Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

8

THERESA DOE, parent and legal guardian for No.

9 M.D., a minor,

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

10

Plaintiff,

INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY

RELIEF UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

11

v.

12 GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, a municipality; GERALD MURPHY, GREG REYNVAAN,
13 and JOHN and JANE DOES, in their individual capacity;
14 Defendants.
15

16 I. NATURE OF THE CASE
17 1.1. Plaintiff M.D., now age 16, was detained repeatedly over the last four years in the
18 custody of the Grays Harbor County Juvenile Detention Facility (“Detention Facility”), largely
19 for minor probation violations. Throughout these episodic stints in juvenile detention, staffers at
20 the Detention Facility routinely placed Plaintiff in solitary confinement, pursuant to Defendant
21 Grays Harbor County’s (“the County”) policies and practices about using “cell confinement,”
22 “24, 48, or 72 hour lock,” or “isolation.”
23 1.2. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, juvenile detainees
24 may be placed in solitary confinement only in extreme circumstances, such as to control violent
25 offenders who present imminent risks to themselves or others. Under the Eighth Amendment,
26

27

COMPLAINT - 1
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 2 of 33

1 juveniles may not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and are treated categorically

2 different from adults.

3

1.3. Despite those constitutional protections for youth, the County regularly resorts to

4 solitary confinement to sanction common forms of teenage misbehavior, such as talking back,

5 passing notes, yelling, using profanity, and other everyday non-threatening conduct. The County

6 does so both pursuant to official written policy that fails to comply with basic constitutional

7 requirements, and long-standing practices that permit the routine and flagrant violation of even

8 its own official written policies.

9

1.4. Under County policies and practices, Plaintiff was put into solitary confinement

10 over forty times between 2013 and April 2016 for various minor rule violations, for over 75 days

11 in aggregate.

12

1.5. Under County policies and practices, Defendant Gerald Murphy, the Detention

13 Facility Director, put Plaintiff in solitary confinement in a filthy padded cell for eight (8) days in

14 March 2016, after notifying Defendant Greg Reynvaan, Juvenile Court Administrator.

15

1.6. During this period of solitary confinement, Plaintiff was given only peanut butter

16 and jelly sandwiches to eat.

17

1.7. On March 28, 2016, after news of Plaintiff’s solitary confinement appeared in the

18 press, the Honorable David L. Edwards, Superior Court Judge and Presiding Judge in the Grays

19 Harbor Juvenile Court, notified Mr. Reynvaan and Mr. Murphy that they were being

20 reprimanded. In his letter of reprimand, Judge Edwards noted “a detainee at the juvenile facility

21 was put into solitary confinement for an extended period of time and restricted of food and

22 bedding,” and that “this type of discipline is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.” Judge

23 Edwards suspended them each without pay for 7 days and 30 days, respectively.

24

1.8. Despite sanctioning Mr. Reynvaan and Mr. Murphy for their roles in keeping

25 Plaintiff in solitary confinement for so long, and despite receiving days earlier the prosecution’s

26 motion seeking Plaintiff’s release from the Detention Facility, Plaintiff was not released until

27 April 27, 2016.

COMPLAINT - 2
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 3 of 33

1

1.9. Theresa Doe, parent and legal guardian for her minor son, M.D., brings suit under

2 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on Plaintiff M.D.’s behalf, seeking compensation for constitutional injuries

3 and associated emotional distress that resulted from Plaintiff’s unwarranted detention in solitary

4 confinement for approximately 75 days in toto, in addition to declaratory and injunctive relief to

5 halt the County’s unconstitutional policy and practice of placing juveniles in solitary

6 confinement as a tool to manage behavior.

7

II. PARTIES

8

2.1 Plaintiff M.D. is a minor citizen of the State of Washington and a resident of

9 Grays Harbor County. Theresa Doe is the parent and legal guardian for M.D., for whom this suit

10 is brought.

11

2.2 Defendant Greg Reynvaan, Juvenile Court Administrator, had at all material times

12 overall supervisory authority of the Grays Harbor County Juvenile Detention Facility and was

13 acting under color of law.

14

2.3 Defendant Gerald Murphy was at all material times the Detention Facility

15 Director and acting under color of law.

16

2.4 Defendant Grays Harbor County (“the County”) is a county within the State of

17 Washington. The Grays Harbor County Juvenile Court Services is a municipal agency within

18 the County that acts in its administrative capacity to operate the Grays Harbor County Juvenile

19 Detention Facility.

20

2.5 John and Jane Does are unidentified staffers of the Grays Harbor County Juvenile

21 Detention Facility who placed Plaintiff in solitary confinement between 2013 and 2016 and at all

22 material times were acting under color of law.

23

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

24

3.1 This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

25

3.2 Venue is appropriate in the Western District of Washington pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

26 § 1391 because at least some of the Defendants reside in this judicial district and because the

27

COMPLAINT - 3
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 4 of 33

1 events and omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred within the Western

2 District of Washington.

3

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

4

4.1. The County has an official written policy of placing juveniles in solitary

confinement for ordinary misbehavior.

5

4.1.1 Defendant County operates the Grays Harbor County Juvenile Detention Facility

6 pursuant to the Facility’s Policy Manual.

7

4.1.2 Chapter Seven of the Policy Manual sets forth the County’s rules that govern the

8 conduct of the youths who are detained and establishes corrective actions Facility staff may take

9 in the event of minor infractions and major infractions, including “[r]oom confinement 24hr,

10 48hr, and 72hr.” See Policy Manual, chap. 7.1-7.2.

11

4.1.3 Minor violations are “considered to be minor misbehaviors but may become

12 major depending upon the youth’s attitude and response to staff intervention.” Policy Manual,

13 chap. 7.2.II.B. These include: “(a) not following directions, (b) verbal argument/outburst, (c)

14 horseplay, (d) present in unauthorized areas, (e) uncooperative with staff; (f) verbal disrespect;

15 (g) non-performance of work assignment; and (h) note passing,” among “other just causes.”

16

4.1.4 The County policy allows staff to impose “sanctions” on youth for minor

17 violations, on a progressive basis, up to and including “Room Lock: youth is restricted to their

18 cell for a period of 24 hours.” Policy Manual, chap. 7.2.II.B.2(d).

19

4.1.5 Major violations “are deemed unsafe; a threat to staff, youth, and the safety and

20 security of the Detention Facility. Violation of these rules results in extended cell confinement

21 and a potential loss of good time.” Policy Manual, chap. 7.2.II.C.1. Major violations include:

22 (a) assault; (b) fighting where one is the primary aggressor; (c) escapes and attempted escapes;

23 (d) possession of contraband, including drugs, weapons, cigarettes, and lighters; (e) active

24 fighting or resistance to staff putting youth in physical restraint; (f) “[i]nappropriate sexual

25 behavior – [i]ntentional and purposeful touching of a sexual nature of the body”; (g) “[f]ailure to

26 follow the ‘Clear the Floor’ and ‘Drop Position’ directives”; (h) damage to one’s mattress or the

27

COMPLAINT - 4
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 5 of 33

1 building; (i) behavior that puts oneself or others “at harm”; and (j) “[c]omments of physical harm

2 toward staff o[r] other youth.”

3

4.1.6 The Policy Manual provides that “review of the privilege loss with the youth will

4 take place by the Shift Supervisor on the shift following the events leading to privilege loss.”

5 Chap. 7.2.II.B.2(d). The Manual states that it is “incumbent upon Detention Staff giving the

6 consequence to communicate to the Shift Supervisor or Detention Director the necessity for the

7 review through a written Incident Report.” Any loss of privileges mandated at this level requires

8 that youth “are to be out of their cells a minimum of 1 hour each day of privilege loss.”

9

4.1.7 The Policy Manual identifies as “Major Rule Infractions” the following: (a)

10 “Slurs pertaining to Race, Ethnicity, Gender, or Sexual Orientation”; (b) “Threats to the health

11 and safety of staff”; (c) “Possession of Contraband”; and (d) “Property Damage.” Chap.

12 7.2.II.D. The Policy affords Detention Staff “discretion in terms of determining the actual

13 consequence depending on the circumstances of the infraction. However, the range of

14 consequences includes up to 72-hour privilege loss with no school depending on the nature and

15 severity of the event and the youth involved.”

16

4.1.8 Corrective action, including cell confinement for 24 to 72 hours, may not include

17 “[d]enial of regular meals” or “[d]enial of contact with parents or legal guardians.” Policy

18 Manual, chap. 7.2.II.D.

19

4.1.9 In the event of “multiple, continuous minor rule violations or rule violations that

20 are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” the Policy Manual provides for the

21 following methods for Detention Staff to resolve minor infractions, with approval by the Shift

22 Supervisor: “move [youth] to a padded room,” “[r]emove privileges,” and “[p]lace on cell

23 confinement,” or “Room Lock.”

24

4.1.10 For major rule violations “or a series of lesser violations,” County policy allows a

25 shift supervisor to classify a youth for “room confinement.” Policy Manual, chap. 7.4.II. The

26 Shift Supervisor must review daily any room confinement.

27

COMPLAINT - 5
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 6 of 33

1

4.1.11 County policy provides: “Youth who engage in a Major Rule Violation or exhibit

2 extreme threatening or destructive behavior may be placed on No Privilege status or on room

3 restriction (padded room or other room) for observation for up to 72 hours to minimize the

4 possibility for physical contact with other youth or staff members.” Policy Manual, chap. 7.5.I.A.

5

4.1.12 Under County policy “[a]ny room confinement over 24 hours requires a formal

6 review.” Policy Manual, chap. 7.5.II.B.

7

4.1.13 Under County policy, the Detention Facility uses a “Padded Room” to “segregate

8 youth who are engaging in disruptive behavior or are an imminent risk to themselves or others

9 and require constant and continuous visual supervision.” Policy Manual, chap. 7.5.II.D.

10

4.1.14 The Policy Manual characterizes “use of room restriction” as “an immediate

11 measure to control and observe a youth and not a form of punishment.” Policy Manual, chap.

12 7.5.III.A.1.

13

4.1.15 When a youth is placed on room restriction per County policy, “there must be

14 reasonable cause to believe that failure to do so would present: (a) Conduct which threatens

15 immediate physical harm to self or others[;] (b) A threat of imminent self-harm (Suicide Level 1

16 or 2)[;] An immediate threat of escape for only so long as the intent to escape persists[;] An

17 immediate or continued threat of destruction to property as evidenced by past behavior[;]

18 Conduct seriously disruptive to the security, order and discipline of the facility[;] [or]

19 Engagement in a Major Rule Violation that is a threat to the safety and security of the Detention

20 staff and its youth.” Policy Manual, chap. 7.5.III.A.3.

21

4.1.16 When the Detention Facility places a youth in “room confinement,” staff must

22 allow for “[o]ne hour of supervised time out of room during each 24 hour period to consist of

23 large muscle exercise.” Policy Manual, chap. 7.5.III.A.3(g). Otherwise, during the time of room

24 confinement, Detention Staff must check on the youth once every 30 minutes. Policy Manual,

25 chap. 7.5.III.A.9.

26

27

COMPLAINT - 6
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 7 of 33

1

4.1.17 County policy “authorize[s]” Detention Staff to “use the padded room when a

2 youth is actively attempting to harm him/herself or attempting suicide.” Policy Manual, chap.

3 7.5.III.D. Per policy, confinement in the “Padded Room” “will not be used as punishment.”

