U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri (St. Joseph) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:14−cv−06118−NKL

CLOSED

Washington v. Denney et al Assigned to: District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey Case in other court: 8th Circuit, 15−03243
8th Circuit Court of Appeals, 17−02747
8th Circuit Court of Appeals, 18−03425 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/15/2014 Date Terminated: 02/08/2019 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 555 Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington also known as Willie Simmons

represented by Michael Foster Foster Wallace, LLC 1501 Westport Road Kansas City, MO 64111 816−249−2101 Fax: 816−249−2170 Email: michael@fosterwallace.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phillip James Richard Zeeck Polsinelli PC − KCMO 900 W. 48th Place Kansas City, MO 64112 816−572−4592 Fax: 816−817−0312 Email: pzeeck@polsinelli.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Larry Denney Warden

represented by Lynn Merle Stoppy United States Attorney's Office−KCMO 400 E 9th Street Suite 5510 Kansas City, MO 64106 816−426−3122 Email: lynn.stoppy@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart Missouri Attorney General's Office−KC 615 East 13th Street Suite 401 Kansas City, MO 64106 816−889−5013 Fax: 816−889−5006 Email: lynnette.lockhart@ago.mo.gov TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee Missouri Attorney General's Office−KC 615 East 13th Street Suite 401 Kansas City, MO 64106

Defendant Terry Page Deputy Warden
Defendant Chris McBee Deputy Warden
Defendant Todd Warren Assistant Warden

(816) 889−5000 Fax: (816) 889−5006 Email: nicolas.taulbee@ago.mo.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dion F Sankar Missouri Attorney General's Office−KC 615 East 13th Street Suite 401 Kansas City, MO 64106 (816)889−5099 Fax: (816)889−5006 Email: dionfrancissankar@gmail.com
represented by Dion F Sankar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dion F Sankar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dion F Sankar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Lauretta Aitkens Chief of Custody TERMINATED: 07/07/2015
Defendant Ronda Pash Deputy Warden
Defendant Kimberly Herring F.U.M. TERMINATED: 07/07/2015

Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dion F Sankar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant Cyndi Prudden Deputy Division Director
Defendant Shawn D Huff C.O. II
Defendant Shawn Pettigrew C.C.W.

Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dion F Sankar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dion F Sankar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dion F Sankar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant Judy Huff C.C.W.
Defendant Pettigrew C.C.W.
Defendant Brian Montgomery

Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dion F Sankar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dion F Sankar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant White Mr. TERMINATED: 07/07/2015
Defendant Richey Mrs.
Defendant Sliver C.O. II
Defendant McDonnal Mrs.

represented by Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dion F Sankar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dion F Sankar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dion F Sankar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant Steven Nibarger
Defendant Parkhurst Mrs.
Defendant Green Mr.

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dion F Sankar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dion F Sankar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dion F Sankar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant Deron Neu
Defendant Brent Jestes

Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dion F Sankar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn Merle Stoppy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/23/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nicolas Taulbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/15/2014 10/15/2014 10/15/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington a/k/a Willie Simmons. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibits)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
2 IFP FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington a/k/a Willie Simmons. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
3 Inmate ACCOUNT STATEMENT filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington a/k/a Willie Simmons. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/29/2014)

10/15/2014 10/15/2014 11/04/2014 11/04/2014
11/24/2014 12/05/2014
01/20/2015 02/20/2015 02/23/2015 03/09/2015 04/09/2015 04/30/2015 05/08/2015
05/08/2015 05/28/2015 06/08/2015

4 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington a/k/a Willie Simmons. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
5 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION for temporary restraining order and MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington a/k/a Willie Simmons. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
7 Inmate ACCOUNT STATEMENT filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
8 ORDER that: (1) plaintiff is granted provisional leave to proceed in forma pauperis; (2) plaintiff shall pay to the clerk of the court for the Western District of Missouri an initial partial filing fee of $21.50; and (3) plaintiff's failure to pay the required initial partial filing fee within 30 days from the date of this Order, will result in the dismissal of this case without further notice. Signed on November 4, 2014 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Cadoret, David) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
RECEIPT number KCMO044274 in the amount of $21.50 issued to Ecclesiastical Washington. (Martin, Jan) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
9 ORDER: ORDERED that the agency having custody of plaintiff is directed to forward to the Clerk of the Court monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's inmate account each time the amount in that account exceeds $10.00, until the remainder of the $350.00 filing fee is paid. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to forward a copy of this Order to the Finance Officer where plaintiff currently is confined. Signed on December 5, 2014 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
RECEIPT number T1530 in the amount of $20.00 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons. (Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
10 PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
RECEIPT number T1555 in the amount of $10.00 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons. (Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
RECEIPT number T1568 in the amount of $10.00 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons. (James, Carrie) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
RECEIPT number T15100 in the amount of $15.40 issued to MO DOC for Willie Simmons. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
12 PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 05/11/2015)
11 ORDER: ORDERED that: (1) the Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff another set of civil rights forms for his use in filing a superseding amended complaint; (2) using the forms provided by the Clerk of the Court, plaintiff is directed to file a superseding amended complaint as specifically discussed herein within 30 days from the date of this order; (3) failure to amend as directed will result in the dismissal of this case without further notice; and (4) plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and/or for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 5 ) is denied. Signed on May 8, 2015 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (CLERK'S NOTE: Civil rights forms mailed to plaintiff with copy of order as directed.) (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 05/08/2015)
RECEIPT number T15128 in the amount of $16.00 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons. (Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 05/08/2015)
13 PLAINTIFF'S SUPERCEDING AMENDED COMPLAINT as directed by 5/8/15 order (Doc. No. 11 ) filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
14 ORDER: ORDERED that this case is dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's previous order. Plaintiff is advised that any motion to reopen this case will be denied unless it is filed within 20 days from the date of this Order, and accompanied by an amended complaint on court−approved forms that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). If plaintiff appeals this Order, he will become immediately liable

06/08/2015
06/09/2015 06/12/2015 06/30/2015
06/30/2015 07/07/2015
07/07/2015 07/15/2015 07/20/2015 08/06/2015

for the entire $505.00 appellate filing fee, regardless of the outcome on appeal. Signed on June 8, 2015 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 06/08/2015)
15 CLERK'S JUDGMENT: ORDERED that this case is dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's previous order. Plaintiff is advised that any motion to reopen this case will be denied unless it is filed within 20 days from the date of this Order, and accompanied by an amended complaint on court−approved forms that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). If plaintiff appeals this Order, he will become immediately liable for the entire $505.00 appellate filing fee, regardless of the outcome on appeal. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 06/08/2015)
RECEIPT number T15160 in the amount of $11.50 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons. (Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 06/09/2015)
16 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION to reopen case and MOTION to vacate dismissal filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Attachment: # 1 Proposed Amended Complaint)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
17 ORDER: ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to reopen (Doc. No. 16 ) is GRANTED, and the June 8, 2015, Order (Doc. No. 14 ) and Judgment (Doc. No. 15 ) of dismissal are vacated and set aside. The Clerk of the Court is directed to statistically reopen this case. It is further ORDERED that, extant with entry of this Order, the Clerk of the Court is directed to file the proposed amended complaint (attachment to Doc. No. 16 ) which plaintiff has submitted for fling. Signed on June 30, 2015 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
18 PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
19 ORDER: ORDERED that: (1) plaintiff's claims against defendants Aitkens, Herring, and White, who were named in the original complaint, are severed and dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, and they are dismissed as defendants in this case; (2) the Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the record to include the defendants named in plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. No. 18 ), "Mr. Green," Deron Neu, and Brent Jestes; (3) the Missouri Attorney General is directed to notify the Court, in writing, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, if he will or will not waive service of process for defendants Larry Denney, Terry Page, Chris McBee, Todd Warren, Ronda Pash, Cyndi Prudden, Shawn Huff, Shawn Pettigrew, Judy Huff, CCW Pettigrew, Brian Montgomery, Mrs. Richey, CO II Sliver, Mrs. McDonnal, Steven Nibarger, Mrs. Parkhurst, "Mr. Green," Deron Neu, and Brent Jestes; and (4) defendants Larry Denney, Terry Page, Chris McBee, Todd Warren, Ronda Pash, Cyndi Prudden, Shawn Huff, Shawn Pettigrew, Judy Huff, CCW Pettigrew, Brian Montgomery, Mrs. Richey, CO II Sliver, Mrs. McDonnal, Steven Nibarger, Mrs. Parkhurst, "Mr. Green," Deron Neu, and Brent Jestes are directed to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. No. 18 ), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and 12, within sixty (60) days from the date of this Order if service of process is waived, or within twenty−one (21) days after service of process if service of process is not waived. Signed on July 7, 2015 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
***Remark: Copy of docket sheet mailed to plaintiff upon request for status. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
RECEIPT number T15196 in the amount of $13.50 issued to MO DOC for Willie Simmons. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
23 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to 5/8/15 Order (Doc. No. 11 ) denying motion for injunctive relief filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 08/07/2015)
20 NOTICE of appearance by Dion F Sankar on behalf of Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren (Attorney Dion F Sankar added to party Shawn D Huff(pty:dft), Attorney Dion F Sankar added to party Brent Jestes(pty:dft), Attorney Dion F Sankar added to party Chris McBee(pty:dft), Attorney

08/06/2015 08/07/2015 08/11/2015 08/13/2015
08/14/2015 08/17/2015
08/17/2015 08/17/2015

Dion F Sankar added to party McDonnal(pty:dft), Attorney Dion F Sankar added to party Steven Nibarger(pty:dft), Attorney Dion F Sankar added to party Terry Page(pty:dft), Attorney Dion F Sankar added to party Parkhurst(pty:dft), Attorney Dion F Sankar added to party Ronda Pash(pty:dft), Attorney Dion F Sankar added to party Shawn Pettigrew(pty:dft), Attorney Dion F Sankar added to party Cyndi Prudden(pty:dft), Attorney Dion F Sankar added to party Richey(pty:dft), Attorney Dion F Sankar added to party Sliver(pty:dft), Attorney Dion F Sankar added to party Todd Warren(pty:dft))(Sankar, Dion)Modified on 8/7/201 to reflect main document 20 replaced at the request of counsel with correct case number on pleading. NEF regenerated. (Travis, Kendra) Modified on 8/14/2015 (Thoennes, Cindy). (Main Document 20 replaced on 8/14/2015) (Thoennes, Cindy). (Entered: 08/06/2015)
21 MOTION for extension of time to Notify the Court filed by Dion F Sankar on behalf of Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/24/2015 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Sankar, Dion) Modified on 8/14/2015 (Thoennes, Cindy). (Entered: 08/06/2015)
22 ORDER granting 21 motion for extension of time to inform the Court whether MOAG will or will not waive service of process on behalf of defendants Larry Denney, Mr. Green, Judy Huff, Brian Montgomery, and Deron Neu, through and including August 14, 2015. Signed on August 7, 2015 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Cadoret, David) (Entered: 08/07/2015)
RECEIPT number T15223 in the amount of $11.50 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons. (James, Carrie) (Entered: 08/11/2015)
24 NOTICE of appearance by Dion F Sankar on behalf of Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren (Attorney Dion F Sankar added to party Larry Denney(pty:dft), Attorney Dion F Sankar added to party Green(pty:dft), Attorney Dion F Sankar added to party Judy Huff(pty:dft), Attorney Dion F Sankar added to party Pettigrew(pty:dft))(Sankar, Dion) Modified on 8/14/2015 (Thoennes, Cindy). (Entered: 08/13/2015)
25 ORDER that, within 20 days from the date of this Order, plaintiff is directed either to pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee, or to complete and file the enclosed in forma pauperis affidavit. Signed on August 14, 2015 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Cadoret, David) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
26 ORDER: ORDERED that: (1) the clerk of the court shall issue appropriate summons to defendant Deron Neu, directed to the address listed by counsel in Doc. No. 24 , as authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, and shall deliver the summons, the amended complaint (Doc. No. 18 ), a copy of the July 7, 2015, Order (Doc. No. 19 ), and a copy of this Order to the United States Marshal for service of process; (2) the United States Marshal shall attempt personal service of process of the foregoing documents upon defendant Deron Neu, as directed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4; (3) defendant Deron Neu shall answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. No. 18 ) within twenty−one (21) days from the date of service as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12; and (4) both the Clerk of the Court and the United States Marshal are directed to maintain as confidential defendant Neu's last known address. Defendant's address is to be redacted on any document provided to plaintiff, and on any document filed in the public record. Signed on August 17, 2015 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Deron Neu. Copy of USM−285, summons, Doc. 18 , Doc. 19 , and order of 8/17/15 sent to the US Marshals Service for service. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
27 MOTION to dismiss case and Suggestions in Support filed by Dion F Sankar on behalf of Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/3/2015 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Sankar, Dion) (Entered:

08/18/2015 08/25/2015
09/01/2015 09/01/2015 09/08/2015 09/17/2015 09/17/2015 09/17/2015 09/17/2015 09/17/2015 09/17/2015 09/17/2015 09/30/2015 09/30/2015

08/17/2015)
28 ORDER denying 27 defendants' motion to dismiss case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). Signed on August 18, 2015 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Cadoret, David) (Entered: 08/18/2015)
29 NOTICE of appearance by Lynn Merle Stoppy on behalf of Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren (Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Larry Denney(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Green(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Judy Huff(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Shawn D Huff(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Brent Jestes(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Chris McBee(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party McDonnal(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Steven Nibarger(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Terry Page(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Parkhurst(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Ronda Pash(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Pettigrew(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Shawn Pettigrew(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Cyndi Prudden(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Richey(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Sliver(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Todd Warren(pty:dft))(Stoppy, Lynn) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
30 ANSWER to 18 Amended Complaint on behalf of Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren.(Stoppy, Lynn) (Entered: 09/01/2015)
31 SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial disclosures due by 10/16/2015. Discovery due by 2/29/2016. Dispositive Motions due by 3/31/2016. Signed on September 1, 2015 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Cadoret, David) (Entered: 09/01/2015)
32 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY to Doc. No. 30 filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
33 PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of plaintiff's request for admissions, 1st request for production of documents and 1st interrogatories filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
34 PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of initial disclosures filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
35 PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL expert witness disclosures filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
36 PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of serving written discovery to all defendants filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
37 PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of plaintiff's 1st set of interrogatories and request for production of documents filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
38 PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of request for admissions filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
39 PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of written discovery all defendants filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
40 Inmate ACCOUNT STATEMENT filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
41 ORDER: ORDERED that plaintiff is denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff either must pay the $505.00 appellate

09/30/2015 10/05/2015
10/07/2015
10/07/2015 10/07/2015
10/09/2015 10/14/2015 10/14/2015 10/14/2015 10/14/2015 10/14/2015 10/16/2015

filing and docketing fees or renew his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit within the time set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 24(a) if he seeks to proceed with this interlocutory appeal. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to electronically transmit this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further processing. Signed on September 30, 2015 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
42 TRANSMISSION of Notice of Appeal Supplement to US Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit via electronic mail. Related document 23 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
43 MOTION to strike 17 Order on Motion to Reopen Case, Order on Motion to Vacate,,,, Motion to Strike All Discovery Filed by Plaintiff on September 17, 2015 filed by Lynn Merle Stoppy on behalf of Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/22/2015 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 17 ) (Stoppy, Lynn) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
44 ORDER directing plaintiff, within 20 days, to file a response to 43 MOTION to strike Motion to Strike All Discovery Filed by Plaintiff on September 17, 2015 filed by Judy Huff, Steven Nibarger, Pettigrew, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Cyndi Prudden, Ronda Pash, Parkhurst, Shawn Pettigrew, Sliver, Richey, Terry Page, Larry Denney, Chris McBee, Green, Todd Warren, and McDonnal. Further ORDERED that, on the Courts own motion, defendants are granted a protective order and need not respond to plaintiffs pending discovery requests until further Order of the Court, after the pending motion to strike has been resolved. Signed on October 7, 2015 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Cadoret, David) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
USCA Case Number from 8th Circuit is 15−3243 for 23 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
45 ORDER of US COURT OF APPEALS: If the original file of the United States District Court is available for review in electronic format, the court will rely on the electronic version of the record in its review. The appendices required by Eighth Circuit Rule 30A shall not be required. In accordance with Eighth Circuit Local Rule 30A(a)(2), the Clerk of the United States District Court is requested to forward to this Court forthwith any portions of the original record which are not available in an electronic format through PACER, including any documents maintained in paper format or filed under seal, exhibits, CDs, videos, administrative records and state court files. These documents should be submitted within 10 days. (CLERK'S NOTE: All documents pertaining to this case are on CM/ECF. Nothing will be sent to the Court of Appeals.) (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
RECEIPT number T15281 in the amount of $11.40 issued to MO DOC for Willie Simmons. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
47 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE to Doc. No. 43 filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibits)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
48 PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
49 PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of expert witnesses filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
50 PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of identity of prisoner witnesses filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
51 PLAINTIFF'S list of defendants information filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by Lynn Merle Stoppy on behalf of Defendants Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd

10/20/2015
10/20/2015 10/22/2015 10/26/2015 10/29/2015 11/05/2015 11/09/2015
11/09/2015 01/08/2016
01/11/2016 01/11/2016 01/19/2016

Warren.(Stoppy, Lynn) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
52 USCA Judgment as to 23 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington This is a preliminary judgment of U.S. Court of Appeals; jurisdiction is not recovered until the Mandate is issued by the U.S Court of Appeals. Appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal is granted. The appeal is hereby dismissed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The full $505 appellate and docketing fees are assessed against the appellant. The Court's mandate shall issue forthwith. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
53 MANDATE of US COURT OF APPEALS as to 23 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington with mandate issued on October 20, 2015. In accordance with the judgment of 10/20/2015, and pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(a), the formal mandate is hereby issued in the above−styled matter. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
54 ORDER directing defendants, within 20 days, to file a reply to 47 Response to 43 motion to strike, filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Signed on October 22, 2015 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Cadoret, David) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
56 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed. Deron Neu served on 10/16/2015. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
55 ORDER: ORDERED that the agency having custody of plaintiff forward to the clerk of the court monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the $505.00 appellate filing fee is paid. Signed on October 29, 2015 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/29/2015)
***Remark: Copy of docket sheet mailed to plaintiff upon request. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
57 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 43 MOTION to strike 17 Order on Motion to Reopen Case, Order on Motion to Vacate,,,, Motion to Strike All Discovery Filed by Plaintiff on September 17, 2015 filed by Lynn Merle Stoppy on behalf of Defendants Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren. (Related document(s) 43 ) (Stoppy, Lynn) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
58 ORDER denying, as moot, 43 defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's discovery. Defendants are granted an extension of time, through and including January 8, 2016, within which to serve plaintiff with their responses and/or objections to plaintiffs September 17, 2015, discovery requests. Signed on November 9, 2015 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Cadoret, David) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
59 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Lauretta Aitkens, Larry Denney, Green, Kimberly Herring, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren, White filed by Lynn Merle Stoppy on behalf of Defendants Lauretta Aitkens, Larry Denney, Green, Kimberly Herring, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren, White.(Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Lauretta Aitkens(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Kimberly Herring(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Brian Montgomery(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party Deron Neu(pty:dft), Attorney Lynn Merle Stoppy added to party White(pty:dft))(Stoppy, Lynn) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
RECEIPT number T1611 in the amount of $40.00 issued to MO DOC for Willie Simmons. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
RECEIPT number T1611 in the amount of $40.00 issued to MO DOC for Willie Simmons on appeal fee. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
60 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION for order compelling discovery filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 01/26/2016)

01/26/2016
02/16/2016 02/16/2016 02/16/2016
02/18/2016
03/03/2016 03/03/2016 03/03/2016 03/07/2016 03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/10/2016 03/10/2016 03/18/2016
03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016

61 ORDER directing defendants, within 20 days, to file a response to 60 MOTION for order compelling discovery, filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Signed on January 26, 2016 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Cadoret, David) (Entered: 01/26/2016)
RECEIPT number T1646 in the amount of $12.00 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons. (James, Carrie) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
RECEIPT number T1646 in the amount of $12.00 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons on appeal. (James, Carrie) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
62 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 60 MOTION for order filed by Lynn Merle Stoppy on behalf of Defendants Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren. Reply suggestions due by 3/4/2016 unless otherwise directed by the court (Related document(s) 60 ) (Stoppy, Lynn) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
63 ORDER directing plaintiff, within 20 days, to file a reply to 62 Suggestions in Opposition to Motion to Compel Discovery, filed by Judy Huff, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Brent Jestes, Cyndi Prudden, Ronda Pash, Sliver, Richey, Larry Denney, Green, McDonnal, Pettigrew, Brian Montgomery, Shawn D Huff, Parkhurst, Shawn Pettigrew, Terry Page, Chris McBee, and Todd Warren. Signed on February 18, 2016 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Cadoret, David) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
64 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY to Doc. No. 62 filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
65 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION for appointment of counsel filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
66 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION for appointment of expert witness filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
69 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST for judicial notice filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
RECEIPT number T1668 in the amount of $11.50 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons. (James, Carrie) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
RECEIPT number T1668 in the amount of $11.50 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons on appeal. (James, Carrie) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
67 ORDER denying, without prejudice, 65 plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel. Signed on March 10, 2016 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Cadoret, David) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
68 ORDER denying 66 plaintiff's motion for appointment of expert witness. Signed on March 10, 2016 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Cadoret, David) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
70 ORDER denying 60 plaintiff's motion to compel discovery. Defense counsel is directed to re−serve plaintiff with legible copies of the documents attached to plaintiffs motion to compel. Signed on March 18, 2016 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Cadoret, David) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
76 PLAINTIFF'S 2ND MOTION for appointment of counsel filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibits)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
77 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST for judicial notice filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
78 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION for appointment of expert filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
79 PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)

03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/29/2016
03/29/2016

80 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST for judicial notice filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
81 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST for judicial notice filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
82 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST for judicial notice filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
83 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE to defendants' motion for summary judgment filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
84 PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT in response to defendants' motion for summary judgment filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
85 PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
86 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION for hearing filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
87 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION for continuance filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
88 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION for summary judgment filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
89 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
90 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
91 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
92 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
93 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
71 NOTICE of appearance by Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart on behalf of All Defendants (Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Lauretta Aitkens(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Larry Denney(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Green(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Kimberly Herring(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Judy Huff(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Shawn D Huff(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Brent Jestes(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Chris McBee(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party McDonnal(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Brian Montgomery(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Deron Neu(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Steven Nibarger(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Terry Page(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Parkhurst(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Ronda Pash(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Pettigrew(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Shawn Pettigrew(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Cyndi Prudden(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Richey(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Sliver(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party Todd Warren(pty:dft), Attorney Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart added to party White(pty:dft))(Lockhart, Lynnette) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
72 MOTION for extension of time Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/15/2016 unless otherwise directed by the

03/29/2016 03/31/2016 03/31/2016
04/08/2016 04/08/2016 04/08/2016 04/11/2016 05/02/2016 05/02/2016
05/03/2016

court. (Lockhart, Lynnette) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
73 ORDER granting 72 defendants' motion for extension of time to file motion for summary judgment, through and including May 2, 2016. Signed on March 29, 2016 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Cadoret, David) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
74 NOTICE of filing Letter to Plaintiff by Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren re 70 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, (Lockhart, Lynnette) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
75 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren re 74 Notice of filing, Letter to Plaintiff filed by Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart on behalf of Defendants Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren. Related document: 74 Notice of filing, filed by Judy Huff, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Brent Jestes, Cyndi Prudden, Ronda Pash, Sliver, Richey, Larry Denney, Green, McDonnal, Pettigrew, Brian Montgomery, Shawn D Huff, Parkhurst, Shawn Pettigrew, Terry Page, Chris McBee, Todd Warren.(Lockhart, Lynnette) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
94 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by Lynn Merle Stoppy on behalf of Larry Denney, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/25/2016 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Stoppy, Lynn) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
RECEIPT number T1698 in the amount of $11.50 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons. (James, Carrie) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
RECEIPT number T1698 in the amount of $11.50 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons on appeal. (James, Carrie) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
95 ORDER: ORDERED that Lynn M. Stoppy, Esq.'s motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for defendants (Doc. No. 94 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update CM/ECF accordingly. Signed on April 11, 2016 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
96 MOTION for summary judgment Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart on behalf of Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/26/2016 unless otherwise directed by the court (Lockhart, Lynnette) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
97 SUGGESTIONS in support re 96 MOTION for summary judgment Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment Suggestions in Support of Motion for Summary Judgement filed by Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart on behalf of Defendants Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Statement of Uncontroverted Facts in Support of Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 96 ) (Lockhart, Lynnette) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
98 ORDER directing plaintiff, on or before May 23, 2016, to file a response to 96 MOTION for summary judgment Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Judy Huff, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Brent Jestes, Cyndi Prudden, Ronda Pash, Sliver, Richey, Larry Denney, Green, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Shawn D Huff, Parkhurst, Shawn Pettigrew, Terry Page, Chris McBee, and Todd Warren. Signed on May 3, 2016 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Cadoret, David) (Entered: 05/03/2016)

05/16/2016 05/16/2016 05/16/2016
05/18/2016 05/20/2016
05/23/2016 05/23/2016 06/03/2016
06/13/2016 06/13/2016 06/30/2016

RECEIPT number T16137 in the amount of $20.00 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons. (Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
RECEIPT number T16137 in the amount of $20.00 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons as appellate fee pmt. (Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
99 NOTICE of appearance by Nicolas Taulbee on behalf of Lauretta Aitkens, Larry Denney, Green, Kimberly Herring, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren, White (Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Lauretta Aitkens(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Larry Denney(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Green(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Kimberly Herring(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Judy Huff(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Shawn D Huff(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Brent Jestes(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Chris McBee(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party McDonnal(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Brian Montgomery(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Deron Neu(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Steven Nibarger(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Terry Page(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Parkhurst(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Ronda Pash(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Shawn Pettigrew(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Cyndi Prudden(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Richey(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Sliver(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Todd Warren(pty:dft), Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party White(pty:dft))(Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
101 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE to Doc. No. 96 filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibits)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
100 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by Lynnette Nefertiti Lockhart on behalf of Lauretta Aitkens, Larry Denney, Green, Kimberly Herring, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren, White. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/6/2016 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Lockhart, Lynnette) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
102 ORDER: ORDERED that Lynnette Lockhart, Esq., is granted leave to withdraw as counsel for defendants. (Granting Doc. No. 100 ). The Clerk of the Court is directed to update CM/ECF accordingly. Signed on May 23, 2016 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
103 ORDER directing defendants, within 20 days, to file a reply to 101 Response to motion for summary judgment, filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Signed on May 23, 2016 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Cadoret, David) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
104 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 96 MOTION for summary judgment Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Nicolas Taulbee on behalf of Defendants Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren. (Related document(s) 96 ) (Attorney Nicolas Taulbee added to party Pettigrew(pty:dft))(Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 06/03/2016)
RECEIPT number T16165 in the amount of $11.50 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons. (Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
RECEIPT number T16165 in the amount of $11.50 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons as appellate fee payment. (Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
105 ORDER that: (1) Plaintiff's motion for appointment of an expert (Doc. 78 ) is denied without prejudice; (2) Plaintiff's motion for hearing (Doc. 86 ) is denied; (3) Plaintiff's motion for continuance (Doc. 87 ) is denied) as moot; (4) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 88 ) is denied; and (5) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 96 ) is denied. Signed on 6/30/2016 by District Judge Nanette K.

