecQrts: The Co~~ty shall sabmit monthly reports to plaintiffs' counsel and the special maste~ on the cons~ction sc~edule and ongoing status of ~~e fire safety systems (ceo at 11; seD3 at 5).
6. Bi-~nnual Reports: Effec~ive April 1, 1993, and every six months thereafter, the County shall submit to plaintiffs'
counsel anc the Special Masters a report from the S~ate Bureau of
Fire safety or its designated fire safety official indicating ~~e extent "of compliance and any non-compliance with the ins~llation, location, or oceration of smoke ala~ , the automated s~oke suppression syste~ and the second exits (SC03 at
5) •
D. Fi=e and Emercrencv Evacuation Plan
1. Elements of the Evacuation Plan: The County shall provide a written fire and ~ergency evacuation plan that inclUdes:
a. Fi=e prills: prov~s~ons for both dry run and actual evac~ation fire drills of inmates (SA at 25);
b. Res'Oonsibilities in Event o'f Ernercre!1Cv: both the steps to be followed and a listing by title of individuals who are responsible for action in the event of a fire or eme~gency (post orders shall incorporate these responsibilities and actions) (SA at 24);
c. Holdine Areas for Evacuated Inmates: safe, secure bolding areas, including inclement weather alternatives, for evacuated inmates in all living units (SA at 24); and
d. T=aioinc 00 tIDe=crency Procedures: training staff and LTlmates in fire proced.ures and evacuation routes (SA at 25);
2. Fire Drills: The County shall conduct, on all watches and shifts" both dry run and actual evacuation drills of inmates. Written drill plans shall be filed and submitted to plaintiffs' counsel (SA at 25).
3. T~aininq S~ff and Inmates in Evacuation Procedures: The County shall dis~ibute fire evacuation procedures to all staff and inmates. New staff and inmates assigned to each housing unit shall be requ~ed to read (or have read to them)
26

4. r.;rc.s i;')C' Ois., ;; l g'; In mates: The county sho?ll h::::.sa inmates :.;hc have phys:'::~!. disabilities in units t.:"1at f E...::':!.it3.t2 their evac:.!at:'o n unc.e!' e~e!:'gency ci!:'c:.!!:l.so:ances (SA at: 2= ; .
E. Fi :-e P!"e"8!l""::ion Standards: The County shall c:::::1ply 'With the standards relating to correc~ional or detention tac~lities c~ntained in the most recent edition of the National Fi=e Prevention Association (NFPA) or superseding state regc!.ations (SA at 24) •

•

1. P~Qcess to Obtgin sanctions: Plaintiffs may seek

sanctions under the court's Order of July 28, 1989, in Civil No.

87-871 if ~~e County fails to file a timely repo~ wi~~ ~~e

special Maste!:'s, or if progress is insufficient to ins~all fire

safety improve!llents by the dates required. Plaintiffs' counsel

may use the sanction money to complete the fire safety .

improve!!1ents by the re.quired dates (CeO at 11).

x. Mainte na nc e and Rena ir Reou i rements

A . Phvs i cal Plant Ma i. ntenance at the 'ECJ:

1. Safe and SaDit~~ Conditi on: The County shall maintain the ECJ in a safe and sanitary condition (CJ at 7).

2. Mai nt ena nce of Fi xtures: The County shall adequately
maintain, repair or replace jail fixtures, which incluce water closets, faucets and lavatories, escutc~eons on showers and temperature regulating valves, metering units, lighting fixtures, windows and screens (SC03 at 7).

3. Maintgnance of Facilities: The county shall adequately
maintain, repair, or replace facilities, which inclUde ceilings, pipes, toilets, urinals, sinks, showers, and windows (SC03 at 7).

4. survev of Non-Workino Fixtures and Facilities: The
County shall survey all damaged or non-~.Jorking fixtures and tacilities. This survey shall identity which facilities and tixtures can be repaired and which facilitie~ and fi~~es need replacement. The County shall provide a copy of the su-~ey to
plaintiffs' counsel and the Special Master by February . 22, 1989 or pay plaintiffs' counsel for the costs of conducting this survey (SeQl at 7-8).

5. ReoQrtina: The County shall assign staff to receive and
investigate reports of broken or inoperable facilities and fixtures, to post these repo~ in a central log, to ar=ange for

27

r=c~irs , ar.c to moni~~r ~~e c==;:2~ic~ of repai=s on a:: fac~li~ies and fixt~es. T~e C=~~~y shall noeify plai~~~f:s' c=unsel of ~~e identity ~f t~e s~a!f me~ers assigne~ ~~e t~sks set fo~h in ~~is paragraph (S eQ3 at 8).
6. Insoec~ ion Within i2 r,cu=s: Wi~~in 72 hours of a repo~ of non-·..ror !<i.ng or damaged fix~ures or facilities, a pe=son t=ained in ~~e repair or maintenance of the fixt~re or facility shall inspect any items in need of repair or maintenance (SC03 at
8) •
7. Rena!=- Within 3 Davs: Wit~in J business days of the inspec~ion desc=ibed in sec~ion XI.5, the Co unty shall complete the maintenance or repair of a jail facility or fixture , subject to the availability of parts and supplies (SeQJ at 8 ) .
8. Renlacements: The County shall replace any fixtures or facilities that have been in disrenair for loncer than 30 days. However, replacement is not requir~d in those instances where the County has ordered the necessary parts or supplies to repair or maintain a fixture, and the delay is not attributable to any action or inaction of the County (SC03 at 9).
9. Moothlv LQa Reoorts: By the 15th day of each month, the County shall provide plaintiffs' counsel with copies of the mainte~ance and repair logs prepa red for the previous month. The log shall record all damaged and non- working jail fixtures ~~d facilities and indicate the completion date or status of the repair (SC03 at 8).
B. Short- Tern Maintenance at the ECJA (Certification required) (C02 at 15-17)
1. Safe and SanitarY Maintenance: The County shall maintain all plumbing, windows, lighting and electrical fixtures or other items in a safe and sanitary fashion (SA at 12).
2. Dailv Ins~ections with Checklist:
a. Elements Recuired on InsnectioD Checklist: The County shall use a written inspection checklist to:
(1) record its daily inspection of all areas, including an inspection of windows, window panes, and window scresns;
(2) identify any breakage or deficiencies in general cleanliness; and
(3) identify any breakage or deficiencies in plumbing, ventilation, elec~ical service, locks and gates, fire and safety devic es , and othe~ preventive maintenance
28

neecs (Sri a~ 13 a~= 15; C=Z a~ 19).

b. D2i 1 II C ~ ::--;if ic~ tir:-r, ;;f In s o e <;,,; io D C~e-=!-;l is';: T~e
e!!1;:!.cye2 'Nno p e =£or::ne!i' ;:::'2 inspec-:.ion shall sign 2r:.C c.ata t~e i~s'Oec~icn c~ecklis~ 2nd ce=~i~y ~~a~ t~e ch e cklis~ is
ac=~rai:e and complete a;.c ~,at all safety, sanita~ion or
maint~nance c~ncerns are noted (SA at 15) .

.I c. Be·rie'... and Access t::l Inspec-=.i o n Checklists: Completed checklists shall be revie~ved by ~'1e inspec-=ing officer's suoervisor, filed, and s~all be made available to plaintiffs' counsal (SA at 15).

3. Dailv collection of Maintenance Requests: On a daily basis, the county shall collec~ maintenance requests and repo~~ of non-working or broken fi~~res and facilities (SA at 12; C02
at 17).

4. Timelv ReQai=: The County shall repair, on a timely basis, all plumbing, windows, window sc=e~ns, window panes, floors, lighting and electrical fixtures and facilities· located in inmate housing units and program areas (SA at 12-13; C02 at 17
and 19).

5. T'No Dav Reoair of F2.cilities: The County shall repair
malfunc~ioning toile~s and sinks and broken or missing window
glass panes and screens wi~~in 2 days, Ontil repair is made, the
County shall temporarily cove= and secure ~~e areas of the screen
or window in need of repair ( SA at 12).

6. Altg=nate Ho usino if Timelv Re~air Not possible! If repair cannot be made with -i n ~~e time frame required in paragraph XIBS, the County shall not house any inmate in a cell with a broke.n toilet or sink, in a dorm. where the number of working toilets and sinks falls below the ratio set forth in this Agreement, or in a housing unit with broken or missing window glass panes or screens (SA at 12; C02 at 18).

7. Re~lacement: The County sball replace all fixtures, facilities, and other items ~at cannot be repaired (SA at 12; C02 at 17).

C. Maintenance Standards at the EGJA required) (C02 at 15, 17 and 19)

(Certification

1. Toilets: The County sball maintain all toilets in working order. The County shall ensure that toilets do not leak and that toilets effectively and thoroughly dispose of bodily wastes and soiled toilet tissue. The County shall ensure that toilets have readily cleanable, s~ooth and impervious outside surfaces (C02 at 18; SA at 12-14).

29

2. S i nk s : T~e C'::l!::~Y sr:.a:: ma..!.nt=.i:1 all sinks :.:: -..,:crking crde~ . T~e Ccunty shall ensu;;;s ~~at sinks do not le=~ a~d t~a~ sinks provide sufficient hot and cold r~'ning ~ate~ f=~ e=inking and. washing (C:J2 at 18; SA at ~/3).
J . 5 hot.;e ::s : The C:::'iunty si1all maintain all sno-";ers in working orde;;; _ T~e County shall ensure ~~at showe~s provide hot wacer ~~at is not overly hot (llO degree s plus or minus J degrees Fahrenheit). The County shall ventilate the shower area to vent humidity and pre'Tent the collec-=ion of mois"ture , mold and milde''''' the rus"ting of walls, and the peeling of paint and s~all ins:all ceiling exhaus~ fans, if necessa;;;y. The County shall ensure that showers have readily cleanable , s~ooth and impe~ious outs_i~e surfaces (SA at 1J-14).
4. Showe:: curtains: The County shall provide shower
curtains that will be regularly cleaned and replaced if soap
film, · milde''''' bac-=erial slime, or mold cannot be re!!loved (SA at
13) •
5. water Pressure: The· County shall provide plumbing fixtures wi~~ adequate water pressure for proper operation . The County shall inc~ease water supply capacity to prevent pressure drops when several fixtureS are used simultaneously (SA at 13).
6 . Le ~k s ane Cl ooced Drai ns: The County shall eliminate
all le~ks and clogg ed drains so water does not stand or drip on the floor in housing units ,. cells, showers, pipe chases, or food se~ing areas of the kitchen (S~ at 13).
7. cros s -Co nn e ctions: The county shall e~iminate all c=oss-connections be~ween potable and non-potable or waster water systems (SA et 13 ) .
8. Backflo~ Preventers and Vacuum Breakers: The County shall install backflow preventers and vacuum breakers where needed to meet plumbing codes (C02 at 15; SA at 13) .
9. Sewer Line Opep;nas: The County shall cap or repair all openings in se~er lines where sewer gas can escape (C02 at 15; SA at 13).
10. P'umbincr Standards and Recrulati ons: The County sball adhere to all applicable state and municipal plumbing s~andards and regulations (SA at 13).
11. Air Handlino Svstems: The county shall maintain or repair air handling equipment in good working condition and sball keep a record of all repair work done (SA at 14).
12. Ele~trical Wirino: The County shall eliminate all exposed elect~ical wiring. The County shall ensure that all
30

ex~ension and a~;~~ance cor=s me~~ t~e Na~ional Ele~~=:= Code (N~C' ) s-:.ancards ane. t.,.at re~ai=s t~ e:~C':ension and. appl:ance cords comply wi~~ NEe s~~nea=ds. The ccun~y shall not at~ac~ multiple outlet ex~~~sion cores t~ a single r~cepcacle or outle~ (C02 at 15; SA at: 14).
13. Windc~s and Sc=e~~s: The County shall en sure ~~at glass window panes are not broken or missing and shall ensure that all windows and doors are equipped with screens. The County shall maintain a regular cleaning schedule for all jail windows and screens (SA at 13 and 20; C02 at 19) .
.14. Walls and Eauioment: The County shall repai= or_ . reolace all rus~ed or deteriorated walls and equipment so the outside sarface is smooth and impervious and may be cleaned properly (SA at 13-14 ).
15. Floors: The County shall replace missing floor tiles in' the mess hall and shall maintain ~~e floor in a state of continuous repair or shall install a solid ~looring material such as a seal coat flooring (SA at 14' ) .
D. P=eventive Maintenance at the ECJA (SA at 14; C02 at 16) (C~ification required ) (C02 at 15).
1. Preventive Maintenance Plan and Reoort : By June 1, 1989, the County shall adopt and implement a preventive maintenance plan to meet the requirements of this Agreement and shall submit a report to plaintiffs' counsel and the Special Masters ~~at identifies the maintenance and repair work completed (C02 at 16; SA at 15)
2. Preventative Maintenance Soecifications : The preventive maintenance plan shall indicate the s~ecific measures the County will take to maintain each piece of equipment, machine or system (CO2 at 16).
3. Preventative Maintenance Staff: The preventative maintenance plan shall state the titles of employees and type of mechanic responsible for executing the preventive maintenance plan. The County shall assign preventative maintenance staff to perform preventive maintenance as their primary duty at the facility. The County shall ensure that the preventative maintenance staff are adequately trained and have sufficient clerical assistance to work efficiently (SA at 14-15 ).
4. Preventative Maintenance Schedule: The County shall use a check1ist to inspect, service and maintain all heating, ventilation, plumbing, electrical, steam, air conditioning, refrigeration, cleaning and laundry equipment and systems at the EC3A pursuant to a written schedule that conforms to
manufacturer's specifications, or if not known, to appropriate
31

prof~ssic~al s~=r.c=~ds (S~ a~ 15 ; C02 a~ 16 , .
5. !:w""!'1t= ...·, of P::-:.s iir.C Suoolies: T~e Coun~:.: :;:::::;.11 maintain an ade~at:.e. inver:-:'=_i of regu-.arly needed · pa=--:..= and supplies t:.:l prevent:. unnec ess a=y c.elays in m~ jcr rs;?a':"=s. The supply of spare pa~~ shall pr=vide a backu~ supply cf 90 days or longer if a par~ is not reacily available wi~~in 90 c~ys (SA at:.
15 ) •
6. Pre·.Tent"'tive MaintenaDce Records: The County s~all keep
a record of all preventive maintenance inspections ~~C service. The person responsible for t~e inspec~ion and maintena~ce shall
certify ~at info~ation on ~~e c~ecklist is accurats a~d complete and shall for~ard c~ecklis~ and ce~ificatic~s of service or re?air to the appropriate supervisor for rE'rie'.o/. T~is documentation shall be maintained in files ~~at are available to plaintiffs' counsel and state inspectors (SA at 14-15 ).
E. Comorehensive Phvsical Plant Reoair Plan at tJe ECJe (Certification required) (SA at 16i C02 at 16 )
1. Reoort on Necessarv Re~airs: The County shall prepare and submit to plaintiffs' ceunsel a Comprehe~sive Physical Plant Repair Plan that lists the r epairs needed on electrical services, plumbing and sanitary SystE~S, bot water prcduction ane delivery, and beatinc and ventilation systems to brine all the sa=vices and syste~ into compliance wi~~ appropriate codes and professional standards, to meet the minimum requirements of this ag=Ee!llent, and to eliminate any environmental or sanitary conditions which pose a danger or hazard to ECJA and ECJ inmates (C02 at ~6; SA a t ~5-16 ).
2. Dates to Comolete Reoai~s: The Compre-~ensive Physical Plant Re~air Plan shal~ specify the starting and completion date tor any work necessary (SA at 16).
F. Adezyato Staffina for Maintenance and Reoair (certification required) (C02 at 17)
1. edeauate Reoair Pe~sQnnel: The County sball commit a s~fici~~t number of plumbers, masons, elec-~icians and other skilled workers to meet the maintenance and repair requirements of this Agreement (C02 at 15).
2. Staffinc Plan: The County sha~l complete a staffing analysis , staffing plan, ane imnlementation schedule bv June 1, 1988 to provide adequate ~aintenance and r epair services for the ECJA (SA at 16).
J. Staff ina ~nalvsis: The staffing analysis shall address the level of staffing needed to meet this Aqreement's requirements in ~~e following areas: elect~ical, plu~ing,
32

'"_1: · ··':'",r"~""":',,II"VP:.J~i';;M-c';~..· . "-.'..;.:.,::,!,-~:~.:,"~":'"-" ." '" "
~;'~~·i'la~:'c·~·;~-::;-pre'l;!'rt.i ve maints::.ance, l:!.'.!Ilc.=y , s~~res anc supplies, Jani~=r:'al, mec~anica: anc g==unds ke2pinq. T~e
s"ta.!finq analysis shall re'rie~.; c"..!r;:-eni: aut..;"orized st.a!!ing ,
vacanc:es. positicn desc=ipticr.s, sal~=ie~, c~assificat:'on,
workloac ( SA at 1~ ) .

ane

XI. Hcuseke~Rinc

A. Written Housekeeoipc Plan:

1. Recular cleanincr and P~intinc: By August 1, 1989, the
County shall imple~ent a written housekeeping plan for all housing units, inlilate program azeas, ,and the kitchen whichinsures that all areas are re~~larly cleaned, painted and maintained in a safe and sanit:=y condition (SA at 16) (certification required) (C02 at 19).

2. Items to Include in Hcusekee~incr Plan: The housekeeping plan shall identify the following:

2. Areas to be Cleaned: the areas and facilitie~ to be
cleaned, and the procedure, frequency, and time necessary for proper cleaning;

b. Are~s to be Peinted: the areas or facilities to be painted, and ~~e procedure , frequency, and time necessary for proper painting;

c. Staff ina Reguired: ~~e number of staff members necessary to complete eac~ cleaning or painting task;

d. Purchase of Equioment and $·u'001ie5: the procedure for the purchase of housa~eeping equipment and supplies;

e. Maintain and pistribute Equioment and Supplies: the dis~ibution and maintenance of housekeeping equipment and supplies; and

f. Supervisor in Charae: the title of the supervisor respons i ble for overseeing housekeeping assignments (SA at
16-17 ) •

3 • Oai1v Housekeeoina Tasks; Daily housekeeping tasks include:

a. SweAoincr and Moopincr: s.eeping and mopping floors in
all common areas of every living unit, shared bathrooms,
showers, program areas and the kitchen with an appropriate, non- irritating, cleaning and disinfectant solution (SA at
17) ;

33

c. c~l!e~~ i ~c T~~sh a~= QeQris: e~ ~~y~~g a~l ~=~~~
c=r.~~ine~s anc c ollec~i~; ceb=is or t=as~ t~a~ ac=~=~la~=c in eac~ hc~sinc unit, c~ ~~e wi~dow ledces of eac~ r.cusinc un::' ~ , in a fcc2 service a=== or t~e kit =~'7'j1. " or c::::s;!."" a=e;'s in s~ch p==xi~~~y to ~~e housi~g unit so as to pCS2 a sa f=~y, se~itary, healt::, secur ity , or fire haz==~ (SA a~
17) :
c. Cle~ni~c and Sc=vbbi0c: cleaning and scrubbing walls, fleers, ceilings, sinks, toilets and all other equipment and
sanitary facilities in each housing unit, bathroom, shower
area, foee s2~/ing area, and kitchen to eliminate di=t, greas2, scap film, mold, milde·.... , slime, scales ane bacterial gro~~, wi~~ a compound ~~at is safe and effective for thes2 PU=?OS2S and which can c~ntrol odors rat.~er than one which r el ies on a masking age~t (SA at 17); and
d. Pioe C~ ases: cleaning regularly ~~e pipe c!:tases of each housing unit (SA at 17).
4. written Checklist : The County shall use a wTitten c:"ecklis"'::. for a daily housekeeping and cleaning inspect"ion to assure ~~at all areas are clean and sanitary. This c~ecklist shall be signee. and dated by t.~e inspecting official, r ev iewed by the supervisor, filed, and made available to plaintiffs' counsel (S;". at 17 - 18).
5. Storace of Solvents and Solutions: The Co~~~y shall store all chemicals, solVents and cleaning solutions in clearly marked containers. Dangerous and poisonous chemicals shall be in protectec. storage. The County shall post cautions, directions, antidotes Ci-~d e~ergency procedures for each che~ical or agent at ~~e place of storage, readily available to living unit and medical staff. The County shall not store chemicals, solvents, or cleaning solutions in recycled food or drinking containers (SA at 18) (certification required) (C02 at 20).
6. Health and Sanitation SuoervisQr: A qualified person, f~liar" with health and safety standards and practices, shall oversee health "and sanitation conditions related to housekeeping CSA at 17) (¢e=-:'ification re91ired) (C02 at 19).
I. fiousekegninci "Supervisor: }...ssigned staff shall supervise housa~eeping and cleaning a~ivities at a l l times, ins~~ct inmate ~orkers and inspect work when completed (SA at 17) (Certification required ) (C02 at 19).
34

1. !'l:.r: t= Hgt;!t Becuire!!1en't.s of Ac:-;eme~~: ·'Lie C::unty shall c.S:'/e!cp, imple!!lent:., and sabmi t to plaint:":fs' c=:.:.::sel a launc=y , be~cing, and c!e~~ing plan t~ comply wi~~ t~e re~i=e~ents of ~~i s Agreement (SA at:. 19 ) .
B. 8eo::dinc
1. Ql!alit:'1 of Matt;,-asses: The County shall provide inmates with mat~esses anc matt~ess covers ~~at are in good repair and cons~~c~e~ ~i~ fire retardant material ap9roved by ~~e N~~· Jersey Depar-~ent of Ccmmunity Affairs, Bureau of Fire Safety (SC03 at 15) (Cert~fication required) (2CO at 25-26 ) .
2. Matt:.+ess Storace and Cleenina: The County s~all mark mattresses and matt:.ress covers by number, store and maintain tbem in a sanitary manner, sanitize them before issue, and clean them on a routine basis (SC03 at 15).
3 . Matt=gss SUrvey and Renlacement: Every 3 months, ~~e county shall surve'l all matt.::"esses and mattress covers and identIfY the number and location of mattresses with c=vers that
are torn, ripped, or otherwise in poor repair. The County shall r~cve ~~ese mattresses from use and renair or renlace them within JO days from the due date of eac~ quarterly sur~ey (SC03
at 14-1:).
c. LaunCrv (Certification required ) (C02 at 25 ).
1. Launcrv P:oceaures: The County shall secure proper equipma~~ ~~d shall establish procedures to separate clean and d.i.rty cloths and sort and feld laundry. Laundry shall be washed at leas~ at 160 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 minutes or longer. Bleaches and laundry soaps shall be used where necessary for the proper care of linens and flat work (SA at 19).
2. Linens: Upon issue and on a weAkly basis, the County will provide clean sheets and pillow cases (SA at 18).
3. Blankets: Opon issue ·and on a monthly basis, the County shall clean blankets . The County shall replace all worn or soiled bl~~ets and pillows (SA at 18-19).
4. Pillows and Mettresses: Upon issue, the Coun~y shall sanitize mat~esses and matt=ess covers . Thereafter, the County shall routinely clean and maintain pillows and matt=esses in a sani~f condition (SA at 18) .
. 35

.,.'.';.:':<:~~.\..:(., ')" .-'. . . .

.

5. Tcwels: . The ', co~"t.'J s ..2.11 prov~de to.....els to . e~c:: inmc:=e and shall clean L~e t~wels aT:. leas~ t~ice a week (SA ' a~ 1:).

in 6 _ outside Launc!rv Used: If t..'1.e County' 5 laundr.,

facilities cannot acc~mmodate ~,e schedule sat fo~~

~~is

Agreement , the county shall meet t~e requirements of t~is

Aareemen~ wi~~ ~'e assistance at an outside laundry (SA at 19).

o. Clothincr .

1. P~ooer Clothincr: The County shall provide eac~ inmate with clo~inq that is properly fitted, climatically saitable, durable, economical, easily laundered, in good repair and _
presentable (SA at 18 ).

2. Items of clothjncr: Upon admission, the County shall
provide each inmate with 2 sets of outer garments, 2 sets of
undergarments, and two sets of socks. The County may supply one
set of outer garments as sleep wear provided the set is laundered in accordance with this Agreement. If not already possessed by an inmate, the county shall supply inmates with one set of shoes.
The County shall provide additional sets of clothing to' inmates
assigned to work duties (SA at 18-19) (Certification required) (C02 at 25).

3. Launde=ina Clothes: (certification required) {C02 at 25)

a. Under~ear and Socks: The County shall launder each inmate's underwear and socks every t"...ro days (SA at 19);

C. Outer CIQthincr: The county ·shall launder each inmate's
outer clothing at least ~~o times per week, except for
coats, jackets and shoes (SA at 19);

c. Sleeowear: The County shall exchange sleepwear we~~y (SA at B); and

d. Personal Clothincr: The County shall provide inmates with a method to launder personal clothing in the central laundry facility (C02 at 25).

XIII. MEDICAL CARE

A. Organization of Health Services

1. Medical Director: The ECJ and the ECJA shall have a

medical director who is board.-certified in internal medicine,

surgery or family practice.

The medical director's

responsibilities include (C02 at 6):

36

•
2.. ::.::::=e,,:: !'::e di~ec~~= 5;:2.1.1 have C~Q"'- cl.:':l':"ca2. and 2o":;:,;::':'5-====.-=:'·,e authority t:: eval'.lat2 bl!c.ge":.a=:r neecs (C:)2 at:. 6 ) ;
b. C:;,nic Suce=vision: The c.irec't.or 5::2.11 supe=-.r;isa and maintain aC::::lur.-:.abilitv for the ooeraticn of t.~e medical
clinic and 5112.11 coordln2:c= wit.~ ail ex't.a::-nal. and im:.arnal. ser.,ices t.~at have an impac",= on medical care (e.g. hospitals, radiology, laboratory, consultants, psyc;"iat=ists f dental, etc.) (C02 at 6 );
c. Quali to, of Care: The medical direC'tor silall regularly re'lieT"; c!l~s a!'1d ensure t..~e quality of medical ca::-e ( 602 at 6); and
d. Staff E'raluation: The director shall annually evaluate all heal~~ care staff's clinical work and performance. Each staff member shall have this evaluation placed in his or her personnel file (C02 at 6 ).
2. Medical Administrator: The County shall provide a medical administrator who reports to the Medical Director and shall maintain c~a~ sy5te~s, ensure ~~e collection and comnilation of proper statistics and maintain an adequate syste!ll - of record keeping. The Iiledical administrator shall orde.:- and maintain equipment and make budget recommend~tions (C02 at 6 - 7).
3. Mental Ee~lth Services Director: The County shall provide a Mental liealt..'1 Se::vices Director who reports to the Medical Director and ensures the delivery of appropriate mental health services or refe=rals (C02 at 7: SA at 27).
B. Mecical Staff Licenses and eccreditation:
1. Licenses: The County shall maintain copies of current licenses for all medical personnel (C02 at 7).
a. Medical st::ff: All physicians, nurses, and physician exte...'1ders shall have current CPR accreditation with
certifications kept on file (SC03 at 11: C02 at 10).
b. Cor:ectiona! staff: At least 3 correctional officers on each shift at the EC.J' shall be CPR-trained. At least 10 correc.:ional officers on each shift shall be CPR-trained. At the ECJ', at least 3 correctional. officers on each shift at the ECJA shall be CPR trained (SC03 at 11: C02 at 10).
37

c.

\

1- Ng ;-sioc Cove~=c e:

The C:)unty shall maint.ain on-site

nu=si:1q c~ve=age at t~e ECJ and ECJA 24 hc1.!=s a ' cay, i days c..

week ( SCOJ a~ 11; C02 at 10 ) .

a. ~ At the ECJ, ~'le County shall provide full time phys~c~an c~verage ~ith at least 2 medical doctors working on site at least 6 hours each weekday and on call at least 4 hours on weekend days and holidays (SeQJ at 11).
b. ECJb: At the ECJA , the County shall provide full time physician coverage by utilizing no less than 4 medical doctors who will each work on site six hours each weekday and who will be on call at leas"t 4 hours on weekend days and holidays. Each weekday, t..'1ere shall be at least 10 hours of on-site coverage. One of the 4 physicians shall be board-eligible or board-certified in gynecology and obs'tetrics and shall provide at leas't 30 hours per ~eek of on-site coverage (C02 . at 9 ).
D. Intake Sc=eenina:
1. Initial screenincr Within 24 or 7 2 Hours:
(a ) 72 Hour screenincr: If De..... inmates are housed in separate admissions housing as required by this Agre2ment l then the county shall provide each inmate wit~ a medical screening, all required physical examinations, including a psychological, psychiatric or dental evaluation, and a classification review within 72 hours of admission (SeC3 at 10; seCl at ~li CJ at 6; C02 at 7; SA at 7).
(b) 24 Hour Screepina: If the County cannot bouse new adJllissions separately until after their physical examination, these new inmates shall receive their medical screening and physical e:.camination within 24 hours of admission, except for weekend adJllit'tees who shall have their ,physical examination no later than Monday (secJ at l~; C02 at 8).
2. Medical Scregn:
a. Availabiljtv: A clinically trained person (who shall be an individual with qualifications equivalent to or exceeding those of a LPN or a medical technician) shall provi~e inmates with a medical screen 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (SeOJ at 9; C02 at 7; SA at 27);

38

." . "~..

"

b. A=-:=s e:::ve:-;c :

,."=-•• (1 : 1!egipl His,;,,,,, , The mecic,"l

~,~,, shall

i::::~uc.e a hist.ory of c:.!r=e!:"::. ill.::essas anc he2.l.~j,

p===lems (including men~al, dental and c=UDcnicable

di$aas2s), drug and alcohol use (incluc:ng types,

me~~ods, amounts, frequency, da~e or time of !~s~ use and

a historl of proble!llS which may have oC::""!-"'"red after

ceasing the drug or alCOhol use, suc~ as c=nvulsions),

suicide risk, medications taken, special health probl~

or require~ents (such as allergies and therapies), and

o~er health proble~ as designated by the respoE~ible

physician (SeDJ at 10; C02 at 7);

(2) Obse!'"'..ration: The medical sc=eening shall include an cbse~ation and notation of behavior (including unusual behavior, appearance, conduct, tremors and s-;.,'eating),
body deformities, ease of movement, condition of skin (including t!:'auma markings, bruises, lesions, jaundice,
rashes, infestations, needle marks and other indications
of d.-ug abuse) (SC03 at 10; C02 at S); and

( 3 ) Recommendation: The medical screening s~all include
a recommended disposition including (i) referral on an
e!lle::-gency basis to an appropri"ate health care provider, (ii) placement in general inmate population wi~~ later
raferral to an appropriate health care service or provider, or (iii) placement in t.~e general inmate
population (Se03 at 10i C02 at 8).

3. Phvsical Examination: Every inmate shall have a physical examination ~at covers the following areas:

a. communjcable Diseases and Health Impairments: Every inmate shall have a physical examination and any testing necessary to identify a contagious condition, communicable disease or serious health impairment that may be asymptomatic or
otherwisa not ordinarily detectable by a routine physical examjnation. Weekend adm.ittees shall have their physical examination no later than Monday (SCQ3 at 10; C02 at 8);

b. Vital Signs and Statistical 'Information: The physical
examination shall, at a minimum, include recording of height
and weight, an assess:;:nent of vital signs (pulse, blood pressure and temperature), neurological system, heart, lungs, abdomen and an assessm~~t of recent trauma (SeQ3 at 10i C02 at
8) i and

c.

Oi~gnostic Testina:

Every inmate shall receive

diagnost.ic . tests that include, but are not limited to, a

tuberc~lin skin test. and syphilis serology. In addi ticn to

39

,

. -: ;

.. - '

~

. ".~' ~\_"
-,-.

~ "-";,,;
t -\._": "" ,~~. ,;.

.......,....c_c=- · -_~_-5·,·:.;.:.:S, a_~ I" fa·._.. a_1 e 1._-._-=-. -...~_5 s;:'ali "a:sc recei:.J'e a ;:=:S"r:2.!'lcy

~= s = (SeDJ a~ 10; C02 at ;-9).

4. Se!::arat: _~dmiss i Qns :;,;us inc! AI!. ne'N irulates 5;:'a11 be ." housed in a sepa=ate a~issicr.s housing area until ~~ey receive a
medical sc=eening, a physical examination by a licensed physician,
and classi!icaticn review. (SeQ3 at 11; C02 at 9; SA. at 7).

5. Classification: T~e County shall not make housing classification determinations until the medical screening and physical examination are completed. The County shall immediately refer t..'losa irulates in neec of a hospital or e!?lergenc¥:. room evaluation to t."le hospital. Inmates with special medical needs
(incluc.ing those inmates in ;.;neelchairs) shall be housed in an infir:;:J.2.Z'""j. lru:letes who are mentally ill shall be placed in observation and/ or on a suicide watch or referred to an appropriate psychiat~ic faci2ity (seOJ at 11; C02 at 9 ) .

6. Medica! Eecordkeeoinc!

a. Est~bli5hing a Medics! File: At intake, the CoUnty shall create a medical recor~ for each admittee, which will acc~mpany i:~ates if they transfer bet~een the ECJ and ECJA. If Co trans':e=-red inmate is not accompanied by his medical
file, e ne'...· record shall be created (SC03 at 13; C02 at 12).

b. contents of Medical ril es: Medical records shall include

an L~ate/s admission his~ory and physical examination notes,

all laboratory and test results, consul.tations, progress

notes, all clinical encounters, a working proble~ list, all

mental health notes , and a clear notation of allergies. Each

progress note should be entered in a standard format (i.e.,

= - "SO~2

subjective, objective, assess~ent and plan) (SeQJ at

13; C02 at 12).

c. One Mecical Folder: All patient-related materials (e.g., me.'1tal healt.!l, dental, medical) shall be kept in one folder so
that all practitioners have access to the findings (SeQ3 at 13; C02 at 12).

d. contidentialitv: Medical records shall be managed in a manne::- that protects t!le confidentiality of an inmate's medical status and condition. Medical records shall be stored so they are not accessible to correctional personnel. When inmates are transf2-~ed between facilities, medical records shall be t='ansf erred in a manner which protects their confidentiality (SCOJ at 13; e02 at l2).
E. sick Call

L Dailv P:-ocessina: On a daily basis, the county shall collec-=. and process inmate re~ests for medical attention (seQJ at

40

12: C:l2 at 10).
2. weQk-~r.c Sick C:11: Ey 5:00- a.m. en saturcay s, S~~=ays anc holidays, t~e heal~~ care ;=~==ssionals on duty shall lis~ all inmates whc have a sick call r=';Ues't. and need a physic':'an' 5 diac:losis ana t=e,abent. The he=.lth care c=ofessionals shall preaptly notify ~~e designatec physicians of ~~e neee t o c ooe to the ECJ or the ECJA for weekend sick call (C02 at 10 ).
3. Sick Call Records:
a. Dailv Sick Call Lis't.: The County shall c=eate $ , caily sick call list of all requests for medical attention. This list shall include a brief notation of the purpose and outcome of each inmate's visit to ~~e medical deoa~~ent. Sick call
lists shall be kept on file for at least 3 years (SeC3 at 12;
eC2 at 10); and
b. Inmate's Medical Folder: The county shall place a record
of an inmate's sick call raquest in the inmate's medical
folde~. If an inmate reques~ sick call, but then fails to appear, the County shall obtain an explanation which is placed in the folde~ (SCOJ at 12; C02 at 1~).
4. Routine and P!"oventetive Care: Within 24 hours of a request, inmates who need routine or preventive ca~e shall have access to medical staff capable of diagnosing and tre~ting their health care complaints (SCQ3 at 12; CJ at 6i C02 at 10).
5. E!i\ercencv Care: Inmates who need emeraencv care shall have immediate access to medical staff (SeQ3 at 12; CJ-at 6; C02 at
10) .
a. Triaae: A trained heal~~ care staff me~er (LPN) shall triage sick call requests based on a clinical assess~ent that includes a brief history and evaluation of vital signs and physical condition. An inmate's medical. fol.der shall contain a record of this assessm~~t (SeC3 at 12; C02 at 10);
6. Follow-up: The County shall iEplement a follow-up system for inmates with chronic medical problems (e.g., hypertension, diabetes), abnor>nal laboratory results or prolonged acute problems (Sec3 at 12; C02 at 11).
a. Inmate Unavailability for Follow up: If an irunate is unavailable for the follow-up visit, the Medical Depa.rblent shall lI1ake a chart and promptl.y reschedul.e the appointment (SCD3 at 12; C02 at 11); and
b.. Inmate Refuses Follow-uo: A inmate may refuse a follow-up visit only in the presence of medical staff in the clinic. The inmate s~all sign a refusal fo~ which is placed in the
41

7. Ip=:~0c~t:t:cn of s;c!< c.al! Beo;'ui,;-e!ltents: ·r:"e County
s~all t~~= a1: necessa=y S~eos t~ comely M:~~ the re-=ui::,;~e~ts for sick c.=.ll ~::,::;cec!.!:;:!;s, in·cl ucing . renc va ti o n o{ f=.cilities , acquisition c: e~i~~e~~, and hiring of accitional s ~a £: (SeQ3 at
12; C02 at 10 ;' .

F.

Mec.:'c~ti Qn

1. Dis""t;-:;'ution: Only qualified medical or nursing pe:!:"sonnel shall cis""tric~~= medication (SeC] at 14; C02 at 13) .

2. Phar::;::;ce'..lticgl RecQ rd s : A pharmacis"t. or othe:!:" a;:propriate heal~~ care p::'ov ider respo nsibl e f o r dispensing medication shall
keep ro;cords at t...~e ECJ and the ECJA of inmates r allergies r medication usage, drug rea ctions and int e rac~i o ns (C02 at 13 ) .

G. Cli~ics and Infirmaries

1. Infi~arv at the ECJ and ECJb: The County shall maintain infirmaries at the EO and ECJA for all irunates in need of
convales cence, separate manage~ent or recove~. The ECJA shall have a separa~= infi~ary for women (SeQJ at 13; C0 2 .at 12).

2. Se;:-.f:ces Provided : Each infir::lar.f shall have 24 hour
medical c::>verage, da ily bedside visi-Cation by a physician or physician extender I and an area for perfonning trea t:iJe~ts and evaluations (SC03 at 13; C02 at 12).

3. Scace . St~ff, and Eau ioment : The county shall provide
space l personnel, support s~aff I and equipment ~hich are SUffici ent, i~ the Medical Director's judgment, to d e liver medical services, inc~uding examination, treatment, infirmary space I and office space, in accordance with professional. standards in the community for a comparable patient population in te~ of numbers l needs and his~ories (C02 at 7).

4. Bloce Work: The infi~ary shall obtain necessary blood work at all times wi~~ daily delivery to the referral laboratory
(C02 at 7).

E. Consultations and Refe=rals

1. Timelv and Aporooriate Consultations and Referrals: The
County shall ~ange for timely and appropriate consultations and referrals for inmates in need of a specialist's care or for medical
attention in a clinic or hospital (SC03 at 12; C02 at ll ) .

a. Leas: The medical department shall maintain a log of all inmate a?poin~ents with specialists or r e ferrals to clinics and hosp i ~als ( SC03 at 13; C02 at 11);

42

b. T==05-:::C;-:: T~e C=:.:::-:::- s~all e~5-:.lz-e ~!le avail~!:i.li ty c:': suf:icient vehicles a~c s~~ff t~ t=~nspo~ inoa~es ~~ sc~eduled aF~cint=ents (SC~J at 13; C02 a~ 11); and

c. Revie~,;: The Ccun'ty shall request t~at all inma't;=s sent for c:jnsultations ret:.:.=':1 ""it.'! de':.ailed rec:::Irds of Vihat was acc::::molished. wi t!lin 24 hcurs, a physician shall revie<.; be
consuitation results ane st.ate on t..'1e chart "Whet..'1er ue specialist's or clinic's plan will be followed, and, if not, the reason for the decision (SCOJ at 13; C02 at 12).

I. Surae"!:V

2. Standard to Pe=f0rill Surae=v: Upon the physician's recommencation, the County shall arrange for surgery for conditions resultiog in current SUffering or pain or serious physic:3.1 distress or discomfort. Surge~ shall be provided for serious medical needs and shall not be limited to conditions ~'1at are life-threate~ing or that would necessarily lead to permanent disfigurement or lasting discomfort (SC03 at 14; C02 at 13).

2. Timeliness: The County shall provide for timely surgery.
Timeliness shall be assessee by reference to 1:.'1e time auring which such surgery would routinely be scheduled and performed consistent with ordinary meeical practices in the community (SC03 at 14; C02 at 13).

3. Suroical Consult=tions: The County shall schedule

surgical consultations based on the inmate I s actual physical

dis~ess and the probable medical consequences of delayed at~ention

to the problem, including pain, suffe~ing, se~ious physical

discomfort and distress.

The County shall not base its

consultation policy simply on a categorization of the surgery as

elective or necessary. The County shall not routinely deny or

delay surgical conSUltations (SCC3 at 14; C02 at 13).

J. pental Care

1. Licensee Dentist: A dentist licensed by the State of New
Jersey shall direct the provision of all dental care to inmates (C02 at 13).

2. Dental sc.eeninc: All ne'" inmate admissions shall receive a dental sc=eening (C02 at 13; SA at 27).

:3. Examination bv Recrues~ or Referral: The County shall
sched~e inmates for a dental examination if an inmate submits a
sick call request indicating a dental problem or if a bealth care professional refers the inmate for dental care. If the examination
indicates a need for t.=eabent, the required treatment shall be e~tered in the inmate's dental record (C02 at 13).

43

4. per.-:~!. 1'-,== ;der.~ ?;:rcr:!i!: The COL:.::' =:.-" shal!. i=;:';' ,=~e!'!":. a
dental trea bent p:::-::g:-a.:::;: ':..'1a;: ac=or.: ..iIoc.ates a~ _ i:1::12.':.= I 5 den,::.:.l ne~ds but pr::vid es c..n'::~': C2.r~ on a priori -:y cas is t= ~1.osa in .greatest neec (C~ a~ 6; C02 at 13-14).
a. P:-e·.rertive Oentis"t;v: Th e · dental t=ea"C:!em: pr=;-:.-:am shall include providing re,;",..!lar dental care t o inmates including teeth cleanin;- and c~vity fillings (C02 at 14 );
b. Prior ity T~ga~ent: The dental t=;a~ent pr=g:.-am shall provide priority t:.-ea~ent under the following cir=~stances:
(1) On an immediate basis, the county shall provide den~l care to inmates who need emergency t::eat:nent c:.- who have complicated medical proble!D.s such as allergies, diabetes, heart conditions or blood disease (C02 at 14);
(2 ) Wi~~in 24 hours of a request or a referral, ~e County shall evaluate the dental needs of inmates who lac.'c sufficient teeth to masticate the foed provided. For these inmates, the county shall sc!ledule appropriate dental treatment on a priority basis in accordance with professional standards in the community (C02 at 14);
( 3) Wi~in 3 days of a request or r eferral, the ccunty shall
evaluate those ir...mates who are in pain or disc:::mfort due
to denta!. conditions. For these inmates, t."e Countv shall scbedule appropriate dental t::eat:nent on a priority basisi in accordance with professional standarc.s in the community (C02 at 14); and
(4) In all other cases, the County shall use t..'1.e date of incarceration as a basis for placement on treabent lists and shall scberlule inmates for an appropriate program of dental treabent in accordance vdth professional. standards in the community (C02 at .14).
K. AIDS and Chronic Illnesses
~. Diagnostic" Counsel ina « and Treatment Se::-yices: The County shal.l. provide diagnos"t.ic, counselling and treatment se..~ces which are necessary to preserve the heal.th and reduce the suffering of P2-"""Sons with AIDS and other serious chronic illnesses (SCOJ at l.3; CO2 at 12).
2. Medications: The county shall provide medications deemed appropriate by a t:.-eating physician in accordance with ' recognized clinical or professional standards (SeOJ at 13; C02 at 12).
44

xn·. C:!Tilorehens;'-;e St:;ff i !'!C' ;";-:::'/$;' 5 a::C P!,a.;, (C=r-:.i~ica;:ion Requirec ) ( ~CO at 27)
A. St~ff i ~c p la n
1. St:affinc .J.nalvsi s: T!1e C=u.nty shall cbtain and submit to plaintiffs' counsel an indepencen~, professional staffing analysis for three areas of ECJA o;:e=ations: sec~ity s-::'affing and training, classification, and inmate ac~ivities (SA at 28; C02 at
27) •
2. Contents of St:af-Finc ~nalvsis: The s~a;ffing analysis shall address s't.a.ff training, staff c:Jverage, classification I inmate activity, intake population, and corrections operations. The staffing analysis shall review carrent act!lorized staffing, vacancies, position descripticns, salaries, classification, and workload_ The analysis shall t_f to maximize ~~e use ot properly classified and t=ained inmate workers where appropriate. The analysis shall taJ<e into account the requir2!llents of this Agreement with respec~ to health, safety, and food se~ice as i t impacts on the work of c:Jrrections or civilian staff (SA at 29).
3. Imnlemen~ation of Staffinc Plap: Based on the s~ffing analysis, the county shall develop and sulm.it to plaintiffs' c:Junsel a staffing plan by July 1, 1989, and shall fully impleMent the s~affing plan by January 1, 199 0 (SA at 28; C02 at 27).
xv_ Alte:natives to Incarceration Programs
A. Reoorts en IS? and coa~ucitv Service ?=ogram:
1. ouarterlv Re'.::Jort: Every 90 days, the County shall prepare and subm.it a report to the Court., the Special Masters, and the par""...ies detailing how many individuals par---icipated in the county's Intensive supe~ision Probation program and the County's Community Service program. The County shall regularly request from any relevant county and state agencies all inforwation required for these repor-...s and shall attac!l to its quarterly report its request tor information and any material received (SeCl at ~3).
B. Pre-Trial Suoervision and Services P~ogram
1. Hoo-?rofit Bail Bond Aceney; The County shall fund the Vera rns~tute of Justice (Vera) to operate a non-profit bail bond age..TlCY until at least Decembe= 31, 1993. This program shall provide pre-trial supervision and services and outpatient drug treatment se--vices for at least 40 inmates who would otherwise be detained at the ECJ or ECJA pending trial. The County shall fund all wind down cos"":.s if the program is not continued beyond this date (2CCO. at 4; CCO at 6-7).
45

'.
2. Resi=e;.;.i~ l Sl!;s-,:,~!':o::::!:! .;t;;se P;-ccra!::: Ey Ja.:::.:==~' JO, :~S:3, t...'1.e C=:.:...-.~·J' s:'a1.1 es'tablis:: a sabs-=ance a.t_sa p=:::;===, T-":':-:::':lg Point/ S,;:c;nd C!1a!'lce, for pr2- t::.-:'al inc~rce;-.a'C=d. . pe=3~::s. 'r'his progr='D ~i!l ac==~ocata a mini~um of 40 pe:-scr.s a~ a ~:~e, i:l 90
daY c'/cles , who ct~e~.Jise \o'culd ::'O:!!lain d etainee. at t!i. e :::= anc. ECJA
pe;dinq t::-ia1 (2CC:) at 4).

3. C!..!s't.:H:ial prya' ace: A!c=tol Treatment P:-ocrra!':!: By Mar::~ 1,
1990, t...~e coun~y shall fund anc have fully o?eraticna! a c~~~dial drug a..'1C alc:Jhcl t=ea'bnent program for at least 50 !=ersons who ot..lJ.er..;isa would re!!lain detainee. at t.i.e ECJ or t..~e ECJ'A pending trial. The County shall seek to identify SO inmates in t...~e-ECJ or ECJA wi:o can be t:-ans!er!':;d t:> this prog=am. If t!i.is pr:::gram results in openings in the ECJA , ~~e county shall t~ans!er inmates from ~~e ECJ to ~~e ECJA (ceo at 9: SC02 at 2).

c. Sente~c in c Pro;ect: The county shall cont~ac~ wit~ the

Sentenc~ng Project to complete a study by February 1, 1993, of the

inmate population and to ma~e recommendations on short- term, mid-

term, and long-term needs for additional jail capacity in Essex

County.

The County defendants shall imple~ent these

recomme~dations to the fullest extent necessary to bring the ECJ

and ~~e ECJA population below the caps specified in t~is Second

Consolicated Ccns ent Orde~ without the USe of the Overc~owding Bail

Fund (2CCO at .3 ) .

XVI. P~o ;ect Coordinatjon
A. Pro;ect Mansaer: The County Executive shall designate or hire a Project Ma.!"lager whose sole responsibility shall be to c~ordinate all wo r k necesscrj for the timely c~mpletion of the pretrial Supervision and services program, the custodial drug and alcohol treet:::ment program., the fire safety initiatives, the housing initiatives, and recreation projects required in this Agree!!1ent .. The Project Manager shall prepare all repor-...s on the projec+"-.s
specified in this paragraph and shall recommend any steps necessary
to insure that these projects are completed in a timely manner. The project Manager shall coordinate the work of all c~Wlty depart:&Ients involved in the timely completion of these projec+"-s and shall report dire~ly to the COWlty Executive (Ceo at 14).
XVII. sanctions
A. Sanctions On Maximum Caoacitv Violations
1. Automatic Sanctjons: If the inmate population exceeds 594 inmates at the ECJ, 627 males and 102 females at ~~e ECJA, or the housing caps at eit~er facility, the County shall automatically be sanctioned for each inmate housed in excess of ~~e overall populat:.ion cap or individual housing unit cap. "The Special Masters shall cete=mine the da ily amount of sanctions imposed for Violating
46

pcpula~:cr. caps, and t~e s~~e~~le c: sc~c ~ icns shall be i!1~::r:;:cr=::.=-':' by refe.!:"ence in t,jiz Ag:::-eS-!:ls-.!'!.t u;cr. _cu:::--=. approval, The Cou!'!.~: aq:::-es-s not to c~nt=st t,je 5anc~~on s~~edule ~~e Special Ma5~=.!:"S es~a=lis;;' (SeD3 at 15-16 i C02 at. 29).
2.. S2.:"':c::io05 Our;!"Ie' Erne!"C'e!1C'.r Si C:::J2t io ns: The C~u.nty may reques~ a hearing to reduce the sanc-:.ions or tc defe::- the imposition of sanctions during an emergency sit~ation c~used by a sudden, reasonably unexpected and unforeseeable event or series of events, suc~ as fires, disasters, or riots. E~ergency situations shall not include situations caused bv fluc::uations in iIlDate population associated wi~~ c:::-iminal jus~~ce pra~~ices, prosecut~rial policies, law enforce~ent activities, changes in the c=iminal la·.....s, changes in jUdicial sentencing patte::-ns, or a reducticn in or te~ination of any County program ~~at p=ovides, or assis'ts in providing, pre-trial release or nen-custodial disposition alternatives (SeQ3 at 16-17; C02 at 30).
3. Notice to Seck to Mitiaatc or Defe r Sanctions: If the County seeks to mitigate or defer sanc~ians during an emergency, ~~e Adminis~atar or Warden shall info~ the Special Masters and plaintiffs' counsel, immediately by telephone and wi~~in 24 hours in writing, of ~fJ.e eme!'"gency. The notice shall set forth the reason for ~~e emergency, its expected duration, the tctal number of inmates housed at the ECJ or ECJA, the number of inmates added by t.~e e!!le=:;:sncy to the EeJ or EGA, t.~e locations ",-here these inmates are housed, and the eXDec~ed imnact on conditions, services or programs available to all lIU:lates (SCD3 at 17; C02 at 30-31).
4. Plan to Address the Emercencv: Wit.~n one week of any declarec emergency, the County shal! present to the Special Masters and plaintiffs' cou.~sel a plan to ade=ess the emergency and achieve the populatien caps . If the County fails to submit this plan, it may not rely on the emergency as a basis for a mitigation of sanctions (Se03 at 17; C02 at 31).
B. sanc~ions On Services. Programs and P~ocedures Violations
1. Aut::imatic sanctions: If the County fails to comply with or provide ~e s~~ices, programs or procedures required by this Aqre~ent, ~e County shall automatically be sanctioned for its continued nen-compliance based on the number of inmates adversely affected on a c.aily basis by the noncompliance. The Special ~~sters shall determine the da~ly amount of sanctions imposed for violating service, program, and procedure requirements, and the schedule of san~ions shall be incorporated by reference in ~~is Agreema~t upon Court approval (SeQ3 at 17-18; C02 at 31-32).
2. He~rina on Sanctions: The parties may reques~ a hearing on the amoun~ of sanction that the Special Masters recommend for violations of Services, programs, or procedures requi=ed by this Agreement (Se03 at '17; C02 at 32).
47

.' .

1. Mon; 't.?; i nc am:! Co mc l :"oc E P'..!!."':Ioses : The . S~e~:' :':' Mas-:..2:"s

-== cr a c::l!~-ap;:oim::.ed mc ni~:>r may us e the sanc ... icns mc~ ey

:::cni~=r

c= achieve c::mpliar:ce. .it:...." t~is Agree men-:. cr to c:::c;:er:S c.c2 or

benefic p!ain~iffs including (SeQJ at 18; C0 2 at 32 ) :

a. Soecific Pg"'for;nancg: requiring t.."e county t::: a==ange for ~"e programs, services, or c~nstruc~ion necessa=y c::: achieve
compliance (SeQJ at 18; C02 at 32);

b. Bail fun d : upon approval of t-1.e Court, uti!iz ~ ng the money to es~ablish a bail fund for inmates confin ec a~ ~'e ECJ or ECJA (SeD) at 18; C02 at 32 ) ; or

c. Payment to Plaintiffs' Co uns e l: recommend!n; t::: t~e Co~
t.~at sanctions assessee be used to pay plaintiffs ' c:::unsal's cos"ts to ret3in an expert to document compliance wi -:.!l t!lis Agreement (Sec) at 18; C02 at 32).

O. Sanc~i Q n P= ocegd inas

1. !5sues t o be Dete!1!!ined: The Special Maste!:'s ma y initiate or the plaintiffs' counsel may reques~ a sanc~ions prcceedinq by telephone call or lette!:'. At this proceeding, the Special Masters will c.e't.er;:nine if the County is in non-compliance \Oi t...i. this Agreement or the eourt' s orde!:'s and impose sanc"t.ions if app::'opriate (SeQ3 at 18-~9; C02 at 33).

2. Schedulinc Sanction Procegdincrsi sanction prcceedings shall be sc~eduled and c~nduc~ed expeditiously, and may proceed in the fo~ of a summary action. The return date of any sanctions application shall be 7 days from the date of service on ~e County " and filing by or with the Mast~s, or as soon "tbez-eafte!:' as the Masters' sc~edule permits (SCC3 at 19; C02 at 33).

3. Eearinos Necessary Onlv If Factual Issues in O;spute: If
arfidavits or documents show no genuine issue of material fact, the
Masters may base their recommendation to the Court on the pleadings, supporting documents, affidavits and may also conduct an inspection of the jail. If a genuine issue as to a material fa~ exists, the Masters shall hear the evidence on those matters at issue and ra~der their recomma~dation (SeQ3 at 19; C02 at 33).

4. Re~ommeDdations on an Expedited Basis: The County agrees t.!:z.at the Mastez-s may file their recommendations to the cour: within 14 calendar days from the date that plaintiffs file an application seeking sanctions (SC03 at 19; 2CO at 33).

48

~,--­
hV ' •.

J7..7:svrC;-CN . .h.C::=:SS AND MOf'fI,!,CR!NG

A. ';·.,;;;is':::'::'c::: .!. -;n:

1. CC~~/s Ju;;:sdic~ion: The Cour~ shall r=tai~ jurisdiction to enforce cr inte=pret ~~is Agreement and ShEll re5~lve disputes using as ~~idance ~~e standards and requiremen~~ of t~is Agreement (C3 at 8; Sr. at 30 ).
2. P"'~i al Dismissal: Defendants may be d,:,siilissed from po~ions cf this Ag~eement if the defendants ac~ieve and maintain timely coc~!iance continually for a pe=iod of one year and adopt policies ar.c procecures to prevent .a r eoccurrence of noncompliance (SA at 31 ) .

E. Ac; ess t:: t;"e ECJ and ECJA and Relev?!1t Ooc::nents:

1. r.c;ess to Ensure Comoliance: Upon reasonable notice, plaintiffs t counselor professional consultants sh~ll have reasonable access t:J t..'1.e ECJ" and the ECJA and all relevant records
in order t~ ensure compliance with this Aqree~ent until such time
as the Co~;~y has been in subst~~tial compliance wi~~ t..~is Order for one ccn~inuous year (SCOl at 13; CJ" at 7: SA at 30 ).
c. Mcnitorinc Renorts:

1. Stecial Master Reports: Every 90 days 1 the Special
Masters will file a compliance report unless e1rents r=quire a more frequent ~cnitorin~ policy (CJ at 9).

2. Annual Sanitarian Reoocts: Beginning August. 11 1989 1 the
county shall have a qualified public healt.~ sanitarian prepare an
annual compliance report on environmental, health, safety, and food
se-.....-vice issues within the ECJA. The sanitarian shall test all
housing Wlits for 2...'1.Y hazarris including asbestos. The County shall sent a C~?y of the inspection report and re!D.edial action recomm~~dations to plaintiffs' counsel (SA at 30).

3. Sm::)le!!1eotal Certifications: In every instance where the
County is required to submit a certification, the County shall supple!ll.~~t its ce.rt.ification on a quarterly basis until the Special
Masters rec:::1:I.mend that the Court find the County in compliance with the partic-ollar paragraph at issue (C02 at 33).
O. Compliance

1. Full Compliance: If any party is in default with any
obligation contained in this Consent order, L~e party shall fully
comply wi~~ that obligation by September 10, 1993.
In ccr.sideration for the defendants' agree~ent to comply with this Conse~~ Order, the plaintiffs agree to dismiss ~~eir claims

49

. ..

\

against the County and State defendants without ' prejudice (SA at
2) ..
The parties agree that this Second Consolidated Consent Order accurately incorporates all of the rights and obligations set forth in the previous consent orders entered in this case. However, the signing of this Consent Order is without prejudice to ·the parties' right to seek a future modification of the terms of this -Order.
The undersigned hereby consent to the form and entry-of this . Order:
Susan L. Reisner New Jersey Public Defender Attorney for Plaintiffs

Date:

By:

•

Susan Remis Silver, Director

Inmate Advocacy Unit

Ollie H. Hawkins county Counsel

Defendants

Date:

Date:

County Board

of

Defendants

Date:
I~
IT IS ON THIS~

Deborah Poritz

New Jersey Attorney General

Attorney for Defendant Fauver

6LQe~ ~=

Ronald Bol:heimer

.

Deputy~ey General

'-'''''f~1!. SO ORDERED:

-

Harold A.

50

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICf COURT

FILED

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MAY J 1 1999
)

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL ANNEX) CIVIL NO. 87-871 (HAA) {.TO:30

M

INMATES, et als.,

)

)

WilLIAM T. WALSH. CLERK

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

) Hon. Harold A. Ackerman, U.S.D.J.

)

JAMES TREFFINGER, County ) Frederic K.. Becker, Special Master

Executive, and WILLIAM H. FAUVER, ) Bennet D. Zurofsky, Special Master

Commissioner, et als.,

)

)

-~

Defendants.

)

)

)

ESSEX C()UNTY JAIL INMATES, et )

als.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

JAMES TREFFINGER, County )

Executive, ~d WILLIAM H. FAUVER, )

Commissioner, et also

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

CIVIL NO. 82-1945 (HAA) Hon. Harold A. Ackerman, U.S.D.I.
Frederic K. Becker, Special Master Bennet D. Zurofsky, Special Master

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER ON POPULATION AND HOUSING

WHEREAS, this §upplemental Order on Population and Housing is intended to

supplement the rights and obligations of the Second Consolidated Consent Order ("SCCO")

entered on August 8, 1995;

WHEREAS, in recognition that the facilities at the Essex County Jail (ECJ) and the Essex

County Jail Annex (ECIA) continue to be inadequate to meet some of the terms of the SCCO,

the Essex County defendants have' commenced planning and construction of a new County

Correctional Facility that is anticipated to be completed in September 2000, and fully occupied

and operational within six months thereafter;

WHEREAS, upon the opening and full operation of the new County Correctional facility,,' the Essex County defendants plan to close both the ECl and EC1A as jail facilities; and,

WHEREAS, the Essex County defendants recognize that the terms of the SCCO or any

subsequent order shall continue to apply, in whole or in part, to the detention of plaintiff class

members until the defendants achieve and maintain timely compliance continual!y for a period

of one year and adopt policies and procedures to prevent a reoccurrence of noncompliance with

the programs and services provided for in the SCCO or any subsequent order, regardless of the
-~
physical facilities, whether existing or to be constructed, in which the County houses detainees

awaiting trial and sentenced prisoners, and for good cause shown,

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED on behalf of plaintiffs and the Essex

County defendants in the above consolidated matters, as follows:

I.

POPULATION AND HOUSING AT THE Eel

A. Maximum Capacity

1. The maximum capacity of the ECl is increased from 594 to 654 inmates.

2. Eel Housing Unit Capacities shall be modified as follows:

Floors
2
3 4/5
6n
8/9
LOllI
12 12 12 12 12

Type of Housing Area South Dorm North Dorm Cells Cells Cells Cells Cells Quiet Cells
Disciplinary Cells Civil Area Dorm
Infirmary F Main Infirmary Total

Inmate Capacity
70 60 40 108 108 108 108
3 9
20 6 14 654

-2-

3. SiflllJe Cell Housing: ECJ cells shall continue to house no more than one inmate in each of the cells on the third through eleventh floors.
4. Duration of Stay Monitoring Requirement for Dorm Housing Units: The County shall monitor on a weekly or more frequent basis the duration of stay for all inmates housed in dormitory living conditions on the second floor of the ECJ, and shall not house inmates other than voluntary workers in this area for longer than 45 days without notice to plaintiff's counsel. Such notice shall be effected by providing plaintiff's counsel with a report showing duration of stay for all inmates in such dorms as of Monday of each week, both prior to and after transfers. Housing inmates in excess of 45 days shall not be prohibited per ~ but counsel for the plaintiff class shall be entitled to object to the housing of class members in such units for periods in excess of 45 days and, for good cauSe shown, the County shall be required to provide alternative housing to individual class members held in excess of such 45 day periods.
5. Emergency Capacity: The authority to house an additional 35 inmates above the maximUm capacity of the ECJ is eliminated.
6. Continued Effect of Other Provisions: Other terms of the SCCO, including specifically, but not limited to, requirements governing dayroom use, mattresses, and cots shall remain in effect. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING AT THE ECJA
A. Maximum Capacity 1. The maximum capacity of the ECJA is increased from 729 to 1,756
.5
inmates, consisting of up to 1,4~6 male inmates and 300 female inmates. This capacity may not be exceeded and the County shall not admit inmates in excess of the maximum capacity at any time unless application is first made to the Court on notice to plaintiffs counsel.
-3-

2. ECJA Housing Unit Capacities shall be modified as follows:

Unit

Area

Cells Donns Bunks

West Wing

Cell block AlB

36

72

Cell Block CfD

36

36

Cell Block ElF

36

72

Cell Block OIH

36

36

West Wing Subtotal

144

216

East Wing
Satellite I (RCF's)

Dorms A B

6

180

-

-

12

24

C

12

24

D

12

1'4

E

-

4

24

F

12

24

0

12

24

H

12

24

K

12

24

Satellite 1 Subtotal

84

192

Satellite 2

Old Women's Bldg 102

204

Satellite 3

Lower MIU

9

108

Satellite 4

Upper MIU

7

84

Satellite 5

MHU

104

208

Satellite 6 & 6A

Workers' Units

116

Satellite 7

New Women's Unit 252

252

Hospital Down

1

8

Hospital Up

(not in use as infirmary unit)

I

40

Total

Male Emergency Capacity in Satellite 5 (see footnote 2 below)

Female Emergency Capacity in Satellite 7 (see footnote 3 below)

ORAND TOTAL ECJA CAPACITY

Capacity 72 36 72
. 36 216 180'
24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 192 204 108 84 2082 116 252'
8 40
.1608 100 48 1756

I This capacity recognizes that there shall be a waiver of the living space and dayroom space r<:quirements in this unit, but only for the duration of and so long as there is compliance with this supplemental order.
1 This capacity may be increased as may be necessitated by construction, repair projects or increases in male inmate population by housing up to 25 inmates in the dayroom of each 4 quads, provided that inmates housed in such areas are rotated out after seven days.
, This capacity may he increased as may he necessitated by an overflow of women inmates by housing up to 12 inmates in the dayroom of each 4 quads, provided that inmates housed in such areas are rotated out after 14 days.
-4-

3. Continued Effect of Other Provisions: All other provisions of the SCCO, including but not limited to provisions governing the maintenance and terms of the ECJA' s maximum capacity, shall remain in effect, except to the extent that the housing unit capacities set forth above authorize double-bunking in certain housing units or are otherwise expressly waived by the terms of this supplemental order.
4. Duration of Stay Monitoring Requirement for Certain Housing Conditions: The County shall monitor on a weekly or more frequent basis the duration of stay for all inmates housed in dayroom space as may be authorized for lintited "periods iflthe ECJA.
a. Notice 'Requirement: The County shall not houSe inmates under such conditions in the above mentioned areas for the period of stay fixed in this supplemental order, without notice to plaintiffs' counsel. Such notice shall be effected by providing plaintiffs' counsel with a report showing duration of stay for all inmates in such affected housing units as of Monday of each week, both prior to and after transfers.
b. Durational Limit: Housing inmates under such conditions in the above mentioned areas in excess of the period of stay fixed in this supplemental order shall be
prohibited rurr ~ but the County shall be entitled to continue the housing of class members in
such conditions in these units for additional 30 day periods upon consent by plaintiffs' counsel or, if objection thereto is made by plaintiffs' counsel, on application to and approval by the Special Masters for good cause shown. If plaintiffs' counsel objects to such continued housing, and if the Special Masters do not approve the County's application for authority to continue such housing. then the County shall be required to provide alternative housing to individual class members held in such conditions in excess of the periods applicable to the particular housing unit..
-5-

III. SUPPLElviENTAL ORDER TO SERVE AS AN INTERIM REMEDY A. Condition of Supplemental Order: This supplemental order shall be considered
an interim measure which shall remain in effect and shall govern the gradual phase-out of the
- ECl and EClA, provided that the County defendants continue the County's inv.estment in
constructing new facilities, in making improvements to Satellite 5 at the ECl A, and in maintaining existing facilities in which class members are or will be housed.
B. Information to be Provided to Counsel for Plaintiff Class: 1. Existing Facilities: In recognition that the current facilities suffer from
deep-rooted deficiencies due to age, size and design which cannot be fully remedied to provide housing for the number of inmates detained or sentenced in Essex County, the County agrees that counsel for the plaintiff class shall be kept fully and regularly informed of the status of inmates housed in existing facilities, including, but not limited to the following: weekly dllfation of stay reports for inmates housed in the ECl's second floor dorms and 12th floor Civil Area, and in any EC1A dayroom areas.
2. New Facilities: In recognition of the commitment of the County defendants to avoid where possible any such deficiencies with regard to its new facilities and to achieve compliance at a minimum with the provisions of the SCCO, the County agrees that counsel for the plaintiff class shall be kept regularly informed of the status of construction of the County's new correctional facility and all projects planned as interim measures to improve current facilities, which shall be achieved by the County providing plaintiffs counsel with a copy of the monthly status report issued by the project construction manager to the Essex County Improvement Authority and the Essex County Administration.
-6-
/

The undersigned hereby consent to the form and substance of the above Order: For ECl and ECJA Plaintiff Classes

By:

T.

Hi

2

egie Center

Princeton, NJ 08543

~"ftj Dated/l/avj

For Essex County Defendants -.-
, .
By:

SO ORDERED: Dated: -"'-ml-Pf"bf-..J...J.4f7'

-7-

 
 'f .

FILED // 0

Hill Wallack

202 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08543

609-924-0808

By:

T. Gary Mitchell (0634)

Attorney for Plaintiffs

)

)

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL ANNEX )

INMATES, et als.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

JAMES TREFFINGER, County )
Executive, and WILLIAM H. f AUVER, )

Commissioner, et als. ,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

MAY 1 1 1999

(,70:30

M

WiLLIAM T. WALSH, CLERK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CIVIL NO. 87-871 (HAA) Hon. Harold A. Ackerman, U.S.D.J.

Frederic K. Becker, Special Master Bennet D . Zurofslqiy Special Master

)

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL INMATES, et )

als.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

JAMES TREFFINGER, County )

Executive, and WILLIAM H. FAUVER, )

Commissioner, et also

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

CIVIL NO. 82-1945 (HAA) Hon. Harold A. Ackerman, U.S.D.J.
Frederic K. Becker, Special Master Bennet D. Zurofsky, Special Master

ORDER ON ATTORNEYS FEES

WHEREAS, it is hereby stipulated and agreed on behalf of plaintiffs and the Essex

County defendants in the above consolidated matters, as follows:

(I) Plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to an award of attorney fees for legal services

provided on behalf of the plaintiff classes in this matter, including legal services rendered in

connection with or related to the monitoring of defendants' compliance with the District Court' s ~

orders, and

(2) The parties desire to establish an economical system to provide for plaintiffs'

counsel's submission of fees and costs on a regular, ongoing basis, and for the prompt payment

thereof, in order to avoid the expense and time consuming process of formal attorney fee

applications, and,

(3) The parties desire to establish a process for the lodging of any objections by

defendants to plaintiffs' counsel's billings for fees and costs, as well as a process for the appeal

by plaintiffs' counsel to any of defendants' objections, and

__oi>

(4) This Order is t4e. product of a knowing and voluntary compromise in which

plaintiffs and their undersigned counsel hereby waive entitlement to payment of their attorney

fees at prevailing market rates, and defendants waive application to this matter of any future court

ruling holding that the attorney fee provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(d), may apply to cap the hourly rate that plaintiffs' attorneys may be awarded

in this mlltter, and for good cause shown,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs in this matter shall be entitled to payment of attorney fees by the County

defendants at the rate of $125 per hour for legal services rendered by T. Gary Mitchell, Esq. or

another partner level attorney serving as counsel for the plaintiff classes, at the rate of $100 per

hour for legal services rendered by an associate level attorney assisting as counsel for the plaintiff

classes, and at the rate of $75 per hour for services rended by a paralegal assisting counsel for

the plaintiff classes.

2. Billings for such fees and for costs in connection with this matter shall be

submitted on a monthly basis or on whatever other schedule shall be mutually agreed to by

plaintiffs' counsel and the County defendants. The County defendants shall have 30 days in ~

which to contest the amount of the billing, and shall make payment within no later than 60 days

after receipt of the billing, less any amount of the billing which may be contested. 3. Plaintiffs' counsel may appeal to the Special Masters or to the Court for an Order
to resolve any contested portion of the billing which has not been paid within 60 days of the receipt of such billing by the County defendants. Plaintiffs' counsel and the County defendants shall make a good faith effort within this 60 day period to resolve informally any fee dispute before submitting it to the Special Masters or the Court as an appeal.
4. Plaintiffs' counsel shall be entitled to an award oi.fees and costs incurred in making such an appeal on a contested billing only to the extent that the Special Masters or the Court directs ftnther payment to be made to plaintiffs' counsel for a portion of the contested part of the billing on which payment had been refused.
The undersigned hereby consent to the fom: and substance of the above Order:

dr- Dated:

f~ I<?n

For Plaintiffs By:

SO ORDERED:

By: (!:;:{&t.~~~U~":!:!",,­ I Plato, Esq.
County Counsel

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL ANNEX

)

INMATES, et als.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

JAMES TREFFINGER, County Executive, )

and WilLIAM H. FAUVER,

)

Commissioner, et also

)

)

Defendants.

)

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

CIVIL NO. 87-871 (HAA)
Hon. Harold A. Ackerman, U.s.D.J.
Frederic K. Becker, Special Master Bennet D. Zurofsky, Special Master

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL INMATES, et als. , )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

JAMES TREFFINGER, County Executive, )

and WILLIAM H. FAUVER,

)

Commissioner, et als.

)

)

Defendants.

)

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

CIVIL NO. 82-1 945 (HAA)
Hon. Harold A. Ackerman, U.S .D.J.
Frederic K. Becker, Special Master Bennet D. Zurofsky, Special Master

ORDER OF SUBSTITUTION OF CERTA.IN DEFENDANT PUBLIC OFFICERS PURSUANT TO FED. R. ClY.. P. 2S(d)(I ) and
OF PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 2S(c)

WHEREAS. certain public officers who are Defendant parties in these consolidated

actions in their official capacities have ceased to bold public office and

WHEREAS, Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) provides that the officer's successors "shall" be

automatically substituted as parties, and

WHEREAS , the interests of the plaintiff class formerly at the Essex County Jail Annex

and Essex COWlty Jail in these matters have been transferred following the closing of these

facilities and the relocation of all Essex County inmates to other facilities under the continuing control and custody of Essex County, and
WHEREAS, Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(c) provides for the recognition of transferred interests of plaintiff parties, and
WHEREAS all subsequent proceedings are to be in the name of the substituted parties. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The following public officers shall be designated successor defendants, in their official capacities, as follows:
JOSEPH N. DIVINCENZO, JR., County Executive;
JOHNNY JONES, Presiden~ Essex County Board of Freeholders, PATRICIA SEBOLD, Vice-President Essex County Board of Freeholders; BLONNlE R. WATSON, ALBERTUS JENKINS, JESUS A. PADILLA, D. BILAL BEASLEY, CAROL Y. CLARK, MURIEL M. SHORE, and RALPH R. CAPUTO, Members Essex County Board of Freeholders; SCOTT FAUNCE, Essex County Director of the Deparlment of Corrections; and DEVON BROWN, Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections. 2. The plaintiff class previously identified in these consolidated matters , respectively. as "Essex County Jail Annex Inmates" and "Essex County Jail Inmates," shall be identified in subsequent proceedings as Essex County Inmates.