4

4.1.18 The County’s use of “room confinement,” “room restriction,” “Room Lock,” “24-

5 hour lock,” “23/1 room confinement,” and other similar types and characterizations of segregated

6 detention are forms of solitary confinement or isolation of juvenile detainees.

7

4.1.19 The County’s use of “Padded Room” placement is a form of solitary confinement

8 or isolation of juvenile detainees.

9

4.1.20 Despite claims that the County does not use “room confinement” or placement in

10 the Padded Room as forms of punishment, there is a pattern and practice known and tolerated

11 among County staff and supervisors that such forms of solitary confinement are meted out as

12 punitive sanctions.

13

4.2 Defendants have repeatedly placed Plaintiff in solitary confinement for

ordinary, non-threatening misbehavior, often in violation of the County’s

14

policies that are already unconstitutional.

15

4.2.1 Plaintiff, M.D., now age 16, has been a detainee at Grays Harbor County Juvenile

16 Detention Facility periodically since he was confined there for the first time in 2013 and

17 thereafter, pursuant to “At Risk Youth Petitions” and minor probation violations. The ordered

18 duration for each period of detention was usually 30 days, with Plaintiff serving fewer days than

19 ordered. On two occasions, Plaintiff was ordered to serve longer periods—one 60-day period

20 and one 120-day period. For each of these longer periods of detention, Plaintiff also served

21 fewer days than the ordered number of days.

22

4.2.2 Plaintiff was released from the Detention Facility last on April 27, 2016.

23

4.2.3 During the period of episodic juvenile detention from 2013 to 2016, the County

24 repeatedly subjected Plaintiff to “room confinement,” “room restriction,” “Room Lock,” and

25 “Padded Room” placement—all forms of solitary confinement or isolation of juvenile

26 detainees—under circumstances that are unjustified and contrary to protections guaranteed by

27 the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

COMPLAINT - 7
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 8 of 33

1

4.2.4 On November 20, 2013, Plaintiff was placed in “24 hour lock for talking with

2 [another youth] to Head Trustee [sic] while she was picking up toothbrushes,” according to the

3 Individual Detention Report completed by an unidentifiable staff member.

4

4.2.5 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

5 for a minor or major rule violation, and does not appear to match the criteria for either category

6 as set forth in Chapter 7.2 of the Policy Manual.

7

4.2.6 Even assuming there was some minor rule violation, the staff member does not

8 explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

9 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

10 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

11

4.2.7 On July 2, 2014, Plaintiff was placed on “24 hour lock” because Plaintiff spilled

12 water that “pooled under the door” to his room. A later note on the Individual Detention Report

13 states that “parent called – informed that [Plaintiff] will not have a visit this evening because of

14 24 lock.”

15

4.2.8 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

16 for a minor or major rule violation, and does not appear to match the criteria for either category

17 as set forth in Chapter 7.2 of the Policy Manual.

18

4.2.9 Even assuming there was some minor rule violation, the staff member does not

19 explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

20 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

21 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual. The County staffer exacerbated the

22 unjustifiable use of solitary confinement by denying Plaintiff a scheduled parental visit contrary

23 to Chapter 7.3.II.8 of the Policy Manual.

24

4.2.10 On August 7, 2014, Plaintiff was placed on “24 hour lock for inappropriate

25 conversation” with another youth in which they allegedly said that a staff member’s “wife is

26 hot,” and “one of them said he knew where [staff member] lived,” according to the Individual

27 Detention Report completed by an unidentifiable staff member.

COMPLAINT - 8
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 9 of 33

1

4.2.11 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

2 for a minor or major rule violation, and doesn’t appear to match the criteria for either category as

3 set forth in Chapter 7.2 of the Policy Manual.

4

4.2.12 Even assuming there was some minor rule violation, the staff member does not

5 explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

6 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

7 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

8

4.2.13 On August 10, 2014, Plaintiff was placed on “24 hour lock for being rude and

9 inappropriate in church during prayer,” according to the Individual Detention Report completed

10 by an unidentifiable staff member.

11

4.2.14 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

12 for a minor or major rule violation. To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of

13 the minor rule against “verbal disrespect” or some other minor infraction, the staff member does

14 not explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

15 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

16 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

17

4.2.15 On August 21, 2014, Plaintiff was placed on “24 hour lock for talking to [female

18 youth] while she was picking up toothbrushes, was trying to pass note to [another female

19 youth],” according to the Individual Detention Report completed by an unidentifiable staff

20 member.

21

4.2.16 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

22 for a minor or major rule violation. To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of

23 the minor rule against “note passing” or some other minor infraction, the staff member does not

24 explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

25 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

26 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

27

COMPLAINT - 9
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 10 of 33

1

4.2.17 On August 25, 2014, Plaintiff was placed on “24 lock for talking about

2 drugs/alcohol during rec on dayroom floor,” according to the Individual Detention Report

3 completed by unidentifiable staff member. The County staffer noted that “Mom was informed . .

4 . that [Plaintiff] lost visit tonite [sic].”

5

4.2.18 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

6 for a minor or major rule violation, and doesn’t appear to match the criteria for either category as

7 set forth in Chapter 7.2 of the Policy Manual.

8

4.2.19 Even assuming there was some minor rule violation, the staff member does not

9 explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

10 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

11 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

12

4.2.20 The County staffer exacerbated the unjustifiable use of solitary confinement by

13 denying Plaintiff a scheduled parental visit contrary to Chapter 7.3.II.8 of the Policy Manual.

14

4.2.21 On September 27, 2014, Plaintiff was placed on “24 lock” after staff discovered

15 “wet paper and a torn book” in Plaintiff’s room and noted that Plaintiff “cussed at me,”

16 according to the Individual Detention Report completed by staff member named “Cheri.”

17

4.2.22 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

18 for a minor or major rule violation, and doesn’t appear to match the criteria for either category as

19 set forth in Chapter 7.2 of the Policy Manual.

20

4.2.23 To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of the minor rule

21 against “verbal disrespect” or some other minor infraction, the staff member does not explain

22 how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule violations that

23 are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a Room Lock under

24 Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

25

4.2.24 On October 2, 2014, Plaintiff was placed on “24 lock . . . for stashing extra books

26 under his sink,” according to the Individual Detention Report completed by an unidentifiable

27 staff member.

COMPLAINT - 10
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 11 of 33

1

4.2.25 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

2 for a minor or major rule violation, and doesn’t appear to match the criteria for either category as

3 set forth in Chapter 7.2 of the Policy Manual.

4

4.2.26 Even assuming there was some minor rule violation, the staff member does not

5 explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

6 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

7 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

8

4.2.27 On December 29, 2014, Plaintiff was placed on “24 lock for laughing, talking,

9 joking with [another youth] in hall while going back with toothbrush,” according to the

10 Individual Detention Report completed by an unidentifiable staff member. The County staffer

11 also noted “[p]hone call to Mom was informed - [Plaintiff] lost visit tonite [sic].”

12

4.2.28 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

13 for a minor or major rule violation, and doesn’t appear to match the criteria for either category as

14 set forth in Chapter 7.2 of the Policy Manual. Even though Plaintiff had been “previously

15 warned” about such purported misconducted, and assuming there was some minor rule violation,

16 the staff member does not explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor

17 violations or rule violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so

18 as to warrant a Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

19

4.2.29 The County staffer exacerbated the unjustifiable use of solitary confinement by

20 denying Plaintiff a scheduled parental visit contrary to Chapter 7.3.II.8 of the Policy Manual.

21

4.2.30 On January 9, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “24 lock for talking down hallway

22 after rec and proceeding to use profanity once after told about lock,” according to the Individual

23 Detention Report completed by an unidentifiable staff member.

24

4.2.31 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

25 for a minor or major rule violation, and doesn’t appear to match the criteria for either category as

26 set forth in Chapter 7.2 of the Policy Manual.

27

COMPLAINT - 11
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 12 of 33

1

4.2.32 To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of the minor rule

2 against “verbal disrespect” or some other minor infraction, the staff member does not explain

3 how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule violations that

4 are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a Room Lock under

5 Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

6

4.2.33 On January 22, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “23/1 for continually being told by

7 staff to change his attitude (i.e., yelling out door, slamming toothbrush, and not listening to

8 staff),” according to the Individual Detention Report completed by an unidentifiable staff

9 member.

10

4.2.34 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

11 for a minor or major rule violation. To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of

12 the minor rule against being “uncooperative with staff” or some other minor infraction, the staff

13 member does not explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor

14 violations or rule violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so

15 as to warrant a Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

16

4.2.35 On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “23/1” for yelling profanity,

17 according to the Individual Detention Report completed by an unidentifiable staff member.

18

4.2.36 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

19 for a minor or major rule violation, and doesn’t appear to match the criteria for either category as

20 set forth in Chapter 7.2 of the Policy Manual.

21

4.2.37 To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of the minor rule

22 against “verbal disrespect” or some other minor infraction, the staff member does not explain

23 how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule violations that

24 are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a Room Lock under

25 Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

26

4.2.38 On February 6, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on 24-hour room confinement for the

27 following reason noted on the Individual Detention Report by an unidentifiable staff member: “I

COMPLAINT - 12
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 13 of 33

1 asked him to be quiet and he was burping in the hall. He started talking back to me. I told him

2 to stop and be quiet. He said ‘what the fuck ever.’”

3

4.2.39 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

4 for a minor or major rule violation. To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of

5 the minor rule against “verbal disrespect” or some other minor infraction, the staff member does

6 not explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

7 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

8 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

9

4.2.40 On March 26, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on 24-hour room confinement for the

10 following reason noted on the Comment Sheet by an unidentifiable staff member: “While

11 [another youth] was handing out the snacks . . . he went past [Plaintiff’s] room. [Plaintiff] yelled

12 down the hall that he was allergic to peanuts. . . . [Plaintiff] [later] started loudly asking everyone

13 in A Wing how their peanuts tasted, and saying my peanuts tasted great. [Plaintiff] was

14 obviously referring to the word penis.”

15

4.2.41 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

16 for a minor or major rule violation. To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of

17 the minor rule against “verbal disrespect,” “verbal argument/outburst,” or some other minor

18 infraction, the staff member does not explain how this incident was part of any “multiple,

19 continuous minor violations or rule violations that are a serious threat to the security of the

20 Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

21

4.2.42 On March 29, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “24 hr for kicking over a backpack in

22 the classroom after church,” according the Comment Sheet completed by an unidentifiable staff

23 member.

24

4.2.43 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

25 for a minor or major rule violation, and doesn’t appear to match the criteria for either category as

26 set forth in Chapter 7.2 of the Policy Manual.

27

COMPLAINT - 13
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 14 of 33

1

4.2.44 Even assuming there was some minor rule violation, the staff member does not

2 explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

3 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

4 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

5

4.2.45 On March 31, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on 24-hour room confinement for the

6 following reason noted on the Comment sheet by an unidentifiable staff member: “[Plaintiff]

7 was sent to his room from the classroom line-up. [W]hen told to go, he first asked why. [W]hen

8 told to go again, he stepped forward and said, ‘I asked you a question’ in an angry voice. He did

9 go back, when told a third time.”

10

4.2.46 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

11 for a minor or major rule violation.

12

4.2.47 To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of the minor rule

13 against “verbal disrespect,” “verbal argument/outburst,” or otherwise, the staff member does not

14 explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

15 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

16 Room Lock per Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

17

4.2.48 On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on overnight observation in the “Padded

18 Room” for the following reason noted on the Incident Report by the reviewing supervisor:

19 “[Plaintiff] was sitting in Room 5095 for being disruptive in A-Hall. He continued carrying on

20 in the visiting room after shift change. He refused verbal commands to be quiet. When [staffer]

21 gave him commands he said fuck you [to the staffer]. Suck me off! Suck my dick! After a brief

22 period of verbal threats he simmered down enough to have [staffer] walk him to the pad (A-11).