07/11/2016 07/18/2016 07/18/2016 07/19/2016 07/19/2016 07/25/2016 07/25/2016 07/27/2016
07/27/2016 07/27/2016
08/15/2016 08/15/2016 08/26/2016

Laughrey. (Doty, Greg) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
106 ORDER granting Plaintiff's second motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 76 ). Signed on 7/11/2016 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Doty, Greg) (Entered: 07/11/2016)
RECEIPT number T16197 in the amount of $10.00 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons. (Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
RECEIPT number T16197 in the amount of $10.00 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons as appellate fee payment. (Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
107 NOTICE of appearance by Michael S. Foster on behalf of Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington (Attorney Michael S. Foster added to party Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington(pty:pla))(Foster, Michael) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
108 NOTICE of appearance by Phillip James Richard Zeeck on behalf of Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington (Attorney Phillip James Richard Zeeck added to party Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington(pty:pla))(Zeeck, Phillip) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
109 ORDER. A Telephone Conference is set for 7/20/2016 at 11:00 AM regarding the status of the case and trial setting. The parties shall call conference number: 877−336−1828, access code: 8503666 to participate. Signed on 7/25/16 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes, Renea) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
110 AMENDED ORDER. A Telephone Conference is set for 7/27/2016 at 11:00 AM regarding the status of the case and trial setting. The parties shall call conference number: 877−336−1828, access code: 8503666 to participate. Signed on 7/25/16 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes, Renea) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
111 MINUTE ENTRY. Teleconference held before the Hon. Nanette K. Laughrey on July 27, 2016, regarding setting the case for trial and mediation. Mr. Foster stated they need to talk to Mr. Washington and there may be a need for a sign language interpreter. The parties stated they could be ready for trial next April, 2017. The Court set case for jury trial April 10, 2017. The Court will hold another teleconference in 30 days and discuss any necessary pretrial deadlines including those for any necessary discovery. A Scheduling Order will be entered after the next teleconference. The parties were in agreement to mediation with Judge Knox. The Court will contact Judge Knox regarding setting a mediation conference. Appearances: Plaintiff by Michael Foster and Phillip Zeeck. Defendants by Nicola Taulbee. CRD: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: None. (Text entry only.) (Matthes, Renea) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
112 ORDER. A Telephone Conference is set for 8/26/2016 at 10:00 AM regarding setting any necessary pretrial deadlines and discovery deadlines. The parties shall call Conference Number: 877−336−1828, access code: 8503666, to participate. Signed on 7/27/16 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes, Renea) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
113 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren Documents bates stamped 001−1568 filed by Nicolas Taulbee on behalf of Defendants Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren.(Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
RECEIPT number T16228 in the amount of $21.50 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons. (James, Carrie) (Entered: 08/16/2016)
RECEIPT number T16228 in the amount of $21.50 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons on appeal. (James, Carrie) (Entered: 08/16/2016)
114 MINUTE ENTRY. Teleconference held before the Hon. Nanette K. Laughrey on August 26, 2016, to discuss setting any pretrial deadlines before the April 10, 2017 trial date. The Court informed the parties that Judge Knox is available to mediate the

08/26/2016
08/26/2016 09/10/2016 09/10/2016 09/23/2016 09/26/2016
09/27/2016
09/27/2016 10/08/2016 10/08/2016 10/13/2016 10/25/2016 11/11/2016

case, and the parties are ordered to contact his chambers to schedule mediation. The parties stated that they will not be filing any additional dispositive motions, but they may need to conduct limited discovery. The Court will enter a scheduling order giving the parties three months for discovery and setting the trial for April 10, 2017. Appearances: Plaintiff by Michael Foster and Phillip Zeeck. Defendants by Nicolas Taulbee. CRD: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: None. (Text entry only.) (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
115 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 11/28/2016. Pretrial Conference set for 3/28/2017 at 01:00 PM before District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey in Kansas City, MO. Jury Trial set for 4/10/2017 at 09:00 AM before District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey in Kansas City, MO. Signed on 8/26/16 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Attachments: # 1 Memo on PTC) (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
116 RULES OF TRIAL. Signed on 8/26/16 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
RECEIPT number T16271 in the amount of $21.50 issued to MO DOC for Willie Simmons. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
RECEIPT number T16271 in the amount of $21.50 issued to MO DOC for Willie Simmons on appeal fee. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
117 MOTION for extension of time to Designate Expert Witnesses (Unopposed) filed by Phillip James Richard Zeeck on behalf of Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/11/2016 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Zeeck, Phillip) (Entered: 09/23/2016)
118 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time, Doc. 117 , is granted. Plaintiff must designate any expert witnesses it intends to call at trial on or before 11/29/2016. Defendants must designate any expert witnesses they intend to call at trial on or before 12/26/2016. The parties must complete all depositions of expert witnesses on or before 1/27/2017. Except for the previous changes, the Court's Scheduling Order entered on 8/26/2016, Doc. 115 , remains in place. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
119 NOTICE OF MEDIATION − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Settlement Conference set for 10/25/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8C, Kansas City (ODS) before Magistrate Judge William A. Knox. Persons with settlement authority are required to attend the conference. (Price, Jackie) (Entered: 09/27/2016)
Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued for Ecclesiastical Washington to appear on October 25, 2016. Writ has been sent to the US Marshal in KC and faxed to Crossroads Correctional Center. This is a text entry only − no document is attached. (Price, Jackie) (Entered: 09/27/2016)
RECEIPT number T16302 in the amount of $49.70 issued to MO DOC for Willie Simmons. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
RECEIPT number T16302 in the amount of $200.00 issued to MO DOC for Willie Simmons on appeal fee. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
120 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington re Discovery Requests served on All Defendants filed by Phillip James Richard Zeeck on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Zeeck, Phillip) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
121 Minute Entry. Unrecorded mediation held. Case did not settle. Parties to notify judge Knox if circumstances change in a way suggesting settlement a possibility. (Price, Jackie) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by Michael S. Foster on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Foster, Michael) (Entered: 11/11/2016)

11/12/2016 11/14/2016
11/16/2016 11/16/2016 11/16/2016
11/18/2016
11/21/2016 11/28/2016 11/30/2016
12/06/2016 12/09/2016

RECEIPT number T16335 in the amount of $1.50 issued to MO DOC for Willie Simmons on appeal fee. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
123 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Larry Denney, Green, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production and bates documents 1569−2125 filed by Nicolas Taulbee on behalf of Defendants Larry Denney, Green, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver.(Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
124 Joint MOTION for protective order filed by Nicolas Taulbee on behalf of Larry Denney, Green, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/5/2016 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
125 SUGGESTIONS in support re 124 Joint MOTION for protective order Stipulated Protective Order filed by Nicolas Taulbee on behalf of Defendants Larry Denney, Green, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren. (Related document(s) 124 ) (Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION. A modification has been made to the document filed on 11/16/2016 as Document No. 125, SUGGESTIONS in support re 124 Joint MOTION for protective order Stipulated Protective Order. The proposed order attached to the motion has been deleted. Per Administrative Procedures any proposed orders are to be emailed to the Courtroom Deputy in Word or WordPerfect format. This is a text entry only − no document is attached. (Travis, Kendra) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
126 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Larry Denney, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Second Interrogatories to Al Defendants filed by Nicolas Taulbee on behalf of Defendants Larry Denney, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren.(Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
127 PROTECTIVE ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. The parties' joint motion for protective order, Doc. 124 , is granted. However, prior to filing any document under seal or in redacted form, a party must move for and be granted leave to file it under seal.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
128 Second MOTION for extension of time to Designate Expert Witnesses filed by Phillip James Richard Zeeck on behalf of Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/15/2016 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Zeeck, Phillip) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
129 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiff's Second Motion for Extension of Time, Doc. 128 , is granted. Plaintiff must designate any expert witnesses he intends to call at trial on or before 12/9/2016. Defendants must designate any expert witnesses they intend to call at trial on or before 1/5/2017. The parties must complete all depositions of expert witnesses on or before 2/6/2017. Except for the previous changes, the Court's Scheduling Order entered on 8/26/2016, Doc. 115 , remains in place. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
RECEIPT number T16363 in the amount of $1.50 issued to MO DOC for Willie Simmons. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
130 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington filed by Phillip James Richard Zeeck on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Zeeck, Phillip) (Entered: 12/09/2016)

12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/12/2016 12/14/2016 01/09/2017 02/07/2017
02/08/2017
02/09/2017 03/03/2017
03/06/2017 03/08/2017

132 STRICKEN PER ORDER #20 DECEMBER 14, 2016 PRO SE MOTION for preliminary injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order filed filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/23/2016 unless service is made pursuant to FRCP 5 or as otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Travis, Kendra) Modified on 12/15/2016 to strike document per order of the Court. (Travis, Kendra) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
133 STRICKEN PER ORDER #20 DECEMBER 14, 2016 PRO SE SUGGESTIONS in support re 132 MOTION for preliminary injunction on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Related document(s) 132 ) (Travis, Kendra) Modified on 12/15/2016 to strike document per order of the Court.(Travis, Kendra) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
131 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington filed by Phillip James Richard Zeeck on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Zeeck, Phillip) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
134 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiff Washington's motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, Doc. 132 , which he filed pro se, is stricken. Because he is represented by counsel, Plaintiff should not file pro se motions. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
RECEIPT number T1730 in the amount of $1.50 issued to MO DOC for Willie Simmons on appeal fee. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
135 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Larry Denney, Green, Shawn D Huff, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Steven Nibarger, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren Defendants' Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's Second Requests for Production of Documents to All Defendants filed by Nicolas Taulbee on behalf of Defendants Larry Denney, Green, Shawn D Huff, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Steven Nibarger, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren.(Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
136 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Larry Denney, Green, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren Certificate of Service bates documents 2214−2272 filed by Nicolas Taulbee on behalf of Defendants Larry Denney, Green, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren.(Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 02/08/2017)
RECEIPT number T1740 in the amount of $1.50 issued to MO DOC for Willie Simmons on appeal fee. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
137 ORDER RESETTING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. The Pretrial Conference previously set for 3/28/2017 is reset for 4/6/2017 at 10:00 AM by Telephone Conference. The Memo on Pretrial Conference shall be filed by 5:00 PM on 3/30/2017. All other pretrial filings shall be due based upon the calculation from the new pretrial date of 4/6/2017. The parties shall call conference number: 877−336−1828, access code: 8503666 to participate in the Pretrial Conference. Signed on 3/3/17 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
138 ORDER. The pretrial conference previously set for 4/6/2017 at 10:00 AM by teleconference is reset for 4/6/2017 at 3:00 PM by teleconference. The parties shall call conference number: 877−336−1828, access code: 8503666 to participate in the Pretrial Conference. Signed on 3/6/18 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
139 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum filed by Phillip James Richard Zeeck on behalf of Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/22/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Zeeck, Phillip) (Entered: 03/08/2017)

03/08/2017 03/09/2017 03/09/2017 03/14/2017 03/14/2017 03/14/2017
03/14/2017 03/15/2017 03/15/2017
03/21/2017 03/27/2017

140 NOTICE to take deposition of Dr. Karen Epperson filed by Phillip James Richard Zeeck on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Zeeck, Phillip) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
141 Amended NOTICE to take deposition of Dr. Karen Epperson filed by Phillip James Richard Zeeck on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Zeeck, Phillip) (Entered: 03/09/2017)
RECEIPT number T1768 in the amount of $13.50 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons on Appeal. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
142 ORDER FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM as to Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington a/k/a Willie Simons, #990079 for appearance at jury trial April 10, 2017. Signed on 3/14/17 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued for Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington a/k/a/ Willie Simons to appear on April 10, 2017. This is a text entry only − no document is attached. Four certified copies of writ and order were delivered to the USM on 3/14/2017. (Travis, Kendra) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
143 ORDER FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiff's motion, Doc. 139 , is granted. The Clerk is ordered to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum directed to Crossroads Correctional Center, 1115 East Pence Road, Cameron, Missouri 64429, to produce Robert Hayes #188686, Webber D. Gilmer #1096215, Richard Stallings #522048, and Chadd Cowans #1167573 for their testimony via video conference in the above−captioned matter, on April 10, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. or at any time thereafter as the Court may direct, so that said persons may appear by video conference in accordance with law in the above−entitled cause. Signed on 3/14/17 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Matthes Mitra, Renea) Modified on 3/15/2017 to reflect Mr.Hayes was served via certified mail #701 2780 0002 4068 9491 c/o Crossroads Correctional Center. Mr. Cowans was notified via certified mail #7012 3460 0001 7395 6299. Mr. Stallings was notified via certified mail #7010 2780 0002 4068 8319. Mr. Gilmer was notified via certified mail # 7010 2780 0002 4068 9507. (Travis, Kendra). (Entered: 03/14/2017)
144 ORDER setting Status Conference by Telephone for 3/15/2017 at 2:30 PM before District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The parties shall call conference number 877−336−1274, access code 2707681 to participate. Signed on 3/14/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
145 Amended NOTICE to take deposition of Dr. Karen Epperson filed by Phillip James Richard Zeeck on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.(Zeeck, Phillip) (Entered: 03/15/2017)
146 MINUTE ENTRY. Teleconference held before the Hon. Nanette K. Laughrey on 3/15/2017 at 2:30 p.m. regarding the status of the case. The Court discussed the status of the case with the parties. Mr. Foster indicated that the headset for hearing impaired individuals should be sufficient for Mr. Washington to hear during trial. The Court held a second teleconference at 3:15 p.m. After reviewing the Order on summary judgment, the Court asked whether Mr. Washington could be permitted to wear a mask inside the facility.Appearances: Michael Foster. Defendants by Nicolas Taulbee. CRD: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: None. (Text entry only.)(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 03/15/2017)
147 GREEN CARD showing return of service re 143 Order on Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Mr. Stallings, Mr. Cowins, Mr. Hayes and Mr. Gilmer served on 3/16/2017. (Related document(s) 143 ) (Travis, Kendra) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
148 MOTION in limine filed by Michael S. Foster on behalf of Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/10/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 03/27/2017)

03/27/2017
03/29/2017
03/30/2017 03/30/2017 03/30/2017
04/06/2017 04/06/2017 04/06/2017 04/06/2017 04/06/2017 04/07/2017 04/07/2017 04/10/2017 04/10/2017 04/11/2017
04/11/2017

149 MOTION in limine Defendants Motions in Limine filed by Nicolas Taulbee on behalf of Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/10/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
150 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. As dictated by the Court's Scheduling Order, the parties' responses to one another's motions in limine, Docs. 148 and 149 , are due on or before 5:00 p.m. on 3/30/2017 before the Court's Pretrial Conference on 4/6/2017. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 03/29/2017)
151 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 149 MOTION in limine Defendants Motions in Limine filed by Michael S. Foster on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Reply suggestions due by 4/13/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 149 ) (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
152 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
153 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 148 MOTION in limine filed by Nicolas Taulbee on behalf of Defendants Larry Denney, Green, Shawn D Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Shawn Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren. Reply suggestions due by 4/13/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 148 ) (Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
154 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE by Larry Denney, Green, Judy Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, McDonnal, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Steven Nibarger, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Pettigrew, Cyndi Prudden, Richey, Sliver, Todd Warren . (Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
155 AGREED UPON STATEMENT Joint Jury Statement by All Plaintiffs. (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
156 Joint PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington . (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
157 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington . (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
158 Minute Entry. Pretrial Conference held before District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The Court granted in part and denied in part motions in limine 148 and 149 . See attached document for full rulings. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Katie Wirt, 816−512−5608. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
159 The Pretrial Conference set for 4/10/2017 at 08:30 AM will be in Courtroom 7C, Kansas City. The Jury Trial set for 4/10/2017 at 09:00 AM will be held in Courtroom 7C, Kansas City.This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
160 NOTICE of filing Notice of Defendants That Remain for Trial by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
161 JURY LIST (SEALED). (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
162 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey: JURY TRIAL − DAY ONE held on 4/10/2017. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Katie Wirt, 816−512−5608. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
163 MOTION for judgment as a matter of law filed by Nicolas Taulbee on behalf of Larry Denney, Judy Huff, Brent Jestes, Chris McBee, Brian Montgomery, Deron Neu, Terry Page, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Cyndi Prudden, Richey. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/25/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 04/11/2017)
164 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey: JURY TRIAL − DAY TWO held on 4/11/2017. To order a transcript of this hearing please

04/12/2017
04/12/2017
04/12/2017 04/12/2017 04/12/2017 04/12/2017 04/12/2017 04/13/2017 04/14/2017
04/18/2017 04/24/2017
04/25/2017
04/27/2017
04/27/2017 04/27/2017
05/01/2017 05/10/2017

contact Katie Wirt, 816−512−5608. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 04/11/2017)
165 MOTION for judgment as a matter of law filed by Nicolas Taulbee on behalf of Larry Denney, Parkhurst, Ronda Pash, Cyndi Prudden, Richey. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/26/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
166 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey: JURY TRIAL − DAY THREE completed on 4/12/2017. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Katie Wirt, 816−512−5608. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
167 JURY INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
168 PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL EXHIBIT INDEX. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
169 DEFENDANTS' TRIAL EXHIBIT INDEX. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
170 COURT TRIAL EXHIBIT INDEX. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
171 JURY VERDICT. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
172 CLERK'S JUDGMENT (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
173 STRICKEN PER ORDER #173 FILED 4/24/2017 PRO SE MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/28/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Travis, Kendra) Modified on 4/24/2017 per order of the court.(Travis, Kendra) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
RECEIPT number T17108 in the amount of $21.50 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons on Appeal. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 04/19/2017)
174 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiff Washington's motion for preliminary injunction, Doc. 173 , which he filed pro se, is stricken. Because he is represented by counsel, Plaintiff should not file pro se motions. Signed on 4/24/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
175 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Defendant's motions for judgment as a matter of law, Doc. 163 and 165 are denied. Signed on 4/25/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
176 MOTION for attorney fees Expenses, and Costs filed by Michael S. Foster on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/11/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit of Michael S. Foster, # 2 Exhibit Affidavit of Russell S. Jones, # 3 Exhibit Invoice, # 4 Exhibit Billing Rates, # 5 Exhibit Bill of Costs)(Foster, Michael) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
177 PROPOSED BILL OF COSTS by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington.Objections to Bill of Costs due by 5/11/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
178 MOTION for order for postjudgment injunctive relief filed by Michael S. Foster on behalf of Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/11/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
179 SUGGESTIONS in support re 178 MOTION for order for postjudgment injunctive relief filed by Michael S. Foster on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Related document(s) 178 ) (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
180 MOTION for new trial , MOTION for judgment as a matter of law filed by Nicolas Taulbee on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/24/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 05/10/2017)

05/10/2017 05/10/2017 05/10/2017
05/10/2017
05/10/2017
05/10/2017 05/10/2017 05/23/2017 05/23/2017 05/23/2017

181 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 178 MOTION for order for postjudgment injunctive relief filed by Nicolas Taulbee on behalf of Defendants Larry Denney, Ronda Pash, Cyndi Prudden. Reply suggestions due by 5/24/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 178 ) (Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
182 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 176 MOTION for attorney fees Expenses, and Costs filed by Nicolas Taulbee on behalf of Defendants Larry Denney, Ronda Pash, Cyndi Prudden, Richey. Reply suggestions due by 5/24/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 176 ) (Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
183 ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial (Volume I) held 4/10/2017 before Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Court Reporter: Katie Wirt, 816−512−5608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 153. NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Redaction, of the parties' intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.mow.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. NOTICE: Attorneys must contact the court reporter for copies during this 90 day period. Notice of Intent to File Redaction of Transcripts due by 5/17/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/7/2017.(Wirt, Katie) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
184 ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial (Volume II) held 4/11/2017 before Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Court Reporter: Katie Wirt, 816−512−5608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 213. NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Redaction, of the parties' intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.mow.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. NOTICE: Attorneys must contact the court reporter for copies during this 90 day period. Notice of Intent to File Redaction of Transcripts due by 5/17/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/7/2017.(Wirt, Katie) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
185 ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial (Volume III) held 4/12/2017 before Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Court Reporter: Katie Wirt, 816−512−5608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 94. NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Redaction, of the parties' intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.mow.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. NOTICE: Attorneys must contact the court reporter for copies during this 90 day period. Notice of Intent to File Redaction of Transcripts due by 5/17/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/7/2017.(Wirt, Katie) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
186 SEALED TRANSCRIPT of Jury Selection held 4/10/2017 before Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Court Reporter: Katie Wirt, 816−512−5608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 86.(Wirt, Katie) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
187 ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT of Voir Dire (Redacted) held on 4/10/2017 before Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Court Reporter: Katie Wirt, 816−512−5608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 86. The transcript is available for review in the Clerk's Office. Please contact the court reporter listed above for copies.(Wirt, Katie) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
188 SUGGESTIONS in support re 176 MOTION for attorney fees Expenses, and Costs filed by Michael S. Foster on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Related document(s) 176 ) (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
189 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 180 MOTION for new trial MOTION for judgment as a matter of law filed by Michael S. Foster on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Reply suggestions due by 6/6/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 180 ) (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
190 SUGGESTIONS in support re 178 MOTION for order for postjudgment injunctive relief filed by Michael S. Foster on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel

05/23/2017 06/05/2017 06/08/2017
06/26/2017
06/26/2017 06/27/2017
06/27/2017 06/29/2017 06/29/2017 06/30/2017 06/30/2017 07/05/2017

Washington. (Related document(s) 178 ) (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
191 SUGGESTIONS in support re 176 MOTION for attorney fees Expenses, and Costs filed by Michael S. Foster on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Related document(s) 176 ) (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
192 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 180 MOTION for new trial MOTION for judgment as a matter of law filed by Nicolas Taulbee on behalf of Defendants Larry Denney, Ronda Pash, Cyndi Prudden, Richey. (Related document(s) 180 ) (Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
193 NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF. Plaintiff Washington shall not send any letters to the Court during this litigation because he is represented by counsel. Any letters sent will be returned. Signed on 6/8/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Specker, Suzanne) Modified on 6/8/2017 to reflect a copy of the text order was mailed via regular mail to Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington 990079 Crossroads Correctional Center 1115 E. Pence Rd Cameron, MO 64429. (Travis, Kendra) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
194 ORDER. Oral Argument will be presented on 6/27/2017 at 9:30 AM by telephone conference on Plaintiff's Motion for Post Judgment Injunctive Relief, Doc. 178 . The parties shall call conference number 877−336−1274, access code 2707681 to participate. Signed on 6/26/17 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
195 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Defendants Richey, Pash, Prudden, and Denney's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, motion for a new trial, Doc. 180 , is denied. Signed on 6/26/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
196 MINUTE ENTRY. Teleconference held before the Hon. Nanette K. Laughrey on 6/27/17. Oral argument presented on Plaintiff's Motion for Post Judgment Injunctive Relief, Doc. 179. The Court asked the parties if they would be willing to attend another mediation hearing with Judge Knox, and the parties agreed. The Court took the motion under advisement and will talk with Judge Knox about setting mediation. The Court advised the parties that the ultimate decisionmaker, Director Anne Precythe, should participate in the mediation. Appearances: Plaintiff by Michael Foster and Phillip Zeeck. Defendants by Nicolas Taulbee. CRD: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: Katie Wirt. (Text entry only.) To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Katie Wirt, 816−512−5608. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 06/27/2017)
197 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. The parties shall contact Jackie Price in Judge Knox's Chambers to arrange for a mediation with Judge Knox in August.Signed on 6/27/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 06/27/2017)
198 NOTICE OF HEARING − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Settlement Conference set for 8/15/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3B, Jefferson City (WAK) before Magistrate Judge William A. Knox. (Price, Jackie) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
RECEIPT number T17180 in the amount of $1.50 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons on Appeal. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
RECEIPT number T17181 in the amount of $21.50 issued to MO DOC for Willie Simmons on appeal fee. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
199 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Settlement Conference set for 8/15/2017 10:00 AM in the MAP room, 3rd floor, Kansas City Courthouse before Magistrate Judge William A. Knox. THIS IS A CHANGE IN LOCATION ONLY. (Price, Jackie) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
200 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. In the absence of billing records for the requested printing and transcript fees in Plaintiff's Bill of Costs, Doc. 177 , they will be denied in any amount in excess of $1,076, which the Defendants assert to be the amount they paid for the same transcripts. If Plaintiff's

07/18/2017
07/26/2017 07/26/2017 07/27/2017 07/28/2017
07/31/2017 07/31/2017 08/04/2017 08/04/2017 08/14/2017 09/07/2017 09/11/2017
09/14/2017 09/18/2017
09/18/2017

counsel wishes to submit documentation, they must do so prior to the date of the mediation on August 15, 2017. Signed on 7/5/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
201 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Settlement Conference set for 8/15/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3B, Jefferson City (WAK) before Magistrate Judge William A. Knox. THE LOCATION FOR THE MEDIATION WILL NOW TAKE PLACE IN JEFFERSON CITY.(Price, Jackie) (Entered: 07/18/2017)
202 NOTICE of filing Notice of Appeal by Larry Denney, Ronda Pash, Cyndi Prudden, Richey (Taulbee, Nicolas) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
203 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Larry Denney, Ronda Pash, Cyndi Prudden, Richey. Filing fee $ 0.00, receipt number NOT PAID. (Travis, Kendra) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
RECEIPT number T17208 in the amount of $21.50 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons as appellate fee payment. (Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION. A modification has been made to the document filed on 7/26/2017 as Document No. 202, NOTICE of filing Notice of Appeal. The document has been deleted as the incorrect event was used when filing the document. The Clerk's Office will refile the document using the correct event. This is a text entry only − no document is attached. (Travis, Kendra) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
204 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Invoices, # 2 Exhibit Copy Charges)(Foster, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2017)
205 TRANSMISSION of Notice of Appeal Supplement to US Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit via electronic mail. Related document 203 Notice of Appeal. (+Crespo, Wil) (Entered: 07/31/2017)
RECEIPT number KCMO064705 in the amount of $505. issued to Treasurer of the State of Missouri. (Woods, Gloria) (Entered: 08/04/2017)
RECEIPT number T17216 in the amount of $1.50 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons as appellate fee payment. (Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 08/04/2017)
206 USCA Case Number from 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is 17−2747 for 203 Notice of Appeal filed by Richey, Larry Denney, Cyndi Prudden, Ronda Pash. Briefing schedule entered by the Court of Appeals is attached. Transcript due by 9/19/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Schedule)(Crespo, Wil) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
RECEIPT number T17250 in the amount of $41.50 issued to DOC for Willie Simmons as appellate fee payment. (Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
207 NOTICE OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE re upcoming mediation − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Telephone Conference set for 9/13/2017 at 4:00 PM before Magistrate Judge William A. Knox. Conference number is 877−336−1829, access code 1233420(Price, Jackie) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
NOTICE OF HEARING CANCELLATION − After an unrecorded teleconference with counsel, it was decided that a mediation at this time was not necessary. Magistrate Knox presiding. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Price, Jackie) (Entered: 09/14/2017)
208 NOTICE OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Telephone Conference set for 9/19/2017 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 3B, Jefferson City (WAK) before Magistrate Judge William A. Knox. Conference number is 877−336−1829, access code 1233420(Price, Jackie) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
209 AMENDED NOTICE OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Telephone Conference set for 9/19/2017 09:45 AM in Courtroom 3B, Jefferson City (WAK) before Magistrate Judge William A. Knox. THIS IS A CHANGE IN TIME ONLY.