Dated :

Hon. Harold A Ackerman, Senior United States District Judge

2

 
 Case: 2:87-cv-871 As of: 03/31/2009 08:23 PM EDT 1 of 14
U.S. District Court District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Newark) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:87−cv−00871−HAA−ES

CLOSED

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL, et al v. TREFFINGER, et al Assigned to: Judge Harold A. Ackerman Referred to: Magistrate Judge Esther Salas Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Special Master

Date Filed: 03/09/1987 Date Terminated: 02/05/2007 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

BENNETT D. ZUROFSKY

represented by BENNET DANN ZUROFSKY REITMAN PARSONNET, PC 744 BROAD STREET SUITE 1807 NEWARK , NJ 07102 (973) 642−0885 Email: bzurofsky@reitpar.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Special Master
JOHN J. DEGNAN TERMINATED: 04/07/1995

represented by JOHN J. DEGNAN SHANLEY &FISHER 131 MADISON AVE MORRISTOWN , NJ 07960 (973) 285−1000 TERMINATED: 04/07/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Special Master FREDERIC K. BECKER

represented by FREDERIC K. BECKER WILENTZ, GOLDMAN &SPITZER, PC 90 WOODBRIDGE CENTER DRIVE SUITE 900 PO BOX 10 WOODBRIDGE , NJ 07095−0958 (732) 636−8000 Email: fbecker@wilentz.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Essex County Jail An TERMINATED: 06/23/2004

represented by ALFRED ANSON SLOCUM NEW JERSEY PUBLIC DEFENDER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADVOCATE 25 MARKET STREET TRENTON , NJ 08625 (609) 292−1889 TERMINATED: 02/09/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

IVELISSE TORRES FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE 22 SOUTH CLINTON AVENUE STATION PLAZA − 4TH FLOOR

Case: 2:87-cv-871 As of: 03/31/2009 08:23 PM EDT 2 of 14

TRENTON , NJ 08608 (609) 989−2160 TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

T. GARY MITCHELL DUANE MORRIS, LLP 744 BROAD STREET NEWARK , NJ 07102 (973) 424−2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Corey Webb

represented by ALFRED ANSON SLOCUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

IVELISSE TORRES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Thomas Armour

represented by ALFRED ANSON SLOCUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

IVELISSE TORRES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Frederick W. Booker

represented by ALFRED ANSON SLOCUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

IVELISSE TORRES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:87-cv-871 As of: 03/31/2009 08:23 PM EDT 3 of 14

JOSEPH P. BRENNAN , JR. 912 WALL ROAD SPRING LAKE HEIGHTS , NJ 07762 (732) 974−9234 TERMINATED: 09/18/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff James Simon

represented by ALFRED ANSON SLOCUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

IVELISSE TORRES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ronald McClendon

represented by ALFRED ANSON SLOCUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

IVELISSE TORRES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rosetta Drake

represented by ALFRED ANSON SLOCUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

IVELISSE TORRES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

T. GARY MITCHELL

Case: 2:87-cv-871 As of: 03/31/2009 08:23 PM EDT 4 of 14

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

Plaintiff Candace Johnson

represented by ALFRED ANSON SLOCUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

IVELISSE TORRES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rosalind Robinson

represented by ALFRED ANSON SLOCUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

IVELISSE TORRES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
MARIA AVILA Mary Perez, Administratrix of the Estate of MARIA AVILA

represented by IVELISSE TORRES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSE LUIS LINARES LINARES &COVIELLO, ESQS. 307 MONTGOMERY STREET BLOOMFIELD , NJ 07003 (973) 748−4600 TERMINATED: 01/12/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:87-cv-871 As of: 03/31/2009 08:23 PM EDT 5 of 14

ESSEX COUNTY INMATES

represented by IVELISSE TORRES PUBLIC DEFENDER NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 25 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 850 TRENTON , NJ 08625−0850 609−292−1775 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Nicholas Amato TERMINATED: 05/14/1996
Defendant Thomas Thompson TERMINATED: 05/14/1996
Defendant Thomas Giblin TERMINATED: 05/14/1996 Defendant Joseph Parlavecchio TERMINATED: 06/23/2004

represented by H. CURTIS MEANOR PODVEY MEANOR CATENACCI HILDNER COCOZIELLO &CHATTMAN, PC THE LEGAL CENTER ONE RIVERFRONT PLAZA NEWARK , NJ 07102−5497 (973) 623−1000 TERMINATED: 12/30/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
HARRY J. DELPLATO COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE HALL OF RECORDS DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. BOULEVARD ROOM 542 NEWARK , NJ 07102 (973) 621−5075 Email: hdelplato@counsel.essexcountynj.org TERMINATED: 05/14/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by H. CURTIS MEANOR (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/30/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOSEPH P. BRENNAN , JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/18/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address)

Case: 2:87-cv-871 As of: 03/31/2009 08:23 PM EDT 6 of 14

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSEPH P. BRENNAN , JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/18/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Cardell Cooper TERMINATED: 05/14/1996

represented by JOSEPH P. BRENNAN , JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/18/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant James Cavanaugh

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSEPH P. BRENNAN , JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/18/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Pearl Beatty TERMINATED: 05/14/1996

represented by JOSEPH P. BRENNAN , JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/18/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Arthur Clay TERMINATED: 05/14/1996

represented by JOSEPH P. BRENNAN , JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/18/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Monroe Jay Lusteader TERMINATED: 05/14/1996

represented by JOSEPH P. BRENNAN , JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/18/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Emily Weber TERMINATED: 05/14/1996

represented by H. CURTIS MEANOR (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/30/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:87-cv-871 As of: 03/31/2009 08:23 PM EDT 7 of 14

Defendant WILLIAM H. FAUVER
Defendant JAMES W. TREFFINGER COUNTY EXECUTIVE TERMINATED: 06/23/2004
Defendant VINCENT A. DEMAURO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Defendant MARTIN R. HELLWIG DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Defendant JOSEPH N. DIVINCENZO PRESIDENT, ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS
Defendant SARA B. BOST MEMBER, ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS TERMINATED: 06/23/2004
Defendant JOHNNY JONES MEMBER, ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS TERMINATED: 06/23/2004
Defendant LOUISE M. PALAGANO MEMBER, ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS TERMINATED: 06/23/2004
Defendant NICHOLAS M. ROLLI MEMBER, ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS TERMINATED: 06/23/2004
Defendant

represented by W. CARY EDWARDS , JR. RICHARD J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX CN 112 TRENTON , NJ 08625 (609) 984−0023 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:87-cv-871 As of: 03/31/2009 08:23 PM EDT 8 of 14

ARTHUR L. WRIGHT MEMBER, ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS TERMINATED: 06/23/2004

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
PATRICIA SEBOLD MEMBER, ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS TERMINATED: 06/23/2004

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JOSEPH N. DIVINCENZO, JR. County Executive TERMINATED: 06/23/2004

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
BLONNIE R. WATSON Member, Essex County Board of Freeholders

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
ALBERTUS JENKINS Member, Essex County Board of Freeholders

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JESUS A. PADILLA Member, Essex County Board of Freeholders

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
D. BILAL BEASLEY Member, Essex County Board of Freeholders

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
CAROL Y. CLARK Member, Essex County Board of Freeholders

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
MURIEL M. SHORE Member, Essex County Board of Freeholders

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
RALPH R. CAPUTO Member, Essex County Board of Freeholders

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:87-cv-871 As of: 03/31/2009 08:23 PM EDT 9 of 14

Defendant
SCOTT FAUNCE Essex County Director of the Department of Corrections

Defendant
DEVON BROWN Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections

Movant
PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION LOCAL #157 TERMINATED: 11/25/2003

represented by STUART J. LIEBERMAN LIEBERMAN &BLECHER, PC 10 JEFFERSON PLAZA SUITE 100 PRINCETON , NJ 08540 (732) 355−1311 Email: info@liebermanblecher.com TERMINATED: 11/25/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/31/1992 06/29/1992 07/16/1992 10/26/1993 12/17/1993 12/21/1993 12/30/1993
01/12/1994 01/25/1994 01/25/1994 02/16/1994

# Docket Text
CLERKS NOTE: PREVIOUS ENTRIES ON (PAPER DOCKET), THIS COMMENCES COMPUTER DOCKETING (femp) (Entered: 01/31/1992)
50 COPY OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Re: bail program and sanctions Show Cause Hearing set for 9:00 7/24/92 before Special Masters (see Civ. No. 82−1945) (sr) (Entered: 06/29/1992)
51 COPY OF SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT ORDER re: population cap.( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman )(original order in civ. 82−1945) (mn) Modified on 07/20/1992 (Entered: 07/20/1992)
52 CONSENT ORDER directing Michael R. Cole, Esq. to issue check from bail fund account RE: Sentencing Project, etc. ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 10/28/1993)
54 COPY OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE &Scheduling hearing of pltfs' application for contempt before Special Masters Show Cause Hearing set for 10:00 1/5/94 (sub by John Degnan, Special Master) (orig in cv−82−1945) (sr) (Entered: 12/27/1993)
53 Notice of MOTION expanding visitation hrs of Inmate Advocacy Law Clinic at Essex County Jail Annex, by pltfs' , Motion hearing set for 1/24/94 on [53−1] motion with proof of service, (brief sub). (sr) (Entered: 12/22/1993)
55 Substitute attorney for Emily Weber, Thomas Thompson, Nicholas Amato ; Terminated attorney H CURTIS MEANOR for Nicholas Amato, attorney H CURTIS MEANOR for Thomas Thompson, attorney H CURTIS MEANOR for Emily Weber ; Added, HARRY DELPLATO (sr) (Entered: 01/06/1994)
56 MOTION/APPLICATION for intervention on the part of Mary Perez RE: estate of Maria Avila Ret: 1/25/94 &1/27/94 (orig in cv−82−1945) (sr) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
57 NOTICE of attorney appearance by Cheryl Cucinello of Seton Hall University on behalf of inmate class pltfs.(original filed in civ. 82−1945) (mn) (Entered: 01/25/1994)
58 Copy of LETTER by Judge referring notice of motion for intervention on the part of Mary Perez to Special Masters John Degnan &Bennet Zurofsky. (original filed in civ. 82−1945) (mn) Modified on 01/26/1994 (Entered: 01/26/1994)
59 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: Thomas Brazaitis; Minutes of: 02/16/94; The following actions were taken, hrg on Master's RRto discontinue Bail

Case: 2:87-cv-871 As of: 03/31/2009 08:23 PM EDT 10 of 14

02/16/1994 03/07/1994 03/09/1994
03/09/1994 03/18/1994 04/21/1994 04/21/1994 06/21/1994 07/15/1994
10/25/1994
10/28/1994 12/02/1994
12/09/1994 04/06/1995 04/28/1995 08/08/1995 09/18/1995

Fund. Ordered RRadopted in full, OTBS. By Judge Harold A. Ackerman (sr) (Entered: 02/18/1994)
60 ORDER directing that Bail Fund is terminated and all funds remaining in the Bail Fund shall remain in an interest−bearng acct until further notice of the Court, etc. ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 02/18/1994)
61 Notice of MOTION to be relieved of cost of litigation by Essex County Jail An, Motion hearing to be set by Special Masters [61−1] motion with proof of service, (brief att). (sr) (Entered: 03/09/1994)
62 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: none; Minutes of: 03/09/94; The following actions were taken, at call for withdrawing [53−1] motion expanding visitation hrs of Advocacy Law Clinic at Essex County Jail Annex, by pltfs' By Judge Harold A. Ackerman (sr) (Entered: 03/10/1994)
63 Notice of MOTION to permit the Estate of Maria Avila to present proof RE: compensatory damages &other damages by MARIA AVILA, Motion hearing set for 4/11/94 on [63−1] motion SILB, with proof of service. (sr) (Entered: 03/10/1994)
64 ORDER, for protective order and staying order pending appeal to Judge Ackerman which will be fld no later than 3/21/94. etc. ( signed by Special Masters Bennett Zurofsky &John Degnan) (sr) (Entered: 03/18/1994)
65 OPINION fld. ( by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 04/22/1994)
66 ORDER affirming the 3/17/94 order of the Special Masters ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 04/22/1994)
67 ORDER re: request for production of certain docs as to Essex County defts, etc. (Special Master) (mn) Modified on 06/22/1994 (Entered: 06/22/1994)
68 Copy of Notice of MOTION by the "Bail Fund" for an order instructing what should be done w/the sums on deposit &being held by the Bail Fund , &cert. of service. Motion hearing set for 9/12/94 on [68−1] motion . (original motion filed in civ. 82−1945) (mn) Modified on 07/15/1994 (Entered: 07/15/1994)
69 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: none; Minutes of: 10/25/94; The following actions were taken, proclamation made on granting [68−1] motion for an order instructing what should be done w/the sums on deposit &being held by the Bail Fund, OTBS By Judge Harold A. Ackerman (sr) (Entered: 10/27/1994)
70 ORDER directing that monies on deposit be deposited with the clerk of the court. ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 11/01/1994)
71 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: Thomas Brazaitis; Minutes of: 12/02/94; The following actions were taken, hrg on denying [61−1] motion to be relieved of cost of litigation By Judge Harold A. Ackerman (sr) (Entered: 12/05/1994)
72 COPY OF ORDER denying appl by Commissioner of NJ Dept. of Corrections to be relieved of shared costs of litigation ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 12/12/1994)
73 Copy of ORDER designating FREDERIC K. BECKER, ESQ. as a special master to succeed John J. Degnan, Esq. ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman )(original order filed in civ. 82−1945) (mn) (Entered: 04/07/1995)
COPY OF CONSENT ORDER settling retaliation claims raised in pltfs' contempt application (orig fld in cv−82−1945) ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 05/01/1995)
74 SECOND CONSOLIDATED CONSENT ORDER incorporates all parties' rights &obligations in the previous consent orders in this case, etc. ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 08/08/1995)
75 LETTER by Board of Chosen Freeholders, County of Essex indicating Joseph P. Brennan, Jr. is no longer employed by Freeholder Counsel's Office. (sr) (Entered: 09/18/1995)

Case: 2:87-cv-871 As of: 03/31/2009 08:23 PM EDT 11 of 14

10/23/1995 11/08/1995
11/14/1995 11/14/1995 11/28/1995
12/19/1995 01/02/1996 01/30/1996
01/30/1996 01/30/1996 01/30/1996 01/30/1996 04/08/1996
05/02/1996 05/02/1996 05/14/1996 05/15/1996
05/16/1996
05/16/1996 06/10/1996
06/10/1996

76 MEDICAL CONSENT ORDER fld. ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 10/25/1995)
77 ORDER amending order of 10/28/95, to specify that the Clerk of the court shall hold the moneys on deposit in an interest−bearing account. ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman )(cc: in civ. 82−1945) (order forward to Julie−Trenton w/check) (mn) Modified on 11/09/1995 (Entered: 11/09/1995)
$600,776.40 Deposited in the registry pur. to order 11/8/95. (mn) (Entered: 11/15/1995)
78 CLERKS CERT. OF DEPOSIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 600,776.40" FILED (mn) (Entered: 11/15/1995)
79 AMENDED ORDER directing the funds formerly held in the federal overcrowding bail fund to be held in an interest−bearing account (orig. sent to J. Knox − Trenton) ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 11/30/1995)
$231.34 deposited in registry purs to 11/8/95 Order (additional interest earned) (sr) (Entered: 01/02/1996)
80 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE of cash deposit in the amount of $231.34 deposited in registry RE: additional interest earned − Bail Fund fld. (sr) (Entered: 01/02/1996)
81 Notice of MOTION Motion hearing <date to be set by special master> on [81−1] motion w/cert of service, (brief sub). * * * (sr) Modified on 02/02/1996 (Entered: 02/01/1996)
82 CERTIFICATION * * * (sr) Modified on 02/02/1996 (Entered: 02/01/1996)
83 CERTIFICATION * * * (sr) Modified on 02/02/1996 (Entered: 02/01/1996)
84 CERTIFICATION * * * (sr) Modified on 02/02/1996 (Entered: 02/01/1996)
85 CERTIFICATION * * * (sr) Modified on 02/02/1996 (Entered: 02/01/1996)
86 STIPULATION AND ORDER to settle pltfs' contempt application under the retaliation consent order ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 04/11/1996)
87 DECISION by Special Masters Re: (2) discovery motions compelling pltfs to produce documents, etc. (sr) (Entered: 05/08/1996)
88 DECISION by Special Masters denying, w/exceptions, request to seal record of motion to disqualify counsel (sr) (Entered: 05/08/1996)
89 ORDER of substitutions of parties ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
90 Copy of REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Special Master Re: on motion to disqualify Susan Remis Silver, Esq. &cert. of service.(Original filed in civ. 82−1945) (mn) (Entered: 05/16/1996)
91 ORDER denying [81−1] the Essex County defts' motion to seal the entire record on mot. to disqualify pltfs' counsel; &placing under seal memorandum entitled "Officer Staffing Shortages That Result In Inadequate Supervision of Inmates" dated 9/29/95 (Zurofsky) Special Master (See civ. 82−1945) (mn) (Entered: 05/16/1996)
92 ORDER, compelling production of docs. subject to a protective order ,etc. (Zurofsky) Special Master (see civ. 82−1945) (mn) (Entered: 05/16/1996)
93 Notice of MOTION on behalf of the Office of the Public Defender &Susan Remis Silver to modify in part the RRof the special masters on the defts' motion to disqualify pltfs' counsel nunc pro tunc , Motion hearing set for 7/8/96 on [93−1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (sr) (Entered: 06/12/1996)
94 CERTIFICATION of Diana Johnson, Esq. Re: [93−1] motion to modify in part the RRof the special masters on the defts' motion to disqualify pltfs' counsel nunc pro tunc (sr) (Entered: 06/12/1996)

Case: 2:87-cv-871 As of: 03/31/2009 08:23 PM EDT 12 of 14

06/26/1996
11/27/1996 04/17/1997
04/18/1997
04/24/1997 06/04/1997
06/04/1997
06/17/1997
06/17/1997
07/17/1997 12/29/1997 03/31/1998
05/15/1998 08/17/1998 08/17/1998 08/17/1998 08/17/1998 01/12/1999

95 ORDER appointing Dr. Ronald M. Shansky as the medical monitor, establishing a medical escrow fund, &appointing Lisa Gomez−Rivera as the administrator of th Medical Escrow Fund ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 06/28/1996)
96 LETTER by William Carbonell requesting a hrg. RE: existing violations &how to proceed in this action (copy sent to HAA) (sr) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
98 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: John Stone; Minutes of: 04/17/97; The following actions were taken, hrg on motion of deft to disqualify Susan Silver as prisoner advocate By Judge Harold A. Ackerman (sr) (Entered: 05/02/1997)
99 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: Joanne Caruso; Minutes of: 04/18/97; The following actions were taken, hrg on [93−1] motion to modify in part the RRof the special masters on the defts' motion to disqualify pltfs' counsel nunc pro tunc taken under advisement By Judge Harold A. Ackerman (sr) (Entered: 05/02/1997)
97 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings taken on 4/18/97 (mn) (Entered: 04/25/1997)
Copy of CERTIFICATION of Catherine E. Tamasik on behalf of Essex County Jail An Re: [93−1] motion to modify in part the RRof the special masters on the defts' motion to disqualify pltfs' counsel nunc pro tunc (cc: filed in civ. 82−1945) (mn) Modified on 06/06/1997 (Entered: 06/06/1997)
Copy of Second CERTIFICATION of Ronald H. Manzella on behalf of Essex County Jail An Re: [93−1] motion to modify in part the RRof the special masters on the defts' motion to disqualify pltfs' counsel nunc pro tunc (cc: filed in civ. 82−1945) (mn) Modified on 06/06/1997 (Entered: 06/06/1997)
CERTIFICATION of Susan L. Reisner on behalf of Essex County Jail An Re: [93−1] motion to modify in part the RRof the special masters on the defts' motion to disqualify pltfs' counsel nunc pro tunc (original filed in civ. 82−1945) (mn) Modified on 06/18/1997 (Entered: 06/18/1997)
CERTIFICATION of Susan Remis Silver on behalf of Essex County Jail An Re: [93−1] motion to modify in part the RRof the special masters on the defts' motion to disqualify pltfs' counsel nunc pro tunc (original filed in civ. 82−1945) (brief sub.) (mn) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
100 Letter−ORDER scheduling a hrg. on 9/12/97 at 2:00 re: County of Essex's 6/2/97 addendum to its post−hrg. brief on the mot. to disqualify Susan Silver.( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (mn) (Entered: 07/18/1997)
101 ORDER to entend time to submit written comments on the Special Masters' report &recommendation until 2/23/98, etc. ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 01/06/1998)
102 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct−Reporter: Phyllis Lewis; Minutes of: 03/31/98; The following actions were taken, hrg on disqualification of Susan Remis Silver, taken under advisement By Judge Harold A. Ackerman (sr) (Entered: 04/01/1998)
103 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings taken on 03/31/98 (sr) (Entered: 05/15/1998)
104 OPINION fld. (by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 08/18/1998)
105 ORDER granting [93−1] motion to modify in part the RRof the special masters on the defts' motion to disqualify pltfs' counsel nunc pro tunc ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 08/18/1998)
106 OPINION fld. (by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 08/18/1998)
107 ORDER partially denying pltf's request for monetary contempt sanctions, etc. ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 08/18/1998)
108 Substitute attorney for MARIA AVILA, Corey Webb, James Simon, Rosalind Robinson, Ronald McClendon, Candace Johnson, Essex County Jail An, Rosetta Drake, Frederick W. Booker, Thomas Armour ; Terminated attorney IVELISSE

Case: 2:87-cv-871 As of: 03/31/2009 08:23 PM EDT 13 of 14

05/11/1999 05/11/1999 05/11/1999 10/14/1999
02/05/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 11/24/2003 06/21/2004
04/15/2005

TORRES for Thomas Armour, attorney IVELISSE TORRES for Frederick W. Booker, attorney IVELISSE TORRES for Rosetta Drake, attorney IVELISSE TORRES for Essex County Jail An, attorney IVELISSE TORRES for Candace Johnson, attorney IVELISSE TORRES for Ronald McClendon, attorney IVELISSE TORRES for Rosalind Robinson, attorney IVELISSE TORRES for James Simon, attorney IVELISSE TORRES for Corey Webb, attorney IVELISSE TORRES for MARIA AVILA ; Added, T. GARY MITCHELL (sr) (Entered: 01/12/1999)
109 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER on population and housing fld. ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 05/12/1999)
110 ORDER on attorneys fees fld.( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 05/12/1999)
111 ORDER transserring former bail fund monies on deposit with the Clerk to the County of Essex (orig. sent to Julie Knox) ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (sr) (Entered: 05/12/1999)
112 Substitute attorney for MARIA AVILA, Corey Webb, James Simon, Rosalind Robinson, Ronald McClendon, Candace Johnson, Essex County Jail An, Rosetta Drake, Frederick W. Booker, Thomas Armour ; Terminated attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for Thomas Armour, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for Frederick W. Booker, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for Rosetta Drake, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for Essex County Jail An, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for Candace Johnson, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for Ronald McClendon, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for Rosalind Robinson, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for James Simon, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for Corey Webb, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for MARIA AVILA ; Added, T. GARY MITCHELL (sr) (Entered: 10/19/1999)
113 NOTICE of KEVIN McNAMARA enclosing copy of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus w/certain other copies of documents from the Superior Court (cc:Chambers) (cs) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
114 Notice of MOTION to intervene by PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT by PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT, Motion set for 11/24/03 on [114−1] motion w/cert of service . (Brief/PO Subm) (sr) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
115 CERTIFICATION of Stuart J. Lieberman, Esq. on behalf of PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT Re: [114−1] motion to intervene by PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT (sr) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
116 REVISED Notice of MOTION to intervene by PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT by PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT, Motion set for 11/10/03 on [116−1] motion w/cert of service. (Brief/PO Subm) (sr) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
117 CERTIFICATION of Stuart Lieberman on behalf of PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT Re: [116−1] motion to intervene by PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT (sr) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
118 ORDER denying [116−1] motion to intervene by PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT denying [114−1] motion to intervene by PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT ( signed by Mag. Judge G. D. Haneke ) (NM) (sr) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
119 ORDER of substitution of certain deft public officers: Joseph N. Divincenzo, Jr., County Executive, Johnny Jones, Pres. Essex County Board of Freeholders, Patricia Sebold, VP Essex County Board of Freeholders, Blonnie R. Watson, Albertus Jenkins, Jesus A. Padilla, D. Bilal Beasley, Carol Y. Clark, Muriel M. Shore, &Ralph R. Caputo, Members of Essex County Board of Freeholders, Scott Faunce Essex County Director of Dept. of Corrections, Devon Brown Comm. of NJ Dept. of Corrections, &pltf class Essex County Jail Annex Inmates shall be identified as Essex County Inmates. Signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman on 6/21/04. (sr, ) Modified on 6/23/2004 (sr, ). (Entered: 06/23/2004)
120 Mail Returned as Undeliverable − indicating no inmate number. (sr, ) (Entered: 04/18/2005)

Case: 2:87-cv-871 As of: 03/31/2009 08:23 PM EDT 14 of 14

08/29/2005 12/02/2005 12/06/2005
11/21/2006 12/14/2006 02/05/2007 02/05/2007

Judge Mark Falk added. (nc, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
121 ORDER indicating cv−82−1945 will be administratively terminated if written objections to proposed termination are not received by 12/7/05; etc. Signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman on 12/1/05. (sr, ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
122 ORDER extending the deadline for counsel to object in writing to the Court's proposed action until 12/14/05, &reminding counsel that all attorneys litigating in the District of NJ are required to be registered for electronic filing in the CM−ECF system. Signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman on 12/05/05. (sr, ) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
Judge Esther Salas and Esther Salas added. Judge Mark Falk no longer assigned to case. (jgb, ) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
123 REPORT and RECOMMENDATION of Special Master (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Dismissing State Defendant# 2 Text of Proposed Order Third Consolidated Consent Order)(ZUROFSKY, BENNET) (Entered: 12/14/2006)
124 OPINION &ORDER indicating the proposed third consolidated consent order is not approved, and dismissing action. Signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman on 2/5/07. (sr, ) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
***Civil Case Terminated. (sr, ) (Entered: 02/05/2007)

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF N E';V JERSEY

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL INMATES, RUSSEL WATSON, STACY DAVIS, SAMUEL BROWN, ROBERT GAMBLE, DANIEL RAWLS, J. C. MILES, BARON SPENCE, CHARLES FARMS, KEITH ELLIS, WILLIE JENKINS , HERlV!AN HARRIS, JAME§ BERRY, and JOHN SLY, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs ,
v.
ALBERT T. COLLIER, Warden; PETER SHAPIRO, Essex Cou.nty Executive; JENNIE BROWN, Director, Divisio:l of Correc tional Services; and their successors in office in their official capacties,
and

COMPLAINT Civil No. (Class Action) (Civil Rights Claim)

- -- - - - - - .. _-- _- - . - .- -.~---

_. , .. .•...

. ~-
.:. ";"...:.....4 _.~ . ,"

WILLIAr'1 H. FAUVER, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Cor. ections, and his successor in uffice , in' his oificial capacity,

Defendants .

PRELIMINARY STATElYlENT

1. This is a class action brought by the inm..:tes of the Essex

County Jail in Newark, New Jersey on behalf of all persons who are now or

who will be committed to confinement at that facility, either in the status of

pretrial detainees awaiting disposition of criminal charges in the courts of

Essex County , or in the status of those sentenced to terms of imprisonment in

the jail by the New Jersey Superior Court, or by the municipal courts in the

municipalities of Essex County, or those s entenced to imprisonment in the New

Jersey State Prisons or the New Jer'sey State Youth Reformatory Complex,

----- ------
who ar e confined ill Essex County Jail awaiting transfer to the state prison system.
Plaintiffs contend that the Essex County Jail is overpopulated, resulting in an atmosphere of tension, fear and hostility, and interfering with supervision, protection and provision of h ousing, living space, necessities and services to the members of the plaintiff class. Plairltiffs further contend that the totality of conditions resulting from the overcrowding at the Ess ex County Jail, particularly the inadequ a t e provision for living space, sanitary facilities, classification, visitation, exercise and r ecreation inflicts needless priv ation, suffering and hards hip on inmates, c reates an environment which threatens th e inmates' ph ysical and men tal weil-being, and r esults in the unneces sary deterioration of the physical and mental states of those confined there. Plaintiffs further contend that these con ditions and other practices or poliCie s v iolat e th e plairltiff class's right to due process of law, to equal protection of the laws, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
Plaintiffs seek an order reducing the population confined in the Esse x County ,Tail and/o r requiring th e officials of Essex County or the New Jers ey Department of Corrections to afford additional appropriate h ousing f or those who must b e confined under their authority, and such other r elief as the Court may deem appropriate to r edress plaintiffs rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendmen ts to the COI'stitution of the United States .
JURISDICTION 2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C _ Sections 1343 (3) _ and 1343 (4). Plaintiffs' requ es t for declaratory r elief is authorized by 28 U. S . C . Sections 2201 and 2202.
-2-

3. This s uit is a uth orize d b y 42 U. S . C. Section 1983 to redress the d e p riva tion und e r colo r of s tate law o f rig hts, privileges and immuniti,·s s ecured by th e Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth a nd Fourteenth Am endm e nts to th e Constitution of the United States.
4. This is a proceeding for a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining defendants from any and all actions which result in the confin.ement of plaintiffs and their class in such conditions of overcrowding, and subject to such practices or restrictions, as to deprive them of the rights s ecured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. This is also a proceeding for a declaratory jUdgment as to plaintiffs ' rights to be free of such deprivations by defendants acting under color of state law.
5. Plaintiffs have exhausted all adequate and available state admL.'"listrativ e remi" dies, if any , cogniz able under 42 U. S. C Section 1997e.
PLAINTIFFS 6. Es sex County Jail Inmates eithe r are persons not convicted of RelY offense or crime Qut only detained and awaiting disposition of crim in ,,1. charges in the county or municipal courts of Essex County , or are persons convicted of a crime and sentenced to state prison terms awaiting transfer to the custody of the New Jersey Department of Corrections, confined in conditions as describe d in paragraphs 7 to 19, and 32 to 106. These individuals include persons confined for an extended period of time in areas of the Essex County Jail not designed or equipped for housing (e. g., the dayrooms on the second, third, fifth, seventh, ninth, eleventh, and twelfth floors), persons confined for an extended period of time in areas so crowded that daytime floor space for activities is virtually non-existent and only narrow walkways between bunks, cots or mattresses exist, persons compelled for an extended period of time to sleep in these areas on cots, on cot frames withou t mattresses, or on
-3-

mattresses placed on the floor , or directly on concrete floors or tables wit h o ut matt resses , all essen tially because of a n insufficiency of beds 0,' space for as many beds as . are n eeded to accomodate a population of more than 550 individuals in the Jail. These individuals also include inmates in other areas of the Jail who have been or are compelled to endure the conditions in the dayrooms and dormitories, either directly by once havin g been h o used there or through the impact of overcrowding on the services or activities available at the Jail.
7. Samuel Brown is a 23 year old citizen of the United States confin e d at the Essex County Jail since December 28, 1981 on criminal ch a rges pending agains t him in Superior Court. He is held in lieu of bail of $1000. At the Jail, h e is assigned to the Southside Dormitory on the second floor of the Jail, as described in paragraphs 37 to 49 below; he has been confined in this a rea fo r app roxim ately five months. He sleeps on a double bunk and h GS shares the dormito ry with as many a s 90 to 100 o th er inmates; as many as 25 of these inmates are at times forced to sleep on the floor, some without a mattress and with only a blanket . Virtually the only remaining floor space i.'l the dorm is the narrow walkways b etween bunks . There are only five toilets in the dorm area, several of which are often inoperable; there are also only four urinals, only two of which work; th e r e are only two showers , one of which is often broken; there are ten Sinks, of which only fuur or five work. · These sanitary f,,!cilities must be sh ared by all the inmates in the dorm. He is confined in the dorm area with all the othe r inmates assigned to it f or approximately 20 hours a day; for the other four hours he and the inmates from his dorm are given access to the dayroom as described in paragraphs 42 to 43 (for two "activity " p e riods of 1\ hours, one during the day and one in the evening , and for three 20 minute meal p e riods). Whe n moved into the
-4-

day r oom, h e is lock e d in it and is n ot free to move between d ay r oom and dorm. With other inma tes in his do r m , B r own is p ermitte d access to the J ail' s r ecr eation and librar y a r ea on ly on e d ay a week, for a schedule d p e r iod of a pproximately 1\ h ours eith e r from 9 a .m. to 10 :30 a.m. or 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p. m . , which is the time h e o th e rwise wo uld b e lock e d in the d a yroom . The schedule d r ecr e ation p e rio d is ac tu ally shor t e n e d con s ider ably becau se of t ime n ecessar y to mov e the large numb e r of inmat es during ea ch recre atio n or library p eriod, r esulting in a s little a s 30 to 40 minutes of a ctual time reg ula rly available fo r the activity d u r ing ea ch week. He is p ermitte d only one v isit a d ay, six days a week; due to the d emand on visiting time by the numb e r s of inma t es at the J ail , his vis its have been r egula rly a s short a s five or ten minutes. He is only p ermitted u se of the telephone twice a day and his calls are limite d t o three minu te s . Th e food h e is serve d is ofte n starch y, cold , only par tly cooked, and of insufficient portions. His personal clothing is n ev e r laundere d by the J a il.
8. John Sly is a 39 y ear old citizen of the Unite d Stat e s confined at th e Esse x Cov nty J ail awaitin g tran s f -: r to s tate prison. He b :JS b e en confine d at th e Jail s ince Oc t ober 21, 1981 . He wa s sente nce d on April 7, 198 2. He i s assigne d for s l eeping quarters to the dayroom on the s econd floor of the Jail; previou s ly h e had b een a s signed t o the Northside Dormitory on th e second floor. Fo r almos t two week s h e had to sle ep on the floor without a mattress, after . which time h e was is sued a cot. His cot is provid ed abou t 11 p. m . and remov ed at 5 a. m. , a fte r which t ime he is forc e d to s l e ep with only a blanket on the concrete floor. There is only one toilet and on e sink for all the inmates in the s e cond floor day room . The dayroom b e comes so crowded that there is no room to walk around and h e must climb over a table or over other inmates to move around . He h a s seen roach e s crawling on the
-5-

walls and floo r s of th e day room . When inmates on his floor take th eir meals thei' e are not enough seats in the dayroom; inmates regularly must s t and up to eat, or sit down on the floors, placing their trays on the floors as well. In all other r espects, althou gh confined in another area of ,the J ail, he is held III conc!itons essentially the same as those described in paragraph 7.
9. Russel Watson is a citizen of the United States confined at the Essex County Jail on criminal charges pending against him in Superior Court. He has bee n confined since December 17, 1981. He is assigned to a cell on the fifth floor of the Jail under conditions as described generally in paragraphs 55 to 64. His cell measures approximately 5 feet by 7 feet, half of which space is consumed by the bunk bed and toile t/sink fixture in the c ell. He is locked in his cell for approximately 17 hours every day. For three hours he has access to the tier corridor of his cellblock which he shares with the 12 other inmates from his tier and othe r inmates who at night are housed in the dayroom but who ar e confined on the tier corridors during the day. For four hours (two 1':; h our "dayroom" p e rio ds and three approximately 20 minute periods for meais), he 1S permitted accp.ss to a small dayroom as described in paragraph 58. With the number of inmates who share the dayroom , it provides even less space per inmate than does his cell; during the time when he is allowed in the dayroom, he is locked in it and is not free to move between the dayroom and eithe r his cell or the tier corridor. He is permitted access to the Jail's recreation and library area one day a week, for a scheduled period of approximately 1':; hours either from 9 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. or 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m . , which is the time he otherwise would be locked in the dayroom or be allowed on the tier corridor. The scheduled recreation period, however, is actually shortened considerably because of the time required to move the large number of inma tes to the recreation or library
-6-

areas, resulting in as little as only 30 to 40 minutes to a maximum of 60 to 70 minLltes of actual time available for the activity during each week. He is permitte d only one visit a day , six days a week; due to the dema nd 011 visitin g' time by the numbers of inmates at the Jail, his visits have been a s short as seven or eight minutes. He h as r equ ested to be placed on sick call for several weeks without seeing a doctor. His p ersonal clothing items are never laundere d by the Jail . He r eceives a clean towel only once a week and his sheets are laundered once a week; his blanket, however, is not laundered. He is only permitted use of the teleph one twice a day for calls of only three minutes. The plumbing equipment in his cell and on his tier is or has been faulty, with dirty water often coming out of faucets and with water backing up in drains and floo ding cells due to clogged drains or leaking s hower s and sinks. He has seen infestation in the cells, tiers, or dayrooms by mice, nests of roaches, and lice.
10. Stacy Davis i s a 25 year old citizen of the United States confin e d at the Essex County Jail since December 26, 1981 on criminal charges pendin g against him in Superior Court. He is assigned to a ceU on the tenth floor of the Jail . Although confined in another area of the Jail, he is held in conditions e ssentially the same as those described in paragraph 9.
11. Robert Gamble is a 23 year old citizen of the United State s confined at the Ess e x County Jail since November 16, 1981 on crimin a l charges pending against him in Superior Court. He is held in lieu of bond of $3500, or cash bail of $1000. At the Jail, h e is assigned to the Southside Dormitory on the second floor, as described in paragraphs 37 to 49 below. He has been confined in this area since being committed to the Jail. For over two months _he had to sleep without a mattress, having been issued a mattress some time in February 1982. During the time he has been confined to this dormitory as
-7-

many as 30 to 35 of the inmates regularly hous ed there have had to sleep on c o t s; as many as 13 inmate s hav e had to s leep o n the floor. He h a s at times requested to be placed on sick call but was not seen by any medical personnel; on these occasions the nurse just s ent cold medicine down with an officer; at times, the officers disp ensing me dicine have not always given it to the right person. He has observed fights among inmates at the JaiL In other respects, he is confined in conditions essentially the same as those described in paragraph 7.
12. Daniel Rawls is a 19 year old citizen of the United States confined at the Essex County Jail since De cember ll, 1981 on criminal charges pending against him in Superior Court. He is assigned to a cell on the seventh floor of the Jail. He has seen fig hts among inmates over food, name calli.!1.g and s pace. In oth e r resp e cts, although confined in another area of the Jail, he is held in conditions ess entially the same as those described in paragraph 9.
13. J, C, Miles is a 30 y ear old citizen of the United States confined at the Essex County J ail since November 19, 1981 on criminal charges pendiT),g against him in Superior Court. He is held in lieu of cash bail of $2000 . At the Jail, he is assigned to the Southside Dormitory on the second floor of the Jail, as described in paragraphs 37 to 49 below. He has seen water leaking . from pipes and plumbing fixtures, mice and roaches in the J::-.ousing area, mice in the dishwashin,g machine room, and due to the open toilets in the dayrooms where he takes his meals he has been exposed to other inmates urinating in close proximity to where he must eat. He has requested to see the dentist for approximately six months but has not yet been able to obtain a visit. He has witnessed one or two fights among inmates every month, In all other respects, he is confined in conditions essentially the same as those described
in paragraph 7,
-8-

14. Baron Spence is a 33 year old citizen of the United State s confined in the Essex Cou n t y Jail since Nov;ember 2, 1981 on criminal ch;;rges pending against him in Superior Court. He is assigned to the Northside Dormitory on the second floor. There have been approximately 80 to 90 inmates assigned to his dormitory; as many as 30 to 35 inmates have had to sleep on cots, and as many as 5 or 6 have had to sleep without a mattress on the concrete floor. Half of the inmates who sleep in the dayroom at night are r eassigned to his dorm during the day ; when in the dorm during the day these inmates must s tay on the floor, where all they usually do is sit idle or sleep. Spence was no t given a medical examination at the Jail before his placement in general population; ap proximately one week passed before he was examined. He was not administere d a bloo d test. He has put in a sick call r equest a number of times b efore being seen by medical personnel. In all other respects, although confined in another area of the Jail, he is held in conditions essentially the s ame as those described in paragraph 7,
15. Charles Farms is a 24 year old citizen of the Unite d States confic"1eo at the Essex County J .'1il since Octobe::- 16, 1981 on crimina.l, :har'gE;s pending against him in Superior Court. At the Jail, he is assigned to a cell on the tenth floor; for approximately the first three weeks of his confinement he was held in cells on the sixth and eighth floors of the Jail, He has been given a wash bucket in which to launder his clothing, In all other respects, ' although confineq in another area of the Jail , he is held in conditions essentially the same as those described in paragraph 9,
16. Keith Ellis is a 20 year old citizen of the United States confined at the Essex County Jail since December 6, 1981 on criminal charges pending against him in Superior Court . He is assigned to a cell on the seventh floor of the Jail. As many as 12 inmates h ave been assigned for sleeping quarters
-9-

to the day room on his floo r. Only one shower facility on his tier is 0perahle. There is o nly one working toilet in th e d a y r oom on his floor. Th e si.;,ks in th e dayroom d o .not wor]{. His weekly recreation period h as been as shoi,t as one hour, rather than the scheduled 90 minutes. It h as taken him as long as one week to obtain a visit to the d octo r aft e r putting in a r equest fo!' sick calL In order to launder his own clothing, he has had to purchase a wash bucket and detergent. In all other r espects, although confined in another area of the Jail , he is held in condition s essentially the same as those described in paragraph 8.
17 . Willie Jenkins is a 36 ye a r old citizen of the United States confined at the Essex County J ail awaiting transfer to state prison. He has b een confined at the Jail since February 3, 1982, when he was sentenced . He is assigned to a cell on the fifth floor of the Jail. For approximately one month after b eing committed h e was assigned to a dormitory on the second floor. Approximately t e n inmates are forced to sleep on the floor in the dayroom on his floor . The showers on his tier have been inoperable since he was c ssigned t o this ar",a . His visits have b ee n limite d to 11) minute s , h all other respects, although confined in another area of the Jail, he is held b conditons essentially the same as those described in paragraph 9.
18, James Berry is a 25 year old citizen of the United States confined at the Essex County Jail awaiting transfer to state prison , He h as b een confined srr:ce February 4 , ]982. He was sentenced to a term in state prison on April 8 , 1982. . At the Jail ; he is assigned to a cell on the fourth floor. His mattress is construc ted of a foam type material. The inmates who are assigned for sleeping quarters to the dayroom on his floor must sleep without mattresses on cot frames. Only one shower on his tier works, and b ecause of inoperable showers on other tiers, this shower is used by inmates
-10-

from the other tiers in his cellblock. His toilet has been broken for as long a s two weeks. Th e re has neve r be en a ny extermination in his c e ll or on h is tier. He has seen rats in the day r oom , roac hes in the cells and on the tie r, and has b e en awake ned by mice in the morning. On his tier, lighting is very dim in the cells and is insufficient for reading unless the covers on the lig'hts are broken out. On the tiers, the beds are the only place to sit, He has witnessed tension, threats, and fightin g among inmates, He has found hair and glass in his food. In all other resp ects, although confined in another area of the Jail , he is held in conditons essentially the same as those described in paragraph 9,
19, Herman Harris is a 27 year old citizen of the United States confined a t the Essex County Jail a waiti.'"1g transfer to state prison, He has been confined since September 4, 1981; initially he was confined to the Essex County Jail Annex in Caldwell, New Jersey; for approximately the last five months he has been confined at the Jail itself, He is assigned to a cell on the seventh floor, He h as seen at least three inmates forced to sleep on the floo" o r 3.. bed f:-ame without a .1Jattress. It has take., hira appr0x:mat2ly three or four months to obtain a visit to the dentist, In all other respects, although confined in a different area of the Jail, he is held in conditions essentially the same as described in paragraph 9,
-11-

DEFENDANTS 20. Albert T. Collier is the Wa rd en of the Ess e x County J ;;i l L, Newark, New Jers ey. He is directly in charge of jail operations and is r esponsible for the d evelopm e nt and implementation of jail policy and procedure. 21. Peter Shapiro is th e Executive of Essex County and is v~5ted by s tatute with the r esponsibility for the operations of the Essex County Jail and the ca re and custody of the inmates housed therein. He is requir ed to receive and keep all persons apprehen ded by law enforcement officers. 22. Jennie Brown is the Director of Correctional Services for Essex County . She is responsible for the supervision of jail operations. 23. William H. F auver is the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Under Execu tive Orders issued by the Governor of New J er sey (attached as Exhibit A), he has the authority to designate county jails as the place of confinement of state sentenced inmates currently housed there, to require county jails to h ous e s tate s entenced inmates beyond fift een days from sentencing contra ry to ~.J. S._A....:. 2C:43-1O(e ) . and to designate the place of confinement of any state or county inmates. He also has the authority to inspect the conditions in county jails pursuant to N.J.S.A . 30: 1-15. He f urth er has the authority pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30 :8-57 to det ermine that a county jail has disregarded mininum standards promulgated by the Department of Corrections and the obligation thereupon to order a restriction on admissions of new inmates to a jail in disregard of the Department's minimum s tandards for such facilities.
-12-

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 24. Plaintiffs brirlg this action as a class action maintainable unc!2r Rule 23 (a) and 23(b )(l) and (2) of th e Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on their own b e half and on behalf of aU persons similarly situated, that is , all inmates who are now or who will in the future be confined in the E ssex County Jail awaiting trial on criminal charges , as weU as person sentenced to that facilitiy to serve sentences therein, or h eld in that facility awaiting transfer to the state prison system. The class represented by plaintiffs herein is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical; there are questions of law and fact common to the class , claims of the representatives herein are typical of the claims of the class, and representative parties herein \\i-jJl fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The defendants h ave acted or refused to act on the grounds gen erally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole. The total members of the class number approximately 700 persons a t anyone tim e , and the class membe r s are subjec t to change as p ersons are committ.ed to and discharged from the jail. 25. A clas s action dete rmination will avoid the possibility of inconsistent or varying adjudications with r espect to individual members of the clas s establishing incompatible standards of conduct for the defendants . . Since a majority of the members of the class are indigents, mits by individual
. members would most likely be brought pro -se- with all the attendant
difficulties of such litigation. 26. Plaintiffs' attorneys are associated ",i.th the Office of Inmate
Advocacy of the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender. They are familiar with the conduct of litigation of this kind and will afford adequate representation. By statutory authority, N.J.S.A . 52:27E-li, said Office is authorized to represent the interests of such persons as a class.
-13-

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Building and Design
27. Essex County J ail (hereinaft er "the Jail" or "ECJ") is locat ed at 6D Nelson Place, Newark, New Jer sey. It i s a thirteen story conc re te detached building in proximity to the Essex County Courthouse in a commercial-indus trial area of downtown Newark. It is used as a detention facility by 22 municipalities in Essex County . It is also use d to hold inma tes awaiting transfe r to state corr ec tional au th orities .
28. Since 1979 th e Jail ha s been operating unde r the juris dictio n of the Essex County Executive . From July 1975 to 1979, th e Jail was operating under the auspices of the County Boaed of Freeholders. Prior to July 1975, the Jail was under the jurisdiction of the Essex County Sheriff.
29 . Th e jail an d its comm ercial services (i.e., laundry and kitchen) occupy the entire thirteen floor s tructure. Sec ure movement from the Jail to the County Courthouse is facilitated by an underground tunnel which connec ts the t wo s t r u c tures..
3D . Although the J ail was comple ted in 1970, it's physical p l ant has deteriorated. with crumbling ceilings. faultly plumbing. and leaks in the roof. Perhaps more important, the Jail continues to suffer from its poor architectural design which had failed to provide areas for recreation, program space, a library, administrative offices, and security statior.s. In additio n, plans for ventilation were inadequate to prevent substantial discomfort among inmates confined in the Jail during the high t emperatures and humidity levels during Newark summers.
3!. As a result of the original poor design, areas which we re planned for housing and other uses have been renovated to provide space for administrative offices, security stations . attorney visits, counseling, a
gymnasium, a chapel, and a library ,
-14-

Housing and Living Space

32. The ECJ has sufficien t living an d sleeping quarters to provi C:;e

housing for a maximum of 550 inmates . For an extended p e riod of time, the

ECJ regularly h a s housed over 700 inmates. Substantially over 200 of these

inmates have b een sentenced to state prison terms and are awaiting transfer

to the custody of Defendant Commissioner Fauver. The remaining 400 to 500

inmates are detainees awaiting disposition of c riminal charges.

33 . At the ECJ, inmates are ordinarily housed in both cells and

dormitory units. Under normal h ousing patterns, approximately eighty percent

of inmates at the J ail are housed one each in the 456 general population cells

at the Jail, with only 94 inmates housed in multiple occupancy or dormitory

units. As a result of overcrowding, substantially over two hundred inmates

are now housed in dormitory type living units by either being crowded into

the regular dorms or by being housed in the dayrooms on the second, third,

fifth, sev enth, ninth, eleventh, and twelfth floors of the ECJ.

34. At n ormal p opulation levels housing for 550 inmates is provided

as follOWS , with the specific areas d esc,ib e d in subs"quent pangra phs' 456

inma t es in general population cells on the thi rd throu g h eleventh flo ors; 39

inmates in each of the two second floor dormitory units; 10 inmates in the

twelfth floor "civil area" unit; 3 inmates in the twelfth floor "tiermen" dorm

area; and one inmate in each of the three twelfth floor "qui,.,t" cells. This

arrangment does ,not contemplate use of the hospital donn or detention cells as

regular housing units.

35. The 456 general population cells at the jail are arranged in

cellblocks on the third through eleventh floors. Each floor is divided into

two cellblocks, one on the Northside and one on the Southside. Each of the

two cellblocks contain a front and back tier of cells separated by a plumbing

chase at the rear of the cells to allow for repairs to the plumbing without

en tering the cells.

-15-

36. Each of the 456 gene ral population cells hou se one inmate . All of these cells measure a ppro ximately fi ve feet wide by seve n fe e t deep by eight feet in h eight, thereby providing approximately 35 square feet of cell space. All the cells are windowless, <lre constructed of metal o r con crete walls and concrete floors and fronts of steel bars . Each cell contains a metal bunk attached to the wall, topped with a mattress, and a lavatory unit projecting out from the rear wall which consists of an open toilet and sink. Thes e furnishing s redu ce available cell floor space to approximately 17~ square feet. The cells open on to a narrow barred corridor approximately 5 feet wide running the length of the tier.
The Second Floor 37. The two general p opulation dorms used for inmate housing are
located on the second floor. Due to overcrowdh,g, each second floor dormitory unit is used to house as many as 75 or 80 inmates. As many as 30 to 40 additional inm ates are r egularly housed in the second floor dayroom as described .in paragraphs 44 to 49. At ordinary population levels providing only 60 square feet of space per inmate (including space consumed by furnishings), the dormitories each could accomodate only 39 individuals .
38 . The dorms each measure approximately 35 feet by 65 feet, with a 'small area measuring approximately five feet square being consumed by a shaft in the cent~r of the dorm, re s ulting in an area of 2355 square feet for each dorm. When 80 inmates are housed in each dorm, each inmate has approximately 29 square feet of space (including space actually consumed by the bunks and other furnishings in the dorm area).
39. For approximately 20 t o 21 hours a day, inmates housed in the second floor dorms are locked in these dormitory units.
-16-

40. Each dormitory contains the following sanitary equipmen t: ten

sin k s, five toile ts) four urinals ) and thre e s h o we r s . Many of th e se s <=-t nitar:/

facili ties are r epeatedly rendered inoperable due t o ov eruse resulting from

over crowding in the dormitory units.

41. Due to the sheer numbers of p eople who are housed in the

ECJ, defendants are unable to provide standard b unks with mattresses to as

many as 25 to 35 inmates assigned to each second floor dormitory; these

inmates must sleep on cots or on mattresses placed on the floor. A substa ntial

number of inmates for extended p eriods of times ar e for ced to sleep without

mattresses on the cot frames or even directly on the floor with only a blanket.

42. For approximately three to four hours a day (two ll;; hour

"activity" periods and three 20 minute p e riods for meals), second floor inmates

assigned to the dorms have access to the second floor dayroom; while in the

dayroom they are locked in; they cannot move freely between dayroom and

dorm.

43. The dayroom on the second floor measures approximately 36

feet by 33l;; f e"t, providin g ?p1)roximately 1206 square f eet. Tt contai,.,s six

concrete tables with ben ches capable of seatin g eig ht p eople per table , two

open unshielde d toilets wi thout s eats , and one television set. As many as 80

to 90 inmates ma y s hare the dayroom space during the daily perio ds when

each dorm has access to the dayroom; in such circumstances, inmates may

have as little as l3 to 15 square feet per person (which includes space consume d

by tables and other items in the dayroom). There are always more inmates

than space at the tables, so many inmates only can idle on the floor. As a

result, floor space is virtually unavailable with such crowding. The two

- toile ts often are rendered inoperable from overuse. Due to the presence of

this many inmates in such a small a rea, the n oise level often is so loud as to

be painful , and of such volume as to r ender normal conversation difficult or

impossible .

-17-

44 . Due to the numb e rs of people h e ld at the EC-l, the second floo r d ay r oom is also u s ed r egu la rly for s leep ing quarte rs for inma t es. As many as 30 to 40 inmates may be hou s ed in this area, which prov ides only the limited sanita ry facilitie s ( t wo often inop erable open toilets) desct'ibed m paragraph 43.
45. Inmates housed in the dayroom do not have bunks, but are force d to s le ep on cots, some without ma ttresses; the cots are issued at II p.m. and r e move d at 5 a.m . With 30 to 40 inmates sleeping on cots, virtually no floor space r emains. Inmates mus t walk over one another to reach a table or use the toilet. Inmates desiring to sleep beyond 5 a.m. when the cots are r emoved must sleep either directly on the concrete floors or on the concrete tables on which they and other inmates also mus t eat. Most of the inmates a s s igned to the dayroom sleep in this manner from 5 a.m. to 6 a.m. and aga in from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m .
46. In order to facilitate the feeding of dorm inmates away from their h ousing area, inmates housed in the second floor dayroom are split in t wo g roup s at f) a. m . , wit.h on e p;'-oup a ssigned to the Souths ide dorm and the other g roup as sig ned to the Northside dorm. Dorm inmates are then moved from each dorm to the dayroom for approximately 20 minutes for eating. At 7 a. m . after breakfast is completed the inmates assigned to the dayroom are . locked back into the dayroom until 9 a.m . At 9 a.m. they .re again reillrned to their respecti'l:e daytime dorm assignments. Similar movements of each dorm occur for lunch and dinner. Thus, for the overwhelming portion of the day mmates assigned to the dayroom for sleeping quarters are locked in the already crowded dorms without a bunk, cot or even location of their own. In the dorm are a they must compete with other inmates for what little floor spac e may exist as a place on which they can place their blanket or bedding in
order to sit or rest. At 9:30 p.m . inmates as signed for sleeping quarter'; to
the dayroom are returned to the day room and locked in for the night. -18-

47. The crowding in the s e c o nd floor d ~ yroom and the two se c ond floor d orms often is so s e v e re that n ea rly all a vailable floor space i s con s u r:; ed, with inma t e s forced t o clim b over t a bles , cots , mattresses , bla nkets , or each other in o rder to move eVe n a few steps.
48. The noise level in the day room and the dormitories often becomes unbea rable and p ainful to inmates in these areas.
49. For inmates on the second floor of the ECJ, there is n o r e s p ite at any p oint in the day from th e severe crowding to which th e y are subject both in the dayroom and the dorms .
The Third Floor 50. . The third floor, which was formerly used to house females who
are n ow h oused at the Jail Annex in Caldwell, is presently utilized for males , both juvenile and adult. Juveniles are housed in the Northside cellblock; adu lts are held in the Sou thside cellblock . There are 40 cells on the third floor, constructed and equipped as described in p ar agraph 36. The back and fron t tiers ()f the two cellbl»>::ks each contain two tie rs of ten cells· open. L, g 0 .'1 to a barred corridor approximately five feet by 50 feet, ordinarily providing approximately 250 square f ee t of additional space for the ten inmate s that may be housed on the third floor tiers. The two tier corridors in each cellblock l ea d to an adjoining s mall dayroom, meas uring approximately 15 feet b y 20 f eet, providing approximate ly 300 s qu a r e f eet of additiona l space for the 20 inmates of each cellblock.
51. For essentially 16 to 18 hour s of the day, inmates in these 20 cell units on the third floor are r egularly locked in their cells, withou t access to dayroom or the tier corridor.
52. For the r emaining six to eight hours a day (including three 20 to 30 minute periods for meals taken in the dayroom), they are permitted
-19-

access to their tier corridor and the adjoining small dayroom ar ea . Th us, defendants permit third floor inmates to have access only for six to eight hours a day to areas that at norm al p opulation levels would provide each third floor inmate with approximately 40 square feet of space (corridor area of 25 square feet and day room area of 15 square feet) in addition to their cell.
53 . Due to overcrowding at the ECJ, each of the small dayroom s on the third floor also are u sed r egularly for inmate hous ing. As many a s eigh t to ten inmates are housed on cots placed in these dayrooms. Housing inmates in this manner is a constant practice, particularly on the Southside (Adult) cellblock.
54. Housing inmates in the dayrooms affects the living conditions of all t hird floor inmates . When as man y as ten inmates are housed in the dayrooms, the space available for sleeping quarters for these inmates (here after "dayroom inmates" ) amounts approximately to 30 square feet of floor space per inmate (half of which space is actually consumed by the cots and other furni s hings); the se sp atial conditions exis t for approximately 16 to 18 hours a day (this being the time that other third floor inmate,; are locked in their individual cells). For the 6 to 8 h ours a day when the dayroom is shared by 10 "day room inm a tes" and the inmates from the 20 p e rson cellblock, the dayroom can only provide approximately 10 squa re fee t of space per inmate (which again even includes space consumed by tables and othe r items) . Thus, for the major portion of their waking hours at the ECJ, "dayroom inmates" on the Third Floor regularly may h ave as little as 10 square feet of living space to themselves ; at other times they have a mere 30 square feel. Similarly, when inmates are housed in the dayroom, the dayroom space to which inmates on the tiers ordinarily have access for 6 to 8 hours is reduced to approximately 10 square f ee t of dayroom area per inmate.
-20-

Th e Fou rth t h rou g h Eleven t h Floors 55. Floor s four t hrou gh ele'-c n contain t he r emain ing 416 geae cal
p opulation cells, cons tructe d and eq uippe d as d esc ribe d in pa r agraph 36 . Inm a tes on t h ese floor s are lock e d in th eir c ells f or approxim atel y 16 to 171;; hou r s of the day .
56 . The s e floor s are s imilarly arra nge d in Northside and Southsid e cellblock s , but here th e front and back tie rs of each cellblock con tain 13 cells . The tier co rridor s in th e s e cellblocks meas ure approximately five f eet by 65 f e et, providing approxima t ely 325 s quare feet s hared by 13 inmat es.
57. In addition, on these floor s the cellblocks open from one to the other, thereby connecting the cellblocks on floors 4 with 5, 6 with 7, 8 \vith 9, and 10 wit h 11. Th e refo r e , e a ch No rthside and Southside cellbloc k on th e s e adj oining floo r s cons ists of 52 cells arran ge d in a front and back doubl e tie r separated by a concrete floor. Each double- tiered cellblock of 52 inmat es is treated a s a single unit for movements and activitie s.
58 . For ap p roximately three h ours a day (in two 11;; hour p e riod s ) ,
w. inm ate s thes e 52 cell. units a re peJ"Tllitt e d access to a s mall d a 1Toom 10C'fl t e d
on the o dd numbere d floors (5, 7, 9 , a n d 11) of these two - floor units. Th e y meas ure approx imately 36 f e et by 331;; fe e t , th e reby providing approximately 1206 square fe e t. The dayrooms are furnish e d with concrete tables and benches and a t e levision s e t . Whe n s h a r e d by inmates from the 52 cell unit, the day room allO\\( S approxima tely 23 s qu are f eet p e r inmate including a rea con sumed by the dayroom furnishings . For the three hours a d ay when inm a tes are allowed in the day room ( other th an for meals ), th e y are locked in
it and - do -n o-t have acce ss eith e r to the tier corridor or their cells .
Therefor e , for this period of time the y are limited to the 23 s quare feet of space p e r inmate which the day room provide s for the 52 inmate unit.
- 21 -

59. While the day room provides an alter nate area to which the inmates may go for t hree hours a day , the 23 squ are f eet of space p er inmate does n o t even at normal p op ula tion levels r elieve th e crowdi.!1 g experienced by inmates.
60. For another three hours a day inmates in these 52 cell double tier units are p ermitte d access to th e tier co rridors in their ~e llblocks , as d escribed in paragraph 53. These corridors at n ormal population levels provide approximately 25 square feet of space per inmate in addition to the ap proximately 17\ square feet of availabl e cell space for inmates on the fourth through eleven th floors. Thus, for three hours a day, and at normal p opulation levels, inm a tes may have at mos t 42\ s quare feet of space for ac tivity.
61. Inmates held in the general population cells also take theilmeals i11 the dayrooms , which allows th em another period of a pproximately I to
1\ h ours a day in which they are permitte d out of their cells . For this
period, h owever , the 52 inmate unit als o is locked in the day room area. 62. Thus, even at the n ormal popula tion levels 50 far desc:nbed
for the cellblock5, inmat es spend the en tirety of their day in crowde d, c ramp ed quart ers: for 16\ to 17 h ou rs a day, e xcepting brief periods wh e n they may have a visit or see a doctor or counselor, they are locked in individual cells providing approximately 35 square feet (actually only 17\ square feet of av.ailable space when area consumed by cell furnishings is
considered); for 4!z hours of the rem aining six hours they h ave acces s
actually to less living space (the 23 square f eet of space provided by the dayrooms in which they are locked for this period); and for the other three _hours they have access to th e tie r corridor which provides approximately 25 square feet of space in addition to their cells.
-22-

63. As with the inmates hou sed elsewhere in the ECJ, overcro-.vding h as exacerbate d th e paltry provision of housing and livingspace for inmates. As many as ten inmates are regularly housed in each of the four dayrooms on the 5th, 7th, 9th, and llth floors _ When inmates are so housed in the dayrooms, cots are provided for them on which to sleep. The cots are brought out at approximately II p. m. and removed from th e dayroom at 5 a.m.; inmates wishing to sleep for longer than 5 or 6 hours must sleep on the floors or on the tables (on which they and other inmates also must eat). During the day, half of the inmates assigned for sleeping quarters to the dayroom are reassigned to one of the tiers in the cellblock areas; while on the tiers they only have the corridor space to use, which is shared with the inmates assigned to cells on the particular tier; while on the tier they also must share th e sanitar y facilities in another inmate's cell.
64. Housing inmates in the dayrooms on the fifth, seventh, ninth and eleventh floors also affects the living conditions of inmates hous ed in cells on the tiers: for the 7;" hours that inmates as singed to cells have access to the areas other than their cells, the paltry amount of space available either on the tiers (ordinarily 25 square feet per inmate) or in the dayroom (ordinarily 23 square f eet of space per inmate) must be further shared with inmates who are r egularly housed in the dayroom.
The Twelfth Floor 65 . There is also an area on the twelth floor called the "civil area"
ordinarily used for inmate housing. This area provides five cubicles each measuring approximately eight feet by twleve feet, providing approximately 96 square feet. Each cubicle is now used to house four inmates, providing each inmate only 24 square feet. The cubicles open on to a small dayroom area
- 23-

measuring approximately 40 feet by 24 fE:et; due to overcrowding this are;., is used to h ouse an additional nineteen or twenty inmates. Inmates are allowed to leave the "civil area" only for approximately three hours a week whe,) scheduled for recreation or the library.
66 . A separate housing area is provided on the twelfth floor for inmates who are "tiermen" in the form of a small dormitory containing bunks for six inmates.
67. Additionally, on the twelfth floor there are nine detention cells; of these nine cells, only five cells contain toilet units; inmates held in the other four cells either must contact a guard to use. a toilet or are provided paper cups in which to urinate when a guard may not be available.
68. The twelfth floor also contain the hospital ward, with beds for approxi.mately 13 inmates crowded into a small area.
Duration of Confin.ement 69. Approximately sixty p ercent of the ECJ pretrial population on
any given day has been confined under the overcrowded conditions for over 45 days; approximately one-half of the pretrial population of the ECJ on any given day has been confined under the overcrowded conditions at the ECJ for over 60 d ays; approximately one-third of the pretrial population has been confined in like manner for over 90 day s .
70. Inmates sentenced to terms in state correctional institutions have been similarly confined at the ECJ for extended periods of time.
-24-

Rec reation and Exercise

71. An opportunity for indoor r ec reation and exercise is on ly

available to ECJinmates once a week for a scheduled period of approximately

l~ hours.

72. The recreation area is located on the thirteenth floor of the

ECJ. It consists of a gymnasium type area which contains an area for basket::'all,

a ping pong table, a pool table, and a universal gym. The gymnasium is open

for inmate use only five days a week during day hours; this facility is not

utilized on evenings or weekends.

73 . Due to overcrowding at the ECJ and the time required to move

the large number of inmates from their respective housing areas , inmates

actually only may be able to obtain 35 to 50 minutes in the recreation area.

74. There is no program of outdoor recreation for ECJ inmates.

Activities and Programs

75. Other than recreation time as described in paragraphs 71 to

74, inmates at the ECJ are scheduled for only another one-and- a-half hours

each week in an activity area away from their housing area or dayroom.

During this additional one-and-a-half hour period, inmates are permitted to

visit the auditorium and library area located on the thirteenth floor. As with

the gymnasium, the library facility is not utilized on evenings or weekends.

Due to overcrowding at the ECJ and the time required to mcve the large

number of inmates from their respective housing areas, inmates actually only

may be able to obtain 35 to 50 minutes in the library area.

76. Activities in the dayrooms in which inmates are locked for

three hours a day (as described in paragraphs 43- 49, 58 - 59 and 63- 64) are

severely limited, consisting entirely of one television set, some broken board

games and decks of cards. Virtually no floor space is available to conduct

any active recreation and most inmates only can sit idly on benches. tables,

or the floor.

- 25-

Classification 77. There is no written plan for classifying iDmates at the ECJ ,
nor is there a classification manual. 78. Due to the overcrowded con ditions in all housing areas,
particularly in the second floor dorms, all t he dayroom s, and the twelfth flool' "civil area", inmates are not classified for housing assignments b ased on either their s tatus as a d etainee, medical reasons, or the seriou s ness of the offense with which they are charged or convicted. Sentenced inmates are not segregated from detainees , nor are new admissions, alcoholics, narcotic addicts or inma t es with medical problems separated from the rest of the inmate population.
79. In the twenfth floor "civil area", inmates held for non - crL'1linal matters are regularly housed with inmates committed on criminal charges with clearly observable psychological problems.
Visitation and T elephone 80. Present visiting hours, visitation space, and telephone p olicies
are inadequate for the J ail's population. 81. Visiting at the ECJ is scheduled six days a week, Tuesday
throug h Sunday, but for only three hours a day. Visits are conducted in booths with a barrier separating inmate from visitor; voice contact is made through a phone.,
82. Children are not p ermitted to visit on Saturdays or Wednesdays_ 83. There are 30 visiting booths at the ECJ to accomodate its entire population of over 700 inmates. Six booths are located on each of the third, fourth, sixth, eighth and tenth floors _ At the present population, these booths do not adequately provide for the volume of visitors nor for
sufficien t visiting time .
-26-

84. Inm a tes in the second floor dorms or day room must take their v isits in the third floor visiti.'1g booths. As a r esu lt, on any p3.rticuLl1- d ay appr oximately 220 inmates (from the second and third floo r s ) only have six booth available for visits.
85. The six v isiting booths on each of the fourth, sixth, and eighth floors are shared by over 100 inm a te s. On numerou s occasions, some v isiting b ooth s have been inope rable .
86. At normal population levels, v is its may b e as long as 30 minutes, with two visits permitted a d ay . Due to overcrowding and the demand placed on the visiting facilities , visits are considerably shorter, often limite d to a mere five or ten minutes, with only six visits p ermitted a week.
87. Due to the large number of inmates receiving visits and the limited hours available for that activity, the overcrowded conditions at the ECJ have reduced the opportunity for communication and minimal contact between inmates and their families and friends.
88. Inmate phone calls are limited to t wo calls of three minutes per day. On the average there are only two phones available for every 60 inmates.
Access to the Courts 89 . The ECJ contains a law library on the thirteenth floor to which
inmates h ave access as de scrib e d in paragraphs 75 to 76. Due t o overcrowding and the presence, of over two hundred sent enced inmates , the library is heavily us e d and cannot accomodate all who desire access to it nor provide sufficient time for appropriate research and preparation.
90. The volumes in the law library are limited and do not provide - full and current sets of materials n ecessary for the legal research ne eds of
the ECJ population.
-27-

Health, S anitation and Safet y 91. Due t o a s h o r t a ge of available be d s p ace an d m att.r ess ~ s,
inmates a t th e ECJ are a t time s f or ced t o s leep on ma ttre s ses place d on concret e floors or even with only a blank et directly on the floor without a mattress a t all, or without a ma ttress on a cot frame.
92. In the d ayroom areas, becaus e of the removal of cots and ma ttresses at 5 a. m. (which onl y p e rmits inmates to have less than SL,{ h our·s for slee p on th em) and the l ack of ap p r opriat e s l eeping quarte rs in any othe rareas , inma te s often mu s t sleep on th e con c r e t e t ables on which they and other inm a tes also eat their meals .
93 . In the dayroom a reas wh er e inmates eat their meals, some of the tables are only a few fe et from open toilet s , inadequately shielde d either t o provi de privacy f or per son s u s in g the t oilets or to limit the vie w b y inmates who are eating of other inmates urina ting or defecating . Many of the t oile t s a ls o emi t foul an d unp le as ant o d o rs, or a r-e inoperable.
94. Showers and o ther plumbling f ixtures often operate improperly or n ot a t all due t o overuse or lack of r epair , making personal hYidene d ifficult or impossible .
95. Due to overcrowding and the sh eer number of people who are compelle d to inhabit the dayrooms and dorm a r e as of the ECJ, the noise level . in the se a reas often b e come s in tolerable and p a inful, impair,. t he ability of inmate s to engag~ in a ny activ ity r e quiring concentra tion or a ttention, and produces an en vironment in which idlen ess and tension pre d ominates. The physical limitation s of the ECJ , with h a rd surfaces of concrete, tile, and steel through out these areas furth er exacerbates the noise level produced by the overcrowding .
-28-

96. Areas of the ECJ, including areas u sed for sleeping and eating by inmates are infested with roaches, mice and rats. While extermina tors visit some areas of the ECJ, there is no extermination for infestations in the cells or on the tiers. Extermination undertaken in other areas is plainly insufficient to control the infestation of the areas where inmates are housed and take their meals.
97. Inmates who sleep on mattresses placed on the floors of the dayrooms or dorms have found roaches or mice on their bedding upon awaking in the morning or during the night. Rats and roaches have been observed in the dayrooms and on the tiers.
98. Floors of the corridors and cells are often dirty and wet, on which waste collects, due to inoperable drains or otherwise faulty plumbing, creating hazards to inmates in the living units.
99. Areas 01' the Jail are in need of extensive repair to insure a minimally safe, secure, and healthy environment for its inhabitants. For example, the ceiling of the Third Floor Southside (juvenile) dayroom has been crumbli...T1g and deteriorating for an extendp.d period time without adequate repairs, threatening the safety, health, and security of inmates in this area.
100. A large number of mattresses at the ECJ are not constructed of an approved fire retardant material.
101. Heat and smoke detectors are not provided 'n all living units despite recommendations by state fire marshalls that such detectors should be installed.
102. On information and belief, the ECJ does not maintain emergency plans for fire and evacuation with which its staff is familiar. In particular, there are no written proceedures for release of inmates from locked areas and evacuation.
-29-

!l1edical Care 103. When an inmate is admitted for incarceration at the ECJ, a
medical history is taken by a nurse and, ordinarily, blood tests are performed. Inmates who upon admission complain of or evidence some type of medical disorder are also ordinarily referred to the medical department fOlexamination, diagnosis and treatment.
104. Due to overcrowding at the ECJ, the medical department is both overutilized and often unable to perform according to its ordinary procedures: the medical screening of inmates often has been limited to a perfunctory medical history; blood tests have been overlooked; physical examinations are the exception not the rule; and there have been extended delays in referrals for observable medical problems.
"'fi'o~' of Overcrowdini', on Inmates 105. Overcrowding and the conditions in the housing and living
units as described in paragraphs 27 to 70 have caused pervasive idlen ess , have severely limited the opportunity for recreation, exercise and visit'ltio'l, and have seriously impeded classification, sanitation, safety and the provision of medical services so as to breed anxiety and violence, threaten the inmates' physical and mental wellbeing, threaten to produce debilitation in those confined, and inflict needless privations and hardships on irmates detained at the ECJ.
106. Overcrowding and its consequences as described in paragraphs 27 to 102 further has prevented defendants from implementing classification procedures necessary for the health, safety and security of inmates, has prevented the development of activities and programs for inmates, including increased opportunities for exercise and recreation. has severely limited
- 30-

maintenance of minimally ade quate visitation time capable of redu cing anxidy and tension and insuring con tinua tion of family and community contacc, has damaged the ability of defe ndants to continue performing necessary medical screening for ECJ inm a te s , and has contributed to the develo pment of an unsanitary, hazardous and insecure environment at the ECJ for its inhabitants and staff.
CAUSES OF ACTION 107. The totality of the overcrowded conditions at the ECJ, including the housing of inmates for extended periods of time in severely crowded areas without minimally adequate living space, with some inmates forced to sleep on concrete floors or tables, with some inmates forced to sleep even without mattresses, with inmates not provided reasonable opportunities f"r ro~rf'3tlon and exercise, with seve rely shortened visitation, and with inadequate provision for classification of the inmate population sUbjects thos e members of the class who are pretrial detainees to punishment without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and subjects members of the plaintiff class who are sentenced inmates to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These conditions also violate the plaintiffs' rights to association, p rivacy, equal protection of the.1aw, and due process of law granted by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
IRREPARABLE INJURY 108. The aforesaid conditions and practices are known to the defendants , their agents and their employees , but these conditions and
-31-

practices have been allowed to continue and to become worse without a concerted effort to bring about their elimination or correction in a mapner that would provide timely relief for those plaintiffs who have and will continue to suffer from these conditions and practices.
109. The aforesaid condition s of life and official practices are allowed to continue and are imposed by defendants under color of law of the State of New Jersey.
110. There is an actual controversy between plaintiffs and defendants in that the defendants allow the conditions and pra ctices above described to continue unimpeded and uncorrected, and the plaintiffs and the class they represent have no adequate remedy at law, thus making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate.
111. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are s ufferil'g and will continl]'" to suffer in the future irreparable injury unless a preliminary injunction is issued, which should remain permanent after a full eVidentiary hearing.
112. The actions and inactions of the defendants as alleged. and the claims of the plaintiffs and the class they represent require that this Court declare the rights and legal relationship s of the parties in respect to the conditions at the ECJ.
AV AILABLE REMEDIES 113. Several potential methods of reducing the population confined at the ECJ are available and may be implemented rapidly:
a) transfer of sentenced inmates from the ECJ to facilities under the jurisdiction or control of other county or state correctional au thorities;
-32-

b) maxi.!I1ization of pretrial relief mechanisms as an alternati'.-<C to high bail;
c) acquisition or construction of additional temporary ho usi."l~' facilities through purchase or remodeling until completion of new permanent facilities become available;
d) utilization of other housing facilities for offenders not requiring secure confinement such as those on work release or serving sentences on weekends only;
e) careful review of the appropriateness of all sentences to evaulate alternatives to incarceration and shortening of sentences for non-dangerous offenders.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for the following relief:
1. That this Court order, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that this action be maintained as a class action and that plaintiffs are proper class representatives;
2. That this Court adjudge and declare that the conditions at the ECJ are unconsti~utional and violate the rights of the plaintiffs and their class, as a result of the overcrowding of inmates existing there;
3 . That this Court issue an Order permanently enjoining the defendants, their agents, their employees, and those acting in concert with them to reduce the population of the ECJ to constitutional levels and set the timetable for such reduction;
-33-

4. That this Court issue an Order pennanently enjoining the defendants to take all such action as may be n ecessary to ensure that the population of the ECJ does . not exceed the numbers who may be safely and constitutionally confined there;
5. That this Court specifically declare: a) that the totality of conditions under which plaintiffs and
members of the class who are pretrial detainees are forced to live at the ECJ amounts to punishment in that these conditions subject plaintiffs to hardships, privations, and unhealthful conditions, as well as restrictions on their liberty, which are not justified by a legitimate interest or which are excessive in relation to that interest;
b) that the totality of conditions under which plaintiffs and members of the class who have been sentenced to a tenn in the ECJ, or who "'C''-~ "',~ cor, s entence d to a tenn in a New Jersey state correctional institution and who are held in the ECJ awaiting transfer to state custody, are forc':!d to live subjects them to cruel and unusual punishment;
c) that the conditions of ':o nfinem<ont caused by the acts and omissions of the defendants in failing to provide minimum levels of habilitative shelter, living space, classification, recreation, visitation, sanitation, security, and opportunities for education, counseling and other rehabilitative programs deny the plaintiffs and the class they represen t of equal protection of the law as guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth Amendment.
6. That the Court specifically order: a) that under the totality of conditions that presently exist,
wherein nearly all inmates are held in severely cramped living space at virtually all times, that the ECJ be prohibited from housing more than one person in any of the 456 general population cells at the jail, that the second
-34-

floor dorms be prohibited from housing more than 39 bmate each, th:l t th e twelfth floor civil area house no more th an 10 bm ates, th at the three twelfth floor quiet cells h ouse no more than one inmate each, and that the twelfth floor tiermen dorm hou se no more than 3 inmates ; thereby establis hing a maximum capacity of 550 inmates for the ECJ in order to provide minimally habilitalive shelter;
b) that the ECJ and cells and living areas therein be kept ill. sanitary condition, that use of mattresses placed on floors for sleeping b e prohibited, that use of cots without mattresses for sleeping be prohibited;
c) that inmates be allowed and provided a regular daily program of exercis e and re creation outside of their living areas and dayrooms, in order to ensure their health and wellbeing;
d) that inm a tes have promp t acc ess to adequate professional TTlPr1i,,~l . dental , psychiatric and ps yc hological services on a routine basis and in emergencies and that they be provide d with basic preventative medical and dental car e;
e) that inmates be medicall.v screened upon admission to the jail for communicable diseases and other existing medical conditions ;
f) that a classification sys t em be implemented to assign inmate housing based on status as a detainee or sentenced inmate, for medically indicated r easons, and for the safety and security of those held in the jail;
g) that inmates be provided adequate fire retardant mattresses and bedding, and tha t smoke and heat detectors be ins talled in all living areas of the jail;
h) that visiting conditions afford decency, comfort and privacy and a length of visit sufficiently long to provide meaningful contact with family and friends;
-35-

i) that t h e two daily telephone calls a llowe d be suffic;.ently long to provide meaningful contact wi th fam ily a nd friends. and t h a t cegulal' access to a telephone for legal calls be allowed whenever required;
J) that the law library and legal research collection be kept current and maintained in accordance with the standards for county jail libraries established by the State Library of the New ,Jersey Department of Education.
7 . That this Court retain jurisdiction of this action until the Court is satisfied that the conditions. practices, and procedures complained of herein are eliminated at the ECJ and that prov ision will b e made so that such conditions, practices, and proce dures will not be allowed to rea pp ear in the future.
8. That this Court order such other relief as this Court d eems

Dated: June 10 , 1982

STANLEY C. VAN NESS NEW JERSEY PUBLIC DEFENDER ATTOR NEY FOR PLAINTIFFS Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market S1., CN 850 Trenton, N.J. 08625
By:Cld:::/#!!;U( Office of Inmate Advocacy John M. Cannel Assis tant Public Defe nder
-36-

 
 , ,

"

(

DISTRICT OF NEh' JERSEY

ESSEX CXlU':'."I"I J.Pli r:~,l,:..r,o,S, RUSSEL 1..".TSCN, et <Ls., ;'
v.
T. CXjT T .rEK., \'arde...-' ,-_ · et als.,
and lIT!LIAi'1 H. FAl'ilER, Cr:>::'r!lis 5iC!1er , !~e.y Jersey ~?a-rtr.er~t c::
Oc=ections,
De::enOz:1t5 ,

em-SENT JlJ!XMNl'

i
ciVil Action No. 82-1945

- - -..-.---
(ilaIold

A.