23 He spent the rest of the night in observation.”

24

4.2.49 Placement in the padded room was unwarranted. Merely being “disruptive” per

25 Chapter 7.5.II.D of the Policy Manual does not qualify under the extreme circumstances reserved

26 to justify isolation of juveniles consistent with due process.

27

COMPLAINT - 14
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 15 of 33

1

4.2.50 In addition, nowhere in this note does the supervisor identify any “imminent risk

2 to [oneself] or others” that would warrant the sanction of isolation in the Facility’s Padded Room

3 per County policy. See Policy Manual, chap. 7.5.II.D.

4

4.2.51 On April 16, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on 24-hour room confinement for the

5 following reason noted on the Comment Sheet by an unidentifiable staff member: “During the

6 walk both [Plaintiff] and [another youth] were in their windows. I told them both to stay out.

7 [The other youth] sat down and [Plaintiff] decided to argue and demand why. I said cuz [sic]

8 you’ve been a problem all day [referring to two alleged instances of using profanity]. . . . Given

9 24 lock for arguing.”

10

4.2.52 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

11 for a minor or major rule violation.

12

4.2.53 To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of the minor rule

13 against “verbal argument/outburst” or some other minor infraction, the staff member does not

14 explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

15 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

16 Room Lock per Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

17

4.2.54 On April 19, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “24 hr. lock for making inappropriate

18 gestures toward female detainees walking by and lying about it,” according to the Comment

19 Sheet completed by an unidentifiable staff member.

20

4.2.55 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

21 for a minor or major rule violation.

22

4.2.56 To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of the minor rule

23 against “verbal disrespect,” being “uncooperative with staff,” or otherwise, the staff member

24 does not explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

25 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

26 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

27

COMPLAINT - 15
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 16 of 33

1

4.2.57 On April 23, 2015, Plaintiff was “placed on 24 hr. lock for repeated misbehavior

2 in class – talking out, refusing to take notes, noise-making etc.,” according to the Comment

3 Sheet completed by an unidentifiable staff member.

4

4.2.58 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

5 for a minor or major rule violation.

6

4.2.59 To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of the minor rule

7 against “verbal disrespect,” being “uncooperative with staff,” or otherwise, the staff member

8 does not explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

9 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

10 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

11

4.2.60 On April 24, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on 24-hour room confinement for the

12 following reason noted on the Comment Sheet by an unidentifiable staff member: “[P]laintiff is

13 on another 24 hr lock. . . . [He] told me he doesn’t care and this is a fucking joke. [Plaintiff] is

14 on . . . [24 hr lock] because of making some kind of cat call to [a female youth].”

15

4.2.61 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

16 for a minor or major rule violation.

17

4.2.62 To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of the minor rule

18 against “verbal disrespect” or some other minor infraction, the staff member does not explain

19 how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule violations that

20 are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a Room Lock per

21 Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

22

4.2.63 On April 30, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “24 hr. lock for yelling and acting out

23 during lunch. Also for making gestures when told he was on lock,” according to the Comment

24 Sheet completed by an unidentifiable staff member.

25

4.2.64 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

26 for a minor or major rule violation.

27

COMPLAINT - 16
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 17 of 33

1

4.2.65 To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of the minor rule

2 against “verbal disrespect,” “verbal argument/outburst,” or otherwise, the staff member does not

3 explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

4 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

5 Room Lock per Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

6

4.2.66 On May 3, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “24 hr. lock . . . for being a nuisance in

7 b-wing and talking across the hall,” according to the Comment Sheet completed by an

8 unidentifiable staff member.

9

4.2.67 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

10 for a minor or major rule violation, and doesn’t appear to match the criteria for either category as

11 set forth in Chapter 7.2 of the Policy Manual.

12

4.2.68 Even assuming there was some minor rule violation for “being uncooperative

13 with staff” or otherwise, the staff member does not explain how this incident was part of any

14 “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule violations that are a serious threat to the security

15 of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy

16 Manual.

17

4.2.69 On May 9, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “24 hr. lock for dissing on [another

18 youth],” according to the Comment Sheet completed by an unidentifiable staff member.

19

4.2.70 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

20 for a minor or major rule violation, and doesn’t appear to match the criteria for either category as

21 set forth in Chapter 7.2 of the Policy Manual.

22

4.2.71 Even assuming there was some minor rule violation, the staff member does not

23 explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

24 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

25 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

26

4.2.72 On May12, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “24 hr. lock for consistent talking,

27 making under his breath comments that can just barely be heard, hitting people with foam roller

COMPLAINT - 17
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 18 of 33

1 & just generally trying to get away with misbehavior,” according to the Comment Sheet

2 completed by an unidentifiable staff member.

3

4.2.73 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

4 for a minor or major rule violation, and doesn’t appear to match the criteria for either category as

5 set forth in Chapter 7.2 of the Policy Manual.

6

4.2.74 Even assuming there was some minor rule violation for “horseplay” or being

7 “uncooperative with staff,” the staff member does not explain how this incident was part of any

8 “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule violations that are a serious threat to the security

9 of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy

10 Manual.

11

4.2.75 On May 17, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “24 hr. lock” for leaving a “big glob of

12 toothpaste on [his] front door,” according to the Comment Sheet completed by an unidentifiable

13 staff member who disbelieved Plaintiff’s claim that it was an accident.

14

4.2.76 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

15 for a minor or major rule violation, and doesn’t appear to match the criteria for either category as

16 set forth in Chapter 7.2 of the Policy Manual.

17

4.2.77 Even assuming there was some minor rule violation for being “uncooperative

18 with staff” or otherwise, the staff member does not explain how this incident was part of any

19 “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule violations that are a serious threat to the security

20 of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a Room Lock per Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy

21 Manual.

22

4.2.78 On June 7, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “24 hr. lock for lying and arguing with

23 staff” after he attempted to participate in physical activity he purportedly was not authorized to

24 do, according to the Comment Sheet completed by an unidentifiable staff member.

25

4.2.79 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

26 for a minor or major rule violation.

27

COMPLAINT - 18
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 19 of 33

1

4.2.80 Even assuming there was some minor rule violation against “verbal

2 argument/outburst,” for being “uncooperative with staff,” or otherwise, the staff member does

3 not explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

4 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

5 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

6

4.2.81 On June 11, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “24 hr. lock” for “yelling from room

7 (profanities) to [another youth],” according to the Comment Sheet completed by an

8 unidentifiable staff member.

9

4.2.82 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

10 for a minor or major rule violation.

11

4.2.83 Even assuming there was some minor rule violation for “verbal

12 argument/outburst,” or being “uncooperative with staff,” or otherwise, the staff member does not

13 explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

14 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

15 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

16

4.2.84 On July 6, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “24 hr. lock” for carrying candy in his

17 pocket, which was “contraband” according to the Comment Sheet completed by an

18 unidentifiable staff member.

19

4.2.85 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

20 for a minor or major rule violation.

21

4.2.86 Even assuming there was some minor rule violation, the staff member does not

22 explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

23 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

24 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

25

4.2.87 On July 7, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “24 hr. lock” for making comments to a

26 “Mexican” youth and saying he “should go back to where he came from,” according to the

27 Comment Sheet completed by an unidentifiable staff member.

COMPLAINT - 19
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 20 of 33

1

4.2.88 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

2 for a minor or major rule violation.

3

4.2.89 Even assuming there was some minor rule violation for “verbal disrespect,” the

4 staff member does not explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor

5 violations or rule violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so

6 as to warrant a Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual. Even if this were

7 deemed a major infraction for “slurs pertaining to [r]ace” or “ethnicity,” there was no claim of

8 imminent threat to others to justify use of isolation.

9

4.2.90 On July 12, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on 48-hour room confinement for the

10 following reason noted on the Comment Sheet by an unidentifiable staff member: “[Plaintiff]

11 was at his window again, told me he doesn’t care. Gave 48 hr lock, he has very bad attitude.”

12

4.2.91 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

13 for a minor or major rule violation.

14

4.2.92 To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of the minor rule for

15 being “uncooperative with staff” or some other minor infraction, the staff member does not

16 explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

17 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

18 Room Lock per Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

19

4.2.93 On July 21, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on 24-hour room confinement for the

20 following reason noted on the Comment Sheet by an unidentifiable staff member: “Yelling

21 ‘bitch’ from his room – not sure who it was directed at.”

22

4.2.94 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

23 for a minor or major rule violation.

24

4.2.95 To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of the minor rule for

25 being “verbal argument/outburst” or some other minor infraction, the staff member does not

26 explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

27

COMPLAINT - 20
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 21 of 33

1 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

2 Room Lock per Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

3

4.2.96 On August 23, 2015, Plaintiff was place in “23/1” room confinement by

4 Detention staffer, Georgia Peterson, without explanation.

5

4.2.97 The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether this was

6 for a minor or major rule violation.

7

4.2.98 The staffer also does not document the basis for placing Plaintiff in isolation, as

8 required, or how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

9 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

10 Room Lock per Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

11

4.2.99 On August 30, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “24 hr. lock” for “talking about

12 robbing a 7-11, after being previously warned.” The Comment Sheet completed by

13 unidentifiable staff member does not elaborate on the alleged comment or what the warning

14 concerned.

15

4.2.100

The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether

16 this was for a minor or major rule violation.

17

4.2.101

Even assuming there was some minor rule violation, the staff member

18 does not explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

19 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

20 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

21

4.2.102

On October 8, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “23 + 1” room confinement

22 for “yelling from room, wanted to argue and deny it when he was confronted,” according to the

23 Comment Sheet completed by an unidentifiable staff member.

24

4.2.103

The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether

25 this was for a minor or major rule violation.

26

4.2.104

Even assuming there was some minor rule violation for “verbal

27 argument/outburst,” being “uncooperative with staff,” or otherwise, the staff member does not

COMPLAINT - 21
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 22 of 33

1 explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

2 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

3 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

4

4.2.105

On October 12, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “23 + 1” room confinement

5 because he “hit [another youth] on the rear as he was walking by – w[ith] a foam roller. He was

6 goofing around, not angry, but automatic 23/1 for physical aggression.” The Comment Sheet

7 completed by an unidentifiable staff member is nonsensical on its face because it equates what is

8 at most the minor violation of “horseplay” under Chapter 7.2.II.B.1(c) (“goofing around”) with

9 “physical aggression.”

10

4.2.106

The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether

11 this was for a minor or major rule violation.

12

4.2.107

Even assuming there was some minor rule violation, the staff member

13 does not explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

14 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

15 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

16

4.2.108

On October 17, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “23 + 1” room confinement

17 for “writing on table and using spit to wipe it off with a sweatshirt,” according to the Individual

18 Detention Report completed by an unidentifiable staff member.

19

4.2.109

The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether

20 this was for a minor or major rule violation, and doesn’t appear to match the criteria for either

21 category as set forth in Chapter 7.2 of the Policy Manual.

22

4.2.110

Even assuming there was some minor rule violation, the staff member

23 does not explain how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule

24 violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a

25 Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

26

27

COMPLAINT - 22
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 23 of 33

1

4.2.111

On October 19, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on “23 + 1” room confinement

2 for “talking out of his room and cussing at other detainees,” according to the Individual

3 Detention Report completed by an unidentifiable staff member.

4

4.2.112

The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether

5 this was for a minor or major rule violation.