09/18/2017
09/19/2017
09/19/2017 09/19/2017 09/21/2017 09/21/2017
09/25/2017 09/27/2017 09/29/2017 10/03/2017 10/03/2017 03/26/2018

Conference number is 877−336−1829, access code 1233420(Price, Jackie) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
210 ORDER. A Telephone Conference is set for 9/19/2017 at 09:00 AM before District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey regarding the pending appeal. The parties shall call Conference Number 877−336−1828; Access Code 8503666 to participate. (Please note that Magistrate Judge Knox's teleconference is set for 9/19/2017 at 09:45 AM.) Signed on 9/18/17 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
211 MINUTE ENTRY. Teleconference held before the Hon. Nanette K. Laughrey on 9/19/17 regarding the pending appeal. Mr. Taulbee stated that defendants appealed from the judgment regarding damages, rather than waiting for a determination regarding injunctive relief, to ensure that they did not waive the right to appeal. The parties indicated that injunctive relief is the only matter at issue in their ongoing mediation. Appearances: Plaintiff by Michael Foster and Phillip Zeeck. Defendants by Nicolas Taulbee. CRD: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: None. (Text entry only.) (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
212 Minute Entry. Unrecorded mediation/phone conference held before Magistrate Judge William A. Knox on 9/19/2017. Counsel of record participated. TEXT ENTRY ONLY − no document attached. (Price, Jackie) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
213 NOTICE OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE − This is the official notice for this hearing. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. Telephone Conference set for 9/26/2017 at 9:45 AM in Courtroom 3B, Jefferson City (WAK) before Magistrate Judge William A. Knox. Conference number is 877−336−1829, access code 1233420(Price, Jackie) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
214 Joint MOTION for order for postjudgment injunctive relief filed by Michael S. Foster on behalf of Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/5/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 09/21/2017)
215 Order entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The joint motion for order for postjudgment injunctive relief, Doc. 214 , is granted. By agreement of the parties, the Missouri Department of Corrections shall, on or before April 1, 2018, amend its smoking policy to prohibit the sale, possession, and consumption of all tobacco products−−except for authorized religious purposes−−inside correctional buildings and on the grounds inside the correctional perimeter in each of the specified facilities, and shall enforce such policy thereafter.(Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 09/21/2017)
NOTICE OF HEARING CANCELLATION − The Telephone Conference with Judge Knox scheduled for 9:45 am has been cancelled. The conference will not be rescheduled at this time. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Price, Jackie) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
***Appeals Remark: Mailed this date to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals transcripts Doc #183−185. (Crespo, Wil) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
216 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiff's motion for order for postjudgment injunctive relief, Doc. 178 , is denied as moot in light of the order for postjudgment injunctive relief, Doc. 215 , entered upon the parties' joint motion. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
217 ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion for attorney fees, Doc. 176 . The Court awards to plaintiffs counsel a total of $161,681.02, comprised of $152,276.51 in fees, $4,911.81 in attorney expenses, and $4,492.70 in taxable costs. Mr. Washington must pay $11,100 (representing ten percent of his monetary damages) of this award. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
218 CLERK'S JUDGMENT (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
219 MOTION for leave to file corrected motion filed by a NON PARTY. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/9/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Stay Injunction, Appoint Counsel, # 2 Envelope)(Geiser, Angel) Modified on 3/27/2018 to show filing submitted by non−party. (Geiser, Angel). (Entered: 03/26/2018)

03/27/2018
04/09/2018 04/20/2018
04/20/2018 05/04/2018 05/16/2018 05/17/2018 05/17/2018 05/17/2018
05/17/2018 05/21/2018
05/21/2018 05/31/2018
05/31/2018

220 MOTION to stay injunction, appoint counsel filed by NON PARTY. Submitted by Melvin Leroy Tyler. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/10/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Envelope)(Geiser, Angel) Modified on 3/27/2018 to show filing submitted by non−party.(Geiser, Angel). (Entered: 03/27/2018)
221 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 219 MOTION for leave to file, 220 MOTION to stay Injunction filed by Michael S. Foster on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Reply suggestions due by 4/23/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 219 , 220 ) (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 04/09/2018)
222 MOTION for Writ of Injunction or Writ of Prohibition by a NON PARTY. Submitted by Brook A. Meinhardt. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/4/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Melvin, Greg) Modified on 4/23/2018: Docket text changed to motion. Docket text corrected. NEF regenerated. Deadlines set. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 222 MOTION for Writ of Injunction or Writ of Prohibition. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/4/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
223 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 222 MOTION for order Writ of Injunction or Writ of Prohibition filed by Michael S. Foster on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Reply suggestions due by 5/18/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 222 ) (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 05/04/2018)
224 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey denying the motions by non−parties to stay the injunction (Docs. 219 , 220 , 222 ). A copy of this order will be sent today by regular mail to the pro se non−parties.(Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
225 MOTION to intervene filed by a NON PARTY. Submitted by David Barnett. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/31/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 05/21/2018)
226 MOTION to Terminate Judgment or in the Alternative for Relief filed by a NON PARTY.Submitted by David Barnett. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/31/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 05/21/2018)
229 MOTION for leave to file corrected motion filed by a NON PARTY. Submitted by Melvin Leroy Tyler. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/31/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Motion, # 2 Envelope) (Clerk's Office note: These documents were filed as of the prison scan date of 5/17/2018.)(Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
230 NOTICE of filing status of motions filed by a NON PARTY. Submitted by Melvin Leroy Tyler. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Clerk's Office note: These documents were filed as of the prison scan date of 5/17/2018.)(Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
227 MOTION for order requesting status of motions re 222 MOTION for order, 219 MOTION for leave to file, 220 MOTION to stay filed by NON PARTY. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/4/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Related document(s) 222 , 219 , 220 ) (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 05/21/2018)
228 MOTION for order copy of docket sheet filed by NON PARTY. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/4/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 05/21/2018)
231 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 225 MOTION to intervene filed by Phillip James Richard Zeeck on behalf of Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Reply suggestions due by 6/14/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Zeeck, Phillip) Modified on 6/1/2018: Docket text corrected to match filing event. Motion termed. NEF regenerated. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 05/31/2018)
232 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 226 MOTION for order Plaintiff's Suggestions in Opposition to Nonparty David Barnett's Motion Pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3626(b)(2) to Terminate Judgment or in the Alternative for Relief Pursuant to Federal

06/01/2018 06/08/2018 06/15/2018
06/18/2018 06/29/2018 07/09/2018 07/16/2018 07/17/2018 08/14/2018
09/13/2018 09/13/2018

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) filed by Phillip James Richard Zeeck on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Reply suggestions due by 6/14/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 226 ) (Zeeck, Phillip) (Entered: 05/31/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 225 MOTION to intervene. Reply suggestions due by 6/15/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 06/01/2018)
233 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 229 MOTION for order to File Corrected Motion to Stay Injunction filed by Michael S. Foster on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Reply suggestions due by 6/22/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 229 ) (Foster, Michael) (Entered: 06/08/2018)
234 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Motion by non−party Melvin Leroy Tyler to file corrected motion to appear as amicus, Doc. 229 , is denied on the ground that it is untimely, as stated in the Court's prior order, Doc. 224 . Mr. Tyler's motion demanding the status of his prior motions (Doc. 227 ) is denied to the extent it seeks relief that he previously requested. The Court grants Mr. Tyler's motion requesting a copy of the docket sheet (Doc. 228 ). The Court will send to Mr. Tyler by regular mail a copy of the docket sheet, including this order, as well as a copy of the Court's prior order on Mr. Tyler's motions (Doc. 224 ). This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Sreeprakash, Netra) (A copy of this order, the docket sheet and Doc. 224 were mailed to Melvin Leroy Tyler, 09670 1A115, Jefferson City Correctional Center, 8200 No More Victims Road, Jefferson City, MO 65101 on 6/18/2018.) (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
235 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 225 MOTION to intervene filed by a NON PARTY. Submitted by David Barnett.. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Related document(s) 225 ) (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 06/19/2018)
236 MOTION for extension of time to file reconsideration and to perfect an appeal filed by a NON PARTY. Submitted by Melvin Leroy Tyler. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 7/13/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Clerk's Office note: These documents were filed as of the prison scan date.) (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 07/06/2018)
237 LETTER from Fran(ces) Thompson. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 07/10/2018)
238 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The motions by non−party David Barnett to intervene (Doc. 225 ) and to terminate judgment (Doc. 226 ) are DENIED. A copy of this order will be sent by regular mail to the pro se movant.(Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
239 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Motion by non−party Melvin Tyler for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal, Doc. 236 , is GRANTED in light of the fact that no party opposes the motion. A copy of this text order will be sent to the pro se non−party movant by regular mail. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
240 USCA Judgment and/or Opinion as to 203 Notice of Appeal filed by Richey, Larry Denney, Cyndi Prudden, Ronda Pash This is a preliminary judgment and/or opinion of U.S. Court of Appeals; jurisdiction is not recovered until the Mandate is issued by the U.S Court of Appeals. It is hereby ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the district court in this cause is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with the opinion of this court. (Attachments: # 1 Opinion)(Crespo, Wil) (Entered: 08/14/2018)
241 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. A Telephone Conference is set for 9/14/2018 at 10:00 AM. The parties shall call conference number 877−336−1274, access code 2707681 to participate. Signed on 9/13/18 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
242 AMENDED ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The Telephone Conference previously set for 10:00 AM on 9/14/2018 is reset for 11:30 AM on

09/13/2018 09/14/2018
09/14/2018 09/24/2018 09/24/2018 09/24/2018 09/24/2018 09/28/2018
10/08/2018 10/22/2018 11/07/2018 11/07/2018 11/14/2018

9/14/2018. The parties shall call conference number 877−336−1274, access code 2707681 to participate. Signed on 9/13/18 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
243 MANDATE of US COURT OF APPEALS as to 203 Notice of Appeal filed by Richey, Larry Denney, Cyndi Prudden, Ronda Pash with mandate issued on 9/13/18. (Terry, Jason) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
244 MINUTE ENTRY. Teleconference held before the Hon. Nanette K. Laughrey on September 14, 2018 regarding status of the case. Mr. Foster requested a two week adjournment of the conference to discuss the case further with his client, and Mr. Taulbee had no objection. The Court set another status teleconference for September 28, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. Appearances: Plaintiff by Michael Foster and Phillip Zeeck. Defendants by Nicolas Taulbee. CRD: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: None. (Text entry only.) (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 09/14/2018)
245 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. A Telephone Conference is set for 9/28/2018 at 10:00 AM regarding the status of the case. The parties shall call conference number 877−336−1274, access code 2707681 to participate. Signed on 9/14/18 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 09/14/2018)
246 PRO SE MOTION to File Appeal Out of Time filed by non−party David Barnett. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/9/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Envelope)(Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
247 PRO SE MOTION for leave to Appeal in forma pauperis filed by non−party David Barnett. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/9/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
248 FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT filed by non−party David Barnett. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
249 PRO SE NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 238 Order on Motion to Intervene, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by non−party David Barnett. Filing fee $ 0. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
250 MINUTE ENTRY: Teleconference held before the Hon. Nanette K. Laughrey on September 28, 2018 regarding status of the case. Plaintiff's counsel may move for attorneys' fees in connection with his appeal on or before October 12, 2018, and Defendants may respond to any such motion on or before November 1, 2018. Appearances: Plaintiff by Phillip Zeeck. Defendants by Nicolas Taulbee. CRD: Tracey Richard. Court Reporter: None. (Text entry only.) Time in court: 10:00 a.m. to 10:07 a.m. (Richard, Tracey) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
251 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 246 MOTION for order for Nonparty David Barnett's Motion for Leave to File Out of Time filed by Phillip James Richard Zeeck on behalf of Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. Reply suggestions due by 10/22/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 246 ) (Zeeck, Phillip) (Entered: 10/08/2018)
252 PRO SE REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 246 MOTION for order filed by non−party David Barnett. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Related document(s) 246 ) (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 10/23/2018)
253 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Non−party David Barnett's motions for leave to appeal out of time and for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, Docs. 246 and 247 , are DENIED. Filer will mail a copy of the order to the pro se movant. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
254 TRANSMISSION of Notice of Appeal Supplement to US Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit via electronic mail. Related document 249 Notice of Appeal. (Terry, Jason) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
255 USCA Case Number from 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is 18−3425 for 249 Notice of Appeal. (Terry, Jason) (Entered: 11/14/2018)

12/04/2018 12/13/2018
02/06/2019 04/01/2019

256 NOTICE of filing Certificate of No Transcript by non−party David Barnett.re 249 Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Terry, Jason) (Entered: 12/04/2018)
257 USCA Judgment as to 249 Notice of Appeal This is a preliminary judgment of U.S. Court of Appeals; jurisdiction is not recovered until the Mandate is issued by the U.S Court of Appeals.The court has carefully reviewed the original file of the United States District Court and orders that this appeal be dismissed as untimely. The appellants motion for leave to proceed onappeal in forma pauperis is denied as moot. The full $505.00 appellate filing and docketing fees are assessed against the appellant. The court remands the collection of those fees to the district court. (Terry, Jason) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
258 MANDATE of US COURT OF APPEALS as to 249 Notice of Appeal with mandate issued on 02/06/2019. (Terry, Jason) (Entered: 02/06/2019)
259 STIPULATION of dismissal by Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington. (Zeeck, Phillip) (Entered: 04/01/2019)

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

ECCLESIASTICAL DENZEL WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff, v. LARRY DENNEY, et al. Defendants.

)

)

)

)

Case No. 14-CV-06118-SJ-NKL

)

)

)

)

)

)

STIPULATED ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR POSTJUDGMENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon the stipulation of the parties as set

forth herein, and the Court finding good cause, the Court hereby finds as follows.

1. Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Washington’s claims against Defendants Larry Denney,

Ronda Pash, Cynthia Prudden, and Cheryl Richey were tried before a jury beginning on April 10,

2017.

2. Following trial, the jury found that Mr. Washington proved his claims as against

Mr. Denney, Ms. Pash, Ms. Prudden, and Ms. Richey. See Doc. 171, p. 1.

3. The jury awarded Mr. Washington $40,000 in damages. See id. at 2.

4. The jury also imposed punitive damages of $20,000 as against Mr. Denny;

$25,000 as against Ms. Pash; $25,000 as against Ms. Prudden; and $1,000 as against Ms. Richey.

See id.

5. On April 13, 2017, this Court entered judgment in Mr. Washington’s favor

consistent with the jury’s verdict. See Doc. 172.

6. On April 27, 2017, Mr. Washington filed a Motion for Postjudgment Injunctive

Relief, seeking, among other remedies, an order requiring the Missouri Department of

60480691.1
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 215 Filed 09/21/17 Page 1 of 3

Corrections to amend its statewide policy regarding smoking in Department facilities to prohibit
the sale, possession, and consumption of all tobacco products in all Department facilities. See
Doc. 178, p. 3.
7. On June 27, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Postjudgment Injunctive Relief.
8. At the June 27, 2017 hearing, the parties agreed at the Court’s urging to mediate
Mr. Washington’s injunctive relief request.
9. Based on the jury’s verdict and damages award in this case, the parties agree that,
absent a stipulated order, the Court was likely to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Postjudgment
Injunctive Relief and require the Missouri Department of Corrections to amend its smoking
policy.
10. The parties agree to this Order’s entry to cooperate with the Court in establishing
the terms of an amended smoking policy and ensure the health and wellbeing of Department staff
and offenders.
11. This order applies to all Department correctional centers statewide:
Algoa Correctional Center Boonville Correctional Center Chillicothe Correctional Center Crossroads Correctional Center Creamer Therapeutic Community Center Eastern Reception, Diagnostic & Correctional Center Farmington Correctional Center Fulton Reception & Diagnostic Center Jefferson City Correctional Center Kansas City Reentry Center Maryville Treatment Center Missouri Eastern Correctional Center Moberly Correctional Center Northeast Correctional Center Ozark Correctional Center Potosi Correctional Center
2
60480691.1
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 215 Filed 09/21/17 Page 2 of 3

South Central Correctional Center Southeast Correctional Center Tipton Correctional Center Western Missouri Correctional Center Western Reception, Diagnostic & Correctional Center Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic & Correctional Center
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Missouri Department of Corrections shall, on
or before April 1, 2018, amend its smoking policy to prohibit the sale, possession, and
consumption of all tobacco products, except for authorized religious purposes, inside
correctional buildings and on the grounds inside the correctional perimeter at all Department
correctional centers listed in paragraph 11 above, and enforce such policy thereafter.

Dated: September 21, 2017 Jefferson City, Missouri

s/ Nanette K. Laughrey NANETTE K. LAUGHREY United States District Judge

3
60480691.1
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 215 Filed 09/21/17 Page 3 of 3

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

c:::r:"'":T!'"' )

(full name)

(Register No}" )

------~"--'",_)!c__c7'-'---,_·•·-r'f-<_+-h~) 61 1 8- CV- SJ- Nf\L - P~

) CaseNo._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Plaintiff(s).

)

)

V.

)

)

)

) Defendants are sued in their (check one):

(Full name)

) ___::__Individual Capacity

· - - - - - ) __2__ Official Capacity

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

Both

Defendant( s).

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983

II. Parties to this civil action: Please give your commitment name and any another name(s) you have used while incarcerated.
A. Plaintiff_ _::_:__:__c___c_:_~~--'---"-''--''--'-'--' Address_~~---~~~~~~-'-'~~~~~-'-'~~<~-~-'-'~-----

For additional plaintiffs or defendants, provide above information in same format on a separate page.
I
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 1 of 32

III. Do your claims involve medical treatment?

Yes

No

IV. Do you request a jury trial?

Yes

No

V. Do you request money damages?

Yes

No

State the amount claimed?

$

I_ _ _(aetual/punitive)

VI. Are the wrongs alleged in your complaint continuing to occur? Yes No

VII. Grievance procedures:

A. Does your institution have an administrative or grievance procedure?

Yes

No ~~-

B. Have the claims in this case been presented through an administrative or grievance

procedure within the institution?

Yes___ No___

C. If a grievance was filed, state the date your elaims were presented, how they were

presented, and the result of that procedure. (Attach a copy of the final result.)

··~

· .?G/1h

•t

1 :j
~~--------------------~--~--~----~~~~~~~~~~~--
D. If you have not filed a grievance, state the reasons.

VIII. Previous civil actions:

A. Have you begun other cases in state or federal courts dealing with the same facts involved

in this case?

Yes

No _ __

B. Have you begun other cases in state or federal courts relating to the conditions of or

treatment while incarcerated?

Yes

No ~~-

C. If your answer is "Yes," to either of the above questions, provide the following information for each case.

(1) Style: ----=-:--c---:-::c:---------------=---:---:----------------

(Plaintiff)., i .,

(Defendant)

(2) Date filed:________________________________

2

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 2 of 32

(3) Court where filed: _ _'i_ri_n_ __

(4)

Case

Number

and

citation: _

_

_

T),/
__

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_ _

(5) Basic claim made:-------"-'---"'---------------(6) Dateofdisposition: _ _ _ _ _ _ _~·1 /_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
(7) Disposition: (Pending) (on appeal) (resolved)
(8) If resolved, state whether for: _ _----':""1''--r' " ' ' ' - - - - - - - - - - - - (Plaintiff or Defendant)
For additional cases, provide the above infonnation in the same format on a separate page.
IX. Statement of claim:
A. State here as briefly as possible the facts ofyour claim. Describe how each named defendant is involved. Include the names of other persons involved, dates and places. Describe specifically the injuries incurred. Do not give legal arguments or cite cases or statutes. You may do that in Item "B" below. Ifyou allege related claims, number and set forth each claim in a separate paragraph. Use as much space as you need to state the facts. Attach extra sheets, if necessary. Unrelated separate claims should be raised in a separate civil action.

3 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 3 of 32

()F
. -..

:,_ 'L L D , C.> .,. '"
;·1'r <-,---~, r· ,-, l"''- >::' ;\ I L\

(Ln

TS
T' ,.,,_'

,_ . ~-

,_

\

·'\

')·F'
•,')'

/
\

.',

)'r:.: \
-' ,,_) )

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 4 of 32

X. Relief: State briefly exactly what you want the court to do for you. Make no legal arguments.

XL Counsel: A. If someone other than a lawyer is assisting you in prepming this case, state the person's

B. Have you made any effort to contact a private lawyer to determine if he or she would

represent you in this civil action?

Yes_~ No~'---

If your answer is "Yes," state the names(s) and address(es) of each lawyer contacted.

C. Have you previously had a lawyer representing you in a civil action in this court?

Yes

No

If your answer is "Yes," state the name and address of the lawyer.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

tha'-'~'-· ~ %._·_·).~; Executed (signed)

Lt_ _ day of _ _/__

__ 20/?

4 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 5 of 32

I THE Ui'llTED ST!\TE THSTH TGT COURT FOR THE I
DIVISIO:<:

I/:o,STI C/\L DENZ \tASHI~--~GTON

)

REGISTER "{,,

9

\ /

' )

PLAINTI?F~

)

\

v.

),,

!
)

\
f
) '

'J ' \/

C/\S E N

CT\lTL

RI

U~S.,.C.. 19

PL.Ail\lTIFF

C~L DENZEL WAS!ZINGTON

I

1. PLAINTIFF IS A

P.ESIDES /\'I

2 ~

DF Ct~;;:::REC,TJ.Of'··JS

(

TltE STA'IE OF !v;I

I" /~T /J,,_LL i_\ I:: l.,i\V /\ -:! ~_r-

b,C:TIJ:' ~ UNDER 1'EE COLOR ()F ST/1.T'f::~ LA'/~

n WASHINGTO?J SUED

ET r\.L

''·!?DP'Pv Ui\RDF·:.r-.:;, C!r~TS 1'-~ic::r!T;EJ

ASS NT BARDEN , LAURETTA AITKCNS, CJIEF G?

Ht\I~.!:YE:~>J, KTNBE>Rl.Y HEFtRI f~U •. ~·1 ~ CYLTDT p;:,:UDf:,F>}

l)IVISION GF ADULT I

CC\~, MISS, JUDY HUFF, MRS.
• LZ I c:: -~~-1

nF~FN~A

, LA

1'~'1T1~PUTY ~aA-F;JH~_:i:)' TO!.YD

1 LO~··TD,c\ P,\SlJ ~

SI:J::-·i Dii:~EC'TtY:;:

RLE ~IS~ OF I~A~M ALLEGES

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 6 of 32

HISK)

'}'FF'N EXT'CS-~-~~r:: TCI

N'R ~ ':-:;!\

''~''"''''''

AL (RISK) OF I

SECAlJSE nF I-'IS ~~DI

S•\J..··rE POS~~:n 'T(J ,.I'EE Gf:j\JER/\L, POFUA'TI.Ot·,~ TI-1 1:.:~ 2Lt\Ii:i'TIFF-

SIC/\L Ii:-·:_;J

SECO~·,.f'Di- /\. D

RISDICTID~ ~ VENUE

3, PL:\J:

1\L~

H.IG-1·-:!'I'S

'\S p::~:.OVIDED

"'~">l l-''

/, ')
.,. "-•

i~.ISf)I

?URSUANT TO 22 .U.S.C.

P.L/\.11:·-JTI:TTF' T f1EH
~-_.,lTT FF' S-U

r STl~,.TE1\'1E.;-<rT C':F~ , __,wr ;,-\,
GFi\l r;-:·:·~AL
1 ,,, e:, A

IES AN I~DIVIOUAL MA

~ Pl~YSICANS ADVISED

1'-'lUS'I' I ~--~Ct.tJDE /.·,

F\~ EE CELL r;,

t:.."; G"T'
~; u ~-
( I
c:_li\ T T:--TE
?LAI::·-iTI ;::-·;:;-

CIVIL
1:?I-1:0SS IS
tS t~~ LUNG CAi~CFR DTS2ASE IS 0~ \ND C.R.C.C.

U "S .,.C.,

T;::T/\.I

AS .1\TEfJ TU THF

IS ASTt1?---t./\TIC 1

I FfD I ?'T''E.:::: E/Tl' TO t-~- IS

L

'l?""-l-\!I':~:O 1I',·1T;:T,.JT,

''IC:'?Tf;F: t~:r:Sr{ ,.·rq

EF.DS '', [: ,~,_c:_::-;- G'Te:·.'
SE:·i~IOtJS PI-\YSI.CAL

/i.LL.EGE:S Ti-J.t,T

EILLE.D

J "j_"'i-~ l'-'
,:,1\LF :?ATIJ,Y Hli

2 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 7 of 32

,...-,' •,,-, ,'·\

·• .L

···
;_'i

r'>"

'j_

'''·f.'·-"':'"0"(' T /•

,,.., , ,

--'\~ "<'.;~,!