1Ickennan,

U.S.D.J.)

"ll-~.s, ;:lcr:':i::fs, Ess~: County Jail I=ates (the "plaintiffs")

t.ions of c:::J::£i..'"1eTe..."lt at -:.!-.= ~SSE{ Ccl.Z".ty Jail (~~e "County Jail") * as violative
of the ri<;hts 0:: al:" ?=rsc..~ \·.710 arE c= will be incarcerated at the facility

a~=' on be!"'..a.i..f of all :7~': c':: ~h~ ::lass of such persons, a'1d
•

t:,= 'IF-=-r''-~S,

p-rcies to this COI$ent Judgrrent have agreed thro'.lgh

their attorr.eys to t:'1e e:~tious res,::luti:m 0:: t-'1e issues raised herein

"Co=-=.:· *The

Jail" eoes =-: L~clude t'1e Essex County Jail Anne.x which

oouses Coun~ ?::-is:>:-_-=~ a:-.d is loc:.at.eci ir. Cald.,ell, !-Jew Jersey ..

·....
)
GC\ER;L PFOVISICNS
1. tv.,', ~RE, IT IS HEREBY S!IPULATED NID AGREED by
and between t.-'e a'::tcrne::,s for t.'1e plaintiffs, New Jersey Public Advocate
(T. Gary :.!itc..'lell, Director, Office of Imate AevocaCj, appearing) and
attorneys for Defe.'"1Car.ts, Albert T. Collier, l':arde"'l; Peter Shapiro, Essex County Exec"t:::VE ; a::d Je.-~-lle Bram, Director, Division of CorrectiDnal
Services (tile "Co=ty"), David H. Ben-Asher, Essex Coun,ty Counsel
• (Bonnie Blu:e Golc..sc:nt , .~sista'lt County Counsel, appearing), and
attorneys for Defe."'l::ant, l';illi~ H. ?auver, Camri.ssioner, Ne,.· Jersey De;:>ar1::lrent of Cc=ectioI's ("Cc:xrr:ri.ss i oner Fauver" or the "State"), Irwin Kimrel.m3.n, .'.ttomey ~"'lCr-c..l of the State of Nev Jersey (Joseph T. Maloney, De?Uty Atto::ney Ge."'leral, ~aring) i n the abcve-e.'ltitled action, that, sm j ect to a;>Frcval ::'y be Court, tl-e :'ssues raised in the plaintiffs I Ccrnplaint a!',::]. t.":e CC'.J:":ty's Crossclairn against Ca:rnissioner Fal..'Ver shall be and are resch-ee: as = rg ti:~elves as herein stated as they affect the County Jail; c..'1C
2. TI IS ?(iU'H:3 AGREED that said Conse.'1t Judgment shall serve to set fo~. t.'1e o;:,li<;a tic~, res;:onsibili t ies a.'ld capabilities of the County and State defe....c.ants .db r-c:gard to the County Jail; and
3. .rr IS ?l"RZ£? AGEE!) t.'1at the Cispositim of this matter does
not ccnstitcte a"1i' a=rri.ssion of any previous liiiJility or violation of any of the plainti:fs' or be Co=ty' s rights, constitutional, statutory, regulatory,
or other;,-ise . I t is furtr,:= not the p-..L.'?')se 0: the parties to this Consent J udc;rrent to assess i:la:re c.:;c.inst any 0: the parties herein, but rather to
resolve tt.e plai.."'lti::::s' C!".j the County's claims :or declaratory and injunctive r e lie f by set~,? .::c:::t'1 a..., Cm e r containing ? r m'is ions upon ,mch the parties
-2-

, )
claims for =elief s:-~l Ue settled :.n a=~",::e ":ith t:-.e following provi-
sions whicl'l shall be bin:i:"''"lq ~, t:.e Comty a.-X: t."l= State and their
successors in o:fice, a"1d S:-.al1 =-t...<t:.tL-..e a, Clr;ier of this Court and be e.'lforceab1e as such.
5. Ccr.r.encinq en or be::o::-a Jc-...c:Oe= 18, 1982 and to be CClTpleted by Octcber 25, 1982, Ca:missio.-.er Famer s.'"'.all rem:::>VE!,one h1f1dred and fifty (150) inmates incaxceratee il'l tl-;e County ';ai.l, ..~, as of 15 C3yS prior to that date, have been se.'ltance:i to 1:.e-rns ef i:.;:r':'sorr:e.:1.t :i.:'l state facilities. Si:nulta"leously Kit."J. the re:c'val of ~ai:l rtate-se,ten:::ed inmates fran t.'le Cotmty Jail, the County Jail ·will accept tl"= sa::e n·.=ri::>e= of brrates fran the NewaJ:k City Jail, (the "City Jail" ) , so t.'1a~ :::'y Oc:tol:r....r 25, 1962, the Cotmty Jail will rerrove a "!:..':f'..al of Or=! h-.=1c....--ee fi:ty (15C. ::::=e-"!:...':'a2. de~ainees fran the City Jail.
The ccrrr.d.ssion2r s::'cll select ti:.-e L-::'e:-=es to =-= :c::coJEd ::rcrn thz Co1.l:1.'ty Jail
6. Bet~..:_ Dece,:i:>e= 15, 1932 a-.d Jan:w:y 1, 1933, Carrnissioner Fauver shall rffiOVE fran -=r.e Co.lr.ty Jail erE :'1u:-.c=ee. ::i:t": (150) additional statesa~tenced ir:na.t.es.
i. In a:::'G.i tiC:'l to be rerro-,=l c: -=-'l=ee ::u.."'1.C=ad (300) state-se.'1te:nced
•
inmates frcr.. t."J.c Co,-.ty Jail, as set fx"'_'1 i:. ?a::-a;rap"-s 5 and 6 above,
8_ D'Jri..-;g t".'1e ir:~i:n ;:>erix ~t·.~, &!=-::e:ber 30, 1982 through June 30, 19E3, Ca:r.li.ssic:1e:: ?a-...n.'ar S:--=.ll ::e....m-e sute-se.'1tenced inmates so that
state-sen'te;".ced ir=:l=.tes s;- ~'l be r=_~ f=. -=r2 Co·.r.ty- Jail, provided ho.,'e ver

j
t.l1at the Ccr.t!'issioner shall ;TE.l<e rea.sonable efforts to re:.ove a minimum average of thirty (30) inm:Ites eadl rro"th_to fulfill the foregoing =rnit:Jrent. Ac=rdir.;ly, the net effect shall be the renoval of atl additional two hundred and seventy (270) state-se.,tence::l irolates between. Septenber 30, 1982 and June 30, 1983 .
9. Effective as of July 1, 1983, and oontinoously therea.c~, Ccmnissioner Fauver agrees to rerrove a'"T'j and all state-sentenced inmates who serve to cause the County Jail FOpulation 0 ·exceed five hundred and ninety-four (594) inmates, by rerroving then in a=rear:ce ...."ith N.J.S.A. 2C:43-l0(e) . .
•
10. 1'.s of July 1, 19 8~, the parties agree ::''1at the ..axiIrn.."a capacity of ~'1e County Jail shall be fL-.:e::l at five hundred and ninety-four (594) specifically to include one perso:1 in eac.'1 of the 464 general ;xJpulatio."l cells on the third throu¢! elever.th floors at the jail, a.'ld .i.."l additio.'1 one person in each of be eight detenti:)r. cells 0:1 the fourth through eleventh floors at the jail, 50 people in the so-",=-'1-sic.e secc:1d floor donritcry and .;8 ::;>eople in the northside seoond floor dc~.i ory, t-.;o people in each :)f the fi'le cubicles of the twelfth floor civil area, or.e irrrate in each of the three b,'€lfth floor "quiet cells", six people i..-4 t.he: 'tv:~l=t:"l floor "tier man" dorm, ~'1d one person in each of the five b ·,'elfth floor c5.isciplinary cells ...."ith toilets.
11. As of 3dy 1, 1993, the County ag:::ees to maintai., the FOpulation of
lation of the Co'.lr.t:'l Jail =::' exceed the stated capacit-::, l::y no nore than ten
percent for periods :)f ro =re t.'Jan 72 hours once a week. 12. T!',e CO'Jl1ty a:;rees '::hat the dayrocms of the Co=ty Jail shall not
be used to rouse .i...,."ates c.'e.=.ig:-.t and rrat the use of r:-attresses placed on :loors for sleepir,g or t.'le use c: rots ,...ithout rrattress<=s shall be prohibited. - exce?t during an e:n2.rc::'e:-.~' \o.71e::l SUC""'l practice may be pe!:'!rJ.. tted for no longer ~iE.l1 72 hours once ~ ve=y \" ~~.
-~-

...

.. '

.I

~'='
\ .
1.3. At arry ti.7le "''hen the population of the County Jail approachef!'
= reaches the capacity figure stated above, the County shall forthwith take
the follOlo-lnq steps:
a. Notify the CO'Jrlt:y ProseCutor and State Public
Defe..,aer (Essex Fsqion) of this condition and :request that review be sought of the bail status of pre-trial detainees to dete..."1IIine if any reCuctions or conversials to R.O.R. status can be made; and notify the Assignment JOOge, the Criminal Assignment J'udge~~ the Bail Ju:lge of this o::rldition 50 that =ey. :nay talce \matever action they deer. appLOpl a t e i."l response to any requests for actio."l regarding said bail status.
b. )lotify all jOOges who have sentenced persons to a te:an of irrpriso:mmt in the County Jail 50 that they may be aware of that condition in taking ""hatever a::tion t.'1ey deem appropriate with regard to any reCuction of sentences for ?risoners whose sentences are about to expire and whose early release would pose no risk to the public.
:;otify all police a~e."1cies in the rn.micipalities of Essex Coun~y w7:ic..'1 have local loc.'<-up facilities, and request that persons arrested be held in said lock-ups, rather than being transferre::1 to the County Jail.
d. :lctify t.'1e ~e'." Jersey Departz:ent of Corrections and request the reroval of persons who have been se."1tence:'! to ~"'1T'S of iIT?risor:ment in the s.tate ?I'isor.s a::,1 refo:z::-atories or held or. violations
• of pa..'"Ole, but flOC yet transferred to the state syst.eT;.
14. ;.t a."'y tke when the ;x::pulation of t.1-Je Co1.:!lty Jail has remai.!'le:'!
above the maxi.-:r....":l:::a:;:>acity fiqure agree::. to above for any period in excess of
four days, t."le CoIr:t'J shall fortluit.'1 na'"..ify this Court a..-rl plaintiffs' =unsel
by telephone, 2l"~ request a prcrnpt heari."'lg to obtain a reduction in the County
Jail's po?Ulatic:'l. At said hearing. the County shall present to t.1-Je Court o:::r:l-
plete, descri?tc:'l5 of ·..here a'1d :in \,7'.at n;.:rbers i.'l:nates are ccnfine:l at the

-5-

·J

-

Count:' Jail c ::>n-=rar::, to paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 hereof, and of all persons con':ine::! at t.'le Co=ty Jail, with r~ard to their charges, bail, le;lgti'. of confinerrent, stat'c.1S 0': their court proceedings, and related matters, and reccrrr.endatio:lS, if a-ry. regardin:! woo may be rrost safely released or transferre::! fran the Cour.t::, Jail. T'nis Court shall then review such presentations

SERVICES
• 15. E':fee-~ve i.":Tred.iately, at any p:lpUlation level of the Co=ty
Jail, the County s.'1a1.l =tinue to maintain the prese.'1t levels of perso=l ~d
official visit:L-,q, recreation, rredical care, dental care, access to legal research facilities. ':cxxl. services, counseling, and other minirral services pro-
v iced to i.'1."lates, except tbat pe-sor.al visiting, recreation and coun.sel.ing may
De S'o.lS;Je.'1de:i for ;:.eriods of no =:::-e tha"1 seventy-b..o (72) hours in the event
of ti'2:'eats to '=t.; ;:>olic sa::ety.
16. E':fective July l, 1983. and provided the County Jail ?8?:.Uation
is at 39 4 or less, a..c tnless othen,':i.se stated herein, the County shall provide
serv ices to i.r::'.c.te5, . bclmi..'1C; 00:: no':. lirr>ite::! to the areas referenced in the abov e ?<U'agra~h, b cc:1ioJ::'t'ity ',..':i."::..'1 t.'1e standards set out below. L. tl-,e event
that the :tX>P--ula't.i.c:l of t.'e CO\:1ty Jail exceeds the capacity at any give.'1 t.iJTe I
tIl; Cc·.mty s.'1c.ll r:ale; a 9O::X: ':ait!-, ef':o:::t to prov ide services referred to herein
a. .:. :::-egular daily Fros;ram of exercise and recreation ol:":.sic.e 0': their li'.'i.r..g areas and dayrooms in order to e."1S..:re their health and ,vell-being. County c.e':e.,c.a.-:ts s.'1all r..a].:e a qood faith effort to ac.'1ieve axe=cise a."ld :::-ecreation Periods of a mi.nimurri of one hour
:::e:- c..::..,,;, ;
:'. ?~':. access to adequate profession al medical, ::'~;~;:: 1 , ?sychiatric and psychological services o n =. ::.-c'_rUne basis anc. in em=:rgencies:
"'.c.cic a~ro?riate rredical and den.a' care: :·~±':::al scree,u.ngs u;:on admission to the jail for

. . . '.

,/
corrt:'lllIUcable d i sea sec a..,d other existing Iredi.cal conCitic:ns;
e. A classification syS+-...e!": to assign inmate housing based on stat".1S as a de-::ainee or sentenced inmate, . for medically inCicated reasons, and for the safety and security of those held in the jail;
f. Adpc!uate fLre retaroa,t mattressess and beddi ng for all inmates;
g. Installation by Dece!:Der 31, 1982 of battery~perated srroke detec'"...ors in all living areas of the jail;
h. Visits shall be at least twenty minutes each in actual duration, six days a ;.'eel<, and may inclu:3.e children. Inmates shall be peD1litted at least six visits. in any =.bination. By July 1, 1983, a prcgrarn of evening hours for visits shall I::e made available ~1ith family or friends to ensure r:earringful contact between an inma'te anC fardly or ::riends;
i. ht least one personal ph:me call a day sufficiently long to provide rreaningful contact ,,';'th family and frienes, a."lC:; access to a telephone for legal calls
whenever rpc!.liroo. T::e Co'..l!lty shall make a gcxx1
£ait..' effort to ir.st.all :!Ore telephones in the jail and "thereafter to inuQase the mir.i.:mJm nurrber of daily persor..al teleFnc.,e calls to two;
j. l':aintenance a.u upkee;:; of the law library so t..':lat any volu::es necessary to l.:?date the l;;u library in keeping ".;.th stam5.ar;!s to be qreed to by the parties shall be on order by ::ece:rber :;1, 1982;
k. r·:ainte.'1aI1ce of all li\"inq areas in a safe and sanitary =ndicion, f=ee f= i..,festation .

• 17. Effective UFO:') 'the dat:e c: ":.his Order and for two years t.i1er~
after, plaintiffs' coU!".sel s:-.all have ~e reasonable right, upon reasonable notice to the defendants, 'to i.."lS?E=--"t a::.l areas of the Co=ty Jail and to revie'.·.. doc:u:rents requested i..-: ac.va,ce. ':'his provision shall not be interpreted to in any ,.,ay li..'7'i, t S·.lCl ot."'er =i"hts plaintiffs' counsel may have iJ1 relation to the class or these p::oceeCir.gs. This right may be suspended d=L,g

-7-

',j

)

periods of ere........a'cy detennbe:l by the l':ar"...en. This right shall expire ~ years fro:n the date of this Order.
18. IT IS F'llRI"rZR STIPliIJ..1O AND AGREED t.lKit this Court will retain jurisdic"..ion over the provisior.s of this agreerrent and that any questions =cernirq its implerrentation or L"lterpretation will be referred to the Court for resol'..lticn.

Order.
Date:
Date:

The =cersigne:l here!::>y =r.se..,t to the fonn and enqy of the wi.thin
JOSEPH H. FODRIQJEZ K€W Jersey Public Advocate-Defender
6JJ::iJt ~J ~~ Atto.rney for Plabtifff .~ T. GaJ:Y Ml. Director, Office of I.'1r."ate AC!voc:acy
o.:>.VID H. BEN-ASHER
Ii Essex County Counsel
~ ~~.~:'2:'J1A - jJ~.Jd!r ,Attorney fo~ County Defe....car.ts I

•
•
Date:

Date :

IT' IS SO O?D::::RED:

-E-

. .-.- ;,
HAroLD A. ACKERMA..'
U:1ited States Distri~ Ju::ge

" , • .r

StjP?LEMENI'AL ORDER

rr IS 0f4JU<E!) Th"RffiER that the Special Masters will rrcni tor
canpliance with this Cor..sent JOOgr:ent arx'l with the Orders of this Court, and will file a rep::>rt every ninety (90) days unless a nbre frequent IlDlitoring policy is necessitatee l::y any events.

- .'

t "'.

•.. ."

~ '~ . '

,'. ~
. ' . /. ,

N

'

HArolD A. ACKERMAN United States District Judge

•
-9-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRIcr COURT FOR TIlE DISTRIcr OF NEW JERSEY

ESSEX COON'IY JAn.. ANNEX INMATES, COREY WEBB, '!'Ha11l.S ARM:IUR, FREDERICK W. BCX)KER,' JA!£S SIMJN, RONAID M:CLENDON, ROSETTA DRAKE, CANDACE JOHNSON, ROSALIND ROBINSON, on behalf of themselves and all other persons s:Unilarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NlatOLAS AMATO, Essex County Executive, THCMAS THCM?SON, Acting Administrator, THCMAS GIBLIN, President, Essex County Board of Olosen Freeholders, JOSEPH PARLAVECCHIO, Vice President, Essex County Board of Olosen Freeholders, CARDELL COOPER, ADRIANNE DAVIS, JOHN MATI, JAMES CAVANAUGH PEARL BEATTY, ARTHUR o..Jl,Y and MJNRDE JAY WSTBADER, M:mbers Essex County Board of Olosen Freeholders, EMILY WEBER, Acting Director, Department of Public Safety, and their Successors in Office, individually and in their official capacities,

CCM?LAINT Civil No . (Class Action) (Civil Rights C.Laim)
ORIGINAL FILED
MAR - 91987
WILLIAM T. W A1.SH, CLflK

and

WILLIAM H. FAINER, Corrrnissioner, New Jersey Departrrent of Corrections, and his successor in office, individually and in his official capacity,
Defendants.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a class action brought by inmates of the Essex County J ail system, in facilities located in North Caldwell known as the Jail Annex (hereinafter "Jail Annex" or ECJA). The Jail Annex is a sprawling complex

of long-neglected, decaying buildings, most of which house inmates in dark

dungeon-like units that are over a century old. Numerous state and

lc-~. l inspections repeatedly have identified hazardous conditions and

i : ~ .. ,ute staffing l evels, whici'. conditions remain uncorrected and place

inInc.t2 3, "ty ard health at serious risk. While the =rent conditions and

prob.1. .

' - '~ ed in this complaint have been caused by years of

ineffective enI:~ 'S-"1t of applicable state regulations and the reckless

inaction of prior County Administrations, immediate remedial action to

correct existing problems is an absolute necessity.

2. The present crises, spawned by years of ineffective state . ..

regulation and the County's inexplicable inaction, are evident in Annex-'

facilities that are dilapidated beyond repair, grossly overpopulated, and

severely understaffed. As a result, ECJA inmates are forced to endure

horrifying, inhumane and utterly intolerable conditions, including: toilets,

sinks and pipes that are rusted and leaking sewage and water; walls and

floors that are covered with filth; showers that are encrusted with green

and black slime; rampant infestation by insects and rodents; exposed

e lectrical wiring; crumbling ceilings, falling window panes, and rusted and

rotted roofing; staffing levels for nursing and medical care that have led

to knowing neglect of inmates with identified serious medical needs and a

systemic inability even to identify, on admission or thereafter, inmates

s uffe ring from communic able diseases or other serious medical conditions;

and other staffing shortages in security officers, maintenance workers and

social service staff that have caused ECJA inmates to be denied access to

important programs or care essential to their health and well-being.

3. The decaying physical plant and the inadequate supply of

bunks has forced hundreds of inmates to sleep on stretchers amid litter and

2

puddles of water-. There i s also a constant atmosphere of tension, fear and

hostility that prevails, interfering with supervision and protect i on of

inmates. ,
4.

As a result of the defendants actions or inaction , ECJA

Inmates have been and are deprived of minimally adequate shelter, living

space, sanitary facilities, necessities f or personal hygiene, security,

safety, exercise, medical care, visitation and other essential services.

5. The totality of conditions resulting from the deteriorated

physical p lant, the deprivation of essential services, and tl1e trerrendous

overcrowding at the ECJA inflicts needless privation, suffering and hardship.._

on inmates, creates an environment which threatens the inmates' physical a.m:r- '

rrental well-being, and results in the unnecessary deterioration o f the

phy s ical and mental health of those confined there. The conditions and

other practices or policies maintained at the ECJA v i o late the pla i ntif f

class' rights to due process of law and to be free from cruel and unusual

punis0.rrent .

6. Plaint i ffs seek an order directing defendants to close

sections of the ECJA immediately and to prepare a plan and timetable to

replace the Ja il Annex with an adequate and appropriate facili ty _

Plaintiffs also seek an order imnediately reducing the population confir.ed

in the ECJA and requiring the officials of Essex County and the New Jersey

Department of Corrections to p r ovide addit ional appropriate shelter f o r

thos e who must be confined by Essex County. Plaintiffs further seek an

order requiring the defendant Commissioner of Corrections to establish

ef fective procedure s to protect plaintiffs' rights to conditions of

confinement that conform to the minimum mandatory standards promulgated by

the Commissioner for jail conditions, programs and practices in New Jersey ' s

3

Adult County C~rrectional Facilities. This relief is sought to redress plaintiffs' rights under the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and
Fourteenth, ~ts t o the Constitution of the United States.
JURISDICTION 7. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1343 (3) and 1343 (4). Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202. 8 . This suit is authorized by 42 U. S. C. Section 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of state law of rights, pri~ileges and immunities secured by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteent~ Amendments. to the Constitution of the United States . 9. This Court has pendent jurisdiction to determine the state claims, because the federal claims are sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction , the federal and state claims derive from a corrrnon nucleus of operative fact, and ineffective, incomplete relief will result, unless all claims are determined in a single judicial proceeding. 10. This i s a proceeding for a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining defendants from housing any inmates in certain sections of the Essex County J ail Annex and enjoining defendants fr om any and all actions which result in the confinement of plaintiffs and their class i~ such conditions of overcrowding and subject to such practices or restrictions, as to deprive them of the rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. This is also a proceedi r.:, :Oor declaratory judgment as to plaintiffs' rights to be free of such deprivations by defendants acting under color of state l aw. 11. There are no adequate and available state administrative
remedies cognizable under 42 u.s.c. Section 1997e.
4

PLAINTIFFS
Essex County Jail Annex Inmates
,12. Essex County Jail Annex Inmates (ECJA Inmates) include
persons not convicted of any offense or crime who are detained and awaiting disposition of criminal charges in ~~e county or municipal courts of Essex County, as well as persons convicted of a crime or disorderly persons offense who have been sentenced to serve a term in the C01.IDty jail. They also include women inmates who have been sentenced to state prison, but remain confined at the J ail Annex.
13. Many ECJA Inmates may also have been confined for a time at,· .' or are subject to transfer at any time to, the .Essex County Jail in Newark-;- ' New Jersey.
14. ECJA In mates include persons confined in cells and dormitories which are dilapidated beyond repair, in which toilets, sinks and pipes leak, where shower areas are covered with filth and slime, and where windows are so old t hat their panes fall down and hit inmates. ECJA Inmates are also persons confined in hazardous conditions and expcsed to open sewage areas, where uncovered electrical wiring exists and has been left hang i ng near leaking pl umbing fixtures, and where infestation by i nsects and rodents i s rampa'lt.
15. ECJA Inmates a l so include persons who are not even assigned to a cell or bunk. Instead t hey are confined for extended periods o f t ime in corridor areas, where they are compelled to sleep on stretchers placed on the fl oor, where dayt ime floo r space f or activities is v irtuall y no ne xistent and only narrow walkways between bunks or stretchers on the floor exist, all essentially because of an insufficienct number of beds and
5

inadequate space to accorrrnodate the number of individuals held at the J ail Annex.
16. ECJA Inmates also include inmates in other areas of t he ECJA, who are or have been compelled to en.dure the conditions i n packed da yr ooms and dormitories, either directly by once having been housed there or through ~he impact of overcrowding on the services or activities at the J ail Annex. Corey Webb
17. Corey Webb is a 34 year old citizen of the United States, confined at the ECJA since November 7, 1985, on criminal ~ges pending against him in Superior Court. He has been assigned to a cell on V-Tier o f. the East Wing.
18. He has seen roaches and water bugs crawling on the floors and walls of the tier. The central bathroom fixtures are leaking.
19. Upon his admission to ECJA, he spent three weeks sleeping on a stretcher on the floor of A-Tier of the West Wing.
20 . He has vomited blood and has requested to be placed on sick call for a period of at least 10 days, but was not seen during that time by the j ail physician.
21 . He has tried t o do legal r esearch on his case, but has f ound t here is no l aw library.
22. In other respects, although confined in another area of t he jai l , he is held in conditions essentially t he sa~ as t ho se in t he S-Tie r as described in paragraphs 23 to 29 . T'nornas Armour
23. Thomas Armour is a 19 year old citizen of the United States, admitted to the Essex County Jail Annex on APril 22, 1986, on charges pending against him in muni cipal court.
6

24. -At the jail , he was been assigned to a dorm on S- Ti er, East filing . He shares the dormitory with 29 other inmates.
25. There are only two working toilets, two working showers and fou:::: sink faucets t o be shared by all 30 inmates in the dorm. The walls in the 3hower area are filthy and the paint is peeling off. The floors are dangerously slippery.
26 . When he was first admitted to t h e ECJA, Thomas Armour was assigned to B- Tier, West Wing. There, he slept for 20 days on an army- type stretcher on the floor of the dayroom area, an area he had to share with up to 17 other inmates. All o f the men sleeping on stretchers in the dayroom · area had to use the toilet and sink in one cell. With the additio nal 1;inmates confined in the cells of B-Tier, Armour and 35 other inmates had to share the one shower out of three that was still partially functioning.
27 . On July 4, 198 6, he slipped on the wet floo r near the shower a rea, hitting his head on the floor . He was sent for emergency treatment to t he Un iversity Hospital in Newark . Seven stit ches were needed to clo se the wound in t.r.e back of his head.
28 . He has tr ied t o get access to a law lib rary since hi s admission to ECJA, but has not been successful and consequentl y , has been unabl e 1:.0 do any research on his criminal case.
29. He has been a mess hall worker for about two mont hs and f ound
that the whole dining a r e a em its a foul odo r and os infested with water
bugs , wh ich o ften walk across the eating and preparation tables. Frederic k W. Booker
30 . Frederick W. Booker is a 27 year old citizen of the United States. He wa s admitted to the ECJA on April 29, 1986 on criminal charges
7

pending in Superior Court. He was held in lieu o f bail of $12, 000 . He was assigned to a cellon F-Tier, West Wing.
31. There have been 16 other inmates in the cells of F- Tier and 14 men sleeping on stretchers in the dayroom area. He has seen ants c rawling on the floor and walls o f his cell and water bugs in the toilet bowl. The sink in the cell above overflows from time to time, causing water to leak through the ceiling into his cell. The toilet in his cel l also floods over. The water in the cell's sink flows continually and is a lways cold.
32. He must share the one working shower with the 16 other- -' inmates in- cells, as well as up to 14 men sleeping on the stretchers on the floor. The floor of the shower area is covered with slime. In August 1986, he fell while leaving the shower area and hit his head and shoulder on the floor.
33 . When he was first admitted to ECJA, he was assigned to sleep on a stretcher on the floor of the dayroom area of F-Tier. He shared the floor space with up to 15 other inmates. All 16 men on the stretchers had to use the sink and t oi let in the one c ell kept empty for their use and, together with the 17 men assigned to cells, they all shared the one wo rking shower on the tier.
34. Frederick W. Booker has tried to get access to law books so that he can research issues in his criminal case, but has not been able to obtain a single book , He has not been able to get access to a typewriter to type legal Motion s he desires to make. He has been trying since he was admitted in April to see a social worker, but has been unable to do so.
8

35. -He was not given a medical examination at the jail before being placed into general population and was not administered a blood test upon admission, or at any time since. James Simon
36. James Simon is a 24 year old citizen of the United States, confined at the ECJA from J une 10 , 1986 to November 6 , 1986, on municipal court criminal charges. He was held in lieu of a cash bail of $2,5 00.
37. At the jail, he was assigned to a cellon B-Tier of the West Wing. There were 17 inmates sleeping on stretchers on the £loor o f the dayroom area of B-Tier. Three cells on the tier were unoccupied because the. plumbing was in such an extreme state of disrepqir.
38 . On or about October 7, 1986, a radiator pipe broke near the stretchers where men slept and water flowed out constantly. The inmates put a bucket on the floor to catch the water, but at night it flooded o nto the floor.
39. Water often leaked through the ceiling o f James Simon's cell from the cell above.
40. When he was first admitted to ECJA, he was assigned to s l eep on one of the stretchers on B-Tier, together with as many a s 23 other inmates. He slept on a stretcher on the fl oor f or about 3 1 / 2 weeks. All 2 4 men sleeping on stretchers had to share the one toilet and sink in the c ell kept open for their use . That toil et constantly overflowed and water flooded onto the cell floor. The 24 men on stretchers, toge ther with the 17 ~~ assigned to cells , all shared the one working shower on B-Tier.
41. Sometime in July 1986, when his wife came to v isit him in the mess hall area used for contact visits, she fell on the floor which was wet and slippery .
9

42. -For several months after he was first confined, he tried unsuccessfully to see a social worker.
43. Although he suffered from asthma, and despite repeated requests, he did not receive any asthma medication_ Ronald McClendon
44. Ronald McClendon is a 35 year old citizen of the United States, admitted to the ECJA on June 12, 1986, on criminal charges pending in municipal court. He was held in lieu of cash bail of $5000. At the jail, he was assigned to cell 22, K-Tier of the Modules.
45 . He has seen roaches crawling on the floors and walls of the ..' MXiular unit.
46. On some days, two-thirds of the toilets are backed up. 47. There is no law library, and he has only been able to get access to a volume of criminal statutes after being required to make a request for the specific volume. Rosetta Drake 48. Rosetta Drake is a 33 year old citizen of the United States, confined at the Essex County Jail Annex from April 9, 1986 to September 22 , 1986, having pled guilty to criminal charges. At t he jail, she was assigned to a cellon A-Tier of the Women's Building. 49. On or about June 24, 1986, while she was sitting on a bench in the dayroam area, a window pane fell out of the large window area and hit her on the head, neck and right shoulder. She was injured and had to be sent to the Un iversity Hospital in Newark for treatment. She has suffered back and headaches for months since the accida~t. She had previously seen approximately 20 window panes fallout of the window into the occupied tier
10

area, onto or near cots where, because of the overcrowded conditions, women have to sleep-'.
5, 0. The plumbing in Ms. Drake's cell is faulty; the faucets leak
and the sink frequently backs up and floods the floor of the cell. The toilet flush-button leaks when it is pushed.
51. There were bugs inside the toilet bowl. 52. She had to share three showers with the other 31 women confined on A-Tier. The entire shower area is filthy and the walls are covered with mildew. One shower has faulty drainage, so that the water rose over her feet when she showered. When she used the shower, wateraccumulated on the slime and dirt-covered ceiling and dripped down onto her" head and body, causing sores and rashes. 53. She and the other female inmates did not have access to a gym or outside recreation area. She also did not have access to a law library. 54. She was not given a medical examination upon her admission to ECJA and her placeme..'1t in general population. After approximately two and a half weeks, she was given a blood test. Candace Johnson 55. Candace Johnson is a 34 year old citizen of the United States, confined at the Essex County Jail Annex from April 18, 1986 to September 8, 1986 while serving a county jail sentence. At the jail, she was assigned to a cell on"F-Tier of the Women's Building. 56. Every time she flushed the toilet in her cell, 'dater leaked out of the toilet bowl onto the floor. She has had to stuff rags betwee.'l the toilet rim and the metal wall behind it to try to prevent water from flooding the floor. Only cold water came out of her sink, as well as all
11

the others in the Women's facility, and in the mornings, the water was usually rusty.
57. There are no lights in the cell she occupied or in any other cell in the Women's Building; the light fixtures have never functioned.
58. The entire shower area is covered with mold and mildew and had a foul smell. The floor drainage does not function properly, causing water to bac~ up on the floor.
59. There are large holes around the shower fixtures, so large that when repair crews worked in the crawl space behind the sho~rs, she was able to see them looking in through the holes at the naked women. Rosalind Robinson
60. Rosalind Robinson is a 34 year old citizen of the United States, who was serving a county jail sentence at the Essex County Jail Annex from April 18, 1986 to September 3, 1986. At the jail, she was assigned to a cellon D-Tier.
61. The sink in her cell leaked under the basin. The toilet leaked 'Nhenever the flush button was pushed.
62. There are large holes around the fixtures of the three showers she shared with 16 other women, through which all sorts of bugs enter. There is no way to control the shower water temperature, which sometimes becomes unbearably hot. There is an odor of sewage coming from the drainage area and black slime on the walls. When the shower is used on the floor above, water leaks down from the ceiling onto the walls of the dayroom area of D-Tier near the T.V. Ms. Robinson often got wet from these leaks when she watched TV.
12

63. - There is a general roach infestation problem on the tier. Twice, she received coffee from jail staff with roaches floating around in it. She was often bitten by insects.
64. She was not given a rredical examination before being admitted into the jail's general population. When she arrived at the jail, she had an internal infection and irrmediately requested rredical attention. She was not taken to see the jail physician until she was in such pain that she could barely stand up. Two to three weeks later, she was taken to the hospital, where they found a cystic mass, that has to be remo~. As many of the other women inmates, she had frequent rashes on her face and body_ caused by the generally unsanitary living conditions at the jail.
DEFENDANTS
65. Nicholas Amato is the Executive of Essex County and is vested by statute with the ultimate responsibility for the operations of the Essex County Jail Annex and overall planning for the care and custody of the irnates housed therein. He is required to receive and keep all persons apprehended by law enforcement officers.
66. Thomas Thompson is the Acting Administrator of the Essex County Jail Annex in North Caldwell, New Jersey. He is directly in c.;'arge of jail operations and is responsible for the development and implementation of jail policy and procedure.
67. Thomas Giblin is the President of the Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders; Joseph Parlavecchio is the Vice President of the Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders; Cardell Cooper, Adrianne Davis, John Alati, Pearl Beatty, Arthur Clay, James Cavanaugh and Monroe Jay Lustbader are M2mbers of the Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders. The Board of
13

Chosen Freeholders is responsible for the funding of personnel and facilities ~ for the proper operation of the Essex County Jail Annex.
6,8 •. Emily Weber is the Acting Director of the Department of
Public Safety for Essex County. She is responsible for the supervision of jail operations.
69. William H. Fauver is the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections. He has, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:1-15, t he authority to inspect conditions in county j ails and, pursuant to N. J .S.A. 30:8-57, the authority to enforce compliance by a county jail with minimum standards and constitutional requirements, and under various Executive Orders of· the Governor (attached), the authority to transfer inmates from local and county jail facilities to either state facilities or other county or private facilities.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
70. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action maintainabl e under Rule 23(a} and 23(b} (1) and (2) o f the Federal Rules of Civ i l Procedure on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, that is, all inmates who now are, or who in the fut ure wil l be , confined in t he Essex County J ail Annex as detainees or as persons sentenced to that facility. The class represented by plaintiffs herein is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical; there are questions of law and fact common to the class; claims of the representatives herein are typi c a l of t he claims of the class, and representative parties herein will fairl y and adequately protect the interests of the class. The defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final declarat ory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole. The total members of the class number over
14

1000 persons at anyone time, and the class members are subject to change as persons are camtitted to and discharged from the jail.
,71. A class accion determination will avoid the possibility o f
inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class establishing incorrpatible standards of conduct for the defendants. Since a majority of the members of the class are indigents, suits by individual members would most likely be brought pro se, with all the attendant difficulties of such litigation.
72. Plaintiffs' attorneys are associated with the Office of Inmate Advocacy of the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender. They arefamiliar with the conduct of litigation of this kind and will afforaadequate representation . By statutory authority, N.J.S.A. 52:27E- 11 et ~, the Office is authorized to represent the interests of such persons as a class.
15

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS BUILDING AND' DESIG'I
7, 3. The present Essex County Jail Annex is located in No rth Caldwell, New Jersey. It is comprised of a number of service buildings a~d four central housing buildings. The main housing buildings include: the Men's Building, the Women's Building, the "New" Wing, the M::ldules (also referred to as the R.C.F. or relocatable correctional facility) and t he State Trailers. other buildings, such as the Shoe Shop, also have recently been converted into housing units.
74. The ECJA is used as a detention facility by 22" municipalities in Essex County. It is also used to house inmates sentenced to terms of imprisonrrent in t.l>e county jail, and also some women inmates who are sentenced to state prison.
75. The ECJA is presently operating under the jurisdiction of the Essex County Executive.
76. The Men's Building, including its West and East housing wings, was constructed in 1875.
77. The "New" Wing was constructed in 1923 and was closed in 1 982 because of its dangerous and dilapidated condition. It has, however, been reopened recently and now houses inmates in areas not intended nor appropriate for housing, including the vestibule areas.
78. l-bst of the ECJA's permanent buildings are antiquated, multistory masonry buildings . The physical plant in general, is old and deteri orated, with crur::... : ing ceilings, slime- covered walls, open sewage areas, faulty plumbing, leaks in the roof and exposed electrical wiring. The pipes are insulated with asbestos
16

79 . -The dilapidated condition of the physical plant poses a severe danger to the men and women inmates housed there. For example, the ventilation system, is largely dysfunctional, which creates substantial health risks and serious discomfort among inmates confined there during the high tenperatures and humidity levels of sumner.
80 . The ECJA also suffers from its poor arc~tectural design, which failed to provide adequate areas for recreation, library, or program space. This problem is greatest in the women's facility, which provides for almost no recreation or library use.
HOUSING AND LIVING SPlI.cE
81. The ECJA had, until 1983, regularly housed between 4S0 to SSe--· inmates, most of whom were sentenced to county jail terms. Since 1983 despite the closing of approximately 200 beds in the ECJA's New Wing, the jail began housing as roany as 700 inmates, approximately half of whom were detainees awai ting disposition of criminal c~ges .
82 . In September 1986, an additional 7S inmates were moved to the A.rmex.
83 . Since Noverober 1986, as many as 1000 or more inmates have been housed at the ECJA, the additional inmates being assigned to areas such as the vestibules of the once closed "New" Wing, the basement area of the Women's Building, formerl y used for contact visitation with inmate children, and the old Shoe Shop. Over 100 more inmates were moved to the Annex at the end of 1986 . The jail's space and beds are totally inadequate to accornodate this number of inmates.
84 . Areas designed and origina:ly intended as housing for inmates, but which include units that are no longer safe or suitable for such purposes, include the following, with the specific areas described in
17

subsequent paragraphs: 144 male general population cells in the West Wing of the main facility; 180 beds in the dormitories of the East Wi ng; 120 beds for male inmates in the R.C.F. M::x:!ules opened in late 1982 and 96 beds in R.C . F . t10dules opened in late 1986; 48 beds for male inmates i n t h e dormitory- style trailers; and 102 cells in the Women's Building. While this configuration provides a theoretical 690 beds, the ECJA's actual capacity is far less because many cells and beds cannot be used without endangering inmates' health, safety and security.
85. ECJA inmates were ordinar ily housed in botn cells and dormitory units . As a result of overcrowding, however, a majority of the. inmates are now crowded into dormitories and corridor areas, having to sleep-- · on single or double bunks, with little space between them, o r on army-type stretchers placed directly on the floor, almost touching each other. Mattresses are neither cleaned nor sanitized between users . t1EN ' S BUIIDING: WEST WING
86. The Men's Building is entered through a large rotunda, which serves as access to the West Wing, the East Wing, a Hospita l Wing, the Administrative Offices, the M:ss Hall and now, the once closed "New" Wing.
87. The West Wing is used to house unsentenced inmates. It consists of four levels with two tiers on each level; each tier c ontains 18 cells , for a total of 144 ce lls. In addition, there are approximately 70 army- type stretchers layed out in close proximi ty to one another in c he outside corridors of four of the tiers. Housing inmates on stretchers in t his mAnner is a constant practice.
88. Housing inmates in the corridor areas affect~ ~he living conditions of all West Wing inmates. Those who sleep on stretchers on the fl oor hav e very little sleeping or living space. The stretcher mattresses
18

they sleep on are badly cracked; some are ripped and torn. Inmates sleeping on stretchers have no locker of any kind in which to put their personal possessions, and must hang their possessions on the walls and bars of the other inmates' cells.
89. During the daytime hours when the corridor space is shared by the inmates on stretchers as well as the inmates from the cells, there is even less space per "corridor" inmate. When inmates are housed in the corridor, those inmates confined to the cellblocks are also affected, since the space to which they have access for 6 to 8 hours a day. is greatly reduced. The clutter of bodies sleeping in corridors adversely affects · those inmates fortunate enough to be assigned.a cell bunk, as it limitStheir opportunity for daytime space, exacerbates tensions, creates resentments and fighting over the barest of necessities and poses a health hazard to everyone confined there.
90. The floor in the corridors of West Wing is black with dirt, as are the walk-ways in front of the cells and the floor inside many of the cells. The entire Wing is infested with roaches, ants, flies and fleas.
91. A great many of the standard size mattresses in the cells are badly cracked, ripped or torn, or have open seams. Even more badly damaged mattresses, to be used when there is a greater population increase, are stored on the floor under the stairs in the West Wing.
92. The shower area walls are badly rusted and are covered with black and greenish slime. Water drips from the ceiling above the showers. Black slime covers the floors. The floors are dangerously slippery, frequently causing inmates to fall and sometimes suffer serious injury. The entire area is poorly lighted. As many as 48 inmates on a sinsle tier must share a single working shower.
19

93. ·All the washroom areas, particularly the slop sinks, are filthy. Sane sinks do not work at all. In sorre areas, the walls are rusted and cracked. Water has run down some walls f or so long that they have rusted and one can see light through the cracks.
94. The cell toilets in the West Wi.rtg are rusted and dirty . Some cells also have faulty plumbing, causing toilet water and sewage to leak thr ough the ceiling into t he cells below. Other t oilet fixtures splash out water when flushed. There is no running water for the lavatory in some cells and the water cannot be shut off in others. Water leaks. through the ceiling in various places from the tier above. The approximately 14 inmateson cots in_each of the corridors must share one toilet and one lavatory in g-- cell l eft unoccupied f or their use.
95. There are no indoor or outdoor recreation facilities or dayrooms for the West Wing.
96 . I n the pipe chase area of the West Wing, which separates the two cel lblock areas on each floor and allows for repairs to be made to the plumbing without entering the cells, there are expcsed live wires to outlet boxes hanging loosely amid leaking pipes.
97. There are no backflow preventers for either the building as a whole, or for any of the four l evels of the pipe chase.
98. Toilets and lavat ories share a common water line, so when the toilets are flushed, the amount of water f or the lavatories is reduced.
99. Holes have been drilled on both sides of the traps for the drain lines in the pipe cha se, and those holes between the trap and the vent pipe could allow sewer gas to escape into the pipe chase.
100. Because of major l eaks in the valves for the hot water pipes
for the 5hower5 in two l §v§ls of th§ pipe chase, hot water runs down the
20

pipe chase inte the drain, and steam escapes into the chase. The water
supply lines for a number of lavatories and toilets leak so badly that water sprays out and eventually nh~S down the floor into the drain.
101. A number of long-term, unrepaired leaks in the showers have resulted in the formation of stalactites, some over one foot long, on the ceilings of the pipe chase.
102. The conditions of the physical plant in the West Wing, along with the inadequate staffing for maintenance, security and program activities, create such hazards to inmate health, safety and security that the West Wing must be closed.
EAST WING
103. The East Wing consists of three identical levels of two tiers each. Each tier contains one 14-man dorm and one 16-man dorm, for a total of 180 beds. Low partitions divide the dorms into two-man booths.
104. There is no recreational area, dayrooms or even corridor space, for the dorms in the East Wing.
105. On some tiers, there are only two working toilets; other tiers have only one or two functioning showers, which must be shared by all 30 inmates confined there.
1 0 6. The walls in the shower area are all filthy and slirr,e
covered. Paint is peeling off the walls. Some walls are so rusted that
they have almost cracked in two. 107. The shower room floors are covered with brown and black slime
and are slippery and dangerous. 108 . On one tier, there are two old restroom areas which are not
in use and have been boarded up. They are in a state of extreme disrepair and are full of old garbage. All that separates the garbage-strewn area
21

from the dormitDry beds i n some places are broken window panes, boarded up with sheets of cardboard.
109. Almost all of the toilets in the bathroom areas leak. There is a gray slime on the floor under the t oilets.
110. The insides of many of the toilets have been coated with a very rough cement, presumabl y to cover the cracks, which makes t he bowls difficult to clean.
111. Roaches and water bugs infest the living areas and all other areas of the East Wing.
112. The doors to the pipe chase area for some t iers have been . .' _closed for so long that their locks have be~n completely painted over-,- indicating that necessary maintenance has been entirely neglected.
113. The conditions of the physical plant in the East Wing, along with the inadequate staffing for maintenance, security and program activities, create such hazards to inmate health, safety and security that t he East Wing must be closed.
THE Scrc:ALLED "NEW" WING
114 . The i nappr opriately named "New Wing" was closed in 1982 f o r health and structural hazards.
115 . It was reopened in Novewber 1986, without being r epaired. 116. A total of 68 inmates are now housed on double bunks in the vestibule area of each of the first three floors. The fourth floor has not yet been used because of serious leakage from the outside roo f. 117 . Each of the three vestibule areas, where between 18 and 30 inmates are now housed, is equipped with only one toilet and two sinks. 118. All of the inmates in the New Wing must use the three pref abricated shower units which have been installed in the f irst fl oor
22

vestibule area. ' These showers are not connected up to the building's central plumbing.
119. There are leaks of such long-standing on the heating and plumbing pipes that major stalactites have formed.
120. The conditions of the physical plant in the "New" Wing, along with the inadequate staffing for maintenance, security and program activities, create such hazards to inmate health, safety and security that the "New" Wing vestibules areas must be closed.
MEN'S FOOD SERVING AREA
121. There are holes and broken tiles on the floor of the men's, food serving area. The pipes, insulation and floor of the food preparation- ' area are all filthy. There are exposed hot steam pipes. The kitchen sink leaks and pans have to be placed beneath it to catch the leaking dirty water.
122. Both steam tables in the food serving area of the dining room have old rags for drain plugs. One has been there for so long that a stalagmite is growing below it, formed by the drips falling off the rag. The insulation on the pipe that leads to the steam kettle in the dining room is filthy and has begun to deteriorate. Old rags have been wrapped around part of the pipe.
123. There is roach and rat infestation in the serving area of t he dining room and the kitchen area.
124. The scrape-table drain leaks, causing dirty water to accumulate on the floor, which iIl turn erodes the concrete. The floor drain has backed-up near the serving area, giving off a sewage odor. In the food serving area, a backed-u~ floor drain has broken the floor tile around the
23

drain to the point that the drain is higher than the exposed concrete. The whole floor area is dirty and has an odor of sewage.
1,25. There is a heavy layer of a black, sticky substance on the
floor o f the food storeroom. A thinner layer of the black substance coats the wooden pallets. In the canned goods storage area, there is a thick white scum on the floor under and behind the pallets. Water seeps in t hrough the wall in the canned goods area. The cooler system is fr osted up and is not cooling properly. There is slime on the ice machines in the kitchen. The walk-in cooler has an accumulation of mold on the ~lls.
126. The floor and slop sink in the food service garbage room are .._ covered with dirt. The ceiling is slimy, sticky and damp and, in som~ ' spots, is covered with spots of mold. Opposite the slop sink, the mortar has broken loose between the tile, and an inch of stinking dirty water lays in the c racks. There are open sewer lines by the slop sink in the garbage room and also by the sink in the food preparation areas.
127 . The inmate food service workers' restroom has open sewer pipes, where a toilet has been removed.
~1ED ICAL ulUT
128. The medical unit consists o f three wards, A, Band C, and three isolation cells. These wards house seriously ill inmates.
129. During the Slli~er months, the temperature in Ward C is usually above 80' F and the humidity is often as high as 85'. There are a number of beds with br oken springs; some bunks have even been supported by old milk crates. The walls are ficthy and the floor is covered with grit. At least one window is broken and does not have a screen.
130. A t oilet fixture has been removed from the restroom area of ~Jard C, leaving a large open ho le in one wall leading to an open se'·' er .
24

-
Although the hole is stuffed with paper, sewer gas escapes through it. The floor of thg toilet area is dirty and the l avatory drain liI1e leaks. The re
is a majo,r, long-standiI1g leak in the toilet facility. One of the pipes in
the pipe chase serving Ward C i s uncapped. The water supply pipe f o r the toilet in Ward C, Isolation Cell 3 has a major leak.
131. The condit ions o f the physical plant in Ward C, al ong with the inadequate staffing f o r maintenance, security and program activit i es, create such hazards t o inmate health, safety and security t hat Ward C must be closed. WOMEN'S BUIIDING
.132. The Women's Building of the ECJA consists of three leve]:;j' with two tiers of 17 cells in each tier, f or a total of 102 one-woman cells, two of which are not f unctional; it has its own diI1ing facility. The top and bottom tiers have outside corrido rs, in addition to the walk-ways i n front of the cells.
133. The corridors were original ly intended to be used as daytime act iv i ty space, but are now used to house additional inmates sleeping on ·=ots or double-bunks.
134. Since October 1986, 24 men inmates have been c onfined in t he basement area, f ormerly used for contact visits with chi l dren o f the women inmates.
135. Housing inmates in the corridor area of the vlemen's Building i s an unrelenting practice at ECJA. It impacts not only upon the particular women who must endure such conditions of confinement, but inevitably affects al l t he inmates. The clu t te r o f bod ies sleeping i n corridors adversely affects those inmates fortunate enough to be assigned a cell bunk, as i t limits their opportunit y fo r dayt L~ space, exacerbates tensions, c reate s
25

resentments and fighting over the barest of necessities and posess a health hazard to everyone confined there.
1, 36. The roof of the ;:omen's Building has leaked for so long that
there are wet, rusty spots on the attic side of the steel ceiling for the cells below.
137. There is a general insect infestation problem throughout the Women's Building. There are bugs in the cells and women are frequently bitten. Inmates have found insects in their food and coffee.
138. There are no lights at all in the individual c&lls. There are light fixtures, but they have never functioned, since the electricalwork was never completed.
139. There are no lockers for clothing or other combustible material and the women, therefore, must hang clothing on the walls and bars of their cells, which poses a health and security problem. Other possessions are stored under the beds.
140. The floors of the cells and dayroom areas are filthy and sticky.
141. The toilet bowls and toilet flush-buttons in many of t~e cells leak; some leak so badly that rags have to be stuffed into openings to keep the water from flooding onto the floor. When some of the toilets are flushed, water sprays onto the toilet seat. The water closet walls in mos~ of the cells are rusted; some have holes and cracks.
142. None of the lavatories in the Women's Building are equipped with hot water. The water that comes out is often dirty, especially in the morning. The sinks are often backed up and water floods onto the cell floor.
26

l43.·A vast number of the beds have torn o r badly cracked mattresses. A few inmates are forced to sleep on the floor because the bed in their cell is broken.
144. Women on cots and recently also on double-bunks in the corridors have to share a single toilet and lavatory in one cell kept empty for such use. At times, up to 21 women share the lavatory facilities in the one or tWO errpty cells. Even that lavatory is often stopped up and drains slowly, if at all.
145. The shower areas throughout the Women's Building ?re full o f filth and slime. There are leaks of such long-standing that they have , formed major stalactites. The concrete walls and ceilings are deterioratingr- ' a nd are covered with mildew and slime. When the shower is used, water accumulates on the slime-covered ceiling and then drips down onto the heads o f the women using it causing sores and rashes to develop. There is no way to control the shower water temperature, which sometimes becomes unbearably hot. Some of the showers have such poor drainage, that the water rises over the feet of the person taking the shower. There is a sewage odor coming from the drainage areas .
146 . There are large holes around all of the shower fixtures. When t he plumbing needs r epair, men working in the crawl space behind the shower walls can be seen looking in through the holes at women taking a shower.
147. When the showe rs are used on one floor, water leaks down thr ough the ceiling to the floor be l ow, onto the inmates confined there .
148 . There are t hree showers on each floor, although only two function on A and B Tiers, to be used by up to 38 women per floor.
27

149. - S<'lrre electric junction boxes in the shower areas are wet and rusted, as are sorre electrical conduits_
150. There is an open l avatory d rain leaking in the pipe chase area of t he Women's Building . Between 60% and 75% of the vacuum breakers in the pipe chase for the toilets of the Women's facility are missing.
151. The toilets and lavatories share a common water line, so when the t oilets are flushed, the flow of water to the lavatories is reduced.
152. The Women's Building does not have backflow preventers for the building itself or for each of the levels of the pipe chaser creating a hazardous situation.
·153 . There are a number of holes in the lavatory drain, whiCh ' allow sewer gas to escape into the pipe chase. Some of the vent pipes have been rusted through, leaving gaps of as much as 1 1/2 inches, through which sewer gas can escape into the pipe chase. Several of the plugs on top of the tees for the toilet drain line vents in the pipe chase are missing, pe r mitting sewer gas to escape. There is sewage-like fermenting water on the floor of the pipe chase at the Tier A and B level.
154. In Tier D of the Women's Building, stalagmites are growing up from the top of the cover o f the cell opening mechanisms located in the co rridor. The stalagmites are caused by leaking plurobing above the corridor, which cannot be controlled, due to the building ' s structure.
155. There are many br oken windows and missing screens in Tier D of the Women's Buildirlg. The window panes in the huge windows of A and B Tiers are old and loose. They have fallen out and have hit women sitting or lying on their cots below. At least one inmate has suffered serious injury .
156. There is no me chan ical vent i lati on at a l l in the Women 's Building .
28

157. ·Persistent levels of overcrowding seriously limit the ability of the women inmates to utilize corridors for daytime functions. At the
same time,, there is neither an inside gym nor outside recreation area for
wornen inmates. 158. There is no library; some law books fill shelves in a room
used for inmate interviews with lawyers and social workers, but they cannot be used effectively because they are in no particular order and are not indexed or otherwise organized. Numerous volumes essential for basic legal research are not available.
159. Since October 1986, 24 male inmates have been confined in the - -basement area of the Women's Building. Twelve double bunks have beencrowded into this area. The men all share two toilets and two showers. There are three sinks, one of which runs constantly. Stalagmites grow from the water pipes.
160. The conditions of the physical plant in the Women's Building, along with the inadequate staffing for maintenance, security and program activities, create such hazards to inmate health, safety and security that the Women's Building must be closed.
R.C.F. M)DULES
161. The Modules consist of a central corridor area, a dining facility and five living units. Tiers A, B, C, D and E are accessible from t he central area through locked doors. Tiers A and E each house 24 inmates and each consist of f our dorms and a central dayroom. Tiers B, C and D eac.'l. house 24 inmates and each have 12 cells.
162. The number of inmates held in each unit has been increased beyond design capacity by adding double bunks.
29

163.- The housing of inmates in these units beyond t heir design capacity has led to the rapid deterioration of the modules and to conditions that jeopardize inmates' health and safety.
164. Many of the mattresses used by inmates in the R.C.F. are badly cracked and have staph check type covering. Others are made of uncovered and deteriorating foam pads.
165. The showers in the Modules are filthy. There is a white, soap-like film on the inside of the doors and on the shower-room walls. There is mold on the walls and black moldy spots on the ceiling,
166. All 24 inmates on each tier must share a single shower. 167. There is only one outside recreation yard for all 5 modu1es~· Due to its size and the limited staffing for inmate programs, inmates may use the yard only infrequently. It also cannot be used in cold or inclement weather, because the inmates are not allowed to have outdoor clothing. 168. The Modules are infested with roaches. On some days, up to 2/ 3 of the t oilets are backed up. 169. In mid-November 1986, a new Module was completed and an additional 96 inmates are similarly confined there in overcrowded conditions s L~lar to t hose described in paragraphs 160 to 167.
STATE TRAILERS
170. Inmates are also confined in six dormitory-style trailers t hat house up to 10 inmates each. One end of each trailer opens ont o a shared central area. Unl i ke t he Modules, there is no loc ked door between t he central area and the t railers.
171. There i s no indoor or outdoor recre ation area for t he
30

OTHER HOUSING ·AREAS 172. The old Shoe Shop has, due to the huge increase in inmate
population,, recently been c onverted into a make-shi ft dormitory and now
houses 28 work release inmates. They all share a single shower, two working toilets and four sinks. Inmates had been hOUSed in the old Paint Shop, but, pursuant to an agreement with North caldwell, they have been removed.
EMERGENCY PRCCEDURES 173. There are no uniform plans for emergency procedures for the different buildings, or even for the different tiers in the same wing or building. Emergency procedures are at the discretion of the individualofficers-in-charge. 174. Only permanent staff is trai ned in emergency procedures. Although the Jail Annex's funding problem has hindered hiring of permanent employees and a large majority of the new employees are classified as "terrporary" terrporary or probationary, probationary employees are not given the correctional officers training course, which includes emergency management. 175. There is only one exit for each of the tiers in the Women's Building, as well as each of the tiers in the West Wing of the Men's Building . All of these tiers only open onto a central stairway, making emergency evacuation difficult and dangerous. There is a lso onl y one exi t: f o r the hospital wing. In the East Wing of t he Men's Building is an alternate exit on the third floor, which leads to the auditorium. However, this is not an effective second exit because the door leading to the auditorium is adjacent to the central stairway. M:Jreover, the corrections o fficers on duty do not have keys to this door, so in case of an emergency,
31

an officer from another area would have to be summoned to bring a key to unlock the door from the auditorium side.
176 . There is no central fire or smoke detection system in the main facility. There is no fire alarm pull station located in or near the main kitchen area.
HEALTH CARE
177. When an inmate is admitted for incarceration at the ECJA, he or she is often immediately placed in general population without medical examination being performed and, most recently, without evan a medical history being taken. Weeks often pass before a nurse has time to take a· medical history. There is no medical screening .dcne on female inmates who ' are admitted to the ECJA and a medical history is taken only if a female inmate reports a medical problem.
178. Pregnancy tests are not given to female inmates. 179. Blood tests for communicable diseases, contagious conditions or other serious health problems are not regularly performed upon admission, but, if performed at all, are often delayed for days, if not weeks, after an inmate's admission. At least one inmate with active tuberculosis was placed in general population, where he remained for months before he was sent to the University Hospital for treatment. 180. There is no intake/holding area. 181. Due to overcrowding at the ECJA, L~e medical department is both overutilized and often unable to perform according t o its ordinary procedures: the medical screening of inmates, has when done at all, been limited to a perflli~ctory and inadequate medical history; physical and psychiatric examinations are the exception, not the rule; and th~re have teen extended delays in r eferrals for obs@rvabl@ l!1€!dical problems. Onl y if
32

the medical history indicates an existing problem, will an inmate be examined, often weeks later, by a physician.
,182. Despite the recent sudden increase in inmate population, there have been no additions to the already overburdened medical staff. Nurses sometimes must work two consecutive shifts to ensure minimal medical coverage. At times when there is only one nurse on duty, she is often unable to get the prescribed medication to all inmates requiring medication .
LAW LIBRARY
183 . There i s no law library at ECJA. In order to .obtain a law book, an inmate must have a specific cite to request.
CLASSIFICATION 184. Overcrowding at ECJA has made a meaningful system of classification virtually impossible. As a rule, inmates are assigned to any area where space becomes available.
EFFECT OF OVERCROWDING ON INMATES AND OTHER PRCGRAMS AND SERVICES
185 . Overcrowding, understaffing, inadequate program space and the condi tions in the hous ing and living units, as described in paragraphs 1 to 184, have caused pervasive idleness, have severely limited or eliminated the opportunity for recreation, exercise, and visitation, have seriously impeded s anitation, safety and the provision of even the most essential med ica~ se r vi ces, have created an xiety and violence, have threatened the in~tes' physical and mental wellbeing, have threatened to produce debilitation in chose con fined, and have inflicted needless privations and hardships on inmates detained at the ECJA.
186. Overcrowding and its consequences, as described in paragraphs 1 to 185, further has prevented the defendants fr om providing needed medical, dental and psychologial screening and care for ECJA inmates,
33

regular programs for religious worship, fair procedu res for inmate discipline, and has contributed to the development of an unsanitary,
hazardous a,nd. insecure environment for both inmates and staff.
CAUSES OF ACTION Count One
Conditions and Practices that Amount to Punishment 187. Plaintiffs and members of the class repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 186 of this Corrplaint as though the same were set forth at length herein. 188. The conditions and practices, alone or in their totality, as--" maintained at the ECJA by the county and state defendants, expose an~subject plaintiffs and merrbers of the class who are pretrial detainees to punishment, or to conditions that amount to punishment, in violation of their rights to due process o f law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Art. 1, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, as well as N.J.A.C. 10A:31-3.1 et seq.
Count Two Conditions and Practices that Constitute Cruel & Unusual Punishment and
Violate State Law 189 . Plaintiffs and merrbers of the class repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 186 of the Complaint as though the same were set forth at la~gth herein. 190. The conditions and practices, alone or in their t otalit y , as maintained at the jail by the county and state defendants, expose and subject plaintiffs and members o f the class who are sentenced inmates to c ruel and unusual punishment, in violation of their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, Art. 1,
34

paragraph 12 of- the New Jersey Constitution, and their rights under N.J.S.A.

26:4-49.1 and 26:4-49.8, and N.J.A.C. lOA:3l- 3.l et ~

,

Count Three

Conditions that Deprive Plaintiffs of Liberty In Violation of Due Process

191. Plaintiffs and members of the class repeat the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 186 of this Conplaint as though the same

were set forth at length herein.

192. The confinement of inmates by the county and state defendants

under conditions that fail to meet the mandatory requirements ?et forth in

N.J.A.C . 10A:3l-l .1 et ~ arbitrarily and unreasonably deprives plaintiffs .

and members of the class of entitlements and liberty, in violation of their-·

right to due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amenchnents to the

Constitution of the United States and Art. 1, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey

Constitution.

Count Four

Violations of Inmates' Rights of ~ccess to the Courts , Visitation and Religious Worship

193. Plaintiffs and members of the class repeat the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 186 of this Conplaint as though the same

were set forth at length herein .

194. The failure and the refusal of the county defendants to

provide, and of the state defendants to cause the county to provide, an

adequate library, particularly an adequate law library, a paid librarian,

and sufficient inmate access to the library, and adequate opportunities for

visitation and religious worship, deprive plaintiffs and members of the

class of their right of access t o the courts, to a fair trial, and to

associational liberties, free expression, familial privacy, and free

35

exercise of r~ligion, as guaranteed by the First, Sixth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Art. 1,
paragraphs ,1, 10 and 18 of the New Jersey Constitution, and their rights
under N.J.A.C . 10A:31-1.1 et seq. Count Five
Deprivation of Due Process by Failure to Adhere to State Rules 195. Plaintiffs and members of the class repeat the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 186 of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein .
196. The failure and the refusal of the county defendants to-promulgate and enforce rules and regulations applicable to the ECJA;-including but not liroited to, rules for inmate discipline, or to enforce the rules, regulations, orders and directives promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, deprive plaintiffs and members of the class of due process of law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, Art. 1, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, and N.J.S.A. 30:1B-6g.
Count Six Deprivation of Due Process by State Defendant's
Failure to Make Adequate Findings 197. Plaintiffs and members of the class repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 186 of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein. 198. Defendant Fauver's failure and refusal to make adequate findings with regard to the determination of the conditions, circumstances and surroundings under which inmates are confined at the jail arbitrarily and unreasonably deprive plaintiffs and members of the class of their right
36

to due process ·of law, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, Art. 1 paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Con, stitution, and constitute a violation of N.J.S .A. 30:1-14.
Count Seven Deprivation of Due Process by State Defendant's
Failure to Restrict Admissions 199. Plaintiffs and members of the class repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 186 of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at len':jth herein. 200. Defendant Fauver's arbitrary and unreasonable failure and
refusal to determine that the jail is in wilful and continuous disregard crt.-.
the minimum standards for county jails, and to order the closing of sections of the jailor a phased restriction of admission of new inmates to the facility, deprive plaintiffs and members of the class of their right to due process of law, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the Un~ted States and Art. 1, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, and constitute a violation of N.J.S.A. 30:8-57.
Count Eight Deprivation of Due Process By State Defendant's Failure to Take Action To Require COmPliance with Minimum Jail Standards 201. Plaintiffs and members of the class repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 t..lrrough 182 of this Complaint as though t he same ',.;ere set forth at length herein. 202. Defendant Fauver's arbitrary and unreasonable failure and refusal to exercise his authority and his obligation to enforce or cause to be enforced all rules and regulations promulgated under his authority, deprive plaintiffs and members of the class of their right to due process of law, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution
37

of the United "States and Art. 1, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution a~d constitute a violation of N.J.S.A. 30:1B-6h.
Count Nine Deprivation of Due Process and Equal Protection by State Defendant's Failure to Remove Fa~le State Prisoners
203. Plaintiffs and members of the class repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 186 of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein.
204. Defendant Fauver's failure and refusal to designate another place of confinement for female state prisoners from Essex County haveSubjected-detainee plaintiffs and sentenced plaintiffs to cruel and unusuar-punishment, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Art. 1, paragraph 12 of the New Jersey Constitution and have deprived them of their right to due process of law and to the equal protection of the laws, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendrrents to the Constitution of the United States and Art. 1, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution.
Count Ten Injuries caused by Defendants 205. Plaintiffs and members of the class repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 186 of this Complaint as though the same were set forth at length herein. 206. The actions or inactions of the county and state defendants have subjected plaintiffs and members of the class to physical, psychological and emotional distress, pain, deterioration and : co ""ry, as well as loss of liberty, and with reckless and callous indifference, have
sub j ected p laintiffs and member of t h e claSS to Vn18 Wful and
38

unconstitutional conditions and practices at the jail, thereby entitling

plaintiffs and members of the class to nominal, compensatory and punitive

damages. ,

GROUNDS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

207. The aforesaid conditions and practices are known to the

defendants, their agents and their employees, but these conditions and

practices have been allowed to continue and to become worse, without

appropriate and effective efforts being made to bring about their

elimination or correction, in a manner that would provide timel~ relief for

those plaintiffs who have suffered and will continue to suffer from these-

condition& and practices.

208. The aforesaid conditions of confinement and official and

unofficial practices are allowed to continue and are imposed by defendants

acting under color of law of the State of New Jersey.

209. There is an actual controversy between plaintiffs and

defendants, in that the defendants impose or allow the conditions and

practices above described to exist and to continue unimpeded and

uncorrected.

210. Plaintiffs and the class they represent have no adequate

remedy at law, thus making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate.

211. Plaintiffs and members of the class are suffering and will

continue to suffer immediate, substantial and irreparable injury in the

future, unless a preliminary injunction is issued, which should remain

permanent after a full evidentiary hearing.

212. The actions and inactions of the defendants as alleged, and

the claims of the plaintiffs and the class they represent, require that this

39

Court declare ~e rights and legal relationships of the parties in respect

to the conditions at the Essex County Jail Annex.

,

AVAILABLE REMEDIES

213. Since the physical plant in certain sections of the Annex is

beyond reasonable repair, remedies to ensure provision of adequate physical

conditions must include closing sections of that facility, acquiring

temporary housing units for the population which must remain incarcerated,

and construction of a new jail facility.