6

4.2.113

Even assuming there was some minor rule violation for “verbal

7 argument/outburst” or other minor infraction, the staff member does not explain how this

8 incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule violations that are a

9 serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a Room Lock under

10 Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

11

4.2.114

On December 17, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on 24-hour room

12 confinement for the following reason noted on the Individual Detention Report by an

13 unidentifiable staff member: “While I was reprimanding another detainee on the dayroom about

14 kids calling each other nicknames ‘white boy,” [Plaintiff] interrupted me and told me it’s okay

15 for them to say that because they are white.” The note continued that Plaintiff did not go back to

16 his room when told, and that the staffer had Plaintiff remove all his property except his mattress.

17 The staffer reported finally that Plaintiff then called her a “cunt.”

18

4.2.115

The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether

19 this was for a minor or major rule violation.

20

4.2.116

To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of the minor

21 rule against “verbal disrespect,” “verbal argument/outburst,” being “uncooperative with staff,” or

22 otherwise, the staff member does not explain how this incident was part of any “multiple,

23 continuous minor violations or rule violations that are a serious threat to the security of the

24 Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a Room Lock under Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

25

4.2.117

On January 20, 2016, Plaintiff was placed in “23/1” room confinement by

26 Detention staffer, Georgia Peterson, without explanation.

27

COMPLAINT - 23
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 24 of 33

1

4.2.118

The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether

2 this was for a minor or major rule violation. The staffer also does not document the basis for

3 placing Plaintiff in isolation, as required, or how this incident was part of any “multiple,

4 continuous minor violations or rule violations that are a serious threat to the security of the

5 Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a Room Lock per Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

6

4.2.119

On February 10, 2016, Plaintiff was placed on room confinement for 23

7 hours, with 1 hour out (“23/1”), “for receiving a letter that was passed to him from [another

8 youth],” according to the Individual Detention Report completed by an unidentifiable staff

9 member.

10

4.2.120

The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether

11 this was for a minor or major rule violation.

12

4.2.121

To the extent this incident arguably concerned a violation of the minor

13 rule against “note passing” or some other minor infraction, the staff member does not explain

14 how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations or rule violations that

15 are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a Room Lock under

16 Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

17

4.2.122

On February 13, 2016, Plaintiff was placed in on room confinement for 23

18 hours, with 1 hour out (“23/1”) by Detention staffer, Georgia Peterson, without explanation.

19

4.2.123

The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether

20 this was for a minor or major rule violation.

21

4.2.124

The staffer also does not document the basis for placing Plaintiff in

22 isolation, as required, or how this incident was part of any “multiple, continuous minor violations

23 or rule violations that are a serious threat to the security of the Detention Facility,” so as to

24 warrant a Room Lock per Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

25

4.2.125

On February 20, 2016, Plaintiff was placed in room confinement for 23

26 hours, with 1 hour out (“23/1”) by Detention staffer, Gabrielle Wolcott, without explanation.

27

COMPLAINT - 24
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 25 of 33

1

4.2.126

The purported reason for solitary confinement does not specify whether

2 this was for a minor or major rule violation. The staffer also does not document the basis for

3 placing Plaintiff in isolation, as required, or how this incident was part of any “multiple,

4 continuous minor violations or rule violations that are a serious threat to the security of the

5 Detention Facility,” so as to warrant a Room Lock per Chapter 7.3.III.M of the Policy Manual.

6

4.2.127

During the aforementioned instances of solitary confinement, Detention

7 staff, especially during the weekend shift, often did not check on Plaintiff every 30 minutes as

8 required.

9

4.2.128

During these periods of solitary confinement, Plaintiff was deprived of his

10 liberty and his property interest in education, without adequate notice or opportunity to be heard.

11

4.2.129

Supervisors routinely review Incident Reports and Comment Sheets that

12 discuss use of solitary confinement. County supervisors have failed to take action to correct

13 misuse of solitary confinement or enforce the Policy Manual to curb excessive and unwarranted

14 use of solitary confinement for minor rule violations.

15

4.2.130

County policymakers are deliberately indifferent to the pattern and

16 practice of not enforcing the Policy Manual and the Policy Manual’s authorization of solitary

17 confinement under circumstances that violate the constitution.

18

4.3 County officials subjected Plaintiff to isolation for over a month, eight (8)

days of which were spent in the detention Facility’s Padded Room. 19

4.3.1 On February 21, 2016, an incident occurred at the Detention Facility where

20

Plaintiff and several other juvenile detainees were yelling in their cells in the “B-Wing.” Staff

21

told the detainees as a group to be quiet and calm down. Plaintiff stopped yelling, but others did

22

not. Plaintiff watched from his cell as staff removed some juveniles, but no staff member made

23

contact with Plaintiff at that time, and he was left alone in his cell.

24

4.3.2 Staff members Ruth Milner and Jackie Ficele characterized the incident as

25

“Banging & yelling in B-Wing & refusing to follow directives,” and elaborated as follows in the

26

Incident Report:

27

COMPLAINT - 25
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 26 of 33

1

B-wing was acting out by banging & yelling & trying to involve others to

participate. They all were repeatedly being told by Jackie Ficele, the supervisor on

2

shift to quit being disruptive. After being told to stop continuously and they

wouldn’t, she starting removing certain kids from the hall starting with [other

3

youth #1] & [other youth #2]. Belongings were later removed from [other youth

#3], [other youth #4], [Plaintiff], & [other youth #5]. Noise continued coming

4

from [other youth #3]’s room so he was placed in a desk in the hall. [Other youth

#1] was placed in the pad. [Other youth #5] continued to bang and yell & was told

5

to come to door 3. When he came out of his room he said fuck this and returned to

his room. [Other youth #6] & [other youth #7] went to his room & [other youth

6

#7] resisted being cuffed & was taken down in the hall. Cuffs were placed on him

and he was escorted to intake & cuffed to the bench. The cuffs were checked &

7

loosened. [Other youth #3], [other youth #1], & [other youth #2] were all returned

to their rooms before 10 p.m. [Other youth #4] was ok’d to go back to his room

8

after Jackie F. talked to him @ 2220. [Other youth #5] was ok’d to go back to his

room @ 2235. [Other youth #4] was placed on 23/ 1 & lowered his level to 1.

9

[Other youth #1], [other youth #2], & [other youth #5] were placed on 23/1 then

then was lowered to level 1. [Plaintiff] & [other youth #3] will remain on ALP

10

[alternative level program] l till behavior improves.

11

4.3.3 On February 25, 2016, Defendant Gerald Murphy, the Detention Director, falsely

12 claimed that Plaintiff “escalated” the incident and caused a “mini riot” with the others. In light

13 of this incident, Mr. Murphy authorized that Plaintiff be confined in his room in “secured

14 detention” and “remain isolated from his peers until he demonstrates and improves better social

15 skills.”

16

4.3.4 Mr. Murphy instructed, based on an incorrect factual basis, that “[w]hile in secure

17 detention, he will follow all rules and expectations by staff and adhere to secure detentions [sic]

18 zero tolerance with behavior he demonstrated on 2/21/2016. [Plaintiff] will refrain from using

19 foul language and inciting weaker peers to mimic his behavior.”

20

4.3.5 Plaintiff remained in this isolated “secured detention,” with an hour per day in the

21 recreation room, through March 18, 2016. Plaintiff was limited to having one book in his cell.

22 Plaintiff was deprived of all contact with his parents during this period.

23

4.3.6 On several days, staff conducted a so-called “garage sale” where all items

24 (including his mattress) were removed from his cell from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm, as additional

25 punishment.

26

4.3.7 Plaintiff was also restricted to “sack lunches,” which consisted of an apple, a

27 container of milk, and a meat sandwich.

COMPLAINT - 26
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 27 of 33

1

4.3.8 After staff review of this isolated segregation, Mr. Murphy decided on March 18,

2 2016, that Plaintiff was to be moved from room confinement to the Padded Room, effective

3 March 19, because Plaintiff had allegedly used “foul language when addressing his peers” and

4 “demonstrated an unwillingness to make improvements in his behavior, along with . . . [r]efusing

5 to follow staffs [sic] directives.” Mr. Murphy declined to provide a specific date on which this

6 segregation and “special programming” would be reviewed.

7

4.3.9 Mr. Murphy’s use of solitary confinement—by placing Plaintiff in the Padded

8 Room—was carried out even though there were no safety risks that Plaintiff might harm himself

9 or others.

10

4.3.10 Plaintiff remained isolated in the Padded Room for eight days.

11

4.3.11 The condition of the Padded Room was dirty, with food and blood splatters on the

12 wall and floor. Instead of a toilet, there was a hole in the ground that was covered by a grate.

13 The grate was fouled with other detainees’ feces. When Plaintiff requested permission to clean

14 the grate, staff asked him if he would “eat” the feces. When he said that he would not, staff

15 laughed at him and said that in that case he would not be allowed to clean the grate.

16

4.3.12 During Plaintiff’s isolation in the Padded Room, he received only peanut butter

17 and jelly sandwiches, with staff expressly instructed that he was to receive “NO MILK OR

18 SNACKS.”

19

4.3.13 His diet was restricted in this manner despite the Policy Manual directive that he

20 was not to be denied “regular meals,” chap. 7.3.II.A.5, and the related policy that the Detention

21 Facility “provides three nutritionally balanced meals daily that meet the guidelines of the

22 National School Lunch Program.” See Chap. 14.1.I.A.

23

4.3.14 During Plaintiff’s isolation in the Padded Room, he was denied visitation with his

24 parents. He was prohibited from receiving any phone calls. The one designated hour of

25 recreation (“rec. time”) was allowed from 7am to 8am, alone in the Rec. Room. Plaintiff was not

26 permitted to have any books in his room, or educational materials, and was denied access to a

27 radio.

COMPLAINT - 27
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 28 of 33

1

4.3.15 Mr. Murphy ordered that “during waking hours [7:00 am to 11:00 pm], all items

2 in his cell will be removed except his mattress.”

3

4.3.16 During these periods of solitary confinement, Plaintiff was deprived of his liberty

4 and his property interest in education, without notice or opportunity to be heard.

5

4.3.17 Mr. Murphy notified Defendant Greg Reynvaan of the extended period of solitary

6 confinement and dietary restrictions.

7

4.3.18 As Juvenile Court Administrator, Mr. Reynvaan had the authority to countermand

8 the corrective action, but did not.

9

4.3.19 On or about March 26, 2016, Plaintiff was released from the Padded Room, and

10 relieved of the related sanctions under Mr. Murphy’s corrective action and special programming.

11

4.3.20 On March 28, 2016, Judge Edwards confirmed that “a detainee at the juvenile

12 facility was put into solitary confinement for an extended period of time and restricted of food

13 and bedding,” and reprimanded Mr. Reynvaan and Mr. Murphy that “this type of discipline is

14 unacceptable and will not be tolerated.” Judge Edwards suspended them each without pay for 7

15 days and 30 days, respectively.