'' ,;, ._; ;__,, .., ''\.f.

L•,s :r CfEPT"Y '.:~..tl::·;ur·:·-:_~~ ···:_;:-_;·.~:\:->{1.,'(

~:,") :· ':

t)r'/ISI

1,--,:...~.:-:·-"l'

.r,.r.

----.
;~~

J-

DI·:;~r~C'I'D~~~ Div·:c~.IU-'< D~? "'DtJL''.r T

J CHTF;:r 'J.F
~- l

C~UEL ~Nf) UNl SAL
(

ERJ.~:D T\.--1/\T

>:C ;~:,-L,O

A f·-,:r \~'

r E:i\1 I ·::t Ol·-.i}'JE~,_:·
TIGN \:fF.nr:· (;(}7<

1Y ,INCLUl)I; G, ~AS

SI LE IF PLA:~~TIFF

J'-iGTGN

'l·.JEf)I r\.CL '\.1-::

!;'}1CJ':''f"\
•'·c"'••,'_;
L .-'-\

'TF~EH.E·0~~i"
(JF T:

E!\iDA;·JG?F'R.I·;-:;c ~ 1'.,11.'(, '1'.-!i\S!>l.Il:·-.:!G'I'O·:·:-:

l'.CJLA'fTD;--; l

;:,; t)) ~ 3. I C· :.T'f

SIG '1' AlD FOURTEE

j) "

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 8 of 32

ll , 'TO PCiSSESS

l'

\) '(TS ·-;·J;~;_,--,__;; !\,

CELL

1

POL rc;,:·, DE::Fr::· l'D/\T--~TS

CL f ·r ?-f/)CTCS

·.-n S~JKTf1G POLICY,

TL-'l !'. 'T' -;;-, -1 '>'
'' '' " L ·,, .''\ -'·

1:) •. PL/\I
17 . r~ Li\. I: ;··_ri. F-F
1'REli.T'f"'iT<>:··r· F'L.,\ --{S

DJ\Y'"rc:.. CELL··-- \'{1.\TC

,. _..... "'· ~ \.,!::JL.,t.

' !.J'-._,, ·..._; '• ·~

c.M. ;1.;~.";,;;;,h.;;;,••:••,;,~. "'1;cc;i=cc•f"C:;';c+;.;;:.:··=;··)'

:.~l_,

("'":'.''j' 1
'-->'--"'··'"-'

I:--~ 1 !"! L-3.

!\CTIC:-:

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 9 of 32

INDIFFERFNCI~
.i\.

CLAIM

RING T~EAlNNST OR 0~1E

THAT TS

rt,!\ I>ITIFF A,s T>T.i\c:c:!sr.:r:, .,)·I.".l~-d

IS

EXPC~.S\Jl\_F 'T"O secu:---~DE/\ T:\S

;1573, e ; 1574

S~E:

19 '

I~,·:;.:;. T;:<_E/\ F:>:··TT SUF'FE-n:S

i,JIFF,_CU'L,'I'Y

;-,::··_t,_··r:··:r~;,~:,

\-n·TE:.c::zJ·r\~G~

COUGHr·:--::c

fST 'J?.P:,,I;·.:.:~

f'!-;\V'C:.

P1-T'(SICI.:\L

T,"'\H·"',\-r

r·· I1})T·:-FvL\ ~ A.ST·r.-:_l:·E"---1:\I']:C /\ i\Ci'{S

L1.}>-~r: C~\::c:r:~-~~-~: _·!,~/\~-~-:T ·;·;ISEf\SF>

1 ;·.;r:_~S-PFr~::,,·--;,n··-?''!

:•,I',\'"'' j_,.,.,. f/;T~- T>I~~ ''1":-~F,i\T}\~:::\!T (/.~) S?()U:.\ 'J.'T.N

r'!

'o, yLA' \>C? ':·C"".'-·V.<),0' _

T;Is COURT ISSUED

L

s

T'f.-TE'

C()SJ'S .A(!

Ti' I.S

T cc~D

l. F-~.F

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 10 of 32

t:.to·c;, J
c,

T(\
;;·'c·•;.:,,;;;.,;,. ·r:,;
;\

TBF 'f.!F DEFS~lOA~TS A~D

~ASE

~,-·_,j-'(-',;,'"Q' 'i(

.r\.STEN/\

TF
IC.f\L IN C_PCC
T.C Ci\T;_E

OF T8F 0EFENDANTS CO~STITlJTIOf~ CRUEL Ajin 0F PLAINTI?F RIG!~1' S
OF co~:sriTOTION

U~USUAL PU~ISHMENf
<1 ~1 »,'I\-~.
t!.l''l r·,i'·-: u

MALICIUOS A~D G1tOSS
Pl..:\ I
CI • -·· f~'
sue~ ot er qn~

T'•1 ';:, ~l •'-'· F

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 11 of 32

AS

SEP.

S 7

C·C.i\USE rrp Llf\S Q'r·;';:~··c.,! DIAG:\;QI

F_:\'I' /\C:GTZ./\\1/t I'E:,D r:-1IS

lJ i\_ i:·I::::;.FH

/ ·;~·-:G

\11 c:
t Jl ·, '"

L

CLA I \'1. t ; i\T r~ L.t\ I ·:·rcr

n,~ '~~ IF'

F;~-n/T ::(o:·c;·r~-!E'n.t\1.,

F,t,_I L!J\.ZE

T

''· ,_.
::·:JG 5 ~< T:·:; 5 DI Z;:·:~-I.:.·' ;::_,::,
~vtr)StJR~ TO ( ETS).
:;. ~ G :· :IHE.E.~ ;>~ l ~-~ C-
T'·>·
FT'LL11;.r) ,\·i'I.'T~-~
T

7 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 12 of 32

''· I ~f~{ T:' ,·:· S 3, C1:~ 1 Efi' r"' v

r::-irP. \' ;: T-:~ I>'if~:. ;;;TzT~
1

·.r '-F'

?-_·:.UfJPf· .., ;, DEPfJ-T:,r DI'\/ISID!"-~ DIH.E.:C'I'O'R DIVISI()N (JF ·" ri\JL1'

., r•; ~
-~---;·,
SLIVE~
;;'

COIJ~

M~S,

r::.,v::~~ t!F

Ef"1

f!\L
'I'D f)(~;

T·O f

I5

, i '"
)
·c ,., t:·;

TO (:FTS) i\t'--)T'i

-:\ST q,..f/\TIC t,T'T'-'\C;tS. \-I~~ :·tTC·\'L

[\

:--:-" .
}. .;-

-r'-

(·,'_;,-,'-:·•

TS ii·"·: J.1EDI.C.\

-"'"' . ,., ....

\ u '-~;

-~)

·.·;-r-,
·u

RISK OF CA10IOVAS
( .]."...''\/. .':::::, ·-:,'')
'"'
ICKLY

'l. tc·:~ A.TT/\c:.<

;·; T (~ -.

f);::-·

., ,-..}.:[:', Cz\

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 13 of 32

(-H-) Pt--:1\S()N CCJ-·;·.:; DT'T' I 0 :--~

/\'I l'<S"£}. ~-C.Iz\I_,LY

( )
) ·, - , ~ (' !-' 1 ~:

_.;_·_~,j·_r_,_, ,\.:,.-!,\ '\7 T :-...·!' n

EL

·."" '"~'"'/' ,. ,., ~ A \,o''·-''''' /'\
.,..,,_:"

(',~,.,.'._I._"\j
-;- \ "' ~ _...,
;_,,,; '\' '• ';•
~ c- ·; ("'
. ·r .: -~. ~' _, ,)

22. AS A RESULT OF TO

A D
'T•(\
.J. V
lJ.S .. ~v~S1'ITUTI

l
PV)·iSC: I·' ;·;,;Ju·-:; -,

AND 42 U.S.C. 1 ? PLAINTIFF INCOR 'fES PARGAPt!S 1- 22 ABOVE AS

CT:CCC ':·IO

T~1S WARNING PROVIDED TO n~? ICY, n

FRES CELL GLOCK
PI'f_f 'l ~ i /\ CELL

BY PHYSICIANS ~ND DESPITE

27. 0ESPI'fE l~ARNI~r

TO

,.._ 'i:' f':' 1 ;..' ·'-- -~

PliYSIICA:.S AN0 DESPJ.

ALLOWED INMATES AT

CI GI\ P: l~/ITE

T~,~
_;__ \ '!

..., ,.,.,~,,,,
,_, '- ;._

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 14 of 32

' S

S \,JF',·q_ ·c

NED I CAL CCJ ~-Li II'IOFi ;~\t·:in T() THE

PLA FF 1 S PHYSICIANS.

AS i\ OI F:EC'I' ,t\NT) \)i\.S DE'.F-i-? 1":./Ei'J CF

31. DEFfNDANTS 1 DELIBERA
EIGfiT AMENDMENT. 32. AT ALL ~ELEVt~T TIMES,

U.,S~C~ 1~S88

I~<:r::oo

H T'H.IS

PLJ\]'1

~0 lY PLAil<flF?S

·' ";''F'"''
~- ·' ~'"'
F:CKLESSLY Ii}DI EHE::<:CE

PLi\I
DRI~Gl~G THIS ACTI

PL/\1_ ro·;:.!. TH

'/ j

\fir_ L:\'I'1C)N

g t::l

( F/~ I LU:~.E TC) ,,,,,,,,,"

·i:\·-"'-"' ""

., r .-\ T -. T'T -~~-(;·•
' ~ -'' r
i
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 15 of 32

TO !~SPECIALLY

1~I0Sf'

f·JOUSF.D

';·T'Y'i '-, "" .f I

D./':._ :-rr s

r;;-.; ~--, Tii\.IL'Y

F'T:'
.1..--< ~--· ~

o;:;UDDL>T,

r-IUFf ,C()Il

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

.1- '"

( " ' ~"" ' r r ~ ~-..: <'Z· TC!
(' i-~~- >
(C) r:.ECTDI:<!G 5

\ I

\
,:

/\;_·.;n L

(E) '\LL:)\II -:~ I: :··it'

,o I. •. :

fl

A'

'\'~ ,•'',_

i?OL

cr:.'LLS ~-

PLAINTIF? IO PC)SS
/\'-· '' CI

! ·: >· :.,.
t -~__/\ ~ri
.-\C'f::_:; 57

~r •, .. ,., ' : \ ~-.; c,}"_-;; '
-• .-,,-~
,'/1 '>U

,. 'r'"-.
;_ -1..

' '
F/\ lLI ~--~·r.

"l i
L ..1.

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 16 of 32

'{'"~~""--"'''.l."

,"';. '·,::t·
!"·c·,;,l

El:'-·i CYT I C: ·,;i'\.L
-.;.\-·.:·_:,·,r_,

OF f--!

CC1<STI

1.;

THAT PLti

r::

h'.f'

\",,", '''.'\'r•..,JrV,

UL-IUSUt\L

'I'C) /, ') fJ ._. S " C '"
i'
PTJN'IS'H l)EF
::tEL I

C()STS

-,-:-,,-·,, n X" U L\

''')'"
i''i'-ii)

; l. l.'! \_;

:1.2 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 17 of 32

PRES(~NT EVIDENCE OF ~TIS SERIOUS

1

U~IT AND !~NVIRONM

DEFENDA~TS DIS.SIRERA.rE

MEDICAL NEED TO BE PLACED I~ NON··

S MEDICAL NEED 3UT ~A

'TO

SUCH J.;.J :\

GROSS NEGLIGENCE ~ESULTED IN

ncr HONTC;GF:lvLEir\:~,. cr--n::IS

·,_.~, 5 DEPTJTY

' L/\01~-;~:.T'I'!\ AIT:{E,1'·,~S ~ C; ;·Ir~F C)f'

l'-{;_~n.RI.t-1-G

~, ,, 'c

C'l: DI ?R\JDDEi··;) f\'f.:''\)UTY 1

1·

i\{f"~S

"'t

n:.:; ~

~:USS-F.L.L

:·nuSINC tJ>~IT t~-:r·

l'--1;\f)

·:::uF~·:·, ~ iv:·!·:

'.np:~-1~-,

... ,., --~

~-

n t~. l.i\;·;

TODD 0~RTIFN ASSI

P.i\SH

AND Dl~PTY 0ARD1~~i,

DIVT.SI

OF'

COII

J /;PFF0.;;-

Ff'1CF. (~~~TS

··~ r;

/\DUL'I'

TO 1HS

Al:<lD \--1/\:i\DE\7 , i'< :·-.Jr"'\ ·rl-'.·E PEOPL,E :-11-·,

su;::.r -~~p_l./TSE 1 PLAI~·T"'_'I'0'Y

Tj IS PDSL~;D /\ /\i>-iD SAID DT'~·F·E~-.:·u"'

1:::
FAILED ( fAILUR~ A~Y ACTI0:0 TC PB
•';i}Yi''"' ' : ~ ! -'--- ', _, '

EC~LT G P _1\ST

tYG" cc;--,.f';,,:~""'.,-.

D

;\ s

'"·''l,<·' ,-,,\ L"'v"-'":""'

DELIBEJATELT, MALICIOUSLY, AI~D
f;-_i\:: i'"I'-S L/\ T\ ::·v DE>i ~, 'TO ·"r·/v·< ·::' A CC~',!S'T'I'TTJTFD T'G:\CTI<.:::; FCrLIC':l :.'',"!'
x-·
'fAT!

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 18 of 32

,f'">

-,,

\...., " ;.,,

r . ~-~
\.J ., --~-' .,

;') X. ;

~---- /
+\.l"·1D

POLICI
/) 'C'

:;·

L:·· (J}!{. ~!T'·"·:--

p·::~.DCEDU·;:zz

,--.,
\ ...

,,

') ;\

~

['~ -~_,

,,

,'......,, "

SUVEtZ\iiSF C)F

cc S~JCH

-~

.S~ -;·;~- ;~:?'/I STOFf

"-! PF ·;:( /\ T T('; '!·:: -. :,!", C,,'?.,C,C,

(
T L
F'F CELL T. f~

NSTITUTIO~ n 7 Ti1 U ITED S'L:\

/\1·1lJ

t~-JRS c D E-TT I~~;?_E\/ 'i Ni1S. ~ , 1 C--~ "' .:;i\L ~
·n ·'"'·-' )'
~'J T ,3,_ R(~ F:'F· ~ sr~/\U1·"1 r\SS IS;\Ti~':,

~ i"rF)·~ T f.':' 'F'.

~ J, ')"

1DS

01--.)""f'c~:,: ~

.\'_'-~TY-1'0 ~'-{

L/\U'P.-F1.'''f.'\ ,."'

1) ~\]A~G[N~ PLAI~JTIF
IS F ,:\I·:\ /'-..1\1 D ''""'''''·''·""'·c:. LE, I

5

' '·. 5 ~

SL0.!\.1'1 5

FF''

f"''-'Ti' T r.;: '

t--'~c;--· r~r- ~

f{ET\ 1~ Ti-1C

/,
C'LAIHTIFF
(': (';

VL
c f '--~

SU-FFOS'F'
:··;;.;·\·: '· ' ,_,~ j., ··---"- _, --.-

:.-.,;-
"7'~_;'1:::'-;; ..,L ·,: '

-t ,' .l.'··T
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 19 of 32

TTC

r\

lJ/\ ''{S

IS

,. '•,'!0
j,,. j'-' \,)
s

,'--,.",''·'-', ~

-ST.

St_:RICJ~JS ~::I.ST(

fJ~S

Tll1\T
~XACERBATED

TO 1 ~Y l~X?OSURE

T' -.'f
J_'-)

(\D

: ·.~ : ,-., "T' ~ r:• r ,

f' '·"" ,_

'--1--,

T\l'i-\-·_r P::~FS :-t'-:'I·r:-

I :>~>l' \ ·:r s~~:
2tl- H~OU':<

(' ,) ('- !"'
-~-' "' : 'c " '.,,, <' '-...,; "' ~

"F::.' f \ c; T? _!__ ' ··~· -~' --

T \D,_~ ~\

Fi

( I R·::-t )

r~~ r F: :-:~ J.: T< i-:: ':t, l;: LT-, '::·'

'\i'-: ~:\.S':Ci--1/\. ,\_'_fT/\c,·:-·~

'--'
_..,
v

F: S '}

[vf

~ 'D f', ·;, ,,..

~j i'--'1?
:···I I ~:-\ /" '? CF:?, 1,
\lC ~- ,_) ~

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 20 of 32

C..E_LL

L ;·-.:

L: ., ,

'·'

GAS c:-l~R£R

CAUS~

('.~:'I.,L

T1·:i

,., j' ·' -,-
;:· Li-', .t

~lsintiff ~~ ~n ~ \ln~aZe l i f e

ition coT;.s.s:ttt

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 21 of 32

Crt.CC

T>_-:;.1:·-·r-;__ ', ~ '-' ' ~

cr·;;-..I
}-i·,{___

.,. ' -~

T
'
-~- \,,} :,_ i- l '- ·.

t7 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 22 of 32

VIOLATION OF ~

COUNT III

n c r

'1 ":

\...! ~ ,_, " ',,., ~

PARAGRAPHS 1- 36 ABOVE AS

PLA ~0
...:::' '.~) "'

~..., Ei··~ D.A.?fTS AD~,..l I I

T
.1,

('\n. .-L'

'"''"\ ",....,.,
'•,j _., \,,.__,.,.,., ~

AT
"i. ,. ~-F:T'(~ CT<LT_,

L~,;.R -::P/\:_~.i\PI_,_E
l;,S'f>f!\ ~
s

POSSESS

·,--;Ty y
,-, l.~L

ss
~-"···' ·,;_Tl'(L'

1Jg

con~ .'t 1s

f\ n,_, \'

r ·t
I. j

f\ r•',,_1, /

s

( r,) ,,

( :r\
\ ,U /

CAIJSE LU~G CA~Cl~ 9 ' AND S~10KE CAUSS AC

(G)

~- , wl

·-, .c -r r , ... ,-; ··;, '/ C-

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 23 of 32

(I)
(J) T'O COt···1P_L.ETLT
( '() co:-:: .'

ILDI{
t~T r· -".
·-~' 1:.~

l~fi G·~·I
[' 7 .,.~ : ' ~ ·...,_T T '.. ',' :""''
\__,L.L ""' :"'.L;.':'-"'
F~I..I I;-./\ TE

L RISK

L:. 7 ~
IN

-:, ,_-n T;:::-,7
"- ~ .. '.. . ; L ' - '

IS

~ DQLICY AT CRCC.

(A) f c,

!"!T"f''

( p,)

\\('l?C
!c '' '·'

\/ \ ,.-~
:,,,}

(J)
?ELATED l)ISEAS:

lS

"_C,__

SUSI\\I -:-:u
F'OSS1:SS c·J
I POf-":r

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 24 of 32

T
l."
TliF COU.RT T

OF R IT{J'fiO~ALLY

S~fO~ING

CTI
ZINC T~AT SMOXING

Ti:··1G P'HISO~\l ~~JFF'ICI/\LS VIOL!\T'ED THIEH RIGHT

A RESUl..T '._Jt·

COlJ ?T SHOULD GT;,t\>lTEf'J T 1·11" I>~'J'lJCI'I'l1·~ REI.. IEJT AND

DECDF-U r_;,

DF:f', 1'0

E~l.,I~>1IL1,,~·.TE SI'40T:\Ii"7G ;\T'-11) TO~~-i\CCC) TJSF IF i\LL F/\CILT"fES T:~J ( "~">Fn~1r,:F

TtiE

/\TE. tvliSSOUP.I ST!\TE

t--~ISS()ORI s~,tOKT< t;'::;;;:E /;,I:·-~ t\CT

I~\l:Sl'ITUTICF:<: DEPi\

TS

\10 St·--IOT<It·IG f,/\i::z Al,L <::o·e,~'?EC'fi():·-:J

TEE

p·;_:\G'V IS IC}NS

,...,,..,
\! i.:

"')'{'' .,
], !":'

p:·_zo-HI ITI·>~-G sr·/ft::>'(I::·{G -,rl·Io·::~tJGi-I'IOUT THE

I?_ED P.Y ST/,_U'I'E TO ( F:--:T?c~·~.CF /\ ··HJi··1 ,\/,H'-

L

TO E:;<;/~.CT ., TOTAL r\.\·:.; fJt·,j

r''>'·r:

NON SMOKERS IT rc

~A.T

TO

T

TOT'I'IOi'·1S,

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 25 of 32

F'R.OOF \}TT!-1 -2-~SPEC'T

~~ILDING IN ORDE~

i\L,L

--~'-
_..

'1v'

I'\~
;_

'f ('
~- •.J

FACILITES I:~CLUDI0G ~ ?EGIJLA1'I

r ~Tn~ A~Y lf~STITUTICNS

TmHE

POLICY MEMORANDUM

STATED
~~

F I CLUP T ·IC: \/ '

OF LI'TlGA 0N ~~SA

c,-(11 T r·":.;
,·,- l. J '·'··A .

OF
Ti

•1-rn.-·_)q_':P_,

KTNC-
D CJ'·;:r~r~ f''F~·::>;···'iS !· 1JSE~:1- 1 S i\::··.:1

:'J'; J..__,
ryq 'I ):_s!\.CC'·--' USF USE~~\ 3 ·;:F.r\LT"i

\;-"

T
r" r
,_' .._, ,. -"·' 0

'''" .--J, " '··----''

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 26 of 32

C(JU~·-iTY J/;_IL.

c

[' \(
-1-•J.)

<;' \ (' 1' 1
-, "~-' __,_ s.~

r T r"
l,.> -~- '""

IL1)I:" G 'I'HF', CITY c;:;~nT

TI

I': L

IF' ~"' --- ,,
·--~-··-' ., ·,"

:::oL

-r,:ru

!\

\.'Y'Ll) :./"!T('·"-- "/.''

' -- i ~

T
;

'·,.·,·

. ·- -,- 1/'":T ',,,._; .. ,.• ,;., -, '-;J)

n .

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 27 of 32

,.,,

" ,.,:o :.' ;:~~_,·fr'
·, :.

•'\
-,_)

;,:.·,.

_, i
ticea o~

exoensLve
,~:::~< 1'""';f\',,',"' .',

...T_,.1,,\,,;l___t_,

OF SCI
L: ~,-.,.-,.',!_(_";,',,•,'

(?L/:.c_j ,,.,,
r '--~r::'c;y 1-', L
'CI\fr·
I r--TG
,, '• ,,,....,
'~•.:.-,'...,,'-"'
T <;('' \ .__;;:

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 28 of 32

-.)LICY

I'J'I'f.'ID\l

/\;'--4'[) POI_. I

,_, ,, r" " ?-t .c\
._,.' ~ '·~·

r c
'~ '-.,)

J.AIL

~P('\
1 .,/

T~G

ALL
>,:;;y·.J

TYES~
:3}rJ('f'··:1 :··.JC

AR~

1

TC~

POLICY ' ..: ~~E;\SO "'1\B

r'·"--,-

T_,_;;.',\,(:J'

L>J r:··-c' .eu._- LIC T

··1- 1: e--;? 1n-' ·-·-··. U.l

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 29 of 32

L n·;;·· C-IGAY-; ,::TT".,
I
('' n i"'l

l"·"\_'')-
'TOP

'"'I'_,.\_,;",

()P

,\ ':) -~·;··
1'• --~!..;

AS /\
i,') :: ) F' L' ·.. L
:-;_·I;_:; sou·-:: -r

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 30 of 32

p:?. J:EJC)i··-J

TC::
.,·)-::-~
:c..;·;,'r:-·;

:-i/\S
f1E"I'C ~:.I L

·:TS).

1..<

i_)

i'1

PLAI~TIFF PRAYS FOR :, '·\' f
·r1 E I r;_ CELL
D ;\LL ISSljF.S T T'f:liS
I JJM;Jm zEC,GELE;SeICfATtICaAlL,tD.d}~?~AS{~!vI~6GT?O~~v'~

27 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 31 of 32

VALERIE S RING
Notary Public- Notary Seal STATE OF MISSOURI Andrew County
My Commission Expires: 1-22-2016
,_ _.,;."IOTIS71f[- CommfsS:j~mr#<.~ .~P~:1~42:. i:., t\! ;-~
,•..l.··./ L

A

T;Ts

!,

,. T . ··~
"'}.!J'•,

(' r .. "

, ~'

-·~

1, OF

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 1 Filed 10/15/14 Page 32 of 32

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

~~CCL ES TA STT CAL n . ·JA S EIN G TO"~:

)

(full name)

(Register No). )

___________________________ ( \/'<i,'\) ·.ITLLJ'7 SI'-:~10\~{~9~0:)79 ) )

)

Plaintiff(s).

)

)

v.

)

)

)

L\ ·{y i'i~:\JY ''J \L

)

- __(F__-u__l-l __- na__-m__-e__)-__-__-__-__~__~__=__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-

) ) )

Defendant(s).

Defendants are sued in their (check one): __'I _ Individual Capacity _L Official Capacity
Both

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983

I.

Placeofpresentconfinementofplaintiffts): C'-?.';SSR.tJAilS CC' ',\FC1 1()··: CE~ T.2L{

1115 l \S'l ,,.. :c ~:!'\l'S .S\qrP()" 'IISSC'Jli ~ ~~~41c

II. Parties to this civil action: Please give your commitment name and any another name(s) you have used while incarcerated.
A. Plaintiff ·'(·•'C.f.i~'-S- I"''t;"-.'fTC'L fl·. · \S· '·Jl·['·',G'f0'•' RegisterNo. ·., (0(' )'~'-7' C.-'
Address 1 t tS ~<A.ST P~<'~C.F lOA )c:, c~\~11-':?0'i "•rsc:o~t'u Stl42S.

·' ,; •'"'' ' · ~'l nt;_~_..,,-,
For additional plaintiffs or defendants, provide above information in same format on a separate page. S·· 1': \TT'·C'Tt·W··n '}F l\f·DTTI'1f\:"\L 'l!:t:-n!f),\'lTS

1 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 18 Filed 06/30/15 Page 1 of 7

U'~IT ST·\TC ·.:rSTUC: 1"1~·-:-T F''~'' T"'~
I . F.51: C DI'"'"T'~ :CT nr '·t1 550:·-:tl
ST.JOS!::'P~J ;)T\'1 SIO ..