214. Additionally, several potential methods of reducing the

population confined at the ECJA are available and should be implemented-

rapidly:

a. increased funding and staffing to maximize use of

existing pretrial release programs as an alternative to low bail for minor

offenders;

b. design and implementation of programs to provide a system

of superviSed pre-trial release or home-based detention for offenders unable

to secure their release on bail while awaiting trial;

c . contracting for residential half-way house programs as a

treatment alternative for inmates confined on offenses related to drug or

alcohol abuse;

d. contracting for programs that provide non-custodial

disposition alternatives emphasizing restitution, community service and job

t raining for inmates ccnfL~ed on non-violent offenses;

e. utilization of other unused facilities in hospitals,

"~sidential institutions, schools, or commercial buildings for offenders not

requiring maximum security confinement, such as those held ob non- indictable

charges, or on WOrK releQse Or se~ing sentences on weekendB only;

40

L increased funding to provide more intensive review of the appropriateness of all sentences to evaluate alternatives to incarcerati on and shorte,ning of sentences for non-dangerous offenders.
PRAYERS COR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated that this Court assume jurisdiction and provide the following relief:
1. Order, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that this action be maintained as a class action and that plaintiffs are proper class representatives;
2. Declare that overcrowding and other conditions, practices~ procedures and pclicies at the jail, alone or taken together, including, but not limited to, defendants' failure to provide minimally adequate shelter and living space, minimum levels of health care, sanitation, safety, classification, opportunities for regular physical exercise, personnel and equipment for routine and emergency health care and access to a suitably equipped jail library, and facilities for religious worship deprive plaintiffs and members of the class of their rights under the Constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of New Jersey, specifically by:
a. subjecting plaintiffs and the members of the class who are pretrial detainees to conditions or practices which amount to punishment, in violation of due process of law, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Art. 1, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution;
b. subjecting sentenced plaintiffs and members of the class to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
41

Ama~dma~ts to the Constitution of the United States and Art. 1, paragraphs 1 and 12 of the New Jersey Constitution;
,c. depriving plaintiffs and members of the class of liberty
entitlements, o r other rights created by N.J.A.C. 10A:31-3.1 et ~., N.J.S.A. 30:8 -57, and N.J.S.A. 30:8- 1, in violation of their right to due pr ocess of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Art. 1, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution;
d. depriving plaintiffs and members of the class of their right to access to the courts, to a fair trial, and to free exercise .of religion, in violation of the First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the. Constitution of the Unit ed States and Art. 1,. paragraphs 1, and 18 of the New Jersey Constitution;
3. Issue an Order permanently requiring the defendants, their agents, their employees, and those acting in concert with them, to close those sections of the Essex County Jail Annex facility which are beyond repair and threaten inmate health and safety, and to prepare a plan and timetable to replace the Jail Annex with a more adequate and appropriate facility;
4. Issue an Order permanently requiring the defendants, their agents, their employees, and those acting in concert with them, to reduce the pcpulation of the Essex County Jail Annex to constitutional levels and to set a timetable for such reduction;
5. Issue an Order permanently requiring the defendants to take all such action as may be necessary to ensure that the pcpulation of the Essex County Jail Annex does not exceed the numbe rs that may safely and constitutionally be confined there;
42

6. Enter-an Order establishing specific minimal conditions, practices and procedures to govern the rights of plaintiffs and class members at the ECJA, including:
a. establishing a maximum population capacity for the ECJA and each of its housing areas, specifying the minimal shelter and living space to which pretrial detainees and sentenced inmates are entitled, including the duration and hours of confinement of inmates, under the totality of conditions existing at the jail and the nature of the existing jail facilities and services.
b. requiring that any cells, living areas, food preparation and . .. serving areas, to which inmates now have access or which are to be used irr- · the future by the ECJA, be kept in a safe and sanitary condition.
c. prohibiting the use of mattresses or stretchers placed on floors for sleeping.
d. requiring that, upon admission to the jail and before placement in general population, inmates shall be medically screened in a manner to determine the presence of any communicable diseases and other existing chronic or serious medical conditions, including tuberculosi s and venereal diseases, and shall be examined by a physician.
e. requiring that female inmates be offered a pregnancy test upon admission to the jail and be provided counseling and health care services capable of effectuating an inmate's determination to carry a pregnancy to term or to terminate a pregnancy .
f. requi ring that all inmates have prompt access to adequate professional medical, dental, psychiatric and pZjchological ser.-ices for all routine health care needs, as well as in emergencies, including daily access to nurses and other medical staff in response to sick call requests.
43

g. requiring that all inmates, male and female, be allowed and provided a regular daily program of exercise and recreation outside of their
living area,s-and dayroorns, in order to e.'lsure their health and wellbeing;
h. requiring that a meaningful and comprehensive classification system be implemented to assign inmate housing based. on status as a detainee or sentenced inmate, type of offense or charge, and for medically indicated reasons, and to insure that inmates are housed safely, and in the least restrictive environment consonant with necessary security considerations.
i. requiring that defendants establish and maintain services, facilities and hours adequate to meet the needs of inmates for religious_ worship, visitation by family and friends and productive work.
j. requiring the defendants to establish and maintain serious facilities and hours adequate to meet the legal and informational needs of inmates, in accordance with the recommended sets of volumes established for county jails by the State Library of the New Jersey Department of Education.
k. requiring that the Defendant Commissioner of Corrections establish a procedure and adopt appropriate regulations to protect plaintiffs' due process rights to conditions of confinement that conform to the minimal standards fixed for the operation of Adult County Correctional Facilities in New Jersey.
7. Enter an Order against defendant Fauver: a. corrpelling him to ensure that county defendants comply with
all state statutes and regulations governing the jail that create a protectible liberty interest for plaintiffs and to take all necessary steps, including the initiation of investigatic"3 and lawsuits to meet his statutory obligation;
44

b. coinpelling him to enforce the law governing the operation o f the jail, including this Court's establishment of a population capacity , by
any and all, rreans that are necessary;
c. directing him to designate an alternative place of confinement for inmates convicted in Essex County, to avoid housing more inmates in the jail Annex than is permitted by an Order o f this Court.
8. Retain jurisdiction of this action, until the Court is satisfied that the conditions and practices complained of herein are eliminated at the Essex County Jail Annex and that provision be made so that such conditions and practices will not be allowed to reappear in the future.
9. Award nominal, compensatory and punitive damages to plaintiffs ana ' class members for the physical and emotional harms, as well as for the loss o f personal liberty and property, suffered by plaintiffs as a result of having been confined under the unlawful and unconstitutional conditions at the jail Annex resulting from defendants' reckless and callous indifference;
10 . Award costs and attorney fees; 11. Order such other relief as it d~~ just, proper and equitable.
ALFRED A. SLOCUM
NEW JERSEY PUBLIC DEFENDER ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street., CN 850 Trenton, New Jersey 08625
BY:

Oated:

ar; Mitchell, Directo ice of Inmate Advocacy
45

(

{ ,

, ..

'. '
'.

EX~CUTlV" ORDER rlO, JO G

t.fi.ERE.A S . the ~C.:lCC Pri!:ons an d other penal anu c;or:-'.! c

,

insti.~utions of the I'\C!\'" Jl.:rsc.y Dcp.:n' ;: mc n:.: o [ Currect.i0:1::; .:trc h(

popL11ati0 ~!; of in'lla:'e!"..i i.." c:..;:cess of their C.:li?.1.ci.ties and c::"c:

seriously overcrmolded as a resulc of unusu.:llly large nunber:: 01

corr~~coents to the State instit~tions ~."d commit~cncs for t:ro:

years ,,·Jhich are longer than heretofore imposed; and

\.J'P.EREAS. the DcpartI!lent is physicaly unable to accep t

from the Sheriffs of the v:J.rious counties the cu!;tody of · in::".at ~

sentenced to the eus cody of the Commi~si9ncr of the Departr.1er:.c

Corrections, ~s mandated by N.J . S.A, 2C:43-10(e). ~nd h~EP~AS •. many county penal institutions of the variot

co:..:.~ties are al~o presenc.ly overcrouded and are housing in~3.tc

pop\.!l<1tion~ in cxcC!.ss of their capacities uhile other count.)"'

p~n.:2.1 institut.iDns have available space for acldi.c:ional in.na.tes

and

tmEREAS, there is a need to efficiently alloc,J~c Ir.l'!'~

of state and count}" penal a nd correctional inst:i.t.\.!!:~ or!.s t.o tr.a!

institutions having available space in order to all'.:! vi2.t:,...~ u'/c r -

cro~-jd ing; and

HH EREAS, the New Jersey Corrcccio;;lal l-IasLe= ?La: :::C :::.

the coordination of resources for jail o~er~tion a~d ~er~ic~s 1

the St C!te. ,.. hile the j a ils remain unde r loccJ.l juri ~ci.i:::ti t,)n ; .:::-:. :

\-,"dEREA S . these unusual conditions end anger ;:he :.: ,1 ~t...: ;: :.

·...·e lfare and rCSO"..lrces of the re~iclants of this St:<:!.cc. ,:!,;'ld til :-~ ':

l o ss to and destruction of property. ~nd arc too l~rg~ i n :CO?~
oe be h~ndled in their crttircty by regular operating services

eithe r the counties or the Nct.1 Jer::;cy Dcpartr.u.:nt: of C ur :-c cc L U:; ~

f': yJ" \.liT M
r.- I

----

(

(

- -.--

NOH, Ti[EREFO~E. I. CH..E~D,\t~ T. BYRXE. Go vr: rn o -= of ellt.!

StaLe o f !k'.J Jc r ~-, ~y, b y virtue of the J. utLo!"i:.:.y ves ted in ~n~ 1)";

uo the Constitution i!nJ I J.·.~s of the $t.IL:C (.If I:C~'; Jer~cy.

ht::rc.:by

D::CL~RE cl s t at e of emergi2r1cy Zlnd OKDt:R anu DI ?.ECT as fol1 o'rls:

1. I ;)ECLAR2:. th.J. t. c'l S [oJ. rc of emergency cxis C~ in t:::::

va=ious St41tC. and Count)· penal and correc:::ional facil'Ll: ics by rca:

of the facts and circumstances seC forth abovee

2 . I invoke such emergency powers as 4lre c o nferred

upon me by the La,a of 1942 , Chaptier · 251 (N~ J.S ·.A. App. A:9-30,

! ! ~) and all amendments and su?plement9 thereto.

3 . I hereby DIRECT thac the authoricy to des~ace

the place of co~finement of all incates confined Ln all SCace ~nd ,

Co~nty penal or correctional institutions shall be exc~cised fer

the duration of this Order by the de~ignee of the Governor.

4. I hereby designate the Commissioner of thi! Dep a :.-c~~r.

of Corrections to effectuate the provisi ons of this Oreer.
S. The Commissioner may dc.sign3.t.e as 'a place of con:ine:

~ny aV.lil.J.ble. suitable, and appropri.:ltc instirutiO<l o r fil.:Ll~:y.

'Whether oymed by the State. a County. or a;'lY p::>lit:!.::.al ::;.u::)(li'~· i:. i.o[-.

of this State. or ~ny other person, f or the confinemen~ of i~~~t~s

confined i n the State ~nd/or County penal or correctio~~l

institutions.

6. When it a ppea rs to the satisfaction of th~ Co~~i:;[a:

that an inmate s hould bE transferred to a penal or co~cct io~~l

in~titution or facility of the St ~t e or the v4rious Counti e s ~o~c

appropriate for his ne.eds ;md tJelfilrc . or that. of other in rr.a tc5.

o r the security of the ·institution in which he has been CO:1fin.:Li.

r,e shall be authorized and .c mpot,.'cred co dcsignate the p L..!ce uE

L"onf i nI::"Ule:l t to which tt-. C' inm:!t c ~, h.l11 !lI..: tr,"H"!:;. f c:.::rcd.

-!
A-?-

,
/.-'/ ./ ,.
I

- - .. -.._-- - - - - -------

. 7. This Or der. i~ inccnccJ to Lc cCI!,:?orZl!:'y .1.nJ. t v rcc.ain in effect on ly d <.!riub t h e dU1.:~t Lo n o f the:! prison and j~il ove ~ c =o·.;C!i.n_ crisi$.
8. I f ur th er O~DE R that the ~uth~rity of the Co ~i~sion~r t.o design!!.cC' t!1 e pltlce o f confinemcllt of any if'l.:nate &!.ay be e;(crci.se.~ ,..hen deemed ~pi'ropriate by the Con:ni::;sioner regardless of ,.;heo:.h!:!r said inmate has been sentenced or is being held in pretrial dcccaCion. except tnat only perscns sentenced to a prison or committed to ~na custody of the Comcissioner may be co~. :ined in a "State Pri~on.
9. The Cotru:1iss ione.r of the Department: of Corrections ·s~3.1~ have full authority to adopt such rules, regulations. orders ~d directives as he shall deem necessary 1:0 effect: the above provisio~s.
10. The Cot=l.issioner of Corrections shall develop an a~p!:'op=.i..atc. co~pensation progra~ for th~ co~~ties.
11 . It ~ h all be th~ duty of every person in this State DC doing busine!Os in .:his State, and the mecber::; of the governfng Lady .. and of each and every official. agent or employee of every poli::i.cLll suhdj.vi.!'::ion in thi!: Stat":! a"1d Jf '!::'...:h. 1'\1.~"t~..:r of <, .1.1 ":I~her eov,~r;--:"..a."1.t:.!. bodies. agencies oOlnd al!thorities in this State. of any nature wh<lc::;oe·J::!:" ~ fully to cooperate in all ma tters conc~rninb this em2~e~cy.
12. Any person \,j'ho shall violate. any of the provisions of t~..is Order or ::;hall i~pede or interfere \·/ ith .In:t .:!.ction ordered or t.J. ~e.a. pursu.J.nt to thi s Order shall be subject to the penalties provid~d b y lat.J' u.,.,der N.J.S.A.A;:>p.A:9-1+9.
13. Thi5 Oeder shall rcm.J.in in effect for a period of ni~aty d~ys from the date of execu tion.

A·3

 
 i'L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
jO'KIG;r~AL FILED/

j'O

; c::; 2 2 1984

UNITED STATES DISTRICT CJUR:fLL YN Z , LITE , C L ER K FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL INMATES, RUSSEL WATSON, et als.,

Civil Action No. 82-1945

Plaintiffs,

(Harold A. Ackerman, U. S. D .J . )

v.

ALBERT T. COLLIER, Warden, et als.,
and

ORDER AMENDING CONSENT JUDGMENT

WILLIAM H. FAUVER, Commissioner New Jersey Dept. of Corrections,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER being opened to the Court jointly by David H. Ben-Asher, Essex County Counsel, Attorney for County Defendants, Albert T. Collier, Warden , et als . , (David H. Ben-Asher, Essex County Counsel and Bonnie Blume Goldsamt, Assistant County Counsel, appearing), Irwin 1. Kimmelman, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, Attorney for Defendant William H . Fauver, Commissioner , New Jersey Department of Corrections (Joseph T. Maloney, Deputy Attorney General, appearing) and Joseph H. Rodriguez, New Jersey Public Advocate and Public Defender, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Essex County Jail Inmates, et als . , (T. Gary Mitchell, Director , Office of Inmate Advocacy, appearing), and upon the parties' agreement to amend the October 14, 1982 Consent Judgment previously entered in this action, as prov ided for below; and
WHEREAS, the introduction of anticipated changes in criminal procedures in Essex County may reduce the county jail population to alleviate continued overcrowding; and

..,
, .
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed through their respective attorneys to the following interim provisions to adjust their present differences about the steps necessary to resolve continued jail overcrowding in Essex County, subject to the approval of this Court; and
WHEREAS, the following provisions shall be binding upon the parties and shall be enforceable as such, and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid Consent Judgment shall remain in full force and effect , except as herein modified;
NOW THEREFORE , it is on this 22nd day of February, 1984, ORDERED as follows:
1. Paragraph 11 of the October 14, 1982 Consent Judgment is hereby amended to read, as follows:
(a). The County agrees to maintain the population of the Essex County Jail at , or below, 594 inmates, except that throughout the period of February 22, 1984 to August 22, 1984, the Essex County Jail population may exceed the stated capacity by 31 inmates;
(b ) . In addition to the 31 inmates referred to in subparagraph (a) above, the Essex County Jail may house an additional 28 inmates for periods of 72 hours once a week; and
(c). This paragraph amending paragraph 11 of the October 14, 1982 Consent Judgment shall expire on August 22, 1984, and on that date paragraph 11 of the October 14, 1982 Consent Judgment shall become operative again as originally written.
-2-

\

, \

2. The County agrees to retain all necessary personnel, including but not limited to a structural engineer, to study the physical plant of the County Jail Annex in Caldwell and to prepare a proposal for increasing the bedspaces of the Jail Annex to the extent feasible and as specified below, provided that the proposal shall not be construed to impose any obligation upon the County.
(a). The County's report shall examine what steps may be available to the County in order to house additional inmates at the Jail Annex in compliance with minimum health, safety and security standards and shall indicate what would be the nature and cost of any renovations or modifications of the physical plant to accomplish any particular population increases at the Jail Annex.
(b) . The County's final report shall include, as requested by the Public Advocate, a specific proposal to increase bedspaces at the Jail Annex from the highest number of beds in use between July 15, 1983 and February 22, 1984, to a number sufficient to provide housing for at least 40 additional inmates by October 22, 1984, and further for an additional 50 inmates by January 22, 1985, for a total of up to 90 additional bedspaces. In addition, the final report may provide further specific proposals to increase bed spaces at the Jail Annex to the extent feasible.
(c) . The final report shall be issued and distributed to the parties , and filed with the Special Masters and the Court, by July 22, 1984. This report need not be duplicative of existing studies of the Jail Annex, provided that any existing studies relied upon pertain to the subject of this paragraph.
(d). The County shall issue an interim report to be filed with the Special Masters and the Court , and distributed to the parties, by May 22, 1984, which shall include a report from the structural engineer or other personnel, setting forth the steps being taken towards preparing the report, including the study of the physical plant of the Jail Annex and the specific proposals required by this paragraph.
-3-

3. The County further shall study and shall issue a report to the parties and the Special Masters by May 22, 1984, on possible ways to increase the opportunities for exercise and recreation at the Essex County Jail.
(a) . This report shall specifically address the following matters: (1) whether opportunities for exercise and recreation at the Essex County Jail can be increased by means of a staggered food service from a new County
~z
centralized food Kitchen; (2) whether architectural modifications can be made to the Essex County Jail roof to create an area for outdoor exercise and recreation; and (3) whether additional indoor exercise equipment can be obtained and installed at the Jail. The report may discuss any alternatives to these matters and shall fully set forth the reasons for its recommendations and conclusions.
(b). The County may in its discretion consult outside experts, if it deems such consultation necessary, or if directed to do so by the Court.
(c). Nothing in this paragraph shall modify the terms of the October 14, 1982 Consent Judgment.
4. Commencing February 22, 1984 and continuing until October 22, 1984, plaintiffs' counsel and professional consultants, upon reasonable notice to the County, shall be provided reasonable access to the Jail Annex and to records pertaining to the preparation and evaluation of the County's final report, or relevant to the preparation of any report by plaintiffs' counselor professional consultants regarding the subjects contained in paragraph 2 of this Order, including the right to inspect all relevant areas and to review documents requested in advance . . Within 10 days prior to October 22, 1984, the parties may meet and confer regarding any extension to the plaintiffs' right of access. If the parties agree, the agreement will be embodied in a separate amendment. If the parties disagree, the parties will submit the
-4-

\

\

matter to the Masters or the Court for resolution. This provision shall not be interpreted to in any way limit such other rights as plaintiffs' counsel may have under the October 1982 Consent Judgment.

._____ .1J '_,.,
Date: _L L ---.. ..

~ J'.' , -j . () I /~) L.

",_ .._ .

1 .

.

I
-1-

~1~1 A&Ir~;'\A

'~MAN

-(

<

,
'~LC( <

United States District Judge

The undersigned hereby consent to the form and entry of the within Order.

Date: 2-/-2.2- / '7)4/ --~----~----------

DAVID H. BEN-ASHER Essex County Counsel Attorney for County Defendants
By~elari~)~ Assistam County Counsel

JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ
AUe\Y fOdWn"i;JJ£2 New Jersey Public Advocate-Defender
U By: ~1 T. Gary Mitchell, Director Office of Inmate Advocay

Dat

e:

_

_JL_-_

_ 2 L - ,Ot.,L-
_________:J,;/--_L__

ew Jersey nt, Commissioner Fauver

-5-

 
 ENTERED

on
THyOQ,CKET
on -J-J. .51~

ALLYN Z.~T~/UlERK

By

Ik~~fJt
(Depury'er14

\

\ ,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

I\LLYN 2.UTE-.- - - CLERK

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL INMATES, RUSSEL WATSON, et als.,

Civil Action No. 82-1945

Plaintiifs,

(Harold A. Ackerman , U.S.D.J . )

v.

ALBERT T. COLLIER, Warden, et als.,
and

SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT ORDER . MODIFYING AND AlI'IENDING
CONSENT JUDGMENT OF OCTOBER 14, 1982

WILLIAM H. FAUVER, Commissioner New Jersey Dept. of Corrections,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER being opened to the Court jointly by David H. Ben-Asher, Essex County Counsel, Attorney for County Defendants, et als. , and Joseph H . Rodriguez, New Jersey Public Advocate and Public Defender, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Essex County Jail Inmates, et als., (T. Gary Mitchell, Director , Office of Inmate Advocacy, appearing), and on notice to Irwin I. Klinmelman, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, Attorney for Defendant William H. Fauver, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Corrections (Jof.eph T. r·1alc ney, Deputy Atto rney Gen er al, appeadng) , and UpOil Lhe pur- ties ! ag r ee:ment to amend the October 14, 1982 Consent Judgment previously entered in this action, as provided for below; and
WHEREAS, the Essex County Jail's facilities for inmate housing and services are presently insufficient to meet the terms of the October 14, 1982 Consent Judgment, and
WHEREAS, the County will be exploring ways to develop and implement a plan to provide additional inmate housing space and to take necessary steps to improve services for inmates to be held in the Essex County Jail, and

\

vlHEREAS, under the terms of this Order the County Jail population will temporarily exceed the maximum capacity established by the October 1982 Consent Judgment in this matter, thereby necessitating additional safeguards to insure minimum requirements for safety, health, security and services; and
WHEREAS, the County defendants will implement to the full'est extent possible programs for community service and intensive supervision probation as alternatives to incarceration to reduce the county jail population; and
WHEREAS, the County defendants and plaintiffs have agreed through their respective attorneys to the following interim provisions to adjust their present differences about the steps necessary to resolve continued overcrowding at the Essex County Jail, as well as matters concerning compliance with and interpretation of the October 1982 Consent Judgment; and
WHEREAS, the following provisions shall be binding upon the parties and shall be enforceable as such, subject to the approval of this Court; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid Consent Judgment shall remain in full force and effect, except as herein modified;

~ NOW THEREFORE, it is on this

day of

ORDERED as follows:

Maximum Capacity and Temporarv Increase in Permissible Population 1. In order to allow the temporary housing of additional county inmates
at the Essex County Jail, Paragraph 11 of the October 14, 1982 Consent Judgment is hereby modified to read, as follows:
The County agrees to maintain the population of the Essex County Jail at, or below, a maximum capacity of 594 inmates , except that:

-2-

(a) throughout the period of February 1, 1985 to August 31, 1985, the Essex County Jail population may exceed the stated capacity by 42 inmates;
(b) throughout the period of September 1, 1985 to December 31, 1985, the Essex County Jail population may exceed the stated capacity by 42 inmates, upon the certification of the County that there is a continued necessity for this temporary increase above the Jail's maximum capacity and that Essex County has made substantial progress within the previous eight months in developing and implementing a plan to provide additional inmate housing to alleviate continued overcrowding in the Essex County Jail; and
(c) throughout the period of January 1, 1986 to April 30, 1986, the Essex County Jail population may exceed the stated capacity by 42 inmates, upon either a summary finding by the Special Masters or a conclusion by plaintiffs' counsel that there is a continued necessity for this temporary increase above the Jail's maximum capacity and that Essex County has made substantial progress within the previous fourteen months in developing and implementing a plan to provide additional inmate housing to alleviate continued overcrowding in the Essex County
2. In order to provide appropriate housing for the number of inmates that under paragraph 1 above may be held at the Jail in excess of the Jail's maximum capacity, paragraph 10 of the October 14, 1982 Consent Judgment is hereby amended to read as follows:
(a) Beginning February 1, 1985 and ending no later than April 30, 1986, the popUlation of the jail as may be permitted by paragraph one above to exceed the Jail's maximum capacity shall be maintained in accordance with paragraph 10 of the October 1982 Consent Judgment, except that
-3-

\
the South-side and North-side second floor dormitories may each house up to 64 people (rather than the limit established previously of 50 and 48 people, respectively, for each dormitory), that each of the five cubicles in the twelfth floor civil area dorm may house four people (rather than the previous limit of two people in each cubicle), that eight people (rather than the previous limit of six people) may be housed in the 12th floor "tier man" dorm, and that one person may be housed in each of the nine (rather than in only five of the nine) 12th floor detention c ells; and
(b) This paragraph amending paragraph 10 of the October 14, 1982 Consent Judgment shall expire in accordance with the timetable established under paragraph one above , and on that date paragraph 10 of the October 14, 1982 Consent Judgment shall become operative again as originally written.
72 Hour Emergency Capacity 3. In addition to the Jail's maximum capacity or the Jail's increased
permitted population under paragraph 1 of this Order, during periods of emergency and on immediate notice by telephone to plaintiffs' counsel and subseqUent notice i.... writing to the Special Masters and ill parties, the County defendants may house additional inmates at the Essex County Jail for periods of no more than 72 hours and for no more than four time s in any month, as follows:
(a) twenty (20) additional inmates over the popUlation of the jail permitted during the periods fixed by paragraph l(a)-(c) above; or
(b) thirty-five (35) additional inmates over the maximum capacity of 594 inmates after the periods fixed by paragraph 1(a)-(c) above.
-4-

Adjustments to ~laximum Capacity 4. The capacity of each floor or housing unit at the jail shall be
reduced by the number of cells or bunks which for health, safety, security, or other reasons cannot be used, or are otherwise inoperable, including, but not limited to, any cell in which the sink or toilet has been inoperable for an unreasonable period of time, unless other suitable access to sink or toilet facilities has been arranged. The Jail's maximum capacity or permitted population may remain unchanged if the number of inmates that are appropriately housed in the Jail's infirmary or detention areas equals or exceeds the number of cells or bunks which cannot be used. When any cells or bunks cannot be used or are otherwise inoperable for periods in excess of 30 days, the County
- shall provide written notice to plaintiffs' counsel and to the Masters every 30
days identifying these cells , the reduced capacity of the particular floor(s) or unit(s), and the number of inmates held daily in the Jail's infirmary and detention areas during the previous 30 day period.
Waiver of Future Population Increases and Agreement on Alternate Remedies 5. The parties recognize and acknowledge that the increased population
over the maximum capacity of the jail as permitted by paragraphs 1 and 2 above shall be only temporarily maiIltaL"1ed as pro'"\7id€:d for therein. Plaintiffs consent to this increase in partial consideration for the assurance that the county defendants hereby absolutely waive any right to seek or to implement, at any time and for whatever reason or duration, even if presented with unanticipated, emergent or unforseeable circumstances, any further increases in the population fixed for the jail by this Order or the October 14, 1982 Consent Judgment.
6. The terms of this Order and the October 1982 Consent Judgment are intended to concern only the conditions, practices and population limits at the
-5-

\
Essex County Jail in Newark, New Jersey. 7. The County shall submit a report, by July 1, 1985 and Decembe r 1,
1985, to be filed with the Special Masters and the Court, and distributed to the parties, which shall set forth the steps being taken to meet any present and future needs for additional inmate housing to reduce overcrowding at the Essex County Jail as set forth in this agreement. This report shall provide a clear summary of existing plans and expected timetables, as well as identify the basis for these plans.
Condition of the Physical Plant 8. The County agrees to the following measures to insure jail fixtures
and facilities are adequately maintained, repaired, or replaced: Replacemen ts (a) The County pursuant to the County's normal 1985 Capital Budget Process agrees to undertake , and complete in a prompt fashion thereafter, replacements of the following items where routine maintenance and repairs have been, or are, unable to correct damaged or non-working fixtures and facilities, as follows: (1) water closets, as required, not °to exceed 510 units; (2) faucets and lavatories , as required, not to exceed 30 units; (3) escutcheons on showers and temperature regulating valves, as required, not to exceed 50 units; (4) metering units, as required, not to exceed 30 units; and (5) damaged ceilings and lighting fixtures.
This sub-paragraph is not intended to limit the extent of replacements that may be subsequently required where facilities cannot be repaired or maintained.
-6-

Repairs and Jl1aintenance (b) By April 1, 1985, the County defendants shall establish and utilize procedures to log and investigate all reports of damaged or inoperable jail fixtures and facilities, and shall establish and utilize procedures to monitor the completion of all necessary repairs. Plaintiffs' counsel shall be provided with a copy of the procedures and forms to be used or developed in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph. Fixtures and facilities shall include, but are not limited to, ceilings, pipes, toilets, urinals, sinks, or showers. All repairs and main tenance shall be completed promptly. Maintenance and repairs for purposes of this agreement shall mean work other than replacements. 9. The authority for the temporary population increases set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above may be suspended by a finding of the Masters' that repairs and maintenance at the Jail are not in substantial compliance with this agreement. Any such suspension by a finding of the Masters shall be lifted upon the County's substantial compliance with the items upon which the suspension was based. Compliance requires the following:
(a) by May 1, 1985, the County defendants shall provide written certification that all necessary repairs and maintenance (other than replacements) have been completed to correct darrlaged or otherwise inoperable fixtures and facilities existing as of February 28, 1985 in ceilings, pipes, toilets, urinals, sinks, showers and other fixtures and facilities; and
(b) by the first day of each month beginning June 1, 1985 and thereafter the County defendants shall provide plaintiffs' counsel and the Special Masters with a written certification that all repairs and maintenance have been completed to correct damaged or inoperable fixtures and facilities (referred to in 1I9(a» above reported as of 60 (sixty) days
-7-

earlier, except where such repairs or maintenance are extraordinary in nature. The certifications shall specifically identify any repairs or maintenance considered extraordinary in nature and shall contain a statement to explain the reason(s) for this designation and the County's plans with respect to the particular item(s).
Minimum Safeguards for Dormitories 10. Plaintiffs' counsel shall be provided copies of all incident and disciplinary
reports, and maintenance requests and repair completion records, involving the second floor dormitories and dayroom, and the twelth floor civil area, from January 1, 1984 to whatever date the Jail population returns to 594 inmates. The reports and records for the period January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1984 shall be supplied by March 1, 1985, and the reports and records for each successive monthly period (e. g., January 1985) shall be supplied by the first day of the third following month (e.g., April 1, 1985) .
11. By March 1, 1985, or as otherwise required by this paragraph, the following requirements shall establish minimum safeguards to insure safe and sanitary conditions and fair and reasonable practices in the second floor dormitories and twelfth floor civil area of the jail:
(a) Officers shall assign and maintain bunk spaces (not to include cots) individually for each inmate, and record such assignments in a log, to establish an orderly, fair, and safe process in allocating sleeping accomodations and living space for inmates; and
(b) Any inmate assigned to, or housed in, the second floor dormitories for more than 45 (forty-five) days shall be offered the assignment of appropriate single cell housing; and
-8-

(c) Officers shall record and maintain a log of all dorm housing assignments which shall indicate for each inmate (I) the day received in the dorm, (2) each day housed in the dorm, (3) the day transferred out of the dorm, and (4) the location of the transfer; and
(d) A minimum of four officers shall at all times be assigned to the second floor of the jail to insure inmate safety in the dormitory units. Separate posts shall be maintained for each of the two dorms , the dayroom, and the control center. All steps necessary shall be taken to insure that these four posts are staffed at all times.
(e) In order to improve lighting during appropriate daytime and early evening hours the County shall take steps to remove any improper obstructions on light fixtures, where necessary insure that bulbs are used to the present maximum wattage of all existing fixtures, and shall replace inoperable lighting fixtures within the time period fixed for repairs and maintenance by II 9 above; and ,
(f) Visitation for inmates shall be conducted in accordance with 1116(h) of the October 1982 consent judgment; provided, however, if visits cannot be accomodated in regular visiting areas for inmates on the second floor, visitors shall not be turned away, nor shall v isit periods be shortened, but rather visits shall be held on other floors if space is available or visiting hours shall be increased to effectuate full visitation opportunities as set forth in the October 1982 consent judgment; and
(g) By June 1, 1985, all bunks which are abutting or touching shall be separated by a solid partition to protect inmates from exposure to unhealthy or unsanitary conditions resulting from close contact with others.
-9-

General Conditions, Practices, and Programs 12. Paragraph 16 of the October 14, 1982 Consent Judgment shall remain
in full force and effect, except as modified or supplemented herein: (a) Notwithstanding that the population of the County Jail exceeds
the jail's maximum capacity at any given time, except during a 72 hour emergency period invoked under \I 3 above, the County shall continue to provide the services or programs referred to in \I 16 of the October 14, 1982 Consent Judgment and as required by this Order. During a 72 hour emergency period invoked under \I 3 above, the County may reduce services only to the extent reasonably necessary in light of the additional inmate population; and
(b) By April 30, 1986, the Cou, nty agrees that the daily exercise and recreation program required by \I 16(a) of the October 1982 Consent Judgment shall provide a schedule for each inmate to obtain an opportunity to engage in exercise and recreational physical activity for a minimum duration of one hour per day; and,
(c) The County agrees to begin to meet the requirements for a regular daily program of exercise and recreation as established by the October 1982 Consent Judgment and subparagraph (b) above as follows:
(l) as of February 15, 1985, an opportunity for recreational physical activity and exercise outside of living areas and dayrooms shall be provided to each inmate three days a week, for a minimum of one hour per day; and
(2) as of August 1, 1985, a program of exercise and recreational physical activity outside of living areas and dayrooms shall be provided to each inmate at least five days a week, for a minimum of one hour per day; and
-10-

(3) by June 1, 1985, the County agrees to install and maintain three items of exercise equipment outside of each dayroom at the jail to facilitate additional opportunity for active physical exercise by inmates. An opportunity to use this equipment is not intended to reduce but rather to supplement the daily exercise and recreation program to be available for each inmate under this agreement; and,
(4) by March 1, 1985 and until the population of jail is reduced
to 594 inmates in accordance with n of this Order, day room hours
for inmates (excluding meals) shall be increased from the present 3>:; hours per day to a minimum of 4 hours per day. Each housing unit shall be provided the minimum of 4 hours of dayroom time as may be administratively convenient. (d) The requirement for medical screenings under 1I16(d) of the October 1982 Consent Judgment shall include, but not be limited to, an appropriate physical exammation by trained medical personnel and any testing necessary to identify the otherwise undetected presence of or exposure to a communicable disease or contagious condition, or the presence of any undetected serious health impairment. Physical examinations and any testing shall be administered within 72 hours of each inmate's ad..'!Iission to the jail and shall be completed prior to the release of any inmate into the general population. If the physical examination required by this paragraph indicates the need for a psychological, psychiatric or dental evaluation, then such inmate shall receive the necessary evaluation within the 72 hour period set forth above; and, (e) The County shall continue to provide each inmate with an opportunity for access to the jail's library for a minimum of 2 hours each week; and
-11-

(0 By January I, 1985, the County shall install one additional
telephone in each housing unit of the jail, or increase the hours of operation of existing telephones to at least 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily, in order to provide unlimited legal calls and a minimum of two daily personal calls;
(g) Each inmate shall be provided items of basic necessities to maintain personal hygiene. Where health or sanitary reasons warrant, these items (including, but not limited to, items for shaving) shall be issued individually for the sole use of each inmate and shall be marked, stored, distributed, and replaced in accordance with this practice;
(h) The County shall within 30 days request a current fire safety and prevention inspection for the Jail from the Bureau of Fire Safety of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, including, but not limited to, an evaluation of the .second floor dormitories when they house the maximum inmate population allowed by this Order. Plaintiffs' counsel shall be furnished with a copy of any inspection report, orders or recommendations from the Bureau of Fire Safety within ten days of receipt by the County and within two weeks thereafter shall be provided a report setting forth the County's response; and
(i) Within 30 days of the the reduct.ion of the jail's population to the maximum capacity of 594 inmates in accordance with the timetable fixed by III above, or as otherwise provided herein, bunks in the second floor dormitories shall be separated by the maximum distance possible, but by no less than at least 2 feet between each bunk to which inmates are assigned.
-12-

\
13. To the extent permitted by information available to the County, the County shall prepare a report for the Special Masters and the Court, to be distributed to the parties every 90 days, on the status of and the extent of enrollments or participation in the County's Intensive Supervision Probation program and the County's Community Service program. The County shall regularly request all information required for these reports from any relevant county and state agencies and shall append its requests and any material received to the reports filed under this paragraph.
Access and Monitoring 14. Since the effective date of July 1, 1983 for some programs and the
maximum capacity of the Jail contemplated by the October 1982 Consent Judgment is delayed by this Order to May 1, 1986, and in order to facilitate a reasonable period of compliance monitoring by plaintiffs' counsel from these new effective dates, it is therefore agreed:
(a) that commencing immediately and continuing until one year from the date on which the jail's population is reduced to the 594 maximum capacity for the Jail by the operation of IT 1 of this Order and until one year from the date on which there has been substantial compliance with the services and programs required in accordnnce with this Order, plaintiffs' counsel and professional consultants, upon reasonable notice to the County, shall be provided reasonable access to the County Jail and to records relevant to the County Jail, this Order and the October 14, 1982 Consent Judgment, or relevant to the preparation of any report by plaintiffs' counselor professional consultants regarding the subjects of these orders, including the right to inspect all relevant areas and to review documents requested in advance. This provision shall not be construed to grant access by plaintiffs' counsel to the Jail Annex or to
-13-

information regarding the Annex, except as may be necessary to measure compliance with 1111 ICc) and 7 of this Order; and Cb) Five copies of this Order and the October 1982 Consent Judgment in this case shall be maintained at all times in the Jail's library for copying and review by inmates.

i Harold A. Ackerman
HAROLD A. ACKERMAN United States District Judge
The undersigned hereby consent to the form and entry of the within Order.

Date :_-,-\_-_1S-,~_-_"3_ _< __

DAVID H. BEN-ASHER Essex County Counsel Attorney for County Defendants
JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ

-'" ( ' 0'. .J
Date: __L-__~· ' _1~/~QI~~~_____

Date : /-)....1 - ('7 !~~

IRWIN I. KIMMELMAN

Attorney General of New Jersey

Attorn

Commissioner Fauver

-14-

 
 ,
·' , .:
'l
-ESSEI COIJ),n JAIL
RUSSEL KATSOK, Et
FJain t jffs,

\iILC,U ITED STATES DISTrICT COU I
For. TIE DJ STR J CT OF KEY. JERSEY P.PR 22 1987
/ 7 ~ !(/ ,r:2v VL
J;t ~~M ~\;'A1..SH ...M -
Civil Action iib. a2eUifMs
(Harold h. Ackerman, U.S.D.J.)

ALEER7 1. COLLIER, Wardec,
et · 2is .. ,

and

,

SUPPLEMENTAL CONSEKT ORDER MODIFYING AND AMENDING
: CONSENI JUDGMENT OF OCTOBER 14, 1982

l':lLLlM! E. rAU\'U, Commissioner,

ENTERED

N ~~ E REA S , the p arties to this case recognize ~ha: tne ~s s eI

County Jlil is . presently hou~iDg p~~soners in excess of a cap of

59 . inmates ulti~ately ~onternplated by the October I., 1982

c cn sent jud g ment a s modified by Sub5~Ruent consent. orders; 4lnd

In-lERF:l.S , t h e p aTties wfsh to reach an alllicqble, sgre e ment. a-s

~o a c hievement of the 594 cap; and

.'.

WHEREAS, the County defendants and tbe plaintiffs have agreed

t o the f Dllowi ng ste ps to adjust their present differences; and

WHEREAS, the follo~ing provision shall be bindin~ upon the

p3rties and shall be enforceable as such; ~nd

.-

h~EREAS, the aforesaid consent judgment and cpnsent orders

sh211 r e main in full force and effect, e~cept as modified herein;

NOli THEREFORE, it is on thi s

day of September 1986,

ORDERED 25 f o l1o~s:

1. The coun t y executive shall no later than

S e p temb e r 3D, 1986 c xccut~ for consid e ration by the Board of

, rr~~nv)Cers

cont~act

pr tho provision to tho

0: at

least lOG spaces in r.sidential drug treatment progra~s in ~e~
.-- - Jers~y to which prisoners sentenced to th~ · Essex County Jail
Anne: ~ay be resentenced by ' the Superior Court of ~e~ Jersey:-

The county executive shall seet to have tbe Essex County Board of

Chosen Freeholders act on said contract at its meeting of

September 2~. 1986 or October I, 1986. After any approval of

such a contract by the Board of Freeholders, tbe county

defendants viII use iheir best efforts to assist the attorneys

for COUDLY sentenced prisoners ~ho may qualify £o~ ~airl pl~ce~ent

~n ~aking motions to be resentenced to tbose centers and in

the Jail Annex by' the placement of said pr,isoners in the druJ: treat~e n t programs referred to herein shall be filled by transfer of prisoners from the ~ssex County jail in order to directly r ed uc e the number of prisoners presently housed at the jail.
2. The County defendants presently contemplate that "Relocateable Confineroent Facilities" ("RCFs") presently being constructed at the Jail A~~ex for 96 prisoners will be completed b~! w ~~n NDvember 1, 1986 and November 15, 1986. Upon the completion of those RCFs, they shall be filled on a priority basis by prisoners from the County Jail to assist in reducing the Jail cap to S9~. To the extent the neW ReFs do not result in a reduction of the Jail population to S9~, the County's obligations shall be governed by paragraph 3 hereof.
3. Sh ould the County house more than 594 inmates at the Ess ex County J a il subseq~ent to Dece mber 31, 1986, prospective
S3nctions shall autoffiatlcally attach to suc h non cOU•lDliance. At

- 2-

)
that time tho Special ~2sters assi&ned by the Court to ov e rsee the implementation of the Orders entered in this case ~2y
-'
recommend, or a par'rr mar .,app'"J)", to tbe Court for t.he imposi tjon of SUC D pr ospective sanctions against tbe County for any non-co ;p 1iance "'ith tbe .Jail's maximu,,·..capacit:y .hich continues after December 31, 1986. In tbe event that such a recommendatioD is made by tbe Masters, Dr application is made by a party, pursuant to this paragrap1:l·, .tbe County defendants lo"aive any right to b e be a :r ~ u-~ l.ine t li er or n o ! san c tions shauJ d be imposed, but reserve the right to be beard concerning the appropriateness of an)' s pec ifit sanction.
~_ Th e: Or d er ,to S ~o ....· C.a u se ente r ed on th e d oc ket. OD
S epte mb er 17, 1 9E6 in this case is .ithdraW'll • .

\
I ,1 (//]. J Dat e : I i -l-"V ?!..... I

\ Jl .. -s::±zU,-~--c: .'

a ,C; ()16 .R d

...J1

W ..ROLD A . illE"KHAN

'--Z._"

United St ates District Judge

The undersigned hereby consent to the form and eotry of the "'Ithin

C:-o e r.

;.

Da Le :

DAVID H. BE N-ASHER
Essex County Counsel
Attorney for County Defendants

Dat e:

ALFRED A. SLO CUM

New Jersey Public Advocate-Defender

l t .e': Attorney 'for Plaintiffs

.

'I ~ ~ I

•

By:

'c.. I, ..... ',,> ~J....---'

T./'qar yp·litchell. Director

Of,f) c e of In ma te Ad vocacy

 
 Case: 2:82-cv-1945 As of: 03/31/2009 08:21 PM EDT 1 of 8
ADMCLOSED
U.S. District Court District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Newark) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:82−cv−01945−HAA−MF

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL IN, et al v. TREFFINER, et al Assigned to: Judge Harold A. Ackerman Referred to: Magistrate Judge Mark Falk Demand: $0
Special Master

Date Filed: 06/16/1982 Date Terminated: 12/16/2005 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

BENNETT D. ZUROFSKY

represented by BENNET DANN ZUROFSKY REITMAN PARSONNET, PC 744 BROAD STREET SUITE 1807 NEWARK , NJ 07102 (973) 642−0885 Email: bzurofsky@reitpar.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Special Master FREDERIC K. BECKER

represented by FREDERIC K. BECKER WILENTZ, GOLDMAN &SPITZER, PC 90 WOODBRIDGE CENTER DRIVE SUITE 900 PO BOX 10 WOODBRIDGE , NJ 07095−0958 (732) 636−8000 Email: fbecker@wilentz.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ESSEX COUNTY JAIL INMATES

represented by ALFRED ANSON SLOCUM NEW JERSEY PUBLIC DEFENDER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADVOCATE 25 MARKET STREET TRENTON , NJ 08625 (609) 292−1889 TERMINATED: 10/14/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

T. GARY MITCHELL DUANE MORRIS, LLP 744 BROAD STREET NEWARK , NJ 07102 (973) 424−2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff RUSSELL WATSON

represented by T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:82-cv-1945 As of: 03/31/2009 08:21 PM EDT 2 of 8

STACY DAVIS

represented by T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SAMUEL A. BROWN

represented by T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ROBERT GAMBLE

represented by T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DANIEL RAWLS

represented by T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff J. C. MILES

represented by T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff BARON SPENCE

represented by T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CHARLES FARMS

represented by T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff KEITH ELLIS

represented by T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff WILLIE JENKINS

represented by T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff HERMAN HARRIS

represented by JOHN J TEARE 970 BROAD STREET NEWARK , NJ 07102 (973) 621−5029 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:82-cv-1945 As of: 03/31/2009 08:21 PM EDT 3 of 8

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JAMES BERRY

represented by T. GARY MITCHELL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
JOHN SLY On Behalf of Themselves and All Other Person Similarly Situated.

represented by HERBERT H. TATE , JR ESSEX COUNTY PROSECUTOR ESSEX COUNTY COURTS BLDG. NEWARK , NJ 07102 973−621−4700 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ESSEX COUNTY INMATES

V. Defendant JAMES W. TREFFINER County Executive
Defendant VINCENT A. DEMAURO County Administrator
Defendant MARTIN R. HELLWIG Director, Department of Public Safety
Defendant JR. JOSEPH N. DIVINCENZO President, Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders
Defendant SARA B. BOST

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE HALL OF RECORDS DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. BOULEVARD ROOM 542 NEWARK , NJ 07102 (973) 621−5075 Email: hdelplato@counsel.essexcountynj.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:82-cv-1945 As of: 03/31/2009 08:21 PM EDT 4 of 8

Defendant
JAMES A. CAVANAUGH Members, Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders, and Their Successors in Office, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JOHNNY JONES Members, Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders, and Their Successors in Office, Individually and in Their Official Capacities.

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
LOUISE M. PALAGANO Members, Essex CountyBoard of Chosen Freeholders, and Their Successors in Office, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JOSEPH C. PARLAVECCHIO Members, Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders, and Their Sucessors in Office, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
NICHOLAS M. ROLLI Members, Essex CountyBoard of Chosen Freeholders, and Their Successors in Office, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
PATRICIA SEBOLD Members, Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders, and Their Successors in Office, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
ARTHUR L. WRIGHT Members, Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders, and Their Successors in Office, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

represented by HARRY J. DELPLATO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
WILLIAM H. FAUVER Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Corrections

represented by W. CARY EDWARDS , JR. RICHARD J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX CN 112 TRENTON , NJ 08625 (609) 984−0023 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Case: 2:82-cv-1945 As of: 03/31/2009 08:21 PM EDT 5 of 8

BLONNIE R. WATSON

Defendant ALBERTUS JENKINS

Defendant JESUS A. PADILLA

Defendant D. BILAL BEASLEY

Defendant CAROL Y. CLARK

Defendant MURIEL M. SHORE

Defendant
RALPH R. CAPUTO Members Essex County Board fo Freeholders

Defendant
SCOTT FAUNCE Essex County Director of the Department of Corrections

Defendant MR., Commissioner DEVON BROWN

Movant
PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION LOCAL #157 TERMINATED: 11/25/2003

represented by STUART J. LIEBERMAN LIEBERMAN &BLECHER, PC 10 JEFFERSON PLAZA SUITE 100 PRINCETON , NJ 08540 (732) 355−1311 Email: info@liebermanblecher.com TERMINATED: 11/25/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/10/1996 05/14/1996
05/14/1996

# Docket Text
134 (mn) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
135 Copy of ORDER substitution parties, etc. (original order filed in Civ. 87−871) ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (mn) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
Substitute attorney for ESSEX COUNTY JAIL IN ; Terminated attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for WILLIE JENKINS, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for KEITH ELLIS, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for CHARLES FARMS, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for BARON SPENCE, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for J. C. MILES, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for DANIEL RAWLS, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for ROBERT GAMBLE, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for SAMUEL A. BROWN, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for STACY DAVIS, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for RUSSELL WATSON, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for ESSEX COUNTY JAIL IN ; Added, ALFRED ANSON SLOCUM (mn) (Entered: 05/14/1996)

Case: 2:82-cv-1945 As of: 03/31/2009 08:21 PM EDT 6 of 8

05/15/1996 05/16/1996 05/16/1996 06/10/1996 06/26/1996 11/27/1996 06/04/1997 06/04/1997 06/17/1997 06/17/1997 07/17/1997 12/29/1997 02/23/1998
02/23/1998 03/11/1998 03/11/1998

136 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Re: on Motion to disqualify Susan Remis Silver, Esq. &cert. of service.(see also Civ. 87−871) (mn) (Entered: 05/16/1996)
137 Copy of ORDER denying Essex County defts mot. to seal the entire record on mot. to disqualify pltfs' counsel; Placing under seal memorandum entitled "Officer Staffing Shortages That Result In Inadequate Supervision of Inmates" dated 9/29/95. (Zurofsky) Special Master (Original filed in civ. 87−871) (mn) (Entered: 05/16/1996)
138 Copy of ORDER, compelling production of docs. subject to a protective order (Zurofsky)Special Master (original filed in civ. 87−871) (mn) (Entered: 05/16/1996)
139 Notice of MOTION to modify in part the RRof the Special Masters on the defts' mot. to disqualify pltfs' counsel, Susan Remis Silver, nunc pro tunc , Motion hearing set for 7/8/96 on [139−1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (mn) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
140 Copy of ORDER appointing Dr. Ronald M. Shansky as the medical monitor, establishing a medical escrow fund, &appointing Lisa Gomez−Rivera as the adminstrator of the medical escrow fund.( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (original filed in civ. 87−871) (mn) (Entered: 07/01/1996)
141 LETTER by William Carbonell requesting a hrg. re: existing violations &how to proceed in this action.(cc: chambers)(see civ. 87−871) (mn) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
142 Copy of CERTIFICATION of Catherine E. Tamasik on behalf of ESSEX COUNTY JAIL IN Re: [139−1] motion to modify in part the RRof the Special Masters on the defts' mot. to disqualify pltfs' counsel, Susan Remis Silver, nunc pro tunc (see civ. 87−871) (mn) (Entered: 06/06/1997)
143 Copy of CERTIFICATION of Ronald H. Manzella on behalf of ESSEX COUNTY JAIL IN Re: [139−1] motion to modify in part the RRof the Special Masters on the defts' mot. to disqualify pltfs' counsel, Susan Remis Silver, nunc pro tunc (see civ. 87−871) (mn) (Entered: 06/06/1997)
144 CERTIFICATION of Susan L. Reisner on behalf of ESSEX COUNTY JAIL IN Re: [139−1] motion to modify in part the RRof the Special Masters on the defts' mot. to disqualify pltfs' counsel, Susan Remis Silver, nunc pro tunc (brief sub.) (see also civ. 87−871) (mn) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
145 CERTIFICATION of Susan Remis Silver on behalf of ESSEX COUNTY JAIL IN Re: [139−1] in opposition to motion to modify in part the RRof the Special Masters on the defts' mot. to disqualify pltfs' counsel, Susan Remis Silver, nunc pro tunc (see also civ. 87−871) (mn) (Entered: 06/18/1997)
146 Letter ORDER scheduling hrg. on 9/12/97 at 2:00 re: County of Essex's 6/2/97 addendum to its post−hrg. brief on the mot. to disqualify Susan Silver.( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman )(see civ. 87−871 (mn) (Entered: 07/18/1997)
147 Copy of ORDER, extending time to sub. written comments on the Special Masters' R( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman )(original filed in civ. 87−871) (mn) (Entered: 01/06/1998)
148 OBJECTION by JOHN SLY, JAMES BERRY, HERMAN HARRIS, WILLIE JENKINS, KEITH ELLIS, CHARLES FARMS, BARON SPENCE, J. C. MILES, DANIEL RAWLS, ROBERT GAMBLE, SAMUEL A. BROWN, STACY DAVIS, RUSSELL WATSON, ESSEX COUNTY JAIL IN to [136−1] Special Masters' report and recommendations on pltfs' omnibus contempt appl. w/attachments to pltfs' objections. (mn) (Entered: 02/23/1998)
149 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of pltfs' objections to Special Masters Report &Recommendations. (mn) (Entered: 02/23/1998)
150 OPINION AND ORDER of Spcial Masters granting Ms. Silver permission re: Reginald Smalls medical records (mn) (Entered: 03/13/1998)
151 OPINION AND ORDER of Special Masters granting Ms. Silver permission to turn over to Mr. Mazza medical records which are subject to the Protective Order. (sr) (Entered: 03/13/1998)

Case: 2:82-cv-1945 As of: 03/31/2009 08:21 PM EDT 7 of 8

08/17/1998 08/17/1998 08/17/1998 08/17/1998 01/12/1999
05/11/1999 05/11/1999 05/11/1999 10/14/1999
02/05/2003 08/12/2003 10/20/2003 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 11/24/2003

152 OPINION ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (mn) (Entered: 08/18/1998)
153 ORDER partially denying pltf's request for monetary contempt sanctions, etc. ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (mn) (Entered: 08/18/1998)
154 OPINION ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (mn) (Entered: 08/18/1998)
155 ORDER granting [139−1] motion to modify in part the RRof the Special Masters on the defts' mot. to disqualify pltfs' counsel, Susan Remis Silver, nunc pro tunc ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (mn) (Entered: 08/18/1998)
156 NOTICE of attorney appearance for JOHN SLY, JAMES BERRY, HERMAN HARRIS, WILLIE JENKINS, KEITH ELLIS, CHARLES FARMS, BARON SPENCE, J. C. MILES, DANIEL RAWLS, ROBERT GAMBLE, SAMUEL A. BROWN, STACY DAVIS, RUSSELL WATSON, ESSEX COUNTY JAIL IN by T. GARY MITCHELL (mn) (Entered: 01/12/1999)
157 Copy of Supplemental ORDER on population and housing ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman )(original filed in civ. 87−871) (mn) (Entered: 05/12/1999)
158 Copy of ORDER, for pltfs. entitled to attorney fees ( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (original filed in civ. 87−871) (mn) (Entered: 05/12/1999)
159 Copy of ORDER transferring former bail fund monies on deposit with the Clerk to the County of Essex( signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman ) (original filed in civ. 87−871) (mn) (Entered: 05/12/1999)
160 Substitute attorney for JOHN SLY, JAMES BERRY, HERMAN HARRIS, WILLIE JENKINS, KEITH ELLIS, CHARLES FARMS, BARON SPENCE, J. C. MILES, DANIEL RAWLS, ROBERT GAMBLE, SAMUEL A. BROWN, STACY DAVIS, RUSSELL WATSON, ESSEX COUNTY JAIL IN ; Terminated attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for ESSEX COUNTY JAIL IN, attorney ALFRED ANSON SLOCUM for ESSEX COUNTY JAIL IN, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for STACY DAVIS, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for SAMUEL A. BROWN, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for ROBERT GAMBLE, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for DANIEL RAWLS, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for J. C. MILES, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for BARON SPENCE, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for CHARLES FARMS, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for KEITH ELLIS, attorney T. GARY MITCHELL for WILLIE JENKINS ; Added, T. GARY MITCHELL (sr) (Entered: 10/19/1999)
NOTICE of KEVIN McNAMARA of copy of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus w/copies of certain other documents from the Superior Court (cc: Chambers) (Original Document in Civ. 87−871) (cs) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
161 NOTICE of petition to hold defts' in non−compliance of the 1998 settlement order (nr) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
162 Notice of MOTION to intervene by PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT by PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT, Motion set for 11/24/03 on [162−1] motion w/cert of service. (Brief/PO Subm) (sr) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
163 CERTIFICATION of Stuart J. Lieberman, Esq. on behalf of PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT Re: [162−1] motion to intervene by PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT (sr) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
164 REVISED Notice of MOTION to intervene by PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT by PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT, Motion set for 11/10/03 on [164−1] motion w/cert of service. (Brief/PO Subm) (sr) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
165 CERTIFICATION of Stuart J. Lieberman on behalf of PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT Re: [164−1] motion to intervene by PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT (sr) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
166 ORDER denying [164−1] motion to intervene by PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT denying [162−1] motion to intervene by PATROLMEN BENEVOLENT ( signed by Mag. Judge G. D. Haneke ) (NM) (sr) (Entered: 11/25/2003)

Case: 2:82-cv-1945 As of: 03/31/2009 08:21 PM EDT 8 of 8

06/23/2004
06/28/2004 08/29/2005 12/02/2005 12/06/2005 12/16/2005

167 ORDER of substitution of certain defts. in their offical capacities as follows: Joseph N. Divincenzo, Jr. County Executive, Johnny Jones, President, Essex County Board of Freeholders, Patricia Sebold, V.P. Essex County Board of Freeholders; Blonnie R. Watson, Albertus Jenkins, Jesus A. Padilla, D. Bilal Beasley, Carol Y. Clark, Muriel M. Shore, and Ralph R. Caputo, Members Essex County Board of Freeholders; Scott Faunce, Essex County Director of the Dept. of Corrections: Identifying Essex County Jail Annex Inmates and Essex County Jail Inmates as Essex County Inmates. Signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman on 8/23/04. (bl, ) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
168 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to JOHN J. TEARE (bl, ) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
Judge Mark Falk added. (nc, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
169 ORDER indicating that cv−82−1945 will be administratively terminated if written objection to the proposed termination are not received by 12/7/05; etc. Signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman on 12/1/05. (sr, ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
170 ORDER that the Court reminds counsel that since 2/2005, all attorneys litigating in the District of NJ are required to be registered for electronic filing in the CM−ECF system. Signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman on 12/5/05. (jd, ) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
171 ORDER Administratively Terminating CASE. Signed by Judge Harold A. Ackerman on 12/15/05. (jd, ) (Entered: 12/16/2005)

 
 ·-' -
FILEC"

~PR<,c6/~7 /l

At 8,:30:• . oM 0'0 ' 0 000"00 0.'•• 0

WILLIAM T, WALSH

ClERK

''"''

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL ANNEX INMATES, COREY WEBB, THOMAS ARMOUR, FREDERICK W. BOOKER, JAMES SIMON, RONALD McCLENDON, ROSETTA DRAKE, CANDACE JOHNSON, ROSALIND ROBINSON, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
NICHOLAS AMATO, Essex County Exec"utive, THOMAS THOMPSON, Acting Administrator, THOMAS GIBLIN, President, Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders, CARDELL COOPER, ADRI&~NE DAVIS, JOHN ALATI, JAMES CAVANAUGH, PEARL BEATTY, ARTHUR CLAY and MONROE JAY LUSTBADER, Members Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders, EMILY WEBER, Acting Director, Department of Public Safety, and their Successors in Office, individually and in their official capacities,
and
WILLIAM H. FAUVER, COMMISSIONER, New Jersey Department of Corrections, and his Successor in office, individually and in his official capacity,
Defendants.

Han. Harold A. Ackerman
Civil No. 87-871 (Class Action) Civil Rights Claim
o RDE R

Pursuant to Rule 53(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure,

f-r/1-

It is on this &_

day of April, 1987,

\
ORDERED that th~s case is hereby referred to JAMES R. ZAZZALI, ESQ., and SIDNEY REITMAN, ESQ., as Special Masters in light of the exceptional circumstances present in this institutional reform litigation and the expertise of Messrs. Zazzali and Rei tm:an have gained from their role as Masters in the Essex County Jail and Newark City Jail cases.
It is further ORDERED that the Special Masters shall conduct a thorough examination into the totality of the conditions at the Essex County Jail Annex in North Caldwell, N. J. (including but not limited to those areas of the facility specifically referenced in the complaint) in accordance with the guidelines set forth below and shall submit to the Court their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the overcrowded condition of the jail is violative of the United States Constitution with respect to sentenced inmates or with respect to pretrial detaineees.
It is further ORDERED that, in order to enable the Special Masters to carry out their duties, they shall have the following powers and authority:
1. The Special Masters are authorized to select and hire, with prior approval of the Court, such assistant(s) as may be required to aid them in performing their duties. With prior approval of this Court, .the Special Master may also consult appropriate, independent specialists.
2. The Special Masters shall have unlimited access to the premises of the Essex County Jail Annex, all locations, at any time and they shall notify counsel for the
2.

,
parties so that they or .their design e es may accompany the Masters if they desire.
3. The Special Masters shall have unlimited access at reasonable times to all files, statistics, plans, and reports relating to the Essex County Jail Annex, all locations.
4. The Special Masters shall be authorized to conduct confidential interviews at any reasonable time with any staff member or inmate, and shall have the right to attend any institutional meeting or proceeding.
5. The Special Masters shall be empowered to hold hearings and to call witnesses, including both inmates and staff of the Essex County Jail Annex, all locations.
6. The Special Masters shall have the authority to seek orders from the Court to show cause why the defendants or any of their agents, employees, or persons acting in concert with them, should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with their instructions or orders, or the orders of this Court.
It is further ORDERED that the defendants shall post notices throughout the Essex County Jail Annex, all locations, stating that the Court has appointed Special Masters who may from time-to-time visit the jail, and talk to the staff members or inmates. The notice shall emphasize that the Special Masters' function is only to aid the Court in its determination of the constitutionality of the allegedly
3.

overcrowded condition o~ the jail; that their appointment is not to be considered as providin~ any substitute for, or addition to the regular grievance and disciplinary procedures of the jail; that they are not to investigate, to arbitrate, or to interfere with the disposition of the grievances or complaints of individual inmates or staff members; that if the Special Masters desire any information from either inmates or staff with respect to such matters, they will initiate the matter; and that if any person, inmate or staff member desires to bring any matter to the attention of the Special Masters, he or she may do so only by making the desire known to counsel for the parties, who will then decide whether to bring the matter to the attention of the Special Masters. The notices to be posted throughout the Essex County Jail Annex, all locations, shall state the name and address of counsel for the plaintiff class, counsel for the county defendants, counsel for the State defendant and any counsel for individual defendants who may appear. The notices shall remain posted 'until the Special Masters have been discharged. The form of the notices shall be drafted by counsel and fixed by the Special Masters.
It is further ORDERED that expeditiously, but in any event no later than 90 days from the date of this order, the Special Masters shall file their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the Essex County Jail Annex, all locations, is unconstitu-
4

tionally overcrowded. rhe report shall separately address the following specific issues:
1. The maximum capacity of the Essex County Jail Ann~x;
2. Whether the support services and facilities can sufficiently accommodate that capacity, and
3. The precise relationship, if any, between the alleged unconstitutional conditions at the Essex County Jail Annex and circumstances existing at the Essex County Jail, including but not limited to compliance or noncompliance by the County with prior orders and consent judgments filed in Essex County Jail Inmates, et al. v. Collier, Civil Action No. 82-1945 and United Stats of America v. City of Newark v. County of Essex, Civil Action No. 84-433, and any other matters which have come to the attention of the Masters through their involvement in those two cases.
With respect to each issue, the Special Masters shall, if appropriate, set forth a proposed timetable for the institution of any changes which they recommend, and a proposed classification scheme for any releases which may be necessary.
It is further ORDERED that the parties shall have ten (10) days after the Special Masters submit their report to serve written objections on the Court and other parties if they so desire.
5.

It is further ORDERED that as so o n thereaf t er as the Court's calendar allows, the Clerk of the Court shall set the case for a hearing. The Court shall accept the Master's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. The Court after the hearing may adopt the report or may modify it or may reject it in whole or in part or may receive further evidence or may recommit it with instructions.
It is further ORDERED that after the filing of the initial r .eport the Special Masters shall file reports not less than every sixty (60) days, until they find that the defendants have fully complied with any order of the Court entered upon said initial report, and that such compliance has continued for a sufficient length of time to make a lapse into noncompliance improbable. At that time, the Special Masters may recommend their discharge.
It is further ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 53, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Special Masters shall be allowed necessary expenses and a fee of $100.00 per hour for their personal services and $95.00 per hour for the services of other members of their law firms in carrying out the duties imposed upon the Special Masters by this order, said fees and expenses shall be paid 50% by the Essex County defendants and 50% by the State defendants in this action. The special Masters shall keep a record of the time spent in connection with their duties, which they shall submit periodically to the de-
6 .

fendants for processing. and payment, and It is further ORDERED that the COurt shall retain
jurisdiction over the parties and this cause of action. HAROLD A. ACKERMAN, U.S.D.J.
7.

 
 i I
I
I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:
. ESSEX COUNTY JAIL ANNEX INMATES,
et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

:

-vs-

:

NICHOLAS AMATO, et. al. and WILLIAM H. FAUVER,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 87-871 STIPULATION OF FACTS

It is hereby st ipulated and ag reed by and between the undersigned attorneys for the respective parties hereto that the following facts concerning the Essex County Jail Annex are true.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a putative class action brought by inmates of the Essex County Jail system, in facilities located in North Caldwell known as the Jail Annex (hereinafter "Jail Annex" or "ECJA"). 2. A variety of conditions at the Annex necessitate remedial action. Conditions at the Annex include leaking and ! rusted toilets, sinks and pipes, dirty walls, floors and ! showers: many roaches and other insects, exposed electr ical ! wir ing, some open sewage 1 ines, missing window panes, aged

roof ing and staffing shortages, including doctors and nurses, ,i

maintenance workers and social service staff.

!

3. The physical plant and the number of available l

dormitory cells or bunks has resulted in over two hundred I

inmates

at

times

being

as S •~gned

to

sleep

on

bunks

and

some ,. I

I

stretcher-like cots in the dayroom areas, or corridor areas of

the cell tiers.

PLAINTIFFS
I 4. Essex County Jail Annex Inmates (ECJA Inmates) include I persons not convicted of any offense or crime who are detained I and awaiting disposition of criminal charges in the County or

municipal courts of Essex County, as well as persons convicted,

of a crime or disorderly persons offense who have been sentenced

to serve a term of less than one year in the County jail. They

also include some women inmates who have been sentenced to a

state penal institution, but remain confined at the Jail Annex.

5. Many ECJA Inmates may also have been confined for a

time at, or are subject to transfer at any time to, the Essex

County Jail in Newark.

6. ECJA Inmates include persons confined in cells and

dormitories which are in need of repair. Many of these inmates

are exposed to conditions such as those listed above in #2.

7. ECJA Inmates also include persons who have not yet

been assigned to a cell.

Some inmates are confined for periods l i

I

I

i

-2-

i

i'
I

I

I of time in corridor areas, where they sleep on temporary bunks ,

I or, at times, stretchers placed on .the floor.

i
Daytime floor :

i

I space for activities is limited and walkways between bunks or !

I stretcher like cots are sometimes narrow.

I

8. ECJA Inmates also include inmates in other areas of !,

I

I ECJA, who are or have been housed in dayrooms and dormitories
I I
who are affected by the overcrowding in terms of the services

and activities at the Annex.

DEFENDANTS

9. Nicholas Amato is the Executive of Essex County.

10. Thomas Thompson is the Acting Administrator

Essex County Jail Annex in North Caldwell, New Jersey.

directly in charge of jail operations and is responsible for the

development and implementation of jail policy and procedure.

11. Thomas Giblin is the president of the Essex County

Board of Chosen Freeholders; Joseph Parlavecchio is the Vice

President of the Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders;
I Cardell Cooper, Adreanne Davis, Pearl Beatty, Arthur Clay, James I Cavanaugh, Philip Thigpen and Monroe Jay Lustbader are Members

of the Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders. The Board Of l
I I
Chosen Freeholders is responsible for the funding of personnel

and facilities required for the proper operation of County Jail Annex.
12. The Director of the Department of Publ ic
-3-

the Essex ,,
! I . I
Safety 1S !
I I
I
I ,
I
I
i

I
I
I

Anthony Carrino who is responsible for the supervision of JoaloI Il

operations.

I
I

13.

William H.

Fauver

is

the

Commissioner

of

the

I
New '

Jersey Department of Corrections.

I

I

I

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

I 14. Plaintiffs' attorneys are associated with the Office

of Inmate Advocacy of the New Jersey Office of the Public I

Defender. They are familiar with the conduct of litigation of

this kind and will afford adequate representation. By statutory

authority, N.J.S.A. 52:27E-ll et ~, the Office is authorized

to represent the interests of plaintiffs.

BUILDING AND ITS DESIGN 15. The present Essex County Jail Annex is located in
North Caldwell, New Jersey. It is comprised of a number of service buildings and four central housing buildings. The main housing buildings include: the Men's Building, the Women's Building, the New Wing, the Modules (also referred to as the R.C.F. or relocatable correctional facility) and the State Trailers. Other buildings, such as the Shoe Shop, also have recently been converted into housing units.
16. The ECJA is used as a detention facility by 22 1
I
municipalities in Essex County. It is also used to house l inmates sentenced to terms of imprisonment in the county jail' l
I ,
-4-

and also some women inmates who are sentenced to and awaiting !

transfer to state prison.

I I

17. The ECJA is presently operating under the jUrisdiction I

of the Essex County Executive.

18. The Men's Building, including its West and East

housing wings, was constructed in 1875.
I
19. The New Wing was constructed in 1923 and was closed in j

1982 for structural and health reasons. Inmates have recently

been housed in portions of it.

20. Most of the ECJA's permanent buildings are multistory

masonry buildings. The physical plant in general, is old (See

#2). Some pipes are insulated with asbestos.

21. The ventilation and exhaust system as they are

currently operating are not adequate .

22. Three recreation periods are scheduled each day for

inmates housed in the main building available for one hour each

day for recreation from 5 - 7 times per week. The auditorium is

made available to all inmates from one full wing at each time.

The equipment available for active exercise in the auditorium

consists of two weight machines, three pool tables, and several

exercise mats. The outside recreation facilities provide four

half court basketball courts. A second outside recreation yard ,
I is available but is not used because the set of stairs leading

to it needs to be replaced.

-5-

! I
I
I

HOUSING AND LIVING SPACE
I
23. The ECJA had, until 19B3, regularly housed between 450 :,
I to 550 inmates, most of whom were sentenced to County ja il I
terms. Since 19B3 the jail began housing as many as 700 !
I inmates, approximately half of whom were detainees awaiting

disposition of criminal charges.

24. In September 19B6, an additional 75 inmates were moved

to the Annex.

25. Since November 19B6, as many as 1000 or more inmates

have been housed at the ECJA, with additional inmates sometimes

being assigned to areas such as the vestibules of the New Wing,

the basement area of the Women's Building, formerly used for

contact visitation with inmate children, and the old Shoe Shop

which was renovated to accomodate inmates. Over 100 more

inmates were moved to the Annex at the end of 19B6. The jail's

facilities are taxed by this increase in inmate population.

26. Areas deSigned and originally intended as housing for

inmates, include the following, with the specific areas

described in subsequent paragraphs: 144 male general population
I cells in the West Wing of the main facH i ty; IBO beds in the

dormitories of the East Wing; 120 beds for male inmates in the .

R.C.F. Modules opened in late 19B2 and 96 beds in R.C.F. MOdules l

opened in late 19B6; 4B beds for male inmates in the l

I dormitory-style trailers; and 102 cells in the Women's Building. I

Some of the cells and beds cannot be used before remedial work !

i

is performed.

I I

I
-6I
I,

,

I
27. ECJA inmates were originally housed in both cells and ,i
I !
dormitory units. As a result of the increase in population,

however, many of the inmates are now assigned to dormitor ies and I
or ! corridor areas, having to sleep on single or double bunks,

sometimes on army-type stretchers.

I ,

MEN'S BUILDING: WEST WING

28. The Men's Building is entered through a large rotunda,

which serves as access to the west Wing, the East Wing, a

Hospital Wing, the Administrative Off ices, the Mess Hall and

now, the New Wing.

29. The West Wing is used to house unsentenced inmates.

It consists of four levels with two tiers on each level; each

tier contains 18 cells, for a total of 144 cells. In addition,

there are temporary bunks and sometimes army-type stretchers
I layed out in close proximity to one another in the outside

corridors of four of the tiers.

30. Thirty-six inmates are usually housed in A and B-Tier

and E and F Tier of th~ West Wing. Eighteen inmates sleep on

temporary bunks or sometimes stretchers in the dayroom area and

share the toilet and sink in one cell which is left open for

their use.

I

I 31. Housing inmates in the corridor areas affects the

living conditions of all West Wing inmates.

I
The stretcher i
I

mattresses they sometimes sleep on are cracked; some are ripped !

-7-

i

and torn .

'

j

32. During the daytime hours when the corridor space is !
I
I
shared by the inmates on bunks as well as the inmates from the l

cells, there is less space per "corridor" inmate. When inmates I

are housed in the corridor, those inmates confined to the ,;
I cellblocks are also affected, since the space to which they have

access for 6 to 8 hours a day is also reduced.

33. The floors in the corridors of West Wing are

frequently black with dirt, as are the walk-ways in front of the

cells .

Roaches,

ants,

flies

and

fleas

are

present

in

I
the l

West-Wing housing units.
I 34 . A great many of the standard size mattresses in the

cells are cracked, ripped or torn, or have open seams. More

similar mattresses, to be used when there is a greater
l population increase, are stored on the floor under the stairs in

the West Wing.

35. The shower area walls are rusted and dirty . Water

drips from the ceiling above the showers. Black sl ime is

present on the floors of some showers which are sometimes

slippery. Some shower areas are poorly lighted. 35 inmates on

a tier share three showers. Not all showers have functioned at

the same time.

36. The washroom areas, particularly the slop sinks, are I I
dirty. Some sinks do not work at all. In some areas, the walls l

are rusted and cracked.

-8-

I,,

i

!

I I 37. The cell toilets in the West W~.ng are ruste d an d '
i
dirty. Some cells also have faulty plumbing. Some tOilet !
I fixtures splash out water when flushed. Toilet water has leaked

through the ceiling in various places from the tier above. Duel

to disrepair there is no running water for some cell lavatories

and others leak continuously. Approximately 14 inmates on bunks

or cots in each of the corridors must share one toilet and one

lavatory in a cell left unoccupied for their use. There is no

~.

hot running water in the sinks in the cells.

40. A number of long term, unrepaired leaks in the shower

area exist.

41. The Corridor areas previously used exclusively for

dayroom space now house inmates.

EAST WING 42. The East Wing consists of three identical levels of
two tiers each. Each tier houses 30 inmates in one 14-man dorm and one 16-man dorm. The Wing houses a total of 180 beds. Low partitions divide the dorms into two-man booths. There is no separate day-room space.
43. The walls in the shower area are dirty. Paint is peeling off the walls. Some walls are rusted through.
44. The shower room floors are dirty and portions are slime covered.
45. There are old restroom areas which are not in use and

-9-

have been boarded up in places by cardboard on each tier in the East Wing. Garbage thrown in by inmates and debris has accumulated in these areas and has not been removed. Other restroom areas on the tier are used by inmates.
46. Some fixtures in the central bathrooms for the Tiers .
l of the East Wing leak. The floor under the toilets is dirtyand
slimey.

NEW WING

47. The New Wing was closed in 1982. It was partially

reoccupied in November 1986 and some work has been done on the

wing.

48. Inmates have been and remain housed on double bunks in

the vestibule area of each of the first three floor s . The

remaining area of three floors are not used because of leakage

from the outside roof. The fourth floor houses inmates in five

dormitory areas.

49. Each of the three vestibule areas, where between 18
l and 30 inmates can be housed, is equipped with one toilet and

two sinks. same time.

Each of these vestibule areas have been used at the
I

50. Inmates in the New Wing have used three pre-fabricated ,
I shower units which were installed in the first floor vestibule

area. These showers we re not connected up to the building I s I

central plumbing.

I

I
I
I

-10-

I

!

I'
I
I
51. There are leaks in the heating and plumbing pipes.
MEN'S FOOD SERVING AREA 52. There are holes and broken tiles on the floor of the
men's food serving area. The pipes, insulation and areas of the !
floor of the food preparation area are dirty. There are exposed I
hot steam pipes. The kitchen sink sometimes leaks and pans have been placed beneath it to catch the leaking water.
53. Both steam tables in the food se rv ing area of the dining room had rags for drain plugs. The insulation on the pipe that leads to the steam kettle in the dining room is dirty and has begun to deteriorate. Old rags had been wrapped around I part of the pipe.
54. The scrape-table drain leaks, sometimes causing dirty water to accumulate on the floor. The floor drain sometimes backs up near the serving area. The floor area is dirty and sometimes has an odor of sewage. There are missing and broken floor tiles.
55. There is a black, sticky substance on the floor of the food storeroom. The black substance also coats the wooden pallets. In the canned goods storage area, there is a white substance on the floor under and behind the pallets. water I sometimes seeps in through the wall in the canned goods area.
I The cooler system has frosted up. The ice machines and the
walk-in cooler in the kitchen have been dirty, slimy and moldy. I
I
-11-

I
! 56. The floor and slop sink in the food service garbage !
I room are dirty. The ceiling is dirty, slimey and damp, in some i
spots, has patches of mold. Opposite the slop sink, the mortar !
has broken loose between the file, and some dirty water lays in !
i
the cracks. There are uncapped sewer pipes in the bathroom ;
I
I between the kitchen and the mess hall that is used by the food
service workers.
57. Portions of the dining area have an offensive odor.
Roaches and other insects are also present.

MEDICAL UNIT
c, 1 58. The medical unit consists of three wards, A, Band

and three isolation cells. These wards house ill inmates.

I

59. Some of the beds have broken springs. The walls are

dirty and there is grit on the floor. One window is broken and

does not have a screen.