16

4.3.21 Plaintiff was released from County custody on April 27, 2016.

17

4.3.22 In light of the frequency in which Plaintiff cycled through the Grays Harbor

18 County juvenile justice system, and the County’s aforementioned extensive record of subjecting

19 Plaintiff to unwarranted and excessive use of solitary confinement to sanction ordinary teenage

20 misbehavior, there is a reasonable risk that Plaintiff will again in the future be subject to the

21 County’s unconstitutional policies and practices.

22

4.4 The County’s policies, patterns, and practices caused Plaintiff to be placed

solitary confinement, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 23

24

4.4.1 Due process rights afforded to juveniles under the Fourteenth Amendment to the

25 U.S. Constitution prohibit the use of solitary confinement or isolation except in extreme

26 circumstances, such as to control violent offenders who present an imminent risk to themselves

27 or others.

COMPLAINT - 28
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 29 of 33

1

4.4.2 Juveniles adjudicated delinquent have protections under the Eighth Amendment

2 to the U.S. Constitution against cruel and unusual punishment and are treated categorically

3 different from adults with criminal convictions.

4

4.4.3 The National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) takes the

5 following positions: (1) “The inherent restriction in meaningful social interaction and

6 environmental stimulation and the lack of control adversely impact the health and welfare of all

7 who are held in solitary confinement.” (2) “Even those without a prior history of mental illness

8 may experience a deterioration in mental health, experiencing anxiety, depression, anger,

9 diminished impulse control, paranoia, visual and auditory hallucinations, cognitive disturbances,

10 obsessive thoughts, paranoia, hypersensitivity to stimuli, posttraumautic stress disorder, self-

11 harm, suicide, and/or psychosis.” (3) “These consequences are especially harmful to juveniles

12 whose brains are still developing and those with mental health problems.” For these reasons, the

13 NCCHC recommends: “Juveniles, mentally ill individuals, and pregnant women should be

14 excluded from solitary confinement of any duration.”

15

4.4.4 The federal government during the Obama administration ceased the practice of

16 using solitary confinement for juveniles and for inmates serving time for low-level infractions.

17 The federal government took this action because of data reflecting that the still-developing brains

18 of juveniles face increased susceptibility to lasting damage from imposition of solitary

19 confinement.

20

4.4.5 At least 21 states have prohibited the use of solitary confinement on juveniles for

21 disciplinary purposes.

22

4.4.6 Consistent with these data and reforms, courts have recognized that “there is a

23 broad consensus among the scientific and professional community that juveniles are

24 psychologically more vulnerable than adults.” V.W. by & through Williams v. Conway, No. 9:16-

25 CV-1150, 2017 WL 696808, *19, -- F.Supp.3d -- (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2017) (granting

26 preliminary injunction to stop use of solitary confinement of minors in New York county); see

27 also, e.g., Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2467 (2012) (Youth “is a time of

COMPLAINT - 29
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 30 of 33

1 immaturity, irresponsibility, impetuousness[,] and recklessness. It is a moment and condition of

2 life when a person may be most susceptible to influence and to psychological damage.”) (internal

3 quotation marks and citations omitted) (alteration in original); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48,

4 68 (2010) (“[D]evelopments in psychology and brain science continue to show fundamental

5 differences between juvenile and adult minds.”); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569 (2005)

6 (recognizing “comparative immaturity and irresponsibility of juveniles”); State v. Houston-

7 Sconiers, No. 92605-1, 2017 WL 825654, -- P.3d --, (Wash. Mar. 2, 2017) (“Because ‘children

8 are different’ under the Eighth Amendment and hence ‘criminal procedure laws’ must take the

9 defendants’ youthfulness into account, sentencing courts must have absolute discretion to depart

10 as far as they want below otherwise applicable SRA ranges and/or sentencing enhancements

11 when sentencing juveniles in adult court, regardless of how the juvenile got there.”) (citing

12 Miller-Graham-Roper trilogy).

13

4.4.7 Despite these contemporary standards, and the widespread knowledge that

14 solitary confinement can inflict serious harm on juveniles, the County’s Policy Manual

15 authorizes Detention Staff and Supervisors to place youth such as Plaintiff in “room

16 confinement,” “Room Lock,” “24 hour lock,” “23/1” confinement, or other forms of solitary

17 confinement or isolation, for minor and major rule violations where public safety concerns are

18 absent.

19

4.4.8 To the extent the County’s Policy Manual contains safeguards for the benefit of

20 juvenile detainees, the County is deliberately indifferent to a pattern and practice of placing

21 juveniles in solitary confinement or isolation without enforcement of such safeguards.

22

4.4.9 By operation of County policy and the practice of not enforcing safeguards

23 contained in the Policy Manual, the County allows the use of solitary confinement of juveniles as

24 described herein that posed and continues to pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to the

25 health of its juvenile detainees including Plaintiff. The County’s ongoing operation of its

26 Detention Facility, with this policy and practice in place, is in deliberate indifference to these

27 serious risks.

COMPLAINT - 30
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 31 of 33

1

4.4.10 The County’s placement of Plaintiff in solitary confinement, as described herein,

2 whether for punitive or administrative purposes, was unwarranted and contrary to the Eighth and

3 Fourteenth Amendments.

4

4.4.11 The County’s affirmative policy regarding its use of “cell confinement,” “Room

5 Lock,” the “Padded Room,” and other formulations for solitary confinement caused Plaintiff to

6 suffer the constitutional deprivations described herein.

7

4.4.12 The pattern and practice of non-enforcement of safeguards for juveniles placed in

8 solitary confinement set forth in the Policy Manual caused and exacerbated the constitutional

9 deprivations described herein.

10

4.4.13 On account of Plaintiff’s prolonged solitary confinement and restricted diet in

11 February and March of 2016, and the prior repeated use of solitary confinement as described

12 herein, Defendants have inflicted pain and suffering on Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to damages

13 for this pain and suffering, emotional distress, and other general damages.

14

4.4.14 Defendants Reynvaan, Murphy, and County caused Plaintiff’s injuries associated

15 with the prolonged solitary confinement in February and March 2016.

16

4.4.15 Defendants Doe staffers and the County caused Plaintiff’s injuries associated with

17 prior instances of unconstitutional solitary confinement.

18

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

19

5.1. By virtue of the facts set forth above, Defendants are liable for deprivation of civil

20 rights of Plaintiff, M.D., guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the

21 United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because Defendants have subjected Plaintiff to solitary

22 confinement, on a routine basis pursuant to County policies and practices, for reasons that fall

23 short of the extreme circumstances tolerated by substantive due process such as addressing

24 public safety concerns.

25

5.2. By virtue of the facts set forth above, Defendants are liable for deprivation of civil

26 rights of Plaintiff, M.D., guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the

27 United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because Defendants have subjected Plaintiff to solitary

COMPLAINT - 31
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 32 of 33

1 confinement and deprived him of educational materials and opportunities, on a routine basis

2 pursuant to County policies and practices, without notice or opportunity to be heard, in violation

3 of his procedural due process rights.

4

5.3 By virtue of the facts set forth above, Defendants are liable for deprivation of civil

5 rights of Plaintiff, M.D., guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United

6 States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because Defendants have subjected Plaintiff to solitary

7 confinement, on a routine basis pursuant to County policies and practices and otherwise under

8 circumstances described herein, which amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

9

VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

10

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as follows:

11

6.1. Injunctive relief, including that Defendant Grays Harbor County be ordered to

12 cease placing Plaintiff and other juvenile detainees in solitary confinement as a routine method

13 of behavior management;

14

6.2. A declaration that Grays Harbor County’s policies and practices as described

15 herein are unconstitutional;

16

6.3. Compensatory damages;

17

6.4 Costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and to the

18 extent otherwise permitted by law;

19

6.5. Such other relief as may be just and equitable.

20

21 //

22 //

23 //

24 //

25 //

26 //

27 //

COMPLAINT - 32
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 1 Filed 03/14/17 Page 33 of 33

1

DATED this 14th day of March, 2017.

2

3

MacDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

4

By: s/David J. Whedbee

David J. Whedbee, WSBA #35977

5

davidw@mhb.com

6

Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU of Washington

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7

8

Nancy Talner, WSBA No. 11196

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF

9

WASHINGTON FOUNDATION

901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630

10

Seattle, Washington 98164

Telephone: (206) 624-2184

11

Email: talner@aclu-wa.org

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COMPLAINT - 33
kc131401

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 
 Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 9
EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 2 of 9

2

Honorable Ronald B. Leighton

3

4

51

61 I 71

UN ITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT

8

WESTERN DISTRlCT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

9

THERESA DOE, parent and legal guard ian

10

for M.D., a minor,

II

Plaintiff,

NO.3: I 7-cv- 05 I86- RBL
REPORT OF SETTLEMENT GUARDIAN AD LITEM

12

v.

13

GRA YS HARBOR COUNTY, a municipality;

GERALD MURPHY, GREG REYNVAAN,

14

and JOHN and JANE DOES , in their

indi vidua l capacity, 15

Defendants.

16

17

I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

18 GROSS SETTLEMENT: $45 ,000.00 present value

19 NET PROCEEDS:

$37, 296.47 present value

20 Special Issues : This monetary settlement is part of a settlement of claims for injunctive and other relief against the Grays Harbor County relating to practices in their juvenile detenti on
2 1 facilities.

22 SGAL Name: lo-Hanna Read

Phone: (206) 739-7547

Plaintiffs Attorney: David Whedbee

24

Nancy TaiJler

Phone: (206) 622-1604 Phone: (206) 624-2184

26 Defendant's Attorneys: 27

Suzanne Kelly Michael and Kathleen A. Kline Phone: (206) 442-9696

28 Report of Guardian ad Litem - I

LAW OFFICE OF JO-HANNA READ
600 N. 36'h Street. 11306 Seattle. \VA 98103 206·739.75-l7

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 3 of 9

Mediator: J. Paris Kallas
2
Minor: M. D. 3

Date of Birth: XXXX XX, 2000

4 How net proceeds will be protected: Blocked account and annuity

5

II. APPOINTMENT OF SETTLEMENT GUARDIAN AD LITEM

6

A . Name of Settlement Guard ian ad Litem: Jo-Hanna Read

B. Brief Statement of Experience and Qualifications: See attached Curriculum Vitae.

C. Relationship, if any, with involved parents, guardians, insurers or attorneys: None.

II III. DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT AND LEGAL CLAIMS
12
M.D, through his mother, brought Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.c. 13 §1983 arising out of policies and practices of Grays Harbors County Juvenile Detention Center 14 which resu lted in detention staff routinel y placing M.D . in so litary confinement during the time
period from November 20 13 to March 2016. Plaintiff asserted claims for compensatory and 15 punitive damages for the approximate 75 instances of solitary confinement during these years,
including the period from February 21 , 20 16, to approximately March 26, 20 16, when the 16 County's Detention Director, Gerald Murphy, kept M.D. in isolation continuously. For eight of 17 those days M.D . was confined in the "Padded Room" ordinarily reserved for violent or suicidal
detainees. These forms of solitary confinement are contrary to contemporary legal , societal, 18 and scientific standards.
19 Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief in the form of policy changes that wou ld, consistent with prevai ling norms, limit the use of solitary confinement (including under the gu ise of "cell
20 confinement", "room restriction", "24-hour lock" or other expressions for holding children in 21 isolation) to only extreme circumstances where the child has placed himself or others in serious
risk of physical harm, or for a maximum of 4 hours per day for rule violations and behavior
22 management.