::CCLESin.STICAL 'l. , \S -'I':GTD'i )

( .1 I ·~I "' ) ..~1 LLIt S l ;-.1~10\ ~

)

)

PlAT 1 J F?,

'I
I

)

vs.

'\

'\

\

ul:F.: ;\ TS.

)

'L\l''TIF? !-~-1. .' ,-.:;J.q GT'Y.c ,~~- .::c:L~~Sl.~.SllCAL ?~'"l tiS C\LS'. t\Cllt)_, .\G:\I' ST
D ~- ... IJ.I\. I I:)) s 1.\ l ::'S :

1. .'L\1. ,'fL'C" lS t-, Cl117", 'J? ~11SSOLI:H .'i'O cu:u·~·~1LY ~r.sn;··:S /o.T Ct\·~~S RO ~')S
C' n l·'CTID\ -\L Cl :; n·:R ( C.~CC) I\ ':.AJ1 w·: N.lSSOl'·~I.

"/..

'li'· · l

.

~..-~

1I

0·\·.~·r(s)

•

•

'\ ),. \

l·'MI>Lov··j;· s or> 'Ls· ,,:.- ••

.1, 1~ .t.J .

., c"' :<t"" .~I\"...'r l. t.'., ... ~.I L T.t "t1ll.'

)"t.'..'[·'...I ·' ·r1"ll''"-l l.

T ' \1 L ' 'l (

\l''t~) -.J ,

\~JJ • ..

f)'J
.. \.

('''~v"'(~'

~{"' ~ I

,

C

:

T

AT
· _

:

'

':---Jt'-

\ l

'

< -

;

O
-

::
,.1

~ Y

f

]

''
.._

,

. \ } ' .""\

I

,

1
, J..,.

• \\\f•\ ,\•; rJo

. :~ · ACT:\:; 1J\ :-~ THf. C::'V:H '.)~ STAT'·' L\. _

c c"· ,·~.J.,~

I- }

1 ' -f \ ' l' .l'. .CJ

'
'

r .1~-'

c

i

.IC.)

\

.\.,~

IJ''',-:.•1.r:.1,••,lj)\ ' ':"1

n P .... • I [17? foP~•• !A~ ·';.·~:· SU:: 1 - 1 '·'=' ~'0.'·2.15. L·'. ~i-~Y l)T' , Y • .1 ·:.. Tr. Y PA::;L
tn ··.r: '~E, TC!DP \ \P.R'~ , '{:)"D \ -oA5i'. '":" "·I ? \Lp' , .., , . ··~. HU??, :·i;~. ?' !' fTS- \1

~1~S l.J:~ITIG1:, .. , ,~t~c;. J"JD'! ·u??: ~.,1R. :,'~i~f(lll:\!-~~i': '11{. ":Rt:E·",:~tR~ .. 'L~~L·l.·, ~i·~S.

r·r : Sl L ..,. ..i . ~l r~\ ·t-?.r. ;o:, . r.t . . . .- f' (~ll"."l~• r Jl, w~

C"'I ... ..,i: _) ___ 'S ,.

ULf7 :;'

. . :\.._. • :1 • • _ •

..,\_ . ,

l-..~~. .

·T-·i1~~t!\ Q,._~r.:....-. 1"• '-f'~~ooC.' • .. \.. . ,U.~.. _, ' '..",f.,• • " .. ...... '!

,,.,JT s·p··ry \ ·. '· , ": .r , ·

1,. lt.Tn.Y T ~ orr.t?F~F.,1 ·10 i~inso·~ · ' • f '.L.T -

')S

! 0 BE. PL '\.CLJ f\~ 5~1.:'\[ r P.EE :::~Vl ..:O~>P· . .SUPPCHTI":f: "1R150 ~~ C{U:..L •. t. L<::...

~>1l'.I.S ·~11 Tf ,-: L·\l'•i ·.~ >--: P~~lSO:·E:~~ lAD (2) f DTVFHJI\L ?-1! \r;~·~n.TI' ~L.A,\5 (i.il ')) ·Jli JC:'
.. t!~QLL~ED r..:_"\T .E ?L'C: r~ 1. 9 ·10'G, .,..,.. .,. 1: : ..:•: 1ln.O\i·:~- · \ T P '. ~so:.; ~~ :C L.L J L'~ c·~ ''}:·!

Si·n:z. ~!~CJt.~TT()! ~"'!. en· SUST,....,TLY "l'.:'LAr:ll ['" ~··. • -;-;--~ .. ," . .TS '''JU ' ~.. \ >. Of

'/J';L.; :TO~~ ·.\ ···:. EVFN '\Fl ...{ Rf':~rll' ·~ '"''r!.Ct 'l '\1 ( r~·p) ~ \: ~ Jl' 'Ll •,G :"':JLLO' . -

ED. ~"J·TL'T"· TO DO OT'l \G f:> ~:!::-r Y STir~7\':'- ,y· r·.~ '::.'. C''"'ST. ' ' · .-·1 . ".

·w ?LA.L''lF'? r··JJ'{Y POSED.; ~";'-\5:-'.\-L!: R!.S1Z

:·'..~:'-' ·\L._. ~5 r~) ~: ~ .• X s·~ :: IQ

E. S)

· r "'~. 11."5 ·r~ ·:;TQ'' ~IE!JIC\L C'J''f'ITTH'; :''~AT ?UT --:·•

A

~)::·'~1 :Is.: T ·'. 1 ..E:

~ · r...:.'\L 'IJ?P:'ITI )"~ \JHEN L"'?CS".:::! 10 ( l ") PL•\I 'Tl:"""' EXPOSURE : H t\TI:~) A SIJS-

r r•r. ST\i'IT:,'\L (:nSZ) ')l? I'·UGtY ~EC!\J;s ... o~~ ..IS ,~.,..,:'ICAt CD'-:')l TJO IS KOT r.:E SP.:"·!L

~>c,sr·o lO ~: r:"· ...,_1\L ')O'DU'\TJn· .

PL1\I':TIF'? r5.LLE~~ED :p· 1.S r~ Hf'l~J;.-'1 ·T

r'~\ , Gf.'t Or SERIOUS P"YS ICAL L'J UP.Y l\LL";-GF.i~ LO~:c n:·~;-i EXi)O SU~', :.: 'IC l'1lE ( ·IS) .

JURTSJlCTTr\ ~ ~rNU~

!1 . PL'l 'TTi"F l·l ·\S F··:y • ~. \l'S[ C'f .\CllO'~ FOt: THE V IOL.\1'1:. F HlS C:) S'l LTCTlO~~

RIGHT :\S _> ~OVIDED ,y ~~2 .... S.C. 1·~:3:: t>..'fD 1S 8 5 ~.s ~-'.... C. l'lHS C:::lU 1 .t'.S

se j.:c: c.s.c. "· '~'TIER J URis .,c:r-::-~- ~·:~s·:\:~T rc~ 2 8 .

1.: ~ 1.

1 3 ~13

1 .: . _ A ~ c.,

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 18 Filed 06/30/15 Page 2 of 7

III. Do your claims involve medical treatment? IV. Do you request a jury trial?
V. Do you request money damages? State the amount claimed?

Yes '~

No

,,

Yes '\

No

,.,

Yes

No

$ 25C 1 OO C· (actual/punitive)

VI. Are the wrongs alleged in your complaint continuing to occur? Yes X No

VTI. Grievance procedures:

A. Does your institution have an administrative or grievance procedure?

Yes X

No ---

B. Have the claims in this case been presented through an administrative or grievance

procedure within the institution?

Yes ~\

No_ __

C. If a grievance was filed, state the date your claims were presented, how they were presented, and the result ofthat procedure. (Attach a copy ofthe final result.)
I~R f iLED ON 3$2 6/14 DE~ I C U c qcc - 14-239
OFFE\'n l· ·~ GR l cVA·~ c F 4/ 9 /lL; C'\CC - 14-2 39

D. If you have not filed a grievance, state the reasons.

VIII. Previous civil actions:

A. Have you begun other cases in state or federal courts dealing with the same facts involved

inthiscase?

Yes

No-Y- -

B. Have you begun other cases in state or federal courts relating to the conditions of or

treatment while incarcerated?

Yes

No- K-. -

C. If your answer is "Yes," to either of the above questions, provide the following information for each case.

"' / A

(1) Style: - - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - -- - - -

(Plaintiff)

(Defendant)

(2) Date filed:_ _.!~:cJ!.!..f!..,:...- - - - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - -

2

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 18 Filed 06/30/15 Page 3 of 7

(3)Courtwherefiled: _ _ _~..,~a'----------------(4) Case Number and citation: n/a
---~--------------------
(5) Basic claim made: _ _ _ _n_!__a_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ____

(6) Dateofdisposition: _ _ _.n..:.:/......a:.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

(7) Disposition:

n a

(Pending) (on appeal) (resolved)

(8) Ifresolved, state whether for:_ _ n_/_a_ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ __

(Plaintiffor Defendant)

For additional cases, provide the above information in the same format on a separate page.

IX. Statement ofclaim:
A. State here as briefly as possible the facts ofyour claim. Describe how each named defendant is involved. Include the names of other persons involved, dates and places. Describe specifically the injuries incurred. Do not give legal arguments or cite cases or statutes. You may do that in Item "B" below. Ifyou allege related claims, number and set forth each claim in a separate paragraph. Use as much space as you need to state the facts. Attach extra sheets, ifnecessary. Unrelated separate claims should be raised in a separate civil action. Lr'\>:t'\Y DE:-J:JY i'"T .1\L , Tr:Rqy P/\GE, G FU S NC•rc, f0L"D ,,,n'{1·:·:

,q I 1\~1 i'f0\!T0'lr.:ME~Y , CF::-:~LY i-' ICH1~Y., Tr.'R \Y SL rTE. JI-1 0 ~0;.~AL l'HS . rHJ FF, STEV~:\ ~-, I BP.:<.GE~, t·I:{S . Pt\R'Z'-'U't ST, ~Ef\Oi·: ;~~:U,

B. State briefly your legal theory or cite appropriate authority: ALV~Gl'~G VIOLATT~ N OF Fl~ F I GHT AHE~~D. ~ IGH.T ':>~~')~I "3I T I~'~ AGA E·1 ST CRUF~L '· 11'WJ\SI. Piliq Slfl'-!E'; T ry P.XPOST'W :: n1 '1 0 C'TS) Tqt\ l C.<:<A.!TD A IN~1f '1T 1':!\''lGFC?. OF SERIV ES P4Y S I CAL I'UlnY TO L[IS };r::,~LT'l ?c S.\F2RY , THF "'Ffl\\il)A T(S) '" ATtUR."':: J") 'P Lt~CI PL.I\I ·,:Tll-F it: A SMO'\i~ FRYE [\VI 'W '-: "'!C:i TAL. L.IJURY POS ]) U\ R. EI\SO'.A- U~ R1 S'.Z Of : ·V~:.t .\LLEGt:S L0_1C ,,... ~1 r. , p ;)SV !l '!() ·r\' <.;tCO',")Hl\'~D S~·lO '{ic.. PL..\P,Tir.-F 1'-'.-'H:AL C0.\ '.11 .'IO\ T: l1\T PUr ? LA I ~T I~~;.· AT A C:: ·.U~ATEK t ?. Is··~ TLtA "f T ;1~ GENERAL P'JPLJT l Oq .~tl Ei{ EXP1JSED TO ( l~TS ) . EXPOSU'-U~ C'{C/{f ES A SU 6ST/\ \ 1 IAL , ·~IS () 0_, T. :dURY oECr\Usr•: ·'JF' HIS ~lEDTCAL CONDTT I 07\ IS \OT T"-lE SAi"T POSED TG GE;· ~AL PO?L'l.TIO:'-~ . 3
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 18 Filed 06/30/15 Page 4 of 7

THE I~

U~If~~ S T ~ TE DIST~ICT COU~T FJ~ TP~

,., 'SP·:·~· OIST neT ...·~• 'A.ISS')I.} n

!·:CCLc.SL\S I ICI\L

~~1\Sl-.I\GfO.'

'\

l"L'\! II."?(S)

I
)

~

\

I

'\

)

\

cr. ':.:>L:'.!:~T

PLAL'Tit"~ FIL·:·) ·\ tl2 •;.S.C.S. 1~".?

LA-nv ,..)E ..Y.. r~ ;y _:>-\Gr,--q_-~:~ ?_~_s·',C

r:-olFF R :

"',

-

~CTI'v: '~LLc!'';P7~ TH:\T UE:FE..iD•\.T(S)
~Ts .. ~~c: r.,T'):~D ·-_L\1\?P:.·:cRr DELJ"'-: '\T-.LY
-·- -- • " - - --·C:£" l s··:'HZL•: ~ ·~·;.

C?l_,r:L o:··:rs· ': en r.· -..-::>()_ .•.'-:!'IT .s~-"i)?n~TT"C »·::ISO'Tl

c. :_- ·l~S,'L

SL.'·l~i \.'i.Rf: PR! S\.J',il~

s pu· r· ..,,. r· "n 1 ?) )'D1 "" ..,, •'\~o.

,_

..ll•

"'!iL1t."..~.i'.\-L "~",,,,...., ..

.,.. .;_, , ~ "' "-. c·r'vJP)

- JC
I

•'I-J;-\n. .:..... I I

l :~'~~.

PI • •

- t""".\"..";'.~...rl...

"'

.;r z- S~IC'{'_ ?:U:F. 1·:··\'l.RO'·. ~-f

T)~T s o·::~,1 C 1 -~L 'J.LOC'·~ .\J,.; SH~~ :~. ~EGUU>.'fiO_·; 1.'1.:", \·.:. C:J.,~USL·..

.z :t ·" ; ·. ·_LY, ~"U)LJ\'lTJ, l"'f·s ·· L~t\L..

t.:: ·~·F nnt.·\Tl~~:, ,, .D !~Vl'\ :\ ~·· tl" ~ f .•CI.\·.t i.'

NCYI IC I HJ",T (P!P) ··z:\E NO l' 3Ll\~ FOLLO·T" C'.:. 11 ~UEf.' TO .~ c. :WT~ L>;G 'l'U -'.J.::r·:EDY

~;nu1,\i'10. t S C.\ . . CO'IIST .1\-.'IEt-cD. f

\C1I~~--- •LL~,GL,:G '1· t\l DE?E"7'"l/l,·~·f(s) ,. l·~··,c ·,c-C ·.J UDY IUf " ("C • '!RS.Pt.l"l I ' ~ 1 t. CC:\

iT ~l-<S. ~IC''P.'r ,cc ~· ,:,ns. 'P!V-r-:;:,\~Si' C'C~~

'!Y~l. .'J,-~-..---:JEL'fff;_,~~- .::Lr-IN-DYFFL~L--- --·---

:-rctr , -···-·-.-.----.....,.hlf'~ ·-- ~- - ,---·::- .,;;··-H..

r . S1\10 '{~ F t t~:£~: r-: ,·\:· I.~o ,rtE ,~r surP':Jt~ 1 I...,··

r·· G ! -DJ\)-rso\'J:'•,.._.~.', c:-">'"-.'i!' - ~L "· • .•1v. .s.. ~'\1._. PL·i

T \ " ' '-1'"'· \ (J'T '\f• ..

~ ioJ

(T'i''~

-

..

,·,.,.,.I ' \

··_\ r- i'-'E ·1·· C 'ER l"'[)JVl-1 ~ ll 1

1 •T"-' '-' !--\_.,,)

·.-;1-",'1,.~, p..·..:_.. r·;~:, ..,~1(

f ? ) .·\ .. \ . -

._\1

' l..,o1'v •\L

' "L'(l''') -Jtt,,''T'

1:'
1

·' [

,,

..r..

'\-1 .. c~·l"\ 'I' .

'

:

'

.

l
\

r'' j,.

(; ..

'

.·• • "

~o •

·'..-~!.4....r.. \T

_.:ccov T...:S=. CC.' C?. CCY~ :--. 1\S '( 0/L-:JGt: 'J" ?L'I Tiff' SPl:.CI~.L ~1ED1.C,L

~Hif.IL1l'Y

r;-c:nl) "'rc,us· ,s. sp:··r ':o1rc· -o " t·H:::-cAL pr~s.....~·: ::::.

\LL s-,\~r f· Fi'_ · ('.:..! .... ;

l'O T!.H1 ".Lt: n ~~·~:-: ,.,__.! 5.... ,,.., ~'? ~H ~. EfD ....r;·-, .,L~~r:TI/F 10 1\E 'iOUSl:n 1. t\ S~-f~ '.,

F <I:E E'\VT'{O: .;.n--:T.

:n· \CTT" ALLEGI \:G TF.\ T l') ~.7 !:·.-DI\'"~r S' i•H\. ~-ro· TO';i': ...

L' r• r •r.-, \ I~::> }'I.~Einl

, . .L..r-·. L 1'U':'l

•
•

;r)--•., • "I"_"!.V_

",

"

:',

'

l

"
o.J

v

·-·~• Lu- ~'-"v - · -

'~;:ii,E !) ..•!- -~AT~' I i!HF ?EL1··:·· C ~

~_-•_...• -~.·r_

. 'u

' I' )L'l ' S'!() l. ,

.' , ~ .

l-" . .,
-· , •, ...

l '

)

·

~·iF\T ~ SlJ? =>-:_:'tfi ~G PR 1SO

:"!L'EL "'· UN1..; ,\S:L PU'H SH:·I :· I CL \1'1 JE ~E "P'·!!S~)\ . -.. .t \S ( 2)

].\H)lllDUt.L 1 :A.\M-;E~II:NT PL\ S~T'I'J'\ ·' •:r. '·!~:()OI ~· ,., T 1 '\f ''1: R'·: :L"C~ D I , S'!'Y<r.

~·~,:E t::-·:I''C:.~[·::,f ?'FSQ'~E·~ C:SLL VJC~ ,'('..T S:lO·T 1\EGU L-'.'l'lot; ~F't: '::J~SLSTI:.i{LY

VI~.IL ·""" F.U.t-1. \:EH~. /•-..''" ti.. ')F \/J.'.lL.•\lfr>\ t\\D I~VL'~ AFT~~~~ Ri·.C: LVI:'C ·~Y! ''":t li'.'~T

( !:·F1 ) !f~l' .OT PFr-..G :::-OLL()',.;r:_::~ C.\ ll::u;:-n TO D0 I OTl-!. l ~t-: T~) F.'E~tEDY S 1UTATIO .. L: S C

.\ ~.::-;·;sT \>iF·-,r.. 8 FAIL-; ·~·:--· ~r:SPCl .•r\ TO TilE Rf:Pf.·i.":"·:.--1 ~F::··)'·i"P"·-,,.,Tl(l'~ BY !·lEPIC~L

r:--& ~>--:S0~i _L,:-!~. ~~O~T')C>lER"..' f'AI~H f0 S· ')·!HE To.::·;: "l-~.s~ \ ~ '.-,-.~'!RE -"' \JA:.l 1 .

U5. :;: '"

BY FA!LI -G 'l'C \CT 0: !N?ORl1.t\TI011~ I·''1C\rT0- - r 'T U .CT-)T. \CI

~ tt. .~CC_·A~-'~1~.~ 1:~ f ''I' l''!lS ~L4'f·TL. -1 •

. r:. o: .~~l~.?...: c ·: \ 1

T~_3_~_y

~.~Ly~:.'J. ~- .~) tlS_!, tJ_~_J_\~~.!i·..:·_L.J.~~-~~.?.:~.~Y._i~X' IS

~ c 2 \:t!e> )~ ' ....... n

_ · lN T ·.

c II\:_(~ ;

'l'!IE H~J:'~ U~-iTT

~1u :: u ,n .:[HE PERscr. \LLY

4

1 ,\fOL'/ED l'~ 'I.J;~ I::''='')'{:,\'"'.,T ~)~' lY'r '1!10\- T G POLlCV s~i Lt-iE 1-'U.! :JNlT OF ·](:r~ H~S.

•.:;s. _.1JF:': .J.:P?.1\':.J P LAL TI:-':' y;· B;:..l r\::L~D

..::NT BY PFr·-; r,':L!r~!:~l ~~rJ·· T D! ~F;;:R.E .C

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 18 Filed 06/30/15 Page 5 of 7

?E~SO'Ii\CL qAS SF:Yf' .~·~.,..I C E TC1 .\LL ST'\~' ~ \'i1) 'f.-f TLr;· :;rrrcr:- TO r·lH1

r,: 1U:'!. STA!?F oF t:EDIC_·\ L :~~~~cs ~~en~ Pl_.-"l'~TI 177 10

.lC'CSCJ .:.'< I,_ s~-:~~ :r

Oi-~Nf~T.

-\LF.G]·.c
~"_.L...:.. :~L . VL-t··

"fR.: l"j'

;