60. A toilet fixture has been removed from the restroom
l
area of Ward C, leaving a large open hole in one wall resulting

in an uncapped sewer-pipe. Sewer gas escapes. The floor of the
i toilet area is dirty and the lavatory drain line leaks. There

is a leak in the toilet facility. One of the pipes in the pipe

chase area serving Ward C is uncapped. The water supply pipe I

for the toilet in Ward C, Isolation Cell 3 has a leak.

I
j

I
I

I
WOMEN'S BUILDING
I
61. The Women's Building of the ECJA consists of three ;

-12-
i
I,

, I
levels with two tiers of 17 cells in each tier, for a total of ,
I
102 one-woman cells, two of which are not being used. It has :
i
its own dining facility. The top and bottom tiers have outside ; !
corridors, in addition to the walk-ways in front of the cells. ,
62. The corridors were originally intended to be used as :I I
I daytime activity space, but are now used to house additional
inmates sleeping on cots or double-bunks. 63. Towards the end of 1986, 24 male inmates were confined
in the basement area, once used for contact visits with children of the women inmates.
64. Housing inmates in the corridor area of the Women's building continues. It affects all women inmates including those not assigned to bunks in the corridors by limiting their daytime space.
65. There are no lockers for clothing and the women hang i, clothing on the walls and bars of their cells. Other possessions are stored under the beds.
66. Some floors of the cells and dayroom areas are dirty and sticky.
67. The toilet bowls and toilet flush-buttons in many of the cells leak and are in need of repair. When some of the toilets are flushed, water sprays onto the toilet seat. The ,
I water closet walls in most of the cells are rusted; some have i
holes and cracks. 68. Many beds have torn or cracked mattresses.
-13-

i

II

69. Women on cots and on double-bunks in the corridors of

the first and third floors share toilets and lavatories in cells ;

!

on each floor kept empty for such use. At times, up to 30 women !

I

i

share the lavatory facilities in the two empty cells. The l

lavatory has been stopped up sometimes and drains slowly. There i

is no hot running water in the sinks of the cells.

I

70. The shower areas in the Women's Building are sometimes '\ dirty. There are leaks that have formed stalactites. There are

holes around the fixtures of the shower. When the shower is

used, water accumulates on the ceiling and then drips down onto

the heads of the women using it. Some of the showers have poor

drainage. The inmates cannot control the temperature of the

water. The water sometimes becomes unbearably hot. sometimes leaks down to the floor below.

Water I
!

71. Some electric junction boxes in the shower areas are

wet and rusted, as are some electrical conduits.

72. There is an open lavatory drain leaking in the pipe

chase area of the Women's Building. 60% to 75% of the toilets

of the Women's facility do not have vacuum breakers.

73. There are a number of holes in the lavatory drain in
the pipe chase area. Some of the vent pipes have been rusted I
through, leaving gaps of up to 1 1/2 inches. Several of the i

plugs on top of the "T's" for some pipes in the pipe chase are

missing. There is water on the floor of the pipe chase at the :

I

Tier A and B level.

I
!

!

-14-

, j

'I,

74. In Tier D of the Women's Bu ild ing, stalagmites are ;
I
i growing up from the top of the cover of the cell opening

mechanisms located in the corridor. The stalagmites are caused i

by leaking plumbing above the corridor.

I

!

75. There are many broken windows and missing screens in

Tier D of the Women's Building. Some of the window panes on

Tiers A and B are old and lose. '.:,., 76. The number of inmates limits the ability of the women

inmates to utilize the corridors for daytime functions.

77. There is no mechanical ventilation in the women's

building except the kitchen.

78. There is no library, although law books are available.

The books are located in a room that is used for inmate

interviews with their lawyers and social workers. They are in

no particular order and are not indexed or otherwise organized.

R.C.F. MODULES

79. The modules consist of a central corridor area , a

dining facility and five living units. Tiers A, B, D and E are
accessible from the central area through locked doors. Tiers A I
I and E each house 24 inmates and each consists of four dorms and

a central dayroom. Tiers B, C and D each house 24 inmates and I! each have 12 cells.

80. Double bunks exist in each unit.

81. Many of the mattresses used by inmates in the R .. C.F. i
I
I
I

-15-

I ,

I

I ,

are cracked and have staph check type covering.

i 82. The showers in the Modules are sometimes dirty and

moldy.

i 83. 24 inmates on each tier share a shower. There is a

white film on the doors and walls.

I
!

84. There is one outside recreation yard for all five

modules. It is not used in cold or inclement weather.

85. In mid-November 1986, a new Module was completed and

an additional 96 inmates are similarly confined there in

conditions similar to those described in paragraphs 75 to 80.

STATE TRAILERS 86. Inmates are also confined in six dormitory-style
trailers that house up to 10 inmates each. One end of each trailer opens onto a shared central area. Unlike the Modules, there is no locked door between the central area and the trailers.

OTHER HOUSING AREAS 87. The old Shoe Shop has been converted into a dormitory
and sometimes is used to house work release inmates. Up to 28 inmates there all share a shower, two working toilets and four sinks. Inmates had at one time been housed in the old Paint I Shop.

-16-

, , 'I
,iI

!

I EMERGENCY PROCEDURES

i

I
88. Permanent staff is trained in emergency procedures. A i

I large majority of the new employees are classified as temporary !

i
or probationary. These employees are not given the correctional !,

officers training course which includes emergency management.

These employees receive on the job training.

89. There is one exit for each of the tiers in the Women's

Building. as well as each of the tiers in the West Wing of the

Men's Building. All of these tiers open onto a central

stairway. There is also one exit for the hospital wing. In the

East Wing of the Men's Building there is an alternate exit on

the third floor. which leads to the auditorium. The door

leading to the auditorium is adjacent to the central stairway.

90. There is no central fire or smoke detection system in

the main facility. There is no fire alarm pull station located

in or near the main kitchen area.

HEALTH CARE 91. When an inmate is admitted for incarceration at the
ECJA. he or she is asked his or her medical history by a nurse l or correction officer. The inmate is then placed in general population.
92 . Pregnancy tests are not routinely given to female inmates but can be requested.
I 93. Medical examinations. including blood tests for I

-17-

i
I

I
i

I

I

I
i

i

communicable diseases, contagious conditions or other serious !

I health problems are given within a few days after an inmate I s

admission although sometimes not for several weeks.

I

PERSONAL HYGEINE

i

94. Mattresses are not cleaned or sanitized between users .

95 . Each inmate on most occasions is issued one towel upon

admission. Inmates are issued one uniform upon admission.

Towels and jail uniforms are laundered weekly. The practice is

to issue a clean uniform when the soiled one is sent for

cleaning although sometimes there are not enough uniforms to go

around.

96. Personal hygeine items such as soap, shampoo,

toothpaste, toothbrushes, and razors are issued to inmates that

are indigent. Other inmates can buy these items at the

commissary. Sometimes these items are in short supply and

therefore not available for both the indigents and the other

inmates who buy at the commissary.

-18-

i
The undersigned hereby consent to the form and entry of the I
within Stipulation of fact.

..~
DATED: ~ 1'1, In)

I

I Alfred A. Slocum
New Jersey Public Advocate -

Defender

I

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

BY';"!' T.

~~ Iv/~ GARYMITCHELL

7A~7C1J-

Director, Office of Inmate

Advocacy

-19-

 
 J

!

:J/

UNITED ST~TES DISTRICT COURT ~OR THE DISTRICT O~ NEW JERSEY

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL ANNEX INMATES,
et als., Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION

RECEIVEl: WILLIAM T. \"AlSH. CLERK

Nov 9 3 311 PH '87

UNITED ',' i::S

01 STF' ,-

. --

, '

v.

Docket No. 87-871

NICHOLAS AMATO, et als.,
and WILLIAM H. ~AUVER, Commissioner

ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS

ACTION

ENTERED on TIlE DOCKETq I
o~n ~JI1-/2=!:~~

(Deputy Clerk)

THIS MATTER having been brought before the Court upon

motion of plaintiffs Essex County Jail Annex Inmates, for an

order that this action should be maintained as a class action,

and the Court having considered the written and oral arguments of

counsel, and for good cause ,tting shown,

I~ /

q It is on this

day of {lJe-v.~.L'v1 p-e.g-87,

ORDERED that this matter is hereby certified as a class

action under ~. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (2), with the class comprised

of plaintiffs and all other persons who now are confined as

inmates at the Essex County Jail Annex, or who may become

confined therein at any time during the pendency of this action.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Notice attached hereto

shall be delivered to the members of the class as provided

therein.

Harold A. ~ckerman, U.S.D.J.

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

OCT r::J: .~I.'\..,'II

AT &a6 •••3••"•"• •~•.r.t

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL ANNEX INMATES,

WILllIW T. \'/AL;H. CLERK

COREY WEBB, THOMAS ARMOUR,

FREDERICK W. BOOKER, JAMES SIMON,

RONALD MCCLENDON, ROSETTA DRAKE ,

CANDACE JOHNSON, ROSALIND ROBINSON,

CIVIL ACTION

on behalf of themselves and all

other persons similarly situated

Docket No. 87-871

Plaintiffs,

(Civil Rights Claims)

v.

:

NICHOLAS AMATO, Essex County Executive, THOMAS THOMPSON, Acting Administrator, THOMAS GIBLIN, President, Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders, CARDELL COOPER, ADRIANNE DAVIS, JOHN ALATI, JAMES CAVANAUGH, PEARL BEATTY, ARTHUR CLAY AND MONROE JAY LUSTBADER, Members Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders, EMILY WEBER, ~cting Director, Department of Public Safety, and their Successors in Office, individually and in their official capacities,

and

WILLIAM H. FAUVER, Commissioner New Jersey Department of Corrections, and his successor in office, individually and in their official capacity,

Defendants.

NOTICE
TO ALL INMATES CONFINED IN THE ESSEX COUNTY JAIL ANNEX, CALDWELL, NEW JERSEY
The United States District Court fo~ the District of New Jersey, has determined that this suit is a class action brought on behalf of all persons who are now incarcerated, or who may be incarcerated during the pendency of the lawsuit, in the Essex County Jail Annex, Caldwell, New Jersey .

The Complaint, which is the legal document by which the lawsuit was started , charges that inmates at the Essex County Jail Annex have been depri ~ ed of rights protected by provisions of the C~nstitution of the United States because of the overcrowded conditions existing at the Jail Annex, and certain practices, policies and procedures governing the Jail Annex.
These allegations were made by the plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of all other inmates. The Complaint was filed with the Court on March 9, 1987.
The suit seeks an injunction to prohibit maintaining overcrowded conditions at the Jail Annex and certain policies affecting conditions at the Jail Annex.
The lawsuit is complex and involves many issues. The Federal Court has not yet determined whether or not the charges are true, or what final relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled to.
The plaintiffs are represented by the Office of Inmate Advocacy of the New Jersey-Public Defender, by attorneys T. Gary Mitchell and Audrey Bomse, CN 850, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. The interests of all inmates whether or not they are named as plaintiffs will be represented by the present plaintiffs and their attorneys. If any inmate wishes to intervene personally in the action, however, he or she (or an attorney on his or her behalf) may file a Motion to Intervene with the Clerk of the United States District Court, United States Courthouse, Newark, New Jersey 08605.
It is ORDERED that a copy of this Notice be given to each inmate now confined at the Essex County Jail Annex, and by the admitting officer to each inmate committed to the Essex County Jail Annex during the pendency of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide the copies of the Notice for distribution and shall be notified by the admitting officer when the supply of Notices at the Jail Annex drops to fifty (50) copies in order to provide further copies for distribution to inmates.

\ \ ;;,c< ctG 0 I R. ,

e-----,-/"

HAROLD A. ACKERMAN Unit",d States District Judge

 
 I

OFC 211983
,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL INMATES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NICHOLAS AMATO, County Executive, et al.,
and
~IILLIAN H. FAUVER, Commi ssioner, New Jersey Department of Corrections,
Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 82-1945
Hun. Harold A. Ackerman U.S.D.J.
Robert Del Tufo, Special Master Bennet Zurofsky, Special Master
.".DDENDUM TO THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT ORDER

The parties to this case having agreed in Paragraph 20d of

the TI1IRD SUPPI,EMENTAL CONSENT ormER that the Special Masters

shall set an amount of a fine as a populdtion sanction in the

event of certain violet; ons of said THIRD STJPPLEMENTAL CONSENT

ORDER; and this Court having reviewed and approved said THIRD

SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT ORDER; and the Masters having recommended the

7ii J}-(d!--"--'l-9 r amount of $100.00 per prisoner per day as the proper sanction;

IT IS ON THIS ,;}

DAY, OF

g

ORDERED that in the event of violations of the THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL CO 3ENT ORDER as set forth therein in Paragraph 20, the sanction to be imposed, as referred to in Paragraph 20d, shall be calculated at the rate 0 $100.00 per prisoner per day.

--, ONORABLE HAROLD A. ACKERMAN, U. S. D..J .

L-

IN 'IHE UNITED STAmS DIS'lRICT CXXlRT FCR 'IHE DIS'lRICT CF NEW JERSEY

ESSEX CXXNI'Y JAIL INMA'IES, et als.,

CIVIL NO. 82-1945

OEC 27938

PlaintiffS,
v.

: H:m. Harold A. AckeDnan U.S .•D. J.

NICHOLAS AMATO, County

Executive, et als.,

:

and

FId:lert DelTufo, Special. Master Bennet Zw:ofsky, Special. Master

WIILIAM H. FAINER, Catmissioner, New Jersey Departrrent of Con:ections,
Defendants .

C~
THE oc:m iSf
on /- ...s- . J9_

8JWl(l'LcW a-n-

rV~lSlj1!. ", K ~..-'

(Depuly Clerk)

'lJUS Ml\Tl'ER BErn; OPENED to the Court in conjun=tion with the Order enteI:ed on the cb::ket of the Court on Septart:er 19, 1988, directing defendants Coonty Executive Ni.cID1as J\mato, Essex County Director of the DeparbIEnt of Public Safety JOBeFh Santiago, am Essex County Jail warden FId:lert Cottle (hereafter "County defendants" or the "County"), to Sh:::w Cause why an Order sh:::ruld rot be entered fiIrling the County defemants in conterrpt am inp::>sing sanctions, as specified in the Report of the Special. K:ister dated July 26, 1988, am
WHEREAS, the parties' have agreed as herein set forth to resolve the =ntaIpt awli.cation underlying the Order of SeptaJt:er 19, 1988, hn:ught by plaintiffs in June 1988 to enfon::e provisions of the O::t:d:er 18, 1982 Consent .JucIg:oant ["CJ"], the Feb. 4, 1985 Supplanental Consent Order M:difying am A-.errling Consent Jud<}rent of O=tober 14, 1982 [SCXll], and the April 22, 1987 Suwlenental Consent Order !bdifying am Anerrling Consent .JucIg:oant of O=tober 14, 1982 [SCXl2]; am
·WHEREAS, the County' s facilities for irmate housing am services c:antinae to be insufficient to meet the terns of previous cxmsent orders; and
WHEREAS, the County defemants have recently organized am fmrled a progLdlll koown as the "Jail Initiative", in cooperation with the County judiciary am other =iminal justice agen::ies, to expedite the processing am disp:>sitian of crilninal pto ,*,jings perrling against irrlivjdnals who remain incarcerated in Essex County jail facilities with the objective over a period of 120 days

beginning on N:>vaIber 28, 1988, of reducing the rumber of imates canfinad at the Essex Ccunty Jail to 594 or less; and
WHEREAS, the Ccunty deferrl3nts recently have pv \' eed, organized and funded, in c:ooperation with the County judiciary, the Ccmtty Prosecut= and local mmi.cipal authorities, a pre-screening progLdDl in the City of NeIoarlc and will by Feb. 1, 1989, expaDd the pre-screening progLdDl to the cities of Irvington, Orange and East Orange, to review =iminal charges against deta.in:les at the earliest fOSsible q:portuni.ty in order to assess the "ftI1UPLiateness of the charges - and with the objective of eliminating unnecessazy iJcaI:ceration at the county jail where such =nfinarent is JX)\: waIranted; and,
WHEREAS, the County deferxlants recently have agreed to fwrl and autrorize an expanded I'lcIle =nfinarent program as an alternative to iJcaI:ceration in appropriate cases to assist in reducing the county jail r<Y,l ation; and
WHEREAS, un:Ier the terms of this Order the County Jail popilation tarporarily will =timle to exceed the maxinum capacity of 594 imates established by the Court's prior orders, and there will tanpararily ccntirrue to be substantial Inn-<:Cllp1iance with the requirenEnts of prior orders for providing services and pLogLams to EJC imates, and,
WHERFAS, the following provisions shall be bin:iing IJIXln the parties and
shall be enforceable as an order of the Court, subject to the awroval of the
Court; and
WHERFAS, the aforarent.iOIa:i CJ, son and SOJ2 shall ranain in full force
and effect, except as herein IIOdified; IT IS 'lllEREFalE AGREED, as follO\ol5:

GENERAL .1}«JIlISICN5 AND ~
1. Ccunsel for the plaintiff class agrees to defer prosecution of the awlication on behalf of plaintiffs to have the County deferrlants held in =nteupt for a peri.cd cUlllen;:ing on !"ecaOCer 1, 1988 and en:iing on M;iy 31, 1989, in order to pennit the County deferrlants to inpl€llelIt measures as described aIx:Jve which the County defen:lants believe will result in a substantial and swift reduction of the County Jail p::!pUlation to 594 and which similarly will permit the Ccunty deferxlants to achieve substantial carpliance with other provisions of the prior Orders of the Court; provided, however, that within the peri.cd referen::ed aIx:Jve plaintiffs' counsel shall be pennitt.ed to resurre prosecution of

2

12/9/88

tie cont:.enpt awlication in tie roamer provided by this Order an:! to seek sanctions as auth::>rized by this Order if tie total jail p=p11ation by February 15, 1989, is rxrt: re<tred to or tbareafter exceeds 700 imlates, or if tie total jail pcpllation by April 15, 1989, is rxrt: reduced to or tbareafter ell eeis 650 iDnates, or i f tie total jail population by June 1, 1989, is rxrt: redred to or thereafter exceeds 594 iIm3.tes.
2. 'Ihe County deferrlants recognize that a failw:e to neat tie tinetab1e
for a reduction of the jail rqu1ation as set forth in this Order will result in pLatpL pt' ceedings to inp?Se an:! ClCIlp91 paymant of sanctions for continuing nonCXIIp1iance with this Order an:! otler consent orders, arrl, therefore, tie County deferrlants are on notice that otler alternatives to tie Coonty's Jail Initiative sboJ.ld be available to serve as a contingency plan to deal with either a sh:>rtfall in tie objectives of tie Jail Initiative or otler unions:: I or unanticipated ci.=umstarr::es.
3. 'Ihe Coonty deferx:lants further :recognize that tie reductico of the jail's pcpllation arrl :inprovemants in jail ptograu., which 1Iiere pranised to plaintiffs in tie pLior orders of tie Court, as previoosly agreed to by the County, have been long delayed an:! will conti.nue to be delayed as a result of the entry of this Order.
4. In light of tie above referelll::eci delays in obtaining relief for plaintiffs arrl tie continued overcrowding at the jail, the County &JL:: s that the interests of justice an:! extant corxtitions at tie County's jail wanant ad:litional efforts, as hereafter shall be described, to exmply with the requireIIE<ItS for providing services an:! ptograllls to plaintiffs, as "",ll as to clarify the mininun requi:l:eIIents for services an:! ptograus to be net by tie County in maintaining the safety, health, an:! security of innates at the jail.
5. 'Ihe County agrees that for J?lI'POS9S of any further pt, ceeiings that may be necessary to secure exmpliance with this Order or pLior orders of the Court, the fi.rxiings of fact in this matter shall be cb:awn fran or CXIIprised of the folladng:
a. obseI:vations of tie Special M3sters as set forth in a transcript of proceeiings con:Iucted on H::IvaIber 28, 1988, during tie course of the Special !2sters' inspection of tie Essex County Jail;
b. c:locunen.ts subnitted by plaintiffs to tie Special M3sters as set forth in tie Appendix filed with plaintiffs' brief of N:>va!iJer 21, 1988;

3

12/9/88

c. OOcurtents and records maintained by the Co.xnty which have been ar will be subnitted to plaintiffs; and
d . the stip,lations set forth herein.
S'l'IPUU\TICJIS
6. fur nearly £Nary day of 1988 to the flL sant, the county defendants have halsed substantially IIOre than 594 innates at the Essex Colmty Jail.
7. During 1988 the county defendants regularly have aceeded the maximJm capacity limits fiJced for the second floor dormitories, the 12th floor civil area, and the 12th floor "tier man" <imn.
8. During 1988, the Colmty defendants have failed to follCM the raredia1 procedures :required under paragraph 14 of the CJ.
9. During 1988 the Colmty defendants regularly have caused the cIayroc:os of the jail to be used to house innates far longer than 72 Inlrs .
10. 'nle Colmty defendants have failed to provide a schedule far daily recreation and exercise that ..auld provide each innate with an oppcu:tunity to
engage in exercise and recreational physical activity far a mininum of one row:
per day. 11. 'nle Colmty defendants have failed to install and maintain three itans
of exercise equiprent outside of each dayxcan at the jail. 12 • During 1988 the County defendants have not pLOVi.ded Inlrs far visita-
tion on ""*lkerrls to pennit innate visits to last at least 20 minutes in duration.
13. SIloke detectors and alanns at the jail have been allowed to bee> lip in:Jperable.
14. Many mattresses in use by innates at ti~ jail are cracked, torn or otheJ:wise in need of replacarpnl to insure that they are fire retardant and sanitary.
l5. 'nle Colmty defendants have not pnNided a physical examination by J[!9dical personnel to each :imate within 72 00urs of irlnission to the jail.
16. Newly irlnitted :imates are halsed in general p:lpllation prior to carpletion of a physical examination on the :imate.
17. 'nle County defendants have not routinely adninistered laOOratory or clinical tests on newly aanitted innates to detennin= whether the :imate may be

4

12/9/88

suffering fran or has been exp:>S9d to tuberculosis, \PlLiLLlSd, hypertension or diBbetes.
18. In the secorrl floor OOrmitories, bmk ~ are n:>t in::Iividually assigned to each imate with the assigments recorded in a log, innates are not offered assigment of single cell housing after being hoosed for m:xre than 45 days in the secorrl floor -d:mns, a log is n:>t maintained of all 00nn housing assigments irrlicating for each innate the day received in the 00nn, arrl days h:::""Y'rl in the 00nn, day transferred out of the 00nn, and location of transfer.

SERVICES AND POCGRAMS
19. '!he County deferrlants agree :imrediate1y to take action to ioplatent fully the requiratents of prior orders in::luding rut rnt limited to those itans refereoced belo..-, arrl to inplatent fully the follow-ing requ:irBrents to SUWlement or clarify the stsndards to be net urrler prior orders in defining miniJwm requiraIents for services, safety, health, arrl security at the jail, in::luding rut not limited to the follow-ing:
a. File Safety (1) Slroke alanns - Within 90 days of the date of this agresoout
bebleen the parties, the County shall take all steps necessaIY to insure =tinuing ccnplian::e with paragr8!=h 16g of the CJ, in::luding whatever steps that nay be necessaIY to insure that all SIlDke alanns shall be repaired arrl maintain3d in =rking order.
(2) File Suqlression Systan - 'Ib insure that jail living areas are naintained in a safe corrlition as required by paragraph 16k of the CJ, the County agrees by O:::tober 15, 1989, to install an antanatic file suppression systan at the jail to c::rnply with the mininum stsndards established by N.J.A.C. 5:18-4.7(d), arrl as required by the July 5, 1988 rep::>rt of a file safety :inspectial corrlucted by the N3wark File D3partment. '!he County will sutmit a rep::>rt to plaintiffs' counsel arrl the Special ~ by April 1, 1989, arrl IIOIlthly thereafter, which report shall in::lude a construction scbadule arrl the ongoing status of the project. 'Ib facilitate installation of a file suppression systan urrler this paragraph, the County nay cause the popliation of in::Iividual housing units to exceed the uaximJm unit capacity limits othe:rwise fixa:! by paragraph 10 of the CJ.

5

12/9/88

b. Exercise and recreation (1) Schedule - By Feb. 1, 1989, the Coonty sI:all suJ::mit to plain-
tiffs' counsel and the Special M3sters a pmp::sed en- schedule that will
fulfill , its ooUgations Ulnar prior orders to pn::>II'i!E each imlate at the jail with access to a."l exe=ise and recreation aIea for a minimlm of one
hour each day. 'nle CoUnty shall take all steps De as I y to iupleuent this J"" '
schedule so that irmates shall receive the required daily ~ty for exm:cise by April 15, 1989, including but IDt limited to physical CXIIlStruc- 31 tion of facilities, acquisition of equiplent, arx:l hiring of additional staff.
(2) Supplarental Exercise Equ.iprEmt llitside [);fYLtXi.s - Within 30 days of the date of this agrea.eat, the County shall obtain the items of exercise equiplent previously required by paragLilfil 12(c)(3) of the 50)1.

c. Dayrocrn Tine IDg - In order to m:mitor the provision of dayroan tine to irmates, the Coonty defendants shall insure that a daily log is maintaine:! of each rousing unit's JiOVEIieIlts to and fD::a dayrocms.

d. Visitation (1) D.lration of Visits - 'nle Coonty shall jmrpdjately take all
steps necessary to insure =ntinuing CCIIpliance with paragraph l6h of
the cr, including, but IDt limited to, the ~t for all
visitation opporbmities to be at least twenty mimttes in actual duration . Steps taken by the Coonty shall inc.luda, rut IDt be Umited to, any necessary expansion of visitation hours, ItIysical construction of f3Cilities, acquisition of eqllplEllt, arx:l hiring of additional staff.
(2) Visitation In::reases As N: -led - If all visitors canrnt be aoxnnodated during fiJ<ed visiting hours within regular visiting areas, visitors shall IDt be turned away, rnr shall visit periods be soortened, rut rather visits shall be held in visiting areas on other
floors if space is available or, if space is mt available, oo:crections staff shall be provided to =ntinue visiting hours for any
visitors waiting to visit with inmates at the clcee of visiting hours; a rntice to this effect shall be ~ in waiting areas for visitors.

6

12/9/88

(3) 109 to be Mtint.aired - within 7 days of tOO date of this agreeuent beo.een tOO parties, tOO County shall begin maintaining daily logs of tOO jail visitation program, with a log to be maint.aired
owor- by tOO officer responsible for supervising actual visitation
tunities on each floor of tOO jail. Each log shall preserve a daily record of all viSits corxlucted on each floor, with the log entries to
contain the date, tOO nane of each innate :receiving a visit, the tine at the beginn.ing arr:i at the end of the visit, arr:i tOO signature or initials of the officer making the log entJ:y.

e. Ibllll safeguards - By Jarruary 15, 1989, the County shall take all necessary step> to CCIIt>ly with tOO requi.I:aIents of paragraph 11 of the
san, in=luding but mt limited to the fallowing:
(1) Assigrmmt arr:i lDgging of Bunk Spaces - SO)! Paragraph l1(a) (2) Offer of Transfer to Single Cell HalSing - &1)1 Paragraph l1(b)
(3) 109 Requirarents - &1)1 Paragraph l1(e)
(4) Separation of Bunks by Solid Partition - &1)1 Paragraph l1(g) (5) Separation of Bunks by Space - &1)1 Paragraph 12 (i)

f . Physical Plant Corrlitions - To CCIIt>ly with tOO ~t of paragraph 16k of the CJ to maintain the county jail in a safe arr:i sanitary corrlition arr:i paragraph 8 of the &1)1 pertaining to repair arr:i maintenance, tOO County agrees to the following neasures to insure jail fixtures arr:i facilities are adequately maint.aired, repail:ed, or replaced.
(1) Definitions - Facilities shall in=luda, but are mt limited to, ceilings, pipes, toil " t".s , urinals, sinks, sOCooers, arr:i ~; fixtures shall in=luda, but are mt limited to, water closets, faucets arr:i lavatories, escutcbaons on s~ arr:i taJp?rature :regulating valves, JIEtering units, lighting fixtures, wi.rxbois arr:i screens.
(2) Survey - 'lhe County agrees to undertake irnredjately arr:i CCIIt>lete by FebruaIy 15, 1989, a CCIIt>lete survey of damaged or rxm..orking fixtures arr:i facilities at the jail identifying the facilities arr:i fixtures which can be repail:ed arr:i those which re3d to be replaced. 'lhe rE!fCrt shall list all damaged, broken or otherwise iooperable facilities arr:i fixtures at the jail tlu:ough FebruaIy 1, 1989. 'lhe

7

12/9/88

County further agreas to suwlya copy of the survey report to plain-

tiffs' counsel arrl the Special Master IX> later than February 22, 1989.

If the survey is rot CCIIpleted as requiJ:ed abc:M! arrl a copy of the

report is rot SUWlied by the at:ove date, then the County shall be

responsible for the costs of a survey arrl :related rep::u:L which plain-

tiffs' counsel JIi3y thereafter obtain to assess the extent of damagrl

or non~ facilities arrl fixtures at the jail.

(3) ReMiTS arrl ~

(a) FPmrting - A staff 1IE'JIi:ler, ~ identity shall be

Dade krown to plaintiffs' coonsel, shall be assigned to receive all

reports fran staff arrl innates of broken or in:JpeLable facilities arrl

fixtures, to p::>St these reports in a central log as requiJ:ed to be

maintained UJrler para~ 8(b) of the SC01, to arrange for staff

arx:IIor equiprent to facilitate the repair, arrl to DDnitor the CCIIple-

tion of repairs on all facilities arrl fixtures.

(b) Schedule - Within 72 hours of a report, any itans in

need of repair or maint:en.3Jce shall be :inspected by a person trained

in the repair or maint:en.3Jce of the fixture or facility. '!he main-

t:en.3Jce or repair shall be CClIpleted IX> later than 3 blsiness days of

the inspection, subject to the availability of parts arrl supplies.

Maint:en.3Jce arrl repairs for pu:rposes of this agLeEiIEnt shall nean ....ark

other than l:9plac:atents.

(e) Parts arrl Su!:plies - To prevent urnJeCeSsary delays in

effecting major repairs, an adequate inventory of regularly needed

parts which are rot praxptly CCIlIIEl:Cially available shall be main-

tained. '!he SUWly of such spare parts at al:, times shall be suffi-
cient to provide a backup SUWly of 90 days, or for ..matever longer

period a reasonable investigation 100Uld disclose loCJUld be :required to

obtain such parts that are rot readily available within 90 days.

roo (d) M:mthly

!leoorts - By February 15, 1989, arrl on a

nonthly basis thereafter, the County deferrlants shall provide plain-

tiffs' counsel with copies of the maint:en.3Jce arrl repair logs for the

previous nonth (e.g., Deca.ier's logs to be SUWlied by Jan. 15, 1989,

January's logs to be SUWlied by Feb. 15, 1989) sb::Ming all reports of

8

12/9/88

daIIaged or inJperable jail fixtures and facilities, with a ootatian in:iicating tOO carpletian date or the status of the repair.
(4) Replacenents - By Feb. 1, 191;l9, tOO Camty shall urrlertake and carplete in a prarpt fashion thereafter and IDt later than Jure 1,
1989, repl.acellents of any fixtures or facilities 1oihel:e routine maintenance and repa1rs have been for 30 days or um:e, or are otheJ::w:i.se koown to be, unable to correct danage or return tOO fixtures and facilities to good ..orJdn;J =n::lition. Rep1acsmmts also shall be required on a continuing basis thereafter 1oihel:e routine maintenance and repairs similarly have been, or are, Wlable to CXJrrect damaged or non-v.:>rJdn;J fixtures and facilities. In tOOse instan::es 1oihel:e parts and SUWlies have been ordered to make repairs or urrlertake maintenance, delays IDt attrihItable to the County in receipt of parts or SUWlies shall IDt require tOO County to replace tOO fixture in ooed of the repair.

g. fealth Care (1) Intake practices - 'lhls ~ shall clarify and
suwlatent tOO ~ts of paragraph 16d of the CJ and paragraph 12(d) of tOO SCOl, which require tOO County to provide imlates adnitted to tOO jail with a rredical screening and a physical examination prior to their h:using in general popliatian.
(a) Initial screening - 1ls required by paragraph 16d of tOO CJ, a rredical screening shall be 00ne up::m adnission to tOO jail. 'lhls initial screening shall be ci:ne by a clinically train=d person (at least an LPN or a rredical techni.cian). ']hb
initial screening shall be available 24 torrs per day, 7 days per
week, and shall include tOO foUcwing: i) a directed hi.sto!:y of current illnesses and health
problems (including mantal, dental an:! ccummicable diseases), drug and alCXJhol use (including types, nethods, anounts, frequerx::y, date or ti.ne of last use and a history of problems which may have occurred after ceasing use, such as convulsions), suicide risk, IIEdi.cations taken, special health prOOlems or ~ts (such as allergies and

9

12/9/88

therapies), and other health problans as designated by the resf'''l!lsibile physicianl
il) observation and IlJtiltion of behavior (in::lOOinq urrusual behavior, appearance, concII.rt:, llEiIOLS and swaating), Ixxiy defonnities, ease of 1IOIIEIIent, condition ·of skin
(in::lOOinq trauma markings, bruises, lesions, jaundice, ~, infestations, needle marks and other i.n::ti.cations of
drug abJse) 1 iii) recamerrl9d disposition by referral on an energen-
cy basis to an appropriate health care service or provider, by placEmmt in general innate pop.liation and later referral to an appropriate health care service or provider, or by placEmmt in the general inmate pop.liation. (b) Physical exam and diacm:?Stic tests - As requil:ed by paragrafh 12(d) of the SCOl, each inmate acbitted to the jail shall receive a physical examination and any testing necessaI:y to identify a =ntagious =ndition, CCIIIlI.I1li.cale disease or serious health inpail:nEnt that may be asynptanatic or ot.heI:wise rx:>t detected by a physical examination.
i) 'nle physical examination shall be perfoDIed by a licensed physician within 72 00urs of acbission. As of June 1, 1989, if the County fails to c:cnply with the requiraIent: to h::Juse new acbissions separately until. after perfOIlll3IlCe of a physical examination, then the County shall take whatever steps necessary to insure that each acbitted innate st U receive a physical examination by a licensed physician within 24 00urs of acbission to the jail, except far ..eekenc:I aanittees wOO shall have their physical examination no later than M:m:lay.
il) 'nle physical examination shall, at a mi.niJJum, in::lude :recording of height and 1Neight, and assessnent of vital signs (pulse, blood pressure and tarIJeratw:e), neurological systan, heart, lungs, alrl llPiI and recent trauma.

10

12/9/88

ill) Diagmstic tests to be d:na 00 each adnitted innate shall in::lude, I::ut oot be u.ited tol tuberculln skin test and syr.hl1.lis serology. (c ) lbusing - As of June 1, 1989, housing classification
shall oot be Dade until the madi CA1 sc:reeniJ¥J an:i Iitysical
examinatials are ccupleted. Imatea needing a h:lspital or amrgency roan evaluation shall be refen:ed there immriiately. Imlatea with special JTe1ical needs (e.g., wheelchairs) shall be housed in an infiDnary. Imates who are lIIE!rltally ill shall be placed in cb3ervation arxi/or on a suicide 10Btch or referred to an
CfpLopdate psychiatric facility. (2) Doctor and nursing coverage - 'lb prcwide the required elanents of the madica1 s=eeninq program urrlar paragraj;ll 12(d) of the san, in::luding Iitysical examinations of all newly adnitted imlatea, and to insure that imlatea at the Essex County Jail receive prwpL access to adequate health cam professialal.s as mquired by paragraph l6b of the CJ and basic CfpLOpLiate madiral care as required by paragraph 16c of the CJ, and as mquired by this order, the County deferrlants by April 1, 1989, shall at a minim.III prcwide 24 IoJr on site coverage, as follows:
(a) Physicians - Physician coverage shall be provided on a full tiJIe basis • Full tiJIe ?tYsician ~ shall, at a miniIIun, be defined as on site coverage by t..o madica1 doctors for at least 6 IoJrs each day during the week. At: least 000 physician shall be available on an cn<all basis for at least 4 hours on ....aeI<eOO days and n :)lidays to exami.re and treat those persons who in the opinion of the health care professiooal on duty at the jail are in need of a Iitysician's diagmsis an:i
treatIIenL •
(b) Nursing - Nursing coverage by mrses pra it at the jail shall be proITided 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
(c) Emm!ency Training - All rn.u:ses, Iitysician exteIrlers and ?tYsicians shall have current CPR iUXelitation with certification kept on file. As of June 1, 1989, at least tlu:ee con:ectional officers on each shift shall be CPR trained.

11

12/9/88

(3) Sick call - 'lb insure that irmates at. the Essex County Jail receive flLUIpt access to adequate health care professionals as required by paragr~ 1Gb of the CJ and .basic awrqaiate medical care as requiIed by para~ 16c of the CJ, and as required by thiB order, the County shall take all necessary steps iIx:hxtin;J, b.tt not limita:i to, :renovation o:t' facilities, acquisition of eq' iprent, and hiring of ad:Iitional staff, to provide the foll~:
(al Jl£x:ess - Irmate requests f= attention to health care needs shall be collected daily, and irmates shall receive access to ne1ical staff capable of diagrosing and treating their health care cc:uplaints within 24 boors of a request relating to routine = preventive care and llmlediately f= any emaI:geIlCy.
(b) Triage - Any triage of sick call l:E!qIleSts shall be based an a clinical assessment by a train3d health care staff nanber (LPN) that iIx:ludes a brief hist:oJ:y and evaluation of vital signs and physical cordition. A uUlLd of the assessment shall be maintained.
(cl FYI ce<illre8 - All sick call requests shall be placed in the irmate's ne1ica1 folder. If an irmate requests sick call, rut then fails to "ftlE"U', an explanation shall be SCAJght and placed in the folder. A daily sick call list shall be maintained, with a brief notation made of the pIq:OSe and out.c:aIe f= each irmate's visit to the medical cIeparbIent. ( 4) FollCllol-up - A follow up system shall be iIlplenenta:i f= irmates with chronic p:rd:>lems (e.g., hyperteIlSion, diabetes), with
al::lIX>Dral laOOratoJ:y results or with prolc:np:1 acun., problems. An
irmate shall be pennitte:1 to refuse a fol.1ow-q> visit only in the preseme of madical staff in the clinic. 'lha imate shall be required to sign a refusal fClIlll, which shall be placed in his or her medical
folder. If an irmate is unavailable f= the follCllol-up visit, a chart entry shall be made and the awoint:1rent flLUIptly rescheduled.
(5l Specialist, Clinic and Hospital 1+rmint:nents - 'lha cnmty shall make all arrangeuents for tinely and awcqaiate =n.sultatians and refec:als for irmates in need of care by specialists, = at clinics = b:Jspitals.

12

12/9/88

(a) !f19 - A log shall be naintained in the jail ne1ica1
departmant of all specWist, clinic am hospital appointmants
nade far innates. (b) Transport - '!be County defetdaaLs shall take all
necessary steps to insw:e that ~inlIlH II s shall rot be can-
celled due 1:0 the unavailability of either vehicles ar COLLections staff to transp::>rt innates to their appointmants. ~ County defen:lants shall either provide slIfficient vehicles arrl staff to facilitate the transportation of innates to scheduled appointnenLs ar shall =ntract with other ,«",update gove:cmental ar private ageocies to make such~.
(c) Review - ~ county shall request that all consultations retun1 with detailed records of what was acccrtplished. Within 24 00urs, a physician shall ~ the consultation results arrl state on the chart whether the specialist's ar clinic's plan will be follCMed, arrl, if rot, explain why. (6) Infinnary - By Septanber 1, 1989, an infil:mary shall be reestablished far all innates at the jail in need of cxmvalescen::e,
separate managemmt, ar l:e::OVerY. Any infinnary shall have 24 rour
nursing ~, daily bedside visitation by a p:rysician ar physician exterrler arrl an aI:ea to <Xl treatnent arrl evaluatials.
(7) AILS arrl Ch=nic Illnesses - ~ o:.mty shall provide diagnostic, camseling arrl treatnent sru:vices necessary to pr serve the health arrl reduce the suffering of perscns with AILS arrl other serials clu:oni.c illnesses. Medications cleesAi df!Uopdate by a treating physician shall be made available in accardarv::e with rec0gnized clinical ar professional standards.
(8) Confidentiality - '!hare shall be uni.fDIm managment of the treatnent arrl ne1ical :reco:rds of innates with AII6 arrl other illnesses to insure the confidentiality of their tredical status arrl =n:\i.tions;
(9) Racorc!keeping - At intake, a tredical :record far each acini.ttee shall be =eated. 'Ihl.s record shall in::lude: actni ssian history arrl physical examination notes, all laboratory arrl test results, consultations, progz:ess notes, all clinical encounters, a ..arking problem list, all mental health notes, and a clear rotation of

D

u~m

allergies. Each progress rote should be entere::i in a starrlard fcmnat (Le., "SCW'" - subjective and oojective analysis, assessnent and plan). All patient related. materials .(e . g . , ID3ntal health, dental, i"3'iical) shall be kept in one folder so that all practitiorers have axess to the f.in:tings. JoBli cal records shall be stored in manner so that they are rot· accessible to correctional feIBOmel.
(10) JoB:ticatian - M3di.cation shall be distributed only by qualified medical or nursing personnel;
(11) Surgel:y - T:iJIely sw:-gmy for cx:ntitions resulting in current suffering or pain, or serious physical distress or discanfort shall be available to and arranged, upon the reo:iIlleildation of a medical cbctor, for innates wOO are being held at the jail for a pericx1 during which such sw:-gmy routinely cnlid be scheduled and
perfoDIEd uroer ordinary JD?dical practices in the CCIIIllUli.ty.
(a) Standard - Urxler this paragrafil, sw:-gmy shall be provided for serious medical needs, and shall rot be limited. to conditions that are life-threatening or that >iOUld necessarily lead to pemanent disfiguralent or lasting discanfort.
(b) Procedure - ~ procedure for referring irrnates to outside surgery consultations shall rot rely sinply on categorizing the surgery as elective or necessary, and shall rot routinely be denied or delayed i.n:espective of the discanfort to the innate; rather the scheduling of surgical consultations shall take into account the innate's actual physical distress and the prOOable medical ~ of delayed attention to the medical problem, incl :xling continuing pain, suffering, and serious physical discanfort and distress.

h. Mattresses (1) Survey and P2!?1aca!Ellt - 'Ib ccuply with paragraphs 16f and
16k of the CJ, the County defendants by March 15, 1989, and every three DDIlths thereafter, shall COIrluct a survey of all mattresses and mattress covers issued for use by innates. 'DIe survey shall identify the number and lccation of mattresses with covers that are taDl, riHJed, or otheJ:wi.se in poor repair; these mattresses shall be raIDIIed

14

12/9/88

fran use arrl repaired or replaced as BO:Il as practicable, but IX> later than 30 days after the due data of e9Ch quarterly survey.
(2) StaOOard - All mattresses arrl mattIess covers issued for use by imates shall be =nstnx:tad with materials ~ as fire retardant by the Bureau of Fire Safety in the leo' Jersey DeparbIent of carmmity Affairs" arxi shall be in good z:epair sufficient to maintain fire retardazq.
(3) Storage arrl cleaning - Mattresses or IlEttJ::ess covers shall be marked by rrumber, storej in a sanitary manner, sanitiza:i before issue, cleaned on a roo:tine basis arrl maintain3d in a sanitary =n:lition.
(4) By March 15, 1989, arxi every three nr::nths theJ:eafter, the County shall sul:mit a certification of carpl.iim:>e with this paragraph to plaintiffs' counsel, supported by ~ies of the survey, prrclJase onIers, requisitions arrl whatever other docunentati.on may dem:mstrata carpliarr:e .
SI\lCl'ICNS Sanctions with regard to Maxinum Camcity 20. 'lhe County defendants shall have until the dates set forth in para-
graph I of this agreatent to reduce the population of the jail to the interim levels therein specified arxi to reach the ulitmata maxiDun capacity of 594 imlates arxi to otherwise confonn jail bJusing practices to the popilation limits for individual bJusin;! units as established by paragraph 10 of the 1982 CJ. Any failw:e to nee!: tOOse requirelents or thereafter to maintain the jail pop.ilation at 594 or less .imlates, or any failure thereafter to adhere to the lnlsing unit capacity limits, shall result in the foliCMing-:
a. If the population of the jail is nX 594 or less, sarx::tions shall, as previalSly agreed by the County deferrlants in paragraph 3 of the SC02, attach autanatically to any continued n:m~ with the 594 capacity limit;
b. If the imata population at the jail is ix:Jused in violation of the bJusin;! restrictions fixed by paragraph 10 of the 1982 CJ, sarx::tions also shall attach autanatically to any continued OOIl-COIpliarr::e;

15

12/9/88

c. So that any sarction is CCI!IIEI'lSUrate with the extent of any rxmcatplian::e, the sarx::ti.ons authorized by paragraph 3 of the SCD2 for violations of the 594 capacity limit and as autb:lrized by this paragrapt shall be based on a daily anount for each imate =fined in excess of the CNerall 594 capacity am for each imate Irused in excess of the individual
h:Jusing unit limit; d. 'ttle actual daily anvunt to be i"{"'BE"'i as p:lPllation sarx:tions
under this para~ shall be determinad by the Special Masters within ten days of the signing of this agLE~ei1Ent by the parties. 'ttle Master's reo:.merrlation as to san::tions shall be contained in a proposed ad:Errlum to
this Order, which, up:m awroval of the Court, also shall be in::orporated
by :refererx:e in this Order; and, e. As previously agreed in paragrapt 3 of the SCD2, and except as
set forth in paragrapt f bel......, the County defeIXlants waive any right to be heard on whether or not sarctions sOOuld be i"{"'BE"'i; the County deferrlants also agree not to contest the dfPLopdateness of the specific daily sarction anount to be fiJ<ed by the Special Master in subpara~ d above. 'ttle County deferrlants, hooever, reserve the right to be heard before the Master am the Coort prior to the iDp::>sition of any sarctions, pursuant to paragrapt f bel......, on the question of whether sarx:tions sOOuld be i"{"'BE"'i or in mitigation of tie total am:unt to be :reo ""Elided or i"{"'BE"'i as
sarctions. f. Under subparagraph e above, facts pertaining to whether san=tions
sOOuld be inp>sed or in mitigation of the total anount of san=tions shall
be based on the existen:::e of an energency situation caused by a sud::ian, :reasonably unexpected am unfarseeable event, or series of such €"""f!I\ts, as
follCMS: (1) 'ttle type of unexpected or unforseeable events or iocidents
contaIplated as presenting an energency situation by this paragrapt are intetrlad to ioc1ude only Strljen events such as fixes, disasters, or riots, rut shall not ioclude any situation cansed by fluctuations in imate p:lPllatian traditionally, tx:illIonly or seasonally associated with either =iminal justice practices, prosecutorial policies, law
enforce:tEnt activities, changes in the =iminal laws of the State of NeM Jersey, changes in judicial senterx:ing patterns, or a reduction in

16

12/9/88

or the t:ennination of any prOJLdlli operated in the County to provide, or assist in pLOIliding, pre-trial release or n:::n-<:UStodi. cfisFosition alternatives ;
(2) For an energency to constitute the basis for mitigation of san::tions wrler this paragrafil, the Warden shall provide i1lll'¥'rl; ate telepb:me ootice' to plaintiffs' coonsel of the emergency declared. Within 24 b:Jurs thereafter, written notice shall be provided, setting forth the reason for the ~, its expected duration, the total IlllIli:ler of imlates h:Jused at the EX::J, the IlllIli:ler of imlates aQjed by the ~ to the EX::J, the locations in which these imlates have
been housed, and the expected inpact an conditions, services or programs available to other imlates .
(3) For an emergency to constitute the basis for mitigation of sarx:tion wrler this paragraph, within one 10eek of any declared ~, the County also shall present to plaintiffs' counsel and the ~ters solutions for the violations of the orders of the cow:t created by the emergency. Failure to present a solution capable of achieITing substantial carpliance with the 0I:det:s of the cow:t shall bar reliance an the emergency as a basis for mitigation of sarctions.
Sard:ions with regard to Services and P.L9QfatIS 21. '!he County deferrlants shall have until June 1, 1989 , or as othe:.r:wi.se set forth in this Order, to carply with other pro .:ejures, programs or services requiI:ed by this Order or prior consent 0I:det:s. After that date, failure to ca!ply with the pro ceduree, progratIS or services required by this Order or prior CXII"lSel'lt cn:del:F shall result in the fol.l.c:M.ing:
a. San::tions shall attach autanatically to any continued non-ccmpliance; !::ut, the County defendants reserve the right to be heard con:::eming the awropriateness of the specific sarx:tian to be recamellded by the SpeCial ~ for any continued violations of the pr"e l•1T'8S, programs or services :required by this Order or prior consent orders;
b. San::tions also shall be camensw:ate with the extent of any noncarpliance, and, accordingly, shall be neasured to the extent practicable by the numI:er of imates adversely affected an a daily basis by any

17

12/9/88

continued OCIn-<Xllpliance with a pnx:edure, fiLOIJLdill or service J:eqUired by this Order or prior oansent orders.
Use of San=tions
22. one parties agn=e that the Special Masters, or a court.-awointed
IIIJIlitor, may expen:1 arty IlDI'iies paid into O:lurt by deferrlants in whatever manner
IIElY be necessaJ:Y to DDni.tor or to achieve cx:upliance with the provisions of the consent orders in this matter or to CXil(kllSate or benefit pla.intiffs, i:ocluding, bat not l.imited to,
a. hav:in:J a Special Master or DDni.tor requll:e the CDmty to anange for the actual fiLOITision of programs or services or of construction necessary to achieve cx:upliance, or
b. authoriz:in:J a Special Master or DDni.tor, upon approval of the O:lurt, to use arty nonies collected to establish a bail fund for innates confined at the EX:J, with an order of priority to be detennined for eligibility to ~ly to the fund to secure their release on bail, or
c. authoriz:in:J the Special Master or nonitor to D¥'> I[I[Pld to the O:lurt that sanctions assessed be used to pay plaintiffs' counsel's costs for the hlr:in:J by plaintiffs' counsel. of experts as may be necessary to cbcutIent the status of ccnpliance by defendants.

23. 'l1"e Order entel:ed on the d:Jcket of the O:lurt en SeptaIDer 19, 1988, diIectinq the County Executive, the Public Safety Director, ard the warden, to
Sb:lw' Cause ..my an Order stolid rot be entered finciin;J the ec.mty defendants in
cx:ct:aIpt aId inIx>s:in:J sanctions, <>'3 specified in the Report of the Special Master data:i July 26, 1988, shall be continued as an open matter.
24. Any further pD ceedings to obtain cx:upliance by the ec.mty defendants with orders of the O:lurt shall be COIducted as follows:
a. A sarx:tion prcceeding UJder this Order may be initiated eithar sua sp;mte by the Special Masters or upon ~licatian of plaintiffs' counsel. to the Special Masters. 'l1"e Special Masters may raxmlend, or a party by telepffine call or letter may ~ly for a hear:in:J before the Masters for, firrlings of n:m-<Xllpliance with the O:lurt's orders aId for

18

12/9/88

entry of an order calculating, assessing an:! :in'{osing tie sarrtions authorized by this Order.
b . 'nle County agrees that pt' ceedings an any awlication by plaintiffs shall J:e scheduled an:! c:orrlucted expedit.iaJsly, and rray proceed in tie fonn of a S1.IIlIlIalY action on a return date to J:e fUed by tie Masters.
'nle return date of ariy awlication for sarx::t.i.cns shall J:e 7 days, or as
soan thereafter as tie Masters' schedule penni.ts, fI:an tie date of tie awlication's service on tie County deferrlants and filing by or with tie Masters.
c. Q1 tie retw:n date of an application for sarrtions, if affidavits or c:bcuaents CICCCIIpaIlying plaintiffs' application or sul:mitted in response theI:eto shc:>w that there is 00 genuine issue of material fact, tie Masters may base tieir rax:uuendation to tie Court on tie pleadings, ~ cbcunents, affidavits or an inspection of tie jail. If there may J:e a genuine issue as to a material fact, an tie return date tie Masters shall hear tie ~ as to tlx>se uatters \ihi.ch may J:e genuinely in issue and render tleir :ce:x:&LiLeJrlation.
d. Within 14 calendar days fran tie date that an awlication seeking sarx:tians urrler this paragraph is filed with the Masters, tie County agrees that the Masters may file tleir reo IIOIeo:lations with the Calrt.
'l!Je wrlarsigred hereby =nsent to the fonn an:! entry of the within Order.
IBte: 1> n < /'1.., ) 9<Y-r i
By:

H. CURTIS MEAlOl. ACl'Im CXXJNl'Y a:xJNSE:L Attorney for County Deferrlants
By:( :~~erp<~ /
19

U/9/BB

w. CARY Em1IROO

NEW JERSEY ATIORNE:Y GENERAL

At

for Defendant Fauver

By:
T. orey ~,tty Attorney General

.

;vt fH u~

J..- 7 IT IS rn "IHIS

Dl\Y, OF 19 ~ ~, SO C!IDERE:D:

~-~~\ O<~9-eJ:~_ Q~L

HAJ1O[D A. ACKERMAN, U.S.D.J.

20

12/9/88

 
 m THE UNITED STATES DIS'mICT <XllRl' FOR 'IHE DISTRIcr OF NE.W JERSEY

ESSEX a:xlNI'Y .JAIL ANNEX INMATES, et als., : :
Plaintiffs, :
v.

NIClUAS
als.,

AMAro,

County Executive,

et :
· :

:

WILLIAM H. FAINER, Ccmni.ssioner, N.J. :

Departnent of Corrections,

:

:

Defendants •

· :

CIVIL NO. 87-871
H::ln. Harold A. Ackennan
u.s .. D.J.
Hobert DelTUfo, Special Master Bennet Zurofsky, Special Master

ESSEX a:xlNI'Y JAIL INMM.'ES, et als.,

·

:

Plaintiffs,

:

v.

· :

:

NIClUAS AMAro, County ExEcutive, et

also ,

:

· :
:

WILLIAM H. FAINER, Cmmissioner, N.J. :

Departnent of CoD:ections,

:

:

Defendants •

:

:

CIVIL NO. 82-1945
H::ln. Harold A. Ackennan U.S ••D.J.
Hobert DelTUfo, Special Master Bennet Zurofsky, Special Master

'lEIS MATlER BEIm OPENED to the Court in conjunction with the Onler entered

in Civil N:>. 82-1945 on NovBibu 27, 1989, finding the County defendants in
contaIpt am iIIp:lsing san=tions in the aaount of $1,905,300 for pclI:W.ation violations am $1,521,300 for recreation violations, am in conjurction with

plaintiffs' application of NovBibu 22, 1989, for paynent of the san::tions

irrposed in Civil N:>. 87-871 under the Court's Onler Finding County Defendants in
ContaIpt am Inp:lsing Sarctions for Violation of Fire Safety Re:{uil:arents, filed July 28, 1989 am entered on the docket on August 3, 1989, am

"

WHEREAS, t.'le parties' have agreed as herein set forth to :resolve the issues underlying the Order of Novanber 27, 1989 in Civil lb. 82-1945, and underlying plaintiffs ' application for sanctions under the Court's Order of July 28, 1989 in Civil lb. 87-871, and
WHEREAS, the County recognizes that its facilities for innate housing and services =ntirrue to be insufficient to meet the teDns of the pI:eVious =nsent orders in these cases; and
WHEREAS, the County's Jail Initiative prcyLClIU has not succeeded in reducing
the number of innates =mined at the Essex County Jail to 594 or less; and
WHEREAS , the County has deteDnined that there is no viable alteJ::native to the installation of the fire safety inprovaIents required by the pI:eVious orders in Civil lb. 87-871; and
WHEREAS, this Order shall =ntirrue to require ccnpliance with the maximlm capacity of 594 innates established for the Essex County Jail by the Court's prior orders, and
WHEREAS, this Order shall contiIrue to require ccnpliance with the J:eqUirenents of prior orders for providing. services and pLOgLans to FJC and EClA inmates, and,
WHEREAS, the following pz:ovi.sions shall be bin:iing upon the parties and
shall be enfo=eable as an order of the Court, subject to the awzoval of the
Court; and
WHEREAS, in Civil lb. 82-1945 the Q::taber 18, 1982 Consent J\Jd!:JIent [CJ],
the Feb. 4, 1985 SuwlE!lEIltal Consent Order !ot:xlifying and Arrendinq Consent Judgnent of October 14, 1982 [SOJ1] , the April 22, 1987 SuwlE!lEIltal Consent Order !ot:xlifying and Arrendinq Consent Judgrent of October 14, 1982 [SOJ2], and the 'lhll:d SuwlE!lEIltal Consent Order filed Dec . 27, 1988 [SOJ3], and in Civil

2

1/2/90

)

\

H:l. 87-871 the November 23, 1987 Consent Order [CO], the April 17, 1989 Secorrl Consent Order [CO2], the July 6, 1989 Schedule of Sanctions [SS], and the July 26, 1989 Order Finding the County Daferrlmts in Contempt and Imposing Sanctions, shall ranain in full force and effect, except as herein m::xlifie::l.;
IT IS 'IEEREFORE AGREED, as follONS:
GENERAL PKNISI(H; J\R) WJI'l::TIVES
1. In onler to pennit the County deferrlmts to inplanent neasures as described J:elCM which the County J:elieves will pnwide the means to achieve an expeditious and permanent n:rluction of the County Jail population to 594 inmates, the expedite::l. installation of fb:e safety :inpI;ovenents at the Jail and AIw:x, the carplete and permanent closing of the New Wing of the Jail AIw:x as ~ by the CO2, the inplanentation of ~ rec:reation prugLdiiS at the Jail and Armex, and which should assist the County in achieving substantial catpliance with other pnwisions of the prior Orders of the Court, counsel for the plaintiff class agrees, for a period CUli[et~ing on January 1, 1990 and erxting on Decellber 31, 1990,
a. to defer prosecution of an awlication on behalf of plaintiffs to require pay!lE!Ilt of the san=ti.ons inp?Se::l. by the Court's Order of H:lveIltler 20, 1989 (ente:red on the docket on N:>Yattler 27, 1989); and,
b. to defer further awlicatians to have the County deferrlmts bald in cantatpt and to have aQiitional san=ti.ons iIrposed in Civil H:l. 82-1945 for violation of the p:lpJlation and rec:reation pnwisions of the Court's prior orders and in Civil H:l. 87-871 for violation of the fire safety
requiranents of the Court's prior aroers.

3

1/2/90

\

2. Within the pericx:i refex:enced aI::ove, 11oi;ever, plaintiffs' counsel shall be pennitted to resune prosecution of any contaIpt awlication in the manner
pIOVicled by the son and the ())2, and to seek san=tions as previously awarded or

as may be . warranted by violations of the Court's 0I:ders, ircluding rut n::>t

limited to those authorized by this Order,
a. if any of the teDnS or dates of the FU=hase and construction

schedule set forth in this Order are n::>t net by the County defendants, or,

b. i f the total jail population by April 1, 1990, is n::>t reduced to

or thereafter exceeds 594 :inmates, or

c. if the County fails to abide by the teDnS of this 0I:der or fails in

a tinely marmer to illplarent and maintain the p:cogx:ams required by this

Order.

3. '!be County defendants recognize that a failure to neet the tinetables

for illplementation of the pLOgLams requiIed by this Order or for a reduction of

the jail p::>pUlation as set forth in this Order will :result in p:carpt p:c' ceed;ngs

to illpose and catpel paynent of san=tions for contilruing n::>n-ccupliance with

this Order and other consent orders, and, therefore, the County defendants are

on n::>tice that other alteI:natives to the County's initiatives should be avail-

I able

to

serve

as

a

contingency plan to

deal with either

a

sb:lrtfall

in the

objectives of the p:cogx:ams or other unforesaen or unanticipated circumstanc:es.

4. In light of the delays in obtaining relief for plaintiffs and the

continued oven:J:OWdi.ng at the jail, the County agrees that the interests of

justice and extant corrlitions at the County's jail warrant ad:titional efforts,

as heJ:eafter shall be described, to catply with the requirements for pIOViding

services and pLOgLams to plaintiffs, as well as to clarify the minimJm require-

4

1/2/90

nent.s f= services am PLO'p:ams to be net by the County in maintaining the
safety, health, and security of inmates at the jail.
--
POl'lILATICH aN.lHL INITIATIVES Trailers 5. 'nle County agrees to p1rChase trailers f= taIp:>rary inmate rousing
sufficient to provide tanp::>rary rousing for 192 inmates (with 16 trailers to be used for rousing) during installation of fire safety .iJrprovanents in the East
Wing, West Wing, am W:::IIen's ati.1dinq at the Jail Annex, to accullloc:late the
pennanent :relocation of all inmates fi:an the New Wing oonnit=ies at the Jail
Annex to peDIlit closing of the New Wing, am to peDIlit the :replacement of the
existing trailer units at the Annex with JIO:re secure facilities. 6. Schedule - 'nle County defendants agree to follOW' an expedite:! sched-
ule to construct facilities in which to locate 192 inmates, including, if am
when necessary to neet the schedule herein set forth, the declaration of an em=rget¥:y by the County ExEcutive, as follows:
a . Within 10 days fi:an the date of the signinq of this agzoeatellt by the parties, the County defendants agree to hire an engineering consultant
am all other necessary p:rofessionals to prepare a site plan within 21 days
f= taJp:lral:y trailer facilities providing 192 bedspaces~ b. Within 30 days fi:an the date of the signinq of this agreatellt by
the parties, the County defendants agree to let a contract to lease, lease-
= p1rChase, p1rChase the trailers ~
c. Within 90 days fl:cm the date of the signinq of this agzoee:lellt by the parties, the County defendants agree to catplete construct.ion of the trailer facilities and to have the units :ready f= occupancy.

5

1/2/90

7. Description - ~ trailer units acquiIed by tie County shall llE!et
state requirements for inmate oc:cupan::y, in:luding rut nx limited to tie pxovision of s~, bathrocm facilities, dayrocms, eating aJ:eaS, and recreation areas, sufficient for tie 192 occupants that tie facilities are planned to hold.
a. Annex Maximmt C;m,:,city - With regard to any rew housing units that llE!et tie above teI:ms, tie County or tie plaintiffs nay apply to tie Court to adjust tie Jail Annex's maxim.mt capacity up.wu:d by tie rrumber of beds which the trailer units provide or downwaI:d by tie rrumber of beds allocated by prior consent orders to housing units which are to be closed or are otherwise unused.
9. Disrosition of Sanctions - Carpletion of tie I'W9Ldlu for trailers as specified above shall :result, up::m awlication of a party to tie Special Masters
and upon aw=val of tie Court, in tie dismissal of tie $1,905,300 in sanctions
.imposed by tie Court for pDIUlation violations. If tie County fails to prcx::eed with or timely canplete tie pz:ogLam for trailers as specified above, tien the County agrees that plaintiffs nay seek an order requiring tie County iImediately to deposit $1,905,300 in an interest bearing account to be established and administered by tie Special ¥.asters and any additional sanctions tie Court nay imp:>se for violation of this Ol::der.
P:re-trial 911 pi vis:ion and Services PrugfiD 10. ~ County agrees to provide fIm:iing over a 30 nonth period cuarplI::ing July 1, 1990, for a jail pDIUlation managemant I'W9Ldlu that provides pre-trial supeu::vision and services [PSS]. The PSS programs shall be operated as a nonprofit bail Ixmd agerq by tie Vera Institnte of Justice [hereafter Vera] to ace III.. date a minimmt of 60 persons, as deteDnined by tie Vera pz:ogLam, wh::>

6

1/2/90

ot:harwise ...ould remain detained at the Essex County Jail or Essex County Jail Annex pending trial.
11. The PSS program shall operate in general confoD!laflCe with the program described in the "Preliminal:y Report on the Establishllent of the Nassau Bail
Bond Agercy," which is attached to, am by referem::e made a part of, this Order. In addition to the surveillarce supervision am service referral aspects of the
PSS program described in the Nassau County pt:Oject, the program to be furx:Ied by the County also shall p:covide dll:ect outpatient drug treat:llent services th=ugh a relapse ~tion program to be operated by Vera staff.
12 . '!be PSS program shall be operated by the Vera Institute of Justice, tm:ler a contract developed in =nsultation with ~iate COWlty a<inini.stra-
tion officials. ~ County agrees to review am execute the contract within 10 days of its receipt fran Vera. In the event that the County am Vera are unable
to agz:ee upon any teDn of the contract, the County agrees that plaintiffs may
apply to the Special Masters to resolve the clisj;ute or disagreement am the
County agrees to be tx::Juro by the contract teIms as deteDnined by the Special
Masters.
13. Costs for a program to ao= 1I!Ii date 60 detainees to be l:lorrl3d, super-
vised, am served by the Vera program shall be in acconIance with an Estimated
Budget Schedule, at an estimated per capita cost of $50 per day, with a budget as follows:
a. Planning. Developnant am Initial Start-up Phase - 'l11is phase shall cOllle,ce on or about July 1, 1990 am continue to Dec . 31, 1990.
l"unds required for this phase shall be $260,000. 'l11is phase shall include
screening of the detainee popliation, locating am securing office space am housing, hiring =re staff, am beginning the borxlinq out of detainees .

7

1/2/90

b. Irx::rarental Develoorent am Full 9!:erations - This phase shall
ccmrence on or about January 1, 1991 and continue to December 31, 1991. Funds required for this phase shall be $780,000. This phase shall proceed
with the mOOing out of detainees to reach am maintain the target of 60
persons in the PSS program. c. Anrrualized Costs - This phase shall CUlllence on or about JaJlIldl:Y
1, 1992 am continue to December 31, 1992. Funds required for this phase
shall be $1,500,000. 'Ihls phase shall maintain full operation of the pLt"'YLdm for one year for a target pc:>J;Ulation of 60 persons in the PSS pz:ogz:d1u. 14. The County agz:ees to pz:ovide fuIXting for the PSS pz:ogz:d1U at the levels set forth in the Estimated Budget Schedule above. 15 • The County agz:ees within 30 days of the signing of this agLeeuellt by the parties that it will present Vez:a with a letter of agz:E!E!lent to pay Vez:a for the Planning, Developtent and Initial Start-Up Phase of the program within 10
days of z:eceipt of an executed contLac:t am invoice fLan Vez:a specifying
services to be perfoDlE!d. 16. Adlitional fuIXting for the PSS pLCXJLdlU shall be provided by the County
in advance of each phase of the pLCXJLdIU as may be required by the Vez:a Institute. Required fuIXting dates shall be as deteLmined by the County ad-
ministration officials, plaintiffs' counsel am Vez:a LepL sentatives. In the
event of disagLE!E!lent and upon awllcation by a party, the Special Masters shall detenuine the fuIXting dates. In deteLmining required fuIXting dates, the Special Masters shall consult with the Vez:a Institute, County officials, and plaintiffs' counsel. The County agz:ees to be l:x:lurrl by the fuIXting dates to be deteLmined by the Special Masters.

8

1/2/90

17. By the required funding dates, fuIXis sufficient to operate the program in accordance with the above estimated budget schedule shall be paid to the Vera Institute by the County to be expended in a=rdan:e with and for the ~ set forth in the Budget Schedule established in this Order.
18. If sufficient fuIXis to operate the p1:Ogrdlll are not tinely paid by the County, then the County agrees that plaintiffs nay seek an order requiring the County inna:li.ately to deposit the full dIIOUIlt of all remaining fuIXis due and to ccne due in the futuJ:e under the Estimated Budget Schedule above into an interest bearing account to be established and administered by the Special Masters and any additional san:::ti.ons the Court nay :inq;x:>se for violation of this Order.

Custoiial Drug and Alcohol Tre:dbieirL P.WgLiD 19. The County agrees to provide fun:linq f= a custodial drug and alcohol t:J:eatJrent p1:Ogrdlll to dCCulnodate a mi.nim..Im of 50 persons who oth=J:wise \<o1OUld :r:anain detained at the Essex County Jail or the Essex County Jail Anrex pending trial. '1hi..s program shall cumence imrEdiately and shall be in full operation by Ma=h 1, 1990. The County shall enter into all contracts necesscu:y to effecutate such a p!:OCJLdlU. 20. By Feb. 1, 1990, the County shall attaIpt to identify 50 innates cur-
= rently i..ncaI:cerated in the Jail Jail Anrex who are actually able to be trans-
ferred to such a program.

Bail PxpgLau. 21. The County agrees to continue to provide funding, on an as needed
basis, for the O'lel:t:l:cw:ii B:ti.l Fund established and operated under the Court's
Order of July 28, 1989 (entered on the do:::ket on August 3, 1989) in Civil 1'«:>.

9

1/2/90

82-1945, sufficient to restore the Fund's account to a ceiling of $150,000.00 (one hurrlred and fifty thousand dollars) whenever the Fund' s account reaches a floor of $75,000.00 (seventy-five thousand dollars).
22. The County shall provide the required Funds within 48 00urs of a request (excluding Saturdays, SuOOays arrl holidays), which may be made by telephone call fran the Fund Administrator. NJti.ce of any request for funds .also shall be carmuni.cated by written NJti.ce to the County Counsel, the Special \ Masters, plaintiffs' counsel, arrl the Court.
23 . The Bail Fund othel:wise shall continue to operate urx:Ier teJ:ms of the Court's orders in Civil No . 82-1945 .

FIRE SAFETY IHl'l'IATIVES
24. Snoke alanns - Within 30 days of the date of this agLealellt between the parties, the County shall take whatever steps necessary to insure that all snoke alanns required urx:Ier previous orders in Civil No. 87-871 arrl Civil No. 82-1945 shall be installed, repaired arrl maintained in ~ order. By Feb. 15, 1990, the County shall sulmit a report frcm the state Bureau of Fire Safety or its designated fire safety official iIdicating the extent of ccupliance and any non-c:axpliance, if any, relating to the installation, location, = operation of SlIDke a1anns.
25. Fire Suw;Lession Systan and Secord Exits - The County shall take whatever steps necessary, :including rut not limited to, letting a contract to insure intallation arrl construction no later than August 1, 1990 of an autanatic fire suppression systan arrl second exits f= the Jail and Annex Wildings as required to ccuply with the mini.mJm stamards established by pri= =ders in Civil No. 87-871 arrl Civil No. 82-1945.

10

1/2/90

\

)

26. Reoorting - '!be County shall sul:mit a :rep:lrt to plaintiffs' coonsel
and the Special Masters by Feb. 1, 1990, and ..eekly thereafter, which report shall in::lude a const=tion schedule, copies of contracts or reports, and other matters that set forth the ongoing status of the fire safety projects required
by this Order, the CO in Civil lb. 87-871 and the san in Civil lb. 82-1945.
27. Sanctions - If the County fails to file a timely report with the Special Masters, or if any report filed with the Special Masters srows that ptognlss or contractual teDns axe not sufficient to carplete installation and construction of the fire safety improvarents by the dates required by this Order, then plaintiffs may apply f= an ol:der seeking inp:lsitions of san::tions as due under the Court's Order of July 28, 1989, in Civil lb. 87-871, with any sanctions inp:>sed to be expended by plaintiffs' counsel to carplete the fire safety impl:ovem:mts by the dates, or as close to such dates as is physically possible, as axe set forth in this Order.
mmIlC INITIATIVES 28. 'nle closing date for the New Wing at the Jail Annex shall be extended
£rem January 1, 1990 to August 1, 1990, at lNb.ich time it shall be pennanentiy closed and the musing of innates in that I:uilclinq shall forever cease. 'nle New Wing closing date may be extended by the Court on application of the County defendants upon a showing that the closing date cannot be net. because of ci.rcunstan::es beyorxi the =trol of the County defendants, excluding .in::reases
in the jail pcpllation.

11

1/2/90

EXElCISE 1\R) RIO<EATICIi INl'l'IATlVES 29. Schedule - By Feb. 1, 1990, the County shall sul::rnit to plaintiffs'
counsel and the Special Masters a proposed gym schedule that will fulfill its obligations under prior orders to provide each inmate at the Jail and the Jail Annex with access to a gymnasium area outside their housing units and da:yrocms for a mininum of one hour each day. A sufficient I'II.lIIIber of hourly gym periods shall be scheduled to i.nsUI:e that all inmates receive a neaningful OH?Ortuntity
to use a gymnasium area for a full hour on a daily basis. 30. SuiX>lE!lel1ta1 Eguigrent - Access to the SUWlE!lel1ta1 exe=ise equip-
nent on housing unit floors as required by prior orders in Civil No. 82- 1945 shall continue to be available during :regular dayrocm periods for SUWlE!lel1ta1 :recreation, but in IP case shall use of the SUWlE!lel1ta1 equiprent constitute a substitute for daily access to a gyninasium area.
31. IrrplE!lel1tation of Schedule - The County shall take all steps necess.ny to iIIplemmt the required schedule so that inmates at the Jail and the Annex shall receive the required daily hour-long OH?Ortunity for exe=ise by Feb. 15, 1990 and contirnJcusly thel:eafter. '1base steps shall include, but IPt be limited to, pb,ysical =nst:ruction of facilities, acquisition of equiplent, and hiring of ad:iitional staff, as follows:
a . Prow;am Director - By March 1, 1990, the County shall have as
full-time staff two persons to sez:ve as Director of Irmate Recreation
Pn;gLaas, :respectively, at the Jail and at the Jail Annex. Each Dixector shall be responsible for the design, iIIplE!lel1tation and maintainance of the recreation schedule and :recreation equiprent, respectively, at the Jail and at the Jail Annex. Each Director of Irmate Recreation Pl::ogI:ams shall have C2fPLopLiate training in pb,ysical education equal either to a =llege clegLee

12

1/2/90

in physical education or equivalent year-for-year experience in a recognized area of physical education instruction or management.
b. Staffing - By M3.rch 1, 1990, the County shall hire or reassign sufficient staff necessary to insw:e that inmates <lIe transported to the gymnasium and recreation areas of the Jail and the Jail Annex in ac:cOI:dance with the schedule required by this Order. Staff assigned to insw:e ccmplia:rx::e with the recreation requiranents of this Qrder shall report to the respective Directors of Inmate Recreation l'n:qLails at the Jail and Jail
Annex. Gym periods shall n:n: be ca=elled due to the unavailability of
staff, except for a doc:urrented emergency of which plaintiffs' counsel and the Special Masters <lIe J'X)tified. 'rtIe County shall suJ:mit a report to plaintiffs' counsel and the Special Masters by M3.rch 1, 1990, and IlOIlthly thereafter, which report shall include a report and daily statistics on the
inmate recreation flL09LdllS, including, but n:n: limited to, an inventory of
equiptent in each recreation area, a listing of any broken equipcent or repairs made, and and the rnnnber and percent of innates fran each housing unit atten:ting each scheduled recreation period.
c. Elevator - By October 1, 1990, the County shall construct a thiJ:d elevator for the Jail in order to facilitate the transportation of innates to recreation areas. 'rtIe County shall suJ:mit a report to plaintiffs' counsel and the Special Masters by Feb. I, 1990, and 'Ngekly thereafter, which report shall include a construction schedule, copies of contracts or reports, and other matters that set forth the ongoing status of the project. 32. Sanctions - If the County fails to caIplete the recreation requirenents specifie:i in this Qrder, including, but J'X)t limited to, the hiring of

13

1/2/90

staff = the tiJIely filing of reports with the Special Masters, = if any Xep:::u:t filed with the Special Masters shows that progress or contractual teDns are rvt sufficient to carplete the xequirerrents of this O!:der by the dates set forth in this O!:der, then the County agrees that plaintiffs may, upon application to the Court, seek collection of the sanctions for recxeation violations imposed by the Court's O!:der of N:w. 27, 1989 in Civil It:l. 82-1945, with any :funis paid by the County to be deposited into an inteLest bearing account designated by the
Special Masters to be expended by plaintiffs' counsel upon aw=val of the
Special Masters to carplete the re::reation hiring am inpLovatents by the dates, or as close to such dates as is physically possili1e, as are set forth in this O!:der.
PlDject CoaI:dinat.ial 33. By Feb. 1, 1990, the County Executive agrees to designate or hire a
Project Manager whose sole respollsiliility shall be to coordinate am to track all INOrk necessaxy f= the tiJIely CCIIpletion of the projects specified in this O!:der. '!be PLoject Manager, also, shall prepare all xeports on the various projects specified in this O!:der am shall LaXllueu:l any steps necessaxy to insure that these projects are CCIIp1eted in a tiJIely nanner. '!be PLoject Manager shall have the anth:lrity to coordinate the INOrk of all = t y deparI::IIents involved in and necessaxy to the timely carpletion of these projects am shall xeport directly to the County Executive.