M.D. , now approach ing 17 years old, spent considerable time during hi s teenage years in the 24 Grays Harbor County Juvenile Detention Facility, largely because of contempt orders that
issued amid a series of At-Risk Youth (ARY) petitions filed by his mother, Theresa Doe. Beginning in 2013, as a single parent, Ms. Doe resorted to the ARY petition process because M.D . was missing schoo l and coming home late at night, and because of what she viewed as 26 her son's worsening disrespect and her concerns about his drug use . Judge David Edwards 27 presided over the juvenile docket in Grays Harbor Superior Court and ultimatel y began

28 Report of Guardian ad Litem - 2

LAW OFFICE OF JO-HANNA READ
600 N. 36'" Slrccl. #306 Scall lc. \VA 98 103 206-739-7547

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 4 of 9

imposing periods of detention along with conditions of probation. M.D. was not always
2 compliant with the conditions, which resulted in contempt orders and yet more time in
detention.

In 20 15, M.D. was involved in the theft of several bottl es ofliquor and a "residential burglary" after he and a friend entered another friend's house without permi ss ion and took an "ecigarette." M.D . admitted hi s involvement in both offenses, which resulted in add itional probation violations and additional time at the Detention Facility.

7 On April 27, 2016, after a representative from Team Child alerted the Grays Harbor County Prosecuting Attorney to concerns about the extended use of so litary confinement on M.D . and
8 the fact that the County was continuing to hold M.D . without lawful authority, M.D. was released from the Detention Facility.
9

10

IV. INVESTIGATION

\I

have reviewed various documents, including mediati on materials, court pleadings, a fee

agreement and a proposed disbursement. I have spoken by telephone with M.D., Theresa Doe,

12 David Whedbee and Nancy Talner. I believe that the investigation is adequate given the nature

of the case, the injuries to the minor, and the amount involved. 13

14

V. LIABILITY ISSUES

15 Liability was not conceded.

16

VI. INJUIUES AND TREATMENT, DIAGNOSIS, AND PROGNOSIS

17 It is hard to quantify specific damages to M.D. caused directly by the actions of the juvenile

18 facility, although it was obviously a very negative experience for him. He and his mother were

most concerned that this should not have happened and shou ld not happen to anyone el se. Their 19 actions in bringing this claim will have a clear positive impact on future treatment of young

20

people in the Grays Harbor detention facility, as evidenced in the settlement agreement entered into by the parties. This is a point of pride for them, as it should be. M.D . can look back on thi s

2 1 as a positive result of such a negative experience.

22 In addition to a monetary settlement, the county agreed to the following:

a. T he County will revise its juvenile detention policy regarding discipline

24

and the use of isolation and room restriction to be consistent with the

Washington State Juvenile Justice & Rehabilitation Administration Policy

25

22, Assign ing Room Confinement, Programmed Room Confinement and

Isolation, ("JRA Po li cy.22"), and wi ll present thi s revised policy to Doe for

26

review within 90 days of the Settlement Date.

27

28 Report of Guardian ad Litem - 3

LAW OFFICE OF JO-HANNA READ
600 N. 36111 Slrccl. #306 Sc~ltlc . \V/\ 9S I03 206·739-754 7

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 5 of 9

b. The County will provide Doe with a copy of its training protoco ls and

2

curriculum related to the policy change within 120 days of the Settlement

Date . 3

4

c. The County will certify by December I, 2017 that it has trained all

existing Juvenile Detention Center staff using the training protocols and

5

curriculum which were provided to Doe.

6

d. The County will certify by December I , 2017 that it will train all newly

7

hired Juvenile Detention Center staff on the revised policy and provide

refresher training to all Staff regarding the revised policy once every 12

8

months.

9

e. The County will provide, verification that its practices comply with the

10

revised policy. Verification may take the form of expedited provi sion of a juvenile detainee's file to the detainee and/or the detainee's legal guard ian

II

or legal representative.

12

VII. DAMAGES

13 There are no treatment bills or other spec ial damages.

14 VIII. ALL INSURANCE OR COLLATERAL SOURCES AVAILABLE TO

15

SATISFY CLAIM

16 There is adequate funding to cover this claim.

17 IX. LIENS, SUBROGATION AND REIMBURSEMENTS

18
None known. 19

20

X. IDENTIFICATION OF OTHER CLAIMS INCLUDING CLAIMS OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS

21

No other claims have been brought.

~~ I

XI. APPORTIONMENT

-j

24 There are no apportionment issues.

25

26

27

2 8 Report of Guardian ad Litem - 4

LAW OFFICE OF JO-HANNA READ
600 N. 361h Sireci. #306 Scaulc. W,\ 98 103
206-739 - 75 ~ 7

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 6 of 9

XII. PROPOSED MONETARY SETTLEMENT
2

3

A. Amount: $45,000.00 present value

4

B. Payment Terms: Cash into blocked account and structure.

sII

C. Proposed Settlement Documents : Settlement agreement and release, receipt

for blocked account and proo f of acqui sition of annuity. 6

7

XIII. EXPENSES AND FEES

8

A. Expenses

9

The following expenses were incurred in pursing these claims:

10

Filing Fees

II

Process Service

12

Medical Records

Expert Fees

13

Depositions

14

Travel Expenses

15

Fed Ex

Total:

16

$400 .00 $6 19.00 $213.46 $3,750.00 $ 1,945.41 $7 13.99
61.67 $7,703.53

17

These expenses are reasonable given the nature of the case.

18

B. Attorney Fees.

19 This minor has been represented by David Whedbee of MacDonald Hoague & Bayless and 20 Nancy Talner of the ACLU. Neither is requesting attorney fees.

21 /
22 /
/ 23 /

24

26 27
28 Report of Guardi an ad Litem - 5

LAW OFFICE OF JO-HANNA READ
600 N. 36th Street. #306 SC<l1tk. \VA 98103 206-739-7547

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 7 of 9

XIV. DISPOSITION OF NET PROCEEDS 2

3

A. Proposed Settlement

4

Offer

5

Less

6

Costs

7 Net Proceeds
8

$45,000.00 present value
$7,703 .53
$37,296.47 present val ue

B. Disposition of Net Proceeds

I recommend a structured settlement as to the maj ority of the funds. This will provide a cushion II for M.D. to pursue education andlor training after he turns 18 years of age. The proposed 12 structured settlement payout is as foll ows: $8,339.37 payable annually, guaranteed for 3 years,
beginning on 07/21/2019, with the last guaranteed payment on 07/21/202 1. 13
The cost of the above structured settlement is $25 ,000.00. The interest rate earned on the fund s 14 going into the structured settlement is 0.03%. The name of the company issuing the structured 15 settlement is Pacifi c Life and that company's financial rating is A+ 15 by AM Best.

16 The plaintiffs attorney should be required to file a Proof of Annuity Acquisition with in thirty days after the settlement is approved by the court.
17
M.D. has requested that he be allowed $ 1,000 now, to spend on clothing. After discussion with 18 him and his mother, I recommend that this be allowed . This should take the form of a pre-paid 19 credit card or gift card in hi s name. He has also requested that $399.00 be allotted to paying for
a drivers' education course, which I also recommend . After these expenditures there will remain 20 approximately $ 10,897. 00 of the settl ement. This amount should be placed in a blocked
account, to be available to him when he turns 18, in 20 18. 21

22 I recommend that this settlement be monitored by the King County Superior Court, as plaintiff s counsel are located in Seattle.

23

XV.

SETTLEMENT GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES

24

25

I request settlement guardian ad litem fees and costs in the amount of $ 1,500.00. I am filing a declaration of my time and services and costs incurred, concurrentl y with thi s report. I

26 recommend that the sett lement guardian ad litem fees and costs be paid the defendant's insurer, as agreed .
27

28 Report of Guardian ad Litem - 6

LAW OFFICE OF JO-HANNA READ 600 N. 36'10 Street. 11306
Scanlc. \VA 98 103 206-739-7547

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 8 of 9

XVI. SETTLEMENT APPROVAL IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS 2
This settlement has not been submitted for approval in any other court or jurisdiction. 3

4

XVII. CONCLUSION

5 I believe that the settlement set fort h herein is in the minor's best interests and recommend that the court approve it and authorize application of the proceeds as set forth herein.
6

7'

DATED this 16 August 20 17.

8

LA W OFFICE OF l O- HANNA READ

9

10

A READ, WSBN: 6938

11

ettlement Guardian ad Litem

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

26
27
28 Report of Guardian ad Litem · 7

LAW OFFICE OF JO·H ANNA READ
600 N. 361h Street. #306 Scaule. W1\ 98 \03 206 -739-7547

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 9 of 9

lo-HANNA READ
600 N 36th St, Ste 306 Seattle, WA 98 103 206 -739 -7547

an A II rated allorney

E DUCATIO N
Undergraduate: Bachelors of Arts, summa cum laude, phi beta kappa, with honors in Anthropology, Uni versity o f Washington, 1972 .

Law: J.D., with honors, Uni versity of Maryland, 1976.

JOIl EXP ERI ENCE
200S-present: Law Office of Jo- Hanna Read. Representi ng cl ients in personal injury claims. Emphasis in recent years has been on representation of victims of sex ual and/or physical abuse, therapy malpractice, sexual harassment, and related areas, as well as ex tensive service as a liti gati on guardian ad litem and settlement guardi an ad litem.
2001-2005: Endri ss & Read, PLLC. Partner. 1988-2001 : Law Offi ce of Jo-H anna Read. So lo practice . Pl aintiffs' personal injury. 1983-1988: partner in the firm of Adler, Giersch, and Read. 1976-1982: staff attorney, Seat1l e/King County Public Defenders O ffi ce.
R ELAT ED E XP ERI ENCE
recipient, Washington State Assoc iation fo r Justice Publi c Justice Award, 20 I0 recipient, Washington Women Lawyers Passing the Torch Award, 2008 member, Washington State Association fo r Justi ce (formerl y Washington State Tri al Lawyers Assoc iati on)
grad uate, Trial Lawyer's College (founded by Gerry Spence), 2006 presentati ons at numerous continuing education seminars fo r attorneys, 1976-present

Contributing Author, Beyond the Criminal Justice System: Transforming Our Nation 's Re;ponse to Rape
Chief Author, Washington Lawyers Practice Manual Chapter 5, Part One: "Personal Inj ury: A Plainti ff's Perspecti ve", 1998 to 2000.
designated a Washington state Super Lawyer by Washington Law & Politics, 1999 through 2006, 20 10 through 20 17

 
 Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-3 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 3

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-3 Filed 11/09/17 Page 2 of 4

20 17/JUN/23/FRJ09: 57 AOE

FAX No. 3605330361

P. 001

SETTLKMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

and his parent and legal guardian Theresa (" ") and Grays 'Harbor County>

Genlld Mu:rp1:J.y, Greg Reynvaan, and John and Jane Does ("the County") desire to settle .and

resolve all disputes growing out of 's detentiOllati;he Grays Harbor County Juvenile

Deten.tion Center, inCluding,butnot limited to, claimsBSserted in Theresa parent and legal
guardian for M.D., a minor v. Grays Harbor County, a municipality; Gerald Murphy,Greg

Reynvaan, and John and .fane Does, in their individual capacity, Cause No. 3:17-cv~05186.,RBL

(the "Lawsuit").

and the Couiltyate sometimes referred to collectively as the "Parties." It

is therefore agreed asJollows:

1. Agreement Not Admission.· This Agreement iSllotan adroissionby the County that it (or any ants employees) has violated any law or failedta fulfill.any duty to ..