.··rH~H-'·:!--A-:-~..G.F-\,~~1/R·f~.G;R-r::·:-£-'-·:--

,Y~z.T>?.C;T,
·.r ·~-y['

~~~-

;E:·r; · 7 ':J, ~n. PCF? TTSSE ~)FFl C"'.q IS I,: c·AqG·':
. ·s:;---·-;~Icr~'S t;.IJ ~vC>P:~rD I'\ SE::u'~ l TY

H, :-_u ·; U:H T ,;EtC ?.,..') s o::ALLY P NJLVED I \ T' 'C E·;-r,;~F~i -~>:T 0!" Df' C. S~IC'·: I"JG PDL ICY

I ,~.

'1,

11

!

't.'.

'I'J'-·''-· u ·~··I1' ,pJr.c ·1Flcr.~·~"\

'
,

1_h'_1

_

·-

I'.R_.- _"\r

·'"~v'E·.n~..1-1~\--f-~~ ~-/."~~')~__;._,~..

..L.M :.~. '

•:_~J--1 ~~-S-'l-r~:~c4.'~1~'~.

•'I
•.:::..:..

'~!"1~-~'--!_·

L'··U· ·-~''-"~""-

) ~1'J'r-~\>.]

\TED' PLA.l IT lfF OG' 8 t 1 1\:V:::.. D ;) r" I

~ ""'.... '"'l.J .L

LS L PU <;H' T ;~y

OL:LlP. ~:<AT:;:LY r·.,Dlt'"FL:U:.lC.C fO PHSO~~~ ...~ ·•.ALT'- ~- 5."-.::c ~I"Y E·l r·~i\''·'QU .\l'EL'..' L/L;-0\C··

L:r; 1"-lE I'- DOC:{ Si'-J~j'·:l\:; 2.A :•: Tt-It:RE .,.,! -~ "'1 0 S L'1G i'l~: T') ry~rc.\ .5 :)\,\f~LE :'IG 'T LL:V .L

AX~.JU\T CF i:TS l' u~sr . ;)ri"JC"RS '_f>.,S Df~S')'-l/..1.. ·:\'O','U :'1C'L n . ')L:\l'lTJI;~ Yi~IIC\ L SP'C--

1 \L, .-\CCC)'•:NOuAf!r)\ t~OTl C F. ~"'m·l P Q.I S0~! 1-'~I::DI CAL S Ti\ ;."F ,\L~:RTI ·.~; t::J~.: U·,IT S'l.'\?f

Of r,w'~IC.\L :-<EP.D :'0>: ~n. \'AS HIYGTO'' HOIJSFD I:~ ~\ S:'-10'(1: "'": _;·F r:--NrWHC>.J'l, f'-1L

i!\:1.>!5 AR I S r.~:c FRO!'-~ I ' l: PLAI ..T l FF !\ST ':--1:\TIC SY~-: T·J:: t)ERL~· E~~-11. C~-~-) '\T~.;_::; ny r~;p:)~~\..1R!~
ro r~s.

T11 ::\T AS A DI 1U:CT t\:-lD PROIY,AT!o: ,\FSllLT 'Jfo L'1IE CC' 'DliCT ':? T' OS'" ')LFF ~:~\ITS PL ·\L-.Tl FF ~11\ 5 S U?~E-{ED ~·1E'i L·\L, Jl lYSic.~. L !\.'.D EM.Yf l OAL PAl:~ :'\'.) SUFr"E:H'•1G , ~. 'J 1• ?C~:V\'ITS I~. T :E /\ElOV:-: VJ :-:LATI('>; 0? STt\T[ :\' D ?i'rr::~.\l. L·\-~ T1',\T Tri'' CO ,r)liCT
OF DE 7 L>DA.:Ts C()L~STUTFD C·WEL .,, t.,;~.~lSl·L :?lJ),J S ''T:~T ~y Jl.LI"' :·<.\1LL Y r::~•lFF':ll~ :1 TO 'P~TS:~·s:') :'lEr:T~ TD "\L '10~- SF.~ 1·-: ;., 5:•;0'-\'7 7 r{""r,' r· vr~o·: r·;T r'EFEND!',.':TS L~ VIL~TIO.\ OF P:{ f SO .~L:{ ~UG.~r S~ClSJC~..! :-!Y fHE St.1 :\~!.:::~ -'· T') THt: C'):~sr. l"'!c' T• -~U.S .

·n.r:;:n 'f>-lAf f!T~: CO\'DUCl' ')? ~::?,!O'L'::..D,\''TS D~'fY'ZI1fELI Tl'!:: 'JLb,I'.TI'.:T OF ';IS

p:nVTLEGE S o, H!NlTIZS Si-CURE') T8 ::r:,, PY fl'E ;_:ilFT. 1 <l, ?C'.::HEF~,Tl: :\N;.: .D . TO '1'!-1?

r-rr.: .. CO''ST . OF TPF. UNT'f?l) ST·\T.~' ,

,.-;;-p···"A.':rT ~ t\Tl')~l!: ·F:Sc'n~:~.r 1\CflCJ\'S '·TAvr:

C'\US:~ PL\P'TIFr:' T8 SIJFFT'=I DA"lAGES .

GE~IIF I CA1 E 0? SEJVIC

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 18 Filed 06/30/15 Page 6 of 7

X. Relief: State brieflyexactly what you want the court to do for you. Make no legal arguments.

.r -.· z::.F'\L: ~-~w-.1 s ' t.L r·..r, TOI~ACC~"J p ·to:J'JCTS

11.LL rY:c ?, CRee TliAT T' 1t. HO'< <" ~LF JU DG[

CE' TPE corr:~T TO :1~Df:ZS TO~ACC:' P'i.O!JU·:::TS TA!ZE OUT :)<=' C ~CC ~- OVE~{ CO.~i{ C ETIO;•J

Ct "'TE ~ P-FCAUSL.: ALL TI·H~ OF::"E:.,DT' A:·o PRISm: A;\'D ~1'1 • "A.St.'I".JCTT~ "~<'1\CE S P 1\ lBt, T

D!t,\';_\ES OD SERF)!]$ PPYSIC -<\L I.\ J URY "• -liS '..0'\'LYI! J IU.. "· :~: PU5J"' t ( .L~;,r} TFAT

XL

Counsel:

AS S?-~A1ES
/o. ~; r.. '··. \!.'. 'll.A! '\ ~ ' '?'\.. L"'\ .:_"\l I ~

SU 0 STA~:TT.AL .~IS'·: 'J?

c n··oTTl,..,J'•' I<' C>JJl!..J, '-;..·1f•'•T(..1A-\ ft...

J . , ..L

;:)

1

: J t:~Y ~' ""'j~'
• \ \)

'li'C'·\LIS~·

s.~\l -l; <>.l~'f

• ••

-

l • • - .'\.

Of HIS .\ST?-1'\TIC

'1'0 P
-

Q

C~

J

'
'

D
•

-

;
•

;

,••"i

·';I

..
4--

,lA ...

L

:7'iPULI\T f. Of\ . PLA J''Tll.' 't;' ALLE'::: r ~c ·:·:.r >", T rF S CCJ : t:- I .. ;'Ml;J~T C .~ I<:\TES

A. Ifsomeone other than a lawyer is assisting you in preparing this case, state the person's S~~-:IOU S

name.·-

-

--

-

--

-

-.

.

I

..

,

L..

-

--

-

--

-

-

-

-

--

-

-

-

-

-

-U Y-' :":!

T'"'. ~N Eti. L'I',I

J:;T~·.zs.
B. Have you made any effort to contact a private lawyer to determine if he or she would

represent you in this civil action?

Yes No_1;__

If your answer is "Yes," state the names(s) and address(es) of each lawyer contacted.

C. Have you previously had a lawyer representing you in a civil action in this court?

Yes

No

Ifyour answer is "Yes," state the name and address of the lawyer.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
11 t 5 FAST PE''C l· -:OA f)S
CAMERON MTSSOU{I S6429
4 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 18 Filed 06/30/15 Page 7 of 7

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION

ECCLESIASTICAL DENZEL WASHINGTON
Plaintiff,
v.
LARRY DENNEY, et al.
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2:14-cv-06118-NKL ) ) ) )

ORDER

Following entry of a jury verdict against them, [Doc. 171], Defendants Denney, Pash,

Prudden, and Richey renew their request for judgment as a matter of law, and in the alternative,

they request a new trial. [Doc. 180]. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

I. Background Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington brought this case for violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various officials at Crossroads Correctional Center where he has been confined since 2010. Washington alleged that these officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to take reasonable steps to abate the risk of harm that secondhand smoke poses to him. Washington alleged that his long history of asthma and other respiratory conditions exacerbates these risks.
At trial, Washington presented evidence about his medical conditions, as well as evidence that he is regularly exposed to tobacco smoke due to smoking inside Crossroads despite an official policy prohibiting smoking inside the prison; Crossroads’ repeated refusal to permit Washington to use a medically prescribed mask; and Crossroads’ refusal to assign him a
1 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 195 Filed 06/26/17 Page 1 of 11

nonsmoking cellmate. After a three-day jury trial, the jury found in Washington’s favor and against four of the five defendants: Larry Denney, Ronda Pash, Cyndi Prudden, and Cheryl Richey.1 The jury awarded $40,000 in compensatory damages and imposed a total of $71,000 in punitive damages as follows: $20,000 against Denney; $25,000 against Pash; $25,000 against Prudden; and $1,000 against Richey. [Doc. 171].
II. Discussion A. Judgment as a Matter of Law Defendants argue they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there was
insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. “Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate if there is no legally sufficient evidentiary
basis for a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party.” Equal Employment Opportunity Com’n v. Kohler Co., 335 F.3d 766, 772 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he law places a high standard on overturning a jury verdict because of the danger that the jury’s rightful province will be invaded when judgment as a matter of law is misused.” Hunt v. Neb. Public Power Dist., 282 F.3d 1021, 1029 (8th Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted). “Where conflicting inferences reasonably can be drawn from the evidence, it is the role of the jury, not the court, to determine which inference shall be drawn.” Id. The Eighth Circuit describes the district court’s task on such a motion as requiring the court to:
(1) consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, (2) assume that all conflicts in the evidence were resolved in favor of the prevailing party, (3) assume as proved all facts that the prevailing party’s evidence tended to prove, (4) give the prevailing party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may
1 The jury found in favor of Defendant Amy Parkhurst. [Doc. 171, p. 1]. 2
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 195 Filed 06/26/17 Page 2 of 11

be reasonably drawn from the facts provided. That done, the court must then deny the motion if reasonable persons could differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. E.E.O.C., 335 F.3d at 772 (internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]t is improper to overturn a jury verdict unless, after giving the nonmoving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in the nonmoving party’s favor, there still exists a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached so that no reasonable juror could have found for the moving party.” Hunt, 282 F.2d at 1029. 1. The 1983 Verdict Washington’s Eighth Amendment claim required him to prove that (1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical need, and (2) that Defendants knew of the need but deliberately disregarded it. Johnson v. Hamilton, 452 F.3d 967, 972-73 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997)). The deliberate indifference prong requires that the defendant knew of and disregarded “an excessive risk to inmate health or safety” and knew that his “conduct was inappropriate in light of that risk.” Letterman v. Does, 789 F.3d 856, 861 (8th Cir. 2015). The plaintiff “need not necessarily show that the actor actually knew of the substantial risk of harm to an inmate; the district court can infer knowledge if the risk was obvious.” Id. For instance, “the obvious inadequacy of a response . . . may support an inference that the officer recognized the inappropriateness of his conduct.” Krout v. Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557 (8th Cir. 2009). “For a claim of deliberate indifference, ‘the prisoner must show more than negligence, more even than gross negligence, and mere disagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” Popoalii v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995)).
3 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 195 Filed 06/26/17 Page 3 of 11

Defendants argue that the only evidence Washington offered “was that he believed they were deliberately indifferent,” and his mere belief is not sufficient evidence. [Doc. 180, p. 3]. The Court rejects this argument because the evidence offered at trial shows otherwise. At trial, Washington presented evidence that he has filed at least eight informal resolution requests and grievance appeals related to his respiratory condition and secondhand smoke. Documents attached to those requests and appeals showed how smoke affects Washington’s asthma, leading to attacks that were greater in frequency and severity. Defendants admitted at trial that they knew about Washington’s asthma and smoke’s effects on it. See Trial Tr. [Doc. 183, p. 139:1921; p. 148:25-149:2 (Defendant Pash admitting that Washington made known his concerns about secondhand smoke through grievances)]; [Doc. 184, p. 230:9-16 (Defendant Denney admitting that he knew about Washington’s smoke concerns and asthma based on his written reports)]; [Doc. 184, p. 292:8-21 (Defendant Prudden admitting she has seen documents showing Washington’s respiratory conditions and smoke concerns)]; [Doc. 185, p. 384:24-385:3; 386:12387:17 (Defendant Richey admitting that Washington complained that a cellmate was smoking in his cell and she had access to his medical lay-ins that required he have a non-smoking cellmate)]. Based on the foregoing, a jury could reasonably conclude that Defendants knew Washington suffered from an objectively serious medical need to avoid smoke.2
2 For the first time in their Reply, Defendants additionally contend that they “did not violate Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights.” [Doc. 192, p. 3 of 6]. Defendants assert that “[t]here is no case law that would put these Defendants on notice that the constitution required them to take steps to change the policy.” [Doc. 192, p. 4 of 6]. Although Defendants never specifically identify this newly-raised argument, Defendants appear to be arguing that they are entitled to qualified immunity. However, this defense was not argued in Defendants’ brief in chief. Therefore, the Court “will not consider the argument as it is well settled that we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” Bearden v. Lemon, 475 F.3d 926, 930 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks removed).
4 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 195 Filed 06/26/17 Page 4 of 11

Defendants next argue that Washington failed to present evidence that their responses to his serious medical need were unreasonable. [Doc. 180, p. 4]. However, Washington presented evidence showing that Defendants failed to make any changes to the smoking policy, its enforcement, or even tried any pilot programs that would reduce his exposure to smoke. See, e.g., [Doc. 183, p. 131:16-17 (Defendant Pash testifying that she could pilot a program to prevent offenders from having cigarettes and lighters in their cells)]. Washington asked Defendants to, among other things, change the smoking policy to prohibit smoking at Crossroads altogether, move the designated smoking area away from the entrance to Crossroads’ inmate medical facility, assign him nonsmoking cellmates, and permit him to wear a surgical mask to reduce his smoke exposure. Defendants admitted that they received, reviewed, and denied each of these requests and appeals. That is, despite knowing that Washington had asthma and that smoke seriously exacerbated this condition, Defendants denied each of his requests to abate the risks of harm from continued exposure to smoke.
Defendants do not dispute that they knew of Washington’s serious medical need. Instead, they argue that their knowing failure to act does not amount to “disregarding” the risk smoke poses to Washington’s health. Defendants appear to argue that any response to Washington’s grievances—even a denial and refusal to make any changes—is sufficient to discharge their legal duties. See [Doc. 180, p. 4]. The Court disagrees. Repeatedly denying Washington’s requests in no way reduces the serious risks smoke poses to him, reasonably or otherwise. In their reply, Defendants respond by contending that they changed Washington’s cellmate, that they “ensured that the ventilation system did not operate the way [Washington] claimed,” and that they “ensured that the designated smoking area was not within twenty-five feet of the smoking area.” [Doc. 192, p. 2-3 of 6]. Here, Defendants attempt to argue that any
5 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 195 Filed 06/26/17 Page 5 of 11

conflict in the evidence at trial should be resolved in their favor and shows their responses were reasonable. However, on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, Defendants must show that no reasonable juror could conclude based on all of the evidence presented that Defendants’ responses were unreasonable and constituted deliberate indifference. Regardless of whether Defendants took any “extra measures” to protect Washington, [Doc. 192, p. 3 of 6], as already discussed, Washington presented evidence sufficient to permit the jury to reasonably conclude that Defendants’ responses were unreasonable—that Defendants deliberately disregarded his serious medical needs.
Next, Defendants contend that Washington failed to present evidence sufficient to prove causation—specifically that, as a direct result of Defendants’ deliberate indifference, Washington suffered harm. Again, this contention is not supported by the record. At trial, the jury heard Dr. Karen Epperson testify by deposition that secondhand smoke causes asthma attacks, that Washington complained about being exposed to secondhand smoke, and that Washington was treated for asthma attacks. Washington testified that his continued exposure to secondhand smoke increases the frequency and severity of his attacks. See, e.g., [Doc. 183, p. 37:24-38:2; 38:19-39:5; 52:14-25)]. He described what those attacks are like for him. [Doc. 183, p. 37:1923]. Four other Crossroads inmates who have witnessed Washington’s asthma attacks in the past corroborated this testimony. See [Doc. 184, p. 181:3-11; 194:23-195:7; 204:17-22; 216:19217:22]. Two of those witnesses admitted specifically that smoking in the cell with Washington present caused Washington to suffer asthma attacks. See [Doc. 184, p. 194:17-195:12; 204:122]. Although Defendants presented some evidence at trial that Washington may not even have asthma, the jury also heard evidence refuting this contention, including pages of medical records showing that Washington has been seen, diagnosed, and treated for asthma since at least 1997.
6 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 195 Filed 06/26/17 Page 6 of 11

Therefore, resolving this conflict of the evidence in favor of the prevailing party, there was
sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that Defendants’ deliberate
indifference to Washington’s serious medical needs caused him harm.
2. The Punitive Damages Award
In actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, punitive damages may only be awarded when
a defendant’s conduct “is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves
reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” Schaub v. VonWald,
638 F.3d 905, 922 (8th Cir. 2011). “Punitive damages punish a defendant for outrageous,
intentional, or malicious conduct, and deter similar extreme conduct in the future.” Id. at 922-23.
Accordingly, the Court instructed the jury at trial that if it was proved that a defendant’s conduct:
was malicious or recklessly indifferent to the plaintiff’s serious medical need to be free from exposure to secondhand smoke, then you may, but are not required to, award the plaintiff an additional amount as punitive damages for the purpose of punishing the defendant for engaging in such misconduct and deterring the defendant and others from engaging in such misconduct in the future.
In determining whether to award punitive damages, you should consider whether the defendant’s conduct was reprehensible. In this regard, you may consider whether the harm suffered by the plaintiff was physical or economic or both; whether there was intentional malice or reckless disregard for human health or safety; whether the defendant’s conduct that harmed the plaintiff also caused harm or posed a risk of harm to others; and whether there was any repetition of the wrongful conduct and past conduct of the sort that harmed the plaintiff.
[Doc. 167, p. 26-29]. The jury found that Washington was entitled to a punitive damages award
from Richey, Pash, Denney, and Prudden. These defendants, however, argue that the Court
should amend the jury’s verdict to remove the punitive damages award because there was
insufficient evidence to support a punitive damages instruction. The Court rejects this position.
As discussed below, the record reflects sufficient evidence supporting a punitive damages
instruction as to each of these defendants.
7
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 195 Filed 06/26/17 Page 7 of 11

Defendant Richey testified to her conversations with Washington about smoking at Crossroads, during which he asked to be moved and requested a nonsmoking cellmate. She testified that she had access to his medical lay-ins, which required Washington to be given a nonsmoking cellmate; knew about asthma and had previously witnessed individuals suffering asthma attacks; and was aware of Washington’s asthma. [Doc. 185, p. 387:5-10; 388:10-25; 393:24-394:14]; see also [Doc. 184, p. 235:10-22 (Defendant Denney testifying that Richey was responsible for reviewing lay-ins and assigning cellmates to Washington)]. She admitted knowledge of Washington’s complaints that his cellmate was smoking in their shared cell. [Doc. 185, p. 384:24-385:3; 386:12-387:17 (Defendant Richey admitting that Washington complained that a cellmate was smoking in his cell and she had access to his medical lay-ins that required he have a non-smoking cellmate)]. Finally, evidence showed that Richey had access to potential cellmates’ smoking infractions. From this evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that Richey could have run a search to determine whether the inmates she assigned to share Washington’s cell were likely to cause him to have a life-threatening asthma attack. However, she failed to do so, which the jury could reasonably find to show reckless indifference.
Defendant Pash testified that she had been the warden at Crossroads since 2014 and deputy warden at Crossroads from 2007 to 2012. As previously discussed, she testified that she “could try to pilot something” related to changing the tobacco policy at Crossroads and that Washington had made known his concerns about secondhand smoke through grievances. [Doc. 183, p. 131:16-17; 139:19-21; 148:25-149:2]. However, she did not try to pilot any changes to the smoking policy. Evidence was also presented that Washington was supposed to have a nonsmoking cellmate, according to instructions from Medical from 1997 to at least September 12, 2015. Evidence was also presented showing that during Pash’s tenure at Crossroads, several
8 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 195 Filed 06/26/17 Page 8 of 11

of Washington’s cellmates had received smoking violations prior to being assigned as Washington’s cellmates, despite Washington’s medical lay-in requiring a nonsmoking cellmate. [Doc. 183, p. 141:25-144:18]. Based on this evidence, a jury could reasonably conclude that Pash behaved with reckless indifference in denying all of Washington’s requests.
Defendant Denney testified that he was warden at Crossroads from 2007 to 2014. [Doc. 184, p. 222:15-17]. He testified that he was aware of Washington’s asthma and his filed grievances about secondhand smoke, as well as his lay-ins for nonsmoking cellmates. [Doc. 184, p. 234:3-21]. Defendant Denney denied Washington’s appeal about secondhand smoke at Crossroads, finding Washington’s allegations of smoking inside to be “meritless.” [Doc. 184, p. 231:7-232:5]. Evidence was then presented that Denney was copied on a notice sent out by a housing unit supervisor, reminding staff and inmates about the nonsmoking policy indoors at Crossroads. [Doc. 184, p 232:9-233:17]. From this evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that Denney was aware that the nonsmoking policy was repeatedly violated by both staff and inmates, and yet Denney denied Washington’s appeal as “meritless.” Evidence was also presented showing that during Denney’s tenure at Crossroads, at least one of Washington’s cellmates had received several smoking violations, including a violation just a few months prior to being assigned as Washington’s cellmate, despite Washington’s lay-in requiring a nonsmoking cellmate. [Doc. 184, p. 236:16-237:8].
Defendant Prudden testified to having seen individuals suffer asthma attacks, having seen Washington’s grievance appeals, and being aware of his complaints about his respiratory conditions. [Doc. 184, p. 292:2-21]. Evidence was presented showing that Prudden had denied three of Washington’s grievance appeals, including about allegations that she did not investigate but still rejected as lacking merit, see, e.g., [Doc. 184, p. 307:20-308:4 (rejecting Washington’s
9 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 195 Filed 06/26/17 Page 9 of 11

grievance about staff smoking within 25 feet of Medical, despite testifying that she “d[idn’]t think” “anyone actually went to Crossroads to investigate this.”)]; [Doc. 184, p. 293:1-210:13 (Prudden discussing Washington’s grievance appeals and her denials of them)]. For example, Prudden’s grievance response stated, “[Y]ou are not being permitted by custody staff to have a face mask that was approved by medical. . . .Your complaint and pertinent information have been reviewed. I concur with the response you received at the grievance level. It was determined that a mask was not a necessity and you shall not be allowed to possess one. . . . if you need immediate assistance, you can self-declare a medical emergency for immediate medical care.” [Doc. 184, p. 301:4-306:6]. Prudden went on to testify that she denied his grievance for a mask because he did not need one due to Crossroads being a nonsmoking environment, despite admitting that the nonsmoking policy inside Crossroads was violated and admitting that “there have been a lot of conduct violations.” [Doc. 184, p. 304:1-305:5]. Again, a jury could reasonably conclude from this evidence that Pash behaved with reckless or callous indifference to Washington’s serious medical needs.
“[I]t is improper to overturn a jury verdict unless, after giving the nonmoving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in the nonmoving party’s favor, there still exists a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached so that no reasonable juror could have found for the moving party.” Hunt v. Neb. Public Power Dist., 282 F.3d 1021, 1029 (8th Cir. 2002). As discussed above, there is evidence as to each of these defendants tending to prove that they not only acted with deliberate indifference to Washington’s serious medical needs, but that they acted with reckless or callous indifference. Where, as here, “conflicting inferences reasonably can be drawn from the evidence, it is the role of the jury, not the court, to determine which inference shall be drawn.” Id.
10 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 195 Filed 06/26/17 Page 10 of 11

B. Alternative Motion for a New Trial Defendants do not provide any additional evidence or argument as to why they are entitled to a new trial. Therefore, because the Court finds that Washington presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict in its entirety, Defendants’ alternative motion for a new trial is denied.

III. Conclusion Defendants Richey, Pash, Prudden, and Denney’s renewed motion for judgment as a
matter of law, or in the alternative, motion for a new trial, [Doc. 180], is denied.

Dated: June 26, 2017 Jefferson City, Missouri

/s/ Nanette K. Laughrey NANETTE K. LAUGHREY United States District Judge

11 Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 195 Filed 06/26/17 Page 11 of 11

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION

ECCLESIASTICAL DENZEL WASHINGTON
Plaintiff, v. LARRY DENNEY, et al.
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2:14-cv-06118-NKL ) ) ) )

ORDER Following entry of a jury verdict in his favor, Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington moves under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for an award of attorney fees, costs, and expenses. The Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part.

I. Background Plaintiff Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington brought this case against various officials at
Crossroads Correctional Center, where he has been confined since 2010, for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Washington alleged that the officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in failing to take reasonable steps to abate the risk of harm that secondhand smoke poses to him due to his history of asthma.
At trial, Mr. Washington presented evidence about his medical conditions, as well as evidence that he regularly is exposed to tobacco smoke due to Crossroads’ inconsistent enforcement of its policy prohibiting smoking inside the prison, Crossroads’ repeated refusal to permit Mr. Washington to use a medically prescribed mask, and Crossroads’ refusal to assign him a nonsmoking cellmate. After a three-day jury trial, the jury found in favor of Mr.

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 217 Filed 10/03/17 Page 1 of 17

Washington and against Defendants Larry Denney, Ronda Pash, Cyndi Prudden, and Cheryl Richey (collectively, “Defendants”). The jury awarded $40,000 in compensatory damages and imposed an additional $71,000 in punitive damages. The jury found against Mr. Washington only as to his claim against defendant Amy Parkhurst.
On June 26, 2017, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. Doc. 195.
On September 21, 2017, upon the parties’ joint motion, the Court entered an order for postjudgment injunctive relief, requiring the Missouri Department of Corrections, on or before April 1, 2018, (i) to amend its smoking policy to prohibit the sale, possession, and consumption of all tobacco products—except for authorized religious purposes—inside correctional buildings and on the grounds inside the correctional perimeter in each of the specified facilities, and (ii) to thereafter enforce that policy. Doc. 215.
As the prevailing party, Mr. Washington moves for $255,093 in attorney fees, $4,492.70 in costs, and $5,306.91 in additional expenses.1 Mr. Washington requests attorney fees for the two primary attorneys, Michael Foster (at $320 and $350 an hour) and Phillip Zeeck (at $260 and $290 per hour),2 as well as two other senior attorneys, three paralegals, a paralegal assistant, and a case manager in Litigation Services who assisted in the case. The breakdown of requested hours is as follows:
1 Plaintiff moved in the alternative for a lesser amount in attorneys’ fees if his motion for injunctive relief were to be denied. Doc. 176 at 3. Because the Court now has ordered postjudgment injunctive relief as requested by the parties, the Court will not consider the alternative request for lower fees. 2 Both attorneys’ hourly rates increased during this litigation: Mr. Foster’s increased from $320 to $350, and Mr. Zeeck’s increased from $260 to $290.
2
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 217 Filed 10/03/17 Page 2 of 17

Shareholder R.S. Jones Shareholder K.C. Volpi Shareholder M. Foster Associate M. Foster Associate P. Zeeck Associate P. Zeeck Paralegal T. Tan Paralegal K.K. Murray Paralegal J.P. Thies Paralegal Asst. R.T. Brann Litigation Svcs. Case Mgr. S.L. Pateidl GRAND TOTAL

1.90 hours 4.00 hours 285.60 hours 15.60 hours 339.50 hours 58.90 hours 2.00 hours 13.40 hours 91.70 hours 35.70 hours 31.50 hours 879.80 hours

$550/hour $365/hour $350/hour $320/hour $290/hour $260/hour $210/hour $220/hour $215/hour $130/hour $195/hour $255,093.00

Mr. Washington also seeks reimbursement of monies paid for transportation, document

reproduction, court reporter fees, meals, deposition transcripts, filing fees, and clothing that Mr.

Washington wore at trial.

II. Discussion Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, courts may award “a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the
costs” to a “prevailing party” in cases brought under § 1983. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). However, in prisoners’ rights cases, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes limitations on the attorney fees that a prevailing plaintiff can recover. The PLRA’s provisions relating to attorney fees apply to “any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, in which attorney’s fees are authorized under section 1988.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1).
Defendants do not dispute that Mr. Washington is the prevailing party and therefore entitled to reasonable fees under § 1988. However, Defendants argue that the PLRA requires the Court to: (i) limit the hourly rate to 150 percent of the amount established for this time period by the Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference; (ii) reduce any fees awarded for work performed by

3

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 217 Filed 10/03/17 Page 3 of 17

support staff in proportion to their market rate relative to that of attorneys; (iii) apply the statutory cap of $166,500 to the total award; (iv) apply twenty-five percent of Mr. Washington’s monetary judgment to satisfy the amount of attorney fees; (v) limit any award to those fees directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation; and (vi) limit the fee award based on Mr. Washington’s success relative to his claims against eighteen individuals, most of whom he dismissed prior to submitting the case to the jury.
The basis for any fee award under § 1988 is the lodestar calculation, the product of the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation and a reasonable hourly rate. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) (“The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.”); Hanig v. Lee, 415 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (“The starting point in determining attorney fees is the lodestar, which is calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable hourly rates.”). The PLRA has altered the lodestar calculation method in prisoner rights cases in three ways. “First, rather than hours reasonably expended in the litigation, hours used to determine the fee award are limited to those that are (1) directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff’s rights and (2) either proportionately related to court-ordered relief or directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing such relief.” Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1)). Second, the hourly rate used for the attorney fee award cannot exceed 150 percent of the hourly rate used for paying appointed counsel under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3)). Finally, to the extent the plaintiff obtains a monetary judgment, the attorney fees award cannot exceed 150 percent of that judgment. See
4
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 217 Filed 10/03/17 Page 4 of 17

§ 1997e(d)(2)). The party seeking the award must submit documentation supporting the requested