14

1/2/90

)

'nle urrleraigrai hel:eby consent to the fOIlll and ent:l:y of the within Order.

ALFRED A. su:x:uM

NE.W JERSEY PUBLIC ADVCCATE/JlEEENDER

Attorney. for Plaintiffs

L By:

~t1/ .

H. CURl'IS MEl\NJR

1\CTIKi 0JUN1'Y axJNSEL

Atto

for Coun Defendants

By:

JCSEPH BRENNAN DEP!Jl'Y FREEIIXDER a:xJNSEL A: rrey for County Freeholder Defendants
By:

Date:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

PmER PERRElTI NE.W JERSEY ATl{HIEY GENERAL Attorney f= Defendant Fauver

By:
Catherine Brown, Esq. Deplty Attorney General

~7tr»\Yr1~:ll t IT IS CN 'IHIS

ORDERED:

.-:::;=~- \\g~.~:u.f{,.~J...___

15

1/2/90

 
 NTHONY P. SCIARRILLO

CTING COUNTY COUNSEL all of Records, Room 443

Aii; - '.,:,- (J

ewark, N.J. 07102 (201) 621-5011
ttorney for Defendants

AT g,3Q

M

WILUAM T. WALSH CLERK

ssex Count Executive and Adm"in·is.t£a-t i ve_·..Df £.i.e i a1s

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SSEX COUNTY JAIL INMATES, tal.,

CIVIL NO. 82-1945

Plaintiffs,

111

ICHOLAS P~V~TO, Essex County

xecutive, et al.,

:

nd

ILLIAM H. FAUVER, ommissioner, New Jersey epartment of Corrections,

·Defendants.

nd

. SSEX COUNTY JAIL ANNEX INMATES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
ICHOLAS AMATO, Essex County xecutive,et al., nd

CIVIL NO. 87-871
CONSOLIDATED CONSENT ORDER MODIFYING BAIL FUND ORDER OF . JULY 28, 1989 AND .CONSOLIDATED CONSENT ORDER ENTERED JANUARY 5, 1990. PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV . P. 7(b), 60(b) AND 65.1

ILLIAM H. FAUVER, ommissioner, New Jersey epartment of Corrections,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER being opened to the Court by Anthony P. ciarrillo, Essex County Counsel (By: Harry J. Del Plato, ssistant County Counsel), attorney for Defendants Essex County

Executive and Administrative Officials, and Joseph Brennan, Chief Deputy Counsel, attorney for Defendants Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders, seeking an Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b), &O(b) and 65.1, modifying the July 28, 1989 Order Establishing Overcrowding Bail Fund and paragraph 21 of the Consolidated Consent Order of January 5, 1990, by permitting use by the County of a voucher system in lieu of cash to post bails; and the Special Masters' Report on the County Defendant's Motion for Implementation of a Voucher System to Fund the Bail Programs and Recommendations to the Court ("Masters' Report and Recommendations") having been issued on July 13, 1990, which Report and Recommendations approves, in part, and disapproves, in part, the relief sought by the County officials; and T.Gary Mitchell, Deputy Public Defender, attorney for Plaintiffs having Consented to the entry of this Order; and no objections to the Masters Report and Recommendations having been filed by any party hereto; and for good cause shown; the Bail Fund Order of July 28, 1989 and the Consolidated Consent Order entered January 5, 1990 are modified and amended as follows:
1. The Essex County defendants may, consistent with the Masters' Report and Recommendations, prospectively substitute County of Essex vouchers, backed by the general revenues of the County of Essex, for the Bail Fund Administrator's checks deposited with the Essex County Clerk for those inmates who are bailed in lieu of cash bail deposits, including cash bails

currently upaid, except for the_ $18.00 per person Essex County Clerk's cash fee for each bail posted.
2. The Essex County defendants may, upon the execution of
/
this Order , withdraw all monies on deposit with the Essex County Clerk deposited since July 13, 1990, representing cash bails posted by the Bail Fund Administrator, which bails have not been revoked nor cases adjudicated, and shall substitute County of Essex vouchers for all such monies withdrawn; funds so withdrawn are to be paid over by the Essex County defendants to the Bail Fund ~ministrator to replenish the Bail Fund up to the $250,000.00 level.
3 . The Essex County defendants may, consistent with the Masters' Report and Recommendations, apply in the future to the Court for a release of those funds deposited prior to July 13, 1990, representing cash bails posted by the Bail Fund Administrator, which bails have not been revoked nor cases adjudicated, for a specific purpose directly related to compliance with the Court's Orders.
4. The Essex County defendants shall, consistent with the Masters' Report and Recommendations, maintain the Administrator's Fund with a $250,000 ceiling and a floor of $175,000 . When the balance in the Fund falls below $175,000 the County shall replenish the Fund to the $250,000 level within (7) days after receipt of a written request for funds from the Bail Fund Administrator.
5. To the extent monies are available in the Bail Fund, the Bail Fund Administrator shall continue to pay all administrative fees and expenses of the Bail Fund, including the $18 per person

)

Essex County Clerk's fee for each bail posted. 6. Except as otherwise provided herein, all other pr~cedures
or the Bail Fund as set forth in this Court's Bail Fund Order of
/
uly 28, 1989 and Consolidated Consent Order entered January S, 990 and as implemented shall remain in effect.

~\ 0~ IT IS ON THIS

DAY OF

1990, SO ORDERED :

~~a·

 
 , .

• FILED

"
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICATlB: FOR THE~ISTRICT OF .NEW JER

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL ANNEX

:

INMATES, et als.,

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

NICHOLAS AMATO, County

:

Executive, et als.,

:

and

:

WILLIAM H. FAUVER, Commis-

sioner, New Jersey Depart- :

ment of corrections,

:

Defendants.

:

:

CIVIL NO. 87-871
Han. Harold A. Ackerman U.S.D.J.
Robert DelTufo, Special Master Bennet D. Zurofsky, Special Master
SCHEDULE OF SANCTIONS ' FOR
NONCOMPLIANCE UNDER PARAGRAPH
11c OF Tn :SECOND CONSENT ORDER
./

WHEREAS the parties in this matter have agreed in paragraph

,

11c

of the .

Second

Consent

Order

that

the

Spec, ial

Masters

shall

recommend a schedule of sanctions for noncompliance with the

requirements for certifications, programs, services and

procedures spec~fied in the Second Consent Order, and

WHEREAS all parties have been provided an opportunity to

present a proposed schedu~e of sanctions under paragraph llc of

the Second Consent Order, and for good cause 'shown,

'~DAY IT IS ON THIS

OF

, 1989, ORDERED;

1. Pursuant to paragr

f the Second Consent Order

in this matter, the amount to be imposed as sanctions for non-

J
compliance with the requirements for certifications, and programs, services and procedures speciried in the Second consent order, shall be determined in accordance with the following schedule listing sanctions for each requirement.
2. The schedule in this order shall constitute the basis on which the Masters ; may recommend impositibn of sanctions under paragraph ,II of the Second Consent Order.
3 . In accordance with paragraph llc of, the Second Consent
Order, the schedule herein set forth shall be incorporated by
reference in the second Consent Order.
-2-

SCHEOULE OF SANCT:IONS FOR NONCQMPLunCE
WITH REQUJ:REMENTS FOR CERT:IFICAT:IONS, PROGRAMS, SERVICES AND PROCEDURES UNDER PARAGRAPH lio OF THE SECOND CONSENT ORDER

SCO

Due

Para . [11 Date

Requirement

sanction Formula Amount Per 12l

Construction of Modular unit

2a

S/'/S§

H~re engineerinq and other

consultants

2b

"6 / 6 / 8 9

Let contract for purchase of

100 cells

2C

7/6/89

submit site plan

2d

8/51.89

Complete design & building

plan, modify site plan

10/4/89 Let contraot for building

purchase & oonstruction

2f

3/23/90 Occupanoy of replacement

modular facility

Women ' s Building

7c(1)

:Immed. [3]

7c (2) (a) Im:med. 7c (2) (b) :Immed.

Transfer of female state sentenced inmates to ECJ Renovate female cellblock
RenOvate base,ment units

Intake & Reception Processing

8

5/22/89

Plan for establishment of

intake units

$1000 Day $1000 Day $1000 Day $2500 Day $2500 Day $5000 Day
$100 Inmate/ Day $500 Day $500 Day
$1000 Day

1. SCO refers to the Second consent Order. SA refers to the November 1987 Settlement Agreement.
2. Per "inmate" shall be used to mean per individUal inmate deprived of an intended benefit, prooedure, service, program, etc. Per "all" lneans
the sanction amount is to be multiplied by the total number of all
inmates at the ECJA or held in an affeoted ho~sin9 unit on date of depriviation. Per "day" means each day that a requirement is violated or otherwise not met.
3. "Im:med." is used to mean that requirement was to take effect i=ediately.

-3-

Health Care Services

9a (1) 9a(1) 9a(1) 9a(2)

6/1/89 6/1/89 6/1/89 6/1/89

9a(3) (a) 6/1/89

9a(3) (b) 6/1/89

9a(3) (b) 6/1/89 9a(3) (C) 6/1/89

9a (4) (a) 5/1/89 9a(4) (a) 7/1/89

9a (4) ( a) 7/1/89

9a(4) (a) 7/1/89

9a(4) (a) 7/1/89

9a (4) (a) 7/1/89

9a (4) (b) 7/1/89

9a (4) (c) 6/1/89

9a( 4) (c) 6/1/89

9a(5) (a) 6/1/89

9a(5) (al 6/1/89

9a(5) (a) 6/1/89

9aCS) (a) 6/1/89

9a(S) (b) 6/1/.89

9a(5) (b) 6/1/89

9a (5) (c) 6/1/89

9a(6)

6/1/89

Appoint medical director

$1000 Day

Appoint medieal administrator $1000 Day

Appoint mental health director $1000 Day

Approval of clinic facilities $1000 Day

,. Equipment

Initial medical screening

$100 I 1ll!Iatel Da y

upon admission

Physical exam within 72 hours $100 Inmate / Da y

of admission

Diagnostic tests on admission $500 Imnate/ Test

Housing classification after $100 Inmate/ Day

exam

Proposal for physician coverage None

Four medical doctors,

$5000 M.D. / Week

6/hrs/day, !5/days/week

10 hours daily on site

$1000 Day

phYSician eoverage

OS/GYM 30 hours per week

$1000 Day

on site coverage

Weekend doctor coverage

$1000 Day

4 hours/day

Weekend sick call list

$1000

Day

,. doctor notification

24 hour on site nursing

$1000

Day

coverage

CPR certifications for

$1000

Day

health care staff

CPR certifications for 10 COs $1000

Day

per shift

Daily colleetion/processing $1000

Day

of sick call requests

Access to medical staff

$100 Inmate/ Day

within 24 hrs. of request

Acoess to medical staff

$200 Inmate/ Hour

immediately in emerqency

Filing of sick call request

$100

Day

slips and lists

Any triaqe to be based on

$500 Inmate

clinical assessment

Filing of elinical assessment $500 Inmate

from triage

Daily sick call list with

$100

Day

notations

Implelllentation of follow-~p

$100 Day

system

-4-

9a(7) (a) 6/1/89 9a(7) (b) ' 6/1/89

9a(7) (c) 6/1/89

9a (8)

6/1/89

9a(8)

6/1/89

9a(8)

6/1/89

9a (8)

6/1/89 '

9a (9)

6/1/89.

9a(9)

6/1/89

9a (10)

6/1/89

9a(11)

6/1/89

9a (11)

6/1/89

. 9a(12)

6/1/89

9a(12)

6/1/89

9a (13) 9a(14)

6/1/89 6/1/89

9a(14)

6/1/89

9a(l4l
9a (14)

6/1/89
6/1/ 89

Maintenance of APPOintment Log $100

Transporting inmates to

$250

scheduled appointments !

Physician review withi~

$250

24 hours of conSUltation

Maintenance of infirmary

$5000

for males & females

24 hour infirmary nursinq

$1000

coverage

Daily bedside physician or

5250

PE infirmary visits

Area in infirmary to treat

51000

and evaluate

AIDS diagnostic/counseling/ $1000

treatment services

Medications for AIDS &

$1000

chronic illnesses

Confidentiality procedures

$500

for medical records .

creation of medical record

$250

at intake

.

Following record-keeping

$100

procedures

Distribution of medication

$500

by non-qualified staff '

Maintenance of. medication

$500

records

'

Surgical scheduling

$5000

Dental screening to all new

$100

exam admissions
Scheduling of dental

$100

·upon request or referral

Emergency dental care .

5500

Required time frames for

$500

Day Inmate/ Appt
I~ate
Da y Day Inmate/Day Week Week Inmate/ Day Incident Inmate Incident Incident Inmate Inmate/ Week Inmate Inmate Inmate/ Da y Inmate/ We e k

Sleeping conditions

9b 9b(ll

6/1/89 6/1/89

Certification of Compliance .' with SA!! 22 and 23
Provide sheets, blankets, pillow and pillow case

$1000 $50

Day Inmate/ Da y

Maintenance & Repairs

9c
9c(1)

9c(1)
9C(~) 9C(~)
9c(2)

.(a) (a) (a)

9c(2) (a)

9c(3)

9c(3) (a)

9C(4)

9c(4)

9C(4) (a)

9c(5) 9c(5) (a)

9c(6)

9c(6) (a)

9c(7)

9c(7) (al

9c (8)

9c(8) (a)

9c(9)

90(9) (a)

9c(9) (a)

9c (~O)

4/~/B9 5/~/89 5/~/89 S/~/89 5/~/89 6/~/89 6/~/89 6/~/89 -
6/1/89 9/1/89 9/1/89
9/~/89
7/1/89
7/~/89 5/~/89 5/~/89
5/1/89
5~/89 5/~/89
5/1/89 7/1/89 7/1/89
4/~/90 8/~/8. 9

commit sufficient numb~rs

$1000

of ski~ledworkers

Certification of comp~iance

$1000

with SA U: 37e and q

$1000

E~iminate cross-connections

$2500

Install backf~ow preventers

$2500

cap or vent for sewer lines

$2500

Certification of compliance

$1000

with SA ! 55

Implement dai~y ECJA physioa~ $1000

plant inspections

Certification of Comp~iance

$1000

with SA! 4~

Implement/submit preventive

$1000

maint. p~an , report

Certification of comp~iance

$1000

with SA ! 43

certification of forma~

$1000

commitment for new jail

Submit comprehensive physica~ $1000

plant repair plan

Certification of compliance $1000

with SA _! 47

submit maint. staffing

$1000

analysis, plan , schedule

Certification' of Compliance $1000

with SA ! 36

Submit short term maintenance $1000

plan

Certification of Compliance $1000

with SA ! 36c:.i

Eliminate use of cells without $250

workin9 toilets

Certification of Complianc,

$1000

with SA ! 36f

Eliminate use of cells without $250

workin9 sinkS

Certification of Compliance $1000

with SA !! 36g , 28a

Meet ratios on toilets and

$50

sinks, except West Win9

Meet ratios on toilets and

$100

sinks in West Wing

Certification of Compliance $1000

with SA!! 36g , 37j

Day Day Day Day/ connec t Day/Item Day/Item Day Day Day Day Day Day Day Day Day Day Day
Day Inmate/ Day Day
Inmate/ Day Day
All/day
All/ day Day

9c (10) (a) 8/1/89

9c(11)

7/1/89

9c (11) (a) 7/1/89

Eliminate broken/missinq window panes ~ screens
Certification of Compliance with SA! 371 Install and/or clean shower curtains

$10 All/ Day $1000 Day
$10 All/ day

HousekeeEing

9d

8/1/89

9d(1)

8/1/89

storaSle ge 9a (1)

7/1/89 7/1/89

Certification of Compliance
with SA i i 48 " 54 Submit housekeeping and cleaning plan

$lOOO Day $1000 Day

Certification of Compliance with SA ! 56 Submit storaqep1an

$1000 Day $1000 Day

Eating Areas " Oayrooms

9f 9f (1) 9f (1) 9f (2) 9f (1) 9f (1)

6/1/89 6/1/89 8/1/89 6/1/89
4/22/90 5/22/90

certification of Compliance with SA i 33 Submit plan to ;renovate eating areas Complete renovations to aatinq areas
Submit plan to renovate dayroOlll areas start dayroom renovations
Complete dayroom renovations

$1000 Day $1000 Day
$10 All/ day $1000 Day
$10 All/ d ay $50 All/ day

" Cuntrol Elimination pf Infestation

9g

8/1/89

Certification of compliance

with SA ! 65

9g(1)

8/1/'89

Submit plan on required

extermination practices

$1.000 Day $10 All/day

Food Service

9h

8/1/89

Certification of Compliance
on SA it 69-71 & 73
_7_

$1000 Day

- - - - , ---- ---- - - -~------

9j (1) (c)
9j (1) (d)
9j (1) (e)
9j (1) (e)
9j (1) efl
9j (1) (g)
9j (1) (h)
9j(1) (j)
9j (2)
9j (2)
9j (2) (b)

9/1/89
9/1/89 9/1/89
9/1/89
9/1/89
9/1/89
9/1/89
9/1/89
6/1/89 7/1/89
6/1/89

clean sheets and pillow cases weekly Clean blankets mcnthly Sanitize mattresses before issue Clean blankets before issue Issue required garments to each inmate weekly
Launder underwear' socks every two days
Launder outerclothing twice per weele
Launder inmate personal clothing in central fac. Quarterly Mattress survey Quarterly replacement of torn, ripped mattresses storage, marking and cleaning of mattresses

$25 Inmate/ day
$25 Inmate/ day $25 Inmate/ da y
$25 Inmate/ day $25 Inmate/ we e):
$25 Inmate/ day
$25 Inmate/week
$10 All/ day
$1000 $50 Inmate/ day
$50 Inmate/day

Exercise « Recreation

9k

4/1/89

Submit schedule to comply

with SA !! 85 & 86

9k(1)

5/1/89

Provide daily hourly

opportunity for elCercise

9k(2 )

6/15/89

Obtain quantity of exercise

equipment & supplies

9k(3)

6/15/89

Repair w/i 2 days / order

replacement w/i 5 days

$1000 Day $100 Inmate/ Day $10 All/ day $500 Item/ day -

Staffing 91 91(1) 91 (2)
91 (2)
91(2)

6/1/89 6/1/89 7/1/89
7/1/89
1/1f90

certify compliance
progress with SA ! 93-95
Submit outside-, professional staffing analy , ls
Submit staffing plan based on staffing analysis Submit schedule to implement plan by 1/1/90 Implement staffing plan

$1000 Day $1000 Day $1000 Day $1000 Day $5000 Day

Visitation

9m

6/1/90

9mell (a) 9/1/90

9mel) (b) 9/1/90

Submit plan for compliance with SA U 82-84
Begin non-contact visits in renovated visit areas Visit schedule for 5 day per week

$1000 Day $25 All/ day
$1000 Day

9D! (1) (b) 9/1/90

9m(2)

4/23/89

Minimum 30 minute visits,
5 times per week Daily visitation logs for each unit

$25 All/ day $100 Day/ unit

Law Libra~

9n

1/1/90

9n(1) (a) 1/1/90

9n(1) (a) 1/1/90

9n(1) (b) 1/1/90

9n(1) ( 0) U/23/89

Certify compliance with
SA tt 87-89
Law library operation
40 hours per week Five 2-hour periods per ·week
per ilUllate Designate qualified law library staff person Obtain full contents of
recommended book list

$1000 Day $1000 Week
$100 Irnnate/ week $500 Day $1000 Day

S;Iu~pjp~le~m~~e=n=t~ar~y~~R~e=q=uQi~rue~mae~nrt'sterly supplemental

$1000 Day

~zge!LQ. certificarO\S C

~/O._
. D a t e : n " , {2~5

Hon. Harold A. Ackerman, U. S.D . J.
;

-10-

 
 \

IN 'lliE UNITED STATES DISTRIcr CXXlRT FOR 'lliE DISTRIcr OF NEW JERSEY

ESSEX COONl'Y JAIL ANNEX INMATES, et als.,

PlaintiffS,

:

v.

:

:

NICHOLAS AMATO, County :

Executive, et als.,

:

. -, -. -~ '

, :

. :
WILLIAM H. FAINER, Cannis-

siOIler, New Jersey Depart- :

rrent of Coz:rections,

:

:

Defendants •

:

:

CIVIL NO . 87-871

AI 8 3~__ ___ _ ~_

.'

T V/l L L: / , ~··; ;'i/,:.- '_I

Hen. HaIold A. J\ckennan U.S •• D. J.

Robert DelTufo, Special Master Bennet Zu=fsky, Special Master

ORDER FINDIN:; COONl'Y DEFENDANl'S IN a::Nl'EMPT AND IMPCSIN:; SAlCl'IOOS FOR VIOLATICN OF FIRE
SAFETY REXX!IREMEN1'S

In acco:rdance with Fed. R. Civ.P. 53(e)(2) cm:i for the reasons set forth in

the opinion of the ~ ~ on Jul.~ 27, 19~9;

It is on this ~·~

clay of \ U . \- 11989:

Recallle1~tions ORDERED that the Report cm:i

I Contempt PI) cee1i ngs Against

NIClDlAS AMAro, Essex County Executive, OCNAID MANZErA, Director, Division of

Correctional Sez:vices, GERAlD LENIHAN, Jail Annex 1\dmini.strator, JOSEPH SAN-

T!AG), Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 'lK:I!AS GIBLIN, President, Essex County

B::>ard of Choosen Freeholders, JOSEPH PARrAVEXXlITO, Vice-President, Essex County

!bard of Choosen Freeholders, cm:i ELLEN Dl\.VENPORl', CARMINE CASSCIANO, SARA OCST,

JAMES CAVANAIGi, DEIDRES BATILE, ARIllUR CLI\Y cm:i M::!IRDE JAY llJSTBl\DER, Members ,

Essex County !bard of Choosen Freeholders, cm:i their successors in office,

[hereafter the County defendants l, subnitted by Special Masters Robert J. Del

Tufo cm:i Bennet D.Zu=fsky, cm:i filed on July 6, 1989, is hereby adopted, with

the exceptions or m:xtifications as set forth in the Court's opinion of July 27,

1989, and incorporated herein, as follows:

\

1. It is Ordered that the County defendants a..--e hereby adjudged in

contempt of the requirenents of paragraphs 79 and BO of the Consent Order signed

by the Court on N::lvEmber 23, 19B7 regarding written pr=edures for in-hJuse fire

safety inspections of the Essex County Jail Annex and a written fire and

emargency evacuation plan.

2. It is Ordered that the County defendants are hereby adjudged in contempt of the requirenents of paragraphs 76-7B of ~ Consent Order signed by

the Court on N::lvEmber 23, 19B7 due to their failure to install snoke sensOl:y

alanns, sprinkler systems, and second exits in AnneX housing units in accordan:::e

with the requirenents of those paragraphs.

3. It is further Ordered that the County defendants shall ~ly fully

with the requirenents of paragraphs 79 and BO of the Consent Order by preparing

the required in-hJuse inspection procedures and emargency evacuation plan on or

before the expiration of a period of sixty (60) days fran the date",* this
ClJ:de~~ure to perfODn as so ordered shall autanatically result in a further

finding of contempt and imposition of a fine of $1,000.00 per day for failure to

pnwide the required in-hJuse inspection procedures or the required fire and

emargency evacuation plan and shall continue thereafter until the particular

camri.rnent has been satisfied. ltrrf fines assessed under this paragraph shall be

used to retain an expert selected by plaintiffs' ccur.:>el tc design any par-

ticu1ar required procedure which the County defendants fail to pnwide.

4. It is further Ordered that the County defendants shall ~ly fully

with the requirements of paragraphs 76-7B of the Consent Order by pnwiding

functioning snoke sensory alanns, sprinkler systems and second exits as required

... by those paragraphs on or before the~j0J'ea~f one-hurrlred-and-t:v.enty (120) ~ ~~

days fran the date ¢ this

or, with regard to the requirerents for

2

sprinkler systans and secooo exits, within that sarre 120 day period prepare and inplerrent viable alternatives to sprinklers arrl/or secooo exits if accepted by plaintiffs' counsel arrl/or plaintiffs' designated fire safety expert. The opportunity to propose viable alternatives shall not intnlde u?=,n plaintiffs' right to relief and shall not excuse non-canpliance with the requirenents of the
Consent Order at the em of the 120 day period. Failure to perfODn within 120
days as so ordered by canpleting the installation of SIlDke alanns, sprinklers and secooo exits, or to propose and obtain acceptance fran plaintiffs' counsel and implemmt a viable alternative or alternatives, shall autcmatically result in a further firrlinq of =ntarpt and inp:)sition of fires, as follows:
a. $10.00 per inmate for each day after August 1, 1989 that the inmate is =nfined in a housing unit without operating SIlDke alanns;
b. $10.00 per inmate for each day after August 1, 1988 that the inmate was or is =nfined in a housing unit without an operating sprinkler systan;
c. $10.00 per inmate for each day after August 1, 1988 that the inmate was or is confined in a housing unit on a floor without second exits. 5. The fires establisMd in this Order shall be cum1lative where an inmate is confined in violation of IIDre than one of t."le above ccr.mitmants. 6 . The County deferrlants shall implemmt a pz:=edure for recording the availability of SIlDke alanns, so that sanctions for any failure to perfODn as ordered can be calculated as of August 1, 1989. 7. Any fires assessed for failure to provide SIlDke alanns, sprinkler systans or secooo exits shall be used by an expert selected by plaintiffs' counsel to arrange for any construction necessary to effectuate specific
3

arrl/bos ,"\\\ perfoDl'aance of the requirem=nts of paragraphs 76, 77

of the Consent

,\\,'.\

\
\'

. "\

Order pertaining to the provision of these fire safety measures.

s. Any fines assessed by this Order shall be paid by the County defen-

\\\v~
«(\ \

dants to the Court in a lump sum for past violations within two (2) waeks of the C<l "" \' I,OJ' <L (;c. c\..v-e.. 1l ...a.tA..-'t-"-.LAe..,.""", 4-
datelset; b:tt this Order for imposition of the fines and, for future violations,
on a ....eekly basis payable beginning the first M:)nday after the expiration of
<:~ph"~('("15c1ve !M0J1A.~~y-~
sixty (60) days fran the date pf this Order.

9. Plaintiffs and the County defendants shall subnit to the Special

Masters, no later than 30 days fran the date of this Order, and again, no later

than 90 days fran the entry of this Order, :reports on the status of the County

defendants' canpli.aoce with the Court's orders. The Special Masters shall be

and aI:e hereby autlx>rized to conduct hearings, to :report to the Court, and to

make recaillendations corx::erni.ng the County defendants' canpliarx::e with the

court's orders.

<.:,: ~) t.J'-2). (r (( (C -'. HAROLD A. ACKERMAN U.S.D .J.

4

 
 ·' ,
' , • ...;I

ill 'lliE UNITED STATFS DISI'RIcr COORT FOR 'lliE DISI'RIcr OF NEW JERSEY

. -'iii.. r(~ ::,.(; .

ESSEX cr::uu:Y JAIL INMATES, et als.,
PlaintiffS,
v.
NICHOLAS AMATO, County ExEcutive, et als.,
and
WILLIAM H. FAUVER, Ccmnis- :
sioner, New Jersey Depart- :
mant of Con:ections,
DefeOOants . :

CIVIL NO . 82-1945
lion. Harold A. AckeJ::rnan U.S ..D.J.
Robert DelTufo, Special Master Bennet Zurofsky, Special Master

"-:-,

. -

-,

;

In accordance with Fed. R. Civ.P. 53(e) (2) and for the x:easons set forth in

the opinion of the Court rendered on July 27, 1989;
\

It is on this I "

day of \, l ' ( ( I , 1989 :

~tiO; ORDERED that the Rep::>rt and

On a Bail Fun:i for Essex County

Jail Detainees, subnitted by Special Masters Robert J . Del Tufo and Bennet

D.zurofsky, filed on July 6, 1989, in accordance with the Court's Order of May

24, 1989, is hereby adopted, with the exceptions or m:xti.fications as set forth

in the Court's opinion of July 27, 1989, and in::orporated herein, as follows:

Creation of the Fun:i

Jail Detainees [hereafter "the Fund" ), to be managed by an J\dmi.nistrator. The J\dmi.nistrator shall be independent of the County and shall

\
sole signatory for the account establisred in accordaoce with this Court· s Order
of May 24, 1989 .
Fund Purpose 2 . The purfOse of the Essex County Jail Detainees Bail Fund shall l:e to
provide bail assistance for individuals in the Essex County Jail who Il'dy have insufficient rroney or property to secure release on bail.
Use of the Fund 3 . M:mies fran the Fund shall l:e Il'dde available in accordance with the
tel:Ins of this Order on a daily basis for bail p.u:p:JSeS for pretrail detainees ccnfined in the Essex County Jail in order to Il'dintain the popliation of the Essex County Jail at 594 inmates on a daily basis as neasured under the tel:Ins of this Order.
4. Fund rronies shall l:e Il'dde available in an order of priority as fixe:! by this Order to pay for bail borrls or cash bail for any pretrial detainees who have been unable, for financial reasons, to secure their own release on bail. Function of the Fund
5. The Fund shall be administere:i as a revolving fund IOhich shall loan cash bail to the families of detainees or to individual detainees who canrx>t afforo bail. When the bailee an-ears for court, the bail anount paid by the Fund shall l:e refunded to the Fund in order to assist other detainees. In the event of a deferx:!ant' s failure to appear for court proceedings, the bail shall be forfeited and. returned to the County. Administration and Managerent of the Fund
6. The Fund shall be Il'dnaged by an Administrator of the Fund to l:e app:>inted by the Court. The Administrator shall be an attorney-at-law of the
2

\
State of NEw Jersey. The Special Y.asters previously appJinted by this Court may
act as counsel to the Administrator with regard to any Fund related natters. 7 . The Admi.ni.strator of the FuOO sholll act as a fiduciary to ensure the
proper administration arrl expenditure of the FuOO in accordance with the teDns of the Court's orders and the declared pIrFOse5 of the Fund.
8. Canpensation for the Admi.ni.strator shall be paid fran the FuOO on an hourly basis cc::nnensurate with the fee st.=ture awlicable to a special master and his or her assistants. Fee application shall be made to and appz:oved by the Court on a m:>nthly basis .
9. The Admi.ni.strator or the Administrator's designee shall use the criteria established by this Order to select the detairees who may be eligible to receive use of Fund IIOnies for bail pn:p:lSe5.
10 . The Admi.ni.strator of the Fund, fl:crn time to time and after =nsulting with the Assigment Judge of Essex County or his designee, or with the Special Masters or counsel for any of the parties to this case, may recatuend to the Court, up:m notice to counsel for all parties, any additional criteria to
, - l"~,"",4
enIargeOi the lll.Irnber of pretrial detainees who may be eligible to receive use of Fund IIOnies for bail purposes.
11. The . Admi.ni.strator may =ntract with or hire sufficient additional personnel with Fund IIOnies to provide necessary assistance in the managerent and operation of the Fund or to otherwise carry out the purposes of the Fun:!, provided that when the Admi.ni.strator believes it necessary to hire additional personnel beyorxi iIrmadiate sub:Jrdinates to aid the Administrator in Fund operati,?ns, he or she shall first confer and consult with County Counsel to
II detennine if the County can provide app=priate personnel or staff.
3

12. The Admi.nistrator rray enter into any ra::essary contracts or ag:tE£!teTlts to arrange for the actual p:lsting of bail or paynent of cash bail for the
detainees selected for Fund eligibility. The Administrator shall be auth:>rized to retain counsel and to do any and all acts ra::essary, appropriate, or incidental to carry out the provisiOns of the Court's Order establishing the Fund.
13. The Administrator nay, up:m advice fran and through counsel to the Fund, operate the Fund as a trust or arrange for incOl:poration as an awropriate non-profit organization. He or she also nay awly to the Internal Revenue Service to receive an enployer identification I1IlI!lber and tax rulings an:::I/or exarptions to deteDnine the Fund's legal obligations with regard to the deductibility of =ntribltions to the Fund un:ler section 50l(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or with regard to liability for .i..ncaIe taxes, social security taxes (FICA), taxes imp:lsed un:ler the Federal tJne!rilloynent Tax Act, or with regard to excise taxes un:ler Chapter 42 of the Internal Revenue Code or other code provisiOns, or with regard to the Fund' s filing obligations as an Exarpt
Organization, or with regard to any other state or federal taxes.
Pl:=edures for Release
14. If the OCJ pop..Ilation exceeds 594 inmates on any day by reference to a
pop..Ilation survey of the jail at 12 midnight, than the Administrator shall be authorized to begin procedures under this Order to effect the release on bail of a sufficient numl::er of det.ainees whose release =uld reduce the OCJ pop..Ilation to at least 594 inmates . The Administrator, in his or her discretion, nay target a reduction numl::er below 594 inmates in order to provide a minimally sufficient capacity at the jail to acculilOdate routine arrests and detention of additional persons and to minimize the frequen:::y with which the Administrator is
4

required to act to kEep the ECJ fXJP.1lation tela.< the maxinum capacity of 594 inmates fixed in the Third Supplarental Consent Order, filed on Dec. 27, 1988. !i<J<Never, in no event is the target reduction number to fall belON 564.
15. Wheyever the ECJ pop.D.ation exceeds 594 inmates at 12 midnight on a given day, the County shall prepare a list of all detainees confined in the
C..",:'I. 1(1.; .:..<'-;jJL'. 01 ~w
custody of the County~ on that day for whan bail has been set. This daily detainee list ("Detainee List") shall te arranged in the order of the bail arrounts for each detainee, frcm l~t to highest. The Detainee List shall contain the follCMing infoDnation for each detainee: date of admission to the jail, all current charges, all cw::rent bail artDUIlts, and all current detainers.
16. The County shall arrange to have the Detainee List delivered, to arrive no later than 10 a.m. of that day, to the follCMing individuals or agencies: the Administrator of the FlID:i, the Sp=':ial Masters, plaintiffs' counsel, County Counsel, the County Prosecutor, and the County Probation Office.
17. The Administrator shall review the Detainee List and auth:>rize the payrrent of FlID:i nonies in an arrount no greater than $5000 for use as bail h:>nds or cash bail in the follCMing order of priority ["Priority Criteria"J:
a. on a daily basis, th:>se detainees wb:> have been in::arcerated for a minimum of seven days shall be selected for bail fun:i eligibility in accordan::e with the bail ancunts set by state court judges and as repJrted to the Administrator by the County, with eligibility to start with detainees held on the lo;;est bail anounts;
b. anong detainees held on the sane bail aIlOUl1ts, detainees shall te eligible for FlID:i IrOnies in accordan:::e with the seriousness of the offense for which they are held, with eligibility to start and proceed with the detainee held for the least serious offenses; and,
5

.,
c. arrong detainees held on the sane bail anounts for the sane t:yp: or degree of offense, detainees shall be eligible for Fund rronies in accordance with their length of confinerent, with eligibility to start with those det.ainees held the longest period of tine . 18. Within 48 h:Jurs of the tine that the Administrator receives the Cet.ainee List fran the County, the Administrator shall prepare and deliver to County designated personnel a Release List containing a sufficient number of detainees whose release would reduce the ECJ p:Jp.llation to at least 594 inmates, along with a guarantee of payment of sufficient funds to p::>St bail 1:on::is or pay cash bail for all detainees on the list no s=ner than 48 h:Jurs . At the sane tine, 48-h:Jurs' notice shall be given to the County Prosecutor, the County Probation Office, the Cr.irninal Assigment Judge, the County Public Cefender, and plaintiffs' counsel of the pen::li.ng paynent, for the ~ of giving these entities an opportuni::y to consider the bail decision in light of the source of rronies and to give the inteOOed recipient an DpJ;X?rtuni9' to obtain a surety. 19 . The County shall designate personnel to receive and Pl==ess the bail list and the funds which the Administrator or the Administrator' s designee shall deposit to effectuate the release on bail of the selected detainees. All detainees for wtan the Administrator provides bail funds shall be made available for release by the County no later than t:I.o hours after the 48-hours' rotice whicn has been given to the County Prosecutor, the County Probation Office, and the Cr.irninal Assigment Judge• .
Rel ease 20. Each det.ainee selected by the Fund as eligible to receive bail assis-
tance fran the Fund must have a surety willing to sign a bail 1:000. The de-
6

tainee nay act as the surety provided "~ detainee has a rrailing address, or
\/~t residence with a co-resident, or family or ccmmmity contact(s) who " c
Y"\ " . ". \ , have a ,malllngaddress.

/

21. Prior to release, the detainee or the detainee's surety must rreet with

a Fund Bailwriter at the Jail or at another suitable location where a tooo can

be executed an::i p::>sted. The Administratcr nay designate suitable County

anployees or contract with other individuals or private agencies to act as Fund

Bailwriters. A 0000 an::i an a~-eem=nt between the Fund an::i the detainee must be

executed, which stip.1late the refund of the bail to the Fund. The Bailwriter

shall then deliver the 0000 to the jail an::i shall ItEet the inmate up::>n release.

22. At the tine of release, every Fund bailee shall be required to execute

an agLE£ilent which states that the detainee must dfP""r in court an::i contact the

Administrator or the Administrator's designee on a w=ekly basis an::i up::>n notice

of scheduled court dates.

Post-Release

23. The County shall notify the Administrator, slm.ll.tana:lusly wi:th ~
1.r- ,,,\~\ i\~y Cll'y fr.e1n..r.1 tl~"/If{ deferrlant, of all court dates for each Fund baillee • .I. Whenever a FUnd bailee

/ \'\."\ '\'~( fails to app=ar in court an::i a ben::h warrant is issued, the County shall notify
"/ ' ' : '. the Fund Administrator an::i the bail IIOnies and the 0000, if applicable, shall be

, "
/

forfeited to the County. In the event of forfeiture, the Administratcr shall

provide all info:cnation it has obtained fI:an the bailee to the County Prosecu-

tcr, the County Probation Office and/or other awropriate auth:lrities. The

Administrator shall have the sane rights and remedies as any ba j lOOrx:lsferson tc

attanpt to hc.ve a forfeiture set aside or tc bring about the tinely surren::Ier of

the bailee .

7

Rep:?rting 24. The Administrator shall sul:rnit a perfonnarce rep:>rt every t1.D weeks to
the 5p=cial Masters, the Court and counsel for all parties . The rep:>rt shall include the follONing:
a. the total number of days during the imrediately prior t'-'J weeks on which the ECJ pop.liation has exceeded 594 inmates and the actual pop.liation on each of these days;
b. the number of detainees eligible for release through the Fund on each of the days when the ECJ pop.liation exceeded 594 inmates and the number of detainees actually released on each of the days;
c. the reasons for denials, if any, of release to eligible detainees;
and, d. the arrount of rroney expended in cash bail, bail bonds, Fund person-
nel costs, and Fund administration for the period and to date .
Effective Date 25. The Bail program provided for by this Order shall ~ into effect on
September 15, 1989 .
lAlration 26. The use of sanctions in the arrount of $257,600 for this program is not
intended to release the County deferx:lants fran the obligation of paying the balaoce of any other sanctions that may in the future l:e fUred or imp:lsed by the Court.
8

\

27. The Fund shall cease to operate when the popJ.lation of the ECJ has rrlt

exceeded the IMXim.Jm capacity of 594 inmates at any tine for 12 consecutive rronths. At that tirre, the balance of the Fund rronies, if any, less any expm.ses

previously incurred, including the fees of the J\dmini.stIator an::! any personnel

r-r. and/or contractors, shall I:e returned to Essex County.

t'''l\».~i:~Y\I\~l'.I-f{"\>~1i.I.-~\:\7l-

I.-, ~e,~~L\.;\,.(w~..C\"~'kA~IAk\,(.'~ 'H~q\''A~./.-)

"

";\..I,\.I-lt

Cy1';)v'-.l,\~\
CLt.l"~v,.. VI ..

·" lsiI¥II~\.

"{ltVY;:";
tk; (,;,,\,\Jj

c 'rJ:y,.d

Be'si~t1~~ ~~\:c~ ~u .~''iW.~ '."'1'1 .

\ . ..:;,

~. D:>uglas S. Eakely, an Attorney-at-Law, of the State of New Jersey, is

\"\
.:\ \ \" bereby app::>inted to serve as 1Idministrator of the Fund.

---..
....

-

. ! .

.
\

U.S.D. J .

9

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL INMATES, et al.,:
Plaintiffs,
v.
NICHOLAS AMATO, County Executive, et als., and WILLIAM H. FAUVER, Commissioner, New Jersey Department: of Corrections,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------:

civil Action No. 82-1945
OR D E R

Whereas the plaintiff class, inmates at the Essex County Jail, filed an order to show cause as to why the County defendants should not be held in contempt of the Third Supplemental Consent Order herein and;
Whereas this Court is issuing an opinion as of this date granting plaintiff's requested relief in part and modifying it in part and substantially adopting the report and recommendation of the Special Masters,
IT IS on this 20th day of November, 1989, ORDERED that The County defendants be fined a total of $1,905,300.00 for population violations; The County defendants be fined a total of $1,521,300.00 for recreation violations;

1

)
Said fine money be deposited with the Court within 14 days from the entry of this order for use in accordance with the terms of the Third Supplemental Consent Order; and
FURTHER, the County defendants are to provide the Special Masters with a weekly tabulation of the population at the Essex County jail along with the amount of sanctions that would apply for any violations if calculated at a rate of $100.00 per inmate per day over the 594-inmate cap;
The County defendants are to provide weekly reports to the Masters regarding the provision of the one hour daily recreation requirement per inmate as well as a calculation regarding the amount of sanctions that would apply for any violation of this requirement if calculated at a rate of $20.00 per inmate per day so deprived;
These reports are to commence as of December 6th and are to be provided to the Masters every Wednesday thereafter;
FURTHER, the County defendants are ordered to install the tier-level equipment and otherwise comply with the recreational requirements set forth in the opinion of May 10, 1989; and
The parties must report to the Special Masters in 14 days fro. the entry of this order with their written suggestions
2

\ and proposals regarding the use of the fine money at which time the Masters will prepare a report and recommendation concerning the use of the populati on and recreation monies.
~ \
\ ~- --\ ~~-f-~rl elL . ~ , HAROLD A. ACKERMAN, U.S.D . J .
3

 
 \ ,

(!iJ

FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL INMATES,

CIVIL NO. 82-1945

if e DEC 12 1989.

AT-8:30:: &0

M

WIWAM T. WAlSH

e t al.,

ClERK Hon. Harold A. Ackerman,

... ~

Plaintiffs,

U.S.D.J.

v.
NICHOLAS AMATO, County Executive, et al.,
and
WILLIAM H. FAUVER, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Corrections,
Defendants.

Robert Del Tufo, Special Master Bennet Zurofsky, Special Master

CONSENT ORDER RESCHEDULING

DATE OF DEPOSIT OF SANCTION

MONIES

ENTERED

on

THE (lOCKET

~on mla,;vQ.w1~9:.~J:l

(Deputy Clerk)

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court upon joint application by H. Curtis Meanor, Essex County Co~nsel, attorney for the Essex County Executive and Administrative Defendants, and Alfred A. Slocum, New Jersey Public Defender (By T. Gary Mitchell, Deputy Public Defender), attorney for plaintiffs, for a postponement and rescheduling of the date the County Defendants are to deposit an aggregate of $1,905,300 with the Court into a Population Sanctions and Remedies account and $1,521,380 into a Recreation Sanctions and Remedies account due to the fact counsel for both parties are currently engaged in extensive negotiations as to how and when the above fines shall best be used to remediate conditions at County Jail facilities

\
and ha l e made substantial progress towards resolving same, and for good cause shown;
IT IS ON THIS 11th day of December, 1989, ORDERED that the date the Essex County Defendants are to deposit an aggregate of $I,905,300 . wi~h the Court into a Population Sanctions and Remedies account and $1,521 , 380 into a Recreation Sanctions and Remedies account is hereby postponed and rescheduled from December 11, 1989 to Dc:c ..~

The undersigned hereby consent to the form and entry of the within Order.

H. CURTI S MEANOR
ESSEX COUNTY COUNSEL Attorney for Cou~ty Defendants

/;h~~ By:

c a..--z '-:'-

'J

Date : / 1 - //-0

ALFRED A. SLOCUM

NEW JERSEY PUBLIC ADVOCATE/

DEFENDER

.'

,

I

'---I

By:

-•...

 
 FILED

JAN:3 '990
AI 1:W3I1WA1fI-I T-.w~a~ui:H--"
a.EIIIl

IN 'mE UNrmD S'l!AnS DIS'ffiIcr caJRT FOR 'mE DIS'ffiIcr OF NEW JERSEY

ENTERElJ on THE DOCKET ~ on /- -;- 1 9 _
Wlll~1l~~

ESSE:X a:uNl'Y JAIL INMA!rnS, et als.,

·

PlaintiffS,

:

:

v.

:

:

NIODIAS .AMA:lO, County Executive, et :

als.,and WILLIAM H. FAUVER, Ccmnissioner,

New Jersey Departllent of Con:ections,

:

Defetrlmts •

· :

CIVIL 00. 82-1945 By

\Deputy Clerkl

Ibn. Harold A. AckeDnan u.S• .D.J.

Robert Del'fufo, Special Master Bennet Zuxofsky, Special Master

Whereas the plaintiff class, imates at the Essex County Jail, filed an order to srow cause as to why the County defendants shculd =t be held in contatpt of the 'lhll:d SlW1enental Consent O!:der herein, and;
Whereas this Court issued an opinion and order on Novatter 20, 1989, granting plaintiffs' requested :relief in part and IOCXlifyinq it in part and subrtantially acbpt.ing the Lepcn.t and reo ....e ..::ldtion of the Special MasteJ::s, and;
Whereas this Court's O!:der of Novatter 20, 1989, ent:ez:ed on the d:x:l<et on Novatter 27, 1989, LeqUiLed the County defendants to deposit with the Calrt within 14 days fran the entLy of that O!:der the fine IIOIli.es in the am:JUnt of $1,905,300.00 far pcp11ation vilations and $1,521,300 . 00 far recreation violations, and;
Whereas this Court's order of Dece:rtler 11, 1989, entered on the cbcket on Dece!rtler 13, 1989, LE!Scle::Iuled the date far the payuent of the above said f.inas to Decent-er 22, 1989, and;
Whereas this Court, after hearing cu:gunent fran the parties and far good
cause srown, issued an opinion on Decelee.r 22, 1989, z:equiring the County defen-
dants to pay the afOl:esai.d f.inas no later than JanuaLy 4, 1990,

IT IS on this ORDERED that

I 19 'l ,C::' \

1. The County defendants shall deposit

fines pnNiously assessed in

this Court's Order of N:>vanber 20 I 1989I 00 later than the close of the w.siness

day on January 4 I 1990.

2

 
 726 F.Supp. 539 (1989)
ESSEX COUNTY JAIL INMATES, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Nicholas AMATO, County Executive, et als., and William H. Fauver, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Corrections, Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 82-1945. United States District Court, D. New Jersey.
November 20, 1989. 540 *540 T. Gary Mitchell, Dept. of Public Advocate, Trenton, N.J., for plaintiffs.
Joseph T. Maloney, Deputy Atty. Gen., Trenton, N.J., for Fauver.

OPINION

HAROLD A. ACKERMAN, District Judge.

This litigation has had a painful and protracted history. This class action has been brought on behalf of the inmates of the Essex County jail against various Essex County officials and the New Jersey Commissioner of Corrections. Plaintiffs have sought relief from overcrowding and other objectionable conditions of confinement which have arisen as a result of the over-crowding. The parties come before the Court now on plaintiffs' application for an order to show cause as to why the defendants should not be held in contempt for violating the terms of the Third Supplemental Consent Order ("SCO3"), which is an order of this Court.

I note that as an initial matter, the fact that SCO3 is a consent decree does nothing to minimize the obligation of the parties to adhere to the Court's decision. In fact, in stipulating to the terms under which sanctions are to be imposed, the county unequivocally acknowledged that conditions at the Essex County jail and annex are unconstitutional and that the remedies which plaintiffs seek to have imposed are appropriate ones. In an analogous situation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that

The respect due the federal judgment is not lessened because the judgment was entered by

consent. The plaintiff's suit alleged a denial of their constitutional rights. When the defendants

chose to consent to a judgment, rather than have the district court adjudicate the merits of the

plaintiffs' claims the result was a fully enforceable federal judgment that overrides any conflicting

541

state law or state court order. The strong policy encouraging *541 the settlement of cases requires

that the terms of a consent judgment, once approved by a federal court, be respected as fully as a

judgment after trial.

Badgley v. Santacroce, 800 F.2d 33, 38 (2nd Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1067, 107 S.Ct. 955, 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987). This Appellate Court observance informs my decision today. Before detailing that decision, it is necessary to restate the action's background and the nature of the current application before me.

BACKGROUND

In 1982, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, I appointed two special masters to whom I referred this matter for an evaluation of the conditions at the Essex County Jail. Their reports as well as the parties' stipulations reveal a facility that was, and still is, taxed to the breaking point. For nearly every day of 1982 to the present, the County defendants have housed substantially more than the 594-inmate cap. Overcrowding has caused these inmates to be housed in the dayrooms and has cut into the defendants' ability to provide the hour of exercise mandated by the terms of the consent order. Smoke detectors and alarms are inoperable. Mattresses

are unsanitary and no longer fire-retardant, they are often cracked and torn. Inmates are not receiving weekend visits of at least 20 minutes in duration. A number of inmates fail to receive a physical examination within 72 hours of admission, a situation which also leads to housing of these unexamined inmates with the general population. Reliable logs of housing assignments are not maintained. Consequently, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to find inmates once they have entered the system or for the jail to receive accurate, timely information as to their bail status.

The initial agreement, which was presented to this Court on October 18, 1982 set a maximum inmate capacity of 594 effective July 1 1983. It is this population cap agreed to over six years ago which has still not been met, and which is a focus of today's proceeding. In the 1982 accord, the County also agreed to provide certain services pertaining to the conditions indicated above.

On February 4, 1985, the County defendants, admitting that the facilities and services were "insufficient to meet the terms" of the original consent judgment, was given until May 1, 1985 to develop and implement a plan to provide additional housing and improve services at the jail.

As a result of the County's failure to comply with the terms of these orders, and after several days of hearings, the parties reached an agreement which was ultimately incorporated into a second supplemental consent order, entered on April 27, 1987. The County was again given time, until January 1, 1988, to meet the 594-inmate population cap. Under the agreement, the County agreed that violations of the cap would trigger automatic sanctions.

In 1987, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendants had yet to comply with the above-described orders. After further hearings and an on-site inspection of the Essex County facility by the special masters (but prior to the Court's decision regarding the masters' July 26, 1988 recommendation that the County defendants be held in contempt and sanctioned), the parties entered into the Third Supplemental Consent Order which was filed on December 27, 1988. In that order, as in its two forerunners, the County defendants acknowledged that "inmate housing and services continue to be insufficient to meet the terms of the previous consent orders."

In light of this admission, the plaintiffs agreed to defer prosecution of the contempt application to permit the County to implement measures to finally reduce the population to 594-inmates and to achieve substantial compliance with the other provisions of the prior orders of this Court. SCO3 specifically reserved plaintiffs' right to pursue a contempt application and seek sanctions if the jail population was not reduced to 700 inmates by February 15, 1989, 650 inmates by April 15, 1989 and 594 inmates by June 1, 1989. The precise language is as follows:

542

*542 Counsel for the plaintiff class agrees to defer prosecution of the application on behalf of

plaintiffs to have the County defendants held in contempt for a period commencing on December

1, 1988 and ending on May 31, 1989, in order to permit the County defendants to implement

measures as described above which the County defendants believe will result in a substantial and

swift reduction of the County Jail population to 594 and which similarly will permit the County

defendants to achieve substantial compliance with other provisions of the prior Orders of the

Court; provided, however, that within the period referenced above plaintiffs' counsel shall be

permitted to resume prosecution of the contempt application in the manner provided by this Order

and to seek sanctions as authorized by this Order if the total population by February 15, 1989, is

not reduced to or thereafter exceeds 700 inmates, or if the total jail population by April 15, 1989, is

not reduced to or thereafter exceeds 650 inmates, or if the total jail population by June 1, 1989, is

not reduced to or thereafter exceeds 594 inmates.

SCO3 ¶ 1.

The County defendants, recognizing that promises to the plaintiff class have been "long delayed" and would be further delayed by SCO3, were "on notice" that alternatives to the jail initiative, the County's own program to reduce overcrowding, must be contemplated in order to reach and maintain the population cap. See ¶ 2-4 SCO3. The County defendants specifically recognized that "prompt proceedings to impose and compel payment of sanctions" would ensue if the County's noncompliance was not rectified.

In fact, SCO3 sets forth a specific agenda regarding fines, and the County defendants waived any right to be heard on whether or not sanctions should be imposed, except in situations where the County was faced with an emergency such as a fire, a disaster, or a riot. Specifically excluded from SCO3 are any fluctuations in the inmate population associated with, e.g., criminal justice practices, prosecutional policies, law enforcement activities, changes in sentencing plans, or the reduction or termination of County program concerning pretrial release or noncustodial disposition alternatives. The County defendants also agreed not to contest the specific figures that the masters recommend. See ¶ 20 SCO3.

As indicated above, the 594-inmate population cap was to be achieved through a series of interim reductions. In April 1989, the masters filed a report and recommendation addressed to plaintiff's allegations that the County had still not fulfilled the population or recreation requirements in 0907 other words, that the terms of the SCO3 were not being met. On May 10, 1989, this Court found that "defendants had failed to meet the timetable for the population reduction" and pursuant to ¶ 20 of SCO3 the Court imposed sanctions. At that time I stated, "I find that sanctions are particularly appropriate in light of defendants' repeated violation of the orders of the court" (p. 17 Opinion). As defendants and plaintiffs both know, the sanction money has been used to create a bail fund program pursuant to the terms of ¶ 22(b) of SCO3.

On May 10, I declined to impose sanctions for the defendants' failure to comply with the recreation requirements of the December 1988 order, see ¶ 19b(1) & (2) of the SCO3 which states,

b. Exercise and recreation

(1) Schedule By 0907 Feb. 1, 1989, the County shall submit to plaintiffs' counsel and the Special Masters a proposed gym schedule that will fulfill its obligations under prior orders to provide each inmate at the jail with access to an exercise and recreation area for a minimum of one hour each day. The County shall take all steps necessary to implement this schedule so that inmates shall receive the required daily opportunity for exercise by April 15, 1989, including but not limited to physical construction of facilities, acquisition of equipment, and hiring of additional staff.

(2) Supplemental Exercise Equipment Outside Dayrooms0907Within 30 days of the date of this

543

agreement, the *543 County shall obtain the items of exercise equipment previously required by

paragraph 12(c)(3) of the SCO1.

I took judicial notice at that time of the County's failure to comply with the recreation schedule to which both parties had agreed. In so doing, I stated that "failure to obtain the equipment within 30 days may result in sanctions." I further ordered defendants to begin to comply with the gym schedule immediately and to "establish a record-keeping system for monitoring availability and usage of the recreation program" (see pgs. 19 & 20 of Order May 10). I concluded my discussion of the recreation issue by saying that, "failure to establish such a system by June 1, 1989 will result in sanctions" (p. 20 opinion, emphasis added).

THE PENDING APPLICATION

Regrettably, the matter is once again before this Court upon plaintiffs' Application for an Order to Show Cause as to why the most recent report of the masters regarding the population at the facility and the provision of recreational opportunities should not be adopted by the Court. The masters' report, dated September 19, 1989, was filed in response to plaintiff's application to hold the County and State defendants in contempt.
The masters found that the County's violations of the Consent Order were "massive," and that defendants have confronted this Court with virtually the same kind of noncompliance with the terms of the SCO3 that necessitated my May 10th decision and the concomitant sanctions.
In their report, the masters observed that the County defendants have failed to meet the population reduction, both with regard to the overall inmate population and the population within certain housing units. Further, the masters reported that the defendants have not contended that this failure is due to an emergency situation. In

short, per the masters, defendants have failed to identify any circumstances that would constitute a defense to this breach.
According to the masters, the parties have stipulated to the fact that the County defendants have violated the 594-inmate population cap every single day from June 1, 1989 through October 13, 1989 for a total of 14,768 prisoner days over the cap. See ¶ 6 of SCO3 which states
for nearly every day of 1988 to the present, the County defendants have housed substantially more than 594 inmates at the E.C.J.
As a result, the masters have recommended that the defendants be held in contempt and fined a total of $1,905,300.00. See pages 9 and 10 of the masters' report. The figures in the masters report run only through August 31, 1989. However, at our October 10, 1989 hearing, the parties stipulated to the figures this Court has used today.
The parties also stipulated to figures showing that from June 1, 1989 through October 13, 1989 the County exceeded the maximum capacity limits fixed for individual housing units in ¶ 10 of the 1982 consent judgment. The County exceeded the individual housing caps for a total of 4,285 prisoner days over cap and the masters recommended sanctions of $428,500.00.
The masters further reported that during the June 1, 1989 through September 30, 1989 period, there were 76,069 occasions when inmates were denied their daily hour-long opportunity for recreation, a direct violation of ¶ 19b(1) of SCO3. See excerpt supra. The masters further found that the County had failed to install tier-level recreation equipment, which is also mandated by ¶ 19b(2) of SCO3. For these deficiencies, the masters also recommended the imposition of sanctions. The masters suggested a fine of $20.00 per day for every inmate who was denied a recreational hour for a total fine of $1,521,380.00. The plaintiffs have recommended a sanction of $100.00 per inmate per recreation hour denied. I will discuss this recommendation infra.
The masters suggested that pursuant to ¶ 20(b) the monies from the population fines be placed in the bail fund. At this point, I might add that the masters' calculations regarding population fines was based upon a figure of 544 $100.00 per day per *544 inmate, which was the sum that the parties agreed upon in the event of a population violation. See Addendum to SCO3 and ¶ 20(d) of SCO3 which provides that
The parties to this case having agreed in ¶ 20(d) of SCO3 that the special masters shall set an amount of a fine as a population sanction in the event of certain violations of said SCO3, and this Court having reviewed and approved said Third Supplemental Consent Order; and the masters having recommended the Supplemental Consent Order, and the masters having recommended the amount of $100.00 per prisoner per day as the proper sanction;
IT IS on this 27th day of December 19, 1988,
ORDERED that in the event of violations of the SCO3 as set forth therein in ¶ 20, the sanction to be imposed, is referred to in ¶ 20d, shall be calculated at the rate of $100.00 per prisoner per day.
The masters have also suggested that an automatic system whereby the fines are calculated, collected, and paid into the bail fund on a weekly basis is advisable at this juncture.
The masters have also recommended that the County defendants' recreational fine of $1,521,380.00 be deposited into an interest bearing account to be known as the Recreation Improvement Fund. Monies from that fund would be used to hire an expert who would research and report on recreational opportunities at the jail and how best to effectuate the requirement that every inmate be afforded one hour of recreation per day. The masters further suggested that any future fines be calculated on a weekly basis and paid automatically into the Recreation Improvement Fund.
For their part, plaintiffs agree with many of the masters' recommendations. Plaintiffs ask this Court to adopt the masters' contempt findings and population sanctions. With regard to recreation, the plaintiffs seek adoption of the masters' findings that the County has failed to provide an opportunity for one hour of exercise per inmate and that the County has failed to install and maintain the supplemental equipment. Plaintiffs seek some modification in the

recreational fines0907 plaintiffs ask for a $100.00 fine per inmate for the failure to provide the daily hour of recreation, with some small portion of that fine to be designated as compensatory. Plaintiffs further request that a $20.00 fine per inmate per day be instituted for defendants' failure to provide and maintain supplemental exercise equipment. Again, plaintiffs ask that a small portion of that fine be designated as compensatory. Plaintiffs reiterate their request that the County maintain records to identify which inmates were provided an opportunity for gym use and which inmates were not.
In response to these requests, the County defendants have argued that they should not be held in contempt or sanctioned in light of the establishment of the bail fund. Defendants further assert that compliance is impossible given the expansion of the inmate population. With respect to the issue of the exercise equipment and recreation, the County defendants have asserted that they have made a good faith effort to comply with both the consent judgment and this Court's order and thus the County can not be held liable.
DISCUSSION
Rule 53(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states in part that
In an action to be tried without a jury the Court shall accept the master's findings of facts unless clearly erroneous.... The court after hearing may adopt the report or may modify it or may reject it in whole or in part or may receive further evidence or may recommit it with instructions.
See Kyriazi v. Western Electric Co., 647 F.2d 388, 396 (3d Cir.1981). I shall review the Masters' report and recommendation that I hold the defendants in contempt and impose sanctions with this standard in mind and in light of the developments since the presentation of their report to this Court.
My authority to impose sanctions arises from two separate sources. First, I may impose sanctions as an act of 545 enforcing the agreement between the plaintiffs *545 and County defendants. See Local 93 v. City of Cleveland,
478 U.S. 501, 106 S.Ct. 3063, 3076, 92 L.Ed.2d 405 (1986). When viewed as such, the decision to impose sanctions is simply a matter of construing and apply the agreement. See, e.g., Sansom Committee by Cook v. Lynn, 735 F.2d 1535, 1539 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, sub nom., Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania v. Sansom Committee, 469 U.S. 1017, 105 S.Ct. 431, 83 L.Ed.2d 358 (1984). Second, an imposition of sanctions can be viewed as a penalty for contempt for failure to abide by a judgment, signed by the Court a 0907 judgment which establish clear norms of conduct for the County defendants and notice of penalties for nonperformance. See Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 754 F.2d 120, 128-29 (3d Cir.1985), citing, inter alia, Granny Goose Foods Inc. v. Local 70, 415 U.S. 423, 94 S.Ct. 1113, 39 L.Ed.2d 435 (1974). In this case, I find that the parties have entered into an agreement which provides that the violation of its terms shall result in the imposition of sanctions. Moreover, as their agreement is embodied in an order of this Court, violation of the order triggers the Court's authority to impose sanctions for noncompliance.
In upholding the imposition of sanctions and, ultimately, the district court's order that a plan for the construction of a new jail facility be provided, the Third Circuit, in an opinion written by Chief Judge Gibbons observed that, "we made it clear, however, that the district court had the power to order such a plan." Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 874 F.2d 147, 152 (3d Cir.1989). In grounding this authority, Chief Judge Gibbons observed that,
orders to responsible public officials to prepare and submit plans for remedying constitutional violations are not uncommon.... [i]n the prisoner context the courts have the authority to order local officials to take costly measures to cure violations.
Wecht, supra, at 150. Moreover, the Chief Judge opined that "when the totality of conditions in a jail violates the constitution a district court need not confine itself to the elimination of specific conditions. Rather, the nature of the overall violation determines the permissible scope of an effective remedy." Wecht, supra, at 153 and cases cited therein. Hence, my authority to impose sanctions and to issue an order to remedy the violations is firmly established in the law of this Circuit, as well the parties own consensual agreement which was incorporated into the order of this Court.

In light of their failure to maintain the agreed upon cap, the consent order provides that such noncompliance "will result in prompt proceedings to impose and compel payment of sanctions ..." See ¶ 2 of the SCO3. Relatedly, ¶ 20 provides that

The County defendants shall have until the dates set forth ... [above] to reduce the population of the jail to the interim levels therein specified and to reach the ultimate maximum capacity of 594 inmates.... Any failure to meet those requirements or thereafter maintain the jail population at 594 or less inmates, or any failure thereafter to adhere to the housing unit capacity limits, shall result in the following:

a. If the population of the jail is not 594 or less, sanctions shall, as previously agreed by the County defendants in Paragraph 3 of the [second supplemental consent order], attach automatically to any continued noncompliance with the 594 capacity limit....

c. ... the sanctions authorize[d] ... for violations of the 594 capacity limit ... shall be based on a daily amount for each inmate confined in excess of the overall 594 capacity....

Hence, under the terms of the agreement, automatic daily sanctions are to be imposed for each inmate housed at the facility over the 594-inmate cap in the amount of $100 per inmate per day. See the addendum to the supplemental consent order.

In my decision of May 10th I found that,

Sanctions are particularly appropriate in light of defendants' repeated violation of the order of this

court. Thus, for violations of the cap and to deter future disobeyance of orders of this court I shall

546

sanction the county. *546 See p. 17, May 10th Opinion. Defendants continue to repeatedly violate

the orders of this Court and the terms of the consent judgment, despite my hope that the May 10th

sanctions would deter the County from future violations. The County has, by its own admission,

housed inmates in excess of the population count and once again violated the law. Thus, for

violations of the cap on population both in overall inmate population and in specific housing areas,

I find the County in violation and I shall sanction them according to the terms of the SCO3. The

stipulated figures that run through October 13, 1989 result in a total fine of $1,905,300.00 with

$1,476,800.00 due to the overall population violation and $428,500.00 ascribed to the specific

housing violations. (See attached figures, Addendum 1 and 2 to this opinion).

The County's defense to their acknowledged violation of the consent judgment of this Court simply cannot stand. In the first place, good faith verbal efforts to rectify the unconstitutional conditions, do not nullify defendants' persistent violation of a court order and their continued exposure of the plaintiff class to constitutionally infirm conditions.[1] In this regard, courts have found that even commencing construction of a new jail facility which, to a great degree, will establish compliance with the goals of an overcrowding stipulation does not warrant a modification in the finding that the current facility is inadequate and can no longer accept prisoners. In Morales Feliciano v. Hernandez-Colon, 672 F.Supp. 627, 637 (D.P.R.1987), the district court found that

Sincere thorough and effective efforts to comply with court orders are nothing more than what the law expects. The attempt to transform these efforts into relief from the underlying duty is unseemly.

See also Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht, 573 F.Supp. 454 (W.D.Pa. 1983). At issue in this matter is nothing resembling the partially completed construction of a new facility described in Feliciano. Instead, defendants urge that the court's own prior finding of contempt nullifies their continued noncompliance and that the bail fund exempts defendants from the independent need to maintain the population at or below cap.

The sanctions out of which the bail fund grew are drawn from a prior contempt finding. As such, they are not directed towards the County's subsequent violation of SCO3. Moreover, this court recognizes that the bail fund is a stop-gap measure. In this regard, Judge Cohill, in imposing a somewhat similar release program, wrote

So long as this emergency exists an arbitrary formula for the release of prisoners will have to be utilized ... In no way should this opinion and order be construed by the defendants as reason for them to relax their efforts. It is the duty of the County to house prisoners, and any release of prisoners should be recognized as a final, albeit temporary, effort to ameliorate the situation, not as a solution to the problem.

Inmates v. Wecht, 573 F.Supp. at 57. Here, too the Court will tolerate no relaxation on the County's part.

Defendants' representation that compliance with the court order and the terms of their own consensual agreement is literally impossible fails to satisfy the requirements for impossibility as they are defined in the relevant caselaw and portions of the consent decree. In upholding sanctions against the Allegheny County defendants, the appellate court addressed defendants' contention that they were unable to comply with the terms of the order as follows,

547

*547 The ... defense of inability to comply, however, refers to physical impossibility beyond the

control of the alleged contention. The orders in question were directed to all the defendants, and

the suggestion that it was physically impossible for Allegheny County to obey the order in the

respects in which they were held to be in contempt is sophistical. The County officials simply

chose to take no steps to provide the warden and his staff with the wherewithal to comply. Such

conduct exposes the party responsible to contempt.

Wecht, supra, at 152, citing Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital, 673 F.2d 628, 639 (3rd Cir.1982). Here, too, defendants are not physically barred from meeting their obligations. Rather, through inactivity they have blatantly chosen to remain in contempt of a court order and to ignore the plain language of their own agreement.

SCO3 explicitly defines what constitutes an emergency and hence a permissible violation of the population caps. There has been no such emergency here, nor any allegation of one on the part of defendants. As the SCO3 set forth

For an emergency to constitute the basis for mitigation of sanctions under this paragraph, the warden shall provide immediate telephone notice to plaintiffs' counsel of the emergency declared. With 24 hours thereafter, written notice shall be provided, setting forth the reason for the emergency, its expected duration, the total number of inmates housed at the E.C.J., the number of inmates added by the emergency to the E.C.J., the locations in which these inmates have been housed, and the expected impact on conditions, services or programs available to other inmates.

¶ 20(f)(2) SCO3. The defendants have not only offered any nonwaived defense to their violation of the population requirements of the consent order, but also have not observed any of the applicable procedures.

The record in this case demonstrates that despite all the written, consensual undertakings on the part of the County defendants, they have not yet spent a single dime towards alleviating the critical housing problem facing the Essex County Jail facility, which defendants themselves recognize unequivocally and which they themselves must seek to correct. There has been considerable posturing on the part of County defendants, but there has been no meaningful action. County defendants have referred to the proposed construction of a new facility, but any new facility is at least 4 or 5 years down the road. No action has been taken regarding the manifest problems facing the county today. As pointed out earlier in this Opinion, the substantial fines that are being levied today can and must be laid at the feet of the County defendants 0907they made the promises; they did not keep them.

It is the degree and constancy of the overpopulation violations that have led the special masters to suggest that a self-executing system be implemented, whereby any population over cap automatically triggers the appropriate fine. At this time, I am reluctant to impose such a system; although past history might indicate that it would be a prudent choice. I prefer instead to provide for a weekly tabulation of the population violation (if any) coupled with the amount of the sanction, were such sanction to be imposed 0907using as a baseline amount the $100.00 figure per inmate per day provided for in the addendum to the SCO3. The County should provide this report to the

special masters on a weekly basis. The masters may make any appropriate recommendation to the Court upon receipt of this information.
As to the question of what to do with the sanction money imposed by the court today, the masters have recommended that, pursuant to ¶ 22 of the consent order and the terms of this court's prior decisions, the fine money shall be paid into the Bail Fund. Here, however, the plaintiffs have also agreed that the sanction can be put to use by "having a special master or monitor require the County to arrange for the actual provision of 548 programs or services or of construction necessary to achieve compliance." SCO3 p. 18 (emphasis added). The *548 Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has approved such remedial measures. See Wecht, 754 F.2d at 120; see also Owens-El v. Robinson, 442 F.Supp. 1368 (W.D.Pa. 1978).
Pursuant to my authority therefore to fashion an appropriate remedy and drawing from the parties' own agreement, I recognize that the bail fund is one such use and that, moreover, to facilitate both the operation of the bail fund and bail proceedings in general, certain expenditures may be required. I direct my masters to provide a report of what would further be necessary for an effective bail program.
Mindful of the United States Constitution's requirements that individuals not be housed in unconstitutional surroundings and the legitimate penalogical objectives of the County defendants as well as the protection and well-being of County residents, I am reluctant to order that all of the fine money be placed in a bail fund. I believe that a more constructive, far-sighted plan may be capable of formulation. I, therefore, order the parties to submit alternative proposals to the special masters within two weeks time, bearing in mind that ¶ 22(a) warrants that a special master or monitor may require the County to arrange for the actual provisions of programs or services or of construction necessary to achieve compliance.
In Morales Feliciano v. Hernandez Colon, Judge Perez-Giminez wrote about the role of the federal judiciary when it is called upon to assess prison conditions and ultimately finds itself in the position of imposing sanctions and constructing remedies. His words refer to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its status vis a vis the federal government, but his words hold equal meaning for to the people and the state of New Jersey. He explained:
Finally, as for the effect of compliance on the sovereignty of the commonwealth and the integrity of federalist relations, there must be no confusion as to the nature of the obligation in this case. Nothing in this court's actions interferes with the efforts of the commonwealth as to the enforcement of the criminal laws of Puerto Rico, or any other policy decisions of that entity. The Commonwealth is being required to do only one thing in this action: adhere to the mandates of the United States Constitution ... The conditions of confinement must meet constitutional standards. The application of this principle of constitutional government to Puerto Rico scarcely interferes with the prerogatives of the commonwealth.
Ibid. at p. 635 (emphasis in original).
Let me turn now to the alleged violations of the recreation portion of SCO3. Defendants stated that their failure to comply with the recreation requirements is due to at least three factors 0907the fact that security concerns prevent them from installing the tier level equipment, the need to convert the upstairs gym into a dormitory, and the lack of a third elevator in which to transport inmates to and from the gym.
As to the security concerns, the County states that it requires the use of a welder before it can install the equipment. The County alleges that there is only one welder they can hire and he, unfortunately, has been unavailable. Hence, the argument goes, it cannot perform its necessary obligations.
With respect to the area of recreation, this Court is quite appreciative of defendants' real security concerns. However, this Court is also concerned with both the plaintiffs' constitutional rights and with the unwavering duty of all parties to obey the law. In my opinion of May 10th, I gave the County, in essence, a grace period to allow them to implement an effective recreational program; one which gives inmates their mandated hour of daily exercise and included the installation of then newly-purchased equipment. I also gave the County until June 1, 1989 to establish a weekly monitoring system. The grace period has expired. I believe, as the Masters suggest, that had the County been more serious about meeting court-ordered obligations they would have found another welder to

549 perform the work necessary to insure a safe installation of the supplemental equipment and they *549 would have built this sorely-needed third elevator.
Moreover, the County's suggestion that "there is ample space for inmates in the common areas for such exercise as pushups, sit-ups and even walking" (p. 22) is, with all due respect, misplaced. Defendants must remember that they are in violation of a consent judgment; the recreational requirements have been agreed upon by the parties and ordered by the court. I respectfully suggest that the fact that inmates can "even walk" around the common areas does not supplant the judgment of this Court and the parties that all inmates be provided with one hour of recreation time per day.[2]
As noted earlier, the Masters directed the parties to provide their calculations of the appropriate numbers for recreation violations. The defendants failed to provide any such numbers. Plaintiff has provided this Court with figures. Accordingly, defendants' silence can only be interpreted as acquiescence in plaintiff's numbers or as disregard for the orders of this Court.
Plaintiffs, who have provided this Court with a figure of 76,069 for the number of inmates denied their daily hour of recreation, ask this Court to impose a fine of $100.00 a day per inmate who was so deprived. See attached monthly breakdowns (Addendum 3). At this time, the Court is reluctant to impose a recreation fine that exceeds the population fines. Since it is the first time such a fine has been imposed (despite, however, the fact that the County has been on clear notice of this aspect of the SCO), the Court will impose a fine of $20.00 per day per inmate, which works out to $1,521,380.00.
Plaintiffs have asked that a portion of the fine be compensatory in nature and thus paid to the plaintiff class. The Court believes that a compensatory fine is unnecessary and that strict compliance with the recreational requirements should be sufficient.
Plaintiffs also ask that a separate fine be imposed for the failure to install the supplemental equipment. This Court prefers to treat defendants' failure to provide the necessary recreational opportunities and facilities as a package. The $20.00 fine shall cover all aspects of defendants' noncompliance, including their failure to provide the weekly reports. Special emphasis was placed on the need for those reports in my May 10th opinion. I trust that it is not necessary to repeat the need for such reports here.
The Masters suggest a self-executing fine system with regard to the recreation situation. While I will not impose a self-triggering fine system, I would ask that the weekly reports of recreational figures that already were to be provided now include a calculation as to what fine would be in order if any violation of the recreation order were to occur, based on the Court's figure of $20.00 per day per inmate. Once again, upon receipt of these figures, the Masters may make any appropriate recommendation to the Court. Let there be no misunderstanding, the County is to provide the Masters with these reports on a weekly basis.
The question next arises as to what should be done with the money collected in connection with the County's violation of the recreation provisions of SCO3. The Masters suggest that a Recreation Fund be established and I think that suggestion is a good one. Pursuant to the terms of SCO3, ¶ 22a, any monies paid into the Court may be used "to arrange for the provision of programs or services or of construction necessary to achieve compliance." The Masters have suggested that an expert be designated to study all aspect of the provision of recreation at the jail and prepare a report on how the money can best be spent to bring the jail into compliance. The Special Masters suggest that upon completion of the expert's report, the Masters will hold a hearing and 550 make recommendations to this Court. I am willing to consider the proposition that the Recreation Fund be *550 spent on hiring an expert whose recommendations will then be heard by the Masters and, where appropriate, implemented. It seems that were plaintiffs and defendants to stipulate as to what needed to be done, how best to do it and in what time period it should be done, the money could go directly towards the provision of services.
At this time, I order that the fine be placed into an interest bearing account entitled the "Recreation Fund" and that the parties get back to this Court within 14 days from the entry of the attached order informing the Court as to whether or not an expert shall be necessary. If they answer this question negatively, then I direct that the parties present the Court with a detailed program and timetable for implementing the full recreation system at the jail.