2. Release.

specifically aclrnow]edges' and accepts 'the County's undertakings in this

Agreement f)Sfu11 settlemenfof any and all claims, known or unknoWIl,arising outofor

related to 's detention 'at the Grays Harbor County Juvenile Detention Center,

including but not limited to the claims that were asserted, or could have been assertedin

the Lawsuit based on the fads alleged in the Complaint. The 'Parties realize this

constitutes a full .andfinal settlement of any an,dallsuchclaims,and except for

obligations arising under this Agreemen~, this Agreement releases the County (inclllding

the County1s elected offici.als,councilmenibers, officers,directors, employees, agentS,'

and lo.surers, andanyotie else .against Whom could assert a claim based on ~s

detention) from any:fuHher liability to (or to anyone' else has the power to bind

in this Agre~ent)in connection with such Ciaims. .

3. DismissaIyvith Prejudice. Upon execution of this A.greement and receipt of the
settlement .funds, andwithfu 30 days of satisfaction of theobligatioDs described in
Paragraph 5' below, the Parties will dismiss the Lawsuit with pr~udice, with each partyto bear their own attorney fees' andcosts,except asotherwiseprovidedm this Agreement.
agrees to dismiss w-ithpl'ejudiceany other actiollJiled with any court. adniinistrative
agencYt or any grievances or appeals against the Couniy 'filed in, any forum, and
further agrees not to file· any action regarding released claims, including without
limitation, any claimsreleasedunderBection2 in the future.

4. Settlement Payment. As conside}:atiol1 for the settlement of anyanda11clairnsas 'set

forth in'Paragraph 2 above, the County agrees to :pay to -forty-five thousand dollars

($45,0.0.0..0.0.) in general damages, subject to 1099 and all ,applicable taxe~, and payable

within 30. days of s delivery of the original executed version ofthis Agreernent (''the

SettlementDate'l)," A check for $45,OOO.OO:wil1 be made payable to "MacDonald Hoague

& Bayless ill trust 'for

" and wiUbe delivered. to s attorn~y, David I.

'Whedbee, atili.e following address:

MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104

PAGE:! On

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-3 Filed 11/09/17 Page 3 of 4

2Ql7!lUN!23!FRI 09:58 AOE

FAXNp.36053.3036J

p, 002

5. Additional Obligations. As additiona1 consideration, the County agrees to take the following actions:

a. The County will revise its juvenile detention policy regarding discipline and the usepf isolation and room restriction to be consistent with the Washington 'State Juvenile Justice & Rehabilitation Administration Policy 22, Assigning .Room Confinement, Programmed Room Confinement and Isolation, ("JRA Policy.22"), arid will present this revised policy to for review within 90 days of the
Settlement Date.

b. The County will provide willi a .copyofitstrain:ing:protocols andcurrlcwum re1atedto thepo!icy change within 120~ysofthe S.E':tilement Date.

'c, The County'WiU certifyl:>y December 1, 2017 that it has trained all existing Juvenile Detention Center staff using the training 'protocolsandc:urriculum which were providedto .

d.TheCounty will certify by December 1. 2017 that it will train all newly hired Juyenile Detention Center staff on the revised policy•. and provide refresher training to all.'Staffregardingthe revis~ policy .once every 12 months..

e. Th.eCounty will provide,:: veri:fi.catlontlia.! its practices •comply with the revised policy. Verification :may take the fonnofexpedit<::dprovision .of a juvenile detainee's file to the detainee and/or the detainee's legaIguardian or legal
representative.
6. Mediation Fees. The County agrees to. pay fortb.e full mediationcostsofmediatlJ:m this disputewit4,Paris K. Kallas on May 30, 2017;
•
7. SGALFees. The County agrees to pay the SQAL fee, not to exceed one thousapdfive p,undreddollars ($l,500.0Q).

;8. Tal. Liability.

agrees that the County :makes no 'Tepresentationas to any tax

consequences arising from the above payment. Moreover, understands and agrees

'that any tax consequences and/or liability· ,ari~ing from the settlement payment shall be

his sole responsibility. certiiiesthat'there are no outstandingliens ormedical bills.

.

.\:~~

9. Authority to Enter Agreelileiit.

represents and Warrantsthat,as ofthe date .ofthis

Agreement, he is the ~true party in interest, that he is 'fu.llyauthorized to execute 'this

AgreePlent;and that he has llotsold; assigned,transf.erreg,conveyeq,OTotherwise

disposed oranY'rights ;surreniieredby virtue of-this Agreement

.to. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall he bindmg-q,poh.and inure to the benefit of~y heirs, legal representativos,successors,and ag5i~s ofthe Parties.

PAGE~.oF'.3

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-3 Filed 11/09/17 Page 4 of 4

20n/JUN/23/Fll 09:58 AOE

FAX NO,3605330361

p, 003

II. Governing Law and Dispute Resolution. This Agreement shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with th~ laws of the State of Washington. Any disputes to
enforce or interpretllie terms of this Agreement, or any portion thereof, shall be
'Submitted to Paris K. Kallas, Judicial Dispute Resolution,. for binding arbitration, In the event of arbitration, the prevailing party shall be entitled to ,attorney fees and arbitrator costs. Any disputes other i:handisputes involving the tenns of this Agreem.ent shall. be su1;>j ect to litigation in the State Courtslocated in 11lurstonCoUDty.

12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement (a) .contains the entire understanding Of the Parties withrespeci to the subject matter covered; (b) supersedesa11prior and contemporaneous
understandings; and (c) may only be amended in a written instrument signed by the Parties.

13. Knowing and Voluntary Waiver.

acknowledges that he :has been advised to

constilt witfl anattomey,and has .b.ad.an opportuni1;y to do so~ before signing the

Agreement,:which has 'been given a reasonable period;Qf time-to consider.

14. Cou.nterpam. This Agreement may be executed by the ,Pi:uties 'Via facsimile transroissionot in separate counterparts; eaoh ()f which When executed and ,delivered shall be .&).. original, but .all of which togetheI' shall constitute onennd 'the same
instrument.

llIERESA , parent ,and,legal
guardian for

GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY

.PAGE30F3

 
 Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-5 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT 5

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-5 Filed 11/09/17 Page 2 of 8

3 ' MICHAEL

ALEXANDER PLL C

Suzanne Kelly Michael (206) 442-9696 s u zann e @michaelandalexander.com
Kathleen A. Kline (206) 442-9696 kathlee n @ michaelandalexander.com

Via Email and U.S. Mail David Whedbee MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98104

October 13, 2017

RE: Doe v. Grays Harbor County, et ai. - Injunctive Relief Component of Settlement

Dear Mr. Whedbee:

Thank you for your letter. We have reviewed the Washington State Juvenile Justice & Rehabilitation Administration Policy 22, Assigning Isolation and Room Confinement ("JR Policy 22") and your proposed changes to the County's new policy regarding room confinement, protective custody, and isolation that was sent to you on August 24, 2017. Please find attached a revised copy of the County's policy. This revised policy incorporates all but one of your proposed changes. Because there are already safeguards built into the revised policy that require the Detention Director to approve all programmed room confinement and requires that there be a written plan in place before any programmed room confinement is imposed (see 2.8, 2.9, 2.10,2.11,2.12), paragraph 41 of JR Policy 22 is not necessary. With these changes, we believe the attached revised policy is consistent with JR Policy 22.

As Judge Edwards stated in his letter, each officer at the Juvenile Detention Center is required to review the revised policy and certify in writing that he or she has reviewed it and understands the changes. This kind of self-training is commonplace in juvenile facilities and satisfies the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Please let us know if you would like to confer further about this issue or if you are prepared to file the Petition for Minor Settlement with the Court.
Very truly yours,

SKM:KAK
565.140

Suzanne elly Michael Kathleen A. Kline

p . 206 .•H:2.<j6<j6 r. 2 06 . H.2 .~)699 : 7Dl Pike Stree t, Su il" 1I 5D, Seattle . \VA 98ID1 : www. m ich aelandal exander .com

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-5 Filed 11/09/17 Page 3 of 8

GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY JUVENILE DEPARTMENT DETENTION DIVISION

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

POLICY #

EFFECTIVE DATE:

APPROVED:

Director

PAGE 1 OF 6

USE OF ROOM CONFINEMENT, PROTECTIVE CUSTODY AND ISOLATION
SECTION 1: DEFINTIONS
1.1 Room Confinement: confinement in the youth's assigned room or in a room with standard living unit room amenities.
1.2 Protective Custody: confinement to protect the youth from selfharm or under other circumstances when the health or safety of the youth may be in danger.
1.3 Isolation: confinement in a room without amenities and designated for the control of behavior or to deter a hazardous situation.
SECTION 2: ROOM CONFINEMENT
2.1 Room confinement may be used as a consequence for disruptive or negative behaviors. Staff will use the least amount of time to meet the purpose of the intervention.
2.2 Staff may impose room confinement for up to one (1) hour to address poor behavior and/or as a means to de-escalate the behavior of a youth. Staff must consider how the intervention will enhance the ability to achieve a desired modification of behavior. This may include assisting the youth in using skillful behavior.
2.3 A youth may be placed in room confinement beyond one hour for any of the following reasons:
a. Any reason for which isolation is allowed; b. A consequence of attempted escape or assisting in an escape. c. Repeated violation of facility or living unit rules; d. Repeated refusal to follow staff directives, or behavior legally
defined as a law violation

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-5 Filed 11/09/17 Page 4 of 8

GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY JUVENILE DEPARTMENT DETENTION DIVISION

POLICY #

PAGE #

2

OF

6

2.4 When placement on room confinement exceeds one hour, staff will:
a. Inform the youth of the specific reasons for confinement b. Allow the youth an opportunity to respond prior to the expiration of
the one-hour period. c. Confinement may include identification of skills and
behavior modifications to assist the youth.
2.5 A single incident of placement on room confinement totaling five (5) hours or more during one day, excluding established facility sleeping hours, must be documented on an Incident Report. All detainees placed on room confinement must be reviewed periodically to assess their readiness for release from confinement.
2.6 Within twenty-four hours after room confinement is imposed, a Detention Officer III or the Detention Director will have a face-to-face meeting with the youth to make a decision regarding the extension of room confinement beyond twentyfour hours up to seventy-two hours. Room confinement may be extended beyond twenty-four hours if:
a. The original cause or any other valid cause for room confinement exists.
b. The youth fails to make a verbal commitment to engage in skillful behavior and not to engage in the non-adaptive behavior that led to room confinement.
c. Continued room confinement will sufficiently meet the purpose of the intervention, which may include deterring the negative behavior that resulted in room confinement.
2.7 If a youth, during one day, receives cumulative room confinement exceeding five (5) hours, but no single confinement exceeds one (1) hour, the responsible supervisor must review the incidents to ensure the youth is receiving appropriate treatment and document the review.
2.8 A youth may be placed on programmed room confinement in the youth’s assigned room or in another room with standard living unit amenities. Programmed room confinement may be used when less restrictive methods have not been effective and should be time limited with the intent of accomplishing a specific goal or set of goals. Programmed room confinement may be used:

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-5 Filed 11/09/17 Page 5 of 8

GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY JUVENILE DEPARTMENT DETENTION DIVISION

POLICY #

PAGE #

3

OF

6

a. When a youth has become a serious management problem due to repeated escape attempts or repeated violations of facility rules.
a. As part of a specialized treatment program, when less restrictive controls have failed to stabilize behavior; or
b. To prevent the necessity of transferring a youth to a higher security level or more restrictive program.
2.9 A youth may be placed on programmed room confinement as part of a planned program only after the following:

a. A supervisory staff has met with the youth; b. A written plan has been approved by the Detention Director. The plan
must address, at a minimum: i) Statement of problem; ii) Previous attempts at solutions; iii) Goals that include youth input; iv) Specific restrictions and limitations to be placed on the youth; v) Criteria and steps by which the youth can gain release from
confinement; vi) Estimated length of time for the program; and vii) The youth has had an opportunity to present his/her views

2.10

If placement on programmed room confinement impacts the youth’s regular school curriculum, there must be an opportunity to maintain normal school progress during the period of programmed room confinement.