amount, making a good faith effort to exclude hours that are excessive, redundant or otherwise unnecessary. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. Reimbursement for reasonable expenses of the kind a law firm ordinarily would bill its client may be included in an attorney fee award under § 1988. See Williams v. ConAgra Poultry Co., 113 F. App’x 725, 728 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting that “travel expenses for attorneys” and other “expenses that a law firm normally would bill to its client” are “properly characterized as part of an attorney’s fees award”); Sapa Najin v. Gunter, 857 F.2d 463, 465 (8th Cir. 1988) (“Reasonable expenses of litigation incurred by counsel on the prevailing side can be awarded as part of the fees due under Section 1988.”).
A. Applicable Hourly Rates 1. Attorneys
The PLRA limits the hourly rate for attorney fees to no “greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established under section 3006A of title 18 for payment of court-appointed counsel.” § 1997e(d)(3). The rate established under § 3006A of Title 18 for the relevant time period is $129 per hour for attorneys. See United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, CJA Information, available at http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cja-information.3 Therefore, the maximum rate an attorney may charge under the PLRA is $129 x 1.5, or $193.50 per hour.
There are a number of factors that would have warranted using a higher rate to calculate the lodestar figure. Plaintiff’s counsel’s billing rates, which far exceed the $193.50 rate cap, are in line with market rates for comparable attorneys in Kansas City (see Doc. 176-4) and appear
3 The parties agree that $129 is the applicable rate. 5
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 217 Filed 10/03/17 Page 5 of 17

both reasonable and fair, given counsel’s years of experience, superior preparation, and skill. The primary attorneys, Mr. Foster and Mr. Zeeck, performed admirably and obtained excellent results for their client at trial. However, the PLRA prevents the Court from calculating the attorneys’ fees using a rate greater than $193.50. Accordingly, the Court will use that maximum rate for all of the attorneys in calculating the lodestar figure.
2. Support Staff The PLRA is silent with respect to compensation for work performed by paralegals and similar support staff. See Hall v. Terrell, 648 F. Supp. 2d 1229, 1235 (D. Colo. 2009) (citing 165 A.L.R. Fed. 551 § 2(b)); Ilick v. Miller, 68 F. Supp. 2d 1169, 1179 (D. Nev. 1999) (noting that “the PLRA is silent with respect to fees allowed to paralegals”). As such, “courts have used their own discretion” in determining appropriate rates for such staff. Hall, 648 F. Supp. 2d at 1235. Mr. Washington’s legal team included three paralegals with billable hourly rates of $210, $215, and $220, a paralegal assistant with a billable hourly rate of $130, and a litigation services case manager with a billable hourly rate of $195. The publications provided by plaintiff’s counsel establish that the firm’s billing rates for these individuals and the attorneys who worked on this case are in line with average rates in the Kansas City market. Compare Doc. 176-3 at 26 with Doc. 176-4 at 6 (rates for the primary plaintiff’s counsel average to 305/hour, while average attorney rate in Kansas City is $355/hour; rates for plaintiffs’ support staff range from $130 to $220, while average support staff in Kansas City range from $70 to $298). Because these rates are reasonable, the Court will determine the appropriate PLRA rate for the support staff by drawing comparisons between the firm billing rates for the support staff on the one hand and the firm billing rates for the attorneys on the other hand. Since each of the attorneys has had his
6
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 217 Filed 10/03/17 Page 6 of 17

billing rate artificially depressed by the PLRA’s rate cap, the Court will use the lowest attorney rate, $260 per hour for attorney Zeeck, as the basis for the paralegal-to-attorney rate ratio, because that is the attorney rate closest to the PLRA’s $193.50 rate. The Court then will determine a “PLRA” rate for the paralegals by reducing each paralegal’s actual rate in proportion to the amount that the PLRA has reduced attorney Zeeck’s rate. To illustrate:

x (PLRA paralegal rate)

$210 (firm rate for paralegal)

=

$193.50 (PLRA attorney rate)

$260 (firm rate for attorney Zeeck)

$193.50 x $210 x =
$260
or, x = $156.29
Applying the PLRA cap to the support staff billing rates in this fashion produces billing
rates as follows:

Staff Paralegal Tan Paralegal Murray Paralegal Thies Paralegal Assistant Brann Litigation Services Case Manager Pateidl

Formula 193.5 x 210/260 193.5 x 220/260 193.5 x 215/260 193.5 x 130/260 193.5 x 195/260

Rate $156.29 $163.73 $160.01 $96.75 $145.13

The Courts finds these rates reasonable under the structure imposed by the PLRA.
Awarding fees in this manner for the support staff rewards plaintiff’s attorneys’ “cost-
effective delivery of legal services.” See Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 (1989) (“By 7

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 217 Filed 10/03/17 Page 7 of 17

encouraging the use of lower cost paralegals rather than attorneys wherever possible, permitting market-rate billing of paralegal hours ‘encourages cost-effective delivery of legal services and, by reducing the spiraling costs of civil rights litigation, furthers the policies underlying civil rights statutes.”); see also Perez v. Cate, 632 F.3d 553, 556 (9th Cir. 2011) (awarding paralegal fees “at the market rate” to extent permitted under the PLRA). Defendants, too, benefit from having the approximately 20% of the legal work performed by the support staff billed at lower rates.4 At the same time, reducing the paralegal’s rates in light of the PLRA cap on attorney rates is in keeping with the legislative intent behind the PLRA. See, e.g., Roberson v. Brassell, 29 F. Supp. 2d 346, 353 (S.D. Tex. 1998) (reducing paralegal rates “in line with the attorneys’ reduced rates”); Laube v. Allen, 506 F. Supp. 2d 969, 989 (M.D. Ala. 2007). (“[T]his court reads the PLRA to prohibit paralegal rates in excess of [the cap] but to permit whatever lesser rate would be considered reasonable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).”); Ilick v. Miller, 68 F. Supp. 2d 1169, 1179–80 (D. Nev. 1999) (“Leaving the rates charged for paralegal and law clerk work at the pre-PLRA levels while reducing attorneys rates to $112.50 per hour as dictated by the PLRA is, to say the least, disproportionate. . . . Given the clear congressional intent behind the enactment of the fee caps in the PLRA, the court has little choice but to reduce the fees allowed for law clerks and paralegals to some degree.”).
B. Number of Hours “Directly & Reasonably Incurred” The PLRA requires the Court to order reimbursement of only those attorneys’ fees that were “directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation” of Mr. Washington’s rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1). Defendants argue that the Court accordingly should reduce Mr. 4 Of the 879.8 hours for which Plaintiff seeks compensation, 174.30 hours were billed by support staff.
8
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 217 Filed 10/03/17 Page 8 of 17

Washington’s attorney fees because (1) plaintiff spent time unnecessarily developing claims against defendants who later were dismissed from the case; (2) plaintiff’s legal team was overstaffed; and (3) plaintiff drafted a proposed second amended complaint that was never filed.
At the outset of this litigation, Mr. Washington sued approximately seventeen individuals. Prior to trial, he notified defense counsel that he would dismiss six of those defendants. At the end of the second day of trial, Mr. Washington dismissed another six defendants. At trial, Mr. Washington succeeded on his claims against four of the five remaining defendants.
The Court rejects Defendants’ argument that fees for work allegedly performed in pursuing defendants who ultimately were dismissed from the case should not be shifted. Defendants do not identify a single entry in plaintiff’s counsel’s invoice that reflects time spent investigating any of the dismissed defendants. In contrast, plaintiff’s counsel represent that they did not expend resources developing claims exclusively against those defendants.5 Plaintiff conducted no discovery, including depositions, as to those individuals and, after preliminarily reviewing relevant documents, counsel repeatedly urged Mr. Washington to dismiss those individuals prior to trial. The Court therefore will not deduct any billed time on this ground.
Defendants also argue that Mr. Washington’s counsel “overstaffed” the case and assert that “it is not clear that all of the meetings, emails, and phone calls between Mr. Washington’s attorneys were necessary.” Doc. 182 at 6. However, the only specific entries with respect to which Defendants complain relate to the first three depositions in this case. Defendants argue that it was inappropriate for both of the primary attorneys, Foster and Zeeck, to bill time for 5 Several billing entries reflect work related to former defendant Shawn Pettigrew (see Doc. 1763), but those fees were directly and reasonably incurred in proving Mr. Washington’s case because Mr. Pettigrew remained a key witness for Mr. Washington who was called at trial.
9
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 217 Filed 10/03/17 Page 9 of 17

preparing for and attending these depositions. The Court is not persuaded that the use of two attorneys at three key depositions—for
defendants Denney and Pash and key witness Shawn Pettigrew—was unnecessary. Indeed, the Eighth Circuit has expressly rejected the argument “that a court may reduce attorneys’ fees solely on the basis that multiple attorneys helped to secure a prevailing party’s success.” A.J. by L.B. v. Kierst, 56 F.3d 849, 864 (8th Cir. 1995) (finding district court erred in limiting attorneys’ fees to only one of plaintiff’s three attorneys on the plaintiff’s successful jury claim under § 1983).
The Court has not identified any billing entries in the invoice submitted by plaintiff’s counsel that appear clearly excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary. To the contrary, Mr. Washington’s attorneys appear to have been judicious in using firm resources to develop their case. The two associates leading Mr. Washington’s legal team consulted only sparingly with more experienced (and more expensive) attorneys in their firm, as evidenced by the fact that the more senior attorneys billed fewer than six hours in total, with the more expensive attorney billing less than two hours. The associates also delegated approximately 1/5th of the team’s work to less-expensive support staff. The Court thus finds no reason to deduct hours from the plaintiff’s invoice for “overstaffing.”
Defendants also argue that time should be deducted from the plaintiff’s invoice because plaintiff’s counsel spent hours drafting a second amended complaint that was never filed. Mr. Washington’s attorneys explain that they drafted the second amended complaint because Mr. Washington’s pro se complaint was difficult to interpret and full of spelling and grammatical errors, and they thought that a revised complaint would clarify the facts and issues in dispute.
10
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 217 Filed 10/03/17 Page 10 of 17

Ultimately, however, in light of the risk that amending the complaint would necessitate additional dismissal and summary judgment motions, they decided not to file the complaint in order to promote judicial economy.
Notwithstanding counsel’s explanations, the Court cannot conclude that the hours expended to draft the unfiled second amended complaint were “directly” incurred in proving an actual violation of Mr. Washington’s rights, as the PLRA requires. See Kemp v. Webster, No. 09-295, 2013 WL 6068344, at *4 (D. Colo. Nov. 18, 2013) (reducing compensable hours by the 18 hours spent on a motion for a temporary restraining order that plaintiff never filed). Accordingly, Mr. Zeeck’s compensable time is reduced by 48.8 hours, from 398.4 to 349.6.6
Finally, Defendants seek a reduction in the compensable hours to account for “block billing,” entries describing multiple tasks that do not specify how much time is attributable to each task. However, block-billing is problematic only where the hours billed for multiple tasks appears excessive, or where billed time needs to be eliminated for certain tasks, such as for unsuccessful claims. See Captiva Lake Investments, LLC v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., No. 101890, 2016 WL 889174, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 7, 2016) (“While these entries do not indicate how many minutes were spent on each particular task, they are sufficiently specific to communicate the work that was done and its connection to the case. Furthermore, there is no evidence that attorneys were spending an excessive amount of time on their tasks or duplicating the work done by others.”). Defendants have not identified—and the Court has not observed—any block
6 Defendants neglected to identify the entries showing work relating to the unfiled second amended complaint. Having reviewed the invoice, the Court concludes that the following time was spent on the second amended complaint and will be excluded from the fee award: 1.4 hours on 2/21/17; 2.90 hours on 2/23/17; 1.70 hours on 2/28/17; 3.60 hours on 3/1/17; 6.30 hours on 3/2/17; 6.60 hours on 3/3/17; 5.80 hours on 3/6/17; 4.30 hours on 3/7/17; 7.40 hours on 3/8/17; 6.40 hours on 3/9/17; and 2.40 hours on 3/10/17. See Doc. 176-3.
11
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 217 Filed 10/03/17 Page 11 of 17

entries in which the total time an individual spent on multiple tasks appeared unreasonable. And in excluding billing entries referencing the unfiled second amended complaint, including some block entries that also described tasks apparently unrelated to the second amended complaint, the Court already has resolved to Defendants’ advantage pertinent ambiguities in the block billing. It therefore would not be appropriate to reduce the attorney-fee award here for block billing. See id. (“[T]he billing report sufficiently details the actions taken by the attorneys to allow for meaningful review of the hours expended, so a percentage reduction for block billing is unwarranted here.”); Nassar v. Jackson, 779 F.3d 547, 554 (8th Cir. 2015) (finding that district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce fee award on the basis of block-billing).
On the whole, the amount of time that plaintiff’s legal team spent on this case was highly reasonable given that the case proceeded to a jury trial and also required multiple post-trial determinations, including a motion for judgment as a matter of law filed by the defendants. Therefore, with the exception of 48.8 hours spent on the unfiled second amended complaint, the Court will not reduce plaintiff’s counsel’s billable hours.

C. Lodestar Calculation

Having determined the maximum rate under the PLRA and the number of compensable

hours, the Court may now perform the lodestar calculation.

Biller Shareholder R.S. Jones Shareholder K.C. Volpi Shareholder M. Foster Associate M. Foster Associate P. Zeeck Total for Attorneys

Hours

Rate

1.9 hours $193.50/hour

4.0 hours $193.50/hour

285.6 hours $193.50/hour

15.6 hours $193.50/hour

349.6 hours $193.50/hour

656.7 hours $193.50/hour

Fees $367.65 $774 $55,263.60 $3,018.60 $67,647.60 $127,071.45

Paralegal T. Tan

2.0 hours $156.29 12

$312.58

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 217 Filed 10/03/17 Page 12 of 17

Paralegal K.K. Murray Paralegal J.P. Thies Litigation Ser S.L. Pateidl Paralegal Asst R.T. Brann Total for Support Staff

13.4 hours $163.73 91.7 hours $160.01 31.5 hours $145.13 35.7 hours $96.75 174.3 hours

Total Fees for Legal Team

$2,193.98 $14,672.92 $4,571.60 $3,453.98 $25,205.06
$ 152,276.517

D. Expenses to Be Included in Fee Award
Counsel to a prevailing party in a § 1983 action is entitled to an award reimbursing
reasonable expenses of the kind normally charged to clients by attorneys. See Pinkham v.
Camex, Inc., 84 F.3d 292, 294-95 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing Northcross v. Board of Educ., 611 F.2d
624, 639 (6th Cir. 1979) (reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by attorney that normally
are charged to fee-paying client could be included in 42 U.S.C. § 1988 “attorney’s fee” award)).
Mr. Washington’s counsel seeks a total of $5,306.91 in various expenses not listed in his
proposed bill of costs. Doc. 176-3, at 27. Mr. Washington submitted a detailed itemization of
7 Plaintiff’s counsel’s performance in this case was superior, and if the PLRA permitted adjustment of the lodestar calculation on the basis of factors not subsumed within the figure, the Court would have enhanced the value of the attorneys’ fees by 25%. The Court was impressed by plaintiff’s counsel’s professionalism and dedication, particularly in light of the unique difficulties this case presented. Plaintiff’s counsel communicated with Mr. Washington on a regular basis, despite major obstacles, including his severe hearing impairment, which required the use of a special machine for communicating by telephone. Counsel spent many hours traveling to and from Mr. Washington’s distant prison in order to communicate with their client more effectively. Counsel also arranged for special technology at trial to permit their client to hear testimony and to be heard by the jury despite his disabilities. Moreover, Mr. Foster and Mr. Zeeck were unusually skilled and well-prepared at every stage of the litigation. Counsel’s “commitment of resources [wa]s rare and exceptional, as compared to the run-of-the-mill representation in such cases.” Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 553-54 (2010) (quotation marks omitted)). After having been asked by the Court to represent Mr. Washington, counsel advocated tirelessly for an immensely important issue affecting the health of inmates and staff in prisons throughout the state. Even with a 25% enhancement, the attorneys’ fee of $190,345.39 would have been well below the market value of the work performed by plaintiff’s legal team, for which they would have charged a paying client $255,093.00. But the Court concludes that the PLRA does not permit enhancement of the lodestar figure. Cf. Kelly, 822 F.3d at 1102.
13

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 217 Filed 10/03/17 Page 13 of 17

these expenses, which include the cost of clothes for Mr. Washington to wear during trial, travel and meal expenses, and court reporter and delivery fees. See id. Defendants object to only the $300.00 request for expert fees and the $95.10 request for clothes purchased for Mr. Washington to wear at trial. Because Mr. Washington withdrew his initial request for expert fees, the Court deducts this $300.00 amount from the requested expenses. As for the clothes that Mr. Washington wore at trial, case law supports Defendants’ position that this cost is not the type of out-of-pocket expense that Mr. Washington’s firm ordinarily would bill its client. See Fields v. Corizon Health Inc., No. 09–529, 2012 WL 162121, at *5 (M.D. Fl. Jan. 19, 2012) (finding that “$200.00 for ‘suits for court’ is not a reimbursable cost” under § 1988); Blissett v. Casey, 969 F. Supp. 118, aff’d 147 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 1997) (finding that cost of plaintiff’s clothes was “not a reasonable out-of-pocket expense incurred by the attorney and which is normally charged fee paying clients”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
The Court finds that the remaining itemized expenses, totaling $4,911.81, are reasonable and of the type that an attorney normally would charge to a fee-paying client, and therefore recoverable as part of the fee award under § 1988.
E. Section 1997e(d)(2) Requirements Defendants argue that, under Section 1997e(d)(2) of the PLRA, some portion of the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, up to 25 percent, must be applied to the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees.8 Section 1997e(d)(2) states that “whenever a monetary judgment is awarded,” some amount of that award, up to 25 percent, is to be paid by the plaintiff rather than the defendants. 8 Because the total attorneys’ fee award, even with appropriate expenses included, is less than $166,500 (1.5 times the $111,000 monetary judgment awarded to Mr. Washington), the Court need not consider whether the cap on the total attorney fee in PLRA Section 1997e(d)(2) applies in this case that involves both monetary and nonmonetary relief.
14
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 217 Filed 10/03/17 Page 14 of 17

Plaintiff does not cite, and the Court is not aware of, any cases indicating that this provision does not apply if non-monetary relief is awarded. Therefore, in view of the provision’s plain language, the Court must apply some portion of the judgment to the fee award. The question is how much of the award should be paid by the plaintiff.
Section 1997e(d)(2) “does not require the district court to automatically apply 25 percent of the judgment to pay attorney’s fees.” Boesing v. Speiss, 540 F.3d 886, 892 (8th Cir. 2008). Rather, the Court has broad discretion in determining what percentage should apply. See Kahle v. Leonard, 563 F.3d 736, 743 (8th Cir. 2009) (“A district court has discretion to apply between zero and 25 percent of the damages award towards attorneys’ fees.”). In fact, the Eighth Circuit approved a contribution of just one percent in a case where the successful plaintiff received a jury award of $25,000. See Boesing, 540 F.3d at 892.
When determining an appropriate percentage, a district court should consider, inter alia: (1) the degree of the opposing parties’ culpability or bad faith, (2) the ability of the opposing parties to satisfy an award of attorneys’ fees, (3) whether an award of attorneys’ fees against the opposing parties could deter other persons acting under similar circumstances, and (4) the relative merits of the parties’ positions. Kahle, 563 F.3d at 743. Plaintiff contends that the Court should order the deduction of no more than 10 percent of his money judgment because the jury determined that Defendants’ conduct was sufficiently reprehensible to award punitive damages, and imposing fees on the defendants will deter other prison officials in Missouri from failing to abate the risk of harm that secondhand smoke poses to inmates with severe asthma. Defendants, on the other hand, assert that Mr. Washington should pay the maximum 25 percent of his fee award in light of his belated dismissal of twelve defendants on the brink of trial.
15
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 217 Filed 10/03/17 Page 15 of 17

In view of the jury’s finding that the defendants’ conduct was sufficiently reprehensible to support an award of punitive damages, the likelihood that a higher fee award will deter similar conduct in the future, and the fact that Mr. Washington voluntarily dismissed 12 defendants before submitting his claims to the jury, the Court finds that Mr. Washington should pay ten percent of his damages award ($11,100) towards his counsel’s legal fees.

F. Reasonable Costs

Mr. Washington requests reimbursement of $4,492.70 in costs listed in a proposed bill of

costs as follows:

Fees of the Clerk Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case Fees and disbursements for printing Docket fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1923

$350.00
$3,155.00 $967.70 $20.00

Doc. 177. Because Mr. Washington initially did not provide supporting documentation, Defendants objected to two items: (1) $967.70 for printing and (2) $3,155.00 for printed or electronically recorded transcripts. After the Court’s July 5, 2017 show cause order, however, plaintiff’s counsel submitted documentation supporting these requests. See Doc. 200. The submitted invoices substantiate the fees for printing (Doc. 204-2) and printed and electronically recorded transcript fees (Doc. 204-1). Accordingly, the Court finds that all of the costs itemized in the bill of costs form, totaling $4,492.70, should be taxed to the defendants.

G. Section 1997e(d)(1) Requirements The Court finds that the fees, expenses, and costs to be assessed against the Defendants were (1) directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of Mr. Washington’s
16

Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 217 Filed 10/03/17 Page 16 of 17

rights (see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1)(A)); and (2) sufficiently proportional to the monetary and injunctive relief Mr. Washington obtained (see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1)(B)(i)). III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff Washington’s motion for an award of attorney fees, costs, and expenses, Doc. 176, is granted in part and denied in part. The Court awards to plaintiff’s counsel a total of $161,681.02, comprised of $152,276.51 in fees, $4,911.81 in attorney expenses, and $4,492.70 in taxable costs. Mr. Washington must pay $11,100 (representing ten percent of his monetary damages) of this award.
s/ Nanette K. Laughrey NANETTE K. LAUGHREY United States District Judge Dated: October 3, 2017 Jefferson City, Missouri
17
Case 5:14-cv-06118-NKL Document 217 Filed 10/03/17 Page 17 of 17

 
 900 F.3d 549 (2018)
Ecclesiastical Denzel WASHINGTON, also known as Willie Simmons, Plaintiff-Appellee v.
Larry DENNEY, Warden, Defendant-Appellant Terry Page, Deputy Warden; Chris McBee, Deputy Warden; Todd Warren, Assistant Warden; Lauretta Aitkens, Chief of Custody,
Defendants Ronda Pash, Deputy Warden, Defendant-Appellant
Kimberly Herring, F.U.M., Defendant Cyndi Prudden, Deputy Division Director, Defendant-Appellant 550*550 Shawn D. Huff, C.O. II; Shawn Pettigrew, C.C.W.; Judy Huff, C.C.W.;
Brian Montgomery; Mr. White, Defendants Mrs. Richey, Defendant-Appellant
Sliver, C.O. II; Mrs. McDonnal; Steven Nibarger; Mr. Green; Deron Neu; Brent Jestes; Mrs. Parkhurst, Defendants.
No. 17-2747.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 12, 2018. Filed: August 13, 2018.
Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri — St. Joseph.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellants was Nicolas Taulbee, AAG, of Kansas City, MO.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Michael Foster, of Kansas City, MO. The following attorney also appeared on the appellee brief; Phillip J. R. Zeeck, of Kansas City, MO.
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
554*554 SMITH, Chief Judge.
Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington brought suit against Larry Denney, Ronda Pash, Cynthia Prudden, and Cheryl Richey, corrections officials (collectively, "corrections officials") at Crossroads Correctional Center ("Crossroads"), for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, he alleged that these officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need by failing to take reasonable steps to abate the risk of 555*555 harm that secondhand smoke poses to him. He alleged that his long history of asthma and other respiratory conditions exacerbates these risks. The jury found in Washington's favor and awarded him $40,000 in compensatory damages and imposed a

total of $71,000 in punitive damages as follows: $20,000 against Denney; $25,000 against Pash; $25,000 against Prudden; and $1,000 against Richey. The officials appeal, arguing that (1) Washington failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove that they violated his clearly established Eighth Amendment rights and, therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity; and (2) punitive damages were improper because Washington failed to show that they were motivated by evil motive or intent or showed callous indifference to his Eighth Amendment rights.
We hold that sufficient evidence exists that the officials violated Washington's Eighth Amendment rights, but we conclude that insufficient evidence justifies an award of punitive damages. Accordingly, we affirm the jury's finding that the officials were deliberately indifferent to Washington's serious medical need by failing to take reasonable steps to abate the risk of harm that secondhand smoke poses to him. We vacate the award of punitive damages and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Background
"We recite the facts in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict." United States v. PayneOwens, 845, F.3d 868, 870 n.2 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Stevens, 439 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2006)).
Washington "suffers from chronic asthma and bronchitis." Transcript of Jury Trial, Vol. II, at 340-41, Washington v. Denney, No. 5:14-cv-06118-NKL (W.D. Mo. Apr. 11, 2017), ECF No. 184. His "asthmatic attacks are very painful" and are preceded by wheezing, chest pains, and coughing. Transcript of Jury Trial, Vol. I, at 37, Washington v. Denney, No. 5:14-cv06118-NKL (W.D. Mo. Apr. 10, 2017), ECF No. 183. These attacks are more frequent when Washington is exposed to tobacco smoke.
In 2010, Washington was transferred to Crossroads. At that time, Denney was Crossroads's warden, Pash was Crossroads's deputy warden,[1] Prudden was the Missouri Department of Corrections Deputy Director for the Division of Adult Institutions,[2] and Richey was Washington's case manager.
Over 85 percent of prisoners at Crossroads smoke. The Missouri Department of Corrections has a smoking policy that prohibits smoking in any building and within 25 feet from any entryway, which applies to Crossroads. Staff and offenders have designated areas in which they smoke out-side at Crossroads; those designated areas are the recreational yards for offenders and the walkways for staff. Crossroads also has offender rules consistent with the smoking policy. While "sometimes the smoking policy is enforced," Transcript of Jury Trial, Vol. I, at 46, the "policy is routinely violated," Transcript of Jury Trial, Vol. II, at 286. Prisoners are confined to their cells for 18 to 21 hours per day, and Crossroads allows prisoners to keep cigarettes, tobacco, rolling papers, rolling machines, and lighters in their cells. Corrections officers "can smell smoke all the time" in housing units. Id.
Shortly after Washington arrived at Crossroads, the medical staff enrolled him 556*556 in the asthma chronic care clinic. His treatments included nebulizers and inhalers. They also included "lay-ins," which are nonpharmaceutical prescriptions that doctors at Crossroads order. Washington's lay-ins required that he be housed with nonsmoking roommates and

given a painter's mask to protect him from smoke. Despite Washington's treatments and lay-ins, secondhand smoke continued to cause Washington to suffer asthma symptoms and attacks.
Washington sent letters to Denney, Pash, and Richey to alert them of the smoking in Crossroads's housing units. He also raised the issue to Denney and Richey verbally. When Denney, Pash, and Richey ignored him, Washington began filing informal resolution requests (IRRs), the first step in Crossroads's grievance procedure. On March 13, 2014, Washington filed an IRR "about [how] the staff was not enforcing the no-smoking policy" or following the doctors' orders. Transcript of Jury Trial, Vol. I, at 53. Washington complained that his cellmate was smoking in the cell. He also described how he had suffered an asthmatic attack from exposure to the secondhand smoke and explained "that the secondhand smoke was still repeatedly recycled, coming through the ventilation system." Id. at 55. Washington directed the IRR to Denney, Page, and Pash. When Washington's IRR was denied, he appealed by filing a grievance. Denney denied the grievance, stating, "Your allegation of tobacco limitation restrictions not being enforced has been refuted and found to be without merit." Transcript of Jury Trial, Vol. II, at 231. Washington appealed Denney's decision to Prudden, but she denied the appeal.
On May 28, 2014, Washington filed a second IRR after corrections officers took away the mask that doctors had prescribed Washington to reduce his smoke exposure. Washington's IRR was denied, and he appealed to Denney. Denney did not dispute the medical staff's orders or that the mask had been taken, but he found "no evidence to substantiate [Washington's] claim" that he was "denied medical care as a result of not being allowed to possess a face mask to protect [himself] from secondhand tobacco smoke." Transcript of Jury Trial, Vol. II, at 251-52. Denney explained, "On May 29, 2014, you submitted a request for reasonable accommodation form requesting to be issued a face mask. It has been determined that a face mask ... is not a necessity, and you shall not be allowed to possess the same." Id. at 252. Denney recited that tobacco use is prohibited in the housing units and advised Washington, "Should you observe anyone violating this policy, I recommend that you report it immediately to a staff member." Id. Washington appealed Denney's decision to Prudden, who denied it. Prudden advised Washington that he did not "need the face mask because CRCC is a nonsmoking environment," stating that the "housing units at CRCC are considered a nonsmoking environment. CRCC staff will make every effort to ensure that Policy D2-11.9, Tobacco Use Limitations, is adhered to, and staff will issue conduct violations to an offender if he is caught smoking in the housing unit. This should resolve your complaint." Id. at 304.