Before closing, let me recapitulate. The aggregate fine money should be placed in an interest bearing account to be designated by the Court. The recreation fund should be maintained separately and also in an interest bearing account to be designated by the Court. The money that the County is to be fined as a contempt sanction for the repeated population violations is to be utilized for the bail fund both directly and as may be necessary to supplement the effective operation of bail and relevant monitoring systems in the Essex County Jail. The contempt fine money will also be used on such other projects as are in keeping with ¶ 22(a) of the SCO3, projects which deal not only with bailing out individuals, but which are also designed to keep those individuals in the Essex County facilities, something which can only be done if the facilities meet and maintain the requisite constitutional standards. The fine money shall be deposited with the Court no later than 14 days from the date of entry of this order and the parties' suggestions as to the utilization of such monies are to be presented to the Special Masters in two weeks from the entry of the attached order so that the Masters may take whatever steps necessary prior to recommending a course of action to me.
In so ruling as I have today, I am cognizant that some may perceive that this Courts' action may represent an unwelcome and unwarranted intrusion into the functions that properly belong to the legislative and the executive branches of state and county government. But, in representing to the Court that they are literally unable to bring the jail into compliance with constitutional standards, the County defendants have foisted onto this court the necessary role of insuring that the Constitution is upheld. What the County defendants have done is to blatantly pass the buck to this court by doing nothing but make empty promises. Perhaps, the County defendants' hope that the taxpayers of Essex County will perceive defendants as clothed in pristine raiment while venting their spleen on the judiciary. While this may be viewed by some as good politics, it is sadly an abdication of the County defendants' responsibilities to the citizenry and to the Court. In ruling as I have today, it is my hope that this decision will provoke constructive action rather than rhetoric.
I believe that concludes the issues between plaintiff and County defendants. I am pleased that a stipulation has been reached between the State and the plaintiffs and I will order the stipulation filed as of today.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the County defendants are hereby fined $1,476,800.00 for the overall population violations and $428,500 for the violations of specific housing caps. The County defendants are fined $1,521,380.00 for their failure to provide each inmate with one hour of exercise a day and to install the tier level equipment. The fine monies, which are to be segregated into two accounts 0907one for population sanctions and remedies, the other for recreation sanctions and remedies0907are to be deposited within 14 days of the entry of the within Order. The parties should also submit their proposals to the Masters regarding alternatives to the bail fund and the necessity of and potential uses for the recreation improvement fund within the same period of time.
551 *551 ADDENDUM 1
The record reflects the following number of inmates over cap within the overall population for June, July, August, September, and part of September and October, 1989 as follows:

JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER

-----------------------------------------------------------------

1.

39

24

113

158

200

2.

42

24

118

157

202

3.

16

22

121

169

200

4.

20

69

121

166

183

5.

13

80

102

194

149

6.

23

76

102

187

109

7.

26

78

102

181

94

8.

33

53

93

194

108

9.

28

66

114

159

104

10.

24

63

120

179

123

11.

29

78

139

167

48

12.

25

65

102

197

41

13.

42

83

109

179

42

14.

43

72

119

177

15.

36

53

117

191

16.

28

67

132

17.

7

61

129

18.

25

100

139

181

19.

26

112

125

191

20.

49

105

124

195

21.

59

103

124

193

22.

53

63

154

196

23.

70

90

174

24.

42

84

178

25.

59

84

156

219

26.

62

85

136

221

27.

77

84

147

226

28.

78

94

148

237

29.

77

68

135

226

30.

32

84

167

31.

80

180

ADDENDUM 2

The numbers for the population over cap per dormitory area are as follows:

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL09071989 Tier Man Dorm Data CAPACITY IS 6 INMATES

JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER

-------------------------------------------------------

1.

2

2

2

2

5

2.

1

2

2

2

5

3.

1

3

2

2

4

4.

2

2

3

2

4

5.

2

2

2

2

4

6.

2

2

2

4

7.

2

1

2

2

4

8.

3

2

2

3

4

9.

3

2

2

4

4

10.

1

2

2

3

4

11.

1

2

2

3

4

12.

1

1

2

3

4

13.

1

1

2

3

4

552 *552

JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER

-------------------------------------------------------

14.

1

1

2

15.

3

2

16.

3

3

17.

3

2

18.

2

2

19.

2

2

20.

2

2

21.

1

2

22.

1

2

23.

1

2

24.

1

2

25.

1

12

26.

1

2

27.

3

2

28.

2

3

2

29.

2

2

2

30.

1

2

2

31.

2

2

TOTAL

28

58

72

33

54

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL09071989 2nd Floor Dorm Data CAPACITY IS 98 INMATES

JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER

-------------------------------------------------------

1.

34

16

30

25

35

2.

32

10

32

29

36

3.

31

4

31

31

38

4.

30

20

30

29

22

5.

28

25

16

32

0

6.

29

15

21

32

3

7.

29

14

21

26

4

8.

30

9

20

30

6

9.

25

14

32

22

18

10.

32

11

32

25

32

11.

31

21

32

19

29

12.

30

11

29

30

30

13.

30

23

19

24

21

14.

24

15

23

15.

28

17

19

16.

24

18

22

17.

28

13

22

18.

29

28

30

19.

28

29

29

20.

30

27

25

21.

22

21

18

22.

28

13

12

23.

17

23

28

24.

17

19

30

25.

16

13

25

26.

15

19

25

27.

25

29

28

28.

22

32

29

29.

23

32

21

30.

17

30

32

31.

27

31

TOTAL 784

598

794

354

274

553 *553

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL09071989 Civil Area Dorm Data CAPACITY IS 10 INMATES

JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER

-------------------------------------------------------

1.

20

24

7

11

10

2.

12

23

3

11

10

3.

13

24

2

11

13

4.

12

23

1

11

13

5.

11

22

5

11

11

6.

13

24

5

11

12

7.

13

23

5

12

10

8.

15

23

7

11

10

9.

18

22

7

13

14

10.

17

21

9

13

14

11.

19

23

14

14

7

12.

19

17

10

17

10

13.

19

18

13

19

12

14.

15

20

13

15.

15

19

12

16.

12

19

10

17.

13

23

13

18.

14

25

13

19.

14

24

12

20.

16

24

10

21.

18

17

10

22.

21

19

14

23.

25

20

9

24.

24

20

10

25.

25

18

12

26.

25

5

15

27.

23

6

13

28.

21

9

18

29.

23

5

13

30.

25

7

15

31.

8

13

TOTAL 530

575

313

165

146

554 *554

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL-RECREATION DATA FOR 1989 OPPORTUNITY BY HOUSING UNIT FOR ACCESS TO GYM-UP OR GYM-DOWN

DATE FLOORS[*]

/

Rec Tot Rec

2N 2S 3N 3S 4N 4S 6N 6S 8N 8S 10N 10S 12C 12D 12Q 12T 12M

August

1 60 59

17

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2

10

60 59

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3

53

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7

53 53

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8

59

53

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9

53 53

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10

53 53

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14

54 54

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 58 59

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16

60 61

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17

57

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18

60 61

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------22 55 55

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23

61

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24

60 60

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25

61 62

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------26

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------27

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------28

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

555 *555

DATE FLOORS[*]

/

Rec Tot Rec

2N 2S 3N 3S 4N 4S 6N 6S 8N 8S 10N 10S 12C 12D 12Q 12T 12M

29

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30

60 60

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31

55

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Month Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

556 *556

ADDENDUM 3
ESSEX COUNTY JAIL0907RECREATION DATA FOR 1989 OPPORTUNITY BY HOUSING UNIT FOR ACCESS TO GYM-UP OR GYM-DOWN

DATE FLOORS[*]

/

Rec Tot Rec

2N 2S 3N 3S 4N 4S 6N 6S 8N 8S 10N 10S 12C 12D 12Q 12T 12M

June

1

54 54

54 53

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2

65

54

54 54

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3

54 54 52 52

8

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 64 64

53 53 53 53

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 63 63 11

53 53

51

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 64 63 12

54

54

11

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7

15

51 54 53

53

2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8

12

56

54 54 53

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9

62

53

54 54

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10

13

54 54 50 49

3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11 65 64

13 53 52 53 53

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12

64

12

53

50

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13 64 64

16

53

54

15

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14

14 13

53 60 59

54

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15

14

59 54

54 53

8

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16 61

53

54 53

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17

51 51 49 48

3

4

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19

53 53

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20 64 64

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21

60 60

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22

54 53

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23

66

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------25

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26

15

52 51

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27 62 61

13

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

557 *557

DATE FLOORS[*]

/

Rec Tot Rec

2N 2S 3N 3S 4N 4S 6N 6S 8N 8S 10N 10S 12C 12D 12Q 12T 12M

28

9

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29

52

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30

48

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Month Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

558 *558

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL0907RECREATION DATA FOR 1989 OPPORTUNITY BY HOUSING UNIT FOR ACCESS TO GYM-UP OR GYM-DOWN

DATE FLOORS[*]

/

Rec Tot Rec

2N 2S 3N 3S 4N 4S 6N 6S 8N 8S 10N 10S 12C 12D 12Q 12T 12M

July

1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10

16 53 53

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14

53

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17

10

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18 63 63

14

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19

10

53 53

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20

52 51

8

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21

54

54

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------22

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24

10

53 52

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25 56 55

7

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26

10 53 53

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27

53 53

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28

5454

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

559 *559

DATE FLOORS[*]

/

Rec Tot Rec

2N 2S 3N 3S 4N 4S 6N 6S 8N 8S 10N 10S 12C 12D 12Q 12T 12M

29

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31

10

53 53

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Month Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
560 *560 ESSEX COUNTY JAIL0907RECREATION DATA FOR 1989
OPPORTUNITY BY HOUSING UNIT FOR ACCESS TO GYM-UP OR GYM-DOWN

DATE FLOORS[*]

/

Rec Tot Rec

2N 2S 3N 3S 4N 4S 6N 6S 8N 8S 10N 10S 12C 12D 12Q 12T 12M

September

1

59

59

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4

57 58

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 65 65

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6

63 63

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7

62 63

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8

60

59

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11

58

9

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12 59 59

17

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13

61 61

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14

59 59

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15

63

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18

60 59

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19 63 62

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20

63 62

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21

6363

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22

65

64

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25

65 65

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------26 63 63

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27

65 65

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28

65 65

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

561 *561

DATE FLOORS[*]

/

Rec Tot Rec

2N 2S 3N 3S 4N 4S 6N 6S 8N 8S 10N 10S 12C 12D 12Q 12T 12M

29

67

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Month Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Grand Total0907June 1, 1989 to Sept. 30, 1989
[1] In this regard, it is worth remembering that included among the plaintiff class are pretrial detainees, and that the law imposes a higher standard of conditions on those incarcerees who are, by the terms of the United States Constitution, presumed innocent. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-40, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1871-75, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1978); Inmates v. Allegheny County v. Wecht, 874 F.2d 147 at 153; Union County Jail Inmates v. Scanlon, 537 F.Supp. 993, 1002 (D.N.J.1982), rev'd on other grounds, 713 F.2d 984 (3d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1102, 104 S.Ct. 1600, 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984).
[2] In this regard, see also N.J.A.C. § 10A:17-8.6 which provides in subsection b that, "inmates shall be given an opportunity to participate in a minimum of one hour of active recreation per day."
[*] Key for 12th Floor: 12C = Civil; 12D = Detention; 12Q = Quiet; 12T = Tierman Dorm; 12M = Med.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 18 F.Supp.2d 418 (1998)
ESSEX COUNTY JAIL ANNEX INMATES, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
James W. TREFFINGER, et al., Defendants. ESSEX COUNTY JAIL INMATES, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. James W. TREFFINGER, et al., Defendants.
Nos. CIV. A. 87-871(HAA), CIV. A. 82-1945(HAA).
United States District Court, D. New Jersey.
August 17, 1998.
41290 *419 *420 Michael Marucci, Diana Johnston, Office of the Public Defender, Trenton, NJ.
Wayne J. Positan, Lum, Danzis, Drasco, Positan & Kleinberg, Roseland, NJ.
Catherine E. Tamasik, Essex County Counsel, Newark, NJ.
OPINION
HAROLD A. ACKERMAN, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the court on the defendants' motion to disqualify the plaintiffs' counsel, Susan Remis Silver, Esq., for alleged violations of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct ("RPC"). The plaintiffs in these consolidated class action lawsuits are inmates at the Essex County Jail and Jail Annex. At the heart of this matter are very serious allegations that Ms. Silver, in her capacity as the plaintiffs' principal attorney, provided security sensitive information concerning specific staffing deficiencies at the Jail Annex to eight inmate representatives. This information was contained in a detailed memorandum which pointed out specific staffing deficiencies for each day over a span of fifty-three days. In addition, after she had assured this court that she 421 recognized *421 the very important security concerns at the jail facilities, Ms. Silver provided an inmate with information concerning the date and time of his outside medical appointment. As will be discussed more fully below, these acts on the part of Ms. Silver were serious breaches of security at the Jail Annex. At best, these acts manifest Ms. Silver's utter lack of awareness and appreciation of the sensitive position she occupies in this litigation as the principal attorney for inmates at the Jail and Jail Annex. This court concludes that Ms. Silver's continued representation of the plaintiffs in these cases will impugn the integrity of these proceedings, and thus, the defendants' motion to disqualify her is hereby granted.
The two underlying class action lawsuits captioned above were filed on behalf of the inmates of the Essex County Jail and Jail Annex and allege that the conditions of confinement are unconstitutional. Each case was settled, and many aspects of jail operations have been governed by a series of consent orders. Since the initiation of these lawsuits, the plaintiffs have been represented by the State of New Jersey's Inmate Advocacy Unit.[1] Ms. Silver is the present Director of the Inmate Advocacy Unit and has been the principal attorney representing the plaintiffs in these cases since 1993.
On January 30, 1996, the defendants filed a notice of motion to disqualify Ms. Silver from further representation of the plaintiffs based on alleged violations of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct. This court referred the defendants' motion to the Special Masters in this case, Bennet D. Zurofsky, Esq., and Frederic K. Becker, Esq. In a Report and Recommendation dated May 14, 1996, the Special Masters found, among other things, that

although "there are facts which could support the argument that RPC 4.1(a)(1) and RPC 8.4(c) were both violated," Report and Recommendation, at 22, the defendants had nonetheless failed to demonstrate that Ms. Silver should be disqualified in this matter. Therefore, the Special Masters recommended that the defendants' motion be denied.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs, represented by the Office of the Public Defender, filed papers urging this court to affirm the Special Masters' conclusion that the defendants' disqualification motion be denied. The plaintiffs also objected to that portion of the Special Masters' report that concluded, at least implicitly, that Ms. Silver had violated RPC 4.1 and RPC 8.4. The plaintiffs argued that I should affirmatively find that Ms. Silver did not violate those rules.
The defendants opposed the plaintiffs' request for an affirmative finding that Ms. Silver did not violate RPC 4.1 and RPC 8.4. In addition, the defendants renewed their arguments in support of the motion to disqualify Ms. Silver.[2] After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, as well as the entire record relied upon by the Special Masters in deciding the motion, this court held a hearing on April 17 and 18, 1997 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(e) to determine whether to accept, reverse, accept in part, or reverse in part the Special Masters' recommendation.[3] Subsequent to the April, 1997 hearing, the defendants filed supplemental papers, in which they apprised the court of another incident in which Ms. Silver allegedly breached security measures at the jail facilities. After another round of briefing was permitted as to whether and in what manner this latest incident affected the disqualification motion, this court held another hearing on March 31, 1998 to address the issue.
This court has carefully reviewed all of the affidavits, certifications, and briefs submitted on this matter. This court 422 also held *422 two hearings in which it had an opportunity to hear testimony from various witnesses.
Furthermore, this court has scrupulously reviewed the Special Masters' Report and Recommendation. Based on this extensive review of the record, and in view of the sensitive nature of this litigation, this court is compelled to disqualify Ms. Silver as the plaintiffs' counsel in this case.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(e) specifies that in non-jury actions which have been referred to a special master,
the court shall accept the master's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. Within 10 days after being served with notice of the filing of the report any party may serve written objections thereto upon the other parties. Application to the court for action upon the report and upon objections thereto shall be by motion and upon notice as prescribed in Rule 6(d). The court after hearing may adopt the report or may modify it or may reject it in whole or in part or may receive further evidence or may recommit it with instructions.
Pursuant to this rule, it is well established that a special master's findings of fact will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous "`when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" Dome Petroleum Ltd. v. Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 131 F.R.D. 63, 65 (D.N.J.1990) (reviewing decision of United States Magistrate) (quoting United States v. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)). However, a court must review a special master's conclusions of law under the de novo standard. See Stauble v. Warrob, Inc., 977 F.2d 690, 693 (1st Cir.1992).
III. BACKGROUND
The approximate inmate population at the Essex County Jail Annex in North Caldwell, New Jersey is between 1,300 and 1,400. The approximate number of corrections officers on duty at any given time is between 60 and 80. None of the corrections officers on duty carries a firearm of any sort. Inmates are not restrained by handcuffs or the like for significant periods of the day, and they are not separated from corrections officers by any barriers. Inmates are grouped together and housed in tiers or wings.

The procedures adopted at the Essex County Jail and the Jail Annex are geared towards maximizing security. Corrections officers at the Jail Annex are assigned to either custodial supervision or support operation. Each officer assigned to custodial supervision occupies a fixed post and oversees a group of inmates. Officers assigned to support operations do not occupy any fixed position, but rather provide relief to those assigned to custodial supervision and remain available to respond to emergencies which may arise from time to time. Because the support operation officers are not deployed to a fixed post, an inmate is generally incapable of discerning through personal observation the number of relief officers on duty at any given time. The defendants have described the salient effect of this procedure as a "carefully-cultivated uncertainty," which seeks to deter inmate misbehavior 0907 attacks on other inmates or officers and escapes 0907 by keeping them unsure as to when and where corrections officers may be in the vicinity. Moreover, while the inmate groups remain together for meals and recreation, intergroup communication is restricted to the greatest extent possible.

To maintain this "carefully-cultivated uncertainty," strict confidentiality of corrections officer scheduling information is required. Such schedules are prepared in the Central Scheduling Office and distributed only to the warden of the facility and the shift commanders.

Ms. Silver, in her capacity as the inmates' principal attorney in this litigation, authored a memorandum addressed ostensibly to the Special Masters, Lisa Martinez Wolmart, and all counsel, entitled "Officer Staffing Shortages that Result in the Inadequate Supervision of Inmates," which concerned the issue of officer staffing. The first paragraph of the memorandum succinctly describes its purpose:

423

*423 I have prepared a chart based on the Officer Staffing Schedules at the Essex County Jail

Annex. This chart demonstrates that there is a continuing problem with officer staffing shortages.

The result is that tiers of inmates are left without any officer supervision for periods of time each

day.

The memorandum consists of slightly over twelve single-spaced pages detailing numerous instances of staffing deficiencies. The memorandum provides in some detail the perceived deficiencies of officer staffing at the Jail Annex for each day between August 1, 1995 and September 22, 1995. Even a cursory review of this memorandum reveals that it contains quite sensitive information.[4] Although not indicated in the memorandum itself, Ms. Silver sent copies of this memorandum to eight inmate representatives under a cover letter dated September 29, 1995.

In a letter dated October 11, 1995, Ms. Silver admitted that she obtained the officer staffing schedules, which formed the basis of her memorandum, from a corrections officer outside of the normal discovery process. She would not, however, identify the corrections officer, although she did say that the officer had keys to the building where the schedules were maintained. After receiving the letter, the county retained independent counsel to investigate the circumstances surrounding Ms. Silver's acquisition of confidential staffing information. Based upon this investigation, the county concluded that Ms. Silver had obtained the staffing schedules from Corrections Officer Michael DeMeo, an employee of the county and the President of the Policeman's Benevolent Association ("PBA"), Local 157. The PBA office is located in the same administrative building in which the schedules were located. Corrections Officer DeMeo did not have authorized access to the schedules.

On December 6 or 7, 1995, Ms. Silver spoke by telephone to Martin Hellwig, the Essex County Director of Public Safety. Although Mr. Hellwig and Ms. Silver agreed that the conversation did take place and that the issue of the staffing schedules was discussed, they provided slightly different versions of other aspects of the telephone conversation in their respective certifications submitted to the Special Masters. In his certification, Mr. Hellwig described the event as follows in relevant part:

2. On or around December 7, 1995, I received a telephone call from Ms. Silver who wished to discuss the handling of inmates' incoming correspondence.

3. Unbeknownst to Ms. Silver, at the time of our conversation, I had before me a copy of her September 29, 1995 cover letter to eight inmates under which she enclosed a copy of a detailed memorandum also dated September 29, 1995 and purporting to highlight alleged custodial

corrections officers staffing shortages. At the time of my conversation with Ms. Silver, however, I did not have copies of the scheduling memorandum which Ms. Silver provided to the eight inmates.

4. During our conversation, Ms. Silver assured, in response to my direct inquiry, that she had not provided any scheduling information to inmates. From the cover letter to inmates which I had before me, I knew that Ms. Silver's statements were false.

5. A day or two after our telephone conversation, Ms. Silver met with some of her clients at the Essex County Jail Annex in North Caldwell. Apparently, Ms. Silver learned during her meetings that the County was aware that she had provided scheduling information to inmates. Later that day, Ms. Silver visited my office in person and attempted to justify her false statements of the previous day. Ms. Silver took the position that all information set forth in her September 29, 1995 scheduling memorandum already was in possession of the inmates. She characterized the scheduling memorandum as having only the most "general" information. At the time of this conversation, I still did not have in my possession nor had I reviewed a copy of Ms. Silver's scheduling memorandum.

6. After my second conversation with Ms. Silver, I reviewed a copy of the scheduling

424

memorandum which she sent to eight inmates. *424 The information is not "general" as Ms. Silver

claimed. Rather, the information is quite detailed, specifying such things as when and where relief

officers are deployed. This most certainly is not the type of information an inmate could glean

through personal observation. I believe Ms. Silver's characterization of the scheduling information

was deliberately misleading.

Certification of Martin Hellwig, January 23, 1996.

Ms. Silver's version of events is as follows in relevant part:

9. With respect to Martin Hellwig's certification submitted in support of the County's motion, Mr. Hellwig states that "[o]n or around December 7, 1995, I received a telephone call from Ms. Silver who wished to discuss the handling of inmates' incoming correspondence." (Hellwig Certification, para. 2).

10. Mr. Hellwig and I did not speak with each other on December 7, 1996 [sic]. We did have a telephone conversation on Wednesday, December 6, 1996 [sic], but at no point in time did we "discuss the handling of inmates' incoming correspondence."

11. My call to Mr. Hellwig on December 6, 1995, had absolutely no bearing on the issues before the Court that relate to either the plaintiffs' pending contempt application or to the issues that would later form the basis for the motion that I filed on December 21, 1995 for an order to protect inmates' rights to confidential attorney communications.

12. During my telephone conversation with Mr. Hellwig on December 6, 1995, he asked me the following question: "Did you ever send inmates copies of the Officer Staffing Schedules?"

13. I have never sent any Officer Staffing Schedules to inmates, and I answered Mr. Hellwig truthfully when I told him, "No, I have not." I also told Mr. Hellwig that I never would send Officer Staffing Schedules to the inmates.

14. I remember Mr. Hellwig's specific question, because I remember thinking that the way Mr. Hellwig asked me the question, I could answer the question narrowly but truthfully.

15. Mr. Hellwig is incorrect when he states that I "assured [him] in response to [his] direct inquiry, that [I] had not provided any scheduling information to inmates." (Hellwig Certification, para. 4). Mr. Hellwig never asked me any general question about "scheduling information." He only had asked me the specific question about whether I had sent Officer Staffing Schedules to the inmates.

16. I did not provide information to Mr. Hellwig about the substance of my correspondence with my clients on officer staffing since this correspondence is an attorney/client privileged communication on an issue that is before this Court as part of the plaintiffs' contempt application.

17. Mr. Hellwig also told me in our telephone conversation on December 6, 1995, that something had just come across his desk that day that he found "shocking" and that the information involved me. I asked him to explain.

18. Mr. Hellwig told me that he did not feel comfortable telling me about it over the telephone, but he would be happy to discuss the matter with me in person.

19. I told Mr. Hellwig that I had plans to see the inmate representative committees at both the Essex County Jail and the Essex County Jail Annex on Friday, December 8, 1996 [sic].

20. Mr. Hellwig told me that after I finished meeting with both Inmate Committees, I should come to his office and we would talk again. I again tried to press Mr. Hellwig to tell me what had happened that was causing him concern, but Mr. Hellwig would only tell me that we would talk when we met on Friday.

* * * * * *

22. When I had finished meeting with the Inmate Representatives at the ECJ [on the morning of

December 8, 1995], I saw Mr. Hellwig in the ECJ sally port as he was leaving. Mr. Hellwig came

over to me and told me that when I went to the ECJA that afternoon, I should make certain that I

425

spoke to Emma Hunter about an incident *425 that recently happened. He again said that I should

come talk with him at his office after I spoke with Ms. Hunter and the other inmate

representatives....

23. When Emma Hunter, the Inmate Representative for Satellite 2, arrived at the Inmate Representative Committee meeting on December 8, 1995, she told me that the day before, Sergeant Vitiello from the Internal Affairs Unit at the ECJA confiscated all of her correspondence from me....

24. When I saw Martin Hellwig in his office immediately after the Inmate Representative's meeting, I told him that I was very upset that the jail had confiscated all of my privileged attorney correspondence from my client, Emma Hunter.

25. At that point, Mr. Hellwig told me that he had a copy of the September 29, 1995 letter that I had sent to Ms. Hunter and the other inmate representatives at the ECJA. Mr. Hellwig told me that he had read the letter and that it made reference to an officer staffing memorandum that I had attached to the letter. Mr. Hellwig again asked me if I had ever sent Officer Staffing Schedules to the inmates.

26. I again told Mr. Hellwig that I did not send Officer Staffing Schedules to the inmates, but I had sent them a memorandum I prepared that summarized the officer staffing problems that occurred over a 6 week period of time in the summer. I explained that officer staffing is a legitimate concern of the plaintiffs' [sic] because officer shortages endanger the physical safety of inmates.

27. I told Mr. Hellwig that at the time that I prepared the cover letter and memorandum, I had no idea that the County did not want me to discuss officer staffing problems with my clients. I told Mr. Hellwig that the first time I learned of the County's concern was when we met at the ECJA with the Special Masters, and Ron Manzella [Director of Corrections for the County of Essex] was very upset that I had obtained the officer staffing information and included it in a memo that I had sent the attorneys and the Special Masters. This meeting at the ECJA occurred on October 6, 1995.

28. I explained to Mr. Hellwig that once I learned of the County's concern, I returned to my office, and asked my secretary to remove the officer staffing memorandum from the package of material

that I was sending the inmate representatives. My secretary told me that she had just sent the packages out. The letters were mailed to the inmate representatives either on October 5, 1995 or October 6, 1995.

29. I also told Mr. Hellwig that I decided that I would ask the inmate representatives to return the officer staffing memoranda to me, but the ECJA had started a new practice of insisting that officers sit in on my inmate representative meetings, and I was unable to meet with my clients confidentially to ask them to return the officer staffing memos.

30. I told Mr. Hellwig on December 8, 1995, that now that I know what the County's concerns are, I had no problem accommodating the County's request that I not share officer staffing information with inmates. However, I told Mr. Hellwig that the officer staffing information that I sent to the inmates was not current information, and the inmates know even more about the officer staffing problems that the information reflected in either my memorandum or in the Officer Staffing Schedules themselves.

31. I told Mr. Hellwig that there was absolutely no indication that the information in the officer staffing memorandum had any adverse effect on security at the ECJA.

32. Mr. Hellwig agreed. He told me that there was no indication that the information in the officer staffing memorandum was tied in any way to the recent escapes at the ECJA, and his concern was about the potential for security problems.

33. Mr. Hellwig told me that he actually did not have the officer staffing memorandum that I

attached to my September 29, 1995 letter to the Inmate Representatives. However, Mr. Hellwig

426

stated that as long as the information that I put in the officer *426 staffing memorandum was

general in nature, he was sure there was no harm done.

34. I did not make any comment on Mr. Hellwig's characterization of my officer staffing memorandum. At no point did I characterize the scheduling memorandum "as having only the most general information" as Mr. Hellwig now claims. (Hellwig Certification, paras. 5 and 6). This was Mr. Hellwig's characterization, not mine.

35. I have no idea what Mr. Hellwig means when he states that during my meeting with him, I tried to "justify" my false statements of the previous day. (Hellwig Certification, para. 5). I have never made any false statements to Mr. Hellwig.

Certification of Susan R. Silver, February 26, 1996 (emphasis in original).

The Special Masters did not hold a hearing, and thus, they did not resolve which version of events was true. This court did hold a hearing on April 17 and 18, 1997 in which Mr. Hellwig and Ms. Silver, among others, testified. At the hearing, Mr. Hellwig testified that he was aware of the difference between "officer staffing schedules" and "officer staffing information":

Q. Now, when, Mr. Hellwig, when you spoke on the telephone with Susan Silver, and I believe the date was December 6th, although in your affidavit or your certification you indicate it was December 7th, whatever the date was, December 6th or 7th, when you spoke with Miss Silver you had in front of you the letter that she had sent, the two page letter that she had sent to the inmate reps. Isn't that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And that letter indicated that she had provided the inmate reps with the officer staffing analysis or the officer staffing memorandum. Isn't that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And she specifically referred to it as an officer staffing memorandum and you knew it as an officer staffing memorandum. Isn't that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And isn't that 0907 isn't that in your mind, as well as in 0907 well, isn't that in your mind, Mr. Hellwig, distinct from an officer staffing schedule?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. What is the difference?

A. Well, the schedules themselves are 0907 capture a moment in time, an eight hour period, 24 hour period.... The memorandum that was written captured an extended period of time, I believe in excess of 60 days.

Testimony of Martin Hellwig, April 17, 1997 at 1.79-80.

Mr. Hellwig's testimony also revealed that he asked specifically about "officer staffing schedules," rather than general staffing information:

Q. But you say that at some point during the conversation you asked her the question did she provide scheduling 0907 schedules to her clients. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And her answer was what?

A. No, she would not do that.

Q. And that's the truth, isn't it?

* * * * * *

A. As far as I know.

Id. at 1.86-87.

It appears that at least one inmate planned a successful escape based on information derived from Ms. Silver's memorandum. Billy Pereira, an inmate at the Jail Annex certified that he escaped form the Jail Annex on October 26, 1995 "after having read a memorandum ... that highlighted the posts that lacked supervision by corrections officers." Certification of Billy Pereira, January 19, 1996 at ¶ 1. He described how he obtained and used the information contained in Ms. Silver's memorandum:

On or about October 24, 1995, I was on the telephone in the west wing of the Jail Annex. Lying

atop a card table within arm's length were some papers along with a brown folder. I was idly

reviewing the papers when I realized that one contained information about corrections officers and

their posts at the Jail Annex. It was entitled "Officer Staffing Shortages that Result in the

427

Inadequate Supervision of *427 Inmates" .... I also saw a Fire Safety Memorandum ... but it was

missing the first page. I had both sets of documents in my possession for about five minutes until

an inmate trustee took them from me. I learned from the Inadequate Supervision Memorandum

that there would be no officer assigned to the gate near Satellite 3.

Id. at ¶ 2. Two days later, Mr. Pereira escaped through Satellite 3.

As noted above, the Special Masters issued a report on May 16, 1996, in which they recommended that this court not disqualify Ms. Silver from continued representation of the plaintiffs in this case. That report focused solely on the disclosure of officer staffing information by Ms. Silver. This court held a hearing on April 17 and 18,

1997. At the hearing, Ms. Silver took the stand and repeatedly assured this court that the disclosure of the officer staffing information was a mistake which would not be repeated:
THE WITNESS: ... But Judge, as I said, in that before, I did this one time, October 5th or 6th, 1995. I told the county I would not do it again, I have not and I am now very careful about what information I give to the court, because I have no intention of violating any security policy that Essex County has in either the Essex County Jail or Annex.
Testimony of Susan R. Silver, April 17, 1997 at 75-76. Ms. Silver also assured this court that she would never disclose other security sensitive information to her clients:
Q. Have you been privy to other information that the county considers of a security nature and which you have treated securely, if you will, and not provided to the inmates?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Could you describe that?
A. I receive frequently medical information with dates as to when inmates are scheduled to receive surgery in outside hospitals or clinics or outside medical specialists appointments to evaluate their medical problems.
Back in, I believe early 1994, Mr. Del Plato mentioned to me that the county treats that information as being confidential because if inmates knew when they were going to be leaving jail grounds for a medical appointment, that poses a security threat in terms of making an escape easier.
Ever since Mr. Del Plato made that comment to me, I have been very careful to never tell inmates when they're going to be leaving the grounds for a medical appointment or surgery.
Testimony of Susan R. Silver, April 18, 1997 at 113.
On May 23, 1997, Quran Johnson, an inmate at the Essex County Jail, was transported to St. Elizabeth Hospital in Elizabeth, New Jersey for medical treatment. Upon arriving at the hospital, Mr. Johnson informed Corrections Officer Charles Green, one of the transporting officers, that he knew of the date and time of his appointment at the hospital through a letter he received from Ms. Silver. That letter, dated May 12, 1997, attached a document entitled, "Request for Medical Attention," which indicated that Mr. Johnson was scheduled for a podiatry examination on May 23, 1997 at 11:00 a.m. A subsequent investigation by jail officials revealed that Mr. Johnson had communicated several times with Ms. Silver concerning his ailments, culminating in the May 12, 1997 letter in which he was informed of the specific date and time of his outside medical appointment.
This court must now determine whether Ms. Silver should be disqualified from this case. In doing so, this court must consider the recommendation of the Special Masters, in light of the subsequent events concerning the disclosure of the date and time of Quran Johnson's outside medical appointment.
IV. DISCUSSION
Before the Special Masters, the defendants presented four arguments as to why disqualification was appropriate. These contentions were as follows: (1) Ms. Silver improperly obtained the scheduling information through unauthorized ex parte communications with Corrections Officer Michael DeMeo, a county employee and the President of the PBA Local at the Jail Annex, in violation of RPC 4.2; (2) Ms. Silver had a non-waivable conflict of 428 interest with her clients, in violation of RPC *428 1.7(b), on grounds that truthful disclosure of her role in acquiring and disseminating the officer scheduling information would have revealed that she had violated the Public Defender's Code of Ethics and would thereby place her continued employment in jeopardy; (3) Ms. Silver's conduct with respect to the disclosure of the officer scheduling information created an appearance of impropriety, particularly because she is a government attorney; and (4) Ms. Silver knowingly made a false statement of material fact to Mr. Hellwig, in violation of RPC 4.1(a)(1). In addition to the above arguments, the Special Masters perceived that the defendants were also making an implicit argument that Ms. Silver should be disqualified

because she exercised extremely bad judgment in divulging the security sensitive information to the inmate representatives and then denying that she had done so when the county investigated the allegation.
Although the defendants have raised numerous issues in support of their motion to disqualify Ms. Silver, this court believes that the core issues in this case concern Ms. Silver's disclosure of security sensitive information to both the inmate representatives and Quran Johnson. This conduct was improper and had the effect of unreasonably increasing the risk of inmate misconduct. That the information was obtained by Ms. Silver within the context of this court's continued oversight of the Essex County jail facilities impugns the integrity of these proceedings. Under these circumstances, Ms. Silver's conduct cannot be written off as just an isolated instance of poor judgment. Rather, these acts manifest an altogether cavalier attitude towards important security concerns at the jail facilities, which impugn the very integrity of these proceedings. Before discussing these core issues, however, this court will address the other arguments raised by the defendants and previously determined by the Special Masters.

1. Improper Ex Parte Communications with Corrections Officer DeMeo

Before the Special Masters, the defendants contended that Ms. Silver violated RPC 4.2 by communicating on an ex parte basis with Corrections Officer DeMeo. The defendants contended that Corrections Officer DeMeo came within the purview of RPC 4.2 because he was an employee of Essex County, and as such, he had "significant involvement in establishing [Jail] Annex policy regarding staffing ... [since he] is the correction officers' spokesperson regarding staffing issues and, therefore, is involved in staffing decisions." Defendants' Reply Brf. at 3-4. The Special Masters rejected this argument, finding that Corrections Officer DeMeo was not a member of the county's "control group" such that RPC 4.2 would be implicated.

While I agree with the Special Masters' conclusion on the narrow issue of whether RPC 4.2 was violated, this is not to say that this court wholeheartedly endorses Ms. Silver's conduct in this regard. Ms. Silver obtained the officer staffing schedules out of the normal discovery process from Corrections Officer DeMeo, who evidently abused his position as the president of the local PBA in gaining unauthorized access to the schedules. Ms. Silver then distilled this raw data into a memorandum detailing specific times and locations of staffing deficiencies, and transmitted this memorandum to inmates at the jail facilities. This conduct on the part of Ms. Silver, on its face, was inappropriate. However, this conduct on the part of Ms. Silver cannot be adequately addressed by reference to RPC 4.2.[5]

RPC 4.2 provides as follows:

429

*429 In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the

representation with a person the lawyer knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should

know, to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, including members of an organization's

litigation control group as defined by RPC 1.13, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other

lawyer, or is authorized by law to do so, or unless the sole purpose of the communication is to

ascertain whether the person is in fact represented. Reasonable diligence shall include, but not be

limited to, a specific inquiry of the person as to whether that person is represented by counsel.

Nothing in this rule shall, however, preclude a lawyer from counseling or representing a member

or former member of an organization's litigation control group who seeks independent legal

advice.

RPC 1.13, in turn, provides in relevant part:

A lawyer employed or retained to represent an organization represents the organization as distinct from its directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders or other constituents. For the purposes of RPC 4.2 and 4.3, however, the organization's lawyer shall be deemed to represent not only the organizational entity but also the members of its litigation control group. Members of the litigation control group shall be deemed to include current agents and employees responsible for, or significantly involved in, the determination of the organization's legal position in the matter

whether or not in litigation, provided, however, that "significant involvement" requires involvement greater, and other than, the supplying of factual information or data respecting the matter.
RPC 4.2 therefore "restrains a lawyer for one party from speaking directly to another party who is represented by counsel." In re Opinion 668, 134 N.J. 294, 297, 633 A.2d 959 (1993). When the party is a corporation or other organization, only certain key employees come within the purview of the rule. RPC 1.13 limits the applicability of RPC 4.2 to employees who are "responsible for, or significantly involved in, the determination of the organization's legal position in the matter." See also Apple Corps Ltd. v. International Collectors Soc'y, 1998 WL 345078 at *18-*19 (D.N.J. June 26, 1998). Accordingly, RPC 4.2 is violated, with respect to current employees of a party, if: (1) the employee is within the "litigation control group" as defined by RPC 1.13; or (2) the employee is otherwise represented by counsel. See Michaels v. Woodland, 988 F.Supp. 468, 472 (D.N.J.1997).
Corrections Officer DeMeo is not a member of Essex County's "litigation control group." Clearly, he was neither responsible for nor significantly involved in the determination of Essex County's legal position in the matter. See RPC 1.13. At best, Corrections Officer DeMeo provided "factual information or data," which is insufficient to support a finding that an employee is a member of the "litigation control group." With respect to the second prong above, there is no indication that Corrections Officer DeMeo, at the time of his contact with Ms. Silver, was represented by other counsel.
The defendants argued that Corrections Officer DeMeo should be considered part of the "litigation control group" because he had "significant involvement in establishing [Jail] Annex policy regarding staffing ... [since he] is the 430 correction officers' spokesperson regarding staffing issues and, therefore, is *430 involved in staffing decisions." Defendants' Reply Brf. at 3-4. Even if his involvement in developing policies concerning staffing could be equated with significant involvement in the determination of Essex County's legal position 0907 which I doubt 0907 Corrections Officer DeMeo clearly undertook this responsibility in his capacity as the president of the PBA Local, not as an employee of the county. As the Special Masters correctly found:
When he is engaged in this activity ... he is not representing the County or acting on the County's behalf. To the contrary, he is representing a completely separate entity, the PBA, and is acting on the PBA's behalf to advocate for the Corrections Officers that it represents. He sits across the table from the County and does his best to convince the County to agree to the PBA's views of the matter. This hardly makes him a member of the County's "control group." To the contrary, his involvement in decision-making as PBA President establishes his identity as separate and apart from the County. The PBA does not control the County, it simply negotiates with it. It may sometimes, or even often, convince the County to accept its point of view, but it is always separate and apart from the County in terms of its party status.
Report and Recommendation at 8.
Because Corrections Officer DeMeo was not a member of the "litigation control group," Ms. Silver's ex parte contact with him in obtaining the staffing information did not violate RPC 4.2.
2. Conflict of Interest
The defendants also contended that Ms. Silver's actions gave rise to a disqualifying conflict of interest pursuant to RPC 1.7(b). Specifically, the defendants contended that Ms. Silver had a conflict of interest with her clients because her alleged misconduct in acquiring and distributing the scheduling information violated the regulations of the Public Defenders Office, and thus, could have lead to her dismissal if the truth were known. The defendants articulated this portion of their motion as follows:
[I]t is in Ms. Silver's interest to suppress all information concerning her acquisition of the custodial officers staffing schedules because she acquired the schedules in an unethical manner. Her unethical conduct is grounds for dismissal from her position pursuant to the Public Defender's Code of Ethics. Already by failing to timely disclose that she sent scheduling information to inmates, Ms. Silver has increased the danger faced by her clients. Her continued lack of

cooperation in the County's investigation into the breach of security also offends her clients' interests because one of the purposes of the investigation is to prevent a recurrence of the breach.
Defendants' Reply Brf. at 12-13.
RPC 1.7(b), the specific provision at issue here, provides as follows:
A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and
(2) the client consents after a full disclosure of the circumstances and consultation with the client, except that a public entity cannot consent to any such representation. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved.
As noted above, the conflict here is between Ms. Silver's own interests in keeping her job as a public defender and the interests of her clients in having a safe prison environment.
As an initial matter, the plaintiffs contend that the defendants do not have standing to raise the question of a conflict of interest because it is the plaintiffs themselves, not the defendants, who have suffered from the alleged conflict. The plaintiffs rely specifically on Hovsons, Inc. v. Secretary of Interior, 711 F.2d 1208, 1213 (3d Cir.1983). The plaintiffs have misread Hovsons. In that case, the plaintiffs, owners and users of property located in the 431 Pinelands area of New Jersey, sued the Secretary of the Interior *431 alleging that they were aggrieved by the Secretary's approval of the "Comprehensive Management Plan" ("CMP") for the Pinelands area. Id. at 1210. During the course of the litigation, the Secretary moved to disqualify the plaintiffs' counsel, contending that he was representing conflicting interests. Id. at 1211. In determining that disqualification was not appropriate, the Third Circuit made the following remarks, which the plaintiffs herein have evidently construed as supporting their proposition that a party in litigation has no standing to raise conflicts of interest issues concerning his adversary:
Second, we share the district court's concern about "the questionable nature of plaintiffs' standing to raise objection to the Secretary of the Interior's consideration of the national defense mission...." Even assuming that a private plaintiff could suffer some "distinct and palpable injury to himself," ... because of the Secretary's failure to consider whether the CMP adequately provided for the national defense mission, none of the allegations made by these plaintiffs in this case suggests such injury. Thus, with respect to this single, narrow, alleged violation of the statute, the plaintiffs have raised only a "generalized grievance shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens." ... In our view, they have not demonstrated their standing to object to the Secretary's alleged failure to fulfill his statutory duty.
Id. at 1213 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
This passage, as well as the Hovsons case as a whole, has nothing at all to do with an adversary's standing to raise conflicts of interest issues. Rather, this particular section of the Hovsons case concerned the plaintiffs' standing to contest the Secretary's consideration of the "national defense mission" under the relevant statutory scheme, not the Secretary's standing to raise a potential conflict of interest between the plaintiffs and their counsel. See id. ("The reason that we have addressed the plaintiffs' standing is that their absence of standing is an important factor in assessing the interests at stake in our consideration of the Secretary's motion to disqualify."). Moreover, the plaintiffs' position on this issue is directly contradicted by Schiffli Embroidery Workers Pension Fund v. Ryan, Beck & Co., 1994 WL 62124 (D.N.J. Feb.23, 1994). In that case, Judge Wolin of this district rejected the same argument now forwarded by the plaintiffs. See id. at *2. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' contention that the defendants are without standing to raise a potential conflict of interest between her and her clients must be rejected.

Turning to the substantive issue at hand, this court is in agreement with the Special Masters' conclusion that the defendants have failed to prove that a conflict of interest requires Ms. Silver's disqualification. This case, as will be discussed, concerns reckless misconduct on the part of Ms. Silver. Her misconduct, however, cannot be squarely addressed by the conflict of interest rules. In determining this issue, it is important to recognize that cases involving a lawyer's self interest are viewed, in an analytical sense, somewhat differently than cases involving dual representation. Cf. Beets v. Scott, 65 F.3d 1258, 1265-66 (5th Cir.1995) ("[T]he demands and reasoning of legal ethics militate against treating multiple representation cases like those in which the lawyer's self-interest is pitted against the duty of loyalty to his client."); Garcia v. Bunnell, 33 F.3d 1193, 1198 n. 4 (9th Cir.1994) ("It is not logically necessary that the approach of these [multiple representation] cases also apply to conflicts between a defendant's and the attorney's own interests."). This is due in part to the fact that multiple representation cases, in general, present relatively discrete fact patterns, arising only with respect to multiple or former representation. See Beets, 65 F.3d at 1270 (noting that multiple representation cases present "unique, straightforward danger[s] of conflict....").
By contrast, self-interest cases "fall along a wide spectrum of ethical sensitivity from merely potential danger to outright criminal misdeeds." Id. In short, a lawyer's self-interest is, in theory, inherent in every case in which he participates, and the "range of possible breaches ... is virtually limitless." Id. at 1271. One need not tax the mind 432 too strenuously to conjure up an entire assortment of instances in which an attorney's selfinterest *432 may theoretically conflict with the interests of his client. Indeed, a private practice attorney's interest in extending litigation to obtain greater fees is surely at odds with a client's interest in a swift and relatively inexpensive resolution of his case, to give just one example. See also id. (providing other illustrations of instances where attorney's self-interest is arguably implicated). The vast majority of these instances, however, do not present the sort of conflict of interest recognized by the law. Id. ("The `conflict' between the lawyer's self-interest and that of his client is not a real conflict in the eyes of the law.").
Because of the virtually limitless cases in which a "conflict" may theoretically arise when a lawyer's self-interest is implicated, there is a very real danger of analyzing these issues not on fact but on speculation and conjecture. Accordingly, when a conflict of interest issue arises based on a lawyer's self-interest, a sturdier factual predicate must be evident than when a case concerns multiple representation. Only by requiring a more specific articulation of the facts giving rise to a conflict situation can courts refrain from effectively "straight-jacket[ing] counsel in a stifling, redundant federal code of professional conduct." Id. at 1272. Supposition and speculation, therefore, will simply not do.
Turning to the case at hand, the defendants' argument is premised on the notion that Ms. Silver acted unethically in obtaining the officer staffing schedules. But as noted above, and as found by the Special Masters, Ms. Silver did not squarely violate RPC 4.2 in her contacts with Corrections Officer DeMeo. Furthermore, the defendants have not adequately shown that Ms. Silver's acquisition of the officer staffing schedules from Corrections Officer DeMeo violated any specific ethics provision.
The defendants have argued that Ms. Silver's interest in this matter was to keep her job, as the disclosure of her conduct would have jeopardized continued employment as a public defender. This fear of losing her job is far too speculative to support a finding of a conflict of interest. While not entirely on point with the facts of this case, United States v. Horton, 845 F.2d 1414 (7th Cir. 1988), is instructive. In that case, the defendant argued that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney had a conflict of interest arising from his becoming a candidate for the United States Attorney position. In rejecting the defendant's claim, the court found no conflict of interest:
[T]his case presents at most a remote possibility of a conflict of the type with which Cuyler was concerned.... Though it is conceivable that an unprincipled defense attorney in line for a job as United States Attorney might encourage a defendant in some circumstances to plead guilty in order for counsel to curry favor with his or her future employer, that is too fanciful upon which to base a per se rule of conflict.
Id. at 1419-20. The Seventh Circuit contrasted the facts of Horton with those of United States v. Ellison, 798 F.2d 1102, 1106 (7th Cir.1986), in which a conflict of interest arose where defense counsel explicitly advised the

defendant to plead guilty to avoid "making waves" with federal prosecutors with whom counsel would be working in the future. In Horton, however, no evidence was presented to substantiate the defendant's claim that his counsel's advice to him to plead guilty was motivated by his desire to become a United States Attorney. 845 F.2d at 1420. There was simply no "active representation of conflicting interests" on the part of defendant's counsel. Id. at 1419; see also United States v. Salerno, 868 F.2d 524, 540-41 (2d Cir.1989) (finding no actual conflict of interest where defense attorney was being investigated by government and was allegedly unusually cooperative with government in defendant's case); United States v. Andrews, 790 F.2d 803, 810-11 (10th Cir.1986) (finding no conflict of interest when court refused to allow attorney to withdraw from representation to attend premedical studies at college)

Similarly, there appears to be no "active representation of conflicting interests" in this case. While the defendants have argued that Ms. Silver's conduct put her job in jeopardy, there are no facts to support this proposition. As noted by the Special Masters, the opposite seems to be true:

433

*433 The Public Defender's Office has fully supported Ms. Silver in opposing this motion. It has

provided her with counsel to defend this motion. It has not removed her from this matter or taken

any other disciplinary action against her based upon its receipt and review of all of the affidavits

and arguments contained in the County's motion. Most importantly, in its brief in opposition to this

disqualification motion, the Public Defender unequivocally states: "the Office of the Public

Defender has no grounds, and no intention to, remove or discipline Ms. Silver." ... In view of this

unequivocal statement, there is no reason to believe that Ms. Silver has any reasonable fear of

discharge that would give rise to a conflict of interest between her clients and herself.

Report and Recommendation at 26. This court concludes that Ms. Silver's interest in keeping her job is far too tenuous and speculative to justify a finding of a disqualifying conflict of interest.

3. Appearance of Impropriety

The defendants have also argued that even if there was no actual conflict of interest, Ms. Silver's conduct created an appearance of impropriety. The substance of the argument on this point, as presented to the Special Masters, was brief:
There can be no dispute that Ms. Silver's unethical conduct has tainted her representation of the plaintiff inmates. Her actions evince not merely ignorance but deliberate suppression of information material to her clients' safety. At the very least, Ms. Silver's continued representation creates an appearance of impropriety. Accordingly, she should be disqualified.
Defendant's Moving Brf. at 14. The appearance of impropriety is all the more significant in this case, the defendants argue, since Ms. Silver is a government attorney "invested with the public trust." In opposition to this facet of the defendants' motion, the plaintiffs have argued that the appearance of impropriety doctrine applies only to multiple misrepresentation cases, which is obviously not the case here.
The Special Masters rejected the defendants' contentions on this point and found that there was no appearance of impropriety. In doing so, however, they implicitly accepted the defendants' underlying assumption that the appearance of impropriety doctrine was not limited to multiple representation cases, as was argued by the plaintiffs. Rather, the Special Masters' conclusion that no appearance of impropriety existed in this case was based on their view that Ms. Silver's conduct was not necessarily improper:
Setting aside her interviews with Mr. Hellwig, what Ms. Silver stands "accused" of doing is conducting a vigorous investigation of facts relevant to this litigation and of sharing the information that she found with her clients. But for the fact that her clients are inmates in a correctional institution, no one would think to criticize her for such conduct. To the contrary, such conduct is generally considered to be in full accord with an attorney's duties.... If Ms. Silver erred in sending the scheduling information to her clients, we believe that she did so innocently, with no intention other than to provide proper representation to her clients.

Report and Recommendation at 29, 31.

As will be discussed more fully later in this opinion, this court must diverge from the Special Masters' reasoning in this regard. I do not concur in the underlying assumption of their analysis that the disclosure of this security sensitive information was simply an innocent oversight on the part of Ms. Silver. This court views Ms. Silver's conduct as a clear and obvious breach of security. It was akin to providing the inmates with the keys to their cells. However, I do concur in the Special Masters' ultimate conclusion that the appearance of impropriety rules do not apply to this factual scenario.

As an initial matter, this court must reject the plaintiffs' argument that the appearance of impropriety standard applies only to multiple representation cases. As pointed out by the plaintiffs, the phrase "appearance of impropriety" is explicitly used in RPC 1.7(c)(2), which is part of the general conflict of interest rule. RPC 1.7(c) provides as follows:

434

*434 [RPC 1.7] shall not alter the effect of case law or ethics opinions to the effect that:

(1) in certain cases or categories of cases involving conflicts or apparent conflicts, consent to continued representation is immaterial, and

(2) in certain cases or situations creating an appearance of impropriety rather than an actual conflict, multiple representation is not permissible, that is, in those situations in which an ordinary knowledgeable citizen acquainted with the facts would conclude that the multiple representation poses substantial risk of disservice to either the public interest or the interest of one of the clients. (Emphasis supplied).

While the plaintiffs acknowledge that the appearance doctrine is incorporated by reference in RPC 1.9, they maintain that the doctrine's applicability is limited only to multiple representation cases.

The plaintiffs have taken an overly restrictive view of the applicability of the appearance of impropriety doctrine. It is not, as they have argued, limited only to multiple representation cases. For example, the doctrine is "indirectly" found in RPC 1.13(e), concerning an attorney's representation of an organization. See In re Opinion No. 569, 103 N.J. 325, 330 n. 4, 511 A.2d 119 (1986). In addition, the doctrine is incorporated by reference in RPC 3.7(b), which concerns the issue of an attorney acting as a witness. See id. While this court does not doubt the plaintiffs' contention that much of the case law concerning the appearance doctrine involves multiple representation, the doctrine is not necessarily limited to those particular factual scenarios. See, e.g., In re Tenure Hearing, 103 N.J. 548, 511 A.2d 1171 (1986) (involving issue of whether attorney who previously served as administrative law judge in Office of Administrative Law and had presided in case involving particular parties should be disqualified from representing as private attorney one of those parties in another but different contested case before Office of Administrative Law).

That being said, the applicability of the appearance of impropriety doctrine is also not quite as broad as the defendants implicitly suggest. It does not apply to conduct which may simply be improper or inappropriate. Indeed, if the doctrine were so broadly applied, all other ethical provisions would be entirely superfluous. Rather, while the doctrine is not limited to multiple representation cases, it is evident that it applies mainly to those cases in which the loyalty of the attorney to his client is at stake or where there is not an actual conflict of interest but the policies underpinning the conflict of interest rules are implicated. That is why, for instance, the appearance doctrine applies not only to multiple representation cases 0907 which are the clearest example of where an attorney's loyalty to his client may be compromised 0907 but also to cases in which the attorney may act as a witness. See RPC 3.7. Clearly, the appearance of impropriety is applicable to those cases in which an attorney's duty of loyal representation to his client may be unduly influenced by extraneous factors. In addition, the appearance doctrine may apply to disqualify an attorney, for example, who hired his adversary's former expert witness after the adversary had divulged confidential information to that expert. Cordy v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 156 F.R.D. 575 (D.N.J.1994). Cordy presented a situation where there was no actual conflict of interest, but the danger of the side-switching expert witness divulging confidential information implicated the underlying rationale of the conflict of interest rules.

Under the circumstances of this case, a determination as to whether Ms. Silver's conduct gave rise to an appearance of impropriety focuses not on the appropriateness of her conduct in and of itself, but on whether her conduct in any way compromised her duty of loyalty to her clients. The defendants' argument then appears to be an offshoot of their argument concerning an actual conflict of interest, discussed above. That is, the defendants' contention seems to be that an appearance of impropriety arose in this case because Ms. Silver's alleged misconduct in acquiring and distributing the scheduling information violated the regulations of the Public Defenders Office, and thus, could lead to her dismissal if the truth were revealed.
435 *435 While the appearance doctrine applies where no actual conflict exists, the New Jersey Supreme Court has advised that there "`must be something more than a fanciful possibility,'" and there must be "`a reasonable basis.'" Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 109 N.J. 201, 216, 536 A.2d 243 (1988) (quoting Higgins v. Advisory Comm. on Prof'l Ethics, 73 N.J. 123, 129, 373 A.2d 372 (1977)). This court concludes that Ms. Silver's interest in keeping her job is far too tenuous and speculative to support a finding of an appearance of impropriety. There is simply no evidence, apart from the defendants' allegations, that Ms. Silver's employment was ever in jeopardy and that her conduct in this matter was in some measure dictated by this personal interest. Accordingly, this court finds that there was no appearance of impropriety in this case.
4. False Statement of Material Fact or Law
The defendants have also sought disqualification based on Ms. Silver's alleged breach of RPC 4.1(a)(1) arising from her conversations with Mr. Hellwig on December 6 and 8, 1995. Specifically, the defendants contended that Ms. Silver lied to Mr. Hellwig concerning her dissemination of officer staffing information to the inmate representatives at the Jail Annex. Ms. Silver has argued that she made no misrepresentation to Mr. Hellwig, and even if she did, she owed no duty to Mr. Hellwig and thus could not have misled him in violation of RPC 4.1(a)(1).
The Special Masters rejected the plaintiffs' contentions and found that the facts supported the conclusion that she had violated RPC 4.1(a)(1).[6] As the issue was correctly framed by the Special Masters, the question here is whether Ms. Silver was sufficiently forthcoming in her discussions with Mr. Hellwig on the topic of her dissemination of officer staffing information. Although I agree that Ms. Silver was not sufficiently candid and forthcoming in her discussions with Mr. Hellwig, based upon my review of the entire record in this case and in particular the testimony of Mr. Hellwig at the April 17, 1997 hearing, this court finds that Ms. Silver did not technically violate RPC 4.1(a)(1).
RPC 4.1(a)(1) provides that "[i]n representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly ... make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person." As noted by the Special Masters, RPC 4.1 requires scrupulous honesty, particularly in dealing with adversaries and the court.
As noted above, Mr. Hellwig and Ms. Silver offered slightly different versions of what transpired on December 6 436 and 8, 1995. In determining that Ms. Silver was not sufficiently forthcoming in her conversations *436 with Mr.
Hellwig, the Special Masters rejected the plaintiffs' contention that there was a distinction between "officer staffing schedules" and "officer staffing information":
We are also troubled by the undue precision of her certification in response to the motion. For example, although she admits that Mr. Hellwig asked her about officer staffing information to the inmates, she consistently stresses that he asked whether she had sent "Officer Staffing Schedules" to the inmates and did not use some more general term. She always capitalizes the phrase as though it were a proper noun, necessarily limited in its application to specific group of documents. We do not generally view the phrase "officer staffing schedules" as a proper noun. Given the semiotic difficulties of daily communication, we cannot imagine how she knew, or could possibly have known, that Mr. Hellwig was using the phrase with such precision. More likely, whatever the exact phrase employed, Mr. Hellwig was asking about whether she sent detailed information regarding officer staffing schedules to the inmates.

Report and Recommendation at 18-19. Mr. Hellwig, however, was aware of the difference between "officer staffing schedules" and "officer staffing information," although it is also clear that he may not have intended to make such a distinction when he queried Ms. Silver:
Q. Now, when, Mr. Hellwig, when you spoke on the telephone with Susan Silver, and I believe the date was December 6th, although in your affidavit or your certification you indicate it was December 7th, whatever the date was, December 6th or 7th, when you spoke with Miss Silver you had in front of you the letter that she had sent, the two page letter that she had sent to the inmate reps. Isn't that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And that letter indicated that she had provided the inmate reps with the officer staffing analysis or the officer staffing memorandum. Isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And she specifically referred to it as an officer staffing memorandum and you knew it as an officer staffing memorandum. Isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And isn't that 0907 isn't that in your mind, as well as in 0907 well, isn't that in your mind, Mr. Hellwig, distinct from an officer staffing schedule?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. What is the difference?
A. Well, the schedules themselves are 0907 capture a moment in time, an eight hour period, 24 hour period.... The memorandum that was written captured an extended period of time, I believe in excess of 60 days.
* * * * * *
Q. And Susan Silver's memorandum was nothing like that, was it?
A. No, it was not.
Q. It was a very different thing than a daily officer staffing schedule. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Testimony of Martin Hellwig, April 17, 1997 at 1.79-80; 1.83.
Mr. Hellwig's testimony also revealed that he asked specifically about "officer staffing schedules," rather than general staffing information, and that Ms. Silver's response was, technically speaking, not untrue:
Q. But you say that at some point during the conversation you asked her the question did she provide scheduling 0907 schedules to her clients. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And her answer was what?
A. No, she would not do that.
Q. And that's the truth, isn't it?
* * * * * *

A. As far as I know.
Id. at 1.86-87.
The Special Masters also found that Ms. Silver misled Mr. Hellwig by remaining silent when he made certain statements concerning the general nature of the information contained in her memorandum. The Special Masters 437 focused specifically on the following *437 statements made by Ms. Silver in her certification:
33. Mr. Hellwig told me that he actually did not have the officer staffing memorandum that I attached to my September 29, 1995 letter to the Inmate Representatives. However, Mr. Hellwig stated that as long as the information that I put in the officer staffing memorandum was general in nature, he was sure there was no harm done.
34. I did not make any comment on Mr. Hellwig's characterization of my officer staffing memorandum. At no point did I characterize the scheduling memorandum "as having only the most general information" as Mr. Hellwig now claims. (Hellwig Certification, paras. 5 and 6). This was Mr. Hellwig's characterization, not mine. (Emphasis in original).
The Special Masters concluded that, under the circumstances, it was incumbent upon Ms. Silver to correct Mr. Hellwig's assumption concerning the "general nature" of the memorandum she had provided to the inmates:
We believe Ms. Silver is attempting to draw too fine a line as to her ethical responsibilities. ... It is not enough that every word spoken may have been truthful. One can misrepresent and mislead by silence as well as by speech. See, e.g., Jewish Ctr. of Sussex County v. Whale, 86 N.J. 619, 432 A.2d 521 (1981). Ms. Silver certainly knew what she had sent to the inmates, that Mr. Hellwig and the County considered the question of what she had sent to be an important one and that she was leaving Mr. Hellwig with a misunderstanding as to the nature of what she had sent.
Report and Recommendation at 18.
While I agree that silence can have the effect of misleading just as an affirmative representation, I do not believe that Mr. Hellwig could reasonably have been misled in this case. The memorandum in question was already in the hands of defendants' counsel since it was addressed to them. Moreover, while Mr. Hellwig did not have a copy of the memorandum in front of him during the telephone conversation with Ms. Silver, he testified that he had reviewed the memorandum previously:
Q. Just to clarify, Mr. Hellwig, while you were conversing on the phone with Miss Silver, you had in front of you a copy of the cover letter but not a copy of the memorandum?
A. That's correct.
Q. But you had seen the memorandum several weeks earlier and you knew what the contents of the memorandum were?
A. That is also correct.
Q. The contents of the memorandum were not the equivalent of an officers staffing schedule?
A. That's correct.
Testimony of Martin Hellwig, April 17, 1997 at 1.85. Mr. Hellwig had already reviewed Ms. Silver's memorandum, and thus, he was in a position to know whether it contained general information, as he had characterized it, or specific details of staffing deficiencies.
While this court finds that Ms. Silver did not technically violate RPC 4.1(a)(1), I concur with the Special Masters' overall assessment that Ms. Silver played far too close to the line of reasonable conduct. As the New Jersey Supreme Court has recognized:

It has been noted that "the Code of Professional Responsibility is not designed for Holmes' proverbial `bad man' who wants to know just how many corners he may cut, how close to the line he may play, without running into trouble with the law." General Motors Corp. v. City of New York, 501 F.2d 639, 649 (2d Cir.1974) (quoting O.W. Holmes, The Path of the Law, in Collected Legal Papers 170 (1920)). Rather, "it is drawn for the `good man' as a beacon to assist him in navigating an ethical course through the sometimes murky waters of professional conduct." Id.
Reardon v. Marlayne, Inc., 83 N.J. 460, 469, 416 A.2d 852 (1980). In this light, I am extremely troubled by Ms. Silver's less than candid statements and non-statements to Mr. Hellwig. Rather than acknowledging that she had provided officer staffing information to prison inmates, she, for reasons which escape this court, was not 438 forthcoming and at *438 times disingenuous. For instance, Ms. Silver stated in her certification: "I also told Mr. Hellwig that I never would send Officer Staffing Schedules to the inmates." While she may not have sent the inmates the actual schedules themselves, she did send a detailed summary of the schedules. This summary, which provided specific information concerning staffing shortages, was far more useful that the actual schedules themselves. By stating that she would never send "Officer Staffing Schedules," Ms. Silver created the impression that she recognized the dangers in providing that type of information. That is the only reasonable interpretation of that statement within this context.[7]
Under the facts presented to this court, however, I am constrained to find that Ms. Silver's statements made to Mr. Hellwig did not rise to the level of willful dishonesty contemplated by RPC 4.1.
5. Disqualification
Although this court finds that Ms. Silver did not technically violate a specific RPC provision, disqualification is nevertheless required as security breaches of this sort simply cannot be countenanced. Ms. Silver, as the inmates principal attorney in this case, certainly had a duty to zealously represent her clients. Having reviewed the record as whole, however, this court gained the distinct impression that at some point during this litigation, Ms. Silver's representation of the inmates became something more than mere zealous advocacy. In this transformation, Ms. Silver lost the perspective of an advocate, one whose duties run not only to clients but also to the court and the public. The dual responsibilities of an advocate are starkly implicated in this case, which involves inmates and the conditions of their confinement. As their attorney, Ms. Silver had a duty to zealously represent their interests; yet at the same time, she had a countervailing duty to the court and to the public to ensure that that representation did not increase the risk of security breaches at the jail facilities. Admittedly, the 439 line between zealous advocacy and a breach of security, *439 under the circumstances of this case, may be quite difficult to distinguish at times. This is not one of those times. That one should not provide inmates with detailed information concerning specific staffing deficiencies is derived not from any subtlety of law, but from common sense. Breaching security again, after assuring the court otherwise, is sheer recklessness.
Although many of the reported decisions concerning disqualification of attorneys concern conflicts of interest, other forms of attorney misconduct may also justify disqualification. See, e.g., Papanicolaou v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 720 F.Supp. 1080 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (holding disqualification of defendant's attorney warranted after private conversation between him and plaintiff in which he disparaged plaintiff's counsel). Indeed, disqualification of an attorney need not be predicated upon a finding that a specific RPC rule has been violated. See United States v. Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050, 1076 n. 12 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 623, 136 L.Ed.2d 546 (1996); Cordy, 156 F.R.D. at 583. As the Third Circuit explained:
The "fair and proper administration of justice" side of the equation merely "include[s] the interests underlying the ethical standards governing the practice of law....;" it is neither defined nor circumscribed by those standards. On the contrary, a district court has independent interests in protecting its judgments against later collateral attack, preserving the integrity of its proceedings, and protecting the truth-seeking function of the proceedings.

Voigt, 89 F.3d at 1076 n. 12 (citations omitted); see also Inorganic Coatings, Inc. v. Falberg, 926 F.Supp. 517, 519 (E.D.Pa.1995) ("Courts have vital interests in protecting the integrity of their judgments, maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the bar, eliminating conflicts of interest, and protecting confidential communications between attorneys and their clients. To protect these vital interests, courts have the power to disqualify an attorney from representing a particular client.").
The power to disqualify an attorney from a particular action emanates from the "inherent powers of any federal court [over the] admission and discipline of attorneys practicing before it." In re Corn Derivatives Antitrust Litig., 748 F.2d 157, 160 (3d Cir.1984); see also Fineman v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 1993 WL 414752 at *5 (D.N.J. July 30, 1993) ("Inherent in this Court's power to manage the cases on its docket is the power to impose sanctions where an attorney's misbehavior is prejudicial to an adversary ... or threatens the orderly administration of justice...."); Kleiner v. First Nat'l Bank of Atlanta, 751 F.2d 1193, 1209 (11th Cir.1985) ("A trial judge possesses the inherent power to discipline counsel for misconduct, short of behavior giving rise to disbarment or criminal censure, without resort to the powers of civil or criminal contempt."); United States v. Miller, 624 F.2d 1198, 1201 (3d Cir.1980) (noting that "district court's power to disqualify an attorney derives from its inherent authority to supervise the professional conduct of attorneys appearing before it"). Thus, while as a general matter courts "exist to resolve disputes, and not to discipline lawyers who come before them," district courts have a "`duty to supervise members of its bar.'" Papanicolaou, 720 F.Supp. at 1082-83 (quoting NCK Org. Ltd. v. Bregman, 542 F.2d 128, 131 (2d Cir.1976)); see also Kevlik v. Goldstein, 724 F.2d 844, 847 (1st Cir.1984); Meat Price Investigators Ass'n v. Spencer Foods, Inc., 572 F.2d 163, 165 (8th Cir.1978). The exercise of this inherent authority in determining whether an attorney should be disqualified is committed to the sound discretion of this court. See Miller, 624 F.2d at 1201; Fineman, 1993 WL 414752 at *5.
As another member of this court has recognized, "motions to disqualify are generally viewed with `disfavor' and disqualification is considered a `drastic measure which courts should hesitate to impose except when absolutely necessary.'" Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 822 F.Supp. 1099, 1114 (D.N.J.1993) (quoting Schiessle v. Stephens, 717 F.2d 417, 420 (7th Cir.1983)). Thus, although doubts are to be resolved in favor of disqualification, 440 a party seeking disqualification has a "`heavy burden'" and *440 must satisfy a "`high standard of proof.'" Id. (quoting Evans v. Artek Sys. Corp., 715 F.2d 788, 791 (2d Cir.1983)). Stated simply, "when deciding on a motion for disqualification, a court should proceed with caution." Moss v. TACC Int'l Corp., 776 F.Supp. 622, 624 (D.Mass.1991).
Numerous courts that have addressed the issue of disqualification of attorneys seem to agree that disqualification is justified when an attorney's continued participation will taint the proceedings. See Fineman, 1993 WL 414752 at *6 ("The focal point of this Court's decision must be the entry of an order calculated to insure, as much as possible, the orderly, appropriate and focused conduct of this litigation during ensuing trial and pretrial proceedings."). As a general matter, "a district judge should disqualify the offending counsel when the integrity of the adversarial process is at stake." Papanicolaou, 720 F.Supp. at 1083. As noted by the Second Circuit, the "business of the court is to dispose of litigation and not to act as a general overseer of the ethics of those who practice here unless the questioned behavior taints the trial of the cause before it." W.T. Grant Co. v. Haines, 531 F.2d 671, 677 (2d Cir.1976); see also World Youth Day, Inc. v. Famous Artists Merchandising Exch., Inc., 866 F.Supp. 1297, 1303 (D.Colo.1994); Parkinson v. Phonex Corp., 857 F.Supp. 1474, 1476 (D.Utah 1994); Beck v. Board of Regents of State of Kan., 568 F.Supp. 1107 (D.Kan.1983). Put differently, if past improprieties are shown to have occurred, disqualification is appropriate where "the likelihood of public suspicion or obloquy outweighs the social interest which will be served by a lawyer's continued participation in a particular case." Kleiner, 751 F.2d at 1210.
In the same vein, "a violation of professional ethics rules does not alone trigger disqualification ...; rather, a trial judge should primarily assess the possibility of prejudice at trial that might result form the attorney's unethical act." Papanicolaou, 720 F.Supp. at 1083. As one court has recognized, however, courts must be ever mindful that
[t]he preservation of public trust both in the scrupulous administration of justice and in the integrity of the bar is paramount. Recognizably important [is the party's] right to counsel of her choice.... [That] consideration [] must yield, however, to considerations of ethics which run to the very integrity of our judicial process.