2.11

Initial placement on programmed room confinement may be for up to seven (7) days. Staff may terminate placement on programmed room confinement at any time, subject to approval by supervisory staff or the Detention Director.

2.12 The Detention Director may impose continue programmed room confinement for up to fourteen (14) days.
SECTION 3: ISOLATION
3.1 Staff may place a youth in isolation when, in the judgment of staff, there is reasonable cause to believe failure to do so would present:

a. An immediate threat of physical harm to the youth, others or property; b. An immediate threat of escape. c. A continuing disturbance disruptive to the sleep or program activity of
other youth.

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-5 Filed 11/09/17 Page 6 of 8

GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY JUVENILE DEPARTMENT DETENTION DIVISION

POLICY #

PAGE #

4

OF

6

3.2 Staff must complete an Incident Report for all occurrences of isolation. The Detention Director must review these reports.
3.3 All residents placed in isolation must be reviewed periodically to assess their readiness for release from isolation. These reviews must be held:
a. Two (2) hours after isolation is imposed, face to face with the youth, by a staff member;
b. Four (4) hours after initial isolation, face to face with the youth, by a supervisory staff;
c. Eight (8) hours after initial isolation, face to face with the youth, by a a supervisory staff
d. Twelve (12) hours after initial isolation, face to face with the youth, by a Detention Officer III.
e. Sixteen (16) hours after initial isolation, face to face with the youth, by the Detention Director.
f. Twenty-four (24) hours after initial isolation by the Detention Director. g. Forty-eight (48) hours after initial isolation excluding weekends and
holidays and daily thereafter by the Detention Director. h. The Detention Director may make the decision to extend placement in
isolation if the original cause for isolation continues, or if any other valid cause exists.
3.4 To remove a youth from isolation:
a. The original cause or any other valid cause for isolation must not exist. b. The youth must be visibly calm. c. The youth should make a verbal commitment to engage in skillful
behavior and not engage in the disruptive behavior that resulted in isolation or any other maladaptive behavior that is a valid cause for isolation. d. The behavior of the youth in isolation must demonstrate that they no longer possess a threat.
3.5 A review that begins 60 minutes before or after the time it is due shall be considered as a timely.
3.6 Reviewers may waive the above periodic reviews until the hour after breakfast if they fall within designated sleeping hours.

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-5 Filed 11/09/17 Page 7 of 8

GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY JUVENILE DEPARTMENT DETENTION DIVISION

POLICY #

PAGE #

5

OF

6

3.7 If, for extraordinary reasons, a periodic review cannot be held within the required time frames, one must be held as soon as possible and the reason for the delay must be documented.
3.8 Isolation beyond five (5) days requires a meeting between the Detention Director and the Facility Director.
3.9 Completed isolation confinement records will be reviewed by the Detention Director.
3.10 Staff will remove the youth from isolation when:
a. The purpose of confinement is met. b. Desired behavior is evident. c. Staff have documented a reason to believe the behavior would not
immediately reoccur.
3.11 Places of isolation will be:
a. Within calling distance of staff or equipped with a direct communication link to staff.
b. Lighted, heated, clean and ventilated at the time the youth is placed in isolation.
3.12 A youth must not be required to clean the isolation room before being placed in it; however, a youth placed in isolation may be required to clean the room prior to release.
3.13 Youth placed in isolation or on room confinement will have access to the following amenities provided the behavior of the youth permits such amenities to be delivered:
a. Clothing or suicide resistant smock; b. Mattress and bedding; c. Medication under staff supervision; d. A toilet and sink at least hourly; and a bath or shower at least daily; e. The same meals as other youth; f. A minimum of one hour of supervised release time every 24 hours
including the opportunity for physical exercise (in addition to access to hygiene facilities).

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 15-5 Filed 11/09/17 Page 8 of 8

GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY JUVENILE DEPARTMENT DETENTION DIVISION

POLICY #

PAGE #

6

OF

6

i) Recreational services and facilities are provided subject to staff availability and the youth’s behavior and treatment needs.
ii) If the youth is placed in isolation or on room confinement for less than 24 hours, he/she may receive his/her release time before or after being placed in isolation or on room confinement;
g. Visitors, telephone calls, and mail consistent with facility policy; h. Necessary medical treatment; i. Necessary mental health services; j. Legal services; k. Reading material, paper, writing material and envelopes; l. Treatment material; and m. Other appropriate educational supplies.
3.14 A youth placed in isolation or on room confinement should have access to reading material, paper, writing material and envelopes, treatment material, and other appropriate educational supplies, unless precluded by Suicide Precaution Level or the items would hinder staff efforts to resolve the problems that caused isolation or room confinement.

 
 Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 18 Filed 01/25/18 Page 1 of 2

1

Honorable Ronald B. Leighton

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

8

THERESA DOE, parent and legal guardian for No. 3:17-cv-05186 RBL

9 M.D., a minor,

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

10

Plaintiff,

WITH PREJUDICE

11

v.

12 GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, a municipality; GERALD MURPHY, GREG REYNVAAN,
13 and JOHN and JANE DOES, in their individual capacity,
14 Defendants.
15

16

COME NOW the parties to this litigation, Plaintiff Theresa Doe, parent and legal

17 guardian for M.D., a minor; and Defendants Grays Harbor County, Gerald Murphy, Greg

18 Reynvaan, and John and Jane Does, by and through the undersigned counsel of record, and

19 hereby stipulate and request that the Court enter an Order dismissing all of the claims and causes

20 of action in the above-captioned case with prejudice and without cost or attorneys’ fees to any

21 party.

22

IT IS SO STIPULATED this 24th day of January, 2018:

23 MacDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

MICHAEL & ALEXANDER, PLLC

24 By: s/David J. Whedbee
David Whedbee, WSBA #35977 25 ACLU of Washington

26 By: s/Nancy Talner

27

Nancy Talner, WSBA #11196 Attorneys for Plaintiff

By: s/Suzanne Michael Suzanne Michael, WSBA #14072 Kathleen A. Kline, WSBA #47145
Attorneys for Defendants

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE - 1 No. 3:17-cv-05186 RBL
2098.7 la236005

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:17-cv-05186-RBL Document 18 Filed 01/25/18 Page 2 of 2

1
ORDER 2
Based on the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that all claims and causes 3
of action asserted in the above-captioned case are dismissed with prejudice and without fees or 4
costs to any party. 5
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of January, 2018. 6

7 8

A

9

Ronald B. Leighton

United States District Judge

10

11

12 Presented by:

13 MacDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

14 By: s/David J. Whedbee David Whedbee, WSBA #35977
15 Attorneys for Plaintiff
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE - 2 No. 3:17-cv-05186 RBL
2098.7 la236005

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 
 CLOSED
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:17-cv-05186-RBL

Doe v. Grays Harbor County et al Assigned to: Judge Ronald B. Leighton Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 03/14/2017 Date Terminated: 01/25/2018 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Theresa Doe parent and legal guardian for M.D., a minor

represented by Nancy Lynn Talner ACLU OF WASHINGTON 901 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 206-682-2184 Email: talner@aclu-wa.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David J Whedbee MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 SECOND AVE STE 1500 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1745 206-622-1604 Email: davidw@mhb.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant Grays Harbor County a municipality

represented by Kathleen A Kline FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP (WA) 1201 THIRD AVE STE 2750 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206-682-2308 Fax: 206-628-7908 Email: kkline@fisherphillips.com

Defendant Gerald Murphy
Defendant Greg Reynvaan
Defendant John and Jane Does in their individual capacity

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Suzanne Kelly Michael FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP (WA) 1201 THIRD AVE STE 2750 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206-682-2308 Fax: 206-682-7908 Email: smichael@fisherphillips.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kathleen A Kline (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Suzanne Kelly Michael (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kathleen A Kline (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Suzanne Kelly Michael (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Suzanne Kelly Michael (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/14/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Damages and Injunctive and Declarative Relief Under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against All Defendants (Receipt # 0981-4804560) Attorney David J Whedbee added to party Theresa Doe(pty:pla), filed by Theresa Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons)(Whedbee, David) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/15/2017 03/15/2017
03/16/2017 03/16/2017
03/17/2017 03/17/2017 03/20/2017 03/20/2017 04/05/2017
06/01/2017 06/16/2017 06/16/2017 06/21/2017

Judge Ronald B. Leighton added. (CMG) (Entered: 03/15/2017)
2 (3) Summonses Issued electronically as to defendants Grays Harbor County, Gerald Murphy, and Greg Reynvaan. (Attachments: # 1 summons for Murphy, # 2 summons for Grays Harbor)(CMG) (Entered: 03/15/2017)
3 ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY AND DEPOSITIONS by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN) (Entered: 03/16/2017)
4 ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND JOINT STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report due by 6/14/2017, FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 5/31/2017, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 6/7/2017, by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN) (Entered: 03/16/2017)
5 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaint on Grays Harbor County on 3/15/2017, filed by Plaintiff Theresa Doe. (Whedbee, David) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
6 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaint on Greg Reynvaan on 3/15/2017, filed by Plaintiff Theresa Doe. (Whedbee, David) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Suzanne Kelly Michael on behalf of Defendants Grays Harbor County, Gerald Murphy, Greg Reynvaan. (Michael, Suzanne) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
Attorney Kathleen A Kline for Grays Harbor County, Gerald Murphy, and Greg Reynvaan added per the 7 Notice of Appearance filed by Suzanne Michael. (CMG) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
8 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Attorney Suzanne Kelly Michael added to party John and Jane Does(pty:dft) by John and Jane Does, Grays Harbor County, Gerald Murphy, Greg Reynvaan.(Michael, Suzanne) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
9 NOTICE from Mediator Paris K. Kallas, that on May 30, 2017, the parties participated in a mediation. This matter is now resolved. (Kallas, Paris) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
10 Unopposed MOTION to Appoint Settlement Guardian Ad Litem, filed by Plaintiff Theresa Doe. (Attachments: # 1Proposed Order) Noting Date 6/16/2017, (Whedbee, David) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
11 DECLARATION of David Whedbee filed by Plaintiff Theresa Doe re 10 Unopposed MOTION to Appoint Settlement Guardian Ad Litem (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Whedbee, David) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
12 ORDER granting 10 Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem; signed signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

09/18/2017 11/09/2017 11/09/2017 11/13/2017 01/24/2018 01/25/2018

13 MINUTE ORDER on filing of dismissal papers; the parties will file dismissal papers by 11/17/17 or, if additional time is needed, please contact the Court; as directed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
14 MOTION Approval of Minor Settlement , filed by Plaintiff Theresa Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/9/2017, (Whedbee, David) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
15 DECLARATION of David Whedbee filed by Plaintiff Theresa Doe re 14 MOTION Approval of Minor Settlement(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Whedbee, David) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
16 ORDER granting 14 Motion Approving Minor Settlement on Behalf of Minor Child, M.D.; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
17 Proposed Stipulated MOTION and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, filed by Plaintiff Theresa Doe. Noting Date 1/24/2018, (Whedbee, David) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
18 ORDER on STIPULATION 17 DISMISSING this matter with prejudice and without cost or attorneys' fees to any party; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN) (Entered: 01/25/2018)