On May 5, 2015, Washington filed an IRR asking to be transferred to another cell because his cellmate smoked. Medical staff had ordered that he have a nonsmoking cellmate to protect him from second-hand smoke. Despite the order, Washington was consistently housed with smokers. When Washington told this cellmate he had asthma and was "allergic" to second-hand smoke, the cellmate wrote a letter to Page, telling Page that he smoked. Washington and the cellmate spoke with a caseworker, who replied that the issue would 557*557 be resolved. When asked if the "IRR was then handled, and [Washington's cellmate] was moved," Washington responded that "this IRR wasn't handled because [he] had to go back and file another one to medical because [he] had an asthmatic attack, and [the cellmate] was still in the cell and smoking." Transcript of Jury Trial, Vol. I, at 62.

According to Washington, he "had to file another [IRR] to request that they move him from the cell." Id.
On May 11, 2015, Washington filed another IRR requesting a nonsmoking cellmate. Washington again referred to the medical staff's order that he be housed with a nonsmoker. The responding officer informed Washington that the medical staff's orders requiring him to have a non-smoking cellmate were "discontinued, as Crossroads Correctional Center is a non-smoking facility." Id. at 80. Washington appealed by filing a grievance, but his grievance was denied.
On June 17, 2015, Washington filed yet another IRR asking to be housed with a nonsmoking cellmate. Because his lay-in for a nonsmoking cellmate was discontinued, his IRR was denied. The responding officer found that Washington's "medical need ha[s] been met." Transcript of Jury Trial, Vol. II, at 275. Washington's grievance and appeal were also denied.
On December 1, 2015, Washington filed an IRR asking Crossroads to move the facility's designated smoking area away from the medical clinic. He complained that the walkway leading to the clinic's door required him to pass smokers on his way to get breathing treatments. After his IRR was denied, Washington filed a grievance detailing his concerns and their effects on this asthma. Pash denied the grievance because she found that the designated smoking area conformed to Crossroads's smoking policy. Washington appealed to Prudden. Prudden denied the appeal, explaining that the response that Washington received "adequately addressed [his] complaint" and stating that "[t]he staff smoking area is appropriately located 25 feet from the entrance to the medical unit." Id. at 307. According to Prudden, Washington "failed to provide any additional evidence to support [his] claim." Id.
Washington brought suit against the corrections officials for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, he alleged that these officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need by failing to take reasonable steps to abate the risk of harm that secondhand smoke poses to him. He alleged that his long history of asthma and other respiratory conditions exacerbates these risks. The corrections officials moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity because no evidence existed that the corrections officials were deliberately indifferent to Washington's conditions of confinement. The district court denied the motion.
The case proceeded to trial. After the close of Washington's case-in-chief, the corrections officials moved for judgment as a matter of law (JML). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). They did not reassert qualified immunity, but instead argued that Washington failed to present sufficient evidence that they acted with deliberate indifference in failing to take reasonable measures to abate the risk of injury to Washington from secondhand smoke. They also contended that Washington failed to present sufficient evidence that he suffered harm as a direct result of their alleged failure. After the defense rested, they again moved for judgment as a matter of law on the same grounds. See id. Again, the motion did not mention qualified immunity. The district court took the corrections officials' motion under advisement.
558*558 The jury found in Washington's favor and awarded $40,000 in compensatory damages and imposed a total of $71,000 in punitive damages as follows: $20,000 against

Denney; $25,000 against Pash; $25,000 against Prudden; and $1,000 against Richey. The district court entered judgment consistent with the jury's verdict. The corrections officials then renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law and moved for a new trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. In addition to raising the arguments previously made in their Rule 50(a) motions, the corrections officials also argued that Washington failed to present sufficient evidence of outrageous, intentional, or malicious conduct to justify submission of a jury instruction for punitive damages to the jury. The corrections officials did not mention qualified immunity in their motion or opening brief. Instead, in their reply brief in support of their motion, they asserted for the first time that they did not violate Washington's clearly established constitutional rights.
The district court denied the corrections officials' Rule 50(b) and Rule 59 motions. The district court found that Washington sufficiently proved that he suffered from an objectively serious medical need and that the corrections officials knew of the need but deliberately disregarded it. The court also concluded that sufficient evidence supported the punitive damages award. The court declined to consider the corrections' officials argument that they did not violate Washington's clearly established rights because they did not raise qualified immunity in their opening brief.
II. Discussion
The corrections officials appeal, arguing that (1) they are entitled to qualified immunity because Washington failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove that they violated his clearly established Eighth Amendment rights to be free from deliberate indifference to his serious medical need; and (2) punitive damages were improper because Washington failed to show that they were motivated by evil motive or intent or callous indifference to his Eighth Amendment rights.
"We review de novo a district court's denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. We review a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion." Smiley v. Gary Crossley Ford, Inc., 859 F.3d 545, 552 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Barkley, Inc. v. Gabriel Bros., Inc., 829 F.3d 1030, 1042 (8th Cir. 2016)).
"[T]he law places a high standard on overturning a jury verdict because of the danger that the jury's rightful province will be invaded when judgment as a matter of law is misused." Bavlsik v. Gen. Motors, LLC, 870 F.3d 800, 805 (8th Cir. 2017) (alteration in original) (quoting Hunt v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist., 282 F.3d 1021, 1029 (8th Cir. 2002)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 1991, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2018). We are hesitant "to interfere with a jury verdict," as reflected in the "analysis for considering renewed JML motions." Id. The applicable standard provides:
In ruling on a motion for [judgment as a matter of law], the district court must (1) consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, (2) assume that all conflicts in the evidence were resolved in favor of the prevailing party, (3) assume as proved all facts that the prevailing party's evidence tended to prove, and (4) give the prevailing party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the facts proved. That done, the court must then deny the motion if 559*559 reasonable persons could differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence.

Haynes v. Bee-Line Trucking Co., 80 F.3d 1235, 1238 (8th Cir. 1996) (alteration in original) (quoting TEC Floor Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 4 F.3d 599, 601 (8th Cir. 1993)).
A. Deliberate Indifference
The corrections officials' appellate brief makes the same substantive argument as their Rule 50(a) and 50(b) motions — Washington failed to present sufficient evidence that they acted with deliberate indifference in failing to take reasonable measures to abate the risk of injury to Washington from secondhand smoke.[3]
To prove deliberate indifference, Washington had to show that he suffered from an objectively serious medical need and that the corrections officials "acted with a `sufficiently culpable state of mind,' namely, that they actually knew of, but deliberately disregarded, [his] medical need[]." Krout v. Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557, 567 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)). The corrections officials do not dispute that Washington has an objectively serious medical need to be kept free from exposure to second-hand smoke; instead, they argue that they lacked culpable states of mind and responded reasonably to the substantial risk of harm to Washington.[4]
To satisfy the subjective prong, Washington had to prove that the corrections officials "recognized that a substantial risk of harm existed and knew that their conduct was inappropriate in light of that risk." Id. (citations omitted). It is a question of fact "[w]hether a prison official had the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk"; this may be proven through circumstantial evidence, "including inference 560*560 from circumstantial evidence, and a factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (citations omitted). "It is not enough merely to find that a reasonable person would have known [about the risk], or that the defendant should have known...." Id. at 843 n.8, 114 S.Ct. 1970. "While ... deliberate indifference entails something more than mere negligence ... it is satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result." Id. at 835, 114 S.Ct. 1970. "[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety." Id. at 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970. This means that "the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." Id. An official's inadequate "response to a risk may support an inference that the offic[ial] recognized the inappropriateness of his conduct." Krout, 583 F.3d at 567.
But "prison officials who actually knew of a substantial risk to inmate health or safety may be found free from liability if they responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844, 114 S.Ct. 1970. "[P]rison officials who act reasonably cannot be found liable under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause." Id. at 845, 114 S.Ct. 1970. But "[i]t does not follow ... that an unreasonable response — i.e., a negligent response — is sufficient to establish liability." Krout, 583 F.3d at 567. "The plaintiff must show that the officers were deliberately indifferent in their response to the perceived risk." Id. at 568 (citation omitted).

The corrections officials concede they "were aware that Washington claimed that he had asthma" and that he claimed he "had cellmates smoking in his cell, which exacerbated that condition." Appellants' Br. at 16. But they argue that Washington failed to prove that they drew an inference that a substantial risk of serious harm existed to Washington based on these facts. First, they assert they changed Washington's cellmate on two occasions in response to his grievances. Second, they contend that "Prudden and Denney denied Washington's grievance related to the surgical mask because prison staff determined it was a security issue and medical" personnel determined it unnecessary. Id. at 16-17 (citing Transcript of Jury Trial, Vol. II, at 315 ("Masks determined to be custody risk and were removed from patient's possession by custody. Patient educated. Medical director discussed and determined to not be necessary.")). Third, they maintain that when Richey discussed an IRR with Washington, she informed him that he could find a nonsmoking cellmate who would agree to cell with him. She also advised him to report any violations of the smoking policy to custody staff so staff could write a violation. They maintain that while Richey could do cell assignments, she rarely did, and no evidence exists that she assigned any of the smoking cellmates to Washington's cell. Fourth, the corrections officials note that none of them prevented Washington from receiving medical care, including his medication and breathing treatments. Finally, while they acknowledge that Washington asked them to change the smoking policy to ban tobacco products at Crossroads, the corrections officials argue that Washington failed to prove they could do so. They contend they could only enforce the existing policy, direct their subordinates to enforce the policy, 561*561 and direct the offenders to follow the policy.
In light of the "high standard on overturning a jury verdict," we conclude that "legally sufficient evidence ... support[s] the jury's liability finding." Bavlsik, 870 F.3d at 805 (citation omitted). First, sufficient evidence supports the jury's finding that Denney was deliberately indifferent to Washington's serious medical need. Washington proved that Denney knew of the serious risk tobacco smoke posed to Washington's health. Denney testified that he knew Washington has asthma and chronic bronchitis. He confirmed that Washington "has been vocal with staff of Crossroads about the secondhand smoke that goes on." Transcript of Jury Trial, Vol. II, at 240. He also stipulated knowing that "Washington required a nonsmoking cellmate as part of his medical treatment plan since at least as early as 2010." Id. at 342. Washington testified he alerted Denney to the smoking problem at Crossroads both verbally and via letter prior to filing his IRRs. He then filed at least three grievances with Denney in which Washington attributed his asthmatic attacks to secondhand smoke. Denney admitted reviewing these grievances.
Sufficient evidence also exists that Denney disregarded the risk that second-hand smoke poses to Washington's health. For instance, Washington complained about a cellmate smoking in his cell, described how he had suffered an asthmatic attack from exposure to secondhand smoke, and explained that the secondhand smoke was being recycled through the ventilation system. Denney denied Washington's grievance as "without merit," despite admitting that prisoners did smoke in their cells and corrections officers violated the smoking policy. Denney admitted he never conducted "any tests to determine the levels of environmental tobacco smoke in the housing units" to verify Washington's complaint. Id. at 225. Despite acknowledging he "developed the standard operating procedures based upon the departmental guidelines," Denney testified that he did not recall ever considering the possibility of "provid[ing] matches or lighters near the receptacles outside" instead of

permitting "prisoners to have lighters in their cells." Id. at 225, 240. Denney admitted having access to Washington's lay-ins for a nonsmoking cellmate but still permitting Washington to be housed with offenders who were known smokers.
Second, sufficient evidence supports the jury's finding that Pash was deliberately indifferent to Washington's serious medical need. As with Denney, Washington proved that Pash knew secondhand smoke was a serious risk to Washington's health. Pash testified that she knew Washington had been treated for asthma. Pash admitted knowing that Washington had "filed grievances about the indoor smoking that goes on at Crossroads" and that "Washington ha[d] been vocal about his concerns about secondhand smoke at Crossroads." Transcript of Jury Trial, Vol. I, at 139, 148-49. Washington testified he alerted Pash to the smoking problem at Crossroads via letter prior to filing his IRRs. Through the grievance process, Washington informed Pash that the ventilation system circulated second-hand smoke through the housing units. His grievances also asserted staff was ignoring his lay-in for a nonsmoking cellmate. In addition, his grievances informed Pash that the smoking areas' proximity to the medical facility prevented him from avoiding secondhand smoke. Pash's signature appears on the grievance form immediately below Washington's handwritten notes linking secondhand smoke at Crossroads to his asthmatic attacks.
562*562 As with Denney, sufficient evidence exists that Pash disregarded the risk that secondhand smoke poses to Washington's health. Pash admitted receiving violations stating that prisoners smoke in their cells yet never conducting "any studies [on] whether environmental tobacco smoke exists in the housing units at Crossroads." Id. at 129. She admitted knowing that "Washington had a lay-in and restriction for a no-smoking roommate from September 12, 2014, to September 12, 2015," but she acknowledged that Washington was regularly celled with prisoners who violated the smoking policy. Id. at 141. She acknowledged "prisoners are allowed to have lighters and cigarettes in their possession at Crossroads" and "in their cells." Id. at 131. When asked whether she could "change the policy," she replied, "I could try to pilot something, I guess." Id. Pash admitted she denied all of Washington's grievances, referring him to the smoking policy.
Third, sufficient evidence supports the jury's finding that Prudden was deliberately indifferent to Washington's serious medical need. Washington proved that Prudden knew secondhand smoke was a serious risk to Washington's health. Prudden reviewed and responded to at least three grievance appeals that Washington filed concerning secondhand smoke at Crossroads. She admitted that Washington generally claimed in these grievance appeals that "his asthma was exacerbated by offenders smoking" indoors. Transcript of Jury Trial, Vol. II, at 302. Prudden acknowledged in her disposition of Washington's grievance appeal that Washington was "claim[ing] that the custody staff has failed to enforce the ban on tobacco usage in state buildings." Id. at 293. In another disposition, Prudden acknowledged Washington's claim that he was "not being permitted by custody staff to have a face mask that was approved by medical" to "protect against the tobacco smoke" in his housing unit. Id. at 301.
Washington also produced sufficient evidence that Prudden disregarded the risk that secondhand smoke poses to Washington's health. Prudden denied each of Washington's grievance appeals. Prudden testified that although she investigates some of the grievance

appeals on which she rules, she did not investigate any of Washington's grievance appeals. Despite not contacting anyone at Crossroads to inquire about Washington's conditions, Prudden disposed of Washington's appeal on one occasion by reciting that Crossroads is a "nonsmoking environment" with a tobacco-use limitations policy in place that "should resolve [his] complaint." Id. at 304.
Finally, sufficient evidence supports the jury's finding that Richey was deliberately indifferent to Washington's serious medical need. Washington proved that Richey knew secondhand smoke was a serious risk to Washington's health. Washington testified he alerted Richey to the smoking problem at Crossroads via letter prior to filing his IRRs. Richey admitted knowing that Washington needed to be kept away from tobacco smoke and knowing that Crossroads's medical staff had ordered a lay-in for Washington to be assigned a nonsmoking cellmate. She acknowledged a conversation with Washington in which he asked her to move him to a different cell with a nonsmoking cellmate and their discussion of Washington's IRR in which he complained of prisoners smoking in their cells.
The jury also had sufficient evidence from which it could reasonably conclude that Richey disregarded the risk that secondhand smoke poses to Washington's health. Richey admitted that she was responsible 563*563 for assigning Washington's cellmates. Transcript of Jury Trial, Vol. III, at 382, Washington v. Denney, No. 5:14-cv-06118-NKL (W.D. Mo. Apr. 12, 2017), ECF No. 185 ("That fell under my job duties. I did not do a lot of those, but yes, ultimately I could determine where an offender was assigned and moved."). Part of Richey's job duties involved cell assignments when medical placed a "bunk restriction" on an offender. Id. Despite Washington's lay-in requiring a nonsmoking cellmate, Richey told Washington upon his request for a nonsmoking cellmate that Crossroads "do[esn]'t track whether an offender smokes or not." Id. at 383. But Washington produced an exhibit of violation reports documenting who had violated the smoking policy. These violation reports are accessible to "most staff" by running a query. Transcript of Jury Trial, Vol. I, at 143.
B. Punitive Damages
The corrections officials also argue that insufficient evidence supports the jury's award of punitive damages because Washington failed to show that their conduct was motivated by an evil motive or intent or involved reckless or callous indifference to Washington's Eighth Amendment rights.[5]
"In a § 1983 case, both compensatory and punitive damages are available upon proper proof." Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d 778, 787 (8th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). While an award of compensatory damages is mandatory upon a finding of liability, "punitive damages are awarded or rejected in a particular case at the discretion of the fact finder once sufficiently serious misconduct by the defendant is shown." Id. (citations omitted). The purpose of a punitive damages award is "to `punish the defendant for his [or her] willful or malicious conduct and to deter others from similar behavior.'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 306 n.9, 106 S.Ct. 2537, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986)). The factfinder focuses on the defendant's intent in determining whether to award punitive damages "and whether the defendant's 564*564 conduct is of the sort that calls for deterrence and punishment over and above that provided by compensatory awards." Id. (citation omitted).

In Coleman, we set forth the standard for awarding punitive damages in deliberateindifference cases, applying the § 1983 punitive damages standard: "[W]hen the defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others." Id. (quoting Walters v. Grossheim, 990 F.2d 381, 385 (8th Cir. 1993)).[6] "Punitive damages punish a defendant for outrageous, intentional, or malicious conduct, and deter similar extreme conduct in the future." Schaub v. VonWald, 638 F.3d 905, 922-23 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 54, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983); City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 266-67, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981)). "A finding of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, while establishing liability under § 1983, does not necessitate a finding of callous indifference warranting punitive damages." Coleman, 114 F.3d at 787 (citing Standley v. Chilhowee R-IV Sch. Dist., 5 F.3d 319, 323 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding defendant was liable under § 1983 for violating plaintiff's First Amendment rights, but concluding there was insufficient evidence that defendant's conduct rose to the level of "evil motive" or "reckless or callous indifference" to justify punitive damages); Cornell v. Woods, 69 F.3d 1383, 1391 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding prison officials' conduct in punishing inmate for exercising his First Amendment rights established liability under § 1983 but did not warrant imposition of punitive damages); Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 956 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding prison officials' acts violated prisoner's due process rights and gave rise to § 1983 liability, but punitive damages award was improper because there was no evidence that defendants "were acting in bad faith" or "harbored any ill will" towards plaintiff); Walters v. City of Atlanta, 803 F.2d 1135, 1147 (11th Cir. 1986) (upholding jury's finding that "defendants were responsible for the racial discrimination" plaintiff suffered, but vacating punitive damages award because the record did not show that defendants "acted with either the requisite ill will or callous disregard of [plaintiff's] federally protected rights"); Lavicky v. Burnett, 758 F.2d 468, 477 (10th Cir. 1985) (holding unlawful search and seizure and taking of plaintiff's property without a hearing gave rise to § 1983 liability, but concluding punitive damages award was properly set aside because "there was no evidence of malice, wantonness, or oppressiveness"); Soderbeck v. Burnett Cty., 752 F.2d 285, 289 (7th Cir. 1985) (holding plaintiff's showing of political dismissal was sufficient for compensatory 565*565 damages, but not punitive damages); Hernandez-Tirado v. Artau, 874 F.2d 866, 872 (1st Cir. 1989) (same)).
Coleman upheld a compensatory damages award for deliberate indifference to an inmate's serious medical need against a prison nurse. Id. The damage award compensated the inmate for the physical pain and mental anguish she experienced resulting from the nurse's two-hour delay in transferring the inmate to the hospital for the premature delivery of the inmate's child, despite the nurse's contention that the inmate would have experienced the same labor in the hospital. Id. But we held that the district court abused its discretion in awarding punitive damages and vacated the district court's punitive damages award to the inmate after reviewing the trial evidence, holding that the nurse's conduct "was not sufficiently egregious to justify the imposition of punitive damages." Id. at 788 (citation omitted). This was because the nurse had "relied on, and attempted to follow, the University physicians' instructions in caring for [the inmate]." Id. (citation omitted). We determined that the nurse's conduct did not "rise to the level calling for punishment and deterrence over and above that provided by the compensatory award." Id. (citing Smith, 461 U.S. at 54, 103 S.Ct. 1625; Stachura, 477 U.S. at 310, 106 S.Ct. 2537 ("Section 1983 presupposes that

damages that compensate for actual harm ordinarily suffice to deter constitutional violations.")).
Having reviewed the trial evidence, we conclude that Washington presented no evidence that the corrections officials' actions were "outrageous, intentional, or malicious" to justify imposition of a punitive damages award. See Schaub, 638 F.3d at 922. Like the nurse in Coleman, the corrections officials did "rel[y] on" the existing smoking policy, which prohibits smoking indoors. See 114 F.3d at 788. With regard to Richey, Washington offered no evidence that Richey intentionally assigned him a smoking cellmate; instead, he testified that he had both smoking and non-smoking cellmates. Prudden, Pash, and Denney all were supervisors who only reviewed Washington's grievance appeals — Washington has not identified any conduct that they engaged in toward him beyond their review and denial of those appeals. "The facts of this case illustrate the difference between conduct justifying mere liability under the Eighth Amendment and conduct justifying punitive damages under § 1983." Id.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, we affirm the jury's finding that the officials were deliberately indifferent to Washington's serious medical need by failing to take reasonable steps to abate the risk of harm that secondhand smoke poses to him. We vacate the award of punitive damages and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[1] Pash became Crossroads's warden upon Denney's retirement.
[2] Prudden still holds this position.
[3] The corrections officials initially phrase their argument in their opening brief as one of qualified immunity: that they "were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Washington's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment, because they had qualified immunity, in that Washington failed to prove that these corrections employees violated his clearly established constitutional rights." Appellants' Br. at 12. "But a party seeking a qualified-immunity defense must continue to urge it during and after trial in order to avoid forfeiting the argument on appeal." Ayers v. City of Cleveland, 773 F.3d 161, 167 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 185, 131 S.Ct. 884, 178 L.Ed.2d 703 (2011)). The record shows that but for a contention in their reply brief to their Rule 50(b) motion that they "did not violate Plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights," Reply Suggestions at 2, Washington v. Denney et al., No. 5:14-cv-06118-NKL (W.D. Mo. June 5, 2017), ECF No. 192, the corrections officials never renewed their qualified-immunity argument.
We acknowledge that the Supreme Court "left open the possibility that a `qualified immunity plea raising an issue of a purely legal nature' may be `preserved for appeal by an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment, and need not be brought up again under Rule 50(b).'" Plascencia v. Taylor, 514 F. App'x 711, 719 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ortiz, 562 U.S. at 189, 131 S.Ct. 884). Here, the corrections "officials' claims of qualified immunity hardly present `purely legal' issues capable of resolution `with reference only to undisputed facts.' Cases fitting that bill typically involve contests not about what occurred, or why an action was taken or omitted, but disputes about the substance and clarity of preexisting law." Ortiz, 562 U.S. at 189, 131 S.Ct. 884 (citations omitted). Accordingly, we decline to address the corrections officials' argument to the extent they claim they are entitled to qualified immunity.
[4] At trial, the parties stipulated that "Washington's medical records indicate he suffers from chronic asthma and bronchitis." Transcript of Jury Trial, Vol. II, at 340-41. They also stipulated that "[s]econdhand smoke is known to cause health risks, especially among people with asthma and other breathing difficulties." Id. at 341.
[5] The corrections officials do not challenge the jury instruction on punitive damages. Jury Instruction No. 24 provided, in relevant part:

In determining whether to award punitive damages, you should consider whether the defendant's conduct was reprehensible. In this regard, you may consider whether the harm suffered by the plaintiff was physical or economic or both; whether there was intentional malice or reckless disregard for human health or safety; whether the defendant's conduct that harmed the plaintiff also caused harm or posed a risk of harm to others; and whether there was any repetition of the wrongful conduct and past conduct of the sort that harmed the plaintiff.
If you decide to award punitive damages, you should consider the following in deciding the amount of punitive damages to award:
1. How much harm the defendant's wrongful conduct caused the plaintiff. You may not consider harm to others in deciding the amount of punitive damages to award.
2. What amount of punitive damages, in addition to the other damages already awarded, is needed, considering the defendant's financial condition, to punish the defendant for his wrongful conduct toward the plaintiff and to deter the defendant and others from similar wrongful conduct in the future;
The amount of any punitive damages award should bear a reasonable relationship to the harm caused to the plaintiff.
You may assess punitive damages against any or all defendants or you may refuse to impose punitive damages. If punitive damages are assessed against more than one defendant, the amounts assessed against such defendants may be the same or they may be different.
Jury Instructions at 26-27, Washington v. Denney, No. 5:15-cv-06118-NKL (W.D. Mo. Apr. 12, 2017), ECF No. 167.
[6] In Coleman, we did not discuss Farmer's rejection of deliberate indifference as equating with civil-law recklessness. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970. Farmer "adopted an approach consistent with the recklessness in the criminal law." Id. As a result, Farmer held that to be liable for deliberate indifference of a serious medical need, a prison official must "know[] of and disregard[] an excessive risk to inmate health and safety." Id. Our court's use of the ordinary § 1983 punitive damages standard of "reckless or callous indifference" in Coleman would permit a punitive damages awards against prison officials under a standard that is less harsh than the deliberate indifference standard under which they were adjudicated liable. However, we need not resolve this legal issue in the present case. First, the corrections officials have not objected to application of the ordinarily applicable § 1983 punitive damages standard and, in fact, quote that standard in their brief. See Appellants' Br. at 19 (citing Schaub, 638 F.3d 905, 922 (8th Cir. 2011)). Second, in Schaub, we clarify that the defendant's conduct must be "outrageous, intentional, or malicious" to warrant imposition of punitive damages. Schaub, 638 F.3d at 922.