Hull v. Celanese Corp., 513 F.2d 568, 572 (2d Cir.1975).
The Special Masters have recommended that this court deny the defendants' motion to disqualify Ms. Silver, despite their finding that "Ms. Silver engaged in conduct that was knowingly misleading." Report and Recommendation at 32. The basis of this determination seems to have been two-fold. First, the Special Masters concluded that Ms. Silver's conduct in misleading Mr. Hellwig was not seriously detrimental to the defendants or to the security of the facility. The Special Masters concluded that despite Ms. Silver's conduct in misleading Mr. Hellwig, there was no prejudice either to the defendants or to the integrity of the litigation before this court.
The second basis for the Special Masters' recommendation against disqualification is their conclusion to the contention implicitly raised by the defendants, that Ms. Silver should be disqualified because she exercised extremely bad judgment in divulging security sensitive information to the inmate representatives and then denying that she had done so when the county investigated the allegation. The Special Masters concluded that while evincing bad judgment, Ms. Silver's conduct in disseminating this information was insufficient to disqualify her.
With all due respect to the Special Masters, I must disagree with their assessment on these points, particularly in light of events which occurred subsequent to the issuance of their report. This court views Ms. Silver's conduct in disseminating the officer staffing information 0907 which the Special Masters determined was only implicitly argued by the defendants 0907 and the disclosure of the time and place of the outside medical appointment to Quran Johnson to be at the heart of this matter.
441 *441 The philosophy behind the security procedures developed at the Jail Annex has been described as one of "carefully-cultivated uncertainty." This philosophy seeks to deter inmate misbehavior 0907 attacks on other inmates or officers and escapes 0907 by keeping them unsure as to when and where corrections officers may be in the vicinity. By providing detailed information concerning officer staffing at the Jail Annex, Ms. Silver recklessly breached an essential aspect of the security measures at the facility. While Ms. Silver, in her discussions with Mr. Hellwig, made much of the fact that she had not provided the inmates with the actual officer staffing schedules, what she did provide was a detailed memorandum summarizing what she viewed as key deficiencies in staffing at particular times. This memorandum therefore was considerably more useful than the unanalyzed data contained in the actual officer staffing schedules.
Ms. Silver attempted to minimize the significance of what she had done by pointing out that the "officer staffing information ... sent to the inmates was not current information, and the inmates know even more about the officer staffing problems than the information reflected either in the memorandum or in the Officer Staffing Schedules themselves." Certification of Susan R. Silver, February 26, 1996 at ¶ 30. Ms. Silver also tried to justify the dissemination of this material by contending that the level of officer staffing was an issue in the underlying litigation, and thus, a legitimate area of concern for the inmates. I find these assertions to be quite disingenuous.
First, with respect to her claim that the inmates know more about staffing issues at the Jail Annex, the plaintiffs provided no evidence to support this statement. Moreover, as noted by the Special Masters:
Whatever knowledge the sizable class of inmates may have as a whole, it cannot be seriously maintained that any individual inmate had as much staffing knowledge as is contained in Ms. Silver's memorandum or in the schedules themselves. An individual may know the situation in his or her particular area of the Jail Annex, but the nature of jail life does not permit the type of pooling of information that is reflected in Ms. Silver's memorandum.
Report and Recommendation at 20.
Second, the plaintiffs' contention that the information contained in the memorandum was dated is unpersuasive. The information was indeed current when it was first sent to the inmates in late September or early October, 1995. The memorandum is dated September 29, 1995 and analyzed the schedules for the period between August 1, 1995 and September 22, 1995.

And third, while officer staffing may have been an issue in the underlying litigation, Ms. Silver herself testified that it was not necessary for the inmates to have the detailed information contained in her memorandum:
Q. Do you think the inmates needed to know the particular details of 60 days of scheduling in order to understand what your position was going to be in the settlement?
A. Well, it's actually 53 days of scheduling, but no, they don't need to know that level of detail, which is the reason why I agreed not to give them that level of detail and since September 9, I never have and before September 29, I never did.
Q. That's right, before September 29, you had never found it necessary to send that level of detail to the inmates to comply with your ethical obligation to the client to inform the client about what you do. Is that correct?
A. I have an ethical obligation to keep them informed.
I do not have an ethical obligation to keep them informed to that level of detail, which is why I am able to agree not to do so, now that I'm aware of the county security concerns
Testimony of Susan R. Silver, April 18, 1997 at 58-59.
In determining that disqualification was not warranted in this case, the Special Masters appear to have concluded that Ms. Silver was only attempting to vigorously represent her clients, and that "[b]ut for the fact that her clients 442 are inmates in a correctional institution, no one would think to criticize her for *442 such conduct." Report and Recommendation at 29. The point, however, is that her clients are indeed inmates in a correctional institution, and that fact cannot be simply pushed to the side in assessing the wrongfulness of Ms. Silver's conduct. The Special Masters stated:
While an attorney, like any other person, may not knowingly aid or abet the commission of a crime ... we are not at all certain that an attorney representing inmates is expected to presume that her clients will use information provided with an innocent purpose for an improper purpose. The question of whether a lawyer representing a class of this sort has some sort of special duty to expect the worst from her clients is one that has not been decided, or even discussed in any of the precedent cited to us.
Id. (citation omitted). I cannot agree with this assertion. The very real dangers in jails and prisons of escapes and attacks on prison staff as well as other inmates are quite evident to any lay person let alone an attorney, such as Ms. Silver, who has been intimately involved in their operations for many years. Ms. Silver gave inmates detailed information of when and where officers were not on duty. As Ms. Silver admitted at the April, 1997 hearing, there was absolutely no need on the part of the inmates to have this level of detailed information. Under these circumstances, I do not believe that to "expect the worst from her clients" is somehow on the fringes of rational thought. The necessity of strict security measures in prisons and jails is based on the reasonable presumption that under certain circumstances prisoners, if left to their own devices, will indeed do their worst.
In this case, evidence was presented that at least one inmate did escape on the strength of information obtained from Ms. Silver's memorandum. In his certification, Billy Pereira stated that he escaped form the Jail Annex on October 26, 1995 "after having read a memorandum ... that highlighted the posts that lacked supervision by corrections officers." Certification of Billy Pereira, January 19, 1996 at ¶ 1. That memorandum, he stated, indicated that there were no guards on duty near Satellite 3. Two days after reading the memorandum, Mr. Pereira escaped through Satellite 3. The plaintiffs have questioned whether Mr. Pereira could have digested the memorandum in the five minutes he had possession of the document. This court, however, finds Mr. Pereira's certification to have been credible. There appears no reason why he would have lied in the certification, as he was not promised anything in return. See id. at ¶ 4. Moreover, I do not find his testimony to have been inherently incredible. Mr. Pereira did not state in his certification that he carefully read through and digested the entire memorandum. Rather, he stated only that he determined from the memorandum that no security personnel was on duty on Satellite 3. Surely, five minutes was enough time to gain this valuable information.

To a great extent, however, the wrongfulness of Ms. Silver's conduct does not turn on Mr. Pereira's escape. Nor does it truly matter that no other escapes were connected to the memorandum. The dissemination of the information concerning officer staffing at the Jail Annex was wrongful because it unjustifiably increased the risk of security breaches. The fact that more escapes did not result or other acts of inmate misbehavior perpetrated was simply fortuitous, and thus, in no way diminishes the very real risk and danger that Ms. Silver created.
Had this court been confronted only with the dissemination of the officer staffing information, her disqualification would certainly have been a close question. This court may very well have accepted the Special Masters' conclusion that "the experience of this motion will cause Ms. Silver and other counsel from the Public Defender's office to carefully review materials provided to their clients so as to avoid providing detailed information on matters affecting jail security." Report and Recommendation at 31. Based on the Quran Johnson affair, however, which occurred after Ms. Silver had explicitly assured this court that she appreciated the security concerns at the jail facilities, disqualification appears to be the only reasonable sanction which this court can impose to maintain 443 safety *443 at the jail facilities as well as the integrity of this case.
Ms. Silver, contrary to direct assurances to this court, clearly did not appreciate the security concerns at the Jail Annex. As noted above, Quran Johnson was informed by a letter from Ms. Silver that he would receive outside medical attention for his ailment, and that such appointment would occur on May 23, 1997 at 11:00 a.m. While there is no indication that Mr. Johnson attempted to escape on the strength of this information, the disclosure of this security sensitive information clearly impacts upon this court's determination of the propriety of Ms. Silver's continued participation in this case. The plaintiffs do not dispute that this breach occurred, but contend that it was merely an oversight caused by an extremely heavy caseload undertaken by Ms. Silver.
This court cannot and will not excuse Ms. Silver's conduct based on her assertions of too much work and oversight. Before this court, Ms. Silver stated unequivocally that she would never send this type of information to her clients:
A. I receive frequently medical information with dates as to when inmates are scheduled to receive surgery in outside hospitals or clinics or outside medical specialists appointments to evaluate their medical problems.
Back in, I believe early 1994, Mr. Del Plato mentioned to me that the county treats that information as being confidential because if inmates knew when they were going to be leaving jail grounds for a medical appointment, that poses a security threat in terms of making an escape easier.
Ever since Mr. Del Plato made that comment to me, I have been very careful to never tell inmates when they're going to be leaving the grounds for a medical appointment or surgery.
Testimony of Susan R. Silver, April 18, 1997 at 113. Ms. Silver was also reminded of the security protocols concerning outside medical appointments by Ronald Manzella, the Director of Corrections for Essex County. In his Second Certification, Mr. Manzella stated:
Susan Silver, the attorney for the plaintiff class, has been reminded in my presence that because of security concerns, it is essential that when medical appointments are scheduled for the inmates, she can provide the inmates only with a general response, but absolutely cannot tell them when and where the care will be provided. I can recall at least three occasions when I personally spoke to Ms. Silver or her substitute, Cindy Salisbury [sic], Esq., about this protocol. I can recall at least one occasion when the protocol was discussed with Ms. Silver in the presence of the Special Masters.
Second Certification of Ronald H. Manzella, May 30, 1997 at ¶ 7.
At the very least, this conduct on the part of Ms. Silver negatively impacts on her repeated assurances that she appreciated and understood the security sensitive nature of much of her work. One would have assumed that having explicitly assured this court that conduct of this type would not occur again, Ms. Silver would have taken particular care in handling security sensitive information. This assumption was evidently not well founded, and in

this light, it is equally clear that Ms. Silver's assurances that these types of security breaches would not occur again were simply hollow, delivered to appease the concerns of both this court and the defendant jail officials.
In response to the Quran Johnson affair, as well as the dissemination of the officer staffing information, the plaintiffs appear to have implemented a new protocol which requires that any material sent to inmates be reviewed by a supervisor in the Public Defender's Office. Based on the implementation of this new protocol, the plaintiffs once again attempt to assure this court that security breaches will not occur again. Based on the history of this case, I can no longer accept these assurances. If Ms. Silver were a lower level attorney without significant contact with the inmates, this new procedure may certainly be sufficient to ameliorate this court's anxieties. Ms. Silver, however, is not a low level attorney. She is the principal attorney in this case representing the inmates, and 444 as such, has extensive communication *444 with her clients, both in written correspondence and personal meetings. Under these circumstances, I cannot be assured that having a supervisor review materials sent to the inmates for security sensitive material is sufficient.
This court finds that the dissemination of the officer staffing information to the inmates and Ms. Silver's disclosure of security sensitive information to Quran Johnson compel this court to disqualify Ms. Silver from further representation of the plaintiffs. In their Report and Recommendation, the Special Masters determined that a court's principal concern in resolving a disqualification motion was the integrity of the litigation before it. Disqualification is warranted, they found, when there is the "`possibility of prejudice at trial that might result from the attorney's unethical act.'" Report and Recommendation at 34 (quoting Papanicolaou, 720 F.Supp. at 1083). Based on this standard, the Special Masters concluded that no prejudice existed in this case, reasoning that "[t]rial of the case is an assessment of the proofs and the law ... [and][i]t is not an assessment of the lawyers' credibility." Id.
This court finds that the Special Masters clearly erred in this assessment and have taken a overly narrow view of the requirement that there must be the possibility of prejudice at trial. While in an ordinary case the appropriate standard may very well be the potential prejudice at trial, this is not an ordinary case. Applying this standard in an overly formalistic way to this particular matter would ignore the unique nature of this case. These two class action lawsuits filed on behalf of the inmates concern the very significant issue of the conditions of confinement at the Essex County Jail and Jail Annex. Each case was settled, and many aspects of jail operations are now governed by a series of consent orders. This court has, and has had for quite some time, the responsibility of overseeing compliance with those consent orders. At this stage, this matter will in all likelihood not go to trial. Accordingly, the appropriate standard to be applied in this case is whether there will be prejudice to the continued enforcement of the consent decrees. I find that Ms. Silver's conduct has prejudiced the continued enforcement of the consent decrees.
To ensure compliance with the consent orders, it is imperative that information concerning jail operations be provided to the plaintiffs' representatives and this court. Much of this information no doubt contains security sensitive materials which the defendants would not ordinarily provide to any outside parties. That the defendants must do so to ensure compliance with the consent orders, however, in no way diminishes the sensitive nature of this information. Due to Ms. Silver's conduct, the defendants have a legitimate concern over whether such information will be treated by Ms. Silver with the appropriate level of security which it requires. This legitimate concern arises from the simple fact that the defendants are ultimately responsible for maintaining the security of the facilities, in order to protect the public, the staff, and the inmates. The concern over maintaining the appropriate level of security may lead the defendants, consciously or subconsciously, to limit their disclosure of information to Ms. Silver. Accordingly, the defendants are faced with the dilemma of freely providing important yet sensitive information to Ms. Silver, which may create the risk of a breach of security, on the one hand, and curtailing the disclosure of that information, thereby risking non-compliance with the consent orders.
The dilemma faced by the defendants will clearly affect this court's truth-finding function, as well as its efforts to ensure full and continued compliance with the consent orders. The issues concerning the conditions of confinement raised in these class actions are of great import not only to the inmates themselves but also to the public. Yet these significant issues cannot be properly addressed by this court or the parties in an atmosphere where the continued security of the facility is jeopardized. Security breaches of the type resulting from Ms. Silver's conduct can only undermine this court's duty to oversee compliance with the consent orders on the part

of the defendants. The continued viability of this court's oversight function over the Essex County Jail and Jail 445 Annex, *445 therefore, can suffer no instances of recklessness as evidenced by Ms. Silver's conduct.
This court is cognizant of the policy that in determining whether an attorney should be disqualified, a court should be mindful that although a party has no right to particular counsel, see International Business Machines Corp. v. Levin, 579 F.2d 271, 283 (3d Cir.1978), "`a party's choice of counsel is entitled to substantial deference,'" Alexander, 822 F.Supp. at 1114 (quoting Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Graphix Hot Line, Inc., 808 F.Supp. 1200, 1208 (E.D.Pa.1992)). This court is also well aware of the fact that Ms. Silver has represented the plaintiff class for quite some time. However, I do not believe that these considerations outweigh the need for disqualification in this case. This is not a case where, for instance, we are on the eve of trial and disqualification of a party's attorney will work an extreme prejudice on that party. Indeed, this court notes that Ms. Silver took an eight month leave of absence in 1996. During that time, her duties were undertaken by Deputy Public Defender Cindy Salsbury, Esq. Accordingly, this court finds that the plaintiffs' interest in Ms. Silver's continued participation in this case does not outweigh the need for this court to preserve the integrity of these proceedings. The parties have not provided suggestions of lesser sanctions which would assure the orderly, appropriate, and focused conduct of this matter. The integrity of these proceedings can be maintained, unfortunately, only by the disqualification of Ms. Silver.[8]
[1] The Inmate Advocacy Unit was originally part of the New Jersey Office of the Public Advocate, and is now a part of the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender.
[2] The defendants' objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed beyond the ten days permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53. However, given the magnitude and sensitivity of the allegations at issue in the defendants' motion, I permitted the parties to file their papers nunc pro tunc.
[3] This court notes that although the Report and Recommendation was filed in May, 1996, a hearing was not held until approximately one year thereafter to accommodate Ms. Silver's leave of absence from the Public Defender's Office.
[4] By order of this court dated May 16, 1996, Ms. Silver's memorandum was sealed.
[5] As an initial matter, it must be pointed out that Essex County, of which Corrections Officer DeMeo is an employee, is not a party to this litigation. The Special Masters, after having recognized this fact, surmised that the county itself was not named in this action to avoid the Eleventh Amendment prohibition of suits against a state and to comply with the mandate of Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). The Special Masters further noted, however, that as a practical matter, the parties have conducted this case as if the county was a real party in interest. They found that the defendants have looked to Essex County for the defense of this litigation; the county has used its own funds in defending this litigation and implementing the various requirements provided under the consent orders. The Special Masters therefore considered the county to be a represented party.
The question of whether or not Essex County may be considered a "party" within the ambit of RPC 4.2 is not, as intimated by the Special Masters, entirely clear. There is case law which suggests that, at least in the criminal context, formal proceedings must first be initiated against a party for RPC 4.2 to be implicated. See, e.g., United States v. Balter, 91 F.3d 427, 436 (3d Cir.) (citing State v. CIBA-GEIGY Corp., 247 N.J.Super. 314, 320, 589 A.2d 180 (App.Div. 1991), appeal dismissed, 130 N.J. 585, 617 A.2d 1213 (1992)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 517, 136 L.Ed.2d 406 (1996). The Comment to RPC 4.2, however, states that the rule "also covers any person, whether or not a party to a formal proceeding, who is represented by counsel concerning the matter in question." Accordingly, whether Essex County can be considered a "party" under RPC 4.2 in this case is a close question. Because this court concludes, in agreement with the Special Masters' finding, that Corrections Officer DeMeo was not sufficiently identified with Essex County, even if the county could be considered a "party," resolution of this particular issue is rendered unnecessary.
[6] The Special Masters came to a similar conclusion with respect to RPC 8.4(c), which states in relevant part:
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

It is apparent that the Special Masters relied specifically on the "misrepresentation" aspect of this rule. Notably, the defendants originally did not argue that RPC 8.4(c) applied to this case.
This court is not at all certain whether RPC 8.4(c) can be equated with RPC 4.1(a)(1), as the Special Masters have seemingly done. In Apple Corps Ltd. v. International Collectors Society, 1998 WL 345078 (D.N.J. June 26, 1998), Judge Greenaway of this district noted that the "literal application of the prohibition of RPC 8.4(c) to any `misrepresentation' by a lawyer, regardless of its materiality, is not a supportable construction of the rule." Id. at *20. Judge Greenaway reasoned that to apply RPC 8.4(c) to those situations involving false statements would in turn render RPC 4.1 entirely superfluous. Id. This court agrees with Judge Greenaway's reasoning in this regard. RPC 8.4(c) is generally limited to those cases involving fraud or deceit, or put another way, to "`misrepresentations that manifest a degree of wrongdoing....'" Id. at *21 (quoting David B. Isbell & Lucantonia N. Salvi, Ethical Responsibility of Lawyers for Deception by Undercover Investigators and Discrimination Testers; An Analysis of the Provisions Prohibiting Misrepresentation Under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 8 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 791, 817 (1995)). Accordingly, RPC 8.4(c) has been applied to cases involving, for instance, misappropriation of client trust funds, see, e.g., In re Pomerantz, 1998 WL 396943 (N.J. July 17, 1998), or the fraudulent misappropriation of law firm funds for personal use, see, e.g., In re Greenberg, 1998 WL 396557 (N.J. July 17, 1998).
The Special Masters did not determine whether Ms. Silver's conduct rose to the level of fraud or deceit within the ambit of RPC 8.4(c). Because of this court's determination that RPC 4.1(a)(1) was not violated by Ms. Silver, I do not believe it necessary to determine whether RPC 8.4(c) was also violated.
[7] I am also troubled by the plaintiffs' contention that Ms. Silver was not obligated to be fully candid with Mr. Hellwig because she owed no duty to him. Relying on Petrillo v. Bachenberg, 139 N.J. 472, 655 A.2d 1354 (1995), the plaintiffs maintain that an attorney violates RPC 4.1 only when he or she has a pre-existing duty to that third party. The plaintiffs further contend that under Petrillo, not only must a pre-existing duty be shown, but also that the defendants relied to their detriment on the allegedly misleading information. No such duty exists in this case, the plaintiffs contend, as Ms. Silver "owed no duty to Mr. Hellwig, rather she owed a duty to her (highly unpopular) clients to represent them vigorously." Plaintiffs' Opp. Brf, at 15. The plaintiffs misconceive the duty of honesty required under RPC 4.1, and in so doing, misconstrue Petrillo.
Petrillo specifically concerned the scope of an attorney's duty to a third party non-client for purposes of determining whether a malpractice action may lie. In finding that such a duty exists under specified circumstances, the New Jersey Supreme Court stated:
Whether an attorney owes a duty to a non-client third party depends on balancing the attorney's duty to represent clients vigorously, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.3 (1993), with the duty not to provide misleading information on which third parties foreseeably will rely, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4.1 (1993).
Petrillo, 139 N.J. at 479, 655 A.2d 1354. This statement, properly construed, stands for the general proposition that in determining whether a duty to a third party exists at all, the duty not to provide misleading information is a relevant consideration and must be measured against the attorney's duty to represent his clients vigorously. To conclude from this that a violation of RPC 4.1 requires a pre-existing duty tortures the holding and analysis of Petrillo. Nowhere in Petrillo does it state or even imply that a pre-existing duty is necessary before a violation of RPC 4.1 may be found. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention that Petrillo "addressed the scope of RPC 4.1," Plaintiffs' Opp. Brf. at 15-16, the case did no such thing.
In stating that Ms. Silver owed no duty to Mr. Hellwig, and thus, owed no duty to be fully candid with him, the plaintiffs ignore the plain fact that Ms. Silver's duty under RPC 4.1, in large measure, is not inextricably intertwined with her duty to her clients. Her duty to represent her clients zealously in no way diminishes her duty to refrain from making false statements or misleading third parties. RPC 4.1 stands alone, providing a clear, unambiguous rule concerning a lawyer's ethical duty to speak truthfully. It does not permit a lawyer to be less than truthful simply because there may not be some sort of "fiduciary duty" running to a third party for purposes of determining whether a tort cause of action may lie. The "duty" is provided within the four corners of RPC 4.1 itself, and reference need not be made to any other pre-existing duty.

[8] The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants' brought the present disqualification motion simply for strategic purposes to rid themselves of a zealous and effective advocate. Courts recognize that disqualification motions can be utilized for strategic purposes. See Alexander, 822 F.Supp. at 1118-19; Kevlik, 724 F.2d at 848. When it appears that a motion to disqualify has been made primarily for strategic or tactical purposes, courts "`have been extremely reluctant to disqualify attorneys.'" Alexander, 822 F.Supp. at 1118 (quoting Nemours Found., v. Gilbane, Aetna, Federal Ins. Co., 632 F.Supp. 418, 430-31 (D.Del. 1986)). Although this case has been hard fought throughout and at times contentious, no credible evidence was presented to this court to support a finding that the defendants' primary purpose in moving for disqualification was for strategic or tactical purposes.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 18 F.Supp.2d 445 (1998)
ESSEX COUNTY JAIL ANNEX INMATES, et. al., Plaintiffs, v.
James TREFFINGER, County Executive, et. al. and William H. Fauver, Commissioner, et. al., Defendants,
ESSEX COUNTY JAIL INMATES, et. al., Plaintiffs, v.
James TREFFINGER, County Executive, et. al. and William H. Fauver, Commissioner, et. al., Defendants,
Nos. CIV. 87-871(HAA), CIV. 82-1945(HAA).
United States District Court, D. New Jersey.
August 17, 1998.
446 *446 Ivelisse Torres, Federal Public Defender's Office, Trenton, NJ, Alfred Anson Slocum, New Jersey Public Defender, Department Of Public Advocate, Trenton, NJ, for Plaintiffs.
H. Curtis Meanor, Podvey, Sachs, Meanor, Catenacci, Hildner & Cocoziello, PC, Newark, NJ, for Defendants.
OPINION
HAROLD A. ACKERMAN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on plaintiff's civil contempt motion and represents another chapter in the ongoing Essex County prison litigation. Plaintiffs now request that the court award contempt sanctions for the county's failure to comply with the most recent consent decree. The Special Masters have filed a Report and a Supplemental Report. The parties were also given an opportunity to file objections to the reports.
I. Background
In 1982, inmates of the Essex County Jail ("ECJ") brought suit against the county alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The Essex County Jail Annex ("ECJA") prison litigation followed in 1987 and the cases were eventually consolidated. Throughout the history of this litigation, the parties have resolved each of their disputes through a series of consent decrees, the most recent one being the "Second Consolidated Consent Order" ("2CCO"). The 2CCO embodies a "bona fide settlement" of the legal issues in this case. See Special Master Report ("Report") at 7.
The 2CCO, which incorporates all of the rights and obligations of nine other consent orders previously filed, is a lengthy document which addresses "virtually every aspect of jail administration ... from dripping faucets to population caps and medical care." Id. When filed, it aimed to ameliorate the deplorable conditions of confinement which existed at the time. The instant contempt application, which was originally filed in December 1993, requests that this court impose sanctions upon the county for failing to comply with several provisions of the 2CCO. This court referred the contempt application to Special Masters Bennet Zurofsky and John Degnan, 447 that latter of whom was replaced *447 by Frederic Becker on April 6, 1995. The Special Masters conducted 48 days of hearings and participated in an eight day tour of the facilities.
There does not seem to be any question that the county was in serious contempt in 1993, but several intervening developments have effected a change in climate. Initially, I note that the parties have resolved many matters by consent, e.g. the "Medical Consent Order." On other matters, while the county was recalcitrant at first, it eventually behaved more responsibly. Within the last three years, it has spent over $25 million in capital

improvements and has committed itself to building a new $200 million jail. Many hope and believe that the new jail will eliminate any persisting problems. In light of these developments, the plaintiff submitted to the Special Master its "Brief to Update the Record" outlining the areas in which it believes, the county has still not complied. These specific complaints are the focus of the Special Master's Report.

According to the Special Master, the update brief makes the following complaints:

1. Staffing is inadequate and thus, inmates and staff are exposed to danger and other problems;

2. The facilities have exceeded the population caps set by the 2CCO which has resulted in overcrowding and the housing of inmates in dayrooms that has thereby endangered inmates and created unsanitary conditions;

3. The institution serves inadequate food;

4. The Fire Safety equipment and training is inadequate;

5. There is an insufficient supply of personal hygiene items;

6. There is an insufficient opportunity to shower;

7. There are continuing maintenance problems, particularly with regard to water temperature;

8. There is inadequate opportunity for recreation;

9. The prison does not provide sufficient access to telephones for legal and family calls;

10. The prison does not provide adequate visitation;

11. The prison does not provide adequate access to law libraries which are themselves inadequate.

See Report at 13-14.

On December 18, 1997, the Special Masters submitted to this court their report recommending that with the exception of the staffing issue, the court should dismiss plaintiff's contempt application "without prejudice to any new motions that plaintiffs may wish to file regarding current conditions." Report at 8. According to the Special Masters, the dismissal should be "premised upon Essex County's continuing commitment to complete its present projects of building completely new jail facilities and making interim repairs and improvements." Id.

With respect to the staffing issue, the Special Master recommends that this court order the defendants to comply with ¶ XIV of the 2CCO which would require them to commission an "independent, professional staffing analysis" addressing the areas of "staff training, staff coverage, classification, inmate activity, inmate population, and corrections operations." Additionally, the defendant must implement a plan based upon the independent analysis. See Report at 34-36. Finally, the Special Master recommended that the court impose a fine of $100,000, the payment of which shall be suspended. See Report at 36.

The approach taken by the Special Masters is somewhat unique in that they have chosen not to focus on every detail of the consent order. Rather, they acknowledge that the county is definitely not in full compliance in every area, but they are impressed by the fact that the county has made an enormous investment into improvements of current facilities and the construction of a new jail. It is the Special Master's belief that the county's laudatory efforts make contempt sanctions inappropriate. The Special Masters' report focuses upon the following twentyfive improvements:

448

*448 1. Two new modular facilities have been built at the Annex, known as Satellite 6 and Satellite

6A. These facilities were completed in 1995 with a combined capacity of 116, to hold male

inmates. (Estimated cost: $3,444,337).

2. A new Women's Wing has been built at the Annex, known as Satellite 7. This new building was completed in June 1996 with a capacity of 252 inmates. (Estimated cost: $15,585,745).

3. A new Processing and Visitor Reception Center has been built at the Annex, completed in June 1995. This facility improves the hospitality for inmate visitors (for example, there is now an indoor waiting room with lockers for personal belongings rather than an outdoor line awaiting admission) and facilitates several steps of the inmate admission process. (Estimated cost: $3,855,956).

4. A new "support building" was completed at the Annex in 1996, along with demolition of several decaying structures and improvements to the perimeter. The support building includes a supply warehouse so that greater stocks of clothing, hygiene items, and maintenance parts can be maintained within the institutions than had been the case in the past. The building also includes workshops for various repair and maintenance staff. This has resulted in improved maintenance at the facilities. (Estimated cost: $4,039,956).

5. A Central Intake Processing Unit was built on the first floor of the Jail in Newark to accommodate initial medical screening and examinations. (Estimated cost: $10,000).

6. The installation of two additional elevators was completed at the Jail in Newark in April of 1994. This work had been commenced pursuant to earlier consent orders but delays had plagued the project and were a part of what underlay the original contempt motion. Completion of this work has improved all prisoner movements throughout the thirteen-story structure and generally improved safety. The two original elevators have also been rehabilitated. At the time of the original motion filing the old elevators were subject to frequent failures and there had even been some injuries when elevators fell between floors. (Estimated cost: $3,808,730).

7. Satellites 1 and 2 at the Annex have been completely rehabilitated. Work was completed on Satellite 1 in October 1997 and on Satellite 2 in July 1997. Prior to rehabilitation these were two of the worst housing areas. Satellite 2 was the old Women's Wing, which we described at some length above. Satellite 1 consists of a group of modular units that were installed as a temporary measure during Peter Shapiro's administration in an effort to solve overcrowding problems. They became permanent and were used well beyond their original anticipated life. Ventilation was virtually non-existent in Satellite 1 and there was no fire-suppression or sprinkler system whatsoever. The rehabilitation brought both Satellites up to code. In addition, one of the housing pods in Satellite 1 was converted into an indoor recreation area. (Estimated cost: $4,205,386).

8. The rehabilitation of Satellites 3 and 4 at the Annex is now scheduled to be completed by June

1998. This work could not get underway before the recent completion of the Satellite 1

rehabilitation because there was no place to put the prisoners who need to be removed in order

for construction to take place. Satellites 3 and 4 are trailer-like facilities originally built as a

temporary measure to deal with overpopulation while satellite 5 was being constructed at the

Annex during the Nicholas Amato administration. These too have become permanent and have

449

outlived their predicted lifespan. The rehabilitation *449 will address fire safety, plumbing, HVAC

and electric. (Estimated cost: $942,000).

9. The East Gate of the Annex is being rehabilitated and is scheduled for completion this month. This is a staging area for inmate movements in and out of the Annex. (Estimated cost: $205,639).

10. A consulting fire protection engineer has been retained. This is the County's fire safety expert who has been working with the plaintiffs' expert in designing and then supervising the installation of improved fire safety equipment and procedures throughout both institutions. (Estimated cost (annually): $52,850).

11. Smoke detectors and sprinklers have been renovated and installed throughout the Jail in a project completed in October, 1997. Previously, the smoke detectors generally did not function and many of the sprinkler installations were inadequate to cover the intended areas. (Estimated cost: $440,000).

12. Smoke barriers were built throughout the Jail in a project completed in October 1997. These are essentially solid walls that prevent smoke from migrating from tier to tier or floor to floor. In other institutions such smoke migration has been a frequent cause of serious injury. (Estimated cost: $244,743).

13. A centralized fire safety reporting center is being built at the Annex, scheduled to be completed at about the time of this writing. The Annex consists of many separate buildings. This center will provide a central monitoring location for all fire and smoke alarms and detectors throughout the facility. (Estimated cost: $10,935).

14. The County has entered into consolidated maintenance and inspection contracts with an outside contractor to insure that all fire safety systems remain operable. (Estimated cost (annual): $10,000.)

15. The Jail has contracted for a rehabilitation of its sally port, which is the primary port of entry and egress to that facility. Work is expected to be completed in the Spring of 1998. This should improve the accommodation of those who come to bail out prisoners. It does not particularly relate to any of plaintiffs' priorities, although it will be helpful. (Estimated cost: $515,000.)

16. Both institutions are in the midst of a network computer systems upgrade that is intended to link the Jail and Jail Annex computer systems into a single network and is scheduled to be completed this month. With regard to issues raised in the contempt application, it is expected that the enhanced PC network will include a terminal in each satellite of the Jail Annex that will permit legal research through the use of centralized cd roms and other means, commissary records will also be better kept and medical records will be more accessible and reliably complete when an inmate is transferred between the Jail and the Annex. If it all works, this will be a great improvement. (Estimated cost: $143,166).

17. The County has privatized its medical services, retaining Correctional Health Services, Inc. to provide it with all physicians, nurses, supervisory personnel, medical clerks, and pharmacy and lab services. The provision of this service is monitored by Dr. Ronald Shansky, who was appointed by this Court and reports on a quarterly basis. According to Dr. Shansky, medical services are greatly improved. (Estimated cost (annual): $4,600,000).

18. The County has contracted with St. Elizabeth's Hospital for a medical lock unit and specialist

visits. Previously there were recurring problems finding bed space and appropriate specialists

450

when needed for inmate *450 care. Estimated cost (annual): $1,000,000.

19. The County has added 77 additional corrections officers to its table of organization beyond it 1994 staffing level. The 1994 level reflected cuts in staff made by the D'Allessio administration.

20. The County advises that it has now provided Correctional Officer Training Academy training to all correctional officers who have been employed for more than one year. Previous to this motion, very few of the officers had received this training despite the fact that it is the minimum training required by State regulation. We believe the large amount of untrained staff had contributed to many problems. (Estimated cost: $268,000).

21. Exterminators have been retained for forty hours per week at the Jail and twenty hours per week at the Annex. The need was obvious. The benefits are obvious. (Estimated cost (annual): $100,000).

22. The County has implemented a so-called S.L.A.P. program, which is an early work-release program for sentenced prisoners under the supervision of the Sheriff's office. There are presently approximately 25 prisoners in this program. When fully implemented, the program should accommodate 125 prisoners. Those admitted to the program are sentenced prisoners who are

released early from the Jail or the Annex to a work program. This is an alternative to incarceration of the type sought by plaintiffs.
23. The County has created an Expeditor position to help insure that prisoners are not held inappropriately. In the past, some prisoners seemed to get lost in the system and were not released although their Essex County criminal court proceedings may have permitted release. This was due to a variety of factors including holds from family court or from other jurisdictions and all sorts of bureaucratic malfunctions. The Expeditor has been in place since August of 1995 and appears to be effective with, we believe, a beneficial impact on population. (Estimated cost (annual): $35,000).
24. With the assistance of appropriate consultants, the County has written a Jail Master Plan which, among other things, attempts to predict the number and provide Constitutionally appropriate accommodation for Essex County inmates for the next 25 years. It was the development of this plan which directly led the County to conclude that it needed to construct a new jail. (Estimated cost: $202,000).
See Report at 16-24.
Finally, the Special Master looked at the County's commitment to building a new jail which is:
being designed to hold at least 2400 prisoners, and perhaps as many as 3,000. The design will be in a star pattern that will permit the addition of more wings if more space becomes necessary. We are not experts on Jail design, but we understand that the project is being designed by leading experts in the field and in accordance with current thinking on what is needed for such a facility. The County has designated a site on Doremus Avenue in Newark and it has also retained an architectural and engineering firm and a construction management firm. The County hopes to be able to open the facility in the year 2000 and has already begun to make plans for different uses of the present Jail and Jail Annex sites. Two Hundred Million Dollars of bonding has been authorized for this project through the Essex County Improvement Authority. Ground-breaking is scheduled for the spring of 1998. We believe this to be a real project which will be completed in a reasonably timely manner.
Id. at 24-5.
Until the new jail is built, a period likely to be "several years," there is no question that the plaintiff class will still 451 be "suffering deprivations of some of the rights that they had *451 obtained through the consent orders." Id. at 16.
But the underlying rationale behind the Special Master's recommendation is that the new jail:
will eventually provide fully adequate conditions of confinement, that the closing of the present facilities upon the completion of that construction will render most of the provisions of the [2CCO] moot, and that the present conditions are being greatly ameliorated by the County's efforts.
Id. at 16.
As the Special Master perceives the situation, any contempt sanctions would only be counterproductive and would impede the County's efforts in building the new jail. Thereby, the prisoners would be denied the ultimate realization of better prison conditions. If this approach has any vulnerability, it is its demand that the current prisoners make some sacrifice for those of the future.
It is important to note, however, that in recommending this practical and sensible approach, the Special Masters were keenly aware that their decision did not allow any conditions that might reach unconstitutional levels to be continued. In other words, they recognized that while the prisoners might be asked to relinquish some of the benefits guaranteed by the 2CCO, their constitutional rights remain intact. Thus, it cannot be said the Special Masters have completely ignored the plight of current inmates. Had the Special Masters believed that the conditions violated the inmates' constitutional rights, I doubt that they would have made the same recommendations. The performance of the Special Masters throughout the history of this litigation confirms as

much. They have never shied away from difficult decisions. Furthermore, in recommending that the court not impose sanctions, the Special Masters expressed their awareness that the defendants' commitment to invest over $250 million far exceeds any amount of sanctions requested by the plaintiff.
In response to the Special Master Report, the plaintiff initially made several objections. These objections cover the areas of:
0905 Overcrowding;
0905 Visitation;
0905 Showers;
0905 Hygiene Supplies;
0905 Clothing;
0905 Legal Access;
0905 Recreation;
0905 Implementation of Alternatives to Incarceration;
0905 Staffing; and
0905 Classification.
Upon its review of the Report and plaintiffs' objections, the court expressed concern with some of the report's shortcomings and requested that the Special Masters make supplemental findings in six areas: shower conditions, clothing, recreation, inmate classification, alternatives to incarceration, and distribution of hygiene items. The Special Masters submitted a Supplemental Report on July 21, 1998. Plaintiff filed additional objections on July 29, 1998. The supplemental findings will be considered along with the rest of the record. I will consider each of plaintiff's objections in turn.
II. The Contempt Power
The court has the "inherent power to enforce compliance with its lawful orders through civil contempt." Carty v. Schneider, 986 F.Supp. 933, 939 (D.Vi.1997) (quoting Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5 (1958)). The power to hold one in contempt is an equitable one, the purpose of which is to make the defendant comply with an order of the court. With the instant application, the court must consider "the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired." United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 304, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947). There must be a "balancing of equities." See Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 1998 WL 220957, *17 (E.D.Pa.1998). The court also acknowledges that while the instant case involves a consent decree as opposed to direct allegations of unconstitutional prison conditions, it is mindful of the 452 deference courts have exhibited towards state corrections officials in prison litigation. *452 See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (in considering whether conditions are reasonably related to a legitimate goal, Justice Rehnquist explained that courts must "heed ... [the] warning that such considerations are peculiarly within the province and professional expertise of corrections officials....")
III. Discussion
A. Overcrowding
Almost every problem at the prison is but a symptom of the overcrowding problem. As the Special Master has noted:

When there are too many inmates all conditions of confinement deteriorate. People only sleep on floors when there are no beds; people are only housed in dayrooms when there are no more cells or dormitories available; people lose recreation opportunities when the gym is being used as a bunkhouse or there are more inmates than it is possible to accommodate; medical care is worse when the doctors and nurses have more patients than they can handle; the more a toilet is used, the more often it breaks.
Report at 25.
To ameliorate its population problem, the 2CCO sets caps for the prison. Under these caps, the ECJ may house 594 inmates and the ECJA, 909 inmates. Additionally, the order prohibits the use of dayrooms to house inmates. At the present time, there is no dispute that the prison has yet to comply with these provisions, but because the county has "embarked" upon a new program that is expected to ultimately eliminate all population problems, the Special Masters have recommended that the court not impose sanctions.
Under its new program, the county has renovated and reconstructed the ECJA's "satellites" and it will soon begin construction for its new $200 million jail. As I have already noted above, the county has added 368 beds to the prison capacity by building two new modular facilities known as Satellite 6 and Satellite 6A and a new Women's Wing known as Satellite 7. See Discussion, supra. Most importantly, once the new jail is completed in the year 2000, it will hold at least 2400 prisoners, and perhaps as many as 3,000. Without the new jail, the county will continue to exceed the population caps set by the 2CCO.
While the county may not have satisfied the population caps set by the 2CCO, sanctions are not warranted in this instance. The purpose of exercising the contempt power is to ensure compliance with an order of the court, in this case the 2CCO, and the court has "great and sound discretion in fashioning an appropriate sanction for contempt." Robin Woods Inc. v. Woods, 28 F.3d 396, 399 (3d Cir.1994). In balancing the equities, the court must consider "the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired." United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 304, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947). Moreover, while good faith is not a defense to civil contempt, it may affect the court's calculation of sanctions. See Robin Woods, supra, at 399; Harley-Davidson Inc. v. Morris, 19 F.3d 142, 148 (3d Cir.1994). Here, I do not believe that awarding monetary sanctions will serve any purpose.
The county is currently engaged in its assiduous effort to solve its inmate population problem by investing over $200 million in new facilities and improving existing ones. Because the current facilities suffer from deep-rooted infirmities due to age, size and design which will never be fully remedied, the current arrangement, by itself, will not reach the desired prison population. From that, it follows that there is no type of monetary sanctions which will coerce compliance. But while the population level fails to comply with the 2CCO, the housing situation does not impinge upon constitutional rights. Because the inmates' constitutional rights will not be jeopardized and monetary sanctions can only be counter-productive, the court will not invoke its contempt power.
My reasoning resembles that of Judge Brotman in Carty v. Schneider, 986 F.Supp. 933 (D.Vi.1997). In Carty, 453 pretrial detainees and inmates moved for contempt sanctions against government officials for failing to *453
comply with a consent decree addressing conditions of confinement. Parties had entered the consent decree in October 1994. As with the instant case, the court viewed overcrowding as the "proverbial `bad seed' that has engendered many of the related constitutional violations." Id. at 937. In January 1997, the Carty court held the defendants in contempt for not complying with the consent decree, but did not hold a hearing on sanctions until April and did not render its opinion until December 1997. By that time, the defendants had solved the "immediate population problem" addressed by the consent decree and they had begun to effect other necessary changes, but other "persistent problems" regarding medical care, nutrition, running water, regular extermination, staff training, fire prevention, and legal access continued. Nevertheless, the court declined to impose monetary sanctions. The court found that the "remedial measures taken to date [were] the first of many necessary and forthcoming steps towards global compliance with the Agreement" and it concluded that "monetary contempt sanctions would affect drastically the public interest and perhaps more importantly, would impede progress and thwart the defendants' continuing efforts to remedy the conditions of confinement." Id. at 940. Most importantly,

the court did not rubber-stamp the defendants' efforts, but admonished them "to maintain the momentum generated by ... recent achievements" and it predicted that a "failure to achieve compliance with the substantive terms of the Agreement in the near future ... w[ould] affect the court's response to prospective motions for relief." Id. Similarly, the court will not order monetary sanctions here.
B. Visitation
Additionally, now is not the time to impose sanctions for the county's failure to comply with the visitation provisions of the consent decree. Plaintiffs allege that the county has not complied with the consent decree because it only grants inmates visitation rights on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday as opposed to the six days required at the ECJ and the five days required at the ECJA. See Plaintiffs' Opposition at 57. They further complain that the ECJ only allows noncontact visits and that when it is crowded with visitors, the jail does not provide the twenty minutes mandated by the 2CCO. Id. at 58-9. In their report, the Special Masters acknowledge that when these facilities are overcrowded, there are "recurring problems with visitation, the principal problem being that visitors wait too long in uncomfortable surroundings for too short a visit in an uncomfortable visitation room." Report at 41-2. But the Special Masters have noted, the county "has undertaken some construction projects designed, in part, to improve the situation for visitors, especially at the Annex where most of the prisoners are held." Id. Among these improvements is a new "Processing and Visitor Reception Center" at the Annex. Furthermore, the county is making more improvements and it has designed the jail to "better accommodate prisoner visits." See Id.
The court recognizes that the prison is not in full compliance with the 2CCO at this time, but for the same reasons that it has not imposed sanctions for overcrowding, it agrees with the Special Masters that monetary sanctions are not warranted.
C. Showers
The 2CCO requires that the County "`maintain all showers in working order' ... with particular requirements regarding water temperature, ventilation, prevention of mold, mildew and rust, and maintenance." See Supplemental Report at 2 (citing 2CCO). At the time that the plaintiffs filed this motion, the Special Masters's Report notes, the accumulation of maintenance problems 0907 those being "scalding showers" and "epidemic leaks" 0907 had "amounted to a serious problem that affected the habitability of many housing units." Report at 40. The plaintiffs have complained about the conditions at both the ECJA and the ECJ.
1. ECJA
Based upon the testimony of inmates, plaintiffs contend that there are continuing shower problems. See Plaintiff's 454 Objections at 38-39. Apparently, access to showers is *454 limited and the showers still have temperature
problems. See Plaintiff's Objections at 38-39. As a result, plaintiffs contend, some inmates no longer shower at the ECJA. In contrast, the Special Masters have concluded that the problems were "largely remedied" by the "complete rehabilitation of the worst areas, particularly satellites 1,2,3 and 4 at the Annex" and by "keeping ... maintenance workers actively employed." See Report at 40.
Since the filing of plaintiff's objections, the County has completed the rehabilitation of Satellite 3 and is in the process of completing the rehabilitation of Satellite 4. These projects involve the "replacement of the showers where necessary and a full overhaul of the plumbing in the trailer-housing area ...." Supplemental Report at 3; Ex. A (copy of June 25, 1998 letter from the County to the court). The County has also committed $50,000 to performing the same repairs throughout the ECJA and East Wing by the end of the year.[1] Finally, in a letter to the court dated June 25, 1998, the county informed the court that it was planning the rehabilitation of Satellite 5 (estimated cost of $100,000 to $140,000) and anticipated awarding the contract by July.
The court acknowledges that showers may not satisfy every inmate, but the court does not believe that sanctions are warranted. Based upon the foregoing, the county has demonstrated its dedication to eradicating these

problems and there is no doubt that the county has taken its responsibilities under the 2CCO seriously. To the extent that problems remain, it is expected that they will be fully rectified once current and future projects are completed. Thus, I do not believe that monetary sanctions for the ECJA will serve any purpose at this time. The county is already spending a substantial amount of money to respond to the inmates' complaints. However, the court admonishes the county that it must not falter in its mission.
2. ECJ
At the ECJ, the plaintiffs complain of even greater deficiencies than those at the ECJA. According to the inmates, the showers continue to be "so scalding hot or ice cold that inmates are frequently unable to use the shower at all." Plaintiff's Objections at 38. Additionally, leaking from the ceiling of the shower areas into light fixtures exposes the prisoners to the possibility of electric shock. See Id. In its initial report, the Special Master made no findings regarding the conditions of the showers in the ECJ. The court was concerned with this error and asked for supplemental findings. Further investigation by the Special Masters has revealed that while the county has not been so diligent in making improvements at the ECJ, it has now begun "advertising" for construction bids to repair or replace all shower units at the jail at an estimated cost of $250,000 0907 $500,000. Id. at Ex. A. It has informed the court that it will award a contract at the end of August 1998 and will require that the work be completed within 120 days. Id.
Furthermore, the New Jersey Department of Corrections recently inspected the ECJ and concluded that the county had complied with standards set by New Jersey regulations. This standard requires that there be "at least one operable shower with temperature controlled hot and cold water available for every 16 inmates" and that the shower shall "be accessible to inmate[s] without the necessity of leaving the immediate housing." Id. at Ex. B, p. 1 (copy of inspection report).
Based upon the foregoing, the court does not believe that contempt sanctions are appropriate at this time. The purpose of contempt sanctions is to compel compliance with a court order. Here, the county has committed $250,000 0907 $500,000 to making repairs and it has complied with New Jersey's regulatory standards. The court believes and accepts the county's representation that it will award a construction contract by August 1998. The imposition of contempt sanctions would only be counterproductive.
455 *455 D. Hygiene Items
Next, the plaintiffs have objected to the Special Master's report regarding "hygiene items." Plaintiffs have focused upon the 2CCO's requirement that:
[e]ach inmate ... be issued adequate amounts of necessary personal hygiene items, including toilet paper, soap, shampoo, toothpaste, toothbrush, comb, mirror, individual razors, and shaving cream or powder.
Plaintiffs' Objections at 31.
Plaintiffs have not contested the Special Master's finding that the County has "increased its inventory of ... prisoner hygiene items," but they believe that the county has failed to properly distribute these items. See Plaintiff's Objections at 31. According to the plaintiffs, the ECJA no longer distributes "hygiene packages," which normally include toothpaste, toothbrush, soap, and a comb, to newly admitted inmates. See Plaintiffs' Response at 16. Some inmates have also complained about the county's failure to distribute toilet paper, soap, and "personal hygiene packages." See Plaintiff's Objections at 31-3. Inmate representatives also "report that it is `next to impossible' for indigent inmates to receive personal hygiene items when their initial amounts of toothpaste and personal hygiene supplies run out" and generally, inmates "are unable to purchase personal hygiene supplies during the first several weeks they are in the Annex." See Plaintiffs' Response at 17. Female inmates have complained of the county's failure to distribute sanitary napkins.
The Special Master's initial report did not address these objections, but their supplemental report acknowledges that some problems related to distribution may still be present. Nevertheless, they do not recommend sanctions

because, among other things, the New Jersey Department of Corrections has recently found that the ECJ and ECJA comply with the regulatory standard that "each inmate be provided with ... soap, toothbrush, toothpaste or powder, comb, toilet paper, shaving equipment upon request, and products for the special hygiene needs of female inmates." Supplemental Report at Ex. B, p. 7 (copy of ECJ inspection report); Ex. C, p. 7 (copy of ECJA inspection report). This alone does not absolutely confirm the county's full compliance, but the court will nonetheless decline to order monetary sanctions. Plaintiff do not contest that there is a lack of supply and they have not alleged that the county has affirmatively refused to distribute these items. Instead the court will order the court to improve distribution within fifteen days and to submit a report to confirming that it has satisfied its obligation.
E. Clothing Requirements
Under the 2CCO, the County must provide each inmate with "2 sets of outer garments, two sets of undergarments, and two sets of socks." See Plaintiff's Objections at 40. Fresh underwear is to be issued every two days. See Supplemental Report at 5. The plaintiffs have complained that the county has not complied with the order. See Plaintiff's Objections at 40. According to the plaintiffs, "[i]nmates are still only provided with one uniform and must stay in their cells all day in their underwear when their uniform is turned in for laundering." Id. The Special Masters' initial report made no findings on this issue. Their supplemental report remarked upon the increase in supply and that while they have "no reason to disbelieve the specifics of [the inmate complaints, they] do not believe that there is any longer a general problem in this area." Supplemental Report at 7. The Department of Corrections has concluded that the ECJ and ECJA meet their standard that all inmates be "provided with clothing that is clean, climatically suitable, durable and in good condition." Id. at Ex. B, p. 7 (copy of ECJ inspection report); Ex. C, p. 7 (copy of ECJA inspection report).
While the Special Masters have not conducted any "detailed study of clothing that are needed versus the supply that is on hand," (id. at 7), the court sees no reason to impose monetary sanctions here. In light of the findings made by the Special Masters and the Department of Corrections, the court believes that monetary would only be counterproductive. The county is well aware of its obligation under the 2CCO.
456 *456 F. Legal Access
One of the goals of the 2CCO was to improve access to legal materials. Thus, it requires that within the Annex, the county must "provide access to the law library at least 40 hours per week" and upon request, each inmate is entitled to "spend at least five two-hour periods a week in the law library." Plaintiff's Objections at 43. "If feasible, access to the law library shall be provided at the next date scheduled for law library." Id. Each Essex County Jail inmate is entitled to spend at least two hours a week in the law library. Id. at 45. With respect to the contents of its libraries, the order provides that each library shall maintain an inventory with the "full contents listed in the current edition of the New Jersey State Library's Recommended List of Books for Law Libraries in the New Jersey County Jails." Id. at 46. Finally, there must be "one staff person ... minimally trained in the use of law books ... assigned responsibility to update legal materials and assist inmates to find the material they seek." Id. at 50. The plaintiffs insist that the county is grossly deficient in all areas.
Regarding the degree of access to the facilities themselves, the plaintiffs claim that:
0905 females receive no access;
0905 other annex inmates must wait two weeks to a month to get to the law library and once they are allowed to go, their time is restricted to periods between fifteen minutes and an hour;
0905 whenever the County houses inmates in the ECJ, those inmates are not given access; and
0905 Juvenile inmates are also given extremely limited access to the law library.
Plaintiff's Objections at 45.

Once again, while the county may not be in full compliance, I do not believe that monetary sanctions are appropriate here. As the Special Master has noted:
The County ... is in the midst of completing the installation of a computer-aided legal research system which will place a terminal with access to a legal CD-Rom library in each satellite of the Annex. If this works as intended, it seems likely to meet the County's commitment.... [T]he new jail will be designed with adequate provision for inmate law library space and usage.
Report at 38.
The prisoner's difficulty in obtaining access to legal materials is directly related to overpopulation which, as I have already noted, the county is making every effort to correct. Thus, for reasons already stated, the court believes that at this time, sanctions would be inappropriate.
Regarding the contents of the libraries, the Special Master believes that the new computer system will remedy present concerns. However, the plaintiffs still criticize the implementation of the new system because there is only one computer at the ECJA and only the Ombudsman for the ECJA is permitted to use it. See Plaintiff's Objections at 49. In addition, they claim that there is no computerized research at the ECJ. Nevertheless, I believe that it makes the most sense for this court to wait until the system is fully implemented before deciding upon an award of sanctions. But I take this opportunity to admonish the defendants to be mindful of their responsibility under the 2CCO.
Finally, the inmates complain that there is no staff person to assist the inmates. As I have already noted, the consent order provides that there must be "one staff person ... minimally trained in the use of law books" who is "assigned responsibility to update legal materials and assist inmates to find the material they seek." Plaintiff's Objections at 50. The Special Masters have not addressed this concern, but I believe that in light of my findings above, it is most prudent for the court to wait until the new system is implemented before making any determination regarding monetary sanctions. Moreover, in Section III(I) of this opinion, the court will order the county to implement a plan developed through an independent staffing analysis. See discussion, infra. This plan will address the instant legal access issue. Thus, the court will await the independent staffing analysis and the full implementation of the new system. At that time, the inmates may decide to file further motions.
457 *457 G. Recreation
Under the consent order:
All inmates in the ECJ and ECJA shall have the opportunity to use a gymnasium or recreation outside their housing units and dayrooms for a minimum of one hour each day, seven days per week.
Plaintiff's Objections at 52 (citing 2CCO).
At the time that it filed its objections to the Special Masters' report, plaintiffs identified a number of violations. See Id. at 52-57. According to the plaintiffs, the ECJ never provided recreation to inmates housed in dayrooms and those inmates housed on the twelfth floor. Additionally, it permitted juveniles to participate in recreation four days per week. In some instances, where the jail offers recreation to a particular floor, only half of that floor would be accommodated. At the ECJA, the county never allowed recreation to inmates housed in Satellite 2 and only limited recreation to the following inmates:
0905 inmates housed in Satellite 5 (one day/week);
0905 inmates housed in the Main Building, Satellites 3 and 4 (five to six days / week);
0905 inmates housed in Satellite 4 (everyday but Friday);
0905 inmates housed in Satellite 1 (Monday through Friday);

The Special Master made no findings on this issue in its initial report, an oversight which troubled the court and created the need for a supplemental report. From the Special Masters' supplemental report, it now appears that the county has made recreation substantially more accessible to the inmates.
In April 1998, an inspection performed by the New Jersey Department of Corrections confirmed that the ECJ provides inmates with the "opportunity to participate in a minimum of one hour of physical exercise and recreation each day outside the living unit." See Supplemental Report at Ex. B. at p. 38. The May 1998 inspection of the ECJA concluded that the ECJA had not fully complied because some satellites only provided five days of recreation. Id. at Ex. C. Notwithstanding the failure to provide access to recreation seven days per week, the inspection findings reflect a marked improvement over the conditions alleged by plaintiffs in their objections to the Special Master report. For instance, one can no longer argue that the county completely denies recreation to Satellite 2 inmates or commits some similar abuse.
This progress is further evidenced by several improvements to facilities since the plaintiffs filed their objections. The county has "expanded and improved" Satellite 2's indoor and outdoor recreation areas. Specifically, the defendant maintain that the new outdoor recreation facility has:
four half-court basketball courts and space for outdoor recreation. The indoor recreation area has been enlarged and includes weight lifting equipment, pool and pingpong tables, punching and speed bags and space for passive indoor recreation.
Id. at Ex. A (copy of county's June 25, 1998 letter).
Additionally, Satellites 3,4, and 5 are in various states of rehabilitation. See discussion, supra at 15-16.
Notwithstanding these improvements, plaintiffs still argue that the defendants are not in compliance with the 2CCO. In their response to the Special Masters' report, the plaintiffs have submitted a copy of the May 1998 log sheets for the "up and down gyms" at the ECJ. See Plaintiff's Response at 13; Ex. P-1. The logs indicate that inmates in protective custody and inmates on the 12th floor did not use the gym in May 1998. See Id. Additionally, as the plaintiff has noted, "inmates on other floors" did not use the gym "often." Id. Plaintiffs claim that this means that inmates were denied access to recreation. However, that is not necessarily the case. At most, what the report shows is that certain inmates did not use the gym at the ECJ during the month of May. However, in light of the findings by the New Jersey Department of Corrections that the ECJ provides inmates with the "opportunity to participate in a minimum of one hour of physical exercise and recreation each day outside the living unit," the court will not find that the ECJ recreation program violates the 2CCO.
458 *458 As with the ECJ, plaintiffs still maintain that the ECJA has not complied with the ECJA. According to the plaintiffs, inmates representatives have stated that the ECJA continues to provide limited recreation opportunities to the following inmates:
0905 two hundred of the inmates in Satellite 2 (no recreation on weekdays);
0905 inmates from the East and West Wing of the Main Building (no recreation on the weekends);
0905 Satellite 5 inmates (no recreation on Saturdays).
See Plaintiffs' Response at 14.
With the exception of the plaintiff's complaints regarding Satellite 2, plaintiff's findings are consistent with those of the New Jersey Department of Corrections that ECJA only provides five days of recreation to some inmates at the ECJA. With respect to Satellite 2, the court finds it difficult to believe plaintiff's claims in light of the Department of Corrections inspection and the recent expansions and improvement of Satellite 2's indoor and outdoor recreation areas. See discussion, supra. Perhaps there are instances where the level of access falls below that found by the inspector, but for the most part, the court believes that the Department of Corrections' findings accurately characterize the prison conditions.

The Special Masters believe that recreation is directly related to the problems of overpopulation and staffing. Certainly, overcrowding impedes the county's ability to provide recreation opportunities and for that reason, it would be consistent with this opinion for the court to excuse full compliance. See discussion, supra. That does not mean that the court will ignore the recreation problem and permit the county to abandon the 2CCO. If the conditions were the same as those described by the plaintiffs in their objections, monetary sanctions might be appropriate, but here, they are unwarranted.
In the instant case, the county is approaching full compliance and is making efforts to ultimately satisfy the inmate's recreation needs. At worst, some inmates are only provided five days of recreation. Ultimately, with improvements at the current site and the construction of the new jail, it is expected that there will be more than sufficient recreation opportunities for all inmates. Additionally, to the extent that staffing inefficiencies contribute to the lack of recreation opportunity, in Section III(I) of this opinion, the court will order that the county implement a plan developed through an independent staffing analysis. See discussion, infra. This analysis will cover "inmate activities," a term which includes recreation. For the reasons already stated, the court finds that additional sanctions would be counterproductive and unnecessary.

H. The Implementation of Incarceration Alternatives

To alleviate overcrowding, the consent decree mandates that the county investigate and adopt alternatives to incarceration. Plaintiffs now argue that the county has violated the consent decree by first, not establishing a "substance abuse program, Turning Point/Second Chance, for pre-trial incarcerated persons detainees at the ECJ and ECJA" and second, by not implementing the "Sentencing Projects' recommendations on incarceration alternatives `to the fullest extent necessary to bring the ECJ and the ECJA population below the caps specified by [the 2CCO.]'" See Plaintiff's Objections at 60-61. Additionally, plaintiffs complain that the county has failed to submit "a report to the Special Masters and plaintiffs on the status of the Intensive Supervision Probation program and the County's Community Program." Id.

On this issue, the Special Master concedes that the requirements of the 2CCO are not being met. See Special Masters' Supplemental Report at 13. In the past, the county operated many alternative programs, but currently is only involved in a program called "Second Choice," formerly known as S.L.A.P. S.L.A.P. is:

an early work-release program for sentenced prisoners under the supervision of the Sheriff's

office. There are presently approximately 25 prisoners in this program. When fully implemented,

459

the program should accommodate 125 prisoners. Those admitted to the program are sentenced

*459 prisoners who are released early from the Jail or the Annex to a work program. This is an

alternative to incarceration of the type sought by plaintiffs. Report at 23.

According to the Special Masters, the county's position is that "it is unwilling, for reasons of public safety and realpolitik, to make more vigorous use of non-custodial programs." Supplemental Report at 14. Notwithstanding the county's refusal to operate these programs, the Special Master have not recommended that the court impose sanctions because for the reasons related to the underlying theme of its report on the issue of overcrowding,

the county's commitment to a new jail changes the previously contemptuous nature of the county's conduct regarding alternatives to incarceration.... Habitable conditions of confinement are certainly required, but equity does not require that alternatives to incarceration, as opposed to new construction, be employed as the means of permanently achieving that necessary goal.

Supplemental Report at 15.

For the most part, the court adopts the position taken by the Special Masters. Through a number of efforts which mostly include construction and rehabilitation of facilities, but also involve the operation of "Second Choice," the county is employing methods to reduce overcrowding. It is anticipated that through the county's impressive efforts, the new jail will eliminate overcrowding. The court is loath to either impose its own notions of enlightened policy upon the county like a "roving commission" or to unnecessarily usurp the authority of the county. See

Union County Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F.2d 984 (3d Cir.1983). With that in mind, the court finds that it make no sense to purposefully thwart the county's initiative.
I. Staffing and Classification
a. Staffing
Amongst all of the county's transgressions alleged by the plaintiff, the Special Masters expressed the most concern over staffing. When a prison is confronted with the dual problem of overcrowding and inadequate staffing, the Special Master believes, this "creates many dangers to both inmates and the staff' such as "intrainmate violence, sex or intimidation, failures to observe prisoners who are ill or in distress so that appropriate medical attention can be obtained in a timely manner, and increased danger of violence directed at the corrections officers." Report at 32. Unquestionably, inadequate staffing of prisons may cause harm that reaches constitutional proportions. For that reason, the Special Master recommended that the court order the defendant to:
obtain and submit to plaintiffs' counsel an independent, professional staffing analysis for three areas of [prison] operations: security staffing and training, classification, and inmate activities.
Report at 34-36.
This analysis:
shall address staff training, staff coverage, classification, inmate activity, intake population, and corrections operations. The staffing analysis shall review current authorized staffing, vacancies, position descriptions, salaries, classification, and workload. The analysis shall try to maximize the use of properly classified and trained inmate workers where appropriate. The analysis shall take into account the requirements of this Agreement with respect to health, safety, and food service as it impacts on the work of corrections or civilian staff.
Id.
The Special Masters also recommended that the defendants be ordered to "implement the plan." See Report at 34-36. Finally, the Special Master has recommended that the
court impose a fine of $100,000, but that the collection of the fine should be suspended until June 30, 1998, and that if the County demonstrates that it has retained the necessary expert by that date and has the study underway that it be further suspended for a reasonable time to permit completion of the study. Upon full compliance with the requirements, [the Special Master] recommend[ed] that the fine be forgiven.
Report at 36.
460 *460 Plaintiffs' only objection to this recommendation is that it believes that the recommendation does not compel the county to implement the independent plan. However, that impression is mistaken because as the foregoing indicates, the Special Master did indeed recommend that the court order such a requirement. Thus, I will adopt the Special Master's recommendation with one exception. I will suspend the collection of the fine until October 31, 1998.[2]
b. Classification
In their objections, the plaintiffs have complained that the Special Master has not addressed the classification issue. Plaintiffs devote seventeen pages to the county's failure to adopt the classification provisions required by the 2CCO. According to the plaintiff, defendants have not complied with the consent decree by:

0905 failing to classify and house inmates in general population and special use housing;
0905 failing to separate violent inmates from vulnerable inmates;
0905 failing to separately house sex offenders and inmates with mental health problems apart from other inmates;
0905 failing to establish a separate housing area for the intake and reception of inmates;
0905 failing to separately house newly admitted inmates until the inmates are medically cleared;
0905 improperly using detention cells to house inmates in need of medical attention or inmates in need of psychiatric observation;
0905 failing to maintain a special needs housing unit for inmates in need of observation or close custody, e.g. suicidal inmates.
See Plaintiff's Objections at 8-25.
Plaintiffs allege that these classification problems are "extremely dangerous" and may infringe upon the Eight Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. See Id. at 21 (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)).
In its initial report, the Special Masters' treatment of the classification issue was scant. It now appears that the county is implementing a plan known as the "County Correctional Information System Objective Jail Classification System." See Supplemental Report at 12. Apparently, the New Jersey Correctional Authorities modeled this system after one developed by the National Institute of Corrections. See Id. The system will:
standardize the classification of both pretrial and sentenced inmates and will allow jail administrators of participating counties to take maximum advantage of secure bedspace and program slots by quickly identifying those offenders best suited for the appropriate security level. Through the use of a standardized and uniform scoring and evaluation process among all the counties, offenders transferred from one jail to another will have the same date collected, with the same definitions, which will facilitate the identification intake and assignment process at the receiving jail.
Id. at Ex. E (copy of letter from County Counsel to plaintiff and Special Masters).
The county claims that it has begun operating the program at the ECJ and intends on implementing the program systemwide, including the ECJ, by January 1, 1999. However, the plaintiffs are still not satisfied.
Plaintiffs complain that the Special Masters have not indicated how the new plan will house inmates and thus, they have renewed the objections raised previously. See discussion, supra. Essentially, they maintain that the inmates remain in "grave danger" because the new plan does not provide for separate housing of the different types of inmates. For example, by not separating newly admitted inmates, disciplinary detention inmates, 461 protective custody inmates, *461 mentally ill inmates, and medically needy inmates as required by the 2CCO, the county has permitted a dangerous mix of inmates. Plaintiffs cite several violations of the 2CCO. This includes the allegation that the county has not complied with state regulations regarding classification and housing of inmates. See Plaintiff's Response at 9.
The plaintiffs' allegations are seriousness enough to warrant contempt sanctions. Nevertheless, sanctions are not appropriate yet. In Section III(I) of this opinion, the court has ordered an independent staffing analysis to be conducted which will address "staff training, staff coverage, classification, inmate activity, intake population, and corrections operations." See, Discussion, supra at 25-27 (emphasis added). This independent analysis must include practices for classifying and housing inmates throughout the prison system. For that reason, the court believes it most prudent to wait until the independent analysis is performed before it decides whether to impose contempt sanctions.

The inmates have raised some genuine concerns regarding the housing of inmates under the new classification system which the Special Masters have not addressed. The court cannot ignore its obligation to ensure compliance with the 2CCO, but it will await the release of the independent staffing analysis. However, it will order that the independent staffing analysis include an evaluation of the county's "County Correctional Information System Objective Jail Classification System." Until an independent analysis is conducted which either approves or disapproves of the classification plan, the court need not consider whether the plan satisfies the 2CCO.
IV. The Impact of the PLRA upon Plaintiff's Contempt Application
In adopting the Special Master's recommendation and enforcing the 2CCO, the court is mindful of the fact that through the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Congress has effected a revolution in prison litigation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626. Congress has expressed its desire to "end perceived ongoing micromanagement of state and local prisons systems by federal courts." See Taylor v. United States, 143 F.3d 1178, 1998 WL 214578, *3 (9th Cir.1998). Thus, while the court finds that the PLRA does not affect the instant contempt application, some explanation is necessary.
Section 3626(a) of the PLRA provides:
Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a).
The most controversial section of the PLRA, § 3626(b), entitles "any party or intervener" in this type of prison litigation to seek immediate termination of any "prospective relief" which has been previously ordered. The section applies to those orders entered before the enactment of the PLRA. However, such 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.
Id.
The PLRA defines "prospective relief" as "all relief other than compensatory monetary damages." Id. at § 3626(g) (7). Relief means "all relief in any form that my be granted or approved by the court, and includes consent decrees ...." Id. at § 3626(g)(9).
Most courts have construed 3626(b) to mean that once the defendants, plaintiffs, or intervenor shows their entitlement to terminate prospective relief under the act, the court must terminate the actual consent decree 462 which has been previously entered. See Taylor, supra; but see, Benjamin v. Jacobson, *462 124 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.1997) (act terminates jurisdiction to enforce past consent decree, but not decree itself). Section 3626(b) may potentially have a dramatic impact upon prison litigation because it will allow prisons to evade terms of the consent decrees which were entered prior to the PLRA. Before the enactment of the PLRA, courts permitted parties to settle disputes over constitutional violations by entering into consent decrees that imposed requirements exceeding constitutional levels. See Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County, 502 U.S. 367, 389, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992) ("almost any affirmative decree beyond a directive to obey the Constitution necessarily" exceeds what is compelled by the Constitution); Kindred v. Duckworth, 9 F.3d 638, 641 (7th Cir.1993) (consent decrees often embody outcomes that reach beyond basic constitutional protections). That is what occurred here and in numerous other prison litigations.

Through the PLRA, Congress now prohibits parties from entering enforceable consent decrees which exceed constitutional requirements. The impact of the PLRA is magnified by the fact that, upon a motion by any of the parties, the court may terminate consent decrees similar to that in the instant case. That is a marked change. However, in the instant case, neither a party nor an intervenor has moved to terminate the underlying consent decree and thus, the court need not apply § 3626(b).[3]
While 3626(b) does not apply here, one might argue, albeit incorrectly, that § 3626(a) limits the court's ability to enforce the 2CCO. This court does not share that view because the court's inherent contempt power remains unaffected by § 3626(a). The enforcement of a valid consent decree is not the kind of "prospective relief" considered by § 3626(a). As long as the underlying consent order remains valid 0907 neither party has made a 3626 (b) motion to terminate 0907 the court must be able to enforce it. See Komyatti v. Bayh, 96 F.3d 955 (7th Cir.1996). The court draws some support for this position from Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F.Supp. 727 (D.V.I.1997).
Notwithstanding the PLRA, the district court in Carty held the defendant in contempt of the consent decree. The defendants had initially moved to terminate the consent decree, but then withdrew the motion. Because § 3626(b) had not been invoked, the court did not need to consider the validity of the underlying consent decree. The court then went ahead and ruled upon the contempt application. While the court does not specifically mention § 3626 (a), there is no question that it was well aware of the statute's existence. Carty implicitly held that the PLRA did not limit its ability to exercise its contempt power. Similarly, I do not believe that this action constitutes "prospective relief" because it does nothing more than enforce the provision of a prior order of this court which remains valid.
That § 3626(a) has no application here is further confirmed by an examination of the act itself. If § 3626(a) rendered an underlying consent decree unenforceable, that would make § 3626(b) superfluous. If a court interpreted § 3626(a) as effectively limiting a previously entered consent decree, there would be no need for a party to file a motion to terminate under § 3626(b). Because the Third Circuit has commanded that lower courts 463 interpret statutes to "avoid a construction of a statute that renders any provision *463 superfluous," I find 3626(a) inapplicable here. See United States v. Higgins, 128 F.3d 138, 141 (3d Cir.1997); Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 928 F.2d 1378, 1385 (3d Cir.1991).
V. Plaintiff's Recent Letter
In their July 21, 1998 letter, the plaintiff alleges other areas of noncompliance. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that:
1. inmates do not receive regular fire drills;
2. some female inmates must sleep on the floor;
3. the county continues to house inmates in the dayrooms;
4. many inmates do not receives towels or sheets;
5. inmates are provided with only one blanket;
6. inmates are not provided with pillows or pillow cases;
7. inmates have only one uniform and are not provided with undergarments or socks;
8. inmates do not receive adequate amounts of toilet paper;
9. female inmates do not receive adequate amounts of sanitary napkins;
10. newly-admitted and indigent inmates are unable to get personal hygiene supplies;
11. inmates in the ECJ and ECJA do not receive visitation on the requisite number of days;
12. food sometimes runs out, and food portions are too small;

13. shower temperatures at the ECJ are often scalding hot or freezing cold;
14. inmates are not given adequate amounts of cleaning supplies;
15. inmates on the third and 8/9 floor of the ECJ do not receive any dayroom time.
Some of these items have already been addressed. See discussion, supra, (covering items 3,7,8,9,10,11,13). The other items were not addressed in the plaintiffs's objections to the Special Master.[4] To the extent that plaintiffs have now raised issues which were not addressed in their objections, it is not appropriate for the court to consider them at this time. Plaintiffs should have made these objections previously.
VI. Conclusion

For reasons detailed above, the court orders the following:

1. plaintiff's request for monetary contempt sanctions is partially DENIED;

2. defendants:

a. must obtain and submit to plaintiffs' counsel an independent, professional staffing analysis for three areas of [prison] operations: security staffing and training, classification, and inmate activities;

b. the analysis shall address staff training, staff coverage, classification, inmate activity, intake population, and corrections operations. The staffing analysis shall review current authorized staffing, vacancies, position descriptions, salaries, classification, and workload. The analysis shall try to maximize the use of properly classified and trained inmate workers where appropriate. The analysis shall take into account the requirements of this Agreement with respect to health, safety, and food service as it impacts on the work of corrections or civilian staff;

c. the analysis should also evaluate the "County Correctional Information System Objective Jail Classification System;"

d. must implement the plan;

e. shall be fined $100,000, but the court will suspend the collection of the fine until October

464

31,1998; and if the County demonstrates that it has retained *464 the necessary expert by that

date and has the study underway, the fine will be further suspended for a reasonable time to

permit completion of the study; upon full compliance with the requirements, the fine will be

forgiven;

3. defendant must comply with 2CCO's terms regarding hygiene items such that each inmate should be issued adequate amounts of necessary personal hygiene items, including toilet paper, soap, shampoo, toothpaste, toothbrush, comb, mirror, individual razors, and shaving cream or powder;

4. defendants shall submit a report within 15 days confirming that they have satisfied their obligations regarding the distribution of hygiene items.

[1] According to the plaintiffs, as of June 9, 1998, work had not begun. However, the court has no reason to disbelieve the county's representations that it will perform the work by the end of the year.
[2] In a recent letter, the plaintiffs have complained that the county has yet to submit a staffing analysis and therefore, have not complied with the Special Master's June 30, 1998 dateline. Because I have now ordered the defendants to comply with its order by October 31, 1998, plaintiff's point is moot.

[3] It is worth noting that there have been several challenges to the validity § 3626(b) arguing that it violates the separation of powers doctrine. The majority of circuits have held it to be constitutional. See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 942 (6th Cir .1998); Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424, 1426 (11th Cir.1997); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 657 (1st Cir.1997); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081, 1088-89 (8th Cir.1997); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 371-73 (4th Cir.1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 2460, 138 L.Ed.2d 217 (1997); Benjamin, supra, at 173 (Section 3626(b)(2) is constitutional but does not terminate decree; only jurisdiction of federal court terminated). Only the Ninth Circuit has found that § 3626(b) violates the separation of powers doctrine. See Taylor, supra. The Third Circuit has not addressed this issue, but the district courts have split on this issue. See Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 1998 WL 220957 (E.D.Pa.1998) (finding § 3626 to be constitutional); Denike v. Fauver, 3 F.Supp.2d 540 (D.N.J. 1998) (finding § 3626 unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine).
[4] In their objections to the Special Masters' Report, plaintiffs covered nine areas: classification, staffing, hygiene items, showers, clothing requirements, legal access, recreation, visitation, alternatives to incarceration.